VAST RIGHT-WING RENEWALACY

Turning the Mainline Around: New sociological studies show that evangelicals may well succeed at renewing wayward Protestantism. (Michael S. Hamilton and Jennifer McKinney, 07/25/2003, Christianity Today)

Few mainline liberals understand that behind the rise of renewal activity is a genuine grassroots movement. Instead it is more comforting to imagine that a few wealthy conservative organizations-a conspiracy of outside agitators-have stirred up dissent. Jack Rogers, a recent moderator of the PCUSA (and in a former life one of the leaders of the movement to eliminate the term inerrancy from the faith statement of Fuller Theological Seminary), insists that the Confessing Church Movement "is not a grassroots movement" but "a tool of the conservative Presbyterian Lay Committee" designed to damage the denomination. The Information Project for United Methodists was founded to hunt for a conservative conspiracy in that church. Said Tex Sample, former professor at a Methodist seminary and an Information Project adviser, "I really want to know why these right-wing foundations are financing...these kind of wrongful attacks on the United Methodist Church."

All the evidence, however, indicates that the renewal movements spring not from any right-wing conspiracy of the wealthy but from widespread theological discontent among ordinary Christians. For years now, surveys have shown that the mainline laity are far more orthodox than their denominational leadership, as are the clergy in the local congregations. Because the movements spring from the sentiments of people in the pews, their impact may prove to be deeper than anyone suspects.

The renewal movement's effect on individual lives is impossible to gauge, but it has helped slow the losses of churches and members in the mainline denominations. Pastors who are evangelicals are more likely to introduce renewal movement programs into their congregations, and the results are showing up in indicators of congregational vigor. In Acts of Faith Stark and Finke showed that United Methodist congregations with evangelical pastors had rapidly rising attendance and expenditures. Although some congregations with evangelical pastors did decline, the rate was half that of congregations without evangelical pastors. The Methodist conferences with the largest proportion of evangelical pastors and churches-those in the South and Southeast-have actually started growing.

Before the 1960s, mainline denominations acted swiftly to cut off evangelical mobilization. But this time around, the evangelical renewal movements may be here to stay. One great irony is that theological pluralism -the very thing evangelicals decry-may be what has allowed them to remain. By defending pluralism, liberals have painted themselves into a corner. To move too aggressively against evangelicals would open them to charges of hypocrisy.

Instead, anecdotal evidence suggests that in many cases mainline leaders have opted to try to control the evangelical renewal movements for their ownpurposes. They often encourage the movements in programs of evangelism-all the while counseling them to concentrate on local churches rather than the national organization. In this way, mainline leaders hope to see denominational membership increase without challenging their control.

This is a risky strategy. Liberals are convinced that orthodoxy is, as one United Methodist group put it, a faith of "older people" who are
trying "to sanctify the dominant social attitudes of the time when they were young." The demographic river, however, runs in the opposite direction. McKinney and Finke, in their study "Reviving the Mainline" in The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion last year, found that clergy supporting evangelical movements tend to be younger than average. The strongest support for the renewal movements is among clergy under age 40, while clergy nearing retirement are least supportive.

The two researchers conclude that if evangelicals remain in their denominations, time is on their side. Projected retirement patterns will
only increase support for the renewal movements. Even if all else fails, the evangelical insurgents may simply outlive the liberals. For the liberals-who have always believed that orthodox Christianity could never survive in the modern world-this might turn out to be the greatest irony of
all.

Which makes for an interesting juxtaposition with this editorial, Robinson Ambush: The Anatomy of a Smear (The Minneapolis Star Tribune, August 6, 2003):

We had hoped to comment this morning on the meaning of the Episcopal debate over the nomination of the Rev. Gene Robinson to be bishop of the New Hampshire diocese. Why is it happening now? What does it portend? Is the Episcopal Church, as it often has before, signaling a significant change in the social fabric of American life?

That was before Robinson was ambushed, hours before the House of Bishops was to take the final vote on his nomination, by the most scurrilous smear: He was accused of linkage to a porn Web site and of inappropriately touching another man. [...]

The Weekly Standard is important in this. Executive Editor Fred Barnes gave the Robinson story a major boost -- after it was shopped to other news outlets that refused to bite -- when he posted information about the controversy on the magazine's Web site Monday. Barnes asserted that, "Episcopalian bishop-elect Gene Robinson has some curious affiliations," meaning the porn Web site.

No he doesn't, but Barnes does. He's not simply a journalist in this; he's a conservative Episcopalian of outspoken views who sits on the board of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. It's a conservative group which believes that mainline Protestant churches "have thrown themselves into multiple, often leftist crusades -- radical forms of feminism, environmentalism, pacifism, multi-culturalism, revolutionary socialism, sexual liberation and so forth." The group vigorously opposes gay rights within the church.

Also fascinating is who funds the institute. The most prominent names on the list of contributors are Olin, Scaife and Bradley, the same folks who bankrolled the Clinton wars.

Not just a journalist but "a conservative Episcopalian of outspoken views"...cue spooky music...and a member of a conservative religious
organization! They really do seem to have to blame a vast right-wing conspiracy for opposition to the liberalization of the churches. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 12, 2003 8:03 AM