"Americans are more deeply divided and angry with each other today than at any time since the 1850s." That is the opening sentence in the first chapter of the book The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism by Nobel Prize Winner Robert William Fogel. The book was published in 2000.
    
That sentence was written back when William J. Clinton was President of the United States and before the resumption of the war in Iraq. It was written when the economy was booming and before the stock market began to drop in 2000. It was written before the role of the Senate in approving judicial nominations had become such a divisive issue. It was written before the terms "red state" and "blue state" had replaced geographical language in describing regional differences. That sentence was written before the debate over the use of tax dollars to fund charter schools had become a highly divisive political issue. It also was written before pedophilia had become a polarizing public issue in the Roman Catholic Church in America.
    
If we narrow the focus to congregational life in American Protestantism, disruptive internal quarrels are far more divisive than they were only a decade ago.
    
Perhaps the No. 1 example is the choosing up of sides over the interpretation of Scripture. On one side are those who proclaim the divinity of Jesus, his death, and resurrection with a deep conviction and absolute certainty. On the other side are those who have sought to legitimatize doubt. This division between doubt and certainty in telling the Biblical story has replaced the denominational affiliation as the primary line of demarcation between Congregation A and Congregation B. Both may carry the same denominational label, but one affirms doubt while the other proclaims certainty.
    
Several readers will argue this is not a new quarrel, but the history of western Christianity is filled with conflicts between doubt and certainty. One of the big examples came a little more than 200 years ago when the Congregational Church in New England split between the Unitarians and Trinitarians, or between the "Brahmins" and the "Orthodox." That quarrel stands out as a significant precedent because it also pitted the East against the West.
    
While it has produced far less heat than the quarrels over belief systems, a persuasive argument could be made that the No. 1 example of choosing up sides in contemporary American Christianity is over denominational affiliation. The number of Christians, especially those born after 1960, who are switching their affiliation from a denominationally affiliated congregation to an independent church clearly is at an all-time high. One reason for placing this first is that annual migration of persons born, baptized and confirmed in a Roman Catholic parish into a Protestant congregation is now estimated at nearly one million a year.
    
The musicians among the readers may contend the No. 1 dispute is over the choice of music to be used in the corporate worship of God.
    
In many congregations founded before 1960, the No. 1 point for choosing up sides is over priorities. One debate is between focusing on taking better care of the current constituency and making evangelism the higher priority. For others, the choice is perceived to be a tradeoff. Are the people in the congregation averaging fewer than 125 at worship interested in doubling or tripling in size if the price tag is an increase in anonymity, complexity and the turnover in membership?
    
Another opportunity to choose up sides arises when someone suggests the ministry of education should be reorganized. The old Sunday school was organized around classes defined by age, gender and marital status. The classes met for 45 to 75 minutes on Sunday morning, and the pedagogical method called for the teacher to prepare and present the lesson.
    
In recent decades, that model has attracted a shrinking number of adults. One replacement is the peer-led discussion group that focuses on where the participants are in their personal faith journey. Since wives often are at a more advanced stage than husbands, this format can turn out to be a creative and non-threatening environment for men at one stage of their faith pilgrimage to articulate their questions, doubts and concerns. Concurrently, the women talk about how they have resolved those issues. That opens the door for later productive discussions between a husband and his wife. A similar format brings together for 90 to 120 minutes a continuing group composed of parents and their older teenage children.
    
Far more common is the replacement of the adult Sunday school classes by single-gender Bible study/prayer groups that meet during the week in homes, workplaces, the church, retreat centers, or some other off-campus site.
    
In the larger Protestant congregations, a common divisive debate has surfaced repeatedly over the duties of paid staff. Do we hire staff to do ministry (learning, evangelism, local missions, ministries with teenagers, pastoral care, etc.)? Or should we hire staff members who will attract, challenge, enlist, disciple, equip, place and support lay volunteers who will do ministry?
    
For thousands of smaller Protestant congregations, the newest issue for choosing up sides should first be debated around this question. Is the demand for preaching that excels in content, relevance and quality at an all-time high while the demand for average-quality preaching is shrinking? Those who reply in the affirmative to that question advocate that most congregations averaging fewer than 100 at worship would be well served by using a videotaped (or DVD) message prepared and articulated by one of the nation's best preachers. On the other side of this contemporary issue are the majority of churchgoers who want "our pastor to deliver the message live and in person."
    
Every year a couple of thousand Protestant congregations choose up sides over a highly divisive issue. Should we continue to meet together to worship God in what is today a functionally obsolete building on an inadequate site at a poor location or should we relocate to a larger parcel of land at a better location and construct a modern physical plant? The typical response is a rejection of change the first time it is voted on, but approval on the second or third or fourth time the members choose up sides on this question.
    
Another divisive issue comes up repeatedly around the concept of the homogeneous unit principle. That generalization dates back about 50 years and suggests that numerically growing congregations usually display a high degree of demographic and theological homogeneity in the constituency. A different perspective calls for congregations to be more representative of the population in that community and display a high degree of demographic diversity. One version calls for perhaps 30 percent of the constituents to be Anglo-Americans, 20 percent African-Americans, 25 percent Hispanic, 10 percent Caribbean-born blacks, and 15 percent persons who trace their ancestry back to Asia. A third perspective urges the congregations to be both demographically diverse and theologically pluralistic.
    
Only a tiny percentage of ministers have acquired the language skills and the first-hand experiences with a variety of cultures to be equipped to serve that level of diversity. A common consequence is disappointment, conflict and short pastorates.
    
A Denominational Perspective
One explanation of the rapid growth in the number and size of nondenominational congregations in recent years is generational. Most denominational systems were designed generations earlier on the assumption that congregational leaders, both clergy and lay, cannot be trusted to make wise decisions. One consequence has been divisive issues are placed on the denominational agenda.
    
A second consequence is a result of the fact that tens of millions of Americans born after 1945 strongly believe in the individual's right of self-determination. They also are far less likely than earlier generations to affirm inherited institutional loyalties and were reared in a national culture that was increasingly polarized over a variety of issues. Thus, they find the nondenominational congregation organized around complete local control to provide an institutional environment compatible with their value system.
    
For the denominationally affiliated congregations, that distrust of local leadership means these highly divisive issues must be resolved at the denominational level. That naturally encourages individual church members, congregations, the clergy and denominational officials to choose up sides.
   
Going back to the 15th chapter of the Book of Acts, one common focal point for choosing up sides can be condensed into a category called pelvic issues. That long list includes circumcision, celibate clergy, homosexuality, adultery, divorce, remarriage after divorce, pedophilia, artificial birth control, abortion, and the role of women as elders, deacons, teachers and administrators.
    
Several of the larger Protestant denominations are currently choosing up sides over where that religious body belongs on a spectrum that at one end is marked by the concept of a voluntary association of autonomous units. The United Church of Christ is one example. At the other end of that spectrum are those religious bodies that were organized as high expectation/high commitment covenant communities based on legal principles, a precisely stated belief system, and a hierarchical system of governance. The Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church USA, and the United Methodist Church are examples of this model.
    
In several Christian bodies in America, the members are choosing up sides over where their denomination belongs on this spectrum. The answer to that question divides the members over such issues as who determines the ultimate destination of benevolent dollars, the criteria for ordination, the system of congregational self-government, the timing and design of new missions, whether congregations should purchase services and resources from the denomination or from a parachurch organization, the choice of a successor when the current pastor departs, and the control over real estate and other assets. A central characteristic of the voluntary association is both individuals and institutions possess the right of unilateral withdrawal. Currently this is a highly divisive issue in the Southern Baptist Convention, the Episcopal Church  USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Methodist Church, and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
    
The driving assumption at one end of that spectrum is congregational leaders can be trusted to make those decisions. At the other end of that spectrum are those who agree that the combination of the doctrine of original sin plus church history and the denominational polity prove that local leaders cannot and should not be trusted to make the decisions on these and other divisive issues.
    
Where is your congregation located on this spectrum?

For more than four decades, Lyle E. Schaller has served as a parish consultant to hundreds of congregations and scores of denominational agencies. His recent books include From Geography to Affinity, The Ice Cube Is Melting, and A Mainline Turnaround.

Copyright © 2006 Lyle Schaller