Breaking bread

Last week I spent an evocative two-hour lunch talking shop with the

pastors of four local mainstream churches.

All this came about because I had called Dennis Short -- pastor of

the Harbor Christian Church and chairman of Costa Mesa’s now defunct

Human Relations Committee -- to ask a favor. I wanted to talk to him

about what I perceived as the redefining of Christianity by the

fast-growing fundamentalist Christian churches and the passivity

among the mainstream churches in allowing that to happen. He not only

agreed to speak to this premise but induced three of his associates

to join us.

And so, besides Short, I sat down with Peter Haynes, rector of

Saint Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church; Karl Stuckenberg,

pastor of Newport Center United Methodist Church; and Chip Fisher,

senior pastor of United Church of Christ in Corona del Mar.

I hadn’t expected a press conference when I put this idea before

Dennis Short. But I found the prospect stimulating, even though I was

badly outnumbered -- not counting God, whom I strongly suspected was

on their side. But they were gracious enough to pass him (or her?)

around throughout our session.

I told them I was testing a theory that with the rapid and often

spectacular growth of fundamentalist churches, there seemed to be a

growing gap in the tenets of Christian belief. And that -- rather

like moderate Republicans in Orange County -- the message of the

mainstream Christian churches was not being heard as well as it

might. And the term “Christian” was being defined much more narrowly

as a result.

They bought into enough of this to warrant discussion. While they

all noted modest growth in their own congregations, they acknowledged

much greater growth in the fundamentalist churches. Among the reasons

they cited were the money and space to offer all kinds of social

activities within the church, the possibility of anonymity in a large

congregation and the “entry-level Christianity that offers people

clarity and security in a threatening and confusing world.”

There was a kind of wistful acknowledgment that the work of the

mainstream churches would be much easier if they could -- as Fisher

said in his sermon last Sunday -- “reduce complex realities into tidy

formulas or truths.”

They did not offer this as criticism of the fundamentalist

churches. “Our challenge isn’t the fundamentalists,” Short said.

“They have the same God I believe in. Our challenge is all those

people who have no God.”

Having staked out this position, my lunch companions were

agreeable to pointing out some basic differences, starting with the

fundamentalist view that only people who believe as they do will earn

an afterlife with God. Said Short: “To believe that the mercy of God

is limited to my understanding doesn’t give God much credit.”

Then there is the matter of the literal interpretation of the

Bible. Said Haynes: “What I would say to those who take the Bible

literally is ‘Think. Think. Do you really believe that woman was

created from a man’s rib?’”

Then there was the differing approach to evangelism. My table

companions stressed that evangelism is as much a part of their agenda

as it is in the fundamentalist churches. The difference, they say, is

the motivation behind evangelism and how it is packaged. The

fundamentalists evangelize aggressively by offering protection

against fear of the unknown, and the mainstream churches -- much more

low key -- hope to attract newcomers through example and enthusiasm

for their faith.

There was talk about different approaches to the divinity of Jesus

(said Peter Haynes: “Jesus knew who he was. Some of us still aren’t

sure”) and the different emphasis on the afterlife (“Our concern is

how we live this life”).

And then, of course, there was the matter of how to deal with gay

people, whom most fundamentalist churches welcome only if they are

celibate and would not elevate to the pulpit while the mainstream

churches tend to go along with Haynes, who said: “Gays are welcomed

in our church on the same basis as heterosexuals.”

Haynes also added: “We’ll never get 100% agreement in our

memberships on social issues, and especially homosexuality.

Conservatives and liberals are as present in churches as they are in

politics.”

And that, perhaps, is where all this comes down. While there are

clear differences in Christian belief, there are a lot of gray areas

in between and crossover members of every congregation. That’s why

the pastors around my table kept returning to their bottom line.

Stuckenberg, quoting Abraham Lincoln, put it this way: “The question

we have to keep asking is not whether God is on our side, but rather

are we on God’s side.”

That would be a high note on which to end, but not quite yet.

The upside, of course, is that local Christians looking for

religious sustenance have choices. There are very specific

differences in the liturgy being offered up by our Christian churches

that can be explored.

But the downside is that if people don’t know about those

differences, it limits their choices. And most of the noise these

days seems to be coming from the conservative churches.

So chalk this up as a little public relations for the mainstream

churches. And a gentle nudge to get their light out from under the

bushel.

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column

appears Thursdays.