Beyond the Ordinary

Sex, drugs, and rock and roll—What do churches approve of?

By Deborah Bruce

The Crystal Cathedral recently asked choir members to sign a covenant that includes the statement:  “I understand that Crystal Cathedral Ministries teaches that sexual intimacy is intended by God to only be within the bonds of marriage, between one man and one woman.”  Soliciting signatures resulted in backlash from choir members.  

Where do churches stand on that issue?  The U.S. Congregational Life Survey asked whether congregations have any “special rules or prohibitions” in seven areas—smoking, drinking alcohol, what people eat, gambling, how much people give to the congregation, unmarried adults living together, and homosexual behavior. (See Note 1.)  Of the seven issues, the largest numbers of congregations have rules about homosexual behavior (38% do) and unmarried adults living together (32%).  Overall, about one in three congregations have rules on those two issues.  Fewer have rules on the other issues (drinking alcohol, gambling, smoking, etc.).

Faith group makes a big difference.  But the overall findings mask significant differences.  As the first table shows, more than six in ten Catholic parishes and conservative Protestant churches have specific rules about both homosexual behavior and cohabitation outside of marriage.  And sizeable minorities of conservative Protestant congregations have rules about alcohol, gambling, and smoking.

 
Change since 2001.  The same questions were asked in the 2001 U.S. Congregational Survey, as well.  Since 2001, the proportions of Protestant congregations that have prohibitions about homosexual behavior and about unmarried adults living together have decreased.  The declines among mainline Protestants were much larger than among conservative Protestant churches.  There was no change among Catholic parishes.

 
So what?  Gallup has tracked public opinion on gay and lesbian rights for many years.  Their findings reveal gradual shifts toward more acceptance, with widespread support for equal rights in terms of job opportunities.

Yet Gallup does not focus on how congregations approach this issue.  Our results show a trend toward fewer restrictions in this area—and others.  It is particularly interesting that conservative Protestant congregations have become less restrictive in many areas since 2001.  Considerable change has occurred in only 8 years!

During this period many mainline denominations have struggled with their national policies regarding homosexuality—particularly regarding positions on ordination and marriage/civil unions of gays and lesbians.  At the same time, it appears that a substantial shift has occurred in local congregations around related issues.

Nonetheless, of the seven areas we asked about, homosexual behavior remains the one that the largest numbers of congregations report having rules.  Discussions about the topic will continue among congregations—and denominations—in the days to come.

---

Note 1.  Asked on the Congregational Profile completed by one person in each congregation—typically the pastor or an administrator.

Betrayal of values?

By Cynthia Woolever

Do our actions reflect our values? People in the pew point to multiple things in their congregation that they highly value. The three congregational aspects (from a list of 14 possibilities) that the largest numbers of worshipers most value include: (See Note 1.)

• Sharing in Holy Communion, Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper (47%)
• Sermons, preaching, or homilies (good news for pastors!) (38%)
• Traditional style of worship or music (31%)

One in five worshipers named another three items:

• Wider community care or social justice (22%)
• Contemporary style of worship or music (20%)
• Ministry for children or youth (19%)

Fewer than one in five worshipers chose each of the following items as what they most valued about their church:

• Reaching those who do not attend church (15%)
• Bible study or prayer groups, other discussion groups (14%)
• Practical care for one another in times of need (13%)
• Openness to social diversity (13%)
• Social activities or meeting new people (12%)

Fewer than one in 10 worshipers chose these last three items on the list:

• Prayer ministry for one another (8%)
• The congregation’s school or preschool (6%)
• Adult church-school or Sabbath-school class (5%)

These results represent worshipers’ values in many diverse denominations and faith traditions. Would Catholics value the same things that worshipers in Protestant churches value? It’s not likely.

The three things that conservative Protestant worshipers value most are:

• Sermons, preaching, or homilies (46%)
• Contemporary style of worship or music (32%)
• Reaching those who do not attend church (29%)

In contrast, mainline Protestant worshipers identified a somewhat different set of things that they value most about their congregation.

• Traditional style of worship or music (40%)
• Sharing in Holy Communion, Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper (40%)
• Sermons, preaching, or homilies (40%)

 What do Catholic worshipers most value about their church? Their responses are more similar to mainline Protestants than conservative Protestant worshipers. (While the top three choices among Catholics and mainline Protestant worshipers are the same, the order and percentages vary.)

• Sharing in Holy Communion, Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper (59%)
• Sermons, preaching, or homilies (35%)
• Traditional style of worship or music (30%)

Other value differences between faith traditions are apparent. More conservative Protestant worshipers value Bible study or prayer groups and ministry for children or youth. More mainline Protestant and Catholic worshipers place a high value on their church’s wider community care or social justice emphasis.

Conservative Protestant worshipers value reaching the unchurched—what actions would be consistent with that value? 

• First, conservative Protestants are more likely than other worshipers to invite someone to attend their church—six in 10 did so in the past year. In contrast, only about four in 10 Catholic or mainline Protestant attendees invited someone in the past year.
• Second, conservative Protestants feel more at ease talking about their faith and seek out opportunities to do so (one in four conservative Protestant worshipers gave this response, compared to 16% of Catholic and 13% of mainline Protestant worshipers).

Mainline Protestant worshipers value wider community care and social justice—what actions would be consistent with that value?

• First, more mainline Protestants are involved in the community service, social justice, or advocacy activities of their church (one in three said they were, compared to 9% of Catholics; 22% of conservative Protestants) and are involved in community organizations that focus on similar issues (four in ten said they were, compared to 30% of other worshipers).
• Second, more mainline Protestant attendees than other worshipers donate money to community charitable organizations (8 in 10 said they had donated funds in the past year, compared to seven in 10 other worshipers).

Catholic worshipers value their experiences during Mass—what evidence would be consistent with that value?

• Catholic worshipers are more likely than other worshipers to say they experience God’s presence and a sense of awe or mystery in worship (more than half of Catholics vs. four in ten Protestants “always” experience God’s presence; one in three Catholics and conservative Protestants “always” experience awe or mystery in worship; in contrast, only one in five mainline Protestants report the experience of awe or mystery in worship).

What we value as worshipers has consequences. Worshipers, who highly value reaching the unchurched, invite others to services. Worshipers, who highly value caring for others, volunteer in church and community organizations. Worshipers, who highly value Holy Communion as part of worship, experience God’s presence. If we don’t invite others, fall short of serving others in the church and community, or fail to feel God’s presence in worship—does it reflect what we truly value?   

---

Note 1.  Worshipers could choose up to three items from a list of 14 possibilities.

 

Embrace your inner failure!

By Deborah Bruce

Pastor J.R. Briggs struck a nerve when he facetiously proposed a conference to focus not on what pastors of large, growing churches are doing, but rather on ordinary pastors and their “failures (not their successes) in ministry and how God’s grace was present despite the messes.” 

Briggs reflected on his experience attending events where “successful” pastors spin their tales:

The experience “leaves attendees feeling as though they can’t possibly relate to the speakers on the platform. It can breed insecurity and comparison. Or, maybe worse, we walk away thinking we’ve found the silver bullet, the key concept, the perfect model that we can rush home and implement immediately. We’ve been convinced that the key method/approach/model/style will unlock the reason why our church isn’t doubling in attendance every three and a half months like the guy we heard share on stage.”

We’ve often discouraged congregational leaders from the trap of silver bullet approaches. Here are a few you might be familiar with:

• Location drives church growth. Any church in an area where population is growing will increase in size.
• The pastor is key. Calling the perfect pastor (often thought to be a young, good-looking, married man with a wife, who will work tirelessly for the church, and two adorable, well-behaved children) will make your church successful.
• A specific program will turn your church around. Church consultants and successful pastors often suggest their programs or resources will have miraculous results in all congregations.

 Yet there are no silver bullets!

• Churches grow in all sorts of locations—what’s happening inside your congregation is far more important that where you’re located.
• Different congregations need different types of pastors—the match between pastor and congregation is far more important than the characteristics of the pastor.
• Hearing how one pastor grew a church or how a church consultant helped re-energize others doesn’t mean those approaches will work for all churches—finding and developing ministries and programs to fit the uniqueness that is your congregation is far more important than using what worked elsewhere.

And Briggs makes an important point about failure. Congregational leaders who are willing to try new things—to risk failure—help their congregations become learning organizations. Congregations learn from both their successes and their failures.

Is your congregation resting on successes from days gone by? Or does openness to wild ideas and interesting possibilities drive a culture of innovation and change in your congregation?

Want to share your failures? Consider attending the Epic Fail Pastors Conference. Learn more.

Responding to disaster

By Deborah Bruce

In the wake of today’s earthquake in Japan, we offer a look at the extent to which congregations and worshipers are involved in disaster relief efforts. 

How are congregations involved in emergency services?

Congregations often contribute to such efforts by sending work teams to areas hit by earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters.  Overall about half of congregations (49%) sent individuals or groups to provide assistance to people in need in the previous year.  Catholic parishes and mainline Protestant congregations are more likely than conservative Protestant congregations to have sent people to help with relief efforts or other needs within the United States.  Protestant congregations are more likely than Catholic parishes to have sent people or groups to provide assistance in other countries.

 
Many congregations also provide emergency aid in their own communities.  Almost nine in ten congregations (87%) report providing emergency relief or material assistance (free meals, food, clothes for the needy) in the previous year.  Catholic parishes (92%) and mainline Protestant congregations (89%) are more likely than conservative Protestant congregations (83%) to be involved in such services.

To what extent are individual worshipers involved in relief efforts? 

We asked two questions that help answer that question.  The first asked whether worshipers had themselves participated in a mission or service trip in the previous year.  While this question did not ask separately about domestic and international work trips, it provides a first look at worshipers’ involvement in hands-on activities.  Overall, just 6% of worshipers reported going on work or mission trips. 

 But among some groups, mission trips are much more popular.  One-quarter (23%) of worshipers 15 to 18 years of age participated in a work trip in the previous year.  That percentage rises to 35% among teens in Protestant congregations. These young people experience first-hand what it means to put their faith into action by helping those in need.

We also asked worshipers if they made a financial contribution to a charitable organization other than their congregation in the previous year.  While we don’t know whether these charities provide disaster relief, support social services, fund research for diseases or medical conditions, seek to fight injustice, or meet other societal needs, contributing to such organizations is widespread among worshipers.  Almost three-quarters (73%) made such a contribution in the previous year.

Congregations and worshipers play a vital role in meeting needs in times of crisis.  How will you and your congregation help? 

Please pray for the people of Japan and seek ways to support the recovery effort through organizations active in Japan or through your denomination’s disaster assistance programs.  The online Congregational Resource Guide provides information about supporting disaster relief and evaluating nonprofit organizations and links to major independent and denominational disaster assistance groups. 

Who needs God?

By Cynthia Woolever

 The Center for Inquiry’s (CFI) new national media campaign wants us to know that people can get along just fine without God. Thank you so very much. CFI’s stated purpose is to “foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values,” so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised.

Citing the rise in nonreligious Americans, CFI’s launch aspires to dispel misconceptions about nonbelievers. (See footnote 1.)  To counter any notions that religious “nones” settle for empty and meaningless lives, the campaign slogan asserts, “You don’t need God—to hope, to care, to love, to live.” [To view the ad and video, visit livingwithoutreligion.org]

The slogan suggests that God is all about hope, caring, love, and living a great life. Period. Is that what believers think about God? Are worshipers the kind of people who emphasize the positives, while forgetting the harshness and judgment of the God described in the Old Testament? (See footnote 2.)  First, to pinpoint your view of God, see if you agree or disagree with the following two statements:

God is angered by human sin.

God is directly involved in worldly affairs.

If you believe that God is directly involved in worldly affairs and is angry because of our sins, then you see God as strictly authoritarian.

One-half of worshipers (53%) see God as authoritarian—an angry diety who is directly involved in our affairs. Another one in five worshipers also believe God is involved in our affairs, but don't see God as angry—they share a benevolent view of God. Believers with a benevolent view of God would probably dislike the CFI slogan the most. They see God as intimately involved in the good things in our lives.

Worshipers, who don't believe God is directly involved in our worldly affairs, understand God's role in the world as more passive or distant (around one in four hold this view). These worshipers might be more comfortable with people doing a lot of living, caring, hoping, and loving without God's immediate assistance. About 15% of all worshipers view God as passive and distant but not angry. The final 10% see God as distant and angry (a view of God as critical). Worshipers with this view might be skeptical of the CFI slogan because they do not believe God has any objections or anything to contribute to good people who love, care, and hope.

 

Because worshipers have diverse views about God's qualities and role in our lives, CFI's slogan misses the mark. If the CFI campaign goal is to influence believers about the character of nonbelievers, the garbled message confuses more than enlightens. And we definitely won't see their ad on a church bus.

---

Note 1.  About 16% of Americans are religious “nones” based on findings from the American Religious Identification Survey (http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/).

 Note 2. The full description of Americans’ view of God is based on research by Paul Froese and Christopher Bader (see their book, America's Four Gods: What We Say about God--and What That Says about Us, Oxford University Press, 2010). You can also take their longer “God Test,” with the complete set of questions used in their research at  http://www.thearda.com/whoisyourgod/

 

 

That will be the death of me

By Ida Smith-Williams

News came out recently that a main ingredient used in lethal injections is no longer being produced, prompting speculations about how that would affect upcoming executions. Another article cited the case of a death row execution where the drugs used may have been defective causing the inmate to have a painful death. Could these help instigate the death of the death penalty? The use of the death penalty has been declining around the world. Only five countries still carry out executions: China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.

All in favor of the death penalty say "aye."  A recent Gallup poll shows that, in the case of a person convicted of murder, 64% of Americans support the use of the death penalty. The attitudes of the average American on this issue have remained steady in the last decade. In 1936, when Gallup first asked this question, 59% of Americans supported the death penalty. In 1994, 80% of Americans favored the death penalty, the highest it has ever been.

What do worshipers think about the death penalty?  In 2001 and in 2008, the U.S. Congregational Life Survey asked this question: "Are there any cases in which you believe persons convicted of murder should receive the death penalty?"  Worshipers agreed with the majority of Americans. The percentage of worshipers who support the use of the death penalty basically stayed the same from 63% in 2001 to 68% in 2008.

 
More mainline Protestants favor the death penalty than do conservative Protestants or Catholics.

 
This surprised me. I thought worshipers would be less likely to support the death penalty. The Pew Research Center reports that religion is a key factor in influencing many people's opinions about the death penalty. Nearly one-in-five (19%) say religion is the most important influence. Among death penalty opponents, one-third (32%) say religion is the most important influence. Only 13% of death penalty supporters say religion is a strong influence on their opinion.

Off with their heads.  Supporters of the death penalty say the death penalty is needed. They believe it deters heinous crimes and sets an example for punishing those crimes. They justify it by saying "an eye for an eye." It may benefit the families of victims by allowing closure. Supporters also say it relieves prison overcrowding and saves taxpayer money.

Death to the death penalty?  Death penalty opponents argue it is wrong to take a life. Murder rates are actually higher in those states that carry the death penalty than those that do not.  In one study, respondents were evenly split on whether the death penalty deters criminals with 39% agreeing and 35% disagreeing. Four in five respondents (81%) believe innocent people have been executed in the United States. Studies show that the death penalty is applied unfairly, that certain groups (people of color, the poor) are more likely to receive the death penalty.

With the majority of Americans, including worshipers, still in favor of the death penalty, the death of the death penalty is not likely to happen soon.