While a decline in the size of the church is unfortunate, I’m fairly certain that truly liberal Christians are unconcerned.
Many liberal churches, even conservative churches that fall under traditional denominational labels (Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran) have seen declines in membership. Bloggers and commentators are scrambling to figure it out. Can we blame the sexual revolution? Busy, two-career families that have no time for church? Consumerism, materialism, multiculturalism and relativism? Mega-churches?
But in decline, and perhaps only in decline, can churches re-discover the true ministry and mission of Jesus, which was to be radically tolerant and helpful to those who are poor, sick, outcast and marginalized.
Interesting read. Karmel really illustrates the enormous divide between liberal and orthodox churches. When “the mission of Jesus” can be talked about for some length without mentioning reconciling sinners to God through his blood shed on the Cross, then its pretty clear that the plot has been well and truly lost.
When the word “gospel” is used as a description primarily of social inclusion, then we may as well wave the remaining liberal churches goodbye as they disappear down the drain hole of history.
“Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Romans 7.24) This does not quite sound like toleration or helpfulness.
“Redefine their mission?” Umm, wasn’t that already made clear 2,000 years ago,,,,,,,,or am I missing something here?
Amen to all the above.
[blockquote] “But in decline, and perhaps only in decline, can churches re-discover the true ministry and mission of Jesus, which was to be radically tolerant and helpful to those who are poor, sick, outcast and marginalized.” [/blockquote]
Hmmm, where did Jesus ever say that his mission was to be “radically tolerant and helpful” to this particular group of people? Sure, he accepted everyone, even capitalist oppressors like the tax collectors. But his mission was to tell everyone that “unless you repent, you will all likewise perish”.
Anyway, this all appears to be just soothing words by a liberal activist who doesn’t care one whit about “her” church, except insofar as it is a convenient vehicle for her own social and political values. She does not cavil that TEC has suffered a 25% decline in membership and that the trend is still down, indeed she seems to welcome it. She offers no answers. No doubt the decline will help to purge out the remaining people in TEC who aren’t as liberal as her, leaving a more “pure” church!
Agree with all the above. I’d add two observations: Ms. Puzzuoli states that issues of biblical interpretation and integrity “can be debated endlessly.” But from the reasserting point of view, this is perhaps THE core problem with liberal/revisionist Christianity: the endless eisegesis, minimization, and outright abandoning of Holy Scripture as an authoritative guide (as well as 2000 years of church tradition) in favor of “reason” driven by experiential and societal values.
Second, as the self-described mom of a cognitively-challenged/delayed child, perhaps she should question TEC’s continuing endorsement of the RCRC. I see nothing in the “progressive” pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia worldview that really embraces the disabled, or other “unwanted” children or adults. But I’ve given up looking for logical consistency in much of the progressive mind.
5, you wrote: “I see nothing in the “progressive†pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia worldview that really embraces the disabled, or other “unwanted†children or adults.” But actually I do see something: their disposability. A culture of death that embraces killing the unborn can easily embrace the killing of the old, disabled and unwanted.
#5 & #6 – Maybe the E in TEC should be changed so it’s The Eugenics Church? So who would be the patron saint; Margaret Sanger?
Josef Mengele would be a good candidate.
6. Sort of like in “Soylent Green.”