Throughout the debate on the RDL, I have seen many posters write against the revision/reform (you can choose the word you like best here) by arguing that, as one poster recently wrote, "conservative churches qrow quicker" and "liberal churches" don't grow at all. (I have pointed out in other posts that I don't like these terms. A liberal Catholic is still more conservative than many conservative Protestants, etc.)

Since I have seen this argued several times, I would like to examine it. My first question is: can this be verified statistically? (I have other questions.)

It seems that the posters are thinking very locally (i.e., in the United States) and not thinking globally. I would suggest that this is a mistake.

Here is a summary of the latest statistics from the Vatican:

The Vatican said the growth in Catholic population varied by region, with Africa having the largest increase and Europe the smallest. During the 22 years of John Paul's papacy, the number of baptized Catholics increased by 137.4 percent in Africa, 90 percent in Central America, 86.6 percent in South America, 69.4 percent in Asia and the Middle East, 24.6 percent in North America and 5.8 percent in Europe, the Vatican said. (See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_28_38/ai_87022678 for a summary.)

One of the first things I would point out is that the Church is growing everywhere. I would secondly point out that the ideas of "conservative growing" versus "liberal declining" don't play out in the areas where the Church is growing the fastest -- ie., Africa, Central and South America.

These are the areas with some of the least traditional (at least from a Anglo-Eurocentric perspective) liturgical services.

My point is not to argue that liberal churches grow faster or that conservative churches grow faster, but simply to raise the question of whether this is a valid way of thinking about church growth at all.

In my previous life as an Episcopal priest, I worked as a full-time Church Growth specialist. I travelled around the country giving seminars on "how to grow a local church" and participated in larger seminars on the subject. What we found through this process is that churches grow (or don't grow) most often for local reasons -- e.g., how well they take care of their people, how loving and receptive the people are to visitors, what the reputation in the local community is -- and that very seldom (from a statistical point of view) does it matter if the church is "liberal" or "conservative" (remember we are talking about the Episcopal church!) or if it has a "traditional" or "modern" liturgical service. We also found that demographics have a lot to do with it -- The best Church doesn't grow if it is stuck in an area that is losing people. The best Church doesn't have young people if the local area does not provide adequate paying jobs for them. Etc.

My ultimate point is that the reform/revision discussion should not use Church Growth or the lack thereof as a reason either to oppose or to support it.*

*Note that this is not the same issue as the argument over which best expresses the content of the Gospel to the modern world. That is a different discussion.

PrJ,

I think you have some valid points, especially in regard to the relationship between overall community demographics and church growth.

However, I would note that a church is not defined as "conservative" or "liberal" merely due to their liturgical services. A major component is their attitude to traditional sin: is it condemned or excused? Most who argue that "conservative" churches are growing point to their challenging call to members to become holy, rather than just "accept" them in their sins.

Thus, a "conservative" church can have what many would consider a "liberal" liturgy - for example, many Evangelical churches are like this - and thus attract many people due to their acceptance of traditional morality and doctrine, regardless of their liturgy/service.

If this is true, I am amazed. Can you share the names of the scholars who are making this point and their works?

The studies I have seen indicate that the fastest growing churches are the Charismatic. What makes this interesting is that, theologically speaking, many of these Churches have reintepreted the context of sin to think of sin psychologically rather than theologically. (This is not true of their fundamental doctrinal statements but it is if you read their sermons. I suggest watching TBN for a while to get an idea of what the theological transformation sounds like.) As a general rule, they have moved away from a 'guilt' approach to sin and instead of seeing sin as a vertical failing (i.e., between the human and God) now see it horizontally (i.e., between human and human).

I have a strong hunch that the Charismatic and Pentecostal explosion is only temporary, and that it will begin contracting pretty soon. Emotions can only carry a movement so far, and once the emotion and the fire dries up, what then?

I fear that these movements will actually hasten the collapse of real religion.

In my own country, the Philippines, which is one of the centers of Catholic charismaticism, Catholic charismatic numbers are actually at a free fall, with thousands either getting burned out, disillusioned, becoming more traditional, or simply abandoning religious belief altogether.

Our two largest Catholic charismatic groups -- El Shaddai and Couples for Christ -- are both rapidly shrinking, the former due to its direputable political manuevering and financial scandals, the latter due to an acrimonious "civil war" among its leaders. Both used to have more than a million members each, the former boasting as many as 10 million members. Today, both movements have contracted into hundreds of thousands -- and are getting smaller by the day. The largest Evangelical-Charismatic groups ("Jesus Is Lord", "Jesus Miracle Crusade", etc.) have also lost a large portion (if not the majority) of their following due to their leaders' political games.

Instead, in the last five years or so, it is irreligion, secularistic attitudes and disbelief that have grown phenomenally. The collapse of many of the charismatic and evangelical groups seem to have actually hastened the advent of secularism into the Philippines, since these religious movements made too many Filipinos think that religion is primarily a matter of feelings and emotions, and not about real commitment or the conversion of the mind to the teaching of the Gospel.

Asianpilgrim,

Have there been any scholarly studies done of the changes in Philippino religious values? I would be interested in reading them.

This sort of begs the question on the differences between growth and sustainability. A study I can no longer recall the name of revealed that a lot of folks who join Charismatic churches do not stay there a lifetime, and transmission to second generation is abysmal.

Pastor Preach-well and Brother Feel-great down the road will have some initial success with getting an exuberant congregation who comes feeling good about themselves, and leaves feeling great... but if and when the dark night of the soul kicks in, when you just can't bring yourself to clap, feel good and raise your hands in the air to sing some rockin praise & worship music, from what I have observed, the troubles begin.

Among congregations of greater longevity - several decades in this case - it seems we frequently see re-invention with new pastors, new theological movements, and variations and changes in worship styling. What you saw & heard ten years ago, isn't what you will be hearing this week.

Here in the midwest (as in many other places) the rise of the mega-church has been notable. Protest as some members may, I really can't be told the mega-church in this city that has founded dozens of daughter churches elsewhere is "non-denominational". In fact, it IS now a denomination with a central head pastor calling the shots. His vision is intrinsic to the movement, the members revere him and defened the absurdly generous compensation and perks packages he has recieved (on top of their promotion of his tapes, CDs, DVDs, books and TV show) and defended against certain allegations that have been made about him, his leadership stylings and funds appropriation.

How this or any number of other mega-churches would fare in the face of a senior pastor's death, retirement, or accpting a new postion at the next bigger mega-church is rather certain - it will NOT remain the same place long.

Most cults die after their leaders do... even cults of personality.

I did not claim that any scholars made this claim, just that most who argue for the growth of 'conservative' churches have made it. A woman did recently write a book about her study of this phenomenon, and this was her conclusion. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the book or the author.


I would agree with that assessment, at least world-wide, especially in the global south. (I haven't seen anything that speaks to such explosive growth in Europe or America). But "charismatic" is a very wide-ranging group, and hard to classify. All my contact with Catholic "charismatics" (and it has been extensive) has shown that they are very traditional when it comes to matters of doctrine and morals (less so on liturgy, of course), even in their practical preaching. But I know many charismatics (such as the TBN crowd) are not so traditional.

I think most of those who claim more growth in conservative churches are focused on America. Simply look at the statistics here: communities such as the Southern Baptists and the Catholics are growing, whereas the "liberal" main-line denominations, such as the Methodists and Presbyterians, are dying. I'm sure that there are many factors in those numbers, but the death of the mainline Protestant denominations (which are almost always liberal doctrinally) does speak to their inability to draw new people in today's world.

I think the Canadian scholar Reginald Biby (University of Calgary) would disagree with you. In his first book many years ago "The Circulation of the Saints.", he claimed that actually the charismatic & Protestant fundamentalist rarely have converts from the "unchurched", but rather than groups of Protestants move from group to group. He claimed you had to be part of this "culture" in order to appreciate their theology or buy into it. Also it is not intellectually stimulating to belong to these groups while on the other hand they do provide fellowship and social activity as well as a good supportive social network for believers. In his more recent books, Biby also claims mainline or traditional liturgical churches are making gains. he believes the more traditional churches provide "meat" and a more intellectually developed theology than the "milk" as the Apostle Paul would say. However, the more traditional churches/parishes do not provide the personal and social support of the charismatic or fundamentalist churches.

Regarding overseas growth of the Pentecostals, I believe scholars question the large numbers claimed or sustainability. For example, these groups have small congregations so when a statment is made that a congregation haas doubled in size the actual numbers may be from 100 members to 200 members. There is great enthusiam if you read their missionary reports and church journals but little way to susbstantiate their claims.

Regarding Catholic "charismatics," I think we must be careful when we are talking what is definition of it. I read Malines Documents by Cardinal Suenens and comments by several Popes, which seems have different understanding about "charismatic renewal" to those people in the pews.

One thing I read in the Malines Documents is that "charismatic renewal" is not about external way of worship (clapping hands, contemporary musics, etc). Indeed this can be a phenomenon, but not the essence. Also, the documents see that "charismatic renewal" purpose is to cease. By that, it means that those touched by the renewal is integrated to the local chuch (parish, diocese).

So this raise another question: are those that leave the clapping and contemporary musics, "charismatic way," being integrated to the local church, more aware of their vocation, love the chuch and have living sacramental life? If that is the case, then the Catholic "charismatic" movement reach its target.

For people that does not see these points as the purpose of the renewal, they say the person left the renewal.

I see the phenomenon within my own charismatic community. A community of people following the rule of Carmel, raised by Carmelites, following charismatic spirituality. Some of the members get tired to the contemporary musics, the heat and high of charismatic service. Some choose to follow a more quiet worship, a more Carmel-like one. Some left the community, but some don't. They become like contemplative-charismatics.

And I found several charismatic groups that meet for praying rosary and singing from pew book. Some people do say they are "not charismatic enough," but I believe this is because they only know "protestant" definition of charismatism.
It is totally possible to found catholic charismatics with "conservative liturgy" or even "traditional liturgy."

What I worry about is that not many Catholics (most importantly they who claim to be inside the "charismatic circle") know what the Church define as "charismatic renewal." Most of them use import definition from protestant pentecostal circle.

Exactly!

in our part of the world (northwestern north america) it appears church growth is far more complicated that over-simplified terms as "liberal" ... one important shift in that past generation or two has been the decline of rural parishes in this region and the growth in urban parishes/churches. this of course mirrors the overall population trends. by the way, i believe that Reginald Biby recently made a presentation to the canadian confernce of catholic bishops at their annual meeting in ontario. they may have info on his insigths/research on their website.

There aren't many scholarly studies on religious values in the Philippines, and those which do exist are not so accessible to the public.

However, in 2001, the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus published Youth 2001, a survey of youth attitudes towards... just about everything. Among the findings: only 42% of the Filipino youth believe in heaven, of which 21% believe in hell while another 21% believe in some form of "life after death." Premarital sex was also engaged in by 22% of the youth.

The year prior, another study was published, also by the Jesuits, which indicated that only 1% -- yes, one percent -- of Filipino Catholic youth have received more than basic catechism.

Since 2000 / 2001, a sea change has occured in Filipino morals. I am not aware of systematic studies that have delved into the statistics of this change, but it is something that I personally witnessed, living as I do in Metropolitan Manila and interacting both with my peers and with Church circles (I'm currently 25 years old). Pre-marital sex is definitely accepted and even expected among the youth; homosexuality is also accepted and is all over the entertainment industry; erotic movies, which were once the target of strong Church campaigns, are now shown with scarcely a protest from the Church and none at all from the government. Finally, the last few years have seen the proliferation of "glossies" (Cosmopolitan, FHM, etc.) with all their (im)moral baggage. FHM is currently my country's highest-selling magazine, where it used to be Kerygma (a Catholic magazine). I have many friends who have married -- none of them in Church.

Amidst all these, the Catholic Church has basically stuck its head in the sand. Aside from the occasional obligatory jibe against contraception (mainly after Cardinal Bertone lectured our bishops for their silence on the matter) our hierarchy talks about nothing but politics while all around them the Church is crumbling. (See www.cbcpnews.com [cbcpnews.com])

Thanks for posting that, Asianpilgrim. It's sad, but nevertheless that's our world.

A very useful insight.



I've been impressed with the rapid and large growth of evangelical an charismatic churches. But, how long does the congregation last, as such? In other words, ho long do converts to these kinds of churches stay in those churches? And, how well do they hand down their faith to their children?

-- John

This is a very interesting post. Shame on me for not noticing it sooner.

I spoke with an Orthodox priest when I was in Colorado Spring earlier this year. He said that a lot of the people are like what you described. They are people who became burned out on religion after being involved in charismatic and evangelical churches -- of which there are many in Colorado Springs.

I have heard anecdotal accounts of Catholics in Brazil coming back to the Catholic Church after having been with the Pentecostals.

Yet, Pentecostalism has been around for a century now, and it is growing, so it must crossing the generation gap somewhere.

I would also agree that this is not necessarily the same as the liberal;/conservative divide. I'm groping for the right words here . . . but it seems to be more about having a direct, personal, emotional spiritual experience (on the charismatic side) versus an established, liturgical, traditional spiritual experience (on the side of the mainline churches).

I would be very interested in learning more about all of this.

-- John

Very interesting. Would you care to share more? Also, I saw that there is a book that is along these lines . . . Christianity for the Rest of Us [amazon.com] : How the Neighborhood Church Is Transforming the Faith by Diana Butler Bass. Would it be any good?

Thank you.

-- John