Remember the moment in My Fair Lady when Prof. Henry Higgins wonders with great frustration "why can't a woman be more like a man?" A recent column by Richard Amrhine in the Free Lance-Star posted at Fredericksburg.com sounded a little like that.
"Catholics don't rock the boat," the headline for Amrhine's article declared. After suggesting the election of Benedict XVI as pope presented Roman Catholic dissenters with a "love it or leave it" choice, he commented:
It is a curious position for any organization to take, especially one that thrives on expanding its ministry and increasing its numbers. But perhaps it sees a payoff in the long run--that those who adhere to church doctrine, and those who now join the flock knowing its direction, will make it an even stronger, if more compact, institution.
His column offered an alternative strategy for changing times: changing. Changing like his paper changed, for example, from afternoon to morning publication. The paper embraced the change,
...even if it meant sacrificing some longtime subscribers accustomed to receiving an afternoon newspaper. Some readers did say goodbye, but in the long run that decision is paying off with growing circulation numbers and a bright future.
But such a change is not likely to come in the Roman Catholic church, he laments. Instead, the church is intent on "pursuing its circle-the-wagons mentality to ward off even fellow Catholics with differing views." Rather than being open to dissent, he writes, the church "will instead remain true to its doctrine no matter what."
For Amrhine, doctrine seems to be just one of those details, very negotiable in the interests of broadening participation. Which completely misunderstands the place of doctrine in the church.
Amrhine's illustration of positive change involves an incidental detail. A paper published at 6 a.m. is not qualitatively different from a paper published at 4 p.m. Time of publication would dictate the exact details of items included, but not the nature of the paper itself. A comparable choice for a church would be the decision to hold worship at 9 or 11 a.m.
But what if the Free Lance-Star began to think more radically about bringing in more readers? Maybe devoting page six to celebrity gossip. People like to read that kind of thing. A regular lucky number contest would also generate some new interest in the community. People love those kinds of contests. Maybe a glamour shot on page 3. Cheesecake and beefcake photos are great draws, and surely nobody would have a problem so long as it was tasteful and artistic.
Of course, newspapers have limited news holes, so some features and analysis would have to be dropped to make room for the new features. But surely the trade off would be worth it if it brought more readers to the reporting that remained.
But the trade off begins to change the nature of the paper. Step by step, our imaginary makeover of the Free Lance-Star changes it from a serious newspaper into something like a supermarket tabloid. It may save the paper by bringing in more readers, but the process of change would have, to borrow the classic military phrase, destroyed the paper in order to save it.
Just as the true value of the newspaper is diminished by compromising the news hole, no matter how many people it brings in, so also the true value of the church is diminished by compromising its beliefs, no matter how many people that compromise brings in. Christians are members of "God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15 (NIV) A weak, shifting foundation is a sign to get out of a building, not rush into it.
And that is what has been happening. Those churches which have the most relaxed approach to doctrine, to truth and belief, are the churches that have suffered the most precipitous membership decline. On the other hand, those which have been stronger in their sense of confessional identity have had more stable membership.
Ironically, Amrhine offers evidence of this in his own column. He notes some information Pat Buchanan found in "a book titled Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II." For example, "in 1958, three in four American Catholics attended Mass on Sunday, but only one in four do so today."
But what was Vatican II but an attempt by church leaders to shake off some accumulated historical and traditional dust and become more relevant today? Why would someone expect the even greater compromises with culture Amrhine proposes to do anything other than push the church even further down that declining path?
Amrhine suggests,
Any church is at its best when it welcomes with open arms, then uses those arms to reach out and help others in need. ...
Whether it does this in the name of a particular God or not is not as important as that it is done in the name of love.
Which I guess means Amrhine finds churches most valuable when they're humanitarian organizations like the charities he supports. But that reduces the church to a social service agency with a few devotional thoughts thrown in. And it diminishes the thing that makes the church unique and valuable in society, its presence as "the pillar and foundation of truth."
People may call it circling the wagons, but churches are strongest when they are who they were meant to be, a firm place to stand on the faith delivered to the saints.
No comments:
Post a Comment