Are the Mainline Protestant Churches in Decline?

[christianley]

You are saying that this is what the Mormons are doing? Can I ask you how you know this?

And to what end are they doing this?

I know because I’ve been a ward clerk and I know how the statistics are kept. I also know that the ward my family attends continues to claim more and more members each year even though the same number of people keep coming to church. Back when I was an active member at least 30% of the members on the books were “no contacts” who did not want anything to do with the LDS Church. That number continues to grow because the LDS Church does not remove them from the statistics reported.

The LDS do this because they want to be able to claim they are a growing movement to fulfill their prophecy that the LDS Church is rolling forth as the Kingdom of God on earth. If the real numbers were reported it would show they are a stagnant movement and in fact perhaps even one that is regressing. The only real growth in the LDS Church comes through having babies.

 

[Contarini]

Main Entry: de·nom·i·na·tion
A religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices.

That seems a rather untenable definition. One could question whether all local Catholic parishes actually adhere to all Catholics beliefs and practices. And how much variety in belief and practice is allowed before we’re talking about several denominations?

Why, for instance, according to this definition, would British Methodists and United Methodists belong to two denominations, while Roman Catholics and Ukrainian [Byzantine] Catholics–or even American Catholics and Nigerian Catholics–would not.

And even if we do come up with such a definition, showing that British and American Methodists belong to two “denominations,” why is this significant? They agree to do things somewhat differently (Americans have bishops; the Brits don’t), but they also recognize each other fully.

Edwin

 

[rien]

Despite the growth of evangelicals, LDS and JW’s Christianity is in sharp decline worldwide. Especially measured against the resurgent Islam.

People converting from one Chritian denomination to another is not growth. The growth of the evangelicals in South America is a net zero for Chritianity in terms of actual numbers.

Its not just the LDS that is on paper - its Christianity. And that does not take into account the huge abandoment of Christianity in Europe by so many.

 

[inJESUS]

Despite the growth of evangelicals, LDS and JW’s Christianity is in sharp decline worldwide. Especially measured against the resurgent Islam.

People converting from one Chritian denomination to another is not growth. The growth of the evangelicals in South America is a net zero for Chritianity in terms of actual numbers.

Its not just the LDS that is on paper - its Christianity. And that does not take into account the huge abandoment of Christianity in Europe by so many.

in Europe yes, but outside it’s blooming…it’s only that we don’t hear about it all the time because those who convert do not declare it…yet Muslims themselve on Al-Jazeera tv said that Christianity is booming in Africa and they don’t know what to do about it…6 million converts each year…Radio Islam said that 75% of converts to Islam leave it within 5 years…

 

[eleonardo]

in Europe yes, but outside it’s blooming…it’s only that we don’t hear about it all the time because those who convert do not declare it…yet Muslims themselve on Al-Jazeera tv said that Christianity is booming in Africa and they don’t know what to do about it…6 million converts each year…Radio Islam said that 75% of converts to Islam leave it within 5 years…

It’s booming in Africa and Asia.
There’s also lots of African (immigrant) protestants evangelizing in Western Europe and their churches are popping out of the ground as mushrooms.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

But you seemed to think that his being a “discontinuant” made him more likely to defend mainline Protestantism. That is a stereotype. Conservative Catholics assume that liberal Catholics are going to be friendly to liberal Protestants. This is sometimes the case, but often it isn’t.

No, I didn’t assume any such thing. I read the report and saw that it was already “canned”, so to speak. Then out of curiousity, I looked into Greeley, because it was mentioned and I discovered a fair amount of material indicating that he was a fairly major discontinuant.

If you in fact agree with Greeley’s views, then I offer you my apology. But from what you said it is reasonable to infer that you do not agree with his views. Was I wrong? I’m not telling you what you agree with. I’m assuming that when you call someone a “discontinuant” you are doing so in a disapproving manner.

You were and are wrong because you are jumping to a conclusion about my thinking process and assuming that I can’t be fair-minded, regardless of what my outlook might be.

My wife had to take a certain medicine to keep our kids from being born premature. After our children were born, their teeth were discolored. At some point, my wife found a study that said that this medicine did not cause teeth discoloration.

Notice something odd in that? A study was put together to refute the notion that discolored teeth were the result of this medicine… why would such a thing be put together unless the notion was out there that this medicine did in fact lead to teeth discoloration?

That’s how I felt reading the piece. It was obviously aimed at “proving” that it was birth control, rather than liberalism (which is an often quoted reason) that accounted for the decline of the mainline churches. And not only did it obviously have that aim, it’s conclusion was nonsensical because it completely ignored the fact that birth control itself has a strong association with the what could be could “liberal” thought. A recent study actually came out where it was found that liberals actually have less children that conservatives – irrespective of religion, by the way.

Saying that it was just birth control and not liberal idealogy is kinda like saying that it’s about obese people and not about overeating… it’s deliberately ignoring a possible linking causation.

So, the study seemed suspect to me for the reasons I’ve outlined, but I’ll sum up again here:

1 – The study seemed canned to refute a certain position.
2 – The result of the study ignored a pretty logical question, and in my view it was obviously because delving into that question would have undermined what the goal of the study was.
3 – After looking at Greeley’s reputation from other sources, he’s clearly a person who has a somewhat discontinuant agenda and persona.

The thing is, rather than even give me the benefit of the doubt for being able to think, you jumped to the conclusion that I couldn’t think and that I was just displeased that I didn’t agree with the study. That’s pretty insulting and condescending, considering that you don’t even know me.

Of course. But on a public discussion board I’m entitled to ask you for your reasons. Greeley is a renowned sociologist of religion. If you have doubts about his professionalism (“objectivity” is a highly controversial concept), on what are they based? What reasons *other *than your disagreement with him do you have?

But again, you didn’t ask. You jumped to the conclusion and declared.

He may well be a renowned sociologist of religion, but that doesn’t mean he’s a particulary good or responsible sociologist. He may just have ideas that are in vogue for some reason. It just seems to me that a priest who spends time pope-bashing is not really a credible source on religion in any sense – he’s got his own issues and agendas. But that’s just my opinion. I am aware that there are people who love pope-bashing priests. Such is the beauty of opinion.

But as I’ve pointed out, looking into Greeley’s background was the last thing I did, not the first. It was simply one more reason why the study seemed suspect to me, not the only reason.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

Depends on what you mean by “objectivity.” Perfect objectivity is impossible. It is possible, however, to work against your own bias and thus prevent it from distorting your perspective entirely. However, in order to do this, you need to be very careful about dismissing people as “not objective” because they come from perspectives with which you disagree. You need to make a particular effort to listen to perspectives you find uncongenial, and to be critical of those perspectives you find congenial.

And here you are doing it again. Look, if you can’t contribute to this thread, please stop posting in it. You are spending too much time trying to analyze me rather than deal with the questions I’ve put forward.

So, please… if you can’t contribute to it, start your own thread about whatever it is you want to talk about. It’s pretty clear that you want a different discussion.

Now if you are yourself a “discontinuant,” then obviously what I’m saying is unfair to you. But if you are not, then I am quite right in calling you to take Greeley seriously *precisely *because his views are uncongenial to you.

No, really, you are not. I am quite able to identify a well-reasoned study or attitude, even if I disagree with it. I disagree a lot with Al Sharpton, but I can’t deny that he puts his ideas forward in a cohesive way.

So, again, I’ll ask that since you clearly won’t contribute to this thread but instead want to turn it into something about me, I’ll ask you to please take it elsewhere.

It’s getting harder and harder to have real debate around here, because if you try it people become offended.

Perhaps the difficulty lies with you, and not with the people you are offending? Have you considered that? Jumping to conclusions and declaring (in effect) that others can’t reason beyond whatever notions you’ve ascribed to them is not really something that’s going to get you far in any conversation. Perhaps you need to reassess your posting philosophy? Just a thought.

As a suggestion, you could debate what people say, rather than debating against what you’ve decided people are.

There is nothing insulting about my pointing out that you have given no reason for distrusting Greeley other than his theological views. You can easily change this by sharing your reasons for distrusting his professional credentials. Until then, I don’t care if you are offended or not. You can’t shut down a reasonable critique by claiming offense.

The critique wasn’t reasonable in any sense. As I’ve already pointed out, it was you jumping to a conclusion about me, and then running with it. Clearly, from your post, you are having difficulty in a few debates, and are unwilling or unable to assess your own culpability in this at this time.

I am quite aware that you don’t care, thanks. And I appreciate that you are at least willing to acknowledge such a thing. However, you are not adding to this thread at all at this point.

Define “denomination.”

No thanks. First some one else has already done it. Second, I am not going to get into a discussion as to the meaning of what “is” is simply to satisfy you.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

Thanks to all who posted replies about my questions.

I have done some reading that claims that a lot of the people that end up in the Evangelical groups have actually come from the Catholic Church. One such book I read claimed that as many as 50% or more of Evangelical churchgoers in a given congregation are former Catholics.

Does anyone have any anecdotal experience that backs this up or refutes it?

Also, if in fact, people are leaving the Mainline Protestant congregations, are those groups leaving organized religion altogether, or are they moving into the Evangelical community?

 

[Contarini]

No, I didn’t assume any such thing. I read the report and saw that it was already “canned”, so to speak. Then out of curiousity, I looked into Greeley, because it was mentioned and I discovered a fair amount of material indicating that he was a fairly major discontinuant.

The only reason that you offered initially was that he was a “discontinuant,” as if that in itself discredited him.

My wife had to take a certain medicine to keep our kids from being born premature. After our children were born, their teeth were discolored. At some point, my wife found a study that said that this medicine did not cause teeth discoloration.

Notice something odd in that? A study was put together to refute the notion that discolored teeth were the result of this medicine… why would such a thing be put together unless the notion was out there that this medicine did in fact lead to teeth discoloration?

But how does that discredit the piece? It seems to me that logically your position would imply that any popularly held view cannot be challenged, or at least that one can’t set out to examine and test it, because if one does then the results are “canned.”

If people commonly believe something, then scholars who study that field are going to be interested in testing that belief to see if it is accurate. And of course this may have ulterior motives. Scholars are human. If they discredit a belief based on insufficient evidence, then someone else will come along and refute them, and so it goes.

I never suggested that Greeley’s study should be accepted–I mentioned it because it was one relevant study of the issue, and I cited several other works that come to very different conclusions.

You responded *only *by saying that Greeley was a “discontinuant.”

That’s how I felt reading the piece. It was obviously aimed at “proving” that it was birth control, rather than liberalism (which is an often quoted reason) that accounted for the decline of the mainline churches. And not only did it obviously have that aim, it’s conclusion was nonsensical because it completely ignored the fact that birth control itself has a strong association with the what could be could “liberal” thought. A recent study actually came out where it was found that liberals actually have less children that conservatives – irrespective of religion, by the way.

That doesn’t make it nonsensical–in fact the study as reported implicitly acknowledged this (that liberals have fewer children–it wasn’t claiming that this was some sort of freak coincidence!). The point was that it’s not that people are more *attracted *to conservative churches, consciously choosing in greater numbers to embrace conservative rather than liberal theology.

I’m not sure even that is true. But that’s what the study was claiming.

Forgive me if I’m “assuming” once again, but you seem to think (based on what you’ve said) that if scholars set out to prove a particular point, then whatever conclusions they reach are tainted. That’s not how scholarship works. Everyone sets out with some set of expectations–in fact if you don’t you won’t get very far. A standard question to doctoral students beginning work on their dissertations is “what would you not be surprised to find?” Of course, if you are honest and competent then you are open to being surprised, and this may in fact happen. But no one is neutral. That’s why you should read scholarship from many different perspectives.

I still see no good reason for your dismissing this study.

Saying that it was just birth control and not liberal idealogy is kinda like saying that it’s about obese people and not about overeating… it’s deliberately ignoring a possible linking causation.

Again, I don’t think that was the point. I don’t think you are giving Greeley credit for being able to think! Obviously he and the others know that liberals are more likely to have fewer children–that’s clearly implied in the report. The question is just how does the causality work? Is it that people choose to be conservative rather than liberal, or that conservatives have more kids? Note also the admission that in the past liberal churches have maintained their numbers by “conversion” from more conservative churches, and this is happening less often. In other words, for much of the 20th century conservatives had lots of kids and then some of these kids grew up and became liberals–the standard “nice young evangelical goes off to college and is corrupted” storyline.

Bear in mind that we are reading a report about the study, which itself does not appear to be available on the Internet.

 

[Contarini]

The thing is, rather than even give me the benefit of the doubt for being able to think, you jumped to the conclusion that I couldn’t think and that I was just displeased that I didn’t agree with the study. That’s pretty insulting and condescending, considering that you don’t even know me.

I can only respond to what you say. I am not responsible for assuming that you happen to mention your worst possible reason and have a lot of good ones up your sleeve. You have to give your good reasons yourself rather than asking people to take it on trust that you have them. That’s how a discussion board works.

If your first response to a study is to say “this scholar is biased toward views I disagree with,” then it’s reasonable to conclude that that’s your primary reason for dismissing him.

I apologize if I have been unfair to you. I agree that it may be my fault that I’ve been stirring up hostility lately. But I can’t accept the proposition that I’m supposed to attribute all sorts of good reasons for the things people say when they don’t bother to provide those reasons up front.

But again, you didn’t ask. You jumped to the conclusion and declared.

Point taken. I was responding to what you actually said, but you’re right that I didn’t frame it as a question, which I should have done.

He may well be a renowned sociologist of religion, but that doesn’t mean he’s a particulary good or responsible sociologist. He may just have ideas that are in vogue for some reason.

Fair enough. But since they happen not to be your ideas, you would do well to take them seriously.

It just seems to me that a priest who spends time pope-bashing is not really a credible source on religion in any sense – he’s got his own issues and agendas. But that’s just my opinion. I am aware that there are people who love pope-bashing priests. Such is the beauty of opinion.

But that isn’t the point. The fact that you assume that he’s “not credible” because he does something you find distasteful from a religious perspective illustrates that you aren’t evaluating him fairly as a scholar. Of course he has his own issues and agendas. But that’s irrelevant to the quality of his scholarship.

But as I’ve pointed out, looking into Greeley’s background was the last thing I did, not the first. It was simply one more reason why the study seemed suspect to me, not the only reason.

But it was the first–in fact until now it was the only–thing you mentioned.

Edwin

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

The only reason that you offered initially was that he was a “discontinuant,” as if that in itself discredited him.

No, I didn’t really share all of my reasons as to why I thought it was biased, nor did I have to. This thread was not to discuss that by any means. Clearly, I had an opinion, and rather than speak of anything else, you decided to turn this into an assessment of how I came to that opinion, leaping to unsupported conclusions.

But how does that discredit the piece? It seems to me that logically your position would imply that any popularly held view cannot be challenged, or at least that one can’t set out to examine and test it, because if one does then the results are “canned.”

I’ve given several reasons why I thought what I did, none of which are yours to determine for me. Clearly, bias, if existing, does taint the results of any study. An agenda clearly taints the result of any study. This is common sense.

If people commonly believe something, then scholars who study that field are going to be interested in testing that belief to see if it is accurate. And of course this may have ulterior motives. Scholars are human. If they discredit a belief based on insufficient evidence, then someone else will come along and refute them, and so it goes.

It depends on how rigorous the process is. Any conclusions that aren’t put through sufficient rigor are suspect. That’s bad logic, as well as poor reasoning.

I never suggested that Greeley’s study should be accepted–I mentioned it because it was one relevant study of the issue, and I cited several other works that come to very different conclusions.

Frankly, I don’t know what you are suggesting.

You responded *only *by saying that Greeley was a “discontinuant.”

In response to your assertion that I felt that he was clearly a person with an agenda of sorts. Again, this need you have to examine me is baffling. It adds nothing to the conversation. I am not on trial here.

That doesn’t make it nonsensical–in fact the study as reported implicitly acknowledged this (that liberals have fewer children–it wasn’t claiming that this was some sort of freak coincidence!). The point was that it’s not that people are more *attracted *to conservative churches, consciously choosing in greater numbers to embrace conservative rather than liberal theology.

The headline was essentially “It is birth-control, not liberalism that led to the decline”. How does one separate the notion that liberalism and birth control are of a piece and then make the conclusion that the philosophy had nothing to do with the decline? It makes no sense.

That very lack of reasoning makes the whole report somewhat dubious, in my view… as I’ve now said repeatedly.

Forgive me if I’m “assuming” once again, but you seem to think (based on what you’ve said) that if scholars set out to prove a particular point, then whatever conclusions they reach are tainted. That’s not how scholarship works. Everyone sets out with some set of expectations–in fact if you don’t you won’t get very far. A standard question to doctoral students beginning work on their dissertations is “what would you not be surprised to find?” Of course, if you are honest and competent then you are open to being surprised, and this may in fact happen. But no one is neutral. That’s why you should read scholarship from many different perspectives.

Not at all. I don’t think that a scholar need not prove a particular point. Again, my point is whether or not the ideas being challenged or presented are being put through enough rigor. I take it as a given that everyone has some sort of point to make. However, some people (and scholars) are more fair-minded than others, even as some people (and scholars) are less fair-minded than others.

The neocons put together a plan for the new american century. They advocated a point of view, and have now come under tremendous criticism for it because they didn’t put their conclusions to any test vs. opposite conclusions.

I still see no good reason for your dismissing this study.

I think the issue here is that I’m not bound by what you desire. I’ve given my reasons for dismissing it, and you’ve given your reasons why I should accept it. The mature thing to do would be to acknowledge a difference of opinion on the matter rather than continuing to reiterate that I should accept the thing based on your say-so. The objective truth of the universe is in Christ, not in you or me.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

Again, I don’t think that was the point. I don’t think you are giving Greeley credit for being able to think! Obviously he and the others know that liberals are more likely to have fewer children–that’s clearly implied in the report. The question is just how does the causality work? Is it that people choose to be conservative rather than liberal, or that conservatives have more kids? Note also the admission that in the past liberal churches have maintained their numbers by “conversion” from more conservative churches, and this is happening less often. In other words, for much of the 20th century conservatives had lots of kids and then some of these kids grew up and became liberals–the standard “nice young evangelical goes off to college and is corrupted” storyline.

I’m sure Greeley can think. I can think. You can think. Heck, Karl Marx could think, and I have no doubt that he thought his conclusions were very accurate and intelligent. In fact, there are still people who think that the only problem with Marxist philosophies is that they weren’t executed properly.

I’m personally fascinated by the fact that liberals (and secularists) are literally un-breeding themselves out of existence. However, I’m not at all sure that this is the sole cause the the decline in mainline Protestantism.

Even Catholicism has lost followers to the Evangelical and Fundamentalist movement, although perhaps less so, or less obviously so than that of the mainline Protestant Churches.

And while I’m not a complete advocate of using anecdotal information, there are frankly too many anecdotal stories out there of Mainline Protestant and Catholics moving toward the more “fiery” denominations too ignore simply because of a study that doesn’t seem well-reasoned to me.

Bear in mind that we are reading a report about the study, which itself does not appear to be available on the Internet.

It’s a good point… so why are we arguing about it!

Let’s just call it a wash.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

I can only respond to what you say. I am not responsible for assuming that you happen to mention your worst possible reason and have a lot of good ones up your sleeve. You have to give your good reasons yourself rather than asking people to take it on trust that you have them. That’s how a discussion board works.

You are responsible for giving people the benefit of the doubt. And, having now looked at some of your discussions with others, I can see that this is an area of weakness for you.

If your first response to a study is to say “this scholar is biased toward views I disagree with,” then it’s reasonable to conclude that that’s your primary reason for dismissing him.

Only if you are an individual who is prone to leaping to conclusions about people on discussion boards. You could, instead of making that rather uncharitable leap, ask more questions or engage in more discussions, rather than creating a straw-man and arguing against it.

I apologize if I have been unfair to you. I agree that it may be my fault that I’ve been stirring up hostility lately. But I can’t accept the proposition that I’m supposed to attribute all sorts of good reasons for the things people say when they don’t bother to provide those reasons up front.

Look, I accept your apology. But please understand that there are limits to online communication. We are all the sum total of years of knowledge and experiences that are impossible to completely share in a single post, or even several posts.

So, my suggestion is that rather than characterize what and why people think things, discuss the topics at hand and ask for reasons. Inquire. I’m pretty much willing to answer any questions that are phrased to me in a civil manner that don’t make assumptions about me.

So, I’d say it’s not a matter of you attributing good reasons to people… it’s about giving them the benefit of the doubt. There’s nothing wrong with that, is there?

As far as I’m concerned, you and I can start over again.

Okay?

Fair enough. But since they happen not to be your ideas, you would do well to take them seriously.

I take all ideas seriously before I dismiss them.

But that isn’t the point. The fact that you assume that he’s “not credible” because he does something you find distasteful from a religious perspective illustrates that you aren’t evaluating him fairly as a scholar. Of course he has his own issues and agendas. But that’s irrelevant to the quality of his scholarship.

Can I assume that this means that you take Ann Coulter seriously?

I disagree that an agenda doesn’t affect the quality of scholarship by the way.

And as I’ve already pointed out, I was forming my opinion the the study before I looked into Greeley’s background. His background was simply the final icing on the cake, so to speak.

 

[Metaron]

I can only speak for Northern Alabama…
I don’t know the reasons but the fastest growing churches are Pentecostal and Non-Denominational.
WP

Well, worldwide the Catholic Church is the quickest-growing, even if you only count converts and include departures. In the U.S., the Catholic Church is 2nd-fastest-growing, slightly behind Mormonism.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Well, worldwide the Catholic Church is the quickest-growing, even if you only count converts and include departures. In the U.S., the Catholic Church is 2nd-fastest-growing, slightly behind Mormonism.

Within Christianity, not all denominations have the same growth rate. Some annual growth rates are:

Pentecostals: 8.1%
Evangelicals: 5.4%;
All Protestants: 3.3%
Roman Catholics and Others: 1.3%

Since the growth rate of humanity is above 1.4%, the “market share” of Roman Catholicism and others appears to be slowly dropping.

religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

The 15 Largest Religious Groups in America

Ranked by Decadal Growth Rates

Assemblies of God 34.04%
Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints 31.89%
Southern Baptist Convention 16.33%
Catholic Church 12.39%

4churchgrowth.com/chur4146.htm

So number of members, looks like growth, percentage wise, not in first