Free Exercise and mainline decline and confession of 1967

Though the race "platform" in C-67 might not have been tremendously controversial, even though the ambitiousness of its scope would call into question traditional images of the church, the national security paragraph threw down the gauntlet. Recall that in image (1) of the church, from the previous essay, stressed the importance of Church membership to differentiate us Americans from the "godless" communists. Now, listen to the platform on national security.

The paragraph begins with a theological principle.

"God's reconciliation in Jesus Christ is the ground of the peace, justice, and freedom among nations which all powers of government are called to serve and defend" (II.A.4.b).

Ok. Bring the concept of reconciliation into international relationships. Not bad. Then we hear:

"The church, in its own life, is called to practice the forgiveness of enemies and to commend to the nations as practical politics the search for cooperation and peace. This search requires that the nations pursue fresh and responsible relations across every line of conflict, even at risk to national security, to reduce areas of strife and to broaden international understanding" (Ibid.).

Under the guise of being "radically Christian" or "prophetic" or whatever adjective you want to select, these words actually call into question model (1) of the Church. How so? Well, when the Confession says that one ought to pursue reconciliation with all "even at risk to national security," the Confession is saying that identification with the nation is secondary to identification with God and Christ's reconciling work. I am not disagreeing with this position; indeed, it has good claims on being a "truer" Christian position than (1) from the previous essay. But we should see how it is incompatible with (1). If you are a member of the church because membership is a sign of standing against Communism, then how can you go so far as to risk national security in order to be faithful to the Gospel? You precisely can't or won't risk national security. These two visions of the Church then clashed with each other, but the words as appearing in C-67 were adopted. It must have been the high point of the liberal consciousness in the Church when this happened. Not only was the social action ministry of the church in society affirmed, but the peace initiative of the most liberal in our society was embraced. In fourteen years the church had gone from baptizing a bland President, who identified church membership with anti-Communism, to a ragingly liberal agenda on social issues.

Over the Cliff

But the adoption of C'67 was not enough for the liberals. Social justice would become, even more strikingly, the identifying focus of the Church. In January 1971 the Council on Church and Race of the (Northern) Presbyterian Church donated $10,000 to the legal defense fund of a confessed Communist, Angela Davis. You can imagine the dissonance that now would settle in among the faithful WWII generation which joined the church in droves in the 1950s and early 1960s to demonstrate they were loyal Americans. Why are we now giving money to people we thought were our enemies? One could explain until one was blue in the face that the American justice system might be infected with the same brand of racism that was condemned so strongly in C'67 (II.A.4.a), that Davis was merely charged with offenses (she was ultimately found not guilty of charges of being an accomplice to murder, kidnapping, and conspiracy, in the fatal shooting of a judge and others in a Marin County trial in 1969), that the American justice system required a strong defense in order for true "equality" to happen, but the rank and file of the Church just didn't believe it. Or, to state it differently, they became instinctively aware that what they thought was church really wasn't.

Freezing that Moment

Thus, if we could freeze the action in January 1971, we would have found the following: a denomination thoroughly divided about the central principle of its existence. Was its central mission in 1971 to support notions of equality and justice, to right wrongs in society and around the world (even at risk to national security) or was it to be a bulwark of good American values, including anti-communism? And, then, a third force began to enter the mainline churches powerfully at this time. The early 1970s saw the first harvest of the evangelical movement in these churches--or, the emphasis that Church was to be a community of those touched by the grace of God in Christ. How would this group be integrated into a church that was beginning to come apart at the seams? They would eventually say "a plague on both of your houses," but how helpful was it, then, to have not two but three distinct visions of what a church should be? All might agree with the true, but innocuous, statement that "Christ alone is the head of the Church," but once you got beyond platitudes or reading the Bible language together, you were completely at sea with each other. And, things would grow only worse in the 1970s-today. No one, as far as I can tell, can suggest an adequate way out of this dilemma. Whenever mission is unclear, things decline. That, in essence, is my analysis of the mainline predicament.

Possibilities for Hope?

Episcopalians have the Book of Common Prayer; Methodists have the Spirit; Presbyterians have the "Word"; Congregationalists have a long tradition of social activism; other denominations have other things, but the mainline churches simply can't agree on how to apportion their energies or what is most important for them. As a result, their energies dissipate, and younger people, who have energy to burn, put it elsewhere. Churches that emphasize one of these three purposes and minimize the other two can continue to grow, but they have to be quite clear what their focus is. But most churches and pastors remain deeply confused and deeply troubled. Many have probably lost their faith, though they have to keep quiet about it so they don't lose their pensions. Who could have imagined this in the glory days 50 years ago?

2120