Four recent conversations point out a serious (and growing) problem in many of our congregations: we don’t know what to do with smart people who ask tough questions.  I have had (intentional) encounters with people in the state of Wisconsin who have visited United Methodist congregations and found them lacking.  In each case, the person I spoke to decided to go to another church or to stop going to church altogether.  They all gave essentially the same reason: they grew disillusioned that no one could or would answer their questions.  The conclusion they all came to is that United Methodists don’t know their faith, don’t engage in open-minded conversation, don’t welcome questions, and teach and preach at a third grade level.  Fair or not, we are losing three whole generations of college/post-college educated men and women who feel that we are dumbing-down our faith — and once we lose these folks we aren’t likely to get them back.

So, what kinds of questions do they want answered?  Here are the four simple scenarios:

  1. a man, having visited eight United Methodist Churches began questioning the fundamental antinomianism he heard taught in each.  He found that none of the laity leaders and only one of the pastors knew what “antinomianism” was, and none could explain why it was foundational to their teaching — in fact, they didn’t realize they were teaching antinomianism.
  2. a woman sought understanding about the trinitarian theology, wanting an explanation as to why our gospels, Pauline teachings, Johannine teachings, and Pastoral epistles do not seem to agree or promote a single, identifiable message of Trinity.  She was told “not to think about it or figure it out — just believe it.”
  3. a couple wanted to understand the worship process of the churches they attended, so they pursued the leaders to describe the ethos of worship and the theology/Christology it was based upon.  They asked why certain components were present (doxology, children’s message, skits, liturgical dance) while others were absent (creeds, confession and pardon, psalter, Lord’s Prayer).  Not one church could explain their theology and practice of worship beyond doing away with things people didn’t like as well.
  4. a young woman grew despondent when she brought scholarly commentaries to Bible study and attempted to raise questions.  In one church she was actually told that “Christians need no books but the Bible,” and that she shouldn’t confuse herself by reading commentaries.  She was told, “the only thing that matters is what YOU think the Bible means.”

I lift these four conversations, not because they comprise the entire complaint I have heard against our church, but because I have had all four in the last two days in three different regions of the state.  This is not a rare exception, but the growing trend.  Well-educated people are seriously questioning the credibility of a church that doesn’t know its own story, that tells what story it does know at a children’s Sunday school level, and seemingly has no interest in learning its own story.  We are on a slippery slope when we start denigrating God-given intelligence and making the integrity of our gospel message insipid.  Defending our dumbing down is not a healthy path into the future.  We need to kick it up a notch and apply the best of our thinking, reasoning, and learning to our faith.

We have already fallen far behind the sciences.  A century-and-a-half ago, clergy were among the most educated in the growing areas of science.  Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection was originally talked about and studied far and wide in churches.  As geology, astronomy, and physics revealed new understanding of the universe and the age of creation, Biblical scholars were among the first to teach and share such learning.  Then we realized we couldn’t keep up, and that we were no longer among the brightest and best anymore.  So we circled the wagons.  We grew defensive and abdicated any responsibility for aligning faith with science and learning.  Anything we couldn’t understand or explain became one of God’s “mysteries.”  Faith, always a staunch ally of reason post-enlightenment, became the antithesis.  It became unsafe to ask hard questions.  Intelligence indicated lack of faith.  Faith was about innocence and naiveté.  It has not paid for quite some time to be too smart for our own good.

And now we pay the price.  A gap grows ever wider between thinking and believing.  When I chaired the denomination’s task force on the relationship of science and theology, the two most frequent responses I heard from scientists were: 1) I am not welcome in church unless I check my brain at the door, and 2) I am willing to reconcile my scientific beliefs with my faith, but the church is not willing to reconcile its beliefs with science.

Many biologists and geneticists reported that they eventually left the church because of the psychological pressure they felt.  A young researcher in southern California told me that she starting receiving emails and phone calls threatening that she would burn in hell unless she gave up playing God.  This happened to her in three different United Methodist Churches.

As long as our church fears reason and knowledge, we will exclude a signficant and growing segment of the U.S. population.  When I conducted the Seeker Study for the denomination early last decade, four responses surprised many, though almost no action was taken based on the findings.  Almost two-thirds of the 4,000 people surveyed asked for seminary level classes to be taught in local churches.  Fifty percent said they wanted to go to a church that integrated faith, science, and global justice.  Forty-three percent wanted a church to actually equip them for specific Christian service, with technical skill knowledge.  Thirty-one percent wanted regular “homework” assignments to work on when they weren’t in church — including hands-on life experiences.  In other words, people want faith and life to be tightly aligned and connected, and the majority feel that the institutional church fails to do this.

Agree with this post, disagree with this post, but don’t ignore this post.  We bitch and moan about the future of our church, yet we systematically exclude millions of people at both ends of the educational and economic spectrum.  We don’t want the poor, uneducated and unwashed in our churches, nor do we seem to want those who think too hard or ask hard questions.  We exclude any and all at our own peril.

19 responses to “Christi-inanity”

  1. Jim Searls Avatar
    Jim Searls

    Has anyone studied a correlation between attenders of contemporary worship and levels of intellectual involvement? Or, real involvement with the church beyond the entertaining worship?

  2. Scott Wilks Avatar

    I think the author brings up some great points. We do often forget that we are worshipping communities which need to teach and engage our theological understandings. As a clergy person, I too often hear that we don’t need creeds, theology, and “I don’t need someone to interpret the Bible for me”. In Bible studies I have been told, just teach the Scripture, we don’t need any “programs”. In order to please congregations (often in multi-church charges) we too often cookie cutter our teaching.
    That said, if one came to me asking about antinomianism, I would have to do a quick brush up or at least a Google search. And in regard to the Trinity, we can hash out the Scriptural basis, but we can not prove nor disprove it. We either accept it by faith, with the few Scriptures and 2000 years of theological scolarship, or we reject it based on the same… but we cannot prove or disprove, only believe.
    I would welcome an honest conversation with open minded Christians in my church, but they are conditioned not to be so. Any challenge to the statis quo draws fire upon the teacher as heritic, although that is not the language they would use. It is sad that we educate our clergy, only to tell them to check their own minds at the door.

  3. Ed Avatar
    Ed

    100% on the money with this one. As a pastor I would love to have people in my congregation desire to sit down together and really learn what we believe and why. Bible study boils down to reading the text and saying we like what it has to say. We never really dig into the scriptures to discover what it says. It would be wonderful if someone really did bring a commentary to Bible study or Sunday School class; better yet, if a Sunday School class actually studied scripture and its applications to their lives. Seminary level classes in the local church would be a dream come true, especially if people actually attended them and did the work.

  4. Andrew Book Avatar
    Andrew Book

    Dan-
    I think that there is some truth in what you have to say, but your article is on the edge of telling clergy that we all need to be able to talk convincingly on every area of theology, science, philosophy, etc. Frankly, that is impossible (if you don’t believe me, check out Friedman’s analysis in “Failure of Nerve”). We need to be open to questions and we need to acknowledge the validity of questions, but we also need to say that “I don’t know, but let’s investigate that together” is a reasonable answer.
    I received a BS in microbiology before going to seminary, so I will be able to handle questions in that realm much more coherently than I can talk about different philosophical schools, etc.
    On the other hand, we have no excuse for not being able to answer questions about the theological reasons for how we worship. If we do not know why we are doing what we are doing, then we have some serious work to do!

    1. Dan R. Dick Avatar
      Dan R. Dick

      My assumption is that the congregation must hold responsibility for the intellectual level of the discourse, not just the clergy leadership. Note that my examples do not identify clergy as the culprits, and in fact generally speak of leaders in the plural. I would not expect our clergy leaders to have all the answers, but I would expect them to create structures and systems that equip an educated laity. A pastor cannot be responsible for everyone else’s learning, but she or he can do a lot to impede it…

  5. maestro137 Avatar

    Again, SPOT ON
    A weak lemming like LAITY will be the death of our Methodist Denomination.

    CALL TO ACTION to end the pew-warming/sitting and do something — anything — even if we get it wrong the first several hundred times — FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS WORTHLESS !

  6. Jim Searls Avatar
    Jim Searls

    Dan, I agree with you 100%. The dumbing down occurred when we started to focus on the unchurched. We somehow got the idea that the folks we were trying to get in the doors were less intelligent than we were and we needed to reduce the quality of our teaching to accommodate the newcomer. When the newcomer came, we never offered anything beyond the basics.
    The church has become like modern politics in America. Reduced to a sound bite or two with no substance or willingness to create a dialogue or to doubt what is presented.

  7. Nina Yardley Avatar

    These very issues gave me problems for years, but God kept calling me. I found a church (UMC) not afraid to deal with these questions and help me find answers with Wesley’s Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Experience, AND Reason. Now I am serving as a Local Pastor. What you say is important and we need to be willing to invite questions and if we don’t know the answers, help them find answers.

Leave a reply to Mike in South Carolina Cancel reply