#Mainline Liberal Protestant

[ivan-fyodorovich-k]

Catholic Cultural Criticism

Have you noticed how society just isn't Catholic anymore? Nobody takes the authority of the Church seriously or internalizes any of our morals! You know where it all went wrong? When people abandoned Catholicism. What is the solution? Why you'll never guess--

[not-so-superheroine]

Happy Restoration Day! Here is my Book of Mormon Testimony

Blessings everyone, I am @not-so-superheroine, and this is my testimony of the Book of Mormon.

I am a convert to the restoration. So the Book of Mormon was new to me. I had heard about it. I had held one before that I saw in the drawer of a Marriot hotel room, I didn’t open it until I took an interest in the Restoration. 

At that time, I was sort of agnostic. I grew up in a mainline protestant denomination but had grown disillusioned. I was introduced to Mormonism through people who were deconstructing from the belief. Naturally, the first things I saw about it were debunking it’s location and historicity. But my mind was being opened to possibilities I hadn’t considered before. When I was younger, it didn’t make sense to me that there would be no more scripture from God. That the author of Revelations could say “that’s it.” for scripture, as I heard some argue. I wondered why God interacted so directly with those in ancient times and why such things wouldn’t occur with us now.  

Eventually, I was curious enough to acquire a Book of Mormon. I was admittedly cautious. I knew what the book said about a “skin of Blackness” and how that had lead to mistreatment of Black and Indigenous persons in different parts of the Latter Day Saint Movement. I was also fairly certain it was a 19th century text. I knew neither of these things discounted the Book as scripture. 

So I went into the scripture without the burden of historicity or author authenticity.  Not to see if the book was “true”, but to seek after the truths within. I approached the text and I looked for the presence of God. I prayed and asked God to guide me in my reading of the scriptures. Millions before me found these precious truths and Divine Inspiration in this book and I thought perhaps, if i went in openly, I could find it myself. 

And did I. And I am glad that I did. 

The Book of Mormon provides further light on issues the Christian community was facing at the time. It seeks to heal and to unify. A theme throughout the scripture and the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon speaks of Continuing Revelation. The heavens were open then and are open now. From what I learned, there is no reason why God wouldn’t provide us further light or would limit who God delivers Divine knowledge too. In fact, I learned that God does just that. It’s just up to us to ask, listen, and discern. 

The Book has also strengthened my relationship with my Creator. When I was a child, I thought deeply about, and questioned, the theology and doctrine I was taught in Sunday School. Sometimes this questioning was not always welcomed. I learned that for some, Ignorance is preferable to doubt. That doesn’t work for me. The Book of Mormon encourages me to be a diligent seeker. My time spent studying the Book of Mormon has been filled with questions. Questions without shame that I encourage to seek after God’s truth. 

Much like Nephi, I Was desirous also that I might see, and hear, and know of these things, by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God to all those who diligently seek him, as well in times of old as in the time that he should manifest himself to the children of men; for he is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

(more from 1 Nephi 3) 29 For he that diligently seeks shall find; 30and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded to him by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in this time as in times of old; 31and as well in times of old as in times to come.

This scripture inspires me and shows me that God wants me to seek after God’s mysteries and the mysteries in the universe God created for us. That thought is absolutely liberating. We should not fear knowledge, God wants us to grow and understand. And my faith is stronger now with this understanding. Questioning and Seeking is needed for spiritual growth.

I find the Book of Mormon to be empowering in reminding me of my moral agency, encouraging me to grow my faith, and work with God to hone my Spiritual gifts to be used in service to the Divine and to my community. The Book of Mormon affirms the Living Christ, Christ’s love for all humankind, no matter where and who they are, and that people of all nations receive light from the Divine and are a part of God’s sacred story. And there is so much more. The Book of Mormon speaks to me about the effects of poverty and addressing wealth inequity. This matches with Christ’s mission to tend to the poor. The Book of Mormon goes into how we should live amongst each other and on building sacred community, on how to be Zion as a people. There are so many lessons packed in there that I believe God wants us to ponder on and to take action with. The Book of Mormon is responsible for changing the way I read and apply sacred scripture to my life. This has changed my life for the better and changed my life outlook. I see myself as an active part of God’s plan carrying out Christ’s mission. 

I thank God for the Restoration

I thank God for continuing revelation and the Book of Mormon

And I thank God for my community, the people of Zion

[ray-moo]

I quite dislike people in liberal and progressive christian spaces dunking on evangelicals. Evangelicals are intolerant and homophobic. Evangelicals strip Christianity of it's beauty. Evangelicals distort Christianity. Evangelicals aren't real Christians.

Look, just because you escaped the abusive evangelical church you grew up in to find a tolerant liberal mainline church doesn't mean evangelicals are evil and the tolerant mainline churches are the One True way to practice Christianity as Jesus intended.

There are prejucided, intolerant classic protestant denominations straight out of the Reformation too. There isn't anything special about the Evangelical approach to Christianity that makes it worse.

And like, half of progressive christblr is Catholic. Catholic. You tell me when Rome legalizes gay marriage or says women can be deacons. The Southern Baptist Convention has women deacons. And this isn't to criticize all Catholics of being prejudiced, intolerant, overly-traditional, and stuck in the past. Quite the opposite. Maybe we shouldn't do that for any large grouping of our siblings in Christ.

Maybe, instead of making fun of other denominations or endlessly criticizing them, we should, idk, hate the sin and not the sinner.

Anyways it makes no sense to criticize evangelicals when evangelicalism is characterized by being decentralized and having every church do it's own thing. Of any christian groups, evangelicals ought to be the last criticized as a block.

Also, I'm Evangelical, I've been so my whole life with no regrets. I'm not homophobic beyond any buried internalized homophobia I have from living in a generally homophobic culture, evangelical or not. My relationship with both God and the Church is precious to me and I'd bet to God. And I would confidently say I'm a real Christian.

Sure I didn't have the experience of worshipping God in a traditionally beautiful space every sunday. But I have memories of helping clear the chairs we set up every sunday, of people inspiring others to help with the cleanup for services, watching the crowds of people linger and talk and be a community even as the chairs are cleared away until next sunday. I have memories of this multi-purpose space being used as a dance hall, a banquet hall, a place to pack christmas gifts. An entire life of a church conducted in front of the altar made possible precisely because our sanctuary is a multi-purpose space and has seen practically every part of the Christian life except going to bed and sleeping. You can't do that in a traditional worship space with pews.

This isn't to say that this approach is better than say, a traditional worship space or sanctuary. But what I'm saying is that there are beautiful things about the evangelical traditions as well! And honestly? The way many evangelicals strip the Christian faith of everything except the Bible is a strength. Obviously, I can only speak for my experience, and other evangelical churches are probably different, but this is my experience. At our best, we don't make Christianity boring, we purify it in an attempt to return to Christianity's roots. This isn't necessarily the correct approach for all Christians, I think that's why we have denominations. But we have a radical, fundamentalist approach to the faith which returns to the Bible like a child playing outside runs home at their mother's voice, and that tendency is a good thing, not a bad thing. I'm so fundamentalist I reject the bigoted ideas most people accuse evangelicals of because I can't find them in the Bible. The ability for such fundamentalism is part of the beauty of radical Sola Scriptura.

Sure Evangelicals don't have Cathedrals or saints, but we have small, independent-minded churches. We have congregations that are both close-knit and anti-authoritarian. We're flexible and adaptive to ever-shifting modern times. We have an indignation to any departures from the purity of God's word (at least when we catch it). We emphasize independent Bible reading and independent interpretation like no one else. We're so independently minded we even take our Pastor's words with a grain of salt as a matter of course. We have a feverish need to spread the Gospel. IMO Evangelicalism is simply the expression of Christianity that sprang out of the culture of the modern West. Casual, convenient, mass-manufactured and with not a shred of anything that isn't disposable maybe. But it's both individualistic, yet intimately concerned about sharing in every aspect of a Christian's life. Perhaps our churches look unimpressive because we don't have capital C Churches. Instead, the walls of the church blend seamlessly with the lives of the congregation. We worship in steel and concrete boxes and folding chairs because we live in a world of steel and concrete boxes and folding chairs. We evangelicals believe that there should be no change in ourselves stepping out of a church and into the parking lot. That's why we're equally comfortable wearing a T-shirt to communion as we are bringing a bible into our workplaces. Church isn't church, it's barely even a sanctuary. It's a seamless extension of how we live our lives. If the rest of our lives, the steel, the concrete, the folding chairs, the coffee, the music, the manufactured industrial ugliness, is not sanctified to God, what use is sanctifying our Church building? But if we live our normal lives sanctified to God, what is wrong with a Church that is an extension of what is typical to our lives? We Evangelicals can sanctify any space, no matter how modern, industrial, plain or ugly, with the presence of our scriptures and the fellowship we share with our fellow believers. And perhaps we don't need to make anything look sacred because we already know what we hold to be sacred before God. For my church, it's the Bible. The Bible is our votive candles, the Bible is our vaulted halls, the Bible is our relics and icons and solid stone walls. The Psalms are our pretty hymns and Paul's words are our liturgy. The Gospels are our ancient tradition passed down from early Christianity. All we need is God, all we desire in our church other than God is that there is a Bible waiting under every folding chair and fellowship of our fellow believers, but a good kid's program and a half-decent potluck never hurt anyone. I think the best way to summarize the beauty of the Evangelicalism I know best is this: Our pulpits only have enough room for the Bible. Everything else, the Church, the Choir, the Pastor, the Congregation has to stand behind it, or sit below it with the folding chairs.

And obviously this isn't how all Evangelicals do things because again, decentralized movement. I've been to a few Pentecostal/Charismatic-leaning services which were departures in some way or another from what I've described, of particular note being the laser-focus we have on the Bible. This isn't a criticism of Pentecostals or Charismatic-leaning siblings in Christ. The church I go to currently is roughly baptist. And this isn't saying that the Baptist-Evangelical approach is the best approach to Christianity, but just that it's a valid one.

Anyways IMO most of the criticisms people make of Evangelicals falls into two camps. 1. Not unique to evangelicals 2. Actually a good thing Also our coffee hours are the best, objectively speaking.

Also the chairs at my church don't fold, they stack and then go in a big closet.

[tanadrin]

in season 7 they try to do this "what if the culty fundie snake handers you thought were the bad guys... are the good guys?? and it's the liberal mainline protestant minister who is an agent of evil?" episode, in the vein of their Supernatural-avant-la-lettre subgenre, and it just doesn't work at all. the guy they have playing the snake handler really gets into it, but the villain isn't compelling and it comes off as almost just straightforwardly saying The Devil Gets You Via Liberalism, which is wildly at odds with so much else of the X-Files as a text. weird concept. v weak episode.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ryan Burge at Graphs About Religion:

I give a few talks here and there to a whole bunch of different audiences. Some of them are really knowledgeable about the world of religion. Think seminaries and religious studies departments. Others are given to groups of undergraduates or community groups. One of the things I have to figure out is what terms I need to explain and which ones I can just toss out and move along. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve had to spell “the Nones” during a presentation, I would be on track to retire before my youngest son would earn his high school diploma - for the record, he’s in fifth grade. The other term that I toss out a little too casually is “mainline Protestants.” I am going to assume that you have chosen to subscribe to this newsletter because you have a decent interest in religion, generally speaking, and that you have a pretty good sense of what I mean when I use this term. But for those who don’t know here’s the one sentence description - the mainline is a Protestant tradition that is basically the less conservative version of evangelical Christianity. It used to dominate American religion - there is some evidence that half of all Americans were members of a mainline church back in the 1950s. These estimates are a bit noisier than I would like to see, but I do think that they tell a fairly consistent story about what’s happening with the mainline. It’s pretty fair to say that the mainline was right about 12-13% of the sample between 2008 and 2014. It would rise a little higher or maybe dip just a bit, the median was about 13% during this time period. Then, that percentage began to slide just a bit and was likely down to 12% by 2020 and then I think there’s pretty strong evidence that it’s closer to 11% now. (By the way, the estimate from 2023 is exactly why we can’t build a narrative out of a single data point - it’s just an outlier). So, it’s definitely a smaller group - about half the size of evangelicals, for instance. Yet, there’s this perception of the mainline that you often read on social media about them, the stereotype is that mainline Protestants are politically liberal. For the record, this thought almost always emerges from the keyboard of an evangelical Protestant or a traditional Catholic. There are entire Twitter accounts that are dedicated to watching the livestreams of mainline church services to catch them saying or doing something that is far outside mainstream Christian orthodoxy. However, I want to make this point exceedingly clear now - it’s demonstrably, empirically, objectively false to use the term “liberal mainline.” The only way that makes any kind of sense is if your definition of liberal is “less conservative than evangelicals.” Which, essentially means that every other religious tradition in the United States is liberal. Let me show you exactly what I mean by analyzing how the mainline have voted in the last five presidential elections.

In 2008, the mainline was evenly divided between Barack Obama and John McCain. It was truly a 50/50 election. But that was the last time that was true. When Mitt Romney ran in 2012, he earned 54% of the mainline vote. When Donald Trump ran in 2016, he earned 54% of the mainline vote. When he ran again in 2020 he got exactly the same share - 54%. The only thing interesting to note is that the mainline weren’t huge fans of Hillary Clinton, she only received 41% of ballots cast. That was (at that moment) a low point. But look what happened in 2024 - Donald Trump actually managed to make some real in-roads with mainline Protestants and he upped his vote share to 58%. In contrast, Kamala Harris did even worse than Hillary Clinton, only receiving 40% of the votes from mainline Protestants. So, in the last five election cycles the mainline vote has been: D+1, R+9, R+13, R+9, and R+18. Remember the reputation that exists about the politics of the mainline is that they are left-wing Democrats. That claim does not stand up to empirical scrutiny. Let me take this down one layer by showing you the voting patterns of each of the ‘Seven Sisters of the Mainline’ over the last five election cycles.

Ryan Burge’s Graphs About Religion analysis on Mainline Protestants and the 2024 elections will have some real surprises, such as the UCC going for Trump narrowly. The UMC-- even with the more conservative churches defecting to the Global Methodists, other Wesleyan denominations, or non-denominationalism-- is still the most Trumpy of the Mainlines.

[uboat53]

All right guys, in light of the current situation in Israel and the discourse around it in the US, we need to have a talk about Evangelical Christians. Consider this a SHORT RANT (TM).

EVANGELICALS AND ISRAEL

Christian support for Israel in the United States actually didn't start from a bad place. Initially it was the position of mainline and liberal Protestants that Jews needed a safe place to flee from intensifying persecution in Europe and that this would be a part of a broader rapprochement between Jews and non-Jews.

Since the establishment of the State of Israel, however, and particularly since the Six-Day War in 1967, American Evangelicals have become the primary supporters the Zionist conception of Israel. In particular, they view the Jewish dominion over the historical Israel as a necessary step to the rapture and the end of days.

PROPHECIES

Long story short, the Evangelical interpretation of the prophecies of Revelations and those surrounding them is that the Jews need to take control of the holy land and then be destroyed in order to bring about the end times. The problem with this, though, is that the people who destroy the Jews will, themselves, be destroyed, so they can't do it directly.

Hence, the current plan. Israel is to be encouraged to expand, making about as many enemies as is possible, then, at some point in the future, any military aid would be pulled, allowing the prophecy to be fulfilled without Evangelical Christians themselves being the "bad guys" of Revelations.

ACTUAL JEWS

You can see that this plan isn't great for actual Jews or for Israel itself. In fact, it's even worse than it sounds. According to the prophecy, all Jews in Israel will either convert or be destroyed, a cultural and religious genocide by any definition.

You'll also notice that this doesn't do much for Jews outside of Israel. In fact, the Evangelical interpretation of the prophecy seems to be that all Jews need to go to Israel in order for this to work, so their support of Israel goes alongside efforts to push Jews in other countries out.

RAMPANT ANTISEMITISM

All of this leads up to the fact that many so-called "Christian Zionists" are also raging anti-Semites. John Hagee, the founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel, believes such anti-Semitic nonsense as that Adolf Hitler was born from a lineage of "accursed, genocidally murderous half-breed Jews", that the persecution of Jews throughout history is justified by Jews' refusal to embrace Christianity, that the Holocaust was good because it pushed Jews to Israel, and that the anti-Christ will be "partially Jewish".

Other prominent and popular Christian Zionists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are likewise on record as holding abhorrently anti-Semitic beliefs such as the belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy that is cited by any number of those who commit atrocities against Jews in this country.

CONCLUSION OR TL;DR

Evangelical Christians can speak all they want about their "unswerving support of Israel", this support does not in any way change the fact that a huge amount of them are virulent anti-Semites. They do not support Israel as a refuge for Jewish people or Jewish people in general, they support Israel as a trap into which Jews must be forced so they can be destroyed as part of their apocalyptic vision and, meanwhile, their zeal for all Jews to go to Israel leads them to embrace and encourage violence against us elsewhere in the world.

These people are not friends of Jews, they are as much enemies as those who wield rocket launchers and automatic weapons against us. Remember that the next time you hear them speak of their support for Israel.

[seminarydropout]

“If God is male, then male is God. The divine patriarch castrates women as long as he is allowed to live on in the human imagination.” - Mary Daly, Catholic Feminist and Creation Care Theologian

Mary Daly is hella controversial in Catholic circles and I personally as a Mainline Protestant have no dog in that fight but I will root for her nonetheless.

She authored The Church and the Second Sex: Towards a Philosophy of Women's Liberation (1968). She’s an iconic ngl.

New headcanon unlocked: I bet Sister Agnes reads feminist theology and the work of female Christian mystics in her spare time.

She hums Labour under her breath while she works in the Casa Santa Marta.

She quickly becomes besties with Fr. Vincent. He would rather hang out with the sisters than the cardinals any day of the week.

[mariacallous]

Editor's note: This is an adapted excerpt from “The Contemporary Black Church: The New Dynamics of African American Religion,” which will be published by New York University Press in August 2024. Data cited in this article is from the cumulative file of the 1972-2022 General Social Survey.

In recent decades, we have witnessed major structural transformations and cultural developments that have profoundly impacted the Black Church, and these changes have strongly influenced political attitudes and political affiliations among African Americans. Today’s Black Church is primarily comprised of four traditions: Baptists, Methodists, Holiness/Pentecostals, and non-denominational Protestants. Some quick religious history and demographic information sets the tone for understanding changing politics among African Americans; the former traditions were established more than a century ago, while non-denominationals (i.e., nondenoms) were nearly nonexistent but have multiplied their flock several times over since the late 1980s.

Data from the 1972-2022 General Social Survey (GSS) indicates that Baptists comprise the largest Christian tradition in Black America by far at 43%, and they along with Methodists (five percent) help to comprise the “mainline” branch of the Black Church’s denominational family tree. Conversely, Holiness/Pentecostals (six percent) and nondenoms (12%) comprise the “evangelical” branch of the tree. It’s also worth mentioning that the percentage of religious nonaffiliates (or African Americans who do not claim to follow any particular faith) has sharply risen to 20%. In today’s world, religious “nones” are now the second largest religious classification of Black America, and it continues to grow as mainliners (in particular) lose members.

African American political alignments have changed along with their religious affiliations, and this helps to explain a burgeoning diversity within Black America. Black America is not the political monolith that many people inaccurately believe that it is. For example, recent GSS data shows that there has been a double-digit decline—by as much as 43%—in the percentage of self-described political “liberals” among Baptists, Holiness/Pentecostals, nondenoms, and religious nonaffiliates. Most of these ideological switchers now describe themselves as political “moderates.” Furthermore, there has been a double-digit increase in the percentage of African Americans who claim to be political “conservatives” among nondenoms, Black followers of historically white evangelical traditions, Catholics, and religious “nones.” Indeed, only 13% of Black nondenoms claimed to be politically “conservative” in the early 1980s. However, at least 25% do so today, and there is no reason to believe that this slow but steady trend will reverse course any time soon due to changing ideological alignments among African Americans overall.

A driving assumption in the study of U.S. politics is that African Americans overwhelmingly identify as Democrats and consistently vote for Democratic candidates when exercising their right to vote. However, these expectations—like those for Blacks’ political ideologies—can no longer be accepted at face value. It is true that nearly 70% of African Americans across most religious classifications align themselves with the Democratic Party. However, there are some notable exceptions. No less than 77% of Methodists and 74% of Baptists think of themselves as “Democrats,” while only 60% of nondenominational Protestants do so. Moreover, one-third of nondenoms view themselves as “independents,” while more than half of religious nonaffiliates do so. These latter findings are especially important considering that nondenoms and “nones” are the two fastest-growing religious categories among African Americans in the post-Civil Rights era.

To be sure, the strength of African Americans’ affiliation with the Democratic Party has substantially weakened over the decades. In the early 1970s, 78% of Baptists viewed themselves as Democrats. However, only 68% do so now. Nondenoms and Catholics also experienced double-digit declines in alignments with the Democratic Party, while Holiness/Pentecostals, Baptists, and “nones” experienced double-digit increases among members who view themselves as independents. Although a whopping 90% of Methodists affiliate with the Democratic Party today, only 43% of religious nonaffiliates do so. This is by far the lowest percentage for any religious classification in Black America.

It is important to note that while many African Americans are moving away from the Democratic Party, they are not moving towards the Republican Party in any meaningful way. The percentage of Black Catholics who view themselves as Republicans increased by nine percent, while nondenoms and “nones” respectively increased by four percent and three percent. A multifaceted explanation for this boils down to the fact that many African Americans still don’t “trust” the Republican Party to address persistent racial discrimination and inequality. Nevertheless, Blacks’ commitment to social conservativism on various issues (such as homosexuality, for example) remains resolute, and affluent African Americans increasingly believe that they personally stand to benefit from conservative Republicans’ attention to lower taxes and other financial incentives that enhance their earning power. Thus, there is strong reason to believe that Black support for the Republican Party could expand with the passage of time.

What does all of this mean for the upcoming 2024 presidential election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump? In short, we cannot presume that the Black vote will automatically go to President Biden. In an election that will likely be decided at the margins, Biden will have to work to garner segments of the Black vote—particularly nondenominational Protestants and religious nonaffiliates. For instance, (1) Baptists and Methodists are statistically more likely to vote in presidential elections, and when they do vote, they do so overwhelmingly for Democrats. This is primarily because clergy within these mainline denominations led the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s (remember, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was Baptist). However, (2) nondenominational Protestants are significantly less likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Baptists and Methodists and are twice as likely to vote for Republicans. And finally, (3) while religious “nones” tend to vote for Democrats, they don’t turn out to vote nearly as consistently as Baptists and Methodists. Thus, if the Democratic Party wants to garner the support of these different blocs in Black America, it must figure out a way to bridge a gap between believers who comprise the backbone of the Black vote and nonaffiliates who require an additional layer of motivation to cast their vote since they consider themselves to be “independents.”

So, while President Biden has some work to do, there is room for former President Trump to make gains among the fastest-growing Christian tradition within the contemporary Black Church—those nondenominational Protestant voters who identify as “conservative” and/or might vote for Republicans on the basis of their privileged pocketbook rather than what could seemingly be beneficial for Blacks in general. Trump must also hope that the “nones” sit out this election cycle.

[bwv572]

Anyway, now that I'm refreshed, I've got annoying political observations to make.

I thought it was funny that for the past 8 years, democrats have been trying so hard to create a patronage network (i.e. the only actual way politics works) for gay people, and all the hipster gays on here were crying about rainbow capitalism, claiming they were being "pandered" to, and ultimately spurning their would be patrons.

It's kind of cliche at this point to acknowledge that LGBT, for the youth, is the new subculture that replaced the musical subcultures of the 80s and 90s, but you really saw the parallels of it during the Biden administration, when it went "mainstream", and the attitude of the most annoying people in the world was essentially "we liked it before it was cool". You saw schisms between mainstream supporters and people who wanted to hold on to an "underground" aesthetic, where "real LGBT" are supposed to be anticapitalist and unemployed and not have driver's licenses and play secret video games and so on.

The episcopal church, probably the gayest of all the mainline protestant churches, with tons of gay clergy, the first of the mainlines to embrace same sex marriage, and tons of openly gay congregants, released a new and authorized version of the episcopal shield emblem with a pride flag on it, replacing St. George's cross. How did r/episcopalian react to this? With scorn and distaste. So many replies essentially said "this is low effort pandering". One poster replied "okay, so they put a pride flag on the shield. But what have they done for us lately?"

The answer to that question is rather funny. What they did was they deposed and defrocked traditionalist bishops and priests who followed the "conscience clause", sued them to confiscate their buildings, forcing the separation of the episcopal church and its now conservative offshoot ACNA, driving away 20% of their members (and driving away another 20% during the "rainbow capitalism" phase), driving out the majority of conservatives in the church and thereby establishing it as a liberal denomination, forcing all new clergy to accept gay marriage and "trans visibility" within the church, using headquarter funding to support Black Lives Matter and various progressive patronage networks, etc. "But what have they done for us lately?". Besides, the accusation of pandering when the church itself is super gay, like old-school gay, is also in and of itself funny.

They threw all of their eggs in one basket, and the people they most wanted to patronize wanted nothing to do with it. Worshiping god and bringing people to heaven through the sacraments was an afterthought. The church is probably going to collapse soon as the overwhelming majority of parishioners are over 60.

And now the "good times" are over for that crowd. All of their patrons, in the civil and economic sphere at any rate, are turning on them and the government is now cutting these patronage networks off. And why wouldn't they? They've been punished by the crowd they alienated AND the crowd they patronized. They lost everything. The rainbow coalition literally had it made for those years, they didn't appreciate it, AND they somehow thought that the state of affairs would go on forever. I suppose this is why they didn't care to support their patrons, since they believed the "pandering" would eventually pass and everything else would stay the same.

[entanglingbriars]

To me the thing about cultural christianity, is that even in America, it is partly ethnic. Like Hinduism is part of most ethnicities from the Indian subcontinent and some from elsewhere, christianity is part of most ethnicities from the region of Europe, and some from elsewhere.

But I think this has much more things to offer us, as a tool in decentering belief, than as a cudgel. Christian cultured atheists, who want to connect both horizontally to others now, and vertically to their heritage, should ideally have as much access to this as atheistic Jews. Going and singing and participating in ritual from your ancestors with community can be healing regardless of belief. Taking freely from the cultural inheritance, the long history of Christianity, without feeling bound to parts that are no longer relevant, is Christian cultured people's right.

Religious christianity is largely in a poor place to embrace this. Obviously the denominations that are somewhat explicitly post Christian, but with Christian heritage are an option, namely UU and liberal Quakers. But some congregations in mainline protestant denominations too are welcoming to atheists. And the advice of if it sucks, hit the bricks, always applies. In many ways, with the massive decline of liberal christianity, it really is their loss if they chase away someone interested in participating in anyway.

I'd advise against the Quakers for anyone wanting ritual in their spiritual life; they don't do it. UU is an option, but it's not for everyone and there's a wide array of worship practices a US Christian might have grown up with and wish to engage in secularly and no one UU service can incorporate all of them.

Acceptance of atheist members by mainline Protestant churches is going to vary wildly not just by denomination but by individual church. It's a mistake to think that mainline Protestants don't take their belief in God seriously, and if you aren't already baptized I doubt almost any of them would baptize an atheist, but in general churches tend to actively want people to show up and try attending (if you're a millennial or younger and show up at almost any kind of religious service they're going to be incredibly happy to see you).

I think that if the CSA scandal in the Catholic Church hadn't occurred, there would be increasing room for secular US Catholics (which are definitely a thing), but the CSA scandal did happen and soured pretty much anyone who doesn't actively desire Real Presence in the Eucharist and affirm the primacy of the chair of St. Peter from wanting to participate in Catholicism. If the RCC had responded appropriately to the crisis, they might have been able to undo the damage, but they didn't so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[apilgrimpassingby]

Made the mistake of watching Redeemed Zoomer's latest video. Of course, it's about how Lutherans, Anglicans and Reformed (but mostly Reformed) are the real Protestants and liberals and Evangelicals are stealing their name and discrediting the Reformation, which is why we need people to join mainline Protestant churches.

"... his entire output [is] in reality an endless repetition of the same thing, under its laboured cleverness as simple and boring as ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians’." George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism".

[ivan-fyodorovich-k]

One of the most obvious shortcomings the church needs to repent of is its failure to take seriously its mistreatment of its own people. It has become terribly clear that no branch of the church is free of the abuse of vulnerable people by the very clergy charged with their care. Every Roman Catholic I know is painfully aware of the horrors of the abuse scandals revealed in the last twenty years: not only the fact of abuse itself but its cover-up by Catholic leaders at all levels of the church hierarchy. More recently, the Southern Baptist Convention has been in the news for that body’s failure to suspend abusive pastors. Mainline Protestants sometimes like to think that our social liberalism or embrace of women in ministry prevent abuse, but they do not. Both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have recently been rocked by allegations of bishops’ misconduct and the failure of church institutions to respond appropriately upon being informed of abuse. It may well be, as is sometimes alleged, that churches have no higher rates of abuse than other organizations that involve work with vulnerable or marginalized populations. But “we’re no worse than anyone else” is hardly a compelling message for the church to share with an increasingly skeptical world. For abuse not only damages those subjected to it, but it also turns others away from the church in moral revulsion. This means people are rejecting Christ because of what has been done in his name.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

by Ryan Foley | Pastors at mainline Protestant churches are much more likely to identify as liberal than their congregants as most of them hold progressive positions on hot-button social issues, according to a new survey. The Public Religion Research Institute released the results of a study based on responses collected between November 2022 and…

[koko-mochi]

What faith are you a pastor of?

I belong to a progressive mainline Protestant denomination in the United States. Yes, we do exist.

I believe in the extravagant welcome of Jesus Christ, the essential dignity of all beings, and the call to fight for justice and liberation for all oppressed peoples.

I hope that helps answer your question, anon. God bless.

[revlyncox]

The Shepherd's Prayer 2023

Embracing the diversity of belief and the diversity of spiritual practice among Unitarian Universalists, we can still say that there is value in a deliberate and spiritually connective practice that reinforces positive intention. May we pray with courage. May we pray with love for the incarnate. May we pray with sincerity.

Today we’re talking about simplicity in spiritual practice, and how that simplicity can give us room for surprises, reversals, or respite. This time of year can be a wild ride, whether you are buffeted by the surprise deadlines and commitments that pop up between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day, or by the whims of the market, or by official actions that target vulnerable people, or the stress of being human, or just by being present to the transformational power of the season. One of the ways to cope with all of that uncertainty is through spiritual practice, including but not limited to prayer. In some ways, spiritual practice puts us in a vulnerable position, one where we might need to acknowledge that we don’t control the universe, or one where we admit that we need help, or one where we dare to hope. That takes courage. When I was a teenager, there was an elder in my community who modeled this courage.

Fear Not

I settled into the folding chair, straining my eyes under the fluorescent lights in the church social hall. The accordion walls and room dividers crossed paths to form four classrooms. My brothers were doing arts and crafts in the religious education building. I had “graduated” from the children’s program, so I “got” to choose an adult class for the new Learning Community Hour. I looked around at the adults, all at least twice my fifteen years.

A woman I will call Florence led the class. She had been a fixture in the congregation for as long as I could remember. She invited us to open by repeating the Lord’s Prayer together. I sat right next to her, so I heard her clearly as she started to pray.

I never realized until that moment that Florence used INFLECTION as she prayed. I had learned this prayer by rote. I had always heard the line break in the middle: “Thy will be done/ On earth as it is in heaven,” but she went right on through, “Thy will be done on earth.”

Florence said the prayer like she meant it, not like she was reading words off a page. She sounded like she really thought the name was hallowed.

I cocked my head to look at Florence. I had always thought she was a calm, respectable person. I had never known her to erupt into fits of religious fervor. Could it be that this pillar of my mainline, liberal, Protestant church was a fanatic?  My ears roared with fear of this small woman with a big prayer.

Luckily, I did not react out of my fear in that moment, but sat through my discomfort. And, in later years, I lived and learned about neighbors with all kinds of religious and spiritual traditions. I learned to appreciate it when someone shared a moment of prayer that gave comfort. I eventually tried it for myself. I learned to love the physicality of speaking words of prayer or meditation, and letting that sensation awaken my heart and soul. 

It seems like every once in awhile those of us who find value in organized religion find it necessary to remember the value of disorganized religious experience. We gather in religious communities in order to be held accountable, lest our spiritual practices become stale and meaningless. In this morning’s story, the scholar is reminded by the shepherd that the prayer of the heart is the true prayer. It brings comfort and hope to all who hear it. The prayer completed without care is a word without wings.

At this point, I want to stop and do some translating. This is a pluralistic community. We have a lot of ways of expressing our Unitarian Universalism. Some practices are contemplative, like chanting or meditation. Service is very important in our tradition, and I know many here concentrate on service as their prayer. As I think about the UU’s I know, I can count the practitioners of at least a dozen embodied traditions: Tai Chi, Yoga, Aikido, sacred dancing, labyrinth walking, and others. Some of us pray to god or goddesses or a divine force, others don’t find ideas like god or divinity useful. For today, let’s try defining prayer as a deliberate practice that reconnects us with the source of blessing as we understand it and that reinforces positive intention. Whether it’s community service or Yoga or talking to god or chanting or any other practice, prayer is a deliberate and spiritually connective practice that reinforces positive intention.

Another way I’d like to make room in this discussion is by saying that, in prayer, it is often a good idea to let go of outcomes. In prayer or meditation or other kinds of spiritual practice, we can express a hope, but even the most faithful do not get exactly what they pray for every time. It’s a spiritual practice, not a vending machine. Prayer, for me, is a way of opening up awareness, holding people and the planet in love, and reconnecting with the understanding that I am held by the Source of Love. Whether or not you believe that God or the Universe makes changes in response to requests made in prayer, spiritual practice changes us, and changing us can help us get ready to change the world in positive ways. Prayer helps me to notice and act on opportunities to be better, to do better, and to organize with other people doing the work of justice and compassion.

Connection with transcendent mystery and wonder comes to us in many ways. Sometimes we cultivate it by a regular spiritual practice. Sometimes that connection comes to us spontaneously, such as in nature or while listening to sacred music. The prayer of the heart seeks out and draws from the source of blessing as we understand it to be.

Love the Incarnate

Did you hear a change recently in the ambient music all around you? Advent doesn’t officially start until next week, but the last gates of restraint on winter holiday music opened up on Friday. We’re going to hear about Christmas whether we like it or not. So you might have been reminded recently of another story of shepherds who were out in the fields, “keeping watch over their flock by night.” 

In both the nativity story and with the folk from this morning’s wisdom tale, shepherds represent simplicity. They are people we can identify with: they have jobs, they don’t necessarily understand what’s going on most of the time, they feel vulnerable to the elements.

In the nativity story, the shepherds find transcendent wonder. They are both inspired and terrified by the angels. A sense of awe and wonder can spur us to action. In the cast of the shepherds, their course of action leads to a human baby in a trough usually used for animal feed. And this is the pinnacle of their religious experience.

This is what I mean by surprises and reversals. To be connected with a spiritual life is to be open to the possibility that we might be wrong, that we might have something left to learn, that the foundations of what we have assumed about the way the world works might be turned upside down. Those who are learned may be ignorant in some important ways. Those who are powerful may yet yield to a reconciliation with the people. The last shall be first. The physical world is not lower or less holy than the unseen world. 

The incarnate world, the embodied world of babies and domestic animals and shepherds and fields, is divine. The shepherd in the folk story notices the divinity of wool, a grassy field, a clear stream, and the starry night. Direct experience with the physical world inspires the shepherds in both stories. When I remember to connect with the physical world, I am inspired to give thanks for that sense of wonder.

The prayer of the heart is a grounded prayer. It fosters a love affair with the physical world, a sense of transcendence rooted in immanence. The prayer of the heart teaches us to love the incarnate.    

Pray like you Mean It

Flour and salt and water squish through our fingers, being transformed from pantry items into a craft project. My partner is telling me about the Sunday School curriculum she’s writing on prayer.

“There’s this idea in Judaism about kevah and kavanah. Kevah means the set text of a prayer, the words as they are written in the prayer book. But the words of the prayer, the mechanics, are only half of it. There’s also kavanah, the intention. You mean to do the practice, and you’re actively engaged in it. I’m going to have one bowl with crusty, dry salt dough. That dough has a lot of kevah. The salt and the flour represent structure. Another bowl with goopy, slimy salt dough has a lot of kavanah. The water represents a spiritual intention, lots of overflowing love. If you mix the two together, you get dough that’s not too dry and not too goopy.”

I had heard before of kevah and kavanah, and it hadn’t occurred to me that it was a useful concept for most people, including third-graders. But why not?�� The balance between structure and spirit is a dynamic that affects a lot of us.

Spiritual teachers like my family and other loved ones remind me to notice where I am on that balance. I look back on times in my life when I didn’t want to conform to a method or open myself up to a faith community, I just wanted to have my groovy personal experience with whatever spiritual experiment that was bringing me comfort or fun. I could have used more kevah in those moments to help me stay grounded in responsibility. I can look back at service projects, martial arts classes, and rituals when I just wanted to get the technique right or rush through the motions, not allowing the experience to settle into my heart and soul. I could have used more kavanah in those moments.

Some days I need one more than another. In meditation, in gardening, in expressions of gratitude around the dinner table, sometimes my spiritual practices are more focused on structure and sometimes my practices are more infused with intention. There are days when my heart is too heavy to be fully present. On those days, I hang on to the structure. Keeping up my practice on uninspired days opens the way for those other times, when the intention of the prayer affects my outlook on life and allows me to appreciate the interdependent web.

If I have too many days in a row of all kevah and not enough kavanah, I start to get cranky. I forget about cooperating with the natural flow of things. My back droops with the weight of resentment. My body tenses as I cling to ideas and goals that have outlived their usefulness. My throat closes up, guarding against the eruption of laughter.

When that happens, I might reconnect with kavanah again by remembering Florence and her heartfelt prayer. I learned from her that praying from the heart shines like a multitude of angels. And just when I’m sore afraid, I remember: Have courage. Love the incarnate. Pray like you mean it.

I spoke earlier about all of the ways Unitarian Universalists pray. If you walk a labyrinth, walk like you mean it. Be mindful of your intention to walk in the ways of the UU tradition. If you chant, remember that your voice is joined with others in this congregation. If service is your prayer, remember that service is your prayer, and that you have a faith community that backs you up. Whatever your practice, pray like you mean it. Let your prayer be simple and true. Let the words and actions bring comfort and hope to all who witness them. So be it. Blessed be. Amen.

[featuresofinterest]

i grew up in the conservative branch of the lutheran church which a lot of people would consider "evangelical" because it's not liberal like a lot of the so-called "mainline" denominations but it's also not what most people think of when they think of "evangelicals". really depends on how you define these terms. protestant as a category encompasses sooooo much and trying to divide that group neatly in half just isn't possible lol