Mark Gilroy

Bringing Books to Life!

A Modest (and Slightly Defensive) Defense of Church Attendance

Not only does church attendance in America continue to decline – now less than 17% on a given Sunday – but the trajectory is even worse when you consider population growth. The attendance line is going south while the population line is inching north.

I’ve heard all the reasons for not going to church – I can experience God anywhere, too much hypocrisy, it’s boring, it’s not relevant, it hasn’t kept up with social patterns, etc. – and I’ve probably uttered more than a few variations of the above comments myself.

But even if all the above reasons to not to go to church are true in varying degrees, don’t you suspect, in light of human nature, some of the objections are simple rationalizations based on people having different interests and priorities? It sounds better to say I don’t attend church because it isn’t what it’s supposed to be rather than I want to go to the lake or get to the game in time for tail-gating.

Interestingly, a lot of religious thinkers are the ones that speak most negatively about the church as problematic, including the charge that church is just too religious. (Okay. I know I’m more spiritual if I say Christianity is a relationship not a religion, but … just saying.) I’m not sure that persona of honest transparency and sophisticated thought does anything to fix real and perceived problems or attract new attenders  –  and the self-flagellation is possibly more effective at pushing even more once-regular attenders away. If it’s that bad, why go?

One local church in my metropolitan advertises on the radio that they are the church for people that don’t like church because they don’t like church either. (My paraphrase, but fairly close.) My guess is if you attend there it will actually feel a lot like … uh, church. I asked someone that attends and they confirmed there is a sermon, some singing, an offering, encouragement to join a small group, and other things that sound an awful lot like every church I’ve ever attended, despite the promise of this being something entirely different. The person I asked was quick to point out they are very friendly. I’ve gone to lots of very friendly churches. Maybe you can drink coffee and wear shorts in the sanctuary but I forgot to ask. But what I find interesting is that in order to invite new people to come to their church, a church would use a marketing premise that basically says many other churches aren’t very good places to be. Arrogant? Irresponsible?

By the way, I know some preachers preach better and some worship leaders lead music better. Some teachers teach better if you go to a Bible class. Some facilities are much better too. But without throwing a guilt trip out there, shouldn’t some of the appeal to attend church be based on what you bring to the table? (Literally.) Oh, and, shouldn’t we regularly show up at a place that emphasizes the importance of God even if some humans facilitate a more conducive setting to experiencing God than others?

On the subject of guilt, I probably shouldn’t bring up what a casual to negligent attitude toward attending church says to the kids.

My point is that some of the most dismissive critics of the church take for granted their own church upbringing. They have a base of understanding and nurture where they don’t have to attend a Bible study or hear a sermon to know quite a lot about God and Jesus Christ and the Bible, but they sure aren’t encouraging someone with no (or limited) religious framework to experience corporate Christian fellowship sufficiently to make up their own minds. At least give someone an opportunity to reject Christ and Christians without warning them off before they show up.

I understand your church experience may have been crummy. I’m sure there’s been abuse, hypocrisy, irrelevance, and so forth. But where else are you going to go?

I’m not trying to be holier-than-thou. I confess I’ve gone to church many times with less than stellar motives and attitudes. But sometimes something special has happened for me despite myself.

I think the writer of Hebrews – who was alarmed that the church of his day was losing its faith – has something powerful to say those of us who have spiritually evolved enough to claim church attendance as an optional activity:

And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
Hebrews 10:24-24, NIV

Anatomy of an Apology

In his first apology he really didn’t apologize for what he said but rather defended himself and even took shots at the ones he was apologizing to for making a big deal out of a possibly inappropriate joke he told that was the reason he was apologizing in the first place. Make sense?

I may have to read that sentence again myself. Slowly. During this first apology, one of the things David Letterman explained was that the criticism he was receiving was based, at least in part, on a simple misunderstanding that could easily be cleared up. When he joked that Todd and Sarah Palin’s daughter was getting ‘knocked up’ by Alex Rodriguez during the 7th inning stretch at Yankee Stadium, he thought people would know he meant the Palin’s 18-year-old daughter, not the 14-year-old daughter who was actually at the game and who was therefore “erroneously” assumed to be the one he was referring to.

As a parent, I would have felt a whole lot better if he was referring to my 18-year-old and not my 14-year-old, wouldn’t you?

Letterman also explained he’s told other jokes that he’s not proud of. Again, just the kind of reasoning to help things simmer down in a hurry.

Surprisingly, this first apology wasn’t received well by the Palins and others. Even women’s groups not known as staunch Palin supporters expressed dissatisfaction.

So five days later Letterman apologized again, but this time he really meant it. Somber newscasters declared this second apology attempt as “heartfelt” and “sincere.” The first apology was an obvious mulligan. In a blame reversal that even Bill Clinton would envy, a number of commentators took the time to criticize Governor Palin for inflammatory words of her own in an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show when she said it would be wise to keep Willow away from Dave. Matt didn’t like that. Not at all. But as a hard nosed journalist that’s his job. And think about it. Palin did have her nerve picking on a helpless 62-year-old television icon, going so far as to make a statement that could be construed to indicate that she thinks he is a dirty old man, when expressing outrage over what was said about her 18-year-old daughter – though not the 14-year-old Willow as was previously mentioned.

Robert Schlesinger opined in his U.S. News and World Report blog that in her statement Palin had equaled Letterman for “cheap and classless jokes.” I might agree with Schlesinger but it’s still not clear she was joking and if it is determined she was, it was only one joke, not jokes.

So during the same week that protestors have taken to the streets in Tehran what does this compelling news episode teach us about apologizing? Just maybe, we ought to be straightforward, heartfelt, and sincere the first time out of the chute as opposed to a face-saving, self-serving, self-righteous, and sarcastic approach. Most of us know that’s easier said than done. So if we can’t pull off the contrite and clear method it seems that blaming the person we’ve wronged for putting us in a position to botch our apology is a good backup plan … it worked just fine for David Letterman after all.

Faith, Money, the GOP, and Marriage

What makes for a great marriage? I’m sure the usual suspects of commitment, respect, shared values, mutual attraction, and love are still the major ingredients that blend together to create a great love story. But without regard for the quality of the union, what makes for a marriage that lasts?

A recent Barna Group study (March 31, 2008) indicates:

* 78% of U.S. adults have been married at least once and 33% of those have been divorced at least once
* 84% of born-again Christian adults have tied the knot
* 74% of people aligned with non-Christian faiths
* 65% of atheists and agnostics

Who has the highest divorce rates?

* 39% of downscale adults
* 38% of Baby Boomers
* 38% of those aligned with a non-Christian faith
* 36% of African-Americans
* 37% of people who define themselves to be socially and politically liberal

The lowest likelihood of divorce?

* 28% of Catholics
* 26% of Evangelicals
* 22% of upscale adults
* 28% of those who deem themselves socially and politically conservative

The difference between those most likely and least likely to divorce is 17 points and a 45% swing, which is significant. But without running cross-tabulations and looking at these numbers over time it’s impossible to draw any empirical conclusions.

But that’s never stopped me before!

My modest suggestion for giving your marriage a stimulus package is more focus on your career and your faith – and strongly consider voting Republican in the next election.