is a respected religious leader and public commentator. Her two books raise serious and important issues. Her theme, however should not be misinterpreted. She is not calling for the end of organized Christianity, but the demise of the "church as we know it." She realizes that "spirituality" may have personal appeal, but is an insufficient guide to any continuing telling of the story. She suggests that at its best the church is always is in the process of reformation. Old forms die. New forms are created. And there are several contemporary examples of this if you look around. Perhaps the most widespread is "the Emerging Church." I'm not sure we can expect the end of the church, but the continual reformation which keeps any institution vital.

but is that a possibility in the near or even more distant future? Will it last, will it break down into much smaller subsect groups, what exactly is next?

I think that this simple article can lead to a very interesting discussion.

A year or two ago she gave a sermon at my church and was wonderful, although very self-effacing about her abilities at the pulpit.
On edit:
Here's a link to her sermon:
http://www.hipcast.com/playweb?audioid=Pd0d27c8e24581a728738cbf3ab45f9cbZ1t7R1REY2Bz&buffer=5&shape=6&fc=FFFFFF&pc=CCFF33&kc=9900CC&bc=FFFFFF&autoplay=1&brand=1&player=ap23

It is the face of electronics. Sad. And two parents having to work for the money to take care.

Is there a translation available for your post?

You don't have to have faith,,,, just look the shit up. Even our children aren't maturing in a normal time line, because with cell phones and such, they never have to make a desicion for themselves....just call "The Wizard" and he will solve all your problems. We all have the ruby shoes, don't need to be on a hook 24 hours a day. And I'm a dumb ass that does it also. And with more economic development, competition world wide, profits beeing slashed, it takes two full-time jobs to support one home. And if you are lucky you might be able to feed a child or two. But one of you now days will go without insurance, braces, college savings, or even food. How is that for a translation? I'm glad you asked.

churches who are part of the right wing made politics the mainstay of the church as opposed to the actual message of Christianity the church in general signed it's death warrant.

I no longer attend church. My brother, who is a dedicated Christian, no longer attends church. My parents left a church over political issues.

I was raised Presbyterian. I later, for a short period of time, allowed myself to be sucked into a fundamentalist right wing church, and eventually walked away.

I feel adrift and have questions nobody wants to even discuss, much less offer answers to. The church left me first and when I realized it I walked away.

I don't quite know where I am spiritually right now but I'll figure it out and I'll do it without the help of religion. Man-made religions, IMO, suck.

...of "the churches who are part of the right wing" who "made politics the mainstay of the church" and "the church in general."

Lots of people here love to rail against the "religious right," for obvious reasons. But, in fact, such churches have only been a minority of American Christianity at any time in the history of the country, including the past thirty or so years when they were getting most of the media coverage and being basically co-opted as right-wing Republicanism at prayer.

It looks like you and your family had bad experiences with politically-conservative churches or denominations, so I can understand your reactions. But there are lots of us in progressive or moderate denominations who have not shared your experience, and we're dealing with the same issues about "the end of church." This is what Diana Butler Bass (and others, such as Phyllis Tickle and Brian McLaren) has spoken to, and I don't want to say much more about her conclusions until I've had a chance to read her book.

In another thread here, a poster provides a long, well-reasoned argument about the decline in religion being due to churches concentrating so much on the "other-worldly" (i.e. "saving souls&quot that they have neglected the Kingdom of God on earth. There may well be a great deal of truth in what the poster says. But I think it's more a failure to make the connection between the two: the Kingdom* of God as it exists among us, and the Kingdom of God still in the future (note: although you'd have a hard time telling it from most "conventional wisdom," even among American Christians, Christianity is not and never has been about some sort of blissful disembodied existence "in heaven&quot , and the notion that these two aspects of the Kingdom are vitally entwined with each other -- God is not just transcendent or imminent, but both and, similarly, one cannot just "dream of heaven" while ignoring the here-and-now, or work to build the present while banishing the eternal.


*Let me point out from the outset my own dissatisfaction with this term, which, to modern ears, can't help but conjure up visions of medieval absolutist monarchs -- and exclusively-male ones at that -- but it's what was used by early Christians, for whom, as one Biblical scholar put it, saying "God is King" implicitly adds "...and Caesar isn't." One book I read recently offered some more-fitting metaphors, but I don't remember which one it was right now, and really am not inclined, at 3:20 A.M., to go searching for it right now.