A Friend in Need

One of the nice things for me about The Mainline project while I was in the middle of it was getting to visit churches of many different denominations and get to know, both as member, guest, or visitor many priests, ministers, and pastors.  As such, I saw not only how they were, in many different ways, they were serving their congregations, proclaiming the Gospel, and helping people in their communities and around the world.  They did not come from the same denominational, theological, or doctrinal positions (and I dare say that many of them would have disagreed with each other on many of those points had I ever gathered them all together to talk about such things), but the experience reminded me often of C.S. Lewis' take in Mere Christianity, making the process both spiritually and intellectually satisfying more often than not.

That being said, there was and is, tension for some of my pastoral friends within their denominations because of their stances on theology and doctrine.  This is most pronounced within the Old Mainline of course, as pastors who might adhere to conservative (or orthodox) positions were at odds with denominational leaders who were more liberal in their beliefs (even if, officially, the denomination itself, at least officially, might agree with the pastor).  As a result, these pastors face the prospect of if not being run out of their denominations, then never advancing their pastoral careers very far--indeed, of being told that the small congregation they've been appointed to is the only congregation that they'll ever be appointed to.

Now, as someone who grew up in a small, non-denominational church, such things are still difficult (at times) to wrap my head around.  And even though I am now a member of a denomination, it is still hard to fathom that good pastors, who have been called to the ministry, are being forced out of the pulpit--not because they are incompetent, not because they are not good at their job, not because they no longer believe in God or in Christ's resurrection--but because they have run afoul of a bureaucracy that would rather advance its own agenda rather than the Gospel of Christ.

Alas, it doesn't end there.  It might be easy to say "well, then they should leave that denomination for another."  But alas, it isn't that easy.  Not only might their be employee benefit (pension, housing etc) considerations, but there is also the problematic nature of American denominationalism to consider.  If you were, say, a Presbyterian or a Methodist who faced such a dilemma, you may indeed find it difficult to "switch denominations" (pastors, in other words, face the exact opposite problem of people in the pews when it comes to religious consumerism in the United States).  Additionally, because they were part of a denomination, they may find pastoral doors closed to them in the nondenominational world (because even without rigid hierarchies, such churches often discriminate in hiring against those coming out of say the Old Mainline).

What then should we say to pastoral friends who find themselves in such a position?  Should we tell them to stand fast and pray for renewal within their denomination?  Should we tell them to make their stories known--to bring lay and grassroots pressure on their denomination?  Should we hope for schism within denominations--the further splintering of both American and Global Christendom?  Should we tell them to keep trying to find a new job?  Should we go so far as to say that perhaps they should leave the ministry altogether?

There are no easy answers to those questions I'm afraid.  And for that, I lament for my pastoral friends who find themselves in such a position--caught between the Cross of Christ and some in the hierarchy of the Body of Christ--and lift them up in prayer and hope that Christians can eventually find a way to be one.

The Hart of the Matter

In the historian's world, perhaps the flagship journal is the American Historical Review.  The organ of the American Historical Association , the largest professional organization for academic historian, the AHR covers just about every conceivable nook and cranny of History.  As an author, it is gratifying to have your book reviewed by the AHR, because not every book is (or can be) afforded the space in the journal's precious pages.  And so, I was honored, particularly because I did not have that honor for my first book, to see that The Mainline was reviewed in the June 2013 issue of the AHR (pages 881-882).

The review was written by D. G. Hart, one of the foremost historians of American evangelicalism working today.  Professor Hart offers a nice summary of the book, and even says "To his credit, in a brief and episodic way, Lantzer is trying to remedy this [lack of focus on the Mainline of the Seven Sisters after the 1980s] historical oversight."    I agree with him that there could have been more discussion of the Great Awakenings (something I have attempted to remedy in a previous post -- with perhaps more in the future).  If I have a disagreement with his critique, however, it is that just because I talk about a new coalition constituting a new Mainline that in anyway detracts from the importance of the older Mainline.  One of my goals was to save the very term "mainline" because I believe there is power in that name, and in order to save it, we have to be ready to address the fact that we cannot continue to talk about "mainline decline" forever -- because the old order of things having passed away (the Seven Sisters) has been replaced by a new group of evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and Pentecostals.  And that this new Mainline is in need of study because it is both more reflective and (in many ways) more complex than the old Mainline of the Seven Sisters.

That being said, one issue that Prof. Hart did raise was a new one for me to think about and ponder, and that is the nature of denominationalism as a very American expression of Christianity and faith experience.  As I reflected on it (and I hope to return to the subject in the future), though I have talked about it a bit on the blog, I was struck by the fact that I had never really stopped to think about who Christianity (and the Mainline itself) has been, and will most assuredly be, influenced by how American Christians organize themselves.  Of course, my goal in the book was not to talk about denominations (and their inner workings) per se; but rather what those denominations have done.  That being said, the denominations offer a wealth of information and insight in their own right that historians have hardly scratched the surface of -- not to mention opening the discussion further on what the trend towards non-denominationalism means for American Christianity.  It also offers up the opportunity to really start pondering how the Christian faith is (and is not) different in the United States versus other places around the globe (something I wrote about last week when it comes to State Churches).

So, like all good reviews that offer a critique, this one got me thinking.  Not only about what I have written but also about things that need more study and attention.  As a professional historian then, the review in the AHR has become not just an honor, but a call for more work.

On the Future of Denominationalism

Easter, a time for Christians to reflect and celebrate Christ's burial and resurrection, this year fell almost exactly on the anniversary of the arrival of my first advance copy of The Mainline, and that prompted me to do some reflecting of my own. 

First, a big thank you to those of you who have read this blog (always feel free to comment), come out to presentations/book signings, and of course, purchased a copy.  As an author, all of those things mean a good deal to me.

But secondly, and more importantly for this post, the one year anniversary of the book being out amongst the reading public has also led to some reviews (which I've talked some about on the blog as they arrive).  Several of those reviewers (most recently Prof. Wade Clark Roof, in the Journal of American History) have raised the issue of what my work says about the future of denominational Christianity in America.  One could read the The Mainline as an affirmation of denominations, and if you do, then that seems to fly in the face of evidence of denominational decline, contraction, and the potential for extinction.  In short, rather than talking about a "new Mainline for the twenty-first century" as I do in the final chapter, these reviewers seem to be arguing that organized religion in the United States, as expressed by Christian denominations, is edging ever closer to European style irreverence.  Another reviewer, while enjoying the book, went so far as to opine that by the time a second edition of it was needed, there might not be any denominations left to appreciate or understand it!

Let me start my response by saying that yes, in the main, I agree with the notion of denominational decline (in some respects, my entire book is about that phenomenon).  But let me also caution those of a more pessimistic persuasion that we really don't know what that means.  To begin with, as scholars such as Mark Chaves has noted, while there has indeed been an across the board decline in American religiosity, it has also been very slow and the numbers themselves have remained remarkably stable and speak of a good deal of continuity in how Americans view matters of faith.  Chaves also, rightly I believe, points out that while the numbers tell us what has happened, they do not out of hand show us what will happen (they are descriptive, not prescriptive).  We do not know the future, we can only safely comment on the past.  A First or Second Great Awakening style revival could change things overnight.  And to those who say such an event couldn't happen now, I would simply remind you that that is exactly what many said at the time that both of those events occurred.

Which means that for the foreseeable future, we will have denominations among us.  The real issue, I believe for scholars (and this is a point I admit I did not make clear enough in The Mainline) was that despite specific and broad denominational decline, denominations remain the best and easiest means for scholars to categorize, count and study religious belief.  So, in a very real sense, they aren't going anywhere anytime soon!  And with that in mind, while I think it behooves scholars of religion to not neglect denominations, I also think we must not rest on what is (and has been) easiest and best when it comes to thinking about religious faith.  We need more work on what individuals, not just aggregate composites (via denominations) actually believe, and how that belief translates their faith into their daily life (here, I think Art Farnsley's Flea Market Jesus, is a great step in the right direction).  We need more study on non-denominationalism (both as a phenomenon and the congregations that it has created, many of which are similar to the old Mainline -- and many of which put the old Mainline to shame).  We might also look for ways to not only explore the sacred/secularization paradiam, but also resurrect the concept of irreligion (the idea that religious belief is just fine for you, but maybe not for me)--which, is more indifferent to faith than it is hostile.

So, rather than being pessimestic, I am optimistic.  Not only for the work that remains to be done, but that denominations are going to play a role in it.