Just as I was ready to recycle yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, I took a quick flip through to make sure I hadn’t missed anything interesting. Glad I did! Yesterday’s edition featured an interesting book review of Julia Duin’s new book Quitting Church. Duin, the religion reporter for the Washington Times, analyzes what she characterizes as an epidemic in church-quitting among evangelicals.
Her thesis struck a chord. I’ve already done this once, may yet again, and all of my reasons were among those reported in the WSJ review. She discusses lack of community; insipid teaching; failure to reach the souls of the suffering; emphasis on families over singles; and inefficient leadership models. Her two biggies, however, are problems with pastors and the sidelining of women. Pastors who are out of touch, or personally unhappy, or fail to shepherd, or caught in scandal, or high-handedly controlling are a major reason people move on. She goes on to note that women leave because they are underutilized in their churches. Duin speaks from experience as an “unwanted woman.” She holds a Masters in Religion from Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry.
Duin’s book points up the neglected need in all churches to monitor and take to heart the back door problem. I can’t tell you the number of public and private meetings in which I’ve participated over the years that only address growth questions from the front door – how many people have we added? The number of new members and attenders is of no value unless it is presented along with the loss of members and attenders. The second number is usually more important than the first. Why do people who have spent time in your church, gotten to know you, and likely made a commitment of time, talent, and treasure leave? By the time they’re gone, it’s probably too late, but few people who have committed at any level leave all at once unless it’s related to a move. First, they slow down or stop giving. Then, their attendance gets infrequent as they shop around. Only once they find another home do they withdraw altogether.
Church leaders who don’t monitor their attendance, and who fail to follow up on those in the process of quitting and who have left are missing a major source of insight as they try to figure out how to minister well in the place that God has put them.
September 10, 2008 at 10:16 pm
TM,
Caution well taken. I agree with you that there are some very theologically conservative folks who believe that it is appropriate to ordain women to the ministry. In fact, I attended a seminary for two years where such a phenomenon was the norm (or at least so it seemed to me). But these folks were all in main-line denominations (primarily PCUSA, some UCC, and some ECUSA), not characteristically “conservative” denominations. And, you may not have picked up on this, but I have intentionally avoided the term “liberal” and opted for the more general term “main-line” in this discussion because the two are by no means synonymous in my thinking. One can certainly be in a main-line denomination and not be theologically “liberal”. I have many good friends in main-line denominations who are entirely orthodox in their theology, but who hold that women ought to be ordained to the ministry, or at the very least allowed to preach.
That’s all for now… gotta run…
Thanks!
September 10, 2008 at 9:55 pm
On behalf of all of us at Conn-versation, I have just deleted a couple of comments by a harrassing commenter who has impersonated one of us, and not for the first time.
We would like to take this opportunity to remind him and all our readers that impersonating another is identity theft, and a violation of the eighth commandment.
We apologize for the interruption of the flow of thought that’s resulted.
September 10, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Jonathan, this time, we mostly agree. I appreciate it that you’ve gotten my points.
I’d be careful, however, about using attitudes towards women as a conservative/liberal litmus test. There are very theologically conservative people who happen to believe that women’s voices are appropriate and indeed necessary at every level of church hierarchy, but absent that belief, would be indistinguishable from you in virtually everything else.
TM
September 10, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Dude-bro Bobby,
As I said to TM, my purpose for commenting was not to defend conservatism per se, just to inquire as to whether conservatism and the idea of women preachers is compatible.
I wish I could add more, but I unfortunately have no time right now.
See you around, my friend!
September 10, 2008 at 9:38 pm
TM,
I assure you, I don’t consider conservatism as a worthy end in itself. The initial question of my comment was not meant as a “gotcha” (I try as best I can to avoid such tactics), but rather a sincere interrogation into whether the ideology which infuses the ethos of conservative denominations is compatable with a more egalitarian way of seeing the life of the church. It just seems to me that to speak of conservative denominations allowing women to preach is something of a category error, for to do so would be to betray the ideology which gave rise to such denominations in the first place. You may be right that conservatives need to analyze their assumptions a bit more (we all do!). I wasn’t meaning to nessessarily counter this. I was only saying that if it really is the case in light of the Scriptural data that theological and ecclesiastical conservatism is untenable, then the right thing to do would be to rejoin the main-line churches, not to attempt to reform the doctrine and practice within conservative denominations.
September 10, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I don’t know Art. Darryl may have a point. A secular country that gives us Nat Hentoff and Camille Paglia has to be better. Don’t you think?
September 10, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I wonder if posting under someone else’s name is Darryl’s idea of “seeking a better country.”
September 10, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Darryl: I’ll have to think more about the possibility of Jewish evangelists taking over my neighborhood and keeping me from my favorite coffee shop on their Sabbath. But would it really be so bad to live in a Jewish society? It wasn’t so bad for Paul and the other apostles.
Or was it?
September 10, 2008 at 10:16 am
JB, my new friend and school chum:
“Conservative denominations have held fast to traditional norms because they refuse to accept the idea that the movement of society ought to determine the movement of the church.”
Did not these denominations make such decisions as a response to the movement of their society on the basis of the previous movement of their own tradition/society of heritage (which, in fact, moved in relationship to its society)? You see how this just goes on and on?
I agree that we look to tradition and take it seriously when we break. That said, is it okay to be “progressive” only when it is counter-cultural, but not when it is in line with the movements of society? [I'm thinking here of the view that Jesus teaching and associating with women, sinners and Samaritans was unusual for the day.]
September 10, 2008 at 9:44 am
The earlier post to which I referred above is:
http://connversation.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/more-about-women/
September 10, 2008 at 9:43 am
Jonathan, thanks for your input. Here are a few thoughts in response.
1) Why do you treat conservatism as a worthy end in itself? Isn’t the point of following Christ to proclaim the knowledge of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea? Paul didn’t seem to care who was proclaiming Christ as long as he was being proclaimed. (Phil 1:18)
2) You wrote: Traditionalists prohibit women from preaching not because they think women have less ability or less mental capacity than men, but because they are convinced that the Bible prohibits such a thing.
My point is that conservatives ought to be taking another look at their assumptions. Just because a conservative is convinced of anything doesn’t mean it’s true. There’s enough in Scripture to present a serious challenge to conservative assumptions about women. You might want to look at a post and comments from earlier this year on this topic.
3) You wrote: The same reasoning (at least from a traditional Protestant perspective) prohibits us from allowing unordained lay men to preach or administer the sacraments. It’s not that the ordained ministers possess some sort of ontological spiritual superiority to laymen, but that God has prescribed a certain degree of order for the well-being of his Church.
Not a month ago, I attended a regular Sunday PCA church service in which an unordained young man with one year of seminary under his belt preached, amateurish exegetical mistakes and all. (In his case, greater things will surely be coming with time and education.) But it does suggest that the concern about a breach in God’s order for the well-being of his church only really applies to women with MDivs.
TM
September 10, 2008 at 9:00 am
Correction: last par., 4th sentence, should read: “Traditionalists prohibit…”
September 10, 2008 at 7:59 am
Irreligious and TM,
But doesn’t the idea of women preachers millitate against the entire ideology of conservative denominations? Conservative denominations have held fast to traditional norms because they refuse to accept the idea that the movement of society ought to determine the movement of the church. It would seem to me that the moment a conservative denomination would begin to allow women to preach, that denomination might as well call it a day and rejoin the main line, because such a move would be counter to the ideology which gave rise to conservative denominations in the first place.
And comparing the church to the academy is a bit misguided, as I see it. There is no religious problem with a woman teaching in the academy simply because the Bible doesn’t speak to how a properly ordered academic insitution ought to function. But the church is not an academic insistution, and the Scriptures do speak to how *it* ought to function. Traditionalists do not prohibit women from preaching not because they think women have less ability or less mental capacity than men, but because they are convinced that the Bible prohibits such a thing. The same reasoning (at least from a traditional Protestant perspective) prohibits us from allowing unordained lay men to preach or administer the sacraments. It’s not that the ordained ministers possess some sort of ontological spiritual superiority to laymen, but that God has prescribed a certain degree of order for the well-being of his Church.
September 9, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Thanks, FTH. The “back door” problem in some churches occurs because they don’t keep sufficient track of who’s coming and who’s not among the regulars. It’s far easier to manage the data on new people than on the disenchanted. The larger the church, the more opportunity for hidden back door problems to fester; it’s easier to hide. But, smaller churches can be in denial about their issues, too. This is another reason that getting people plugged into fellowship and accountability is so important, and that church leaders be in touch with their cell groups. Honest feedback, both positive and negative, is valuable in helping hone what is working for the community and what isn’t.
Welcome IrreligiousLife! It’s an untenable problem, and one about which all churches who continue to circumscribe the roles for women ought to be pondering. Paradigms can and should be challenged. The future health of our faith communities depends on excellent teaching and preaching from gifted women and men.
The example you raise points to one interesting result . . . conservative women are making their way into more liberal denominations who will give them a voice. Congregations thirsty for solid teaching are already being watered by gifted, biblically-committed women the conservatives have forced out. It will be fascinating to watch what happens over time.
September 9, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Speaking of marginalizing women, one of my professors has a Ph.D. from Yale in Old Testament but “she” wasn’t allowed to preach or teach adults in her church, so she changed denominations. How ironic! She is teaching the future leaders of the church at seminary, yet she wasn’t even allowed to preach in her own church!
September 9, 2008 at 8:59 am
Great post TM. It took me a while to find time to read it.
I too have been pondering for a while the seeming idolatry of all our focus on the family in churches. Not that family is not important, but it seems to have taken center stage in certain unhelpful ways.
I wonder what it says about our church culture that we are usually more concerned about the “front door” than the “back door”? Does this somehow reflect on how our conceptions of church and the Gospel are not communally oriented enough? Does it reflect how we seem to miss that being united to Christ is/means being united to his people—specifically, the particular group of his people where God has called you/us (i.e., our local church)? We seem to miss that our ultimate family are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
September 9, 2008 at 7:02 am
TM: I wonder if you’ve considered much how your understanding of an expansive and outward facing church is basically a continuation of the mainstream American Protestant churches who were busy-bodies, sticking their nose into everything, and making various “ethnic” groups conform to Anglo-American middle-class ways. Sure, today’s evangelical activism has a bit more cultural sensitivity. But whether word and deed or emergent, your support for an activist transforming church does not seem all that tolerant of cultural and religious diversity. I mean, what would you think if the local synagogue was saying we need to change our community, or the local RC parish? Why can’t Anglo Protestants live like they are in exile rather than trying to make this world their home?
September 8, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Hi Scott:
Thanks for calling our attention to yet another way churches are routinely missing the mark when it comes to fulfilling their calling. I so agree that the focus needs to be outward! You’re also right that we’re not called to foresake the gathering of ourselves together. But, we are sometimes called to change communities when the old has become so hardened in ways that hinder the gospel mission that we can no longer be fruitful there.
TM
September 7, 2008 at 5:51 pm
On another note, I don’t see forsaking the fellowship of believers altogether as a credible option for any true believer. That hurts the individual and the body. (Where true–not perfect–churches exist, that is.)
September 7, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Lots to take in. Lots to repent of.
I’ll only add to the list. Men are underutilized, too. Married and unmarried alike. I believe this has been pretty prominent in a wide swath of churches who I hesitate to mention by their generalization name (but such a name exists). In other churches, too.
Much of this–for women and men alike–has to do with churches being inward-facing and lacking kingdom vision. Ephesians 4-type vision is lacking, and so troops aren’t actively enlisted, which is what leaders are to do. (That is, leaders are to equip the saints for ministry.)
Biblical mission is key for women and men–the saints–to be engaged for the full harvest at hand.
There are churches out there casting this kind of vision, though. And others growing in it. And others ripe for being challenged–lovingly, persistently, and Biblically–in this direction. And we’ll need to remember that all of this is by God’s grace alone (lest we become puffed up in our position).
September 4, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Hi Bobby:
Thanks for weighing in. Unquestionably, I agree that a church’s failure to fully utilize the gifts and talents of women is a mistake, both for itself and for the sidelined women. When women’s voices are suppressed from leadership, women in the pews suffer. And, how is a woman who can’t do what she’s been gifted and educated to do supposed to answer the minas question of Luke 19:11ff? “You see, Lord, I was a member of a conservative church and they wouldn’t allow me to be an elder, so I wasn’t able to speak into . . . ”
As far as your comment about marriage and family, I’ve said as much. With all due respect to Dr. Dobson and his tremendous achievements, the church as a whole could use a little less “focus on the family” and a little more “focus on Jesus.” As bad as it can be for single men, it’s worse for single women, and especially accomplished professionals. A future post on this is a wonderful idea.
TM
September 4, 2008 at 5:19 pm
TM:
This is a tough subject. I feel that we lose a lot when we don’t utilize ALL of the resources of the church. When it comes to women, I have been profoundly influenced by the godly females I’ve encountered (and it does not always come in the context of motherhood and submission). I think we have a lot to gain from utilizing this particular resource, but we are locked into certain practices and structures that keep that from happening. We’ve really shot ourselves in the foot.
As a single, adult male, I have experienced a type of purgatory in churches before, as well. No longer a child, not yet a ‘normal’ grown-up. Duin hits home with the critique of the “emphasis on families over singles”.
Sometimes our exaltation of marriage, sex and the family looks a lot like idolatry. There might be a future post on that topic
September 3, 2008 at 9:16 am
Thanks for this post, TM. It brings to mind another fascinating one of yours, “Starfish and Spiders.” For any of you who haven’t read that post, I highly recommend it!