Comments on: What challenges does the church face today? http://philipclayton.net/2009/06/03/why-is-the-crisis-in-the-church-so-serious/ Reimagining the Future of Faith Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:43:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: ASSOS http://philipclayton.net/2009/06/03/why-is-the-crisis-in-the-church-so-serious/comment-page-1/#comment-913 ASSOS Fri, 08 Jul 2011 03:50:54 +0000 http://clayton.ctr4process.org/?p=123#comment-913 We can not deny the development history of religious how long, it is not a technology people or so the beliefs of the technology it, people always think that the god will bless, but with some of the occurrence of natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods and so on a series of fire 'disaster, when people body and mind pain, some people gradually to the god lost faith, no longer believe the god, and this is the development of the future for religious exist great influence We can not deny the development history of religious how long, it is not a technology people or so the beliefs of the technology it, people always think that the god will bless, but with some of the occurrence of natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods and so on a series of fire ‘disaster, when people body and mind pain, some people gradually to the god lost faith, no longer believe the god, and this is the development of the future for religious exist great influence

]]> By: Cynthia http://philipclayton.net/2009/06/03/why-is-the-crisis-in-the-church-so-serious/comment-page-1/#comment-92 Cynthia Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:21:44 +0000 http://clayton.ctr4process.org/?p=123#comment-92 Even though this is an old discussion I just saw it coz the link was circulated in another group. I'm an Indian, live in India and am a watcher of the "Church" in its myriad forms around the world for decades, and am broadly evangelical by conviction. I offer anopinion based on these observations on how th Church in India has evolved or dealt with these changes. The "mainline" churches do go about thier business as usual, and there is still some growth because of demographic reasons - we are an increasingly "younger" society. Also there is some effort to take on current concerns of Christians and many theologians, both younger and some older, do try to make interpretations conteporary and relevant. But there is some erosion in the quality of leadership in the mainline churches, the perception, whether justified or not, is that those who have a greater appetite for power-play and questionable tactics get into position there. In recent years - say the past couple of decades - there has been a growing evangelical movement among young people and women, and more and more of them are active in the less organised church, which shows explosive growth as a result - I think there are issues in the US such as colour and gender which manifest differently here. Another reality is that the more traditional churches have had a larger section of upper-middle class populations, whose younger lot have largely migrated out to the west or the Middle-east for work, and usually don't come back. Thus the traditionally excluded - poorer, lower caste background populations who have been coming into the church in droves are mostly found in the non-traditional churches, under leadership they are more comfortable with, rather than the moer traditionally privileged groups who tend to be found in traditional mainline churches. Even though this is an old discussion I just saw it coz the link was circulated in another group. I’m an Indian, live in India and am a watcher of the “Church” in its myriad forms around the world for decades, and am broadly evangelical by conviction. I offer anopinion based on these observations on how th Church in India has evolved or dealt with these changes. The “mainline” churches do go about thier business as usual, and there is still some growth because of demographic reasons – we are an increasingly “younger” society. Also there is some effort to take on current concerns of Christians and many theologians, both younger and some older, do try to make interpretations conteporary and relevant. But there is some erosion in the quality of leadership in the mainline churches, the perception, whether justified or not, is that those who have a greater appetite for power-play and questionable tactics get into position there. In recent years – say the past couple of decades – there has been a growing evangelical movement among young people and women, and more and more of them are active in the less organised church, which shows explosive growth as a result – I think there are issues in the US such as colour and gender which manifest differently here. Another reality is that the more traditional churches have had a larger section of upper-middle class populations, whose younger lot have largely migrated out to the west or the Middle-east for work, and usually don’t come back. Thus the traditionally excluded – poorer, lower caste background populations who have been coming into the church in droves are mostly found in the non-traditional churches, under leadership they are more comfortable with, rather than the moer traditionally privileged groups who tend to be found in traditional mainline churches.

]]> By: Herbert http://philipclayton.net/2009/06/03/why-is-the-crisis-in-the-church-so-serious/comment-page-1/#comment-91 Herbert Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:19:22 +0000 http://clayton.ctr4process.org/?p=123#comment-91 to answer Philip's question : "are the nine changes that I’ve identified SO significant that the traditional structures and practices simply won’t continue to serve us over the coming few decades? Put differently, HOW radical do the changes need to be to respond to the reality of the situation that the mainline is facing today?" After 35 years in the church , I dont think any radical change is required to renew the church. There is a LOT of meaning already in the traditional structures. Just tell the laity verbatim when and why these came into being in the first place. If there are multiple viewpoints tell us all of them. If you do not know it yourself please go back and find it out. No more exegesis needed from ministers. Laity can figure things out by themselves. to answer Philip’s question :

“are the nine changes that I’ve identified SO significant that the traditional structures and practices simply won’t continue to serve us over the coming few decades? Put differently, HOW radical do the changes need to be to respond to the reality of the situation that the mainline is facing today?”

After 35 years in the church , I dont think any radical change is required to renew the church.
There is a LOT of meaning already in the traditional structures. Just tell the laity verbatim when and why these came into being in the first place. If there are multiple viewpoints tell us all of them. If you do not know it yourself please go back and find it out. No more exegesis needed from ministers. Laity can figure things out by themselves.

]]> By: Herbert http://philipclayton.net/2009/06/03/why-is-the-crisis-in-the-church-so-serious/comment-page-1/#comment-90 Herbert Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:01:38 +0000 http://clayton.ctr4process.org/?p=123#comment-90 I am an asian living in the US now. I grew up in a mainline church most of my life but have also experienced pentecostals and evangelical churches. Mainline churches have the richest of traditions and best of theologies that I have studied. The failure has largely happened because the traditions or theologies were not communicated or taught to the next generation properly. Even as other denominations took away the congregation mainline churches simply went into a reactive mode trying to ape others or becoming defensive. They tried giving up their traditions, they tried modifying them, they tried defending them. If only theology and tradition had been taught properly at sunday school why would be in this mess today ? My question is : even if this transformation theology comes up - will it meet the same fate that earlier theology and tradition ended up with ? I am an asian living in the US now. I grew up in a mainline church most of my life but have also experienced pentecostals and evangelical churches.
Mainline churches have the richest of traditions and best of theologies that I have studied. The failure has largely happened because the traditions or theologies were not communicated or taught to the next generation properly. Even as other denominations took away the congregation mainline churches simply went into a reactive mode trying to ape others or becoming defensive. They tried giving up their traditions, they tried modifying them, they tried defending them.
If only theology and tradition had been taught properly at sunday school why would be in this mess today ?
My question is : even if this transformation theology comes up – will it meet the same fate that earlier theology and tradition ended up with ?

]]> By: Philip Clayton http://philipclayton.net/2009/06/03/why-is-the-crisis-in-the-church-so-serious/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Philip Clayton Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:51:21 +0000 http://clayton.ctr4process.org/?p=123#comment-72 Dear Tim, Powerful comments. Many top Christian leaders now are writing on new ways to do and be church. We are devoting the TransformingTheology.org website to this discussion as well (which arose out of a Ford Foundation grant last year aimed at strengthening the theologies behind progressive Christian action in society). In March we're doing a conference on "Theology After Google," which examines the role of new technologies and new forms of social networking in transforming what it means to be church. And in September Brian McLaren and I are organizing a summit meeting of people working on the crisis and possible solutions. Please watch TransformingTheology.org for updates. I'll use that site and this site to make the key developments public, so that people can respond, contribute (and criticize!) in real time as they're happening. There are so many committed Christians who are thinking about these issues and who are ready to take radical action to help the church through the coming revolution -- such as the people who have posted above. It gives me hope. Above all, I trust that the grace and providence of God is adequate to lead us through. But it's going to take some courage and hard work on our parts as well. -- Philip Dear Tim,

Powerful comments. Many top Christian leaders now are writing on new ways to do and be church. We are devoting the TransformingTheology.org website to this discussion as well (which arose out of a Ford Foundation grant last year aimed at strengthening the theologies behind progressive Christian action in society). In March we’re doing a conference on “Theology After Google,” which examines the role of new technologies and new forms of social networking in transforming what it means to be church. And in September Brian McLaren and I are organizing a summit meeting of people working on the crisis and possible solutions. Please watch TransformingTheology.org for updates. I’ll use that site and this site to make the key developments public, so that people can respond, contribute (and criticize!) in real time as they’re happening.

There are so many committed Christians who are thinking about these issues and who are ready to take radical action to help the church through the coming revolution — such as the people who have posted above. It gives me hope. Above all, I trust that the grace and providence of God is adequate to lead us through. But it’s going to take some courage and hard work on our parts as well.

– Philip

]]> By: Tim Thompson http://philipclayton.net/2009/06/03/why-is-the-crisis-in-the-church-so-serious/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Tim Thompson Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:17:29 +0000 http://clayton.ctr4process.org/?p=123#comment-71 Re. your second question: "HOW radical do the changes need to be to respond to the reality of the situation that the mainline is facing today?" Pretty radical I'd say. For starters, we'll have to discover how to do evangelism in our current context. Just doing evangelism <i>at all</i> will be a big leap for a lot of us! (Among Lutherans, it's often noted that we invite someone to church, on average, once every 20 years. Maybe 30.) Add to that the fact that our context is radically different than what we've known and it's a tall order. But more than that, I think we need a radical revision in the way we "do church." (That really should be "the way we be church" which is unfortunately awkward to say.) Conventional congregational life - across the denominations and across the decades of decline - centers around a weekly large group gathering. For most, this is their primary if not sole experience of Christian community. Yet in these gatherings, it is essentially impossible to experience the "one anothers" that are truly at the heart of being a people sharing a life of faith together. That kind of substantive community requires smaller groups to flourish. We invest vast amounts of time, energy and money into maintaining a weekly event, in the hope that substantive community will arise around it. We need to invert that. We need to invest <i>primarily</i> into nurturing small, self-reproducing faith communities where people actually grow as disciples. That's a radical change. Whether this results in larger gatherings arising from the small communities or not is secondary, icing on the cake. Can existing, conventional congregations can make that kind of transition? It seems doubtful, though it would be exciting to try. Whether they can serve as a launching pad for new expressions of Christian community seems more likely, and I'm hopeful there. But whether they can or not, I think these communities are on their way, thank God. We need them. We have a lot of Kingdom work to do! Re. your second question: “HOW radical do the changes need to be to respond to the reality of the situation that the mainline is facing today?”

Pretty radical I’d say.

For starters, we’ll have to discover how to do evangelism in our current context. Just doing evangelism at all will be a big leap for a lot of us! (Among Lutherans, it’s often noted that we invite someone to church, on average, once every 20 years. Maybe 30.) Add to that the fact that our context is radically different than what we’ve known and it’s a tall order.

But more than that, I think we need a radical revision in the way we “do church.” (That really should be “the way we be church” which is unfortunately awkward to say.)

Conventional congregational life – across the denominations and across the decades of decline – centers around a weekly large group gathering. For most, this is their primary if not sole experience of Christian community. Yet in these gatherings, it is essentially impossible to experience the “one anothers” that are truly at the heart of being a people sharing a life of faith together. That kind of substantive community requires smaller groups to flourish.

We invest vast amounts of time, energy and money into maintaining a weekly event, in the hope that substantive community will arise around it.

We need to invert that. We need to invest primarily into nurturing small, self-reproducing faith communities where people actually grow as disciples. That’s a radical change.

Whether this results in larger gatherings arising from the small communities or not is secondary, icing on the cake.

Can existing, conventional congregations can make that kind of transition? It seems doubtful, though it would be exciting to try. Whether they can serve as a launching pad for new expressions of Christian community seems more likely, and I’m hopeful there. But whether they can or not, I think these communities are on their way, thank God. We need them. We have a lot of Kingdom work to do!

]]> By: Tim Thompson http://philipclayton.net/2009/06/03/why-is-the-crisis-in-the-church-so-serious/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Tim Thompson Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:10:22 +0000 http://clayton.ctr4process.org/?p=123#comment-70 Good discussion. Too many great thoughts to follow! Re. the original question "Why? ... what has changed..?" to account for the decline, I offer this analogy. Consider a pond. It grows larger when the inflow exceeds the outflow. Mainline denominations (like my own Lutheran tribe) previously grew through immigration from the old country and childbirth. (My believing parents had 6 children: 400% church growth!). In addition, societal pressures "herded" people into church as a necessary entry point into civic community, as you noted in point 1 of the initial post. All of these have changed and no longer feed people automatically into our congregations. The "tributaries" have largely dried up. One additional tributary is conspicuous by its absence: Evangelism. It seems never to have been a substantial feeder to the mainline pond. It's been easier to rely on the other tributaries. On the outflow side, there has also been change. People still die, of course, presumably at more or less the same rate. (If anything there's been increased longevity which prolongs the life of the pond.) What's changed is the erosion of the banks that have kept the water in place. The pond "leaks" like never before. Again, this is related to the sociological landscape you mentioned in 1 above. It is no longer a scandal for people to leave the church and have no formal "institutional" spiritual life. So: less inflow, more outflow; shrinking pond. Good discussion. Too many great thoughts to follow!

Re. the original question “Why? … what has changed..?” to account for the decline, I offer this analogy.

Consider a pond. It grows larger when the inflow exceeds the outflow.

Mainline denominations (like my own Lutheran tribe) previously grew through immigration from the old country and childbirth. (My believing parents had 6 children: 400% church growth!). In addition, societal pressures “herded” people into church as a necessary entry point into civic community, as you noted in point 1 of the initial post.

All of these have changed and no longer feed people automatically into our congregations. The “tributaries” have largely dried up. One additional tributary is conspicuous by its absence: Evangelism. It seems never to have been a substantial feeder to the mainline pond. It’s been easier to rely on the other tributaries.

On the outflow side, there has also been change. People still die, of course, presumably at more or less the same rate. (If anything there’s been increased longevity which prolongs the life of the pond.) What’s changed is the erosion of the banks that have kept the water in place. The pond “leaks” like never before. Again, this is related to the sociological landscape you mentioned in 1 above. It is no longer a scandal for people to leave the church and have no formal “institutional” spiritual life.

So: less inflow, more outflow; shrinking pond.

]]> By: Brian http://philipclayton.net/2009/06/03/why-is-the-crisis-in-the-church-so-serious/comment-page-1/#comment-54 Brian Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:30:12 +0000 http://clayton.ctr4process.org/?p=123#comment-54 If we take A.N. Whitehead out of context, he seems to speak to this discussion: Churches "require some element of novetly to relieve their massive inheritance from bygone system. Order is not sufficient. What is required, is something much more complex. It is order entering upon novelty; so that the masses of order does not degenerate into mere repetition; and so that the novelty is always reflected upon a background of system...The art of progress is to preserve order amid change, and to preserve change amid order...[The Church] "creaves for novelty and yet is haunted by terror at the loss of the past, with its familiarties and it's loved ones." If we take A.N. Whitehead out of context, he seems to speak to this discussion: Churches “require some element of novetly to relieve their massive inheritance from bygone system. Order is not sufficient. What is required, is something much more complex. It is order entering upon novelty; so that the masses of order does not degenerate into mere repetition; and so that the novelty is always reflected upon a background of system…The art of progress is to preserve order amid change, and to preserve change amid order…[The Church] “creaves for novelty and yet is haunted by terror at the loss of the past, with its familiarties and it’s loved ones.”

]]> By: Brian http://philipclayton.net/2009/06/03/why-is-the-crisis-in-the-church-so-serious/comment-page-1/#comment-53 Brian Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:44:06 +0000 http://clayton.ctr4process.org/?p=123#comment-53 The postmodern church will be radically contextual. It will look different in each place. That is the point. There might not be any universal elements that will work well in all places. Each of the practices I mentioned will get embodied in different ways. Here are two examples of communities that are doing organic, postmodern ministry and worship: Liberation Christian Church http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2009-04-15/news/holy-hip-hop-soul-force-strikes-loop-every-other-sunday-one-of-a-kind-worship-service Nu Vizion http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090606/NEWS10/906060343 Saint Brendan's Celtic Community http://www.saintbrendansceltic.org/ The postmodern church will be radically contextual. It will look different in each place. That is the point. There might not be any universal elements that will work well in all places. Each of the practices I mentioned will get embodied in different ways. Here are two examples of communities that are doing organic, postmodern ministry and worship:

Liberation Christian Church
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2009-04-15/news/holy-hip-hop-soul-force-strikes-loop-every-other-sunday-one-of-a-kind-worship-service

Nu Vizion
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090606/NEWS10/906060343

Saint Brendan’s Celtic Community
http://www.saintbrendansceltic.org/

]]> By: Philip Clayton http://philipclayton.net/2009/06/03/why-is-the-crisis-in-the-church-so-serious/comment-page-1/#comment-51 Philip Clayton Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:29:03 +0000 http://clayton.ctr4process.org/?p=123#comment-51 Brian, That's a powerful message -- you've woven 30 ideas into a two-paragraph post! I'd like to do a blog in the future that opens with your "X over Y" litany. It powerfully evokes a postmodern church, a church of the future. The hard question is how to get there from here. Think of Mike L's comments above. He is not going to fight to save institutions; following Christ is more important. But he pastors an existing church. It's not going to just disappear and leave a hole for him and some others to start afresh. Do we reform the structures that are already there? Do we form new structures? Do we imagine a church without structure altogether? (Wouldn't that become yet another version of "the invisible church"?) These are the questions that thread through all the posts above. We're now preparing a major proposal for the Lilly Endowment on "best practices" in missional ministries as they are now emerging outside the context of existing institutions and then gradually working their way into church ministries. The hope is to help turn people's attention in some new directions, where we think God is doing some exciting things. But how radical should we go? -- Philip Clayton Brian,

That’s a powerful message — you’ve woven 30 ideas into a two-paragraph post! I’d like to do a blog in the future that opens with your “X over Y” litany. It powerfully evokes a postmodern church, a church of the future.

The hard question is how to get there from here. Think of Mike L’s comments above. He is not going to fight to save institutions; following Christ is more important. But he pastors an existing church. It’s not going to just disappear and leave a hole for him and some others to start afresh. Do we reform the structures that are already there? Do we form new structures? Do we imagine a church without structure altogether? (Wouldn’t that become yet another version of “the invisible church”?)

These are the questions that thread through all the posts above. We’re now preparing a major proposal for the Lilly Endowment on “best practices” in missional ministries as they are now emerging outside the context of existing institutions and then gradually working their way into church ministries. The hope is to help turn people’s attention in some new directions, where we think God is doing some exciting things. But how radical should we go?

– Philip Clayton

]]>