Thoughtful and convincing. I hope the Disciples make some progress in restoring the Christ who is the only creed to more than whatever one might happen to think about Jesus. Without that, I doubt there's much point to the rest of it.
Not a member, but I was in and around Phillips U for a long time and got to know some pastors and theologians. This description was already true in 1970, and the pastors were already lamenting it. D of C is a soft version of a hard church. People who wanted hard could go to C of C or Baptist, and people who wanted soft were suspicious of the connection to a hard place.
Jarrod, by and large I agree with your analysis. I sometimes find Burge a bit too in love with his graphs, without taking us deeper. But we do have an identity problem. We have latched on to the Eucharist, but how do we do this in a way that centers us. In my book Called to Bless (Cascade) I try to bring together my own journey that includes the evangelical element. https://amzn.to/4yYk7SY
There are some strategic reasons for the rapid decline of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) 1. The failure to launch a number of new congregations each year equal to three or more percent of the total number of congregations affiliated with DoC at the beginning of each year. Historical evidence shows that denominations that do not do this year after year will be in steady decline. 2. Waiting until existing congregations are significantly hurting, declining, and aging to assist them in a new sense of direction and strategy, rather than helping them much earlier in the life cycle--thus waiting "Too Late" until they are in the lost years of congregations. Thus too many congregations are dying due to long-term rejection of vitality and vibrancy. 3. Failure to inspire, call out, train, and ordain enough new clergy in their 20s and 30s for local congregational ministry. 4. Confusion over what it means in the DoC culture among many laity and some clergy to engage in evangelism. Is evangelism inviting people to a relationship with Jesus, or recruiting new church members, or reactivating inactive church members? And others, but this is enough for now.
I get the impression that the author is more concerned about not having a Christian worldview then a desire to reinvigorate the denomination. A fear of who you might become or who your people might become is not conducive to clearly preaching the gospel nor in general encouraging the formation good leaders.
Brother, these are all things we share in at the UCC. You might be unique in speed but that can also be explained by geography and wealth -- in New England many UCC churches would be closed already if not for massive generational wealth. And while we secularized faster than the south, our members kids were way less likely to join non denominational churches.
It seems to me that all these issues are just so inherent to what Disciples of Christ fundamentally is. Is this even something worth saving? Wouldn’t it be wiser to just leave this odd blip in history behind and return to an expression of Christianity not plagued with these inherent issues (which are due to being out of line with scripture’s teaching and the church’s tradition).
I grew up in the non-instrumental Churches of Christ and am a retired pastor. I regret that I remained in it as long as I did, but I understood its premise. We were restoring the New Testament church. Once I saw the flaws in that vision, I discovered a great sense of ecumenism. I spent the last years of my ministry in a Presbyterian church and now attend a Presbyterian church. I tell people that I belong to the “one holy catholic and apostolic church.” My theological journey has been awkward at times, but I have tried to fix my eyes on Jesus and share life together with anyone who follows him. I believe the fatal flaw in our religious life is the focus on the institution and not the person. Every generation needs new wine skins, but we spend a great of time and energy maintaining the cracked dried ones handed down to us.
I don't want to be too quick to judge, but I didn't find his speech last Sunday especially compelling. Actually, I was kind of bored; he reminded us he was a PhD. Next he sort of rehashed what we already knew about the Sundays reading. He mentioned authority, but for a "former" minister who says his perspective is evolving and questioning - two words that usually mean they have rejected what they once believed - I have to ask " what authority ". When postmoderns speak of " re-imagining" or Derridas "deconstruction", honestly, they often mean the same thing, they have rejected the crux of what they re-imagine. When they reimagine or deconstruct Christianity, it will be by definition unrecognizable, and that definition will have an "ultimate referent", and He will not be redefined
Love your list—you put words to several things I’ve been feeling.
On a related note, I’ve wondered how much our relative smallness, even at our peak, compounds with the nebulous identity. Meaning, if you are a member of a DoC church and move to another town, there’s less likely to be a DoC church in your new location than if you’re Methodist or Baptist. There are plenty of small denominations out there, so this factor isn’t unique to us. But I could see it working in tandem with other large-scale forces.
Thoughtful and convincing. I hope the Disciples make some progress in restoring the Christ who is the only creed to more than whatever one might happen to think about Jesus. Without that, I doubt there's much point to the rest of it.
I'm rooting for you!
Not a member, but I was in and around Phillips U for a long time and got to know some pastors and theologians. This description was already true in 1970, and the pastors were already lamenting it. D of C is a soft version of a hard church. People who wanted hard could go to C of C or Baptist, and people who wanted soft were suspicious of the connection to a hard place.
Jarrod, by and large I agree with your analysis. I sometimes find Burge a bit too in love with his graphs, without taking us deeper. But we do have an identity problem. We have latched on to the Eucharist, but how do we do this in a way that centers us. In my book Called to Bless (Cascade) I try to bring together my own journey that includes the evangelical element. https://amzn.to/4yYk7SY
I do love graphs!
There are some strategic reasons for the rapid decline of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) 1. The failure to launch a number of new congregations each year equal to three or more percent of the total number of congregations affiliated with DoC at the beginning of each year. Historical evidence shows that denominations that do not do this year after year will be in steady decline. 2. Waiting until existing congregations are significantly hurting, declining, and aging to assist them in a new sense of direction and strategy, rather than helping them much earlier in the life cycle--thus waiting "Too Late" until they are in the lost years of congregations. Thus too many congregations are dying due to long-term rejection of vitality and vibrancy. 3. Failure to inspire, call out, train, and ordain enough new clergy in their 20s and 30s for local congregational ministry. 4. Confusion over what it means in the DoC culture among many laity and some clergy to engage in evangelism. Is evangelism inviting people to a relationship with Jesus, or recruiting new church members, or reactivating inactive church members? And others, but this is enough for now.
I get the impression that the author is more concerned about not having a Christian worldview then a desire to reinvigorate the denomination. A fear of who you might become or who your people might become is not conducive to clearly preaching the gospel nor in general encouraging the formation good leaders.
Brother, these are all things we share in at the UCC. You might be unique in speed but that can also be explained by geography and wealth -- in New England many UCC churches would be closed already if not for massive generational wealth. And while we secularized faster than the south, our members kids were way less likely to join non denominational churches.
You voted for it maga
It seems to me that all these issues are just so inherent to what Disciples of Christ fundamentally is. Is this even something worth saving? Wouldn’t it be wiser to just leave this odd blip in history behind and return to an expression of Christianity not plagued with these inherent issues (which are due to being out of line with scripture’s teaching and the church’s tradition).
I grew up in the non-instrumental Churches of Christ and am a retired pastor. I regret that I remained in it as long as I did, but I understood its premise. We were restoring the New Testament church. Once I saw the flaws in that vision, I discovered a great sense of ecumenism. I spent the last years of my ministry in a Presbyterian church and now attend a Presbyterian church. I tell people that I belong to the “one holy catholic and apostolic church.” My theological journey has been awkward at times, but I have tried to fix my eyes on Jesus and share life together with anyone who follows him. I believe the fatal flaw in our religious life is the focus on the institution and not the person. Every generation needs new wine skins, but we spend a great of time and energy maintaining the cracked dried ones handed down to us.
I don't want to be too quick to judge, but I didn't find his speech last Sunday especially compelling. Actually, I was kind of bored; he reminded us he was a PhD. Next he sort of rehashed what we already knew about the Sundays reading. He mentioned authority, but for a "former" minister who says his perspective is evolving and questioning - two words that usually mean they have rejected what they once believed - I have to ask " what authority ". When postmoderns speak of " re-imagining" or Derridas "deconstruction", honestly, they often mean the same thing, they have rejected the crux of what they re-imagine. When they reimagine or deconstruct Christianity, it will be by definition unrecognizable, and that definition will have an "ultimate referent", and He will not be redefined
Love your list—you put words to several things I’ve been feeling.
On a related note, I’ve wondered how much our relative smallness, even at our peak, compounds with the nebulous identity. Meaning, if you are a member of a DoC church and move to another town, there’s less likely to be a DoC church in your new location than if you’re Methodist or Baptist. There are plenty of small denominations out there, so this factor isn’t unique to us. But I could see it working in tandem with other large-scale forces.
Maybe PCC should become Catholic. We're close anyway. I would like that.
Robert Plummer