"Can 'Liberal' Christianity Be Saved? It Already Is.

In his July 15th piece in the New York Times, "Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?" Ross Douthat argues that (what he calls) "liberal Christianity" is on the decline. I think the opposite may be true. "Liberal Christianity" may even be flourishing, in an evolved state; helped along, in the industrialized world at least, by fundamentalist (so-called) "Christianity" and the psychic despotism of today's Vatican. Conspicuous consumption of religion is not a reliable means of measuring the vitality of "liberal Christianity" because the truest indication of "liberal Christianity's" strength may be its willingness to reject the corruption of clerical hierarchies in favor of "throwing down" with the Christ of the streets. If it is to survive, Douthat argues, "liberal Christianity" will have to offer what "secular liberalism" (as he calls it) cannot. A worthy enough premise. But "liberal Christianity" already does that. "Liberal Christianity" is already offering what neither today's conservative Christianity nor secular liberalism provide: Christ, without the ecclesiastical trappings.

To measure the vitality of "liberal Christianity" as one might measure the robustness of a business -- in terms of number of consumers, conversions, baptism and vocations -- is to miss the point of what a church actually is. Christians of all stripes do tend to agree that the ministry of Jesus was not focused on filling pews or increasing priestly vocations. Doing the work of Christ with Christ in mind is church. "Liberal Christianity" takes seriously the obligation to increase peace, serve the poor, love "the stranger," forgive the guilty, and protect the innocent while maintaining structure for worship and teaching. The great majority of people who do "works of mercy" in the context of religious practice (what daily mass-attending Dorothy Day called them) do have prayer lives.

The worship lives of those I know who do social justice work in the context of their religious affiliations and practices do so with God in the forefront of their thinking and feeling. I worked for several years with a group of lawyers from a Protestant church who advised indigent people on housing, food stamps and free and low-cost medical insurance. This "liberal" Christian Protestant ministryoperated out of a Roman Catholic church. The Protestants were progressive-minded but were also far more conspicuously prayerful at the site where we offered free legal advice to clients that the Roman Catholics were.

This Protestant Church had a website instead of a church building, conducted Sunday services in rented space in a local school, and their church, except on Sunday morning, was focused almost entirely on doing social justice work for people outside of their church. On the face, this church might look like the kind of church Douthat erroneously imagines to be offering little beyond "what secular liberalism" offer, but Pro forma sacrament and groupthink are not what the orthodoxy-challenging Jesus on earth was after. The goal of Jesus was not to get crosses outside the courthouse and pleats on school girls. His goal was to teach us to love the marginalized, resist the urge to wage war, bring consciousness to our worship lives and to revere the prophets and tradition of the Hebrew Bible and to look to the Resurrection. My religious truth lies in the Roman Catholic Church, yet I am Christian enough to recognize that it is quite often churches which are short on rules and gothic flourishes that most succeed in being authentically "Christian."

I visited Rome earlier this month and spent a day and a half in the Vatican with my 17 year-old daughter. As we exited the Apostolic Palace, having just spent about 30 minutes sitting amid the flashbulb din of the Sistine Chapel, my girl quipped: "Just like Disney World, the end of the tour drops you off in the store." The art of the Vatican - even despite the blundering fig-leaf campaign bastardizations - moved me to tears, but I came away feeling uneasy about the moneylenders-in-the-temple aspect of St. Peter's Basilica. Conservative Christianity may offer much that secular aspects of social and political life don't begin to provide, but at what cost? The truth is "Liberal Christianity" is redundancy. If it's not "liberal," it's probably not "Christian." If it countenances greed, the making of war, the polluting of the earth, prejudice -- it is not Christianity.

Douthat takes a few swipes the Episcopal Church in his piece. He, in effect, derides a Protestant bishop who in 2006 addressed the question of a reduction of Episcopalians in the pews by making reference to a "liberal's" disposition toward limiting family size: 

Leaders of liberal churches have alternated between a Monty Python-esque "it's just a flesh wound!" bravado and a weird self-righteousness about their looming extinction. (In a 2006 interview, the Episcopal Church's presiding bishop explained that her communion's members valued "the stewardship of the earth" too highly to reproduce themselves.)

Our pope has taught that sins against the environment should be taken seriously by Catholics. I know many Roman Catholic couples who have felt compelled for religious reasons not to "bring up" the Catholic "number" by spawning large broods. But according to Douthat, their refusal to breed like church mice is the least of what's wrong with Episcopalians:

I found the overall tone of Douthat's piece to be disrespectful toward Protestants:

As a result, today the Episcopal Church looks roughly how Roman Catholicism would look if Pope Benedict XVI suddenly adopted every reform ever urged on the Vatican by liberal pundits and theologians. It still has priests and bishops, altars and stained-glass windows. But it is flexible to the point of indifference on dogma, friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form, willing to blend Christianity with other faiths, and eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes.

I don't know what the Roman Catholic Church would look like if Joseph Ratzinger were to suddenly "adopt every reform ever urged on the Vatican by liberal pundits." Noone does. I do know, however, that to equate the ordaining of gay people and the consecration their marriages with "being friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form," is to engage in anti LGBT bigotry in God's name.

Douthat also thinks that "liberal" Protestant churches are throwing out the baby of theology with the baptismal water. Wrong again. I occasionally worship in Protestant churches while traveling, and have never seen evidence of theology being downplayed (I do see it downplayed with abandon in white suburban Roman Catholic churches, however.) Even in predominantly gay congregations, I have never seen any sign of "sexual liberation in almost every form" promulgated. More often I see old-fashioned family values grafted onto same-sex couples.

To call the Episcopal Church ""flexible to the point of indifference on dogma," is to engage in all-out anti-Protestant bigotry of the sort that even Joseph Ratzinger condemns. Catholics are called to honor the divine aspects of all faiths. I don't much like our pope, but I do give him credit for upholding Nostra Aetate's call for Catholics to appreciate the divine light that exists within faiths other than our own.

I am often exhorted by conservative Catholic critics to defect to the Episcopal Church where anything, they suggest, goes. While I have come to enjoy being shown the door by the rabid Holy Roman Catholic Rollers, I am often offended by the suggestion that the Episcopal Church is exists to serve as a receptacle for bad Roman Catholics. When Catholics leap to disparage the beliefs of fellow Christians, they both violate papal teaching and (much more important) strip their "Christian" belief of its Christ. To speak of "blending Christianity with other faiths" as if it were a bane is to forget, somehow, that all forms of Christianity were born of such a "blend." (Douthat should check out the writing of the great poet and priest Thomas Merton in order to see how the faith-blending he so despises can bring Catholics closer to God!)

Douthat focuses chiefly on Protestant faiths in "Can Liberal Christianity be Saved?" but he does turn to the Roman Catholic for an example of how "liberal Christian" vocations are down. He reminds us that progressive Roman Catholic orders have been unable to "generate enough vocations to sustain themselves" without noting that vocations in all manners of Christian church, along with attendance, are down. Vocations are down in liberal Roman Catholic orders because the Vatican is gunning for them. Vocations are down in "liberal" orders because a corrupt pontificate is chasing psychologically healthy, intelligent men with real desire to do Christ's work away, preferring instead to scrape the barrel for young, blindly obedient "yes men" with dreams of Father Flanagan puissance. "Liberal" Catholics are disgusted by the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church (which seemed headed in another direction 25 years ago). At present, all roads to Roman Catholic male ordination lead to Rome. Many who feel called to serve as priests today are loath to pledge obedience to a pope who treats conscientious objectors more harshly in than men who have facilitated the rape of children. That men who, given a more scrupulous pontificate, might otherwise enter seminary now seek instead more Christianity-compatible Catholic vocation workarounds is a sign of "liberal' Catholicism's strength -- not evidence of its frailty.

Douthat complains about the media's putative failure to report that the Vatican's investigation of convents was a part of a well-intentioned effort to ensure the survival of the religious orders under scrutiny, ones that prepare women to work in Catholic hospitals. ("RatzingerCare?") Maybe preserving an order that provides women willing to work for low wages in Catholic hospitals was part of the plan, but the more urgent reason for sending spies into convents was that convents are think tanks for women's ordination. I suppose it is not surprising that someone who believes the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Formerly known as the Office of Inquisitions) spied on nuns for their own good might, in the course of touching on "liberal" Catholic vocations, neglect to mention women's ordination, but the women's ordination movement does tell us much about where "liberal" Catholicism is headed.

While the number of male vocations in "liberal" orders of priests and nuns is on the decline, the number of women being ordained as Roman Catholic priests is increasing rapidly. The hysteria of those who insist that Roman Catholic women priests are not "real priests" has little bearing on the fact that the Women's Ordination movement is taking hold among moderate Catholics, who recognize that even our own Saint Peter (whom Catholics view as the first priest) was not considered a "real priest" in his day.

There are not many Catholic women priests in the U.S. and Europe at present, but Roman Catholic ordinations of women are on the rise. More significant than their number is that the woman's ordination movement is built to endure. It has a low overhead, international roots, much support from Roman Catholic bishops and moderate Catholics, and is Darwinian in nature. In other words it is built to survive and has gained way too much ground to be stopped. Whatever the next phase of Roman Catholicism is -- and most Catholics appear to agree that there will be a next phase, and some kind of essential shift -- the conservative church has already lost this war. The Vatican's last round of ammo was self-excommunication. Now that self-excommunications means nothing to a majority of Roman Catholics, Rome has zero leverage. There is now nothing the Vatican can do to slow down women's ordination.

The Vatican scandals which have come to light in the course of the Benedict XVI and John Paul II pontificates have helped the women's ordination movement along. When, two years ago, the US bishops compared the gravity of the "sin" of taking part in a mass celebrated by a woman to that of sexually assaulting a child, they alienated many moderate Catholics, women especially, while showing their true colors and betraying their desperation. By putting the kibosh on even discussing women's ordination, Ratzinger let women seeking ordination know that the time to stop asking had come. The focus has since shifted. There is less asking and we can expect to observe more taking. I have come to believe that Joseph Ratzinger may be the best thing that could have happened to the women's ordination movement. It may be that the pressure of a pope who longs for a medieval church provided exactly the kind of pressure and heat needed to turn the simple dark rock of the women's ordination movement into an unbreakable gem.

Throughout the U.S., even in conservative parishes, much of the work of running parishes is done by women. No examination of the rising and falling in Roman Catholic vocations should fail to take into account that there has been a shift in the involvement of male and female laity in churches in recent years and that there is strong feeling among progressive Catholics, priests included, that parishioners do a a fine job taking on work priests alone once did. Lay Catholics bring communion to the sick, work as catechists, serve on the altar, work as liturgical ministers and handle parish business. Lat people lead Communion services, preside at gravesite rituals and run social justice ministries. Progressive priests I know report great ambivalence about counseling men on vocations while voicing enthusiasm for a church in which laity do more. This openness to laity involvement casts new light on vocations to the priesthood.

Some priests welcome increased involvement by lay people because of concern about the formation and preparation of new priests. There is worry that the unofficial "don't ask, don't tell" (as it relates gay seminarians) policy, mandatory celibacy, and the Ratzinger-era devaluation of informed conscience are threatening to turn seminaries into intellectual wastelands. If the rise and decline of Catholic vocations is to be taken as a reflection of the weakness or strength of "liberal" Catholicism, quality as well as quantity should be taken into account. Douthat makes much of the decline of genuine theology in Christian churches, but nowhere is Catholic rigorous theology vanishing more quickly than in conservative seminaries.

While I may not agree with that priest down the block on contraception, chances are he was reasonably well-educated. No more. Dioceses are rooting around for seminarians, scraping the bottom of the barrel for recruits in the U.S. and recruiting under-educated, Magisterium-conditioned priests from poor regions of the developing world, hoping to turn out a better brand of Canon Code chimps. The Vatican wants adherents not shepherds. A trend toward emphasizing obedience at the expense of inquiry, scrutiny, discernment, scholarship and pastoral talent -- is taking hold. There is great fear among many priests that the priesthood is gradually being "dumbed-down." Ironically enough, it appears that women preparing for Roman Catholic ordination, who often to begin their preparation for Roman Catholic ordination already having undertaken Divinity studies, tend to embrace the scholastic rigors of preparing for the priesthood. They have a lot to prove, and they rise to the occasion.

Douthat's piece ends on an anti-Episcopal, disparaging note: 

What should be wished for, instead, is that liberal Christianity recovers a religious reason for its own existence ...
Today, by contrast, the leaders of the Episcopal Church and similar bodies often don't seem to be offering anything you can't already get from a purely secular liberalism.

Douthat is wrong. "Liberal Christianity"is offering something we don't get from a purely secular liberalism, and something we get precious little of from the Vatican:

It's called "Christ."

Follow Indie Theology on Twitter. 

Follow Michele Somerville on Twitter.

Catholics, Please Don't Go. (Just Keep Your Hands In Your Pockets)

It's not easy keeping up with Catholic news; perhaps that's how I was able to miss by Bill Keller 's opinion piece in the June 17th New York Times which offers a hard-to-argue-with opinion on why some Catholics should give up on the Catholic Church. He's mostly right. It is pathetic and futile, as Keller suggests, to petition the Vatican for change, but Catholics who leave because of the Vatican's dispositions toward gay people, women called to ordination, politically progressive nuns, or those who bolt in response to the hierarchy's failure to be fully accountable in the context of the sexual abuse crisis, are giving Ratzinger et al exactly what they want. The pontiff wants progressive Catholics to travel. I want them to stay, but boycott the collection basket.

I want them to try a no-expenses paid "staycation."

If wish I has had a nickel for every person who's told me to leave the church, or a dime for everyone who has accused me of not being a "real Catholic." I'm baptized, I am faithful to worship in Roman Catholic churches and I work in Roman Catholic ministry and (unlike at least one of the many men who has publicly accused me of not being a "real Catholic" I'm married to the parent of my children.)

Why I stay in the church is complex; the boiled-down version is this: I feel a responsibilty to my church.

The conservative fringe is hoping that the people who comprise the conscience of the church -- those who, in my estimation, keep the church truly tethered to the Christ of the cross -- will defect to churches the locksteppers deem less "true."

But as I see it the so-called "radical nuns," the gay Catholics who refuse to cave, the women priests and the many progressives who advocate tirelessly for the poor are the very heart of the Mystical Body of Christ. It is we, not the men dressed like chess pieces, who are the true church. We keep the church "Christ-based."

Keller writes:

Much as I wish I could encourage the discontented, the Catholics of open minds and open hearts, to stay put and fight the good fight, this is a lost cause... Summon your fortitude, and just go. If you are not getting the spiritual sustenance you need, if you are uneasy being part of an institution out of step with your conscience -- then go. The restive nuns who are planning a field trip to Rome for a bit of dialogue? Be assured, unless you plan to grovel, no one will be listening. Sisters, just go.

Do I worry that in some way I represent "an institution out of step with" my "conscience"? Absolutely. I worry often about "representing" a church whose man-made laws (doctrine) increase the suffering of the poor, the powerlessness of women, and causes deaths in developing regions.

The church does much excellent work in the developing world, but it also does great harm. Vatican policy in these regions is pernicious, and the corrupt hierarchy, as it loses the war in Europe and the North America, is pinning its hopes that a new breed of more Magisterium-adherent Catholics will flourish in Asia and Africa. Am I complicit in this harm? I don't know.

I know the church supports my prayer life, I believe that prayer can change the world, and I see my refusal to be silent in the face of the aforementioned transgressions as a contribution to the church and a statement of non-compliance. But maybe all Roman Catholics are willing accomplices in the Vatican's transgressions.

Still, I'm not sure a mass exodus of Catholic conscientious objectors would serve the Vatican's victims. And it often seems to me that the fine people who have given their lives to work for the church, those who teach and marry and heal and bury us in and out of the church deserve some kind of support. Furthermore, a mass defection of Catholics to Protestant churches would give Roman Catholic schools, our exquisite temples and a lot of gorgeous marble and glass to the bad guys.

Many Catholics give money to their parishes because they feel that theirs are in "good parishes" (by which I mean ones welcoming to progressive Catholics and their Social Justice concerns. Because they know that parishes with progressive leanings and low collections are the first to go, people in progressive congregations find themselves between a rock (perhaps that on which their church was built) and a hard place. Progessive parishes that don't "earn" are the first to go.

Still, even in these parishes, I am seeing more and more people declining to take part in collections while becoming radically inventive about how they share their hard-earned money with their church. Rule # 1 among progressive Catholics throughout the US, is to stiff Diocesan Appeals. Some Diocesan Appeals money helps to support schools and ministries for the poor, but it is entirely possible for Catholics who wish to support schools or charities run by the church to find ways support those programs directly. Also, when dioceses solicit contributions for Diocesan Appeals, they often circulate their list of corporate donors. Much of the corporate money comes from the non-Catholic private sector. Catholics who let these corporations know how they feel (as practicing Catholics) about today's Roman Catholic hierarchy, send a very powerful message.

The church is not a club. There are no dues. Catholics who want to stay and support the church without sending money to the pope can make many valuable contributions to their parishes. Contributing to particular ministries at a given church is often better than just dropping a check in the basket. Many secular groups are engaged in what I view as "Christ's work on earth." A Catholic can redirect church contributions to those groups, and know at least, that they are in no danger of further enriching the Vatican.

For people who have decided to remain in the pews, a policy on giving is a thing to be finessed. The truth is that feeling required by conscience to withhold financial gifts to a parish one loves is a real sacrifice; it doesn't feel very good. But we Roman Catholics have a tradition of sacrifice. We are called to put God and informed conscience before our Catholic hierarchy.

For people who are already doing what Bill Keller suggests --walking out the door in frustrated disinclination to further support a Vatican that is bereft of moral credibility, a collection "staycation" is worth a shot.

There is much one can do for a church and one's worship home that is not monetary. A Catholic can contribute time and talent instead of cash. He or she can volunteer to sweep the church, work as a lector, serve on the altar, decorate at Christmas, or minister to people in need. Perhaps the most important thing a progressive Catholic can do is work as a catechist, preparing children for the sacraments.

Want to really support that nun you like? Try giving her order your Advent collection money for Christmas this year.

A few weeks ago, the USCCB disseminated a bulletin insert throughout all the US. called "Why Conscience Is Important." I love this document because, with much help from its handful of references to "Letter from Birmingham Jail," it offers the best argument I've seen in a while for being Catholic under protest. ("An unjust law is no law at all." Martin Luther King Jr, quoting Augustine.)

There's a lot Catholics can learn from "Letter from Birmingham Jail": 

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

Keller's right to suggest that there's no upside to asking the Vatican for anything.

We should stop asking, and just take. In God's name.