Church Decline

Religious Right Causes Church Decline?

Mark Tooley on April 8, 2021

Conventional wisdom among some liberal Christians and others is that conservative Christianity is to blame for USA church decline. Responding to the latest Gallup poll showing fewer than half of all Americans are church members, Adam Russell Taylor of Sojourners, a liberal Christian advocacy group, recently aired this view:

In reaction to Gallup’s findings, David Campbell, a professor at Notre Dame University, told The Guardian that the decline in church membership was an “allergic reaction to the religious right” and “the perception that many … American religions are hostile to LGBTQ rights.” I share Campbell’s concern. I have often wondered why many parts of the evangelical church have remained so silent about the detrimental impact of white Christian nationalism on the reputation of the church. Though these church leaders may believe they are remaining “apolitical,” by failing to challenge the unholy marriage between the church and Republican Party, these leaders have enabled destructive forces to hijack the gospel.

And:

It’s also telling that just before Gallup’s new data was released, the governor of Arkansas signed an alarming law that allows doctors to refuse to treat someone based on religious or moral objections, a law opponents say will allow health care providers to turn away LGBTQ people; similar legislation is being explored and proposed in many other states. Instead of being defined by all the things we are against and the people we want to exclude, Christians should be striving to be defined by our radical love, especially toward those who have been most excluded, as well as by our commitment to advance justice for all. This commitment does not fit neatly in the political categories of Left and Right, Democrat or Republican. Instead, the church must serve as the “conscience of the state,” transcending partisanship and holding all sides accountable to our gospel values and priorities.

Well, yes to the church “transcending partisanship” and aspiring to be the “conscience of the state.” But exclusively faulting conservative Christianity is itself rather partisan and omits a major significant fact: Liberal Christianity in America has been declining and by some measures imploding for nearly 60 years while conservative churches were often growing. Even now USA evangelicalism by some measures is retaining its share of population unlike liberal Protestantism and Catholicism. There’s little in the retreating example of liberal Protestantism over the last half century or more that offers an inspiring example for church growth.

Sixty years ago one of every 7 Americans belonged to the seven largest liberal Mainline Protestant denominations. Today it is fewer than 1 of every 15. Today all liberal denominations in America are fast declining. Some conservative denominations are also declining. But some denominations are growing, and they are all conservative. So too are nondenominational churches, which are the fastest growing part of Christianity in America. Those churches attracting immigrants, non-whites and lower income people are overwhelmingly conservative. Those few evangelical congregations that recently have gone liberal on sexuality and otherwise have usually quickly imploded.

If conservative Christianity’s politically high profile has hurt the church’s influence in America, liberal churches have had every opportunity to offer supposedly more winsome alternatives. Why are liberal churches not fully exploiting this opportunity of conservative Christianity’s supposed unpopularity to showcase their professed more inclusive policies? Shouldn’t they readily fill this vacuum and appeal to the more progressive and secular minded who are pivoting away from traditional Christianity? Why is there no revival now in the liberal Mainline Protestant world that espouses all the social and political causes that are supposedly so appealing?

Also noteworthy about these claims that conservative Christianity is smothering the church in America is the assumption that persons who have left or who were never in organized religion are culturally on the Left. Many who are post-religious or non-religious are actually on the populist Right. They like their guns, cherish property rights, home school their children and are suspicious of cultural elites. Many succumb to conspiracy theories like Q-Anon because they emphatically reject mainstream media. Such people who share these perspectives but retain no religious affiliation number in the many millions and are growing. They will never be evangelized by the Religious Left’s brand of religion. So what answer do religious liberals offer them?

Political scientist Ryan Burge recently found polling evidence that more people including non-Christians now identify as evangelical based on their rightist politics:

There’s an argument to be made here that evangelicalism is not just influencing all of American Christianity, it’s seeping into all aspects of American religion. More Catholics are evangelical today than ever before, the same is true for mainline Protestants. Many Muslims, Jews and Buddhists now take on the moniker. It’s no secret that many Americans have antipathy toward evangelicals, in no small due to their embrace of Donald Trump. But it’s surprising that all that political baggage has not made the term radioactive. In fact, that linkage between Trump, the GOP and evangelicals has actually opened up the “born-again” identity to a larger segment of American religion.

It’s not great news for Christianity that evangelical is becoming more of a political and cultural identifier than a theological term. Every branch of Christianity should aspire to stand on its own spiritual distinctives and not tribal identity. Parts of conservative Christianity may now be too identified with voting patterns and ideology. But instead conflating faith with the political Left, as some urge, is no solution. As demonstrated by liberal Protestantism, it can be demographically calamitous.

In his comments above, Adam Russell Taylor of Sojourners cited a new Arkansas law protecting conscience rights of medical personnel who decline to participate in non emergency procedures like abortion, sex change operations and assisted suicide. Such protections don’t exemplify “radical love,” he complains. In his liberal Christian view of radical love, Taylor evidently thinks Christians should reject conscience rights in favor of compulsory chaplaincy to secularism’s latest demands.

Much of conservative Christianity no doubt has failed to exemplify the Gospel and has contributed to USA church decline. But serving as “me too” echo chambers for aggressive secularism, including its attacks on any conscience-based dissent from secular shibboleths, is hardly a winsome much less faithful alternative.

Taylor wants the church to be the “conscience of the state,” transcend partisanship and hold all sides accountable to “gospel values and priorities.” Maybe such Gospel values should be rooted in ecumenical church teaching and not current USA fashion. Maybe the church should seek to protect persons who strive to uphold these teachings amid controversy. Such fidelity may not win popularity contests. But it may win converts to a faith based on sustained transcendence, not today’s fads.

  1. Comment by Star Tripper on April 9, 2021 at 11:10 am

    Any church that deviates from the Gospel will fall on hard times. I am intrigued by this desire for the church to be the “conscience of the state” which shows the confusion the public has over what is a state and what is a nation. The state is the government and like fire is a dangerous amoral entity. The nation is the identifiable people and they can exhibit either a moral or immoral character. Beware of any clergy who desires to be part of the state.

  2. Comment by Tolerently Intolerant on April 9, 2021 at 12:56 pm

    My conservative political and social views were formed and constantly self-evaluated by Scripture, prayer,and study. I am so sick and tired of being blamed for everything, especially when the majority of American problems come from deliberate ignorance of Scripture, and common sense (see Aquinas, Thomas).

    These clowns get their marching orders from people like the so-called academic who showed up in Joy Reid’s MSNBC show and blamed ‘white evangelicals’ for covid, people note getting vaccinated, racism, and all the other code words.

    The trend has been going on for years, I was asked by an Elder in my conference during candidacy if you would get mad and kick a pregnant women out of a church if she asked me if she should about her baby and I said no, and she did it anyway. I’m done with them.

  3. Comment by Rick Plasterer on April 9, 2021 at 2:34 pm

    God commands us to love people, but condemn and shun sin. Embracing sin is not radical love, but complicity in sin and death. Administering puberty blocking drugs to children, opposite sex hormones, and later castrations and mastectomies, is not radical love, but irretrievably harming young people’s sexual development. To require medical professionals, or anyone, but perpetrate acts that religious precepts declare to be sinful and a most basic common sense declare to be evil is not love, but a sinful and destructive state religion that denies the imperatives of conscience.

    Rick

  4. Comment by Loren J Golden on April 9, 2021 at 3:36 pm

    “Adam Russell Taylor of Sojourners cited a new Arkansas law protecting conscience rights of medical personnel who decline to participate in non emergency procedures like abortion, sex change operations and assisted suicide.  Such protections don’t exemplify ‘radical love,’ he complains.”
     
    In response to a question from one of the scribes as to which commandment of the Law is the most important, the Lord Jesus answered, ”The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.  And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’  The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’  There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mk. 12.39-31)
     
    Note which of these two commandments that the Lord Jesus said is most important, and which is second in importance in regard to it.  Love must first and foremost be directed toward God, and to honor what He commands, wants, and desires above all else.  As the Lord Jesus elsewhere said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (Jn. 14.15)  And again, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I till you?” (Lk. 6.46)
     
    Now consider these two passages of Scripture: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.  And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.  And God blessed them.  And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.’ … And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” (Gen. 1.26-27,31)  And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man.  From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.  Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” (Gen. 9.5-6)
     
    From conception to the grave, humankind—both male and female—is created in the image of God.  What one does to one’s neighbor, therefore, one does to God in effigy.  Thus, to deliberately take the life of human being in the womb, or to assist another human being in taking his or her own life, is to murder God in effigy, which is why He gave the commandment against it, together with its penalty, when He established His covenant with Noah after the flood.  Likewise, to perform gender reassignment surgery, in order to make a man appear, in part or in whole, to be a woman, or to make a woman appear, in part or in whole, to be a man, is to deface the image of God in man, for “he who created them from the beginning made them male and female.” (Mt. 19.4)
     
    Mr. Taylor’s definition of love is deficient.  It is not love to take a human life, even if that person’s mother, or that person him or herself, wants that life to end.  Neither is it love to be complicit in transforming the body of a human being, male or female, through either hormone replacement therapy or gender reassignment surgery, so as to make it appear to be the opposite gender from which God had created him or her to be, or to some unholy mockery in between.  It is not love shown toward the person who is most directly affected by the abortion, the surgery, or the suicide, and it is most certainly not love shown toward the Almighty, divine Creator of that person who bears His image.  In fact, it is hate—hate toward the unborn child, toward the person struggling with gender identity confusion, toward the person who despairs of life in this world and wants to end it prematurely, and most especially toward the One who created all humankind in His image.

  5. Comment by Loren J Golden on April 9, 2021 at 3:45 pm

    Typographical correction at the end of the third paragraph in the above response: “…and not do what I tell you?” (Lk. 6.46)
     
    Correction in the fourth paragraph: …(Gen. 1.26-28,31)  And…

  6. Comment by Pat on April 9, 2021 at 5:26 pm

    Thank you Loren. God’s scripture says it all and it matters not what the liberal bishops or pastors say. God’s word does not change and will never change. The devil has destroyed the Methodist church as those in leadership want power, control and do what they want not what God’s Holy Word says. Sound familiar. The pharisees and sadducees of Jesus’s day were just like today’s liberal bishops, pastors and the ruling board who refuse to enforce the Book of Discipline. That means firing those bishops, pastors and other leaders who refuse to follow those guidelines. Unless the formal split and formal formation of a traditional Methodist church happens soon, traditional Methodist will do what many already have done, left the Methodist church and moved on.

  7. Comment by Diane on April 9, 2021 at 5:29 pm

    I once thought that the institution’s discrimination toward lgbtq folks was the reason people leave the church. Not convinced of that anymore. I think many don’t buy into the literal narrative of miracles or a guy-in-the-sky who inseminates a virgin to have a son (not a daughter) in order to save all people from eternal fire (and once saved, they’re rewarded with an eternity of walking the golden streets on the other side of the clouds).

    It’s a fairytale narrative steeped in literalism. I recall the exact moment when, as a six year old in Sunday School, c. 1956, I began to silently question the narrative. Our teacher was telling us all we had to do was confess our sins and we’d inherit eternal life upon our death. I’m sure I didn’t really understand death (or life) at age 6, but I remember thinking at that moment, “Well, if it’s that simple, why not live a life of sin and just before dying, accept Jesus and go to heaven?”

    Religion based on fear and rules, with the promise of a fairytale mansion in the sky as a reward might have served pre-scientific minds in earlier times. It doesn’t register with a lot of folks anymore.

  8. Comment by Thomas F Neagle on April 9, 2021 at 5:32 pm

    Religious right causes church decline.

    Who knew that the PCUSA, Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, etc. were all part of the Religious Right? This is ever so informative.

    Sarcasm aside, did these statements from Adam Russell Taylor et al. mention Jesus once? Even once?

  9. Comment by Jeff on April 9, 2021 at 6:07 pm

    Diane, forgive me for asking, but I’m curious:

    Why do you waste your time commenting here?

    Clearly you don’t believe in the Christ, nor do you believe in the Word of GOD. By your own words, clearly you DO believe in humanism — “good without GOD”.

    Wouldn’t you derive more satisfaction and benefit working directly to advance whatever you do believe in, instead of being a you-know-what in the punchbowl here?

    Please understand, I’m not trying to “cancel” you or suggest that you go away. On the contrary, please continue — considering and processing your arguments (such as they are) is valuable strength training in Christian apologetics. I just can’t figure out what you get out of it!

    Blessings
    Jeff

  10. Comment by George Brown on April 9, 2021 at 6:30 pm

    Growth of the REAL church began and has always grown the same way “the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47) There are no real substitutes for scripture, prayer and the manifest power of God changing lives. Throughout history church growth and decline has varied proportionately with these. This is not hard to verify or understand. There’s no better marketing of ANYTHING than the personal testimony of a satisfied user. Living things grow and what is dead wastes away. In Christendom “dyingy” is not caused by declining membership. Membership declines because it iS dead!

  11. Comment by td on April 9, 2021 at 7:46 pm

    Decline has nothing to do with liberal, conservative, left, or right. It has to do with not being Christian. Why do these elites think anyone would want to be a part of organization that consistently speaks against its own beliefs? And why do they think anyone would even think about checking out Christianity if its supposed members do don’t share their faith?

    Radical love! Radical love is loving someone even though they are sinners. Radical love is not about endorsing or celebrating sin. Love is not love no matter how much they want us to think it is.

    This group just wants to reject christianity and return to paganism. I wish they would admit it and get on with it.

  12. Comment by Bruce Atkinson on April 9, 2021 at 7:59 pm

    I will listen to any Christian leader, writer, or theologian who (on the front end) takes some responsibility for the USA church decline and will blame their themselves (and their own denomination or theological orientation). This is because they have ALL failed, none of them are growing in leaps and bounds. So when I hear writers blame conservative evangelicals or leftwing Catholics or whomever, I know exactly what they are full of … and it is NOT the Holy Spirit.

  13. Comment by Diane. on April 9, 2021 at 8:28 pm

    Jeff asks with sincerity why I sometimes participate on this website…wondering what I “get out of it”.. General observation about that…must one be motivated “to get something out of it” when choosing to participate here or anywhere else? What if it’s just curiosity about how the other thinks and reasons?

    For example, this site defends freedom of conscience or religious freedom of those who use those grounds to discriminate (outside of religious entities) against lgbtq folks. I think there needs to be a challenge to that. What religious doctrine compels Christian legislators in NC to propose a recent bill that would allow healthcare workers, from nursing home aides to surgeons, to refuse to provide care, information or service to anyone they believe to be LGBTQ, based on “objection of conscience”? How does that dovetail with Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan? Or the commandment to love one another as you love yourself? This proposed law reflects the belief that faith-based discrimination should be permitted, a belief expressed by those who write for this site. How is this a Christian belief?

    I

  14. Comment by Michael Murphy on April 9, 2021 at 8:47 pm

    “…Such protections don’t exemplify “radical love,” he complains. In his liberal Christian view of radical love, Taylor evidently thinks Christians should reject conscience rights in favor of compulsory chaplaincy to secularism’s latest demands.”

    Where Taylor falls down is in his understanding of “radical love”. True radical love hates the sin, but loves the sinner anyway. Have some used sin as a reasoning to ostracize and condemn? Yes, but this is not a sole trait of the religious right. That is merely people, Christian or otherwise, disliking someone that is different than they are. This is an old issue.

    True “radical love” loves and includes the sinner. It does not accept the sin. Jesus himself laid out the rationale for loving our neighbor. “If your neighbor sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him.” And when Jesus was asked how many times must we forgive someone who continually sins if they also continually repent, he says “Seven times 77.” His point was clear: it is not OUR place to judge whether or not the heart is sincere. That’s his business. Our job is to love and readmit brothers and sisters who have fallen away.

    HOWEVER, it comes at a cost. In John, Jesus asks the woman caught in adultery, “Woman, where are your accusers? Where are those that condemn you?” “There are none, sir.” “Then neither do I condemn you.” (there’s that radical love, and he follows it up with…) “Now go, and leave your life of sin.” (And there’s the cost.)

    If that woman sins again, and repents, Jesus will forgive her again, and calls us to do so as well. However, He also directs her in the path of righteousness (go, and leave your life of sin), and He calls us to also do the same. “Therefore go and make disciples of all the world, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son, teaching them all these things I have taught you.” We, as Christians, are called to rebuke and teach those who aren’t right with God. And then love them.

    Can you imagine the power that is in a love where the beloved KNOWS you don’t approve of what they are doing, but love them anyway? THIS is radical love. It’s not about accepting the sin; it’s about loving the sinner despite the sin.

    Taylor is completely backwards on his definition of radical love. And he certainly is not supported by scripture.

  15. Comment by Michael Murphy on April 9, 2021 at 8:56 pm

    Diane,

    Having a crisis of faith is normal for everyone, and it has been normal for centuries. It is sometimes difficult to reconcile what we read in the Bible with things we see in the world.

    However, science does not contradict the Bible at all. SCIENTISTS sometimes do, but the evidence from which they posit their hypotheses does not. Saying that you believe in science and not God is like saying, “I believe in genetics, but not when they disagree with my preconceived notions of genetics.” God created “science” – which is merely man’s attempt to understand this world he inherited. And, as we have seen, “science” has changed its tune a great many times throughout recorded history, where God’s opinion (the Bible) has not. Skeptical? That’s OK. Take a look at Neils Bohr and Copernicus. Their scientific hypotheses were once considered canon, and now have been thoroughly debunked. Or even Charles Darwin, who changed his mind about his own posits. If you doubt this, read his 2 books, “Origin of the Species” and “Origin of the Species Revisited”.

    There is way too much contradiction in the scientific community to trust it implicitly. And seeming contradictions in the Bible need to be viewed through a contextual lens, which they often are not.

    If people are leaving the church because of “science”, it’s really because they have adopted a belief/faith in certain scientific opinions. It has nothing to do with the actual “science.”

  16. Comment by Loren J Golden on April 9, 2021 at 11:16 pm

    “I think many don’t buy into the literal narrative of miracles or a guy-in-the-sky who inseminates a virgin to have a son (not a daughter) in order to save all people from eternal fire (and once saved, they’re rewarded with an eternity of walking the golden streets on the other side of the clouds).”
     
    First, a few corrections:
     
    1. God the Holy Spirit, who is everywhere present, not crassly a “guy-in-the-sky,” miraculously created a zygote in the womb of the Virgin Mary (Lk. 1.35); He did not inseminate her, as the pagan gods of the cultures around Ancient Israel purportedly did to human women on occasion.
     
    2. The atoning death of the Lord Jesus did not save everyone, but only those who are called by God to put their trust in Him (Mt. 1.21, 20.28, 26.28, Jn. 10.11,15, Acts 13.48, 20.28, Rom. 8.32-34, Eph. 5.25-27, Heb. 2.17, 9.15,28, Rev. 5.9).  Moreover, the “eternal fire” (Mt. 18.8, 25.41, Jude 7), or more accurately, “the lake of fire that burns with sulfur” (Rev. 19.20, 20.10,14-15, 21.8; i.e., Hell—Mt. 5.22,29-30, 18.9, Mk. 9.43, Jas. 3.6), probably should not be understood as a literal fire (although the possibility should certainly not be ruled out entirely, given how much emphasis the Lord Jesus put on it), but as a place that will amplify our internal torment constantly and without relief over our every wicked thought, word, or deed that brought us to that place, where we should be afflicted by our inner demons for all time, a place where “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt. 8.12, 13.42,50, 22.13, 24.51, 25.30, Lk. 13.28), with no one to comfort us or even commiserate with us.
     
    3. The proverbial “golden street” (Rev. 21.21; found only in this passage, in the singular case, not plural) upon which the redeemed in Christ will ostensibly walk in the resurrection is in the New Jerusalem, which will be here on Earth, after God has made all things new, not “on the other side of the clouds.”  It is likely that the depictions of the New Jerusalem, including the reference to “the street of the city (made) of pure gold, transparent as glass,” are not to be taken literally but rather point to a profound reality that our minds, at least on this side of eternity, cannot grasp.

    Aside from these few corrections, you are quite correct: People by and large do not buy into the Christian narrative.  “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing.” (I Cor. 1.18)  But by and large people do not take their sin seriously, far less consider how deeply offensive it is to the God who created them (Rev. 4.11) and sustains them “by the word of his power” (Heb. 1.3), “to whom we must give account” (Heb. 4.13).  They do not think they need His forgiveness and salvation from sin and death, for “he who is forgiven little, loves little” (Lk. 7.47).  As the Lord Jesus said, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Mt. 12.36-37)  And if our words will be enough to condemn us, how much more the wicked deeds we have committed in the flesh?  Indeed, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb. 10.30)
     
    You might be smug and confident in your dismissal of the Bible’s teachings on sin, judgment, justification, and salvation, but if you were six years old in 1956, you only have a few more decades at most to square things between you and your Maker before you go to meet Him.  And unless you do, your meeting with Him will not go at all the way you think it will.

  17. Comment by Donald on April 10, 2021 at 7:31 am

    Anyone who is still reading Sojourners for insight into the truth about either what’s happening in the typical congregation or the Christian church generally is drinking from an empty well. It is a liberal-to-progressive echo chamber of would-be radicals who continue to look for a contested barricade where they can play at being a martyr but still go home to their cheese and whine.

  18. Comment by Bebe Cofer on April 10, 2021 at 8:53 am

    So hard to wrap my brain around Mark’s comments. I try hard to understand and appreciate comments which follow. What is there to say about the LCMS–Missouri synod?

  19. Comment by Jeff on April 10, 2021 at 11:19 am

    Michael Murphy: thank you for your two absolutely SUPERB posts.
    They impart truth and I will take a lesson from them. To GOD be the glory.
    Blessings
    Jeff

  20. Comment by Jim Radford on April 10, 2021 at 11:42 am

    “Birds of a feather flock together.” People, being people, seek out others who see things as they themselves see them–socially, economically, and politically. It’s understandable. Close to 70% of the voters in my county supported Mr. Trump. There are around one hundred twenty-five churches here, and the majority are Baptists. I have lived and pastored (as a UMC pastor for 18 years) in this county for over forty years, know and love many of its residents, and I can tell you without hesitation or doubt that this one of the most racist areas I have ever been associated with. Christians who love Jesus but who don’t love People of Color. This I have found to be personally and experientially true. But speaking in a context of theology and polity, one United Methodist Church that I served for seven years has already pulled out of the denomination (presumably waiting for the official schism), and they are meeting at the home of one of its more prominent members until they conclude negotiations, currently underway, for purchasing from the denomination (it’s not at all clear if they will be successful, and it’s doubtful that the powers-that-be in the church really understand the Trust Clause of the UMC) their former property. In the meantime they have become trenchantly and recalcitrantly dogmatic not-to-mention a tad militant. One of its members that I ran into recently in passing asked me point-blank, as if to run me through her litmus-test of orthodoxy, and even somewhat as an accusation: “Do you believe in Hell?” This smug and self-righteous attitude is how I see many, at least in my area, who want to become part of the new United Methodist Reality. A UMC pastor just down the road from (in yet another church I pastored) made the comment not long ago that “All democrats are going to Hell.” Is is any wonder that conservative churches are being blamed for the snowballing demise of organized religion? Trust me on this: I have just as many examples of liberal nonsense as I do for conservative Christians. And I have no more tolerance for liberal ignorance as I do conservative. I just don’t have the time or space hear to write about the egregious and outlandish comments I have received from liberals. If you read this, you won’t believe me when I tell you that one of my more left-wing parishioners–a Masters-level retired public school teacher–said to me before church only a couple years ago that “I must give up Jesus.” That’s right. Verbatim. She said, “You must give up Jesus.” This was in response to recent sermons of mine repudiating the view expressed by many in the church that “Jesus is not the only way.” I believe that the Body of Christ should in fact be the “conscience of the State.” But not those churches that seem to me to be comprised of uninformed, undisciplined, disobedient, self-righteous, both pseudo- and anti-intellectual nay-saying “believers.” No wonder people are jumping ship.

  21. Comment by Joan Sibbald on April 10, 2021 at 11:57 am

    Diane,
    The Left seek to transform Western Civilization from Old Testament History and Prophecy and New Testament Christianity to “Let It All Hang Out” solipsism: the only reality is “Self” I, Me, My, Mine.

    In the UK a few years ago a Christian doctor was fired by the hospital where he worked because he said he could not call a man a woman or a woman a man.

    In the High Court’s ruling against the Christian doctor the Chief Justice wrote, “Biblical teachings are incompatible with humanity.”

    Feminists, by definition, believe in “Self” I, Me, My, Mine!

    I am a woman. I believe in God: Father, Son, Holy Spirit!

  22. Comment by Patty Holtke on April 11, 2021 at 1:11 pm

    What is causing the decline in churches is the same thing that has always caused people to not want to go to church. Church PEOPLE cause Christians and non-Christians to want to avoid church. No one has hurt me more in my 65 years than church people. I expect non-believers to sometimes be rude, thoughtless, even sometimes cruel. But church people who want to prove to God just how “righteous” they are end up being so out of touch, so indifferent about how their idiotic advice about things like marriage while giving zero concern about how their advice will affect the mental and physical health of person seeking advice, that it’s unreal!

  23. Comment by George on April 11, 2021 at 2:41 pm

    I have been seeing an ad on TV which goes like this. “When you die, are you going to Heaven or Not ?” That’s a new perspective. Must be for 6 year olds in Sunday school like Loren. Not is easier to stomach than hell, right? You can deny Heaven, hell, and the virgin birth all you want but don’t make the mistake of putting them in the same category as Santa clause and the easter bunny. It’s called Faith. You have it or you don’t..

  24. Comment by Loren J Golden on April 11, 2021 at 3:11 pm

    George,

    You are misconstruing what I said.  I never said that there is no Hell.  I only said that it might or might not be a literal fire.  But it will most certainly be a place of eternal, unrelieved suffering, where “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” a place you would not wish on even your worst enemy.

  25. Comment by David on April 11, 2021 at 7:13 pm

    Santa—he who lives forever, sees all, rewards the good, punishes the bad, and dwells in a remote place.

  26. Comment by Loren J Golden on April 11, 2021 at 11:09 pm

    What are you trying to say, David?  That the Creator and Sustainer of the universe is a character from mythical folklore like Santa Claus?  That the “good” can merit His favor, in contradiction to such passages as Mk. 10.18 & Rom. 3.10-18 that teach unequivocally that none is good but God alone?  That He takes pleasure in the death of the wicked, in contradiction to such passages as Ezek. 18.23,31-32 & II Pet. 3.9 that plainly tell us that He does not?  That He only inhabits some distant or secluded location, in contradiction to such passages as Ps. 139.7-12, Jer. 23.23-24, & Acts 17.24-28 that clearly say that He is everywhere present?

  27. Comment by David on April 12, 2021 at 3:31 pm

    I was merely describing the attributes of Santa.

  28. Comment by Loren J Golden on April 13, 2021 at 11:37 pm

    To what purpose?

  29. Comment by Pastor Mike on April 14, 2021 at 7:55 am

    “Religion based on fear and rules, with the promise of a fairytale mansion in the sky as a reward might have served pre-scientific minds in earlier times. It doesn’t register with a lot of folks anymore” – Quote from Diane

    Diane:
    (1.) What is the best reason to believe in God and why does that not convince you?
    (2.) What would it take for you to believe in God?

  30. Comment by Roger on April 15, 2021 at 5:27 pm

    What is the Gospel? The only Gospel that is dispensationaly correct is 1 Corinthians 15: 1 – 4. If we are not preaching Paul, we are accursed per Galatians 1: 8. When has this been preached in your Church? Also, how many know what Armenian – Wesleyan is? When have you heard this being preached in our Methodist Churches? People write in articles about “the Gospel” but never say exactly what it is. This is the failure of our Church and why people are leaving for one reason. If the trumpet sounds irregular, who will respond and fight. Our message has not been consistent for many years now. We need to know as Joshua said, Me and My house will follow the Lord. Paul gave us the Word of the Lord for our Salvation.

  31. Comment by Jeff on April 15, 2021 at 9:06 pm

    Thank you Roger! Great comment.

    For a time our Methodist church was blessed with a Bible-believing (and preaching!) pastor who also taught us much about Wesley and his particular way of imitating CHRIST, and also about Armenianism (and Calvinism). Also history (American and Bible). Really a gifted guy who I count as my greatest spiritual mentor.

    But your point stands — the Methodist tribe is falling short in supplying individuals like that to our pulpits.

  32. Comment by Rev. Dr. Lee D Cary (ret. UM clergy) on June 23, 2021 at 2:04 pm

    1. Why would an intelligent, educated person play attention to Adam Russell Taylor of Sojourners?

    2. Where are the new Wesleyan Church members coming from?

    3. “Commenting on the growth, Lyon said, ‘This is the result of spiritual leaders focused on their call and commitment to the gospel that transforms lives, churches, and communities. I regularly hear these powerful stories of transformation, which puts flesh on the numbers and I am personally overwhelmed with God’s grace and love each time.’” Good for Lyon,
    (His explanation is telling. The focus on the “spiritual leaders” noted is antithetical to that of the collective focus of UMC Bishops since the mid-20th Century. I came into the UMC as a seminary student still wearing a SE Asia tan. It didn’t take long to notice that I’d left a genuinely integrated US Army and joined an overwhelming pale, white male operation.)

    4. “Many succumb to conspiracy theories like Q-Anon because they emphatically reject mainstream media.” Really. What “conspiracy theories”? That’s a blanket condemnation of ‘many’ that lacks both metrics and proof. And then there’s that pesky First Amendment.

    5. “It’s not great news for Christianity that evangelical is becoming more of a political and cultural identifier than a theological term. ” It’s not bad news, either. It’s just not news, period.

    6. “Every branch of Christianity should aspire to stand on its own spiritual distinctives and not tribal identity. ” So is “United Methodist” a ‘tribal identity? What is a tribal identity? Liberal v. Conservative? Right v. Left?

    7. “Maybe such Gospel values should be rooted in ecumenical church teaching and not current USA fashion. ” Maybe not. I entered a UMC seminary in the post-Vietnam era when COCU was the fad. It crashed and burned. A non-starter. Pipe dream of the high church illuminati .

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.