Historically, members of mainline Protestant churches were the leaders of American civic culture and institutions. Whether it was as bank president, town manager, local newspaper editor, or as the state senator and governor, mainline Protestant Christian commitments and values were both represented and reflected in the world view of public leaders – with the result that the United States was distinctly mainline Protestant Christian in outlook. But that has changed. American plurality and the hard work of advocacy groups to separate U.S. culture from its Christian underpinning have produced a much more heterodox society. Office holders, business and civic leaders, educators, and opinion-shapers now reflect in their personal values the breakdown in cultural consensus and the many sets of perspectives that make up the contemporary American outlook.
This shift in culture has not been fully understood or addressed by mainline Protestant Christianity. It is a failure that has led to the decline of mainline churches.
Back when mainline Protestantism provided the worldview and values of the nation, mainline churches did not have to spend much organizational effort on teaching their values to their children; the culture reinforced their views. By contrast, African American churches, Catholics, non-mainline versions of Christianity, and non-Christian faith communities (notably Jewish groups) had to be intentional about teaching their views and values to their offspring. Non-mainline faith communities paid particular attention to three areas of church life: worship that clearly reflected and inculcated a particular view of God and humankind, religious education that intentionally articulated those worship values, and fellowship that provided social and cultural reinforcement for the community’s values, especially where they diverged from those of the dominant culture.
Because mainline Protestantism did not have to position itself over-against the culture, it never developed the robust institutional commitments it now needs – now that the culture has moved away from Protestantism; indeed, away from Christianity.
As a result, mainline Protestantism is at a competitive disadvantage. Mainline Protestantism is in rapid decline while conservative Protestantism is in a strong growth phase just for this reason: conservative Protestantism has a history and culture connected to being perceived as an “outsider” religion. To maintain their vision across generations, conservative communities had to develop worship, religious education and fellowship models that were robustly focused on inculcating and reinforcing their religious commitments among their adherents. If they failed, they lost their next generation.
The license plate at the head of this entry is an example of conservative Christianity’s robust faith expression that helps reinforce the movement’s self-perception as being over-against the dominant culture. Originally, conservative Protestantism stood over-against the influence of mainline Protestantism that conservatives considered too lax; today, the movement sees itself as over-against non-Christian faiths and the growing ”godlessness” of U.S. institutions.
Many mainline Protestants may find the plate offensive, but the concern behind it is not necessarily. There is not only nothing wrong with prosletyzing for one’s convictions, but without it all religious sentiment is lost to culture. Christians who, by definition, believe that human beings are better off following in Jesus’ footsteps, should not and cannot be absent from that public-square discussion. The method and tone one uses to engage others may be a matter for disagreement, but surely not the issue of engaging.
The task before mainline Protestantism is to recognize that the American civil culture is no longer reflective of Protestant values. It is often not reflective of Christian values, and the distance between Christianity and society is widening. Hunkering down in the local church – using the diminishing congregation as a place of withdrawal from the challenges of our larger society – will not restore the lost culture. Nor will it secure those in withdrawal from the pressures of competing value systems. And besides, Christ calls his followers to enter into the world, as Christians; to live in relationship to non-believers as representatives of Christ’s kingdom.
Christians have historically seen themselves as strangers in a strange land; sojourners from another kingdom who are merely passing through this world on their way home. But for awhile, mainline Protestants found themselves resident in a land that had adopted their homeland values wholesale – and relaxed. They became comfortable, thinking their vision of God’s kingdom had permanently settled on this land.
Now we know that is not true. And because it is not true, we can either take up our calling to be ambassadors – using every opportunity to explain to those we meet (as well as to our own children, born in this foreign land) what it means to be a resident of the kingdom of heaven – or we can abandon our true homeland and “go native.” Certainly, if we do not become robust advocates for and examples of the kingdom’s values, our children will never learn why we stand over-against the culture that surrounds them and seeks to make naturalized citizens of them.
In an interview, church scholar Nancy Ammerman dwelled on the danger facing mainline Protestantism: Failing to incorporate the shift in cultural values and perspectives, mainline church members continue to negate the need to invest in worship and worship related activities that will inculcate their values in their children. And denominational bodies, she said, are increasingly unable to help. They have fewer and fewer resources to devote to helping their churches develop the perspectives and programs that can help reverse the decline of local churches.
I would add that mainline Protestantism is not even very good at identifying and articulating what it believes. So the first task is for local churches to go through a prayerful group discernment process to identify the community’s faith commitments; then to articulate them as a vision statement and a set of mission objectives. After that, every program and practice that does not embody and reinforce the vision and mission of the church has to be laid to rest and every program and practice that the church keeps or begins must demonstrate its ability to embody the vision and fulfill one or more of the mission objectives, thus producing a “discipling culture” across the life and work of the congregation.
If local churches are going to survive and thrive, the days of passively attending are over. Certainly it is not necessary to be aggressive, “in your face” advocates for Christianity, but all the same, churches that do not make the transition from a passive consumption of church culture to the active embodiment and promotion of a clearly articulated vision and set of mission objectives will fail.
To learn more about the challenge facing mainline churches, read the interview with Professor Ammerman.
To learn more about the culture shift, take a look at this 2008 report from the American Religious Identification Survey. Sometimes we need to get informed before we try to figure out what to do. Understanding the context is important.
The posts on this Church Change site are mostly action oriented, and reflect the concerns articulated in this essay. Keep reading and reflecting, and you will develop a mindset and toolbox to help your congregation reverse its decline and become a relevant resource for your spiritually-hungry neighbors (of which, the evidence indicates, there are many).
