{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01825633383010432, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.144164759725401, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Chasing Down A Rumor: The Death of Mainline Denominations

WE HAVE ALL HEARD the story. The mainline denominations have fallen on hard times. The "rumor" is that the mainline either has been pushed to the side, is enduring its final death throes, has so little any longer to offer as to be superfluous, or has lost its edge by becoming too liberal. In contrast to this dismal evaluation, Robert Bacher and Kenneth Inskeep insist that these mainline denominations are indispensable institutions in American society. They have played and again can serve the critical function of informing an "American community" with the Christian value of life for others. In order to accomplish this, the mainline churches should not pander to the contemporary, individualistic popular culture. Instead, they must become more responsible in their public witness and denominational cooperation, vulnerable to human need, connected internally and externally with multiple opportunities for dialogue, accountable financially and in their standards for leadership, and oriented in service to building a future American community that is inclusive and mutually accountable. This book is one of many of late that abandons the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the mainline decline in order to chart a constructive course for mainline Christianity. For this, it is to be commended. But as Bacher and Inskeep turn to prescription, their analysis deteriorates into chapters of increasingly brief outlines of the course ahead and vague references to the nature of the "community" that the mainline is supposedly so well poised to promote. Much as we might wish the latter claim were so, it seems an odd point to make at a time when mainline churches are so agitated internally over what "living for others" entails when it comes to questions of whether to include gays and lesbians in their leadership or the place of religion in the public square. Moreover, the authors suggest that distinctive though these denominations' traditions might be, they share a singular commitment to life lived for others, and this contribution to an "American community" represents their unique potential route to renewal. This claim implies that non-mainline denominations or parachurch groups do not harbor or promote such commitments. Yet do the facts of mainline practice versus that of more conservative communions actually bear this out? Bacher and Inskeep assume this is so without proving it with the same detail that they dedicate to mainline membership numbers and affiliation. This omission is unfortunate, since they insist that this commitment is what distinguishes the mainline's mission from others.