A New Exodus? Americans are Exiting Liberal Churches

[Alcon]

Christ was pretty "rude" to some people as well, you know.  I don't see where people get this idea Christianity should be about telling people what they want to hear.

Oh, you don't have to be - but that pretty much means you aren't entitled to complain when people are rude back, or start lashing out at your religion.

You can't simultaneously be a conscious jerk and a victim of anti-Christian bias.

[Gabu]

I only do so out of concern for him.

That does not make it less rude.  And how does questioning his faith show concern for him?  "I don't believe you actually have faith in Christ" is not constructive criticism for anyone who can't force themselves to believe in something they actually don't.

Christ was pretty "rude" to some people as well, you know.  I don't see where people get this idea Christianity should be about telling people what they want to hear.

If you want people to listen to you, you have to make them want to listen.  Antagonizing them and putting them on the defensive will not accomplish that, and will only make them feel as if they're being attacked and as if they need to stand their ground.  It's not a question of telling people what they want to hear; it's a question of telling people what you want them to hear in a manner that they will find agreeable.  It's the difference between saying "you're a moron and a fascist because you think X" and saying "I think X may be wrong because of A, B, and C, and here is why I think it would be beneficial to you to change your mind".  You're conveying the identical information, but in a form that will make them feel like you're on their side and simply want what's best for them, rather than that you're a foreign invader.

[jokerman]

I'll admit I was making an out of context rebuttal, but looking over what Bono wrote I don't see the controversy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like a lucidly sober assessment to me.  Why sugar-coat the truth to the point of not delivering the truth at all?

[ilikeverin]

I'll admit I was making an out of context rebuttal, but looking over what Bono wrote I don't see the controversy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like a lucidly sober assessment to me.  Why sugar-coat the truth to the point of not delivering the truth at all?

For a...
Spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
The medicine go down-wown
The medicine go down
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
In a most delightful way

[Gabu]

Sounds like a lucidly sober assessment to me.  Why sugar-coat the truth to the point of not delivering the truth at all?

If you fail at getting anyone to listen to you, was there any point in talking at all?  Being correct in itself is, ultimately, meaningless if no one recognizes that fact and takes it to heart.

[bgwah]

I don't know very many people who go to church... Not even Republicans!

Of course, the NW is lightyears ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to religion.

[jokerman]

Sounds like a lucidly sober assessment to me.  Why sugar-coat the truth to the point of not delivering the truth at all?

If you fail at getting anyone to listen to you, was there any point in talking at all?  Being correct in itself is, ultimately, meaningless if no one recognizes that fact and takes it to heart.

I don't know.  If I was evangelizing, sure, I would be completely upbeat and optimistic and focus on giving people hope and the core message of Christ.  But it seems Don's been through that kind of thing already, and perhaps Bono's post is appropriate to him.

[Ebowed]

Of course, the NW is lightyears ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to religion.

Disowning of religious faith didn't work too well for the Netherlands and Sweden, which now have out-of-wedlock births and legal zoophilia.  Maybe you should consider re-assessing what atheism/paganism/satanism does to society before saying that it's "light years" ahead of believing in the Truth.

[afleitch]

which now have out-of-wedlock births

I think quite alot of nations have that reality. In fact they always have done, it's just that children out of wedlock these days are not taken into care and the mother packed off to a convent...

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Good. I can't wait until protestantism's decline starts to show appreciatable effects.

[Bono]

Good. I can't wait until protestantism's decline starts to show appreciatable effects.

This isn't a decline, merely a transference.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

No. Protestantism as a whole is declining and Catholic/liberal christians/nonreligious peoepl are becoming larger sectors of the populate

[Gabu]

which now have out-of-wedlock births

I think quite alot of nations have that reality. In fact they always have done, it's just that children out of wedlock these days are not taken into care and the mother packed off to a convent...

I think that his comment about "legal zoophilia" (which is obviously false) is an indication that his post was largely sarcastic.

[jokerman]

No. Protestantism as a whole is declining and Catholic/liberal christians/nonreligious peoepl are becoming larger sectors of the populate

Did you even read the article?

[KEmperor]

No. Protestantism as a whole is declining and Catholic/liberal christians/nonreligious peoepl are becoming larger sectors of the populate

Did you even read the article?

I don't think anyone actually reads these articles.  Well, maybe the other religious nuts.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Good. I can't wait until protestantism's decline starts to show appreciatable effects.

This isn't a decline, merely a transference.

Excellent thread!

Well done Bono.

[opebo]

This is hardly news.  The sane exit churches for atheism, while the insane find the hardcore churches more appealing.  Who is left in Episcopalianism?  I don't know, maybe Babbit.

If athiests want to get noticed, maybe start (not a religious house or anything since that would defeat the point) but a club or meeting group.  You could call it Religious Annonymous, have punch and cookies there, and talk about why massah's spoonfed mystic jargon is harmful to society.

I suppose, but to me the ultimate refutation of the ugliness society lies in the simple and wholesome institution of the brothel.

[Beet]

This is hardly news.  The sane exit churches for atheism, while the insane find the hardcore churches more appealing.  Who is left in Episcopalianism?  I don't know, maybe Babbit.

If athiests want to get noticed, maybe start (not a religious house or anything since that would defeat the point) but a club or meeting group.  You could call it Religious Annonymous, have punch and cookies there, and talk about why massah's spoonfed mystic jargon is harmful to society.

I suppose, but to me the ultimate refutation of the ugliness society lies in the simple and wholesome institution of the brothel.

But what would atheists rally around? What common value do they have except rejection of religion? There could be a 60 year old truck driver, someone from another city, a paraplegic, and a communist. They would probably meet for about 15 minutes. The communist would start talking about how the employer is oppressing everyone. The paraplegic would sneer that he wouldn't care if he was oppressed, given that he could get the ability to walk again. The person from another city would say they were late for an appointment and have to be leaving. The truck driver would say he wish he was crippled so he didn't have to drive trucks. Then they would all start yelling at each other.

The only thing that has ever come close to building the social capital that churches have are schools and unions. That's because in unions, you at least have an economic interest in common, and in schools, you have friends and neighbors in common, yet it's secular institution.

***

htmldon, you aren't alone. I haven't been actively looking for any church, but I would jump at the chance to go to a liberal church if there was someone I knew there or if there was some event whereby many new people are joining.

Going back to the article, Bono, the only numbers I see there are from a poll that ended in 2000. It then goes on to imply or argue that one of the reasons for this was that the Episcopalians approved a gay bishop. But they fail to mention that the gay bishop was approved in 2003. Maybe there is some third variable (such as liberalism) that caused both the trend and the event, but you can't argue that the event is what caused the trend.

The problem seems to be that liberalism is often confused with lethargy when it comes to Christian churches in America. I mean, which churches tend to be more liberal? It's the older, mainline ones, the ones whose congregations are heavily supported by simple cultural habit and the upbringing of its members, rather than born-again fervor. No one wants to go to a church that is 'boring'... one of the ways the pentecostal churches have become so successful is by capitalizing and glamorizing themselves. Bringing in proven business strategies like business intelligence and performance management. Using rock music. Making people who go there feel good. There is both an upside and a downside to this.

The problem I have with creation science is that it just doesn't seem genuine. If science really supported creationism it would emerge naturally, over the course of scientific discourse. There would be no need for church leaders to become involved; religion is not science, and so it should not pretend to be. The converse of course, is that science is not religion.

And that's ultimately the reason why I left my last church. The leaders of the church seemed fundamentally corrupt, unreal. As if they were more interested in making money and controlling the lives of their members than following in the footsteps of Jesus. There's no better way to push people away than to seem as if you are trying to manipulate them.

Evangelism is an art, not a science. What pastors should do is present the physical case for God as far as it can possibly go without resorting to overwrought propaganda- which is to say, the existence of God cannot be disproven, and there are certain highly fascinating arguments which favor Christianity in particular (and other arguments which favor other religions). That is because this is simply the truth. The small group leader who converted me over to Christianity used this strategy. Yes, he showed me More Than a Carpenter, C.S. Lewis and others. But ultimately, he preyed on my agnosticism. If the existence of God was ultimately uncertain, then within a certain threshold of credibility, we can believe whatever we want, can we not? The only question is how bad do you want it.

Don't take me wrong, it's important to have a credible theory and a certain threshold of probability. Otherwise, the sustenance of genuine faith would not be possible. But there would be no need for faith if there was no positive human act of choice involved. The Bible claims that fear, which is an emotion, is the beginning of wisdom. The authors of the Bible understood that desire, not 'science', is the strongest asset of religious faith in humans. It's an asset that's frequently underestimated.

I was recently re-reading the first section of the Heart is a Lonely Hunter. It is the part where Mick is trying to build a violin. The violin will never work, and it's obvious, but Mick builds it anyway in the hope of staving off reality. There was some small part of Mick's child mind that allowed the hope that the violin would work to stay alive.

[CARLHAYDEN]

This is hardly news.  The sane exit churches for atheism, while the insane find the hardcore churches more appealing.  Who is left in Episcopalianism?  I don't know, maybe Babbit.

If athiests want to get noticed, maybe start (not a religious house or anything since that would defeat the point) but a club or meeting group.  You could call it Religious Annonymous, have punch and cookies there, and talk about why massah's spoonfed mystic jargon is harmful to society.

I suppose, but to me the ultimate refutation of the ugliness society lies in the simple and wholesome institution of the brothel.

But what would atheists rally around? What common value do they have except rejection of religion? There could be a 60 year old truck driver, someone from another city, a paraplegic, and a communist. They would probably meet for about 15 minutes. The communist would start talking about how the employer is oppressing everyone. The paraplegic would sneer that he wouldn't care if he was oppressed, given that he could get the ability to walk again. The person from another city would say they were late for an appointment and have to be leaving. The truck driver would say he wish he was crippled so he didn't have to drive trucks. Then they would all start yelling at each other.

The only thing that has ever come close to building the social capital that churches have are schools and unions. That's because in unions, you at least have an economic interest in common, and in schools, you have friends and neighbors in common, yet it's secular institution.

***

htmldon, you aren't alone. I haven't been actively looking for any church, but I would jump at the chance to go to a liberal church if there was someone I knew there or if there was some event whereby many new people are joining.

Going back to the article, Bono, the only numbers I see there are from a poll that ended in 2000. It then goes on to imply or argue that one of the reasons for this was that the Episcopalians approved a gay bishop. But they fail to mention that the gay bishop was approved in 2003. Maybe there is some third variable (such as liberalism) that caused both the trend and the event, but you can't argue that the event is what caused the trend.

The problem seems to be that liberalism is often confused with lethargy when it comes to Christian churches in America. I mean, which churches tend to be more liberal? It's the older, mainline ones, the ones whose congregations are heavily supported by simple cultural habit and the upbringing of its members, rather than born-again fervor. No one wants to go to a church that is 'boring'... one of the ways the pentecostal churches have become so successful is by capitalizing and glamorizing themselves. Bringing in proven business strategies like business intelligence and performance management. Using rock music. Making people who go there feel good. There is both an upside and a downside to this.

The problem I have with creation science is that it just doesn't seem genuine. If science really supported creationism it would emerge naturally, over the course of scientific discourse. There would be no need for church leaders to become involved; religion is not science, and so it should not pretend to be. The converse of course, is that science is not religion.

And that's ultimately the reason why I left my last church. The leaders of the church seemed fundamentally corrupt, unreal. As if they were more interested in making money and controlling the lives of their members than following in the footsteps of Jesus. There's no better way to push people away than to seem as if you are trying to manipulate them.

Evangelism is an art, not a science. What pastors should do is present the physical case for God as far as it can possibly go without resorting to overwrought propaganda- which is to say, the existence of God cannot be disproven, and there are certain highly fascinating arguments which favor Christianity in particular (and other arguments which favor other religions). That is because this is simply the truth. The small group leader who converted me over to Christianity used this strategy. Yes, he showed me More Than a Carpenter, C.S. Lewis and others. But ultimately, he preyed on my agnosticism. If the existence of God was ultimately uncertain, then within a certain threshold of credibility, we can believe whatever we want, can we not? The only question is how bad do you want it.

Don't take me wrong, it's important to have a credible theory and a certain threshold of probability. Otherwise, the sustenance of genuine faith would not be possible. But there would be no need for faith if there was no positive human act of choice involved. The Bible claims that fear, which is an emotion, is the beginning of wisdom. The authors of the Bible understood that desire, not 'science', is the strongest asset of religious faith in humans. It's an asset that's frequently underestimated.

I was recently re-reading the first section of the Heart is a Lonely Hunter. It is the part where Mick is trying to build a violin. The violin will never work, and it's obvious, but Mick builds it anyway in the hope of staving off reality. There was some small part of Mick's child mind that allowed the hope that the violin would work to stay alive.

Beet,

First, as in so many areas of social science research, the data base is seriously degraded.

Some churches report out of date memberships.

Also, various sects have merged over the years rendering comparisons far more complex.

Further developments are ongoing now (several churches in Virginia are seeking to withdraw from the Episcopal church).

In addition, how do you classify the Mormons.  They are certainly a conservative Christian sect, but are they Protestant?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

In Australia the mainstream protestant Churches are in trouble for 2 reasons - those who like American-Evangelical teachings ie "screw the poor, being rich is great and buy this CD" are going over the mega-churches who make me sick.

The other side of the coin are the Sydney Anglicans of which I am one, the teaching college Moore College have been teaching in an extreme traditionalist doctrine which is based on a document written in 1561. Anglicans as a whole are fairly moderate/liberal overall - but these moderate/liberal christians don't feel they have a place left in the church anymore. That does include me too. The Sydney diocese is the richest in the country and incredibly powerful, not just in the Australian Synod, but also at an international level. The way they're going the Anglican church is going to end up nothing but a rich group of elderly people with their heads up their backsides.

[Bono]

This is hardly news.  The sane exit churches for atheism, while the insane find the hardcore churches more appealing.  Who is left in Episcopalianism?  I don't know, maybe Babbit.

If athiests want to get noticed, maybe start (not a religious house or anything since that would defeat the point) but a club or meeting group.  You could call it Religious Annonymous, have punch and cookies there, and talk about why massah's spoonfed mystic jargon is harmful to society.

I suppose, but to me the ultimate refutation of the ugliness society lies in the simple and wholesome institution of the brothel.

But what would atheists rally around? What common value do they have except rejection of religion? There could be a 60 year old truck driver, someone from another city, a paraplegic, and a communist. They would probably meet for about 15 minutes. The communist would start talking about how the employer is oppressing everyone. The paraplegic would sneer that he wouldn't care if he was oppressed, given that he could get the ability to walk again. The person from another city would say they were late for an appointment and have to be leaving. The truck driver would say he wish he was crippled so he didn't have to drive trucks. Then they would all start yelling at each other.

The only thing that has ever come close to building the social capital that churches have are schools and unions. That's because in unions, you at least have an economic interest in common, and in schools, you have friends and neighbors in common, yet it's secular institution.

***

htmldon, you aren't alone. I haven't been actively looking for any church, but I would jump at the chance to go to a liberal church if there was someone I knew there or if there was some event whereby many new people are joining.

Going back to the article, Bono, the only numbers I see there are from a poll that ended in 2000. It then goes on to imply or argue that one of the reasons for this was that the Episcopalians approved a gay bishop. But they fail to mention that the gay bishop was approved in 2003. Maybe there is some third variable (such as liberalism) that caused both the trend and the event, but you can't argue that the event is what caused the trend.

The problem seems to be that liberalism is often confused with lethargy when it comes to Christian churches in America. I mean, which churches tend to be more liberal? It's the older, mainline ones, the ones whose congregations are heavily supported by simple cultural habit and the upbringing of its members, rather than born-again fervor. No one wants to go to a church that is 'boring'... one of the ways the pentecostal churches have become so successful is by capitalizing and glamorizing themselves. Bringing in proven business strategies like business intelligence and performance management. Using rock music. Making people who go there feel good. There is both an upside and a downside to this.

The problem I have with creation science is that it just doesn't seem genuine. If science really supported creationism it would emerge naturally, over the course of scientific discourse. There would be no need for church leaders to become involved; religion is not science, and so it should not pretend to be. The converse of course, is that science is not religion.

And that's ultimately the reason why I left my last church. The leaders of the church seemed fundamentally corrupt, unreal. As if they were more interested in making money and controlling the lives of their members than following in the footsteps of Jesus. There's no better way to push people away than to seem as if you are trying to manipulate them.

Evangelism is an art, not a science. What pastors should do is present the physical case for God as far as it can possibly go without resorting to overwrought propaganda- which is to say, the existence of God cannot be disproven, and there are certain highly fascinating arguments which favor Christianity in particular (and other arguments which favor other religions). That is because this is simply the truth. The small group leader who converted me over to Christianity used this strategy. Yes, he showed me More Than a Carpenter, C.S. Lewis and others. But ultimately, he preyed on my agnosticism. If the existence of God was ultimately uncertain, then within a certain threshold of credibility, we can believe whatever we want, can we not? The only question is how bad do you want it.

Don't take me wrong, it's important to have a credible theory and a certain threshold of probability. Otherwise, the sustenance of genuine faith would not be possible. But there would be no need for faith if there was no positive human act of choice involved. The Bible claims that fear, which is an emotion, is the beginning of wisdom. The authors of the Bible understood that desire, not 'science', is the strongest asset of religious faith in humans. It's an asset that's frequently underestimated.

I was recently re-reading the first section of the Heart is a Lonely Hunter. It is the part where Mick is trying to build a violin. The violin will never work, and it's obvious, but Mick builds it anyway in the hope of staving off reality. There was some small part of Mick's child mind that allowed the hope that the violin would work to stay alive.

The seeker-sensitive thing is just a lot of crap really. If you see the poll results, one of the churches with bigger growth was the Presbyterian Church in America, and they're pretty conservative with their worship style.

[Beet]

In the big picture of things, the view from Romania, for example, then certainly, the Mormon Church is a Protestant sect. However, I wouldn't go out of my way to defend that categorization.

[Beet]

This is hardly news.  The sane exit churches for atheism, while the insane find the hardcore churches more appealing.  Who is left in Episcopalianism?  I don't know, maybe Babbit.

If athiests want to get noticed, maybe start (not a religious house or anything since that would defeat the point) but a club or meeting group.  You could call it Religious Annonymous, have punch and cookies there, and talk about why massah's spoonfed mystic jargon is harmful to society.

I suppose, but to me the ultimate refutation of the ugliness society lies in the simple and wholesome institution of the brothel.

But what would atheists rally around? What common value do they have except rejection of religion? There could be a 60 year old truck driver, someone from another city, a paraplegic, and a communist. They would probably meet for about 15 minutes. The communist would start talking about how the employer is oppressing everyone. The paraplegic would sneer that he wouldn't care if he was oppressed, given that he could get the ability to walk again. The person from another city would say they were late for an appointment and have to be leaving. The truck driver would say he wish he was crippled so he didn't have to drive trucks. Then they would all start yelling at each other.

The only thing that has ever come close to building the social capital that churches have are schools and unions. That's because in unions, you at least have an economic interest in common, and in schools, you have friends and neighbors in common, yet it's secular institution.

***

htmldon, you aren't alone. I haven't been actively looking for any church, but I would jump at the chance to go to a liberal church if there was someone I knew there or if there was some event whereby many new people are joining.

Going back to the article, Bono, the only numbers I see there are from a poll that ended in 2000. It then goes on to imply or argue that one of the reasons for this was that the Episcopalians approved a gay bishop. But they fail to mention that the gay bishop was approved in 2003. Maybe there is some third variable (such as liberalism) that caused both the trend and the event, but you can't argue that the event is what caused the trend.

The problem seems to be that liberalism is often confused with lethargy when it comes to Christian churches in America. I mean, which churches tend to be more liberal? It's the older, mainline ones, the ones whose congregations are heavily supported by simple cultural habit and the upbringing of its members, rather than born-again fervor. No one wants to go to a church that is 'boring'... one of the ways the pentecostal churches have become so successful is by capitalizing and glamorizing themselves. Bringing in proven business strategies like business intelligence and performance management. Using rock music. Making people who go there feel good. There is both an upside and a downside to this.

The problem I have with creation science is that it just doesn't seem genuine. If science really supported creationism it would emerge naturally, over the course of scientific discourse. There would be no need for church leaders to become involved; religion is not science, and so it should not pretend to be. The converse of course, is that science is not religion.

And that's ultimately the reason why I left my last church. The leaders of the church seemed fundamentally corrupt, unreal. As if they were more interested in making money and controlling the lives of their members than following in the footsteps of Jesus. There's no better way to push people away than to seem as if you are trying to manipulate them.

Evangelism is an art, not a science. What pastors should do is present the physical case for God as far as it can possibly go without resorting to overwrought propaganda- which is to say, the existence of God cannot be disproven, and there are certain highly fascinating arguments which favor Christianity in particular (and other arguments which favor other religions). That is because this is simply the truth. The small group leader who converted me over to Christianity used this strategy. Yes, he showed me More Than a Carpenter, C.S. Lewis and others. But ultimately, he preyed on my agnosticism. If the existence of God was ultimately uncertain, then within a certain threshold of credibility, we can believe whatever we want, can we not? The only question is how bad do you want it.

Don't take me wrong, it's important to have a credible theory and a certain threshold of probability. Otherwise, the sustenance of genuine faith would not be possible. But there would be no need for faith if there was no positive human act of choice involved. The Bible claims that fear, which is an emotion, is the beginning of wisdom. The authors of the Bible understood that desire, not 'science', is the strongest asset of religious faith in humans. It's an asset that's frequently underestimated.

I was recently re-reading the first section of the Heart is a Lonely Hunter. It is the part where Mick is trying to build a violin. The violin will never work, and it's obvious, but Mick builds it anyway in the hope of staving off reality. There was some small part of Mick's child mind that allowed the hope that the violin would work to stay alive.

The seeker-sensitive thing is just a lot of crap really. If you see the poll results, one of the churches with bigger growth was the Presbyterian Church in America, and they're pretty conservative with their worship style.

According to wikipedia, PCA "practice "cultural apologetics" by engaging with and participating in secular cultural activities such as film, music, literature, and art," and "have a contemporary style of music."

Without knowing more about their management structure, strategy, and growth environment in comparison with other Churches it'd be difficult to draw conclusions, however.

[Ban my account ffs!]

These "liberal" churches tend to be more established churches in communities that have a large elderly population.  They also represent the only churches in many rural communities, especially in the midwest.

The conservative churches in general are newer and cater to younger families with less dedication needed (confirmation, etc.).

I don't think people are necessarily leaving the liberal churches to go to conservative churches, but rather, people are dying in the liberal churches and young people that previously weren't church goers choose the churches that have more young people.

In my town, there are like 5 ELCA Lutheran churches and 1 Missouri Synod, a large Catholic church, along with the liberal Presbyterian, and Episcipol.  There are a few, newer, small "evangelical free" churches.  No big Challs though (churches that look and are like malls).

Children of Catholics and Lutherans in this day and age generally don't go to church, whereas children of more conservative church goers are more likely to keep going to church.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Children of Catholics and Lutherans in this day and age generally don't go to church, whereas children of more conservative church goers are more likely to keep going to church.

that is probably because conservative churches actually preach that there is a salvational need to seeking Christ.  If a church preaches that Christ isn't the only way to be saved, then why on earth would anyone go through the suffering of following Jesus?