Ship of Fools: How relevant is Christianity in today's Britain?

Thread: How relevant is Christianity in today's Britain? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029678

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

Is seems to me, having examined the 2011 census, that the observance of Christianity is in a steep decline.
The number of people who have no affiliation to any religious creed is on the increase.

[Title spelling corrected]

[ 14. March 2016, 08:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Maybe you'd like to narrow the focus of your question a bit? By "Christianity", do you mean formal worship, or adherence to the Christian moral code, personal identification, or...?

The Canadian province of Quebec has probably the lowest rate of church attendance in the country, but also one of the highest percentages of people identifying as Christian(mostly Catholic) on the census. Higher than places like Alberta, in fact, which is traditionally regarded as the "Bible Belt" of Canada, in terms of religious influence on sociopolitical views.

So, it might make a difference what type of "relevance" you're talking about.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

From my reading of the analyses of the census returns, available on the internet, the numbers who do not identify themselves with religion, is on the increase. I suggest that you goglee this yourself.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
From my reading of the analyses of the census returns, available on the internet, the numbers who do not identify themselves with religion, is on the increase. I suggest that you goglee this yourself.

I'm not doubting that the numbers of non-identified are on the increase. Did you read my post?

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

Yes, I did read your post. I am talking about the UK, you are talking about Canada, or so it seems to me.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The decline in the number of individuals who identify as Christian or regularly attend Christian worship is not necessarily the same as a decline in Christian influence. There is still considerable Christian influence in the country - some trivial (eg: that many of our public holidays are Christian festivals, or rugby fans sing hymns) others more significant (eg: that politicians claiming Christian faith are generally considered to be better for it, whereas atheists are somehow considered less worthy of public office). We still have politicians (many of whom would probably struggle to recognise the gospel) claiming the UK is a "Christian Country", although they do so while pursuing policies often diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Bible and Church Tradition.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Yes, I did read your post. I am talking about the UK, you are talking about Canada, or so it seems to me.

It was an EXAMPLE of how census-identification might not give you the best picture of the relevance of religion in peoples' lives.

Moving back to the UK, it sounds like you have a lot of people listing "no religion" on the census, but still pretty widespread support for maintaining an established church. To give you an example of a British discrepancy between statistics and actual practice.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

There are many in the UK who perform "charitable works" but who do not associate themselves with any religious group whatsoever.
The decline of numbers in the pew on a Sunday must be indicative of something.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
There are many in the UK who perform "charitable works" but who do not associate themselves with any religious group whatsoever.
The decline of numbers in the pew on a Sunday must be indicative of something.

Well, I would guess it's either a lack of belief in the religious tenets of Christianity, or at least a lack of belief in the relevance of church attendance.

Are there any surveys about how many Brits believe in God, the divinity of Jesus, etc? If those numbers parallel the number of non-identified on the census, that might be your connection.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The decline in the number of individuals who identify as Christian or regularly attend Christian worship is not necessarily the same as a decline in Christian influence. There is still considerable Christian influence in the country - some trivial (eg: that many of our public holidays are Christian festivals, or rugby fans sing hymns) others more significant (eg: that politicians claiming Christian faith are generally considered to be better for it, whereas atheists are somehow considered less worthy of public office). We still have politicians (many of whom would probably struggle to recognise the gospel) claiming the UK is a "Christian Country", although they do so while pursuing policies often diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Bible and Church Tradition.

And, if you were to ask all the non-believers who are ancestrally Christian "Would you prefer that immigrants to the UK be Christians, or adherents to some other relgiion?", how many would answer "Oh, it doesn't matter, I'm not really Christian anyway"?

My guess is you would have at least some of them opining that it DOES matter, and that they would prefer Christians. Though I suppose, if they're truly secularized, they might be okay with atheist immigrants.

[ 13. March 2016, 13:46: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Yes, I did read your post. I am talking about the UK, you are talking about Canada, or so it seems to me.
It was an EXAMPLE of how census-identification might not give you the best picture of the relevance of religion in peoples' lives.

Moving back to the UK, it sounds like you have a lot of people listing "no religion" on the census, but still pretty widespread support for maintaining an established church.

I don't think it is so much a matter of 'supporting' the established church, I think it is more because it is the cultural background that is just sort of 'there' and can be happily ignored, used when required - especially if people are not aware of, for instance, non-religious funerals - but for which there is no solid, stable, secure, safe, and really strong enough replacement available yet. As soon as there is, then it will become the accepted, cultural background, which, like the CofE now, most people ignore!
I think that people take note of the current advances in knowledge of medicine and of space so this in itself is providing a background where evidence is available and is thus so much more reliable than, for instance, the religious excuses given by terrorists for their acts.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
There are many in the UK who perform "charitable works" but who do not associate themselves with any religious group whatsoever.
The decline of numbers in the pew on a Sunday must be indicative of something.
Well, I would guess it's either a lack of belief in the religious tenets of Christianity, or at least a lack of belief in the relevance of church attendance.

Are there any surveys about how many Brits believe in God, the divinity of Jesus, etc? If those numbers parallel the number of non-identified on the census, that might be your connection.

I know of no such survey, perhaps you do.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

especially if people are not aware of, for instance, non-religious funerals - but for which there is no solid, stable, secure, safe, and really strong enough replacement available yet.

What does "strength" mean in the context of a funeral? Of course it's possible to have a secular funeral just like it's possible to have a secular wedding.

I wouldn't say there was a "strong" secular alternative to a church wedding - more that there's a vast array of possibilities and people make up their own thing. There are certainly non-religious people who get married in church to please Grandma, and others who do it because the church is an attractive middle-ages stone building, but most non-religious people don't get married in church these days.

Maybe it's because nobody wants to "plan" a funeral the way they plan a wedding, so the pre-made church service is an easier and more comforting option than trying to make decisions?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I don't think it is so much a matter of 'supporting' the established church, I think it is more because it is the cultural background that is just sort of 'there' and can be happily ignored, used when required - especially if people are not aware of, for instance, non-religious funerals - but for which there is no solid, stable, secure, safe, and really strong enough replacement available yet. As soon as there is, then it will become the accepted, cultural background, which, like the CofE now, most people ignore!

Are there really a significant number of people in the UK who are not aware that it is possible to have a non-religious funeral?

I suspect it's more like people ARE aware that they can get a secular send-off at the funeral parlour, but that the idea of doing it that way just seems somehow strange and foreign to them. Which raises questions about lingering religious identification in the public consciousness.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
There are many in the UK who perform "charitable works" but who do not associate themselves with any religious group whatsoever.
The decline of numbers in the pew on a Sunday must be indicative of something.
Well, I would guess it's either a lack of belief in the religious tenets of Christianity, or at least a lack of belief in the relevance of church attendance.

Are there any surveys about how many Brits believe in God, the divinity of Jesus, etc? If those numbers parallel the number of non-identified on the census, that might be your connection.
I know of no such survey, perhaps you do.

So, basically, the only point you want to make here is that fewer Britons are identifying as religious on the census?

Well, I'm sure that's true. Duly noted.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I would guess it's either a lack of belief in the religious tenets of Christianity, or at least a lack of belief in the relevance of church attendance.

Those are two hugely different concepts. Seems like a lot of people think the Christian concept of God is important but church is pretty much irrelevant.

There is also an increase in atheism but also in "spiritual but not religious" - does the UK census have that category?

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

especially if people are not aware of, for instance, non-religious funerals - but for which there is no solid, stable, secure, safe, and really strong enough replacement available yet.
What does "strength" mean in the context of a funeral? Of course it's possible to have a secular funeral just like it's possible to have a secular wedding.

I wouldn't say there was a "strong" secular alternative to a church wedding - more that there's a vast array of possibilities and people make up their own thing. There are certainly non-religious people who get married in church to please Grandma, and others who do it because the church is an attractive middle-ages stone building, but most non-religious people don't get married in church these days.

Maybe it's because nobody wants to "plan" a funeral the way they plan a wedding, so the pre-made church service is an easier and more comforting option than trying to make decisions?

Many people like to have a church wedding (if they bother to get married) because it looks nice in the photos.
As for funerals, 15 minutes in the crematorium with a rendition of some pop song.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I would guess it's either a lack of belief in the religious tenets of Christianity, or at least a lack of belief in the relevance of church attendance.
Those are two hugely different concepts. Seems like a lot of people think the Christian concept of God is important but church is pretty much irrelevant.

There is also an increase in atheism but also in "spiritual but not religious" - does the UK census have that category?

You have access to the internet, so you too can inspect the data.
If church is being seen as irrelevant, what is being done to address it?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Quantifiably 1% of 3%, about 0.03% of the population's time.

As I wrote elsewhere this morning: "Just watched The Big Questions on BBC1. This time ALL the Abrahamic faiths disappointed. Usually beautifully humane Muslims and Jews knock the always bitter, fearful damnationist Christians in to a cocked hat. The Christians were the worst as usual, INCLUDING Professor Linda Woodhead, but they ALL failed spectacularly up against a humanist and 95% of the audience. ..."

It looked like a 100% actually.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

It is not the observance of Christianity that is decreasing - in many areas it is on the increase.

What has happened is that whereas the default for forms used to be 'c of e', even though people were not practicing Christians in the sense of worship and identification, now they are more ready to be more specific. I know someone who calls himself Christian as he sees it as a sign of his moral compass.

As for non-religious funerals, those secular celebrants I have spoken to are often asked to include the Lord's prayer. Afaik it is only 'humanists' who refuse to mention God at all.

It seems that secular celebrants have freed up religious ministers for more outreach, and so churches are growing rather than decreasing.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

It isn't jujst church attendance that is in decline. people simply aren't 'joiners' any more. Labour part membership is also in decline except for the brief surge srpund Corbyn.

Also, there are more things to do on Sundays - taking your kids to sport' having access to your kids after a divorcer etc.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Humanist Society round up of surveys on religion including the 2011 census. That article points out that the answer depends on the question asked:

quote:
How religious the UK population appears to be depends upon the question that is asked, but broadly speaking there are four different ways of measuring religiosity: based on loose cultural affiliation; based on ‘belonging’ to a religion, or identifying as religious; based on believing in the core tenets of a particular religion; and based on levels of religious practice (whether self-reported or observed).

Yougov Survey on religion

UK Faith 2005-2015

Evangelical Alliance surveys on various faith issues

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Frankenstein

You do know don't you that the 2011 census was designed to have a drop in numbers because the 2001 survey was felt to overstate the level of commitment in the UK to Christianity. I have this from Abby Day who advised the census people on this issue.

Only someone who is naive about the interpretative quality of statistics would believe that the decline is as steep as indicated by the survey. For an actual comparison, you might like BRIN (British Religion in Numbers) prefer to use the British Social Attitudes Survey which is conducted annual and has been asking about Religious affiliation since 1983.

Happy exploring of those sites.

Jengie

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Frankenstein

You do know don't you that the 2011 census was designed to have a drop in numbers because the 2001 survey was felt to overstate the level of commitment in the UK to Christianity. I have this from Abby Day who advised the census people on this issue.

Only someone who is naive about the interpretative quality of statistics would believe that the decline is as steep as indicated by the survey. For an actual comparison, you might like BRIN (British Religion in Numbers) prefer to use the British Social Attitudes Survey which is conducted annual and has been asking about Religious affiliation since 1983.

Happy exploring of those sites.

Jengie

So the 2011 census was rigged. Perhaps you will tell me that the last election was also rigged?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Well, insofar as the redrawing of electoral boundaries rigs elections, several of our elections have been rigged. And then the reorganisation of voter registration is also having an impact.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Oh, just for the record, I made a Hell call.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It depends on who you mix with, or what kind of Britain you are thinking of. In terms of my family and friends, Christianity is highly irrelevant, but of course, that is anecdotal.

But my grandparents were atheists, so I trace the decline of religion back to then. Maybe back to 1800 or so, when the plebs seemed to stop going to church.

It seems refreshing to me. God is still here, unencumbered by the 'mind forg'd manacles' of religion.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

With the decline going at the rate it is, one wonders how the Royals will deal with it in 20 to 30 years time. It'll be just pagent with no substance I suppose, that is presuming a different religion hasn't come to fill the vacuum demanding such observances are no longer carried out.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
With the decline going at the rate it is, one wonders how the Royals will deal with it in 20 to 30 years time. It'll be just pagent with no substance I suppose, that is presuming a different religion hasn't come to fill the vacuum demanding such observances are no longer carried out.

The Prince of Wales who might become King, has said that he felt he should become defender of faiths.
The Queen remains the head of the Church of England.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

especially if people are not aware of, for instance, non-religious funerals - but for which there is no solid, stable, secure, safe, and really strong enough replacement available yet.
What does "strength" mean in the context of a funeral?

Ah, I see I should have put the clause 'especially ....
funerals' in brackets because the next part relates to what came before..

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
With the decline going at the rate it is, one wonders how the Royals will deal with it in 20 to 30 years time. It'll be just pagent with no substance I suppose, that is presuming a different religion hasn't come to fill the vacuum demanding such observances are no longer carried out.

I think you're probably right, but the traditions of Trooping the Colour, changing guard, occasions such as coronations, etc will have to change, but I bet there will always be enough creative theatrical minds to come up with something which will quickly be accepted as being just right.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
The Prince of Wales who might become King, has said that he felt he should become defender of faiths.
The Queen remains the head of the Church of England.

How exactly do you defend a faith that that no longer has followers or patrons .
There is such a thing as revival but the Cof never has had much time for these kind of movements.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
s will deal with it in 20 to 30 years time. It'll be just pagent with no substance I suppose, that is presuming a different religion hasn't come to fill the vacuum demanding such observances are no longer carried out.

The Prince of Wales who might become King, has said that he felt he should become defender of faiths.
The Queen remains the head of the Church of England. [/QB][/QUOTE]
No she doesn't - that's Jesus.

She is its 'supreme governor'.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Frankenstein

You do know don't you that the 2011 census was designed to have a drop in numbers because the 2001 survey was felt to overstate the level of commitment in the UK to Christianity. I have this from Abby Day who advised the census people on this issue.

Only someone who is naive about the interpretative quality of statistics would believe that the decline is as steep as indicated by the survey. For an actual comparison, you might like BRIN (British Religion in Numbers) prefer to use the British Social Attitudes Survey which is conducted annual and has been asking about Religious affiliation since 1983.

Happy exploring of those sites.

Jengie
So the 2011 census was rigged. Perhaps you will tell me that the last election was also rigged?

Not really according to how you ask a question you can get very different results. If anything, it was felt that the way the 2001 question had been asked had led to results that were an over-optimistic view on how much Christianity prevailed in society. Even the Christian commentators at the time were surprised at the percentage. Thus, it could be argued that the 2011 census was a better presentation of the actual way the public believes. What is really the case is the absolute figures mean little, provided a consistent manner of questioning is carried out the relative figures are indicators of change but only if consistent and the two censuses are not consistent.

Jengie

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
s will deal with it in 20 to 30 years time. It'll be just pagent with no substance I suppose, that is presuming a different religion hasn't come to fill the vacuum demanding such observances are no longer carried out.
The Prince of Wales who might become King, has said that he felt he should become defender of faiths.
The Queen remains the head of the Church of England.

No she doesn't - that's Jesus.e

She is its 'supreme governor'. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I thought she was defender of the faith.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
s will deal with it in 20 to 30 years time. It'll be just pagent with no substance I suppose, that is presuming a different religion hasn't come to fill the vacuum demanding such observances are no longer carried out.
The Prince of Wales who might become King, has said that he felt he should become defender of faiths.
The Queen remains the head of the Church of England.
No she doesn't - that's Jesus.e

She is its 'supreme governor'.

I thought she was defender of the faith. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Apparently Henry 8 saw himself as supreme head.
This title was also given to his son Edward.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

I'm not a language pedant (I hope) but there seems to be a shift in meaning of the word relevant, as illustrated by the OP, where a thing is only relevant if people think it is. So relevant = "recognised as relevant". I prefer to say that relevant means something like "impacts on" or "influences a point of view".

So to me, Christianity is relevant to the extent that it is true. You could even weaken this to say something is relevant if it would have significant impact if it is true. So whilst I am a skeptic as regards androgenic climate change as currently pushed by received opinion, I would admit that it is relevant, since I should not dismiss it lightly, given that if it is true then there are consequences. and it's not obviously barmy.

The problem here with Christianity is that it is not part of the accepted intellectual framework that is reflected by the media. And lets face it, most people are influenced by what's on the media agenda.

I admit that you can push the weaker definition too far. You can't end up pushing any half-arsed idea as relevant just because "you never know".

So I accept that a declining number view christianity as relevant to their lives or society, but that doesn't make them right. Nor do I decide relevance by a show of hands.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I'm not a language pedant (I hope) but there seems to be a shift in meaning of the word relevant, as illustrated by the OP, where a thing is only relevant if people think it is. So relevant = "recognised as relevant". I prefer to say that relevant means something like "impacts on" or "influences a point of view".

So to me, Christianity is relevant to the extent that it is true. You could even weaken this to say something is relevant if it would have significant impact if it is true. So whilst I am a skeptic as regards androgenic climate change as currently pushed by received opinion, I would admit that it is relevant, since I should not dismiss it lightly, given that if it is true then there are consequences. and it's not obviously barmy.

The problem here with Christianity is that it is not part of the accepted intellectual framework that is reflected by the media. And lets face it, most people are influenced by what's on the media agenda.

I admit that you can push the weaker definition too far. You can't end up pushing any half-arsed idea as relevant just because "you never know".

So I accept that a declining number view christianity as relevant to their lives or society, but that doesn't make them right. Nor do I decide relevance by a show of hands.

So as not to give you a sleepless night..
Instead of relevant, would you accept applies to me or is applicable to me?
May be the question should be:
To what extent do people attempt to live life according to the teachings of Christ?
Or to what extent are people aware of Christ?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
To what extent do people attempt to live life according to the teachings of Christ?
Or to what extent are people aware of Christ?

Are those interchangeable? If someone tries to live by Christ's basic moral teachings (which are far from unique with him, let's face it), but don't realize that they are associated with Christ, then they are indeed attempting to live life according to his teachings, but may be completely unaware that they are doing so. Think of Emeth in The Last Battle.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Frankenstein--

ISTM that most of your comments on this thread come down to "Things aren't the way they used to be, and that's bad". Is that what you mean?

And charitable works are good things, no matter who does them.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Frankenstein--

ISTM that most of your comments on this thread come down to "Things aren't the way they used to be, and that's bad". Is that what you mean?

And charitable works are good things, no matter who does them.

No and no
How can charitable works be bad?
Assuming the motavation to be good..

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

To me, the difficulty is that the discussion so far has failed to address the question in the thread title.

We have evidence that proportion of the population regularly attending Christian worship, who choose to have their weddings or funerals in church, or who self-identify as Christian is steadily falling. Those are figures that I don't think anyone would disagree with, especially if we look at trends over the last 50 years or so (I'm aware that some are suggesting that over the last decade there may have been a halt, even a small reversal, in those trends).

But, is that the same as saying that Christianity is less relevant than 50 years ago? It would only be the same if relevance is measured by a numbers game, of the numbers of people who explicitly identify with the Christian faith in some way. But, I think the relevance of the Christian faith is greater than that.

As an example, I would say that the vast majority of the British population would consider the moral teachings of Christ to be something to aspire to. They may not know what those teachings are beyond a general "help those in need, do no harm to others", but they would like to think that those principles underlie much of British society - from the NHS and welfare state, through to celebrating those who put themselves out to help others whether directly like voluntary rescue services or indirectly by running a marathon in a rabbit suit for charity. That means that when church representatives make statements on what Jesus would say in response to current issues (eg: would he turn away refugees) then those pronouncements are reported and listened to.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

And charitable works are good regardless of who does them.

The good Samaritan in Christ's parable makes this point.
The Samaritan were despised by the Jews but Christ shows him as doing good work.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

As an example, I would say that the vast majority of the British population would consider the moral teachings of Christ to be something to aspire to. They may not know what those teachings are beyond a general "help those in need, do no harm to others", but they would like to think that those principles underlie much of British society - from the NHS and welfare state, through to celebrating those who put themselves out to help others whether directly like voluntary rescue services or indirectly by running a marathon in a rabbit suit for charity. That means that when church representatives make statements on what Jesus would say in response to current issues (eg: would he turn away refugees) then those pronouncements are reported and listened to.

Your arguement would hold if there were no other faiths. Charitable works are not restricted to Christians.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

As an example, I would say that the vast majority of the British population would consider the moral teachings of Christ to be something to aspire to. They may not know what those teachings are beyond a general "help those in need, do no harm to others", but they would like to think that those principles underlie much of British society - from the NHS and welfare state, through to celebrating those who put themselves out to help others whether directly like voluntary rescue services or indirectly by running a marathon in a rabbit suit for charity. That means that when church representatives make statements on what Jesus would say in response to current issues (eg: would he turn away refugees) then those pronouncements are reported and listened to.

Your arguement would hold if there were no other faiths. Charitable works are not restricted to Christians.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Of course charitable works are not restricted to Christians. But, the question isn't about the relevance of non-Christian faiths.

Besides, in the UK if you were to ask people about the basis for assessing questions of morality, ethics or justice the top two answers would be

Some variation on "it's common sense" (including arguments about natural law, how we help others because we might need help someday etc)
The teaching of Jesus

I'm not going to hazard a guess on which of those would be most dominant. But, "the teaching of Jesus" answer would be given by a larger group of people than regular church goers.

The teaching of Mohammed, Buddha etc would be way down the list of responses.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:

So to me, Christianity is relevant to the extent that it is true.

This is odd. I think I can fairly say you do not think animistic religions are "true", but it would be foolish to deny that they had no influence in their time.

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:

The problem here with Christianity is that it is not part of the accepted intellectual framework that is reflected by the media.

ISTM, this is not quite accurate. Whilst the media have varying degrees of treatment of religion, at its core, Britain is a Christian culture. Culture is pervasive in one's views even when rejecting or ignoring elements of it.
If disestablishment occurred and every Christian citizen converted or became atheist, Britain would still be a Christian culture for a long time.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Alan

OP says dramatic decline, that is different from steady decline. Actually, let me deal with the difference between the two. The first is that there is no doubt that decline in practice or active affiliation at any level. What is not clear is the disassociation with Christianity and being British is happening. Indeed, trends in society I dislike may well be reinforcing it.

This is what caused the high level in 2001 where the Census managed to actual pole the idea that people thought they were Christian because they were Christian. The intention was to measure the level of affiliation. So people who accept none of the doctrines of the Church and never make contact with the Church still identified themselves as Christian. They are saying "I am a British native".

Yes there is decline; I would suggest stemming from the 1950s. The Roman Catholics and the Presbyterians in England still increased for a while (Presbyterians peaking in 1970s and the Roman Catholics I think 1980s). With mainstream Nonconformity (Congregational, Methodist and Baptists) in England were in decline from 1890s.

Is the institutional church declining? An interesting question, it is certainly reshaping. Goodhew argue that there is a huge growth outside the traditional Church. What is in decline are the historic denominations. There is thus a privatisations, due to the theology of the growing parts of the Church.

So on one level "Christianity" as a flag to wave is pretty high and "Christianity" as private practice is not doing that badly but Christianity as a participating voice in public debate is in severe decline.

Jengie

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
OP says dramatic decline, that is different from steady decline.

And, I said "steady decline" because I'm not convinced the evidence exists to support a "dramatic decline". Though, of course, one should really define "steady" and "dramatic".

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

OK, look it seems to me we can all agree that there is quite a large decline in the numbers of people attending all kinds of church today than there was 50 years ago. Indeed, there are far fewer church congregations than there were 50 years ago, even with the emergence of various movements outwith of the traditional denominations.

But I agree with the other comments, the "relevancy" and "influence" of Christianity on British society is a much more difficult thing to unpick. The residual effect of much higher levels of religiosity will take many generations to be completely washed from society (if it ever happens).

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

This discussion about the rate of decline is academic.
Large parts of Europe appear to be suffering the same decline.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
This discussion about the rate of decline is academic.
Large parts of Europe appear to be suffering the same decline.

So? It is very hard to understand (a) what it is that you want to discuss and (b) actually engage with you in discussion if you only post random single sentence contributions.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Here is a different way of looking at the prominence of Christianity within Culture

I have used "the Church" deliberately to avoid references to specific buildings or congregations.They are therefore four differing ways of looking at the status of Christianity generally within culture.

I would love to know what has happened since 2000. My guess is that since 2005 we have seen an increase in the use of Christendom. I would also like to see this sort of analysis done on newspapers.

Jengie

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
This discussion about the rate of decline is academic.
Large parts of Europe appea to be suffering the same decline.

I would not use the word 'suffering'; I think we are benefiting from the move away from beliefs based on ancient stories, heaven and hell, 100% faith and no facts. Another rocket heading to Mars took off today and the information it will send back will be far more reliable, and with luck more useful, than any religious belief in a God.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Well, more useful in understanding the atmosphere of Mars and whether there might have ever been conditions suitable for life (if the hype is to be believed). I'm not sure what light it might shed on whether we should accept more refugees from Syria or close our borders to people in desperate need. Our faith positions, on the otherhand, can say quite a lot about refugees - and nothing about Martian atmospheric chemistry.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
This discussion about the rate of decline is academic.
Large parts of Europe appear to be suffering the same decline.

Your question was about Britain, not the rest of Europe. We could of course discuss the situation in Europe rather than just that part of Europe sitting on a few islands off the NW coast of the continent. But, perhaps you need to petition the hosts for a change in the thread title.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

(@SusanDoris: are you aware of the Astronomy thread in Heaven? We'd love to receive your input there.)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

lilBuddha wrote:

quote:
ISTM, this is not quite accurate. Whilst the media have varying degrees of treatment of religion, at its core, Britain is a Christian culture. Culture is pervasive in one's views even when rejecting or ignoring elements of it.
If disestablishment occurred and every Christian citizen converted or became atheist, Britain would still be a Christian culture for a long time.

This is an interesting angle on it, but I am wondering what the 'core' means. I grew up with very little religious input, except at school. Most of my neighbours were non-religious, and it was only when I went to a posh school that I met kids who one could describe as Christian.

'Christian culture' is another puzzle; I suppose you could argue that our system of ethics is derived from Christianity. What else?

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

You need to be more specific about what you mean by 'Christianity'. If you want to discuss the OP in general terms the relevance will be different for many people. For those who think that with (whatever they mean by) Christianity more and more people will suffer an eternity of conscious torment, the consequences of that decline are serious indeed. For those with no obvious supernatural belief, the consequences are likely to be less severe. There will be many people in between those two polls. Christianity in the UK does both wonderful and repugnant things; ideally, it will continue to become nicer and more serving as it shrinks. Many Christians and/or Christian organisations do vital, positive work. If they were to stop doing that work, many people would suffer. That can't be a good thing. I would hope that the remains of Christianity will work with those outside of itself to help those in need. As it declines, I hope that Christians continue to help others in concrete ways.

In the streets of Canterbury, evangelicals stop people in the street and offer them 'healing'. This is a waste of everyone's time and a huge embarrassment to boot. Ideally, that type will vanish in the same way that fire worshippers did. I don't think that Christianity will go away completely (at least not in the near future), but it is likely (at least in some of its forms) to continue to reform and offer a better moral example than it has done traditionally.

Just as vague as the OP, but there you have it.

K.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:

In the streets of Canterbury, evangelicals stop people in the street and offer them 'healing'. This is a waste of everyone's time and a huge embarrassment to boot. Ideally, that type will vanish in the same way that fire worshippers did.

If you mean the bunch who set up near Oxfam in Canterbury, I disagree with this characterisation. They have a large flag thingy and a few chairs near a French cafe, but I've never seen them approach anyone.

Indeed, they mostly appear to be waiting for someone to come to them.

Incidentally similar things happen in my town: some - apparently very conservative Evangelical - Christians have a stall on market day. I've never seen anyone talking to them.

This also appears to be the main approach of the Jehovah's Witnesses who seem to put a stall of magazines and sit nearby waiting for someone to stop and talk to them about it.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:

In the streets of Canterbury, evangelicals stop people in the street and offer them 'healing'. This is a waste of everyone's time and a huge embarrassment to boot. Ideally, that type will vanish in the same way that fire worshippers did.
If you mean the bunch who set up near Oxfam in Canterbury, I disagree with this characterisation. They have a large flag thingy and a few chairs near a French cafe, but I've never seen them approach anyone.

Indeed, they mostly appear to be waiting for someone to come to them.

Incidentally similar things happen in my town: some - apparently very conservative Evangelical - Christians have a stall on market day. I've never seen anyone talking to them.

This also appears to be the main approach of the Jehovah's Witnesses who seem to put a stall of magazines and sit nearby waiting for someone to stop and talk to them about it.

You are absolutely right about that. I sit corrected!

K.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

BTW Frankenstein, do you think that Christianity is losing its relevance in the UK? And do you feel that this is a good thing or not?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I am not sure why 'relevance' is so important.

If 'relevance' means meeting people's wants, rather than their needs, then fundamentalism acts as an opiate from current problems. That's why their churches are growing.

However, surely, the Gospel is counter-cultural.

The most interesting advances in theology, that speak to people, are liberation and feminist theology. However, they are largely outside the Westermn mainstream.

The Church Times has had a series of supplements about Theology during Lent and it makes for some of the most boring and irrelevant material I have come across in a very long time.

We need another John A T Robinson.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

"Is Christianity relevant?" is the wrong question. The question is whether it is true.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am not sure why 'relevance' is so important.

If 'relevance' means meeting people's wants, rather than their needs, then fundamentalism acts as an opiate from current problems. That's why their churches are growing.

However, surely, the Gospel is counter-cultural.

The most interesting advances in theology, that speak to people, are liberation and feminist theology. However, they are largely outside the Westermn mainstream.

The Church Times has had a series of supplements about Theology during Lent and it makes for some of the most boring and irrelevant material I have come across in a very long time.

We need another John A T Robinson.

Now this is a reply which grabs me. You could even argue that the Gospel points us away from religion, couldn't you?

But the counter-cultural bit is very interesting, whereas UK Christianity has often shown the triumph of embourgeoisement. I knew I could get that word in this week, success!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

'Christian culture' is another puzzle; I suppose you could argue that our system of ethics is derived from Christianity. What else?

Well, I suppose it is a bit difficult to unravel. Religion was integral to culture for vast swaths of time. So which shaped which is harder to tell. Common sense would dictate that it was a mutual thing.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Mr Cheesy:

quote:
So? It is very hard to understand (a) what it is that you want to discuss and (b) actually engage with you in discussion if you only post random single sentence contributions.

Does the ship allow restricted participation threads? We could continue this discussion purely between Frankenstein and Martin, if both were willing.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Does the ship allow restricted participation threads? We could continue this discussion purely between Frankenstein and Martin, if both were willing.

I could probably programme a twitterbot to do that. But unsurprisingly it wouldn't be a discussion.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
"Is Christianity relevant?" is the wrong question. The question is whether it is true.

Hurrah!

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Seems like a lot of people think the Christian concept of God is important but church is pretty much irrelevant.

There is also an increase in atheism but also in "spiritual but not religious" - does the UK census have that category?
You have access to the internet, so you too can inspect the data.
If church is being seen as irrelevant, what is being done to address it?

TANGENT/ A search engine such as Google gives very different responses to the same question asked from different countries. Info easily available in one country may be hard to find in another. /tangent

What are churches doing about it? Killing hymns and choirs and substituting crappy choruses on the wacky theory that will attract young adults. See the thread in dead horses.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Whoops, double post -- years ago I read an article about the strong effect of Christianity on forming the Western European culture.

Not church going specific behavior, but cultural sense of how things should be, what the shared values and assumptions are.

Some of it is pre-Christian (Jewish) origin, some only partially applied; and yet there are ways the western Christianity informed culture differs from some other cultures, that even most of our atheist friends would be upset if the culture ditched those values.

For a simple example, a day off every week - not every culture has that concept.

Might be an interesting exercise to list ways the culture is formed and informed by Christianity (for good and ill).

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
This discussion about the rate of decline is academic.
Large parts of Europe appear to be suffering the same decline.
Your question was about Britain, not the rest of Europe. We could of course discuss the situation in Europe rather than just that part of Europe sitting on a few islands off the NW coast of the continent. But, perhaps you need to petition the hosts for a change in the thread title.

Sorry, I should not have mentioned Europe.
However, it is worth remembering that we are not unique in Europe.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You could even argue that the Gospel points us away from religion, couldn't you?

There is plenty of evidence that Jesus was pointing away from the religious dogma of his age. Then the religion set up in His name acquires a dogma all of it's own. Hardly surprising it's being rejected in many quarters now people have been granted the freedom to do so.

That isn't to say it won't keep popping up somewhere else. Christianity seems to have an inbuilt metamorphosis characteristic.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Mr Cheesy:

quote:
So? It is very hard to understand (a) what it is that you want to discuss and (b) actually engage with you in discussion if you only post random single sentence contributions.
Does the ship allow restricted participation threads? We could continue this discussion purely between Frankenstein and Martin, if both were willing.

8th day was created to try just that. It flopped.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Any ongoing discussion of what the Ship does and doesn't do, should or shouldn't do, and why, belongs firmly in the Styx.

/hosting

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
s will deal with it in 20 to 30 years time. It'll be just pagent with no substance I suppose, that is presuming a different religion hasn't come to fill the vacuum demanding such observances are no longer carried out.
The Prince of Wales who might become King, has said that he felt he should become defender of faiths.
The Queen remains the head of the Church of England.
No she doesn't - that's Jesus.e

She is its 'supreme governor'.
I thought she was defender of the faith.

Apparently Henry 8 saw himself as supreme head.
This title was also given to his son Edward. [/QB][/QUOTE]
The QWueen is supreme governor of the C of E

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
"Is Christianity relevant?" is the wrong question. The question is whether it is true.

I've learned in dealing with the narratives of others that it's ALL true. But it isn't the truth.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And Komensky, evangelicals do exactly that on the streets of Leicester too.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
"Is Christianity relevant?" is the wrong question. The question is whether it is true.
I've learned in dealing with the narratives of others that it's ALL true. But it isn't the truth.

You're welcome to read my statement as "...whether it is the truth" instead. Either way, I stand by it; I don't particularly give a shit whether it's relevant.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Thank you.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I am not so concerned about the numbers game. It could be that a healthier church will come out of the ashes. The church is actually gaining members in Africa. We still see many people who consider themselves spiritual if not religious. A sizable group are called "seekers"--though I think we all fall into that category if truth be known.

The pendulum swings back and forth. I remember in the 70's people were concerned the church would die out within the next generation. It didn't. Evangelicals came on strong. Now evangelicals are weakening, but many of the reasons for the softening of attendance among evangelicals are opportunities for growth for more center of the road religious groups.

How to grow the church? Preach the Word--if necessary use words. Change the attitude from being a welcoming community to an inviting community (some people call it missions). Engage people where they are at--not where you want them to be. Stay positive, not negative.

Posted by AlexaHof (# 18555) on :

I find it interesting that this discussion focuses largely on the decline of church attendance. Recent surveys about belief demonstrate that something other than a straightforward decline of religion is going on - a large proportion of the population report beliefs in some kind of deity and afterlife or related experiences; testament to the kind of spiritual responses humans have always had. See, for example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24576115

On this evidence, while institutional religion may be on the decline, religious faith is not. And then - IMO the more interesting - question becomes: what are its new forms and qualities? There are plenty of examples of individuals and groups who are trying to work out, to live out, this question, both Christian and non.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AlexaHof:
I find it interesting that this discussion focuses largely on the decline of church attendance. Recent surveys about belief demonstrate that something other than a straightforward decline of religion is going on - a large proportion of the population report beliefs in some kind of deity and afterlife or related experiences; testament to the kind of spiritual responses humans have always had. See, for example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24576115

Up to a point I agree - I think a lot of the talk of decline centres around comparisons with the early part of the 20th century where the level of popular religion was relatively high after hitting a fairly low point in the previous century.

OTOH .. I think that there is a difference insofar as these 'spiritual' beliefs that are held are much less likely to seem to impinge into peoples lives in the way in which they did in the past. Essentially things have tended to move in a much more deist direction.

So I don't think that the theos report should necessarily give comfort to anyone really.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AlexaHof:
I find it interesting that this discussion focuses largely on the decline of church attendance. Recent surveys about belief demonstrate that something other than a straightforward decline of religion is going on - a large proportion of the population report beliefs in some kind of deity and afterlife or related experiences; testament to the kind of spiritual responses humans have always had. See, for example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24576115

On this evidence, while institutional religion may be on the decline, religious faith is not. And then - IMO the more interesting - question becomes: what are its new forms and qualities? There are plenty of examples of individuals and groups who are trying to work out, to live out, this question, both Christian and non.

Whilst Fr. Weber is correct about the question being 'is it true?', it's worth considering the example of Kodak. Kodak strongly believed in photography, and believed it had a future, and they were right, but Kodak confused photography with film and film cameras, and were commercially undermined by digital photography. Photography is still alive and well, but very few people use 35mm film, and Kodak are no longer virtually synonymous with popular photography.

Relevance, in the sense I think it does matter, is about not being like Kodak, but asking about what photography means to people now.

[ 24. March 2016, 19:21: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Superb analogy. Like Rob Bell's Oldsmobile God.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

OK most people have "spiritual beliefs"

Let us unpack.

Firstly, the beliefs held are rarely those of Christian Doctrine. Typically some sort of belief in an afterlife, or synchronicity or such. Those typified by my supervisor, Martin Stringer characterised as "Chatting with Gran at her grave".

Secondly having such beliefs and acting on them are two different things. They are often held as something that is interesting but rather irrelevant to ongoing life.

To argue from this rather debased understanding of belief in a fairly amorphous set of phenomena to the ongoing prevalence of Christianity in British culture is tenuous indeed.

Jengie

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Bravo. We are a superstitious monkey and we bring that to Christianity. Just like Jesus.

Whenever one exposes this naked emperor - superstition NOT Christ, even with His - people's faith shudders. Including mine. Still.

In my current home group I consistently express this. One poor sister, who's life is vastly multiply burdened beyond most of ours here, with issues for which God will NEVER twiddle His Samantha nose, said after the first time "Then what's the point?".

Exactly. The church has NO answer. Not even a QUESTION. There can be NO conversation in Evangelicalism in Anglicanism and beyond, or in any of the other greater superstitious denominations.

And OF COURSE I pray with my sister and all others who insist in desperate superstition over relentless experience.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

I would say there is nowt for the comfort of rationalist atheists either. The chance is not that society is going to become more rational with the removal of Christianity but that rather it will fall back into superstitious disconnected spiritual practices.

Human beings are spiritually-believing apes. We experience transcendence, at least in the sociological understanding and intellectually need a narrative framework to handle it.

Jengie

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I would say there is nowt for the comfort of rationalist atheists either. The chance is not that society is going to become more rational with the removal of Christianity but that rather it will fall back into superstitious disconnected spiritual practices.

Human beings are spiritually-believing apes. We experience transcendence, at least in the sociological understanding and intellectually need a narrative framework to handle it.

Jengie

I think that this is already happening. There are far more people who believe all kinds of strange things about angels and about 'karma' than profess any belief in God.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

They used to do that as Christians to a man. And more likely woman.

[ 27. March 2016, 12:33: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I would say there is nowt for the comfort of rationalist atheists either. The chance is not that society is going to become more rational with the removal of Christianity but that rather it will fall back into superstitious disconnected spiritual practices.

Human beings are spiritually-believing apes. We experience transcendence, at least in the sociological understanding and intellectually need a narrative framework to handle it.

Jengie

I certainly agree that we humans need a narrative, which is why the background, CofE, protestant culture will remain in place until the eventually stronger narrative, relying on knowledge, science and the confidence to say 'not known at present' to the questions which for now have the answer -God takes its place.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The superstitious you will always have with you.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...Besides, in the UK if you were to ask people about the basis for assessing questions of morality, ethics or justice the top two answers would be
Some variation on "it's common sense" (including arguments about natural law, how we help others because we might need help someday etc)
The teaching of Jesus
....
You have some evidence for this?

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
... adherence to the Christian moral code, personal identification, or...? ....
Same misunderstanding our PM continues to promote. Human morality existed before Christianity, it just got rebranded, had irrationality added enough to create a space for faux leadership and spread based on military power.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Kindness is FOREVER.

That's UNIQUELY it.

The simplicity of Christ.

[ 28. March 2016, 11:00: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0