March 30, 2006
Not answerable by someone on the outside
There's a question being asked as to why the liberal/mainline denominations have allowed their conservative "brethren" to set the public image of Christianity, especially with regards to the media. The only "liberals" you'll see on TV who make Christianity a significant part of their public personal tend to be Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, neither of whom are particularly well-respected by most. During the election and its aftermath, conservative religious leaders made quite the spash, but progressives really didn't.
I would suggest that the reason this is so is because while they may certainly be progressive religious types, they fail the "leader" criteria. Progressive denominations are vanishingly small. Catholicism claims 62 million people, and while the membership certainly varies in its outlook, the leadership is almost entirely conservative. The SBC has 16 million members. Seventh-Day Adventists have 15 million. That right there is 93 million. Throw in Pentecostals and the dozens of smaller conservative churches and we're talking well over 100 million members, possibly as many as 110-120 million by the time it's all said and done. By comparison, the Episcopalian, United Methodist, mainline Lutheran, and PCUSA consist of approximately 18 million members combined.
Not only are progressive denominations singificantly smaller and fewer in number than conservative ones, they are generally viewed by conservatives as not representing a faithful expression of Christianity. Their cultural influence is - self-consciously to a certain degree - much smaller than the conservatives.
It is, therefore, no small wonder that the media doesn't really pay attention to much of what they do. In terms of the scope and direction of Christianity in the USA, they're basically inconsequential.
Gratefully that article is almost a year and a half old, and the voice of progressive Christians is getting louder. I'm not sure what sort of criteria you consider necessary to make someone a leader...hopefully it's not numbers of members. I'd hardly consider the work of Jim Wallis (Sojourners) inconsequential, nor have I seen the media portray it in such a light. Our nations more fundamental Christians are great for rhetoric and punchlines, but not much else.
Posted by: Micah at March 30, 2006 2:32 PMOne of the reasons I posted the article is that I don't think a year and a half has changed anything on this front. Sojourners isn't portrayed by the media as inconsequential, it's true. It isn't portrayed by the media at all, as far as I can tell. I myself can't read the publication for more than about fifteen minutes, most of the time, as I find their theological committments to be significantly at odds with my own. If that's how I feel, the millions of Christians more conservative than I won't even give it a first look.
Posted by: ryan at March 30, 2006 5:09 PM