|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: One third of young people who abandon Christianity cite anti-gay policies
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
There is an interesting new survey released yesterday (Huff Post article, Original research) that of people under 34 years of age ("millennials") in the US:
- 70% of them agreed that religious groups are "alienating young adults by being too judgmental on gay and lesbian issues."
- of those who had left the religion they grew up with, one third cited anti-gay teachings of that religion as being a motivating factor in that decision. (Since it's a US survey, the "religion they grew up with" is Christianity ~95% of the time)
I imagine everyone here is pretty well aware that the Church in the western world is experiencing demographics issues, with young people in the Western world showing increasingly less interest in Christianity, and the average age of many local congregations is steadily increasing as a result. And anecdotally, its fairly well-known that a lot of young people are particularly upset by the anti-gay views espoused in their churches. However, this is the first survey I've seen that quantifies it.
I am a bit surprised, really, that Christian leaders haven't been paying more attention to this fact, as they do seem to often express worry about young people leaving their congregations. Perhaps knowing that a third of those leaving are doing so because of their anti-gay stance will lead them to rethink that stance...?
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I doubt it. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
With very few exceptions, the under 35s I know who still go to church are pretty embarrassed by the party line, want to see it changed. So there will be ongoing pressure to change.
Traditionalists will call it revisionism, I suppose. Others will say that there is a moral imperative behind such revisions; i.e. that character should not be assessed by looking at just one aspect of human diversity.
I hope the outcome will be decided on the basis of the moral argument, rather than some kind of pragmatic numbers game. My neck has been stuck out on this issue for years, both here and in RL, so I know what I'd like to see. A peaceful transition to an "all, all, all" approach (with thanks to Desmond Tutu for that). At 71, I'm no longer sure this will happen in my lifetime. But I hope and pray that it will.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
It's not just the under 35s this applies to ~ I've gone because I'm not prepared to be part of an organisation that continues to discriminate.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
With very few exceptions, the under 35s I know who still go to church are pretty embarrassed by the party line, want to see it changed. So there will be ongoing pressure to change.
I think it's pretty much under 50s, but ISTM people of my/your generation are much less likely to speak out. While we would thnk it regrettable taht someone gets thrown out of church for being gay, my kids would probably have a sit-down protest in the chancel.
They just don't get the whole "gays=evil" thing...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's been one factor in pushing me out. In various discussions, such as on the Arizona proposed law, Christians often come across as the cruelest and nastiest people, (not all of them of course).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Perhaps churches that do accept and welcome gays should make it more obvious? It will be interesting to see if the under 35s then start beating a path to their doors, or whether they will then come up with another reason why they're not interested. It's where the survey results get translated into reality that interests me.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
False reasoning: the churches which have what you describe as "anti-gay" "policies" don't do so because they think them attractive to people, but because they think them right, ordained by God. Argue all you like about that, but why assume that doctrine should be responsive to public sentiment? That's not the faith.
Personally I would avoid like the work of the Evil One any 'Church' which changed its teachings to try and attract me...
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Vade Mecum,
Generally Christians show at least some concern about not putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of people coming to the gospel (particularly young people - cf Mat 18:6). Often salvation is considered the (only) important thing, and so non-essential teachings that drive people away from Christ are generally minimised. I doubt many people think that teachings on homosexuality are a core gospel matter or essential for salvation. Do you think they are? Even people who would like to see the church remain "faithful to scripture" in terms of maintaining unwavering opposition to homosexuality, surely have to accept that at some point driving people away in large numbers is unhelpful to some of the church's basic goals, and that acceptance of homosexuality is not nearly as harmful to the church as having no members left in the congregation.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
Doctrine can't just be ignored because it is inconvenient: it is either Right or Wrong. If teh former, it must be taught, if the latter, truth must be taught in its stead, but truth must be taught. What do you do then, to "minimise" a teaching you feel might stand in people's way? Ignore it? How? How do you ignore doctrine without de facto teaching its opposite (Error)?
Christianity isn't about "getting across" a "core message", it's about bringing people to Christ: to the fulness of Christ, and therefore the fulness of the faith. To baptise people into anything less is robbery of the holy ones of God, and deserves millstones.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Personally I would avoid like the work of the Evil One any 'Church' which changed its teachings to try and attract me...
Surely this depends on the teachings in question?
Some church take an extreme view - that families must put a gay teen into conversion therapy, or that families should disown gay relatives. Some churches teach that it's a sin to even participate in someone else's gay wedding (e.g. the florists/bakers who refuse services), or that it's a sin to vote for a candidate who backs marriage equality.
Dropping teachings like these, would not even come close to saying that gay marriage is acceptable for Christians. But it would reduce the hatred and intolerance towards gay people that many perceive from parts of the Christian church.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Vade Mecum
The reason there is a church is because back in the day young Jews thought the unthinkable and deliberately went against the teachings of the Bible.
Worse, they went further and actively promoted their non-adherence to others; they even went so far as to try to bring into the religion people not descended from the 12 tribes.
They were persecuted and accused of apostasy until at last what had been predicted came true: they DID break away from the religion of their fathers and founded a new one.
Sound familiar?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Doctrine can't just be ignored because it is inconvenient...
What do you do then, to "minimise" a teaching you feel might stand in people's way? Ignore it? How?
It's incredibly easy to ignore things. The bible is big and there are lots of other things to focus on. Of necessity due to the large size of the bible, Christians have to be selective about which passages are preached on, taught, read regularly and focused on.
I've never heard a sermon on the passage about not wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics, but it's in the bible (Lev 19:19), it just gets ignored. I've never heard a sermon about the virtues of bashing little children against rocks, but it's in the bible (Psa 137:9), it just gets ignored. I've been repeatedly amazed over the years at just how truly astonishingly good Christians are at skipping over passages in their bibles they find uncomfortable or theologically disagreeable. Passages endorsing morally questionable things like genocide, slavery, the killing of children etc simply get skipped over. Doctrinal teachings that the particular denomination doesn't agree with simply get read past without a second thought if they are ever read at all, while those passages teaching things that it does agree with get repeated on a daily basis or preached on weekly or printed out and stuck on a wall. People focus on the stories and teachings they find edifying and helpful.
And focusing on some bits and ignoring others works fine because the church has lots of doctrines and you can't focus on all of them equally all of the time. The Roman Catholic Catechism, for example, has about 600 pages worth of nearly 3000 individual doctrinal statements. If one of those fell out, the church would still have plenty of stuff to teach.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
VM: it is exactly this kind of public speech ("To Hell with them if they don't do exactly what someone else says") that keeps people from coming to the church.
Who are you to judge? Once you (generic) have eliminated the divorcees and their children, the GLBTs and their children, the gluttons and their children, the gossipers and their children, those who dance and their children, those who drink and their children, etc., you have a church of One which will cease to exist on Earth at your death.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There are also cultural and philosophical shifts going on all the time in society. OK, some Christians argue that they should be immune to these, but that is a joke, of course, they are affected by them.
One reason that homophobia has become an issue is because of the depathologizing of homosexuality, and also of course, decriminalization. 100 years ago probably homophobia was accepted by many people, but not today. I suppose the same is true of racism and misogyny.
The churches seem to usually be the last to give up these prejudices!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
Um, no. Just, no. You're either being pointlessly facetious, or... well, no, that's it, really.
Mixed fibres: Old Covenant, not New.
Super flumina: It's a Psalm. They're not commandments. But you knew that.
Whatever examples you care to append, the point is that there (almost universally) exists Church teaching on the matter, which probably clarifies the perplexities of a first-glance trawl.
The contents of the Roman catechism, for instance, are to be believed by all Catholics (I'm simplifying to save time). That doesn't mean they have to be thinking about it constantly, or even that they need to know it all, but it contains the things which they must believe in order to believe with the Church. If we depart from the substance of the faith, we must submit to correction based on the Church's definitive teachings.
The idea that you might just hush this or that bit up (and thereby allow or encourage people to persist in sin) is frankly monstrous. I refuse to believe that you believe this in good faith to be a good thing.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Do you think that people could indicate which post they are replying to, as I thought at first that that last post was to me, but it's not.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps churches that do accept and welcome gays should make it more obvious? It will be interesting to see if the under 35s then start beating a path to their doors, or whether they will then come up with another reason why they're not interested. It's where the survey results get translated into reality that interests me.
I attended a gay friendly church ~ albeit discreet in acknowledging that ~ it was talking to anyone else. And gay friendly churches have been known to have problems from other churches and congregations.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
My bad: I paused whilst writing to look at something, and missed the later posts.
quetzalcoatl I don't think that society's shifts in "understandind" are right, or from God, and therefore the Church is usually but not always right to resist them. We have our own Law, and it is not the Law of public opinion.
Horseman Bree That is not what I am saying at all, and I weep if that is how it is read: my point was that the Faith is not reducible to anything less than itself without suffering loss and ceasing to be the fulness of the faith which Christ calls us to. My quibble was not with those who fail to practise that fulness: which of us does? but with those who would deliberately sell the children of God less than that fulness as part of some (cynical?) branding exercise. Theirs are the millstones, not the sinners.
seekingsister There is a difference between teaching (doctrine) and prescriptions for practice. I'm talking about the former: the latter are of course more malleable, though not to the point where they fail to reflect the underlying dogmata.
L'Organist No. Not really. "Jesus subverted his culture, and Jesus was right. I subvert my culture, therefore I'm right" is a false syllogism.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Vade Mecum wrote:
I don't think that society's shifts in "understandind" are right, or from God, and therefore the Church is usually but not always right to resist them. We have our own Law, and it is not the Law of public opinion.
I suppose logically, that would mean still living in a feudal-type culture, or pre-feudal, come to that? It just sounds unreal to me, as if Christians can levitate above society and culture.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
seekingsister There is a difference between teaching (doctrine) and prescriptions for practice. I'm talking about the former: the latter are of course more malleable, though not to the point where they fail to reflect the underlying dogmata.
I'm not sure how that squares up with your post, in which you said:
quote:
False reasoning: the churches which have what you describe as "anti-gay" "policies" don't do so because they think them attractive to people, but because they think them right, ordained by God.
A policy is a prescription for practice, not doctrine. Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing:
doctrine: God created marriage to be shared between one man and one woman
policy: Members of Ship of Fools Community Church must not participate in any activities that promote forms of "marriage" proscribed by doctrine
Based on the survey, it's the latter that's alienating younger people, not the former. And it's unclear that God has ordained any of the variety of anti-gay policies that churches and their media mouthpieces have been promoting.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
seekingsister There is a difference between teaching (doctrine) and prescriptions for practice. I'm talking about the former: the latter are of course more malleable, though not to the point where they fail to reflect the underlying dogmata.
I'm not sure how that squares up with your post, in which you said:
quote:
False reasoning: the churches which have what you describe as "anti-gay" "policies" don't do so because they think them attractive to people, but because they think them right, ordained by God.
A policy is a prescription for practice, not doctrine. Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing:
doctrine: God created marriage to be shared between one man and one woman
policy: Members of Ship of Fools Community Church must not participate in any activities that promote forms of "marriage" proscribed by doctrine
Based on the survey, it's the latter that's alienating younger people, not the former. And it's unclear that God has ordained any of the variety of anti-gay policies that churches and their media mouthpieces have been promoting.
The point of my using scare quotes around "policies" was that usually what people mean when they say this is "doctrines".
However, the example you give is interesting: if the Church believes X, why would it allow/encourage its members to give public credence to non-X? The faith isn't an individual's private concern: here the praxis would be in contempt (as it were) of the doctrine.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Vade Mecum wrote:
I don't think that society's shifts in "understandind" are right, or from God, and therefore the Church is usually but not always right to resist them. We have our own Law, and it is not the Law of public opinion.
I suppose logically, that would mean still living in a feudal-type culture, or pre-feudal, come to that? It just sounds unreal to me, as if Christians can levitate above society and culture.
So the phrase "usually but not always" means nothing to you?
Living in the world does not mean living as the world. If you really believed that escaping one's culture was impossible, why be a Christian at all?
Having said that, I admire feudal Europe's piety.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
While I agree that the Church shouldn't just accept every new 'understanding' that comes along about societal values, it should most definitely accept new science that comes along.
Otherwise you get rather infamous cases like that trouble with Galileo.
And when it comes to the question of homosexuality, what at least some churches have to wrestle with is the basic question of whether homosexuality is innate for 'affected' individuals. Because it's clear that at least some conservative Christian positions are based on the proposition that homosexuality is a choice, and that the right thing to do is to 'unchoose' it.
As more and more scientific indications appear that homosexuality is not a choice, does it make sense to reject the science on the grounds that it doesn't fit with a preconceived notion of the truth? I would suggest not.
That doesn't totally resolve the issue, because it is certainly possible, as a matter of logic, to accept that homosexuality is innate but that homosexuals should not, for some reason of morality, express their sexuality in the ways that heterosexuals do. Which points towards more philosophical questions about whether God clearly laid down such a rule and what that would say about the character of God.
My own view, as of course many of you know, is that it's far more likely that God didn't actually say that and the Church has been reading him wrong. As judged by the fruits of telling homosexuals they must be celibate for their entire lives compared to the fruits of telling them they ought to embrace the same kinds of principles of sexual morality that heterosexuals are called to embrace (you know, I'm fairly sure that God has a bit of a problem with heterosexual orgies in worship of pagan gods as well, but no-one ever concludes that his problem is with the fact that they're heterosexual).
[ 28. February 2014, 12:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
There's also the issue of Jesus's alleged ~three years of public ministry, during which he declaimed loudly and at length against homosexuality . . . oh, wait.
If you believe (some) churches' teachings against homosexuality form part of eternal Christian truth, it does seem odd that the Divine One who "sent his only begotten son" to save humanity would have that son, during that limited time, focus heavily on the issues of poverty, charity, social justice, compassion, forgiveness, etc. almost to the exclusion of speaking on sexual behaviors.
Even odder is the fact that, influential as the Church has been for some 1600 years of its existence, what the general public imagination seems to have absorbed as the result of the Church's teaching is that sin is pretty much synonymous with human sexuality.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Vade Mecum
Jesus didn't subvert his culture - he was born and died an observant Jew.
It was those who claimed to follow him who 'subverted' the religion.
It is not Christianity that preaches against homosexuality, it is the churches.
Jesus - remember, the person who the churches claim as their 'founder' - said nothing about homosexuality.
Your quoting what 'the church' says about something is irrelevant beyond a point: Christ didn't mention homosexuality, therefore we have no idea whether he was for, against or ambivalent.
And in this context its interesting to note that none of the original disciples mention it either. The person who (briefly) mentions it is Paul - who never met Christ, yet who quickly managed an effective takeover of the awkward new sect and gave it the sort of baggage that we know would likely have made Christ, from his reported behaviour, uncomfortable at the very least.
You can quote 'doctrine' and 'church' all you like - doctrine is just various formulae invented by people who never met Christ or any of his disciples.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are also cultural and philosophical shifts going on all the time in society. OK, some Christians argue that they should be immune to these, but that is a joke, of course, they are affected by them.
One reason that homophobia has become an issue is because of the depathologizing of homosexuality, and also of course, decriminalization. 100 years ago probably homophobia was accepted by many people, but not today. I suppose the same is true of racism and misogyny.
The churches seem to usually be the last to give up these prejudices!
To be honest it varies. The Catholic Church was never much troubled by anti-black racism and was ferociously opposed to eugenics whilst progressive opinion generally favoured it. On the other hand Christians were reluctant to abandon anti-semitism until Der Fuhrer took it to it's reductio ad absurdum.
The depressing thing about homosexuality, at least in the C of E, is that in the 1980s the C of E was ahead of the societal curve with regard to homosexuality. I remember a cartoon in the Daily Express in the 1980s with Robert Runcie and John Hapgood being attacked in a jungle by demonic figures labelled "homosexuality" with them complaining that they were lost and couldn't find the route with "The Bible" conveniently discarded at their feet. Nowadays, no daily newspaper would attack homosexuality in quite those Julius Streicheresque terms. Equally no Julius Streicheresque newspaper would feel it necessary to denounce the current Church of England's bishops. One feels a little like St. Dominic. "Peter can no longer say silver and gold have I none". "Indeed, neither can he say, rise up and walk". The days when we had bishops who, whatever the right wing press said, were touchstones of decency and humanity has passed. I don't walk away because this is my church and our church and the bigots have no business telling us to go away but I won't deny that I am occasionally tempted.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Gildas
Very interesting post. I wonder why the church has fallen behind the curve in recent years? I have no idea really; is it the influence of evangelical thinking? I suppose in the US, there is a massive right wing movement in Christianity, less so in the UK?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Caught by the guillotine, but I have walked away, and homophobia is one reason, but there are others.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps churches that do accept and welcome gays should make it more obvious? It will be interesting to see if the under 35s then start beating a path to their doors, or whether they will then come up with another reason why they're not interested. It's where the survey results get translated into reality that interests me.
I attended a gay friendly church ~ albeit discreet in acknowledging that ~ it was talking to anyone else. And gay friendly churches have been known to have problems from other churches and congregations.
If those problems are within your own denomination that's an issue, but different denominations aren't obliged to stick to any ecumenical party line on this or any other topic. Denominations that claim to be able to include everyone are going to find it hard to speak with one voice, but unfortunately you can't really please all the people all the time.
On the positive side, if young people in the church disapprove of current church teachings, then they need to get themselves into positions of power (lay or ordained) then eventually things will change.
[ 28. February 2014, 18:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
On the positive side, if young people in the church disapprove of current church teachings, then they need to get themselves into positions of power (lay or ordained) then eventually things will change.
or walk away from an institution that seems of little value to them and not worth the effort to fix.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
If the institution is of little value to them then it's already too late, isn't it?
Once upon a time, people who disapproved of what their churches were teaching started their own churches. The drive for unity (or some other reason) seems to have made this an unacceptable option, which is a shame because it means that people who find no suitable alternatives have no choice but to give up on the life of the church altogether.
Basically, I'm a keen believer in people creating the churches they want. This may be achievable in an existing church, or it may not. Power to the people!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I think rather that the difference today is that young people have the guts to admit that the church (whichever they were raised in, if they were) and the whole religious thing is utterly irrelevent. They're not going to start a new sect not because of the desire for Christian unity but because the basic concept of Christian unity or diversity is meaningless to them. In their parents generation some who felt this way kept going to church, if they did, out of habit and -- in England only, I think, because it was part of being English. Before that, people who felt this way just kept quiet and attended, if they did, because it was what one did.
One simply can't talk about how young people (under 35?) behave and think today as if there's a smooth continuum of assumptions with how things were in "the past", as we've always assumed there was in the past. That continuum is broken, partly because of what the church(es) have said and done, and partly for other reasons as well.
The glass is broken, the water's run out of it, and all we can hope for is that someone, somewhere, will find a new vessel to hold the water.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think one thing that has happened, is that church and religion have begun to separate. I mean that people who are interested in religious/spiritual issues, don't automatically think of going to church.
Some of them may do, but I know a ton of people who would not dream of it, who are not atheists. I suppose they are an absolute rag-bag of people, vaguely interested in Buddhism, shamanism, New Age stuff, Sufism, uncle Tom Cobley and all. Nobody can predict what might develop from this. I would think that there is a revulsion against monolithic institutions.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Not disagreeing with you, quetzalcoatl, but for some I think it less revulsion than dissatisfaction, possibly a bit of ennui. ISTM that those with a dislike of one philosophy, but a still with a passion, would gravitate to one rather than a mix.
Just throwing thoughts about, though.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I think you get both people who like a mix, and sort of have a swishy vague contact with different kinds of spiritual stuff, and also people who adhere to one mode. I have friends who go to Quakers, Buddhist meditation, Sufi music and dance, and probably chanting as well. I call them Swiss Army knives - lots of different bits you can play with. Actually, my friend who died recently was an arch Swiss Army Knife, and at his memorial were a large array of people from different traditions, very nice spectacle. I suppose it's all a bit cafeteria-esque, but so what.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I think rather that the difference today is that young people have the guts to admit that the church (whichever they were raised in, if they were) and the whole religious thing is utterly irrelevent. They're not going to start a new sect not because of the desire for Christian unity but because the basic concept of Christian unity or diversity is meaningless to them.
I wouldn't disagree with you. But if all this is the case, then it hardly matters about the church's 'anti-gay policies'.
In a sense, this is liberating both for the church and for young (or old) people who want nothing to do with it. Christians perhaps need not feel so anguished about what other people think of their various doctrines because no one cares anyway, and everyone else can go about their search for a pick 'n' mix spirituality without regard for Christian orthodoxy.
However, I suppose Christianity needs to continue to exist in some recognisable fashion simply to be able to feed into this pot pourri of choices. There can be no hybridity unless there's a range of recognisably coherent systems of belief to start off with.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
If a church doesn't keep children, then it is unlikely to prosper; e.g. The Shakers.
There are many possible sources for a mélange of spirituality if that's what is happening. No one system is indispensable. If a religion fails to remain viable then the name of the religion is more likely to become a label for an imagined recreation, like modern Druidism then a continuation of the existing religion.
It is hard to tell where those leaving the institutional churches end up. Some go to more liberal denominations, others simply stop doing group worship of any sort.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I actually agree with Vade Mecum that if, IF, homosexuality is a sin then the church should not conform its teachings to the world. I just don't think it is a sin. All sins have their basis in things that are damaging to us or to our relationship with God. It is evident that homophobia does far more damage to people's relationship with God than homosexuality ever could do, and there is no evidence at all that it is intrinsically damaging. The church must change because it is right to change, not because it's worried about losing young people. That is, however, the reason it must change fast.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
I focus on adultery, myself. The commandments say, do not commit adultery. Jesus said, clearly, anyone who married a divorced woman commits adultery, and anyone who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery. Clear sin, Jesus says.
So why do I, as a woman who divorced her husband and married another, feel no shame or censure from my church, or any church? Because the church leaves it to God now. I may be in deep shit with God, but there's nothing I can do about it, and no one in their right mind would suggest I should leave my current husband and the children I had with him.
This change of attitude towards divorce has happened in the lifetime of all the people who still cling to 'principles'.
The church changes more slowly now, because it's afraid of alienating the only people it has?
[ 01. March 2014, 07:51: Message edited by: Taliesin ]
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
It continually hurts to remain part of the Anglican Church. But where would I go?
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Doctrine changes all the time. If it's Catholic/Orthodox doctrine, the church creates a backstory and says "We've always believed it this way. Now we're making it official." If it's Protestant doctrine, they say "Those people don't believe the Bible correctly, so we'll start a new sect that gets it right."
[ 01. March 2014, 14:04: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If a church doesn't keep children, then it is unlikely to prosper; e.g. The Shakers.
There are many possible sources for a mélange of spirituality if that's what is happening. No one system is indispensable. If a religion fails to remain viable then the name of the religion is more likely to become a label for an imagined recreation, like modern Druidism then a continuation of the existing religion.
So, maybe it's simply time for Christianity to begin to die, at least in some parts of the world. The struggle over anti-gay policies in churches might simply be one step on the road in that direction.
The only thing left to argue over is whether this apparently inevitable sociological reality is God's will or not.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I suspect that some churches may wither or recast themselves. In the United States you can see this with inter racial issues (See Southern Baptists) or anti-Semitism. There are already some denominations that support gay clergy and same sex marriage. To be fair, the general drop in Church Attendance is not only due to issues about gays.
I can't imagine why one would want to argue about if it is God's will that the churches are emptying out. How does that change anything? You have scenarios ranging from "Keep doing what we're doing and ignore the consequences" to "God wants me to become an atheist". None seem very productive.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
An atheist would have no interest in arguing about whether or not it's God's will for for Christianity to die out, but it seems like a reasonable topic for Christians to debate among themselves. Seeking God's will is something that Christians supposedly try to do!
As for what's 'productive' or not, if we agree that Christianity may possibly be on its way out then there isn't much for Christians to be productive about, is there? What would you suggest??
Having said that, though, some would argue that managing decline can be a positive thing. Christians used to talk about 'dying well', and this concept could presumably be transferred from individuals to churches, denominations and even a whole religion. And those of a premillenialist cast might see the death of Western Christianity as a sign that Jesus was likely to return to earth. Not a topic of interest to atheists, obviously, but a source of reflection to Christians.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Some of those atheists are going to be people who left the church while you are discussing God's will. Others may leave the church but think of themselves as relating to God directly instead of through an institution. It will bee interesting to see if there are looser networks of like minded people. This is not to suggest that the Ship is a substitute for church. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
With some of the British mainstream denominations predicted to disappear or shrink rapidly in the next few decades the number of churchgoers in loose informal fellowships might increase. However, the growth will probably be small, because many churchgoing Christians are simply dying off rather than leaving to pursue informal church fellowships. And among the majority of non-churchgoing British Christians religion has been heavily privatised, and there's little desire to get into huddles with other Christians, whether formally or informally.
Getting back to the topic, it's hard to imagine that 'anti-gay policies' will still be exercising the minds of churchgoing Christians in 30-odd years' time. They'll have more important things to worry about. My guess is that by then Christians will have migrated to churches where they can they agree with (or heavily influence) the party line, which means no more anguished arguments. If the CofE is disestablished during this time it'll probably split, which means the pro and anti people won't have to put up with each other any more.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
None of the above arguments have dealt with what I see as the major cause of young people leaving the Church.
There are TWO Great Commandments, according to someone who should know.
If you love God, then there are a large number of activities that you will not be tempted to do.
If you love your neighbour, the list gets larger, because loving your neighbour implies not doing to him/her things that harm or hurt him/her.
The church has said that divorce is a sin; Jesus Himself said that divorce is a sin, with the underlying reason being the harm that this action does to all concerned. But we (and most churches) accept it anyway, because of the more serious harm that not getting divorced would cause. Better publicity of some of these harms, following the invention of mass media, helped to shift the general opinion, including among the church leaders.
Similarly, better publicity has allowed many people to realise that GLBTs are just people, not some weird bogeypersons. The Church leaders haven't got there yet.
But the Church leaders preach "loving your neighbour" while also preaching wrath, condemnation and sometimes physical violence upon this minority group.
Why should young people brought up on "Love Your Neighbour" accept NOT loving your neighbour?
We don't ban divorcees or alcoholics or gossips or those "evil" blacks from being in church. Why single out this other group? Is having the "wrong kind" of sex that much more significant having adulterous sex?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Anti-queer (forgive me for preferring this to a now very long initialism) policies/doctrine has a very real effect on people. People are harmed by it. Some people even die because of it, whether killing themselves or being killed by others. When people die because of one's doctrinal position, it is perhaps time to re-examine that position.
Also, has it not occurred to anti-gay churches that it is them that's ignoring the Holy Spirit, and that affirmation of queer people is not just a trend but part of being a true Church family?
Oh, and anti-gay churches still have gay people for members. Why do those people get treated as if they don't exist? And there are gay conservative evangelicals as well as traditionalists/RCs.
[ 02. March 2014, 17:24: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I find it a bit disturbing that two thirds of young people who abandon Christianity don't cite anti-gay policies.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
