Current trends will not continue indefinitely.

There is only one trend that is continuous, and that is that current trends change.

For example, the average birth rate today in the United States is 1.8 children per woman.  In other words, the birthrate is below 2.1/woman, the rate required at a minimum to sustain the population of a people from generation to generation.  In 1960 the average birth rate was 3.65.  What that means is that the birthrate in our country, if current trends continue, will be zero by 2080.  If current trends continue.  It also means that with a birthrate of zero in 2080 then shortly thereafter, in a generation or two, the United States will cease to exist.  If current rates continue.

They won't.

But even if the birthrate continues at its current rate, the population of the United States will only be able to maintain or grow through immigration-- if current trends continue.  It is also true that the highest birthrates globally are among non-white people, meaning that in time white folks will compromise less and less of the world's population-- if current trends continue.

I recently received a piece from one of my church's seminaries that asked the question whether our denomination would cease to exist.  Based on current trends, 2050 is the year we run out of members.  One fact this does point to is that with the birthrate being what it is we are not regenerating membership through births, as we did in years past.  But it also points to a decreasing interest in organized religion across the board.

With regards to current trends, there are shifts in trends that often stabilize, and even reverse themselves over time.  For example, most of the decline in the birthrate in this country occurred between 1960 and 1975.  Two things happened.  The Pill was introduced.  And expectations around women's roles in society shifted.  But the birthrate stabilized after 1975.

In all likelihood, the decline in Church membership will level out at some point, and may even radically change.  A friend speaks of the hope that a Great Awakening will once again transform our land.  Whether this country ever returns to a feverish religiosity remains to be seen, but likely religious participation will stabilize at some point.  And, if in the course of a couple decades we again face the equivalent of two world wars and a great depression there maybe a significant return to faith communities in order to seek comfort and hope during times of trial.

Baring such an awakening, we will likely see leaner years ahead for our congregations and denominations.  Faced with leaner times there will be a fundamental question that will divide religious expressions in the future.  Churches will orient themselves either to the future or the past.  There will be a motivation either to shape the future or hold fast to the past.  My hope is to be involved in a church that is dedicated to shaping the future, not one that attempting to  preserve the remnant of the past.

One irreversible change that has occurred globally is the interaction between diverse cultures and people.  The world is becoming smaller.  And our experience of one another is expanding.  Advances in communication and travel have brought the world closer together resulting in an experience of diversity never before imagined.  When I grew up in Irene, SD, our town was comprised almost exclusively of Norwegian Americans.  The next town over was Danish American.  And so it was across the Great Plains.  During the time of homesteading ethnic groups settled together.  Interaction with other groups and communities was very limited.  The result was a sense of homogeneity.  Irene was Lutheran and exclusively White.

The question for the future will be whether we seek to cling to a tribalism that is a remnant of the past, or embrace a diversity of people that reflects the interaction between people of different ethnic, cultural, political and religious backgrounds.  For the Church the implications are straight forward.  We will either seek to maintain the exclusive claims and closed communities of the past or we will learn to thrive in a world that is pluralistic.  Within the Church we will need to become more ecumenical, beyond the Church we will need to address interfaith relationships, and individually we will have to deal with diversity as a 'next door' issue.

I'm actually excited about the prospects for the future.  I believe that the human experience will be richer for the diversity.  But we will have to get over the desire to mandate a conformity in order to enjoy it.  Religious communities will not even be able to maintain a homogeneity within their own membership ranks.  That's not so bad, unless your compelled to fight about it.

If current trends continue the Church as we have known it in years gone by will indeed die.  We simply will not be able to sustain the Church as a tribalistic community that defines itself over and against everybody else.  This will be especially true as our neighborhoods and families are increasingly shaped by the diversity of the world.  But that's alright.

And remember, homogeneity was ALWAYS an illusion.  The world has ALWAYS been diverse.  The future that is beckoning us is just more aware and accepting of this basic fact of our existence on this planet.

For the love of people. . .

Its that simple.

And that hard.

I've spent a  lot of time contemplating the future of the church.  For years now I have stood in the pulpit and looked out at aging congregations.  Probably the most alarming experience was while I was supply preaching.  I went from congregation to congregation and saw that the graying of our membership was not an isolated instance,by far.  And so I wonder what the church will look like in a decade or two.

I must confess.  As I look back too often I have feared membership loss to the extent that I coddled behaviors and attitudes that deep within my soul I feel are contrary to the Gospel.  The intolerance and judgmental attitudes that have prevailed in many a conversation hardly reflect the love of Christ or the compassion of our God and Father.  Yet in many instances they tithed.

To coddle attitudes because my financial security depends on it is not the most defensible witness to the Gospel.  It may in fact be sinful and so I confess.

One of the core tenants of my faith that has emerged more and more over the years is that if we would know the Creator we ought start by observing the creation for it is near to the heart of God.  And if we do that there is one thing, one very BIG thing that is undeniable.  God loves diversity.  From the landscapes that dot this planet (and the universe) to the flora and fauna of every corner of our world.

And one of the most regrettable tendencies of our human spirit is to limit this diversity and opt for a controlled uniformity.  Nothing is farther from the Spirit of God.  Yet we persist.

You see this in many ways.  Bananas for example.  Worldwide there are about 1,000 different varieties.  And only one that is exported, the Cavendish.  One.  There was a crisis among banana producers in years past.  The one banana that they focused on for production became diseased.  The lack of biodiversity meant that crops worldwide were at risk.  I digress.  If God went to the trouble of creating a thousand different types of bananas, God obviously loves diversity.

And humans also excel at diversity.  A few different varieties. And that makes us uneasy. 

One tendency of education is to impose conformity as opposed to encouraging diversity.  This is especially true of religious education where we are too quick to assume a common path to the divine and a homogeneous human experience.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  When God created us it was not with the intention that you would be me.

Human sexuality is one such example of the diversity of creation.  We are not all the same.  And no one experience can be applied universally without reeking havoc on the individual.  And yet we try.  Perversity is the condition of being different than me. . .

Back to the original point.  Will the church chart a future that imposes conformity or which celebrates the diversity of God's creation? 

Kennon Callahan, a church growth consultant, talks about the 'principle of homogeneity'.  "Birds of a feather flock together."  If you desire to successfully grow a congregation focus on one type of people because few truly can handle diversity. 

What is more important?  To have a successful congregation or to be faithful to the Gospel and the Love of God?

Dare we live in a world in which the Cavendish is not the only  banana and "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" is not the only hymn?  Dare we love each unique individual without the expectation of conformity to a universal norm?  And to be clear, it's not that the Cavendish is a bad banana.  It's just not the only banana.  It's not that being a blond haired, blue eyed, balding and aging man of Norwegian descent is bad.  It's just not the totality of the human experience. 

I wish my church was more diverse.  But I also acknowledge that my church will never be able to be home to the full spectrum of human religious conviction.  There is a place for Baptists, and Pentecostals, and Orthodox, and Catholics, and Jewish people, and Hindus, and Buddhists, and Muslims, and even those whose experience of the divine is at best a question mark. 

What I know is that I can no longer define my faith against others.  It is for the love of people that God brought us forth in all our diversity and one cannot love God while despising those who are created in the Divine Image.