| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2005 02:15:50 PM |
| Object: |
Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches |
Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches
http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2005/book1.htm
Packing the Pews
By Deal W. Hudson
Exodus: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative
Christianity
Dave Shiflett, Sentinel, 224 pages, $23.95
Years ago, when I was a young assistant pastor at a Southern Baptist
church in Atlanta, the deacons had an expression for low attendance:
"There's too much wood showing today." It meant, of course, that
more glossy wooden pews were showing than people.
The debate over how to fill the pews has been raging for a long time.
If you asked someone to pinpoint a date when church attendance in the
United States started to wane, he would probably say the 1960s, or the
post-war period. If you asked why, he would probably talk about social
changes, moral confusion, and growing cynicism. But none of this is
true. The number of church adherents in the United States has been
stable, even growing, since 1906. The century began with just over half
of Americans belonging to a church; the number now stands at 62
percent.
The definitive study of church affiliation in America is The Churching
of America, 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy by
Roger Finke and Rodney Stark (Rutgers, 2005). The authors point out
that at its founding, this country was not particularly
religious-only 17 percent of the nation belonged to a church. The
story of our nation is a saga of steadily increasing religious practice
during a time of growing secularism in Old Europe.
Then why all the hubbub over church attendance? There is a simple
answer. The steady growth of church affiliation and attendance has been
outside the mainstream Protestant denominations and beyond the vision
of most "experts." Scholars and the media have tended to identify
the fate of Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and to some
extent Catholics with the direction of American religion itself. The
remarkable growth among evangelicals, both fundamentalist and
Pentecostal, was either ignored or viewed with condescension.
The first attempt at tracking this development was Dean M. Kelley's
now-classic Why Conservative Churches Are Growing in 1972. Kelley was
pilloried at the time for suggesting that the mainline denominations
themselves-not the culture, not social tumult-were responsible for
their own demise. The academy and mainline church leaders largely
ignored Kelley's thesis, but Finke and Starke's study, first
published in 1993, was so compelling that scholarly resistance was
finally broken.
Thus Shiflett's fine study comes at a good time, when both experts
and interested readers are willing to entertain first-person accounts
from people who have abandoned liberal mainline churches for more
conservative church homes.
Shiflett himself is an Episcopalian in what I would call the "C. S.
Lewis tradition." He obviously feels the call to Rome, like some of
the converts he interviews, but has not yet answered. Unlike Finke and
Stark, Shiflett is not an objective scholar; he is a professional
writer and committed Christian, saddened by the demise of his own
denomination. Using a series of interviews with clergy and laypeople on
both sides of the debate, he sets out to document why the exodus from
liberal churches is occurring.
The introduction is good, but one might say it reveals too much of what
Shiflett discovered along the way. "Most people don't go to church
to learn the minister's opinions on whatever happens to be in the
headlines. They can get similar opinions sitting on their sofas
watching television, quite possibly presented by someone much
better-looking." Yes, the author can be quite funny, which is helpful
for a book like this, but good lines like this belong in the
conclusion. Some things readers would like to figure out for
themselves.
Fortunately Shiflett's interviews go well beyond the conclusions
presented at the beginning. He shows great sympathy for the liberals he
obviously disagrees with, while not treating the conservatives
uncritically.
Some of his conservative subjects are well-known-Rev. C. J.
McCloskey, Al Regnery, Chuck Colson, and Bernard Nathanson. Less known,
at least to me, are Andy Ferguson, a convert to Roman Catholicism, and
the Matthews-Greens, converts to Greek Orthodoxy. The stories they tell
will confirm the convictions of most, if not all, crisis readers, which
is why I will focus my attention on Shiflett's treatment of the
liberal cause.
Rev. Bruce Gray is the rector of St. John's Episcopal Church in
Richmond, Virginia. Gray represents the faction supporting gay priests
and homosexual marriage. The author is surprised that Gray sees a broad
right-wing conspiracy in the coalition of African bishops and American
conservatives threatening to break away from the Episcopal Church USA.
Gray thinks this coalition, the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses
and Parishes, is being funded by a single "individual who has
supported reactionary political and religious causes." I guess
right-wingers aren't the only ones who believe conspiracy theories.
Shiflett then turns to Rev. Sandra Levy, rector of St. Mark's
Episcopal Church, also in Richmond. Levy left the Catholic Church for
the Episcopal because, as she said, "They would ordain me." Levy is
kinder toward the conservative wing of her denomination than Gray, but
when the subject of Catholicism returns she lets it fly: "No
self-respecting woman can be Catholic."
Levy's theology, it turns out, has similar discontinuities. She
rejects the Virgin birth, literally understood, while affirming the
bodily resurrection. Shiflett's observation on this is an example of
why I think his book is important, especially for those on the right
who are in the throes of fighting the left: "Rev. Levy did make it
clear that a visitor can enter a politically liberal Episcopal church
and hear it preached that Christ was crucified, buried, and risen."
The culture wars have produced caricatures, and Shiflett has
successfully recaptured the human face on both sides, with one
exception-his treatment of Episcopal Bishop Shelby Spong. Spong's
theology is about as far left as you can get, and the author provides a
list of examples. But no matter how much he disagrees with Spong's
position, it was jarring to read the following: "When placed in a
wider context, Spong is simply another character from what might be
called America's Religious Freak Show, a group that includes
Resurrection-rejecting priests, televangelists who do battles with
hurricanes one moment and remove cysts from viewer's backs the
next...." Such declamations, however clever, detract from the
seriousness of his effort.
At that effort, Shiflett succeeds. He goes beyond the casual
observation that liberal churches are in decline because they are
nothing more than glorified social services. He shows that what
liberals don't have, and what sends some of their members to the
conservative churches, is a "crusading spirit." Why? Liberal
churches have a "lack of a unifying set of beliefs that would inspire
such a spirit." In other words, the cafeteria approach to the Creed
does not make it easier for churches to fill their pews; rather, it
makes it easier for those in the pews to leave them without a backward
glance.
If Father McCloskey is right, Shiflett's conclusion is bad news for
the Catholic Church. Father McCloskey is quoted in the final chapter
saying that only 10 percent of Catholics are "with the
program"-attending Mass regularly and embracing Church
teachings-a pessimism that concurs with the views of Finke and Stark.
Shiflett documents what happens when a religious denomination gives up
its core beliefs: loss of membership and dispiritedness. If the
Catholic Church is not going to go the way of the other mainline
denominations, then we have got to do better than 10 percent.
.
|
|
| User: "dh" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches |
18 Dec 2005 06:19:26 PM |
|
|
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134936950.134032.220140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches
http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2005/book1.htm
Packing the Pews
By Deal W. Hudson
Exodus: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative
Christianity
Dave Shiflett, Sentinel, 224 pages, $23.95
Easy: troubled times lead to a search for certainty, simple answers and
scapegoats. Falwell and his ilk provide that.
The world is still uncertain and complicated but people are grateful to be
shielded from that. The Two Great Commandments forbit scapegoating but
Falwell and his ilk overlook that part.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bull" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches |
18 Dec 2005 02:44:42 PM |
|
|
On 18 Dec 2005 12:15:50 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches
http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2005/book1.htm
Packing the Pews
By Deal W. Hudson
Exodus: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches
for Conservative
Christianity
Dave Shiflett, Sentinel, 224 pages, $23.95
Years ago, when I was a young assistant pastor at
a Southern Baptist
church in Atlanta, the deacons had an expression
for low attendance:
"There's too much wood showing today." It meant,
of course, that
more glossy wooden pews were showing than people.
The debate over how to fill the pews has been
raging for a long time.
If you asked someone to pinpoint a date when
church attendance in the
United States started to wane, he would probably
say the 1960s, or the
post-war period. If you asked why, he would
probably talk about social
changes, moral confusion, and growing cynicism.
But none of this is
true. The number of church adherents in the United
States has been
stable, even growing, since 1906. The century
began with just over half
of Americans belonging to a church; the number now
stands at 62
percent.
The definitive study of church affiliation in
America is The Churching
of America, 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in Our
Religious Economy by
Roger Finke and Rodney Stark (Rutgers, 2005). The
authors point out
that at its founding, this country was not
particularly
religious-only 17 percent of the nation belonged
to a church. The
story of our nation is a saga of steadily
increasing religious practice
during a time of growing secularism in Old Europe.
Then why all the hubbub over church attendance?
There is a simple
answer. The steady growth of church affiliation
and attendance has been
outside the mainstream Protestant denominations
and beyond the vision
of most "experts." Scholars and the media have
tended to identify
the fate of Methodists, Presbyterians,
Episcopalians, and to some
extent Catholics with the direction of American
religion itself. The
remarkable growth among evangelicals, both
fundamentalist and
Pentecostal, was either ignored or viewed with
condescension.
The first attempt at tracking this development was
Dean M. Kelley's
now-classic Why Conservative Churches Are Growing
in 1972. Kelley was
pilloried at the time for suggesting that the
mainline denominations
themselves-not the culture, not social tumult-were
responsible for
their own demise. The academy and mainline church
leaders largely
ignored Kelley's thesis, but Finke and Starke's
study, first
published in 1993, was so compelling that
scholarly resistance was
finally broken.
Thus Shiflett's fine study comes at a good time,
when both experts
and interested readers are willing to entertain
first-person accounts
from people who have abandoned liberal mainline
churches for more
conservative church homes.
Shiflett himself is an Episcopalian in what I
would call the "C. S.
Lewis tradition." He obviously feels the call to
Rome, like some of
the converts he interviews, but has not yet
answered. Unlike Finke and
Stark, Shiflett is not an objective scholar; he is
a professional
writer and committed Christian, saddened by the
demise of his own
denomination. Using a series of interviews with
clergy and laypeople on
both sides of the debate, he sets out to document
why the exodus from
liberal churches is occurring.
The introduction is good, but one might say it
reveals too much of what
Shiflett discovered along the way. "Most people
don't go to church
to learn the minister's opinions on whatever
happens to be in the
headlines. They can get similar opinions sitting
on their sofas
watching television, quite possibly presented by
someone much
better-looking." Yes, the author can be quite
funny, which is helpful
for a book like this, but good lines like this
belong in the
conclusion. Some things readers would like to
figure out for
themselves.
Fortunately Shiflett's interviews go well beyond
the conclusions
presented at the beginning. He shows great
sympathy for the liberals he
obviously disagrees with, while not treating the
conservatives
uncritically.
Some of his conservative subjects are
well-known-Rev. C. J.
McCloskey, Al Regnery, Chuck Colson, and Bernard
Nathanson. Less known,
at least to me, are Andy Ferguson, a convert to
Roman Catholicism, and
the Matthews-Greens, converts to Greek Orthodoxy.
The stories they tell
will confirm the convictions of most, if not all,
crisis readers, which
is why I will focus my attention on Shiflett's
treatment of the
liberal cause.
Rev. Bruce Gray is the rector of St. John's
Episcopal Church in
Richmond, Virginia. Gray represents the faction
supporting gay priests
and homosexual marriage. The author is surprised
that Gray sees a broad
right-wing conspiracy in the coalition of African
bishops and American
conservatives threatening to break away from the
Episcopal Church USA.
Gray thinks this coalition, the Network of
Anglican Communion Dioceses
and Parishes, is being funded by a single
"individual who has
supported reactionary political and religious
causes." I guess
right-wingers aren't the only ones who believe
conspiracy theories.
Shiflett then turns to Rev. Sandra Levy, rector of
St. Mark's
Episcopal Church, also in Richmond. Levy left the
Catholic Church for
the Episcopal because, as she said, "They would
ordain me." Levy is
kinder toward the conservative wing of her
denomination than Gray, but
when the subject of Catholicism returns she lets
it fly: "No
self-respecting woman can be Catholic."
Levy's theology, it turns out, has similar
discontinuities. She
rejects the Virgin birth, literally understood,
while affirming the
bodily resurrection. Shiflett's observation on
this is an example of
why I think his book is important, especially for
those on the right
who are in the throes of fighting the left: "Rev.
Levy did make it
clear that a visitor can enter a politically
liberal Episcopal church
and hear it preached that Christ was crucified,
buried, and risen."
The culture wars have produced caricatures, and
Shiflett has
successfully recaptured the human face on both
sides, with one
exception-his treatment of Episcopal Bishop Shelby
Spong. Spong's
theology is about as far left as you can get, and
the author provides a
list of examples. But no matter how much he
disagrees with Spong's
position, it was jarring to read the following:
"When placed in a
wider context, Spong is simply another character
from what might be
called America's Religious Freak Show, a group
that includes
Resurrection-rejecting priests, televangelists who
do battles with
hurricanes one moment and remove cysts from
viewer's backs the
next...." Such declamations, however clever,
detract from the
seriousness of his effort.
At that effort, Shiflett succeeds. He goes beyond
the casual
observation that liberal churches are in decline
because they are
nothing more than glorified social services. He
shows that what
liberals don't have, and what sends some of their
members to the
conservative churches, is a "crusading spirit."
Why? Liberal
churches have a "lack of a unifying set of beliefs
that would inspire
such a spirit." In other words, the cafeteria
approach to the Creed
does not make it easier for churches to fill their
pews; rather, it
makes it easier for those in the pews to leave
them without a backward
glance.
If Father McCloskey is right, Shiflett's
conclusion is bad news for
the Catholic Church. Father McCloskey is quoted in
the final chapter
saying that only 10 percent of Catholics are "with
the
program"-attending Mass regularly and embracing
Church
teachings-a pessimism that concurs with the views
of Finke and Stark.
Shiflett documents what happens when a religious
denomination gives up
its core beliefs: loss of membership and
dispiritedness. If the
Catholic Church is not going to go the way of the
other mainline
denominations, then we have got to do better than
10 percent.
Good -- let them all become fanatics and they'll
take care of themselves. Can't have too many
fanatics or they wouldn't be fanatics -- they'll
turn on themselves by destroying their periphery.
-
Omne vivum ex ovo
-
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches |
19 Dec 2005 09:02:55 AM |
|
|
On the whole, Americans are fleeing Christian churches, liberal and
otherwise. More and more Americans are self-identifying as non-religious,
agnostic and atheist.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[W]e have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted
state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection
Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."
- Sandra Day O`Conner, _Lawrence v Texas_
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches |
18 Dec 2005 04:48:37 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet words of truth
(wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Exodus: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative
Christianity
Some American Christians think liberal Christianity is akin to atheism.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
-----
Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of
a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same
God drowned infants in their cribs. - Sam Harris
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Arthur" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches |
18 Dec 2005 02:38:20 PM |
|
|
The Christian Taliban would like to force their particular view of
Christianity on Americans. Like the Muslim Taliban who enforced their
religious police on Muslims in
Afghanistan. These beasts would like to be the religious police in the USA.
Thank God for the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill
of Rights it cannot happen here.
I have examined all the known superstitions of the Word, and I do not find
in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They
are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,
women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt,
tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion?
To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support
roguery and error all over the world ...
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for
enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in
fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Thomas Jefferson
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as
the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three
headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more
of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the
caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes;
fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for
the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and
tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins
.... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my
Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible].
Thomas Paine
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134936950.134032.220140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches
http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2005/book1.htm
Packing the Pews
By Deal W. Hudson
Exodus: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative
Christianity
Dave Shiflett, Sentinel, 224 pages, $23.95
Years ago, when I was a young assistant pastor at a Southern Baptist
church in Atlanta, the deacons had an expression for low attendance:
"There's too much wood showing today." It meant, of course, that
more glossy wooden pews were showing than people.
The debate over how to fill the pews has been raging for a long time.
If you asked someone to pinpoint a date when church attendance in the
United States started to wane, he would probably say the 1960s, or the
post-war period. If you asked why, he would probably talk about social
changes, moral confusion, and growing cynicism. But none of this is
true. The number of church adherents in the United States has been
stable, even growing, since 1906. The century began with just over half
of Americans belonging to a church; the number now stands at 62
percent.
The definitive study of church affiliation in America is The Churching
of America, 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy by
Roger Finke and Rodney Stark (Rutgers, 2005). The authors point out
that at its founding, this country was not particularly
religious-only 17 percent of the nation belonged to a church. The
story of our nation is a saga of steadily increasing religious practice
during a time of growing secularism in Old Europe.
Then why all the hubbub over church attendance? There is a simple
answer. The steady growth of church affiliation and attendance has been
outside the mainstream Protestant denominations and beyond the vision
of most "experts." Scholars and the media have tended to identify
the fate of Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and to some
extent Catholics with the direction of American religion itself. The
remarkable growth among evangelicals, both fundamentalist and
Pentecostal, was either ignored or viewed with condescension.
The first attempt at tracking this development was Dean M. Kelley's
now-classic Why Conservative Churches Are Growing in 1972. Kelley was
pilloried at the time for suggesting that the mainline denominations
themselves-not the culture, not social tumult-were responsible for
their own demise. The academy and mainline church leaders largely
ignored Kelley's thesis, but Finke and Starke's study, first
published in 1993, was so compelling that scholarly resistance was
finally broken.
Thus Shiflett's fine study comes at a good time, when both experts
and interested readers are willing to entertain first-person accounts
from people who have abandoned liberal mainline churches for more
conservative church homes.
Shiflett himself is an Episcopalian in what I would call the "C. S.
Lewis tradition." He obviously feels the call to Rome, like some of
the converts he interviews, but has not yet answered. Unlike Finke and
Stark, Shiflett is not an objective scholar; he is a professional
writer and committed Christian, saddened by the demise of his own
denomination. Using a series of interviews with clergy and laypeople on
both sides of the debate, he sets out to document why the exodus from
liberal churches is occurring.
The introduction is good, but one might say it reveals too much of what
Shiflett discovered along the way. "Most people don't go to church
to learn the minister's opinions on whatever happens to be in the
headlines. They can get similar opinions sitting on their sofas
watching television, quite possibly presented by someone much
better-looking." Yes, the author can be quite funny, which is helpful
for a book like this, but good lines like this belong in the
conclusion. Some things readers would like to figure out for
themselves.
Fortunately Shiflett's interviews go well beyond the conclusions
presented at the beginning. He shows great sympathy for the liberals he
obviously disagrees with, while not treating the conservatives
uncritically.
Some of his conservative subjects are well-known-Rev. C. J.
McCloskey, Al Regnery, Chuck Colson, and Bernard Nathanson. Less known,
at least to me, are Andy Ferguson, a convert to Roman Catholicism, and
the Matthews-Greens, converts to Greek Orthodoxy. The stories they tell
will confirm the convictions of most, if not all, crisis readers, which
is why I will focus my attention on Shiflett's treatment of the
liberal cause.
Rev. Bruce Gray is the rector of St. John's Episcopal Church in
Richmond, Virginia. Gray represents the faction supporting gay priests
and homosexual marriage. The author is surprised that Gray sees a broad
right-wing conspiracy in the coalition of African bishops and American
conservatives threatening to break away from the Episcopal Church USA.
Gray thinks this coalition, the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses
and Parishes, is being funded by a single "individual who has
supported reactionary political and religious causes." I guess
right-wingers aren't the only ones who believe conspiracy theories.
Shiflett then turns to Rev. Sandra Levy, rector of St. Mark's
Episcopal Church, also in Richmond. Levy left the Catholic Church for
the Episcopal because, as she said, "They would ordain me." Levy is
kinder toward the conservative wing of her denomination than Gray, but
when the subject of Catholicism returns she lets it fly: "No
self-respecting woman can be Catholic."
Levy's theology, it turns out, has similar discontinuities. She
rejects the Virgin birth, literally understood, while affirming the
bodily resurrection. Shiflett's observation on this is an example of
why I think his book is important, especially for those on the right
who are in the throes of fighting the left: "Rev. Levy did make it
clear that a visitor can enter a politically liberal Episcopal church
and hear it preached that Christ was crucified, buried, and risen."
The culture wars have produced caricatures, and Shiflett has
successfully recaptured the human face on both sides, with one
exception-his treatment of Episcopal Bishop Shelby Spong. Spong's
theology is about as far left as you can get, and the author provides a
list of examples. But no matter how much he disagrees with Spong's
position, it was jarring to read the following: "When placed in a
wider context, Spong is simply another character from what might be
called America's Religious Freak Show, a group that includes
Resurrection-rejecting priests, televangelists who do battles with
hurricanes one moment and remove cysts from viewer's backs the
next...." Such declamations, however clever, detract from the
seriousness of his effort.
At that effort, Shiflett succeeds. He goes beyond the casual
observation that liberal churches are in decline because they are
nothing more than glorified social services. He shows that what
liberals don't have, and what sends some of their members to the
conservative churches, is a "crusading spirit." Why? Liberal
churches have a "lack of a unifying set of beliefs that would inspire
such a spirit." In other words, the cafeteria approach to the Creed
does not make it easier for churches to fill their pews; rather, it
makes it easier for those in the pews to leave them without a backward
glance.
If Father McCloskey is right, Shiflett's conclusion is bad news for
the Catholic Church. Father McCloskey is quoted in the final chapter
saying that only 10 percent of Catholics are "with the
program"-attending Mass regularly and embracing Church
teachings-a pessimism that concurs with the views of Finke and Stark.
Shiflett documents what happens when a religious denomination gives up
its core beliefs: loss of membership and dispiritedness. If the
Catholic Church is not going to go the way of the other mainline
denominations, then we have got to do better than 10 percent.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches |
18 Dec 2005 06:46:12 PM |
|
|
This guys has it all wrong. Church attendance probably went down around
the mid to late fifties. The culture shock that changed everything
brought about a mentallity that something is only good for you if you
enjoy it. After all nothing enjoyable can be bad for you.
Nobody enjoyed church. They thought it was "boring", "monotonous" and
"routine". And so the Contemporary Movement was born. A type of hippy
known as the Jesus Freak started infiltrating churches en masse.
Next thing you knew, you were hearing contemporary praise music during
worship instead of hymns. This new type of music was loud and upbeat.
It was very enjoyable.
The format of sermons also changed as well. Preachers started sounding
more like stand-up comedians than anything else.
Church became fun. People started going in order to get down and party.
In the process the Word goes unheard because no one cares what it is
anymore. They don't care what the subject of the songs and sermons is
about. Just that their easier to listen to and so they put up with that
subject so they can enjoy the funky music and funny jokes.
Christ said that "all must overcome hardships in order to reach the
Kingdom of God". Now anyone with half a brain knows that boredom is a
hardship just like anything else. In order to raise attendance the
church has confirmed to the needs of man, something the Bible
explicidly says should not be done, and they succeeded in their goal.
Too bad that success has no meaning.
words of truth wrote:
Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches
http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2005/book1.htm
Packing the Pews
By Deal W. Hudson
Exodus: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative
Christianity
Dave Shiflett, Sentinel, 224 pages, $23.95
Years ago, when I was a young assistant pastor at a Southern Baptist
church in Atlanta, the deacons had an expression for low attendance:
"There's too much wood showing today." It meant, of course, that
more glossy wooden pews were showing than people.
The debate over how to fill the pews has been raging for a long time.
If you asked someone to pinpoint a date when church attendance in the
United States started to wane, he would probably say the 1960s, or the
post-war period. If you asked why, he would probably talk about social
changes, moral confusion, and growing cynicism. But none of this is
true. The number of church adherents in the United States has been
stable, even growing, since 1906. The century began with just over half
of Americans belonging to a church; the number now stands at 62
percent.
The definitive study of church affiliation in America is The Churching
of America, 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy by
Roger Finke and Rodney Stark (Rutgers, 2005). The authors point out
that at its founding, this country was not particularly
religious-only 17 percent of the nation belonged to a church. The
story of our nation is a saga of steadily increasing religious practice
during a time of growing secularism in Old Europe.
Then why all the hubbub over church attendance? There is a simple
answer. The steady growth of church affiliation and attendance has been
outside the mainstream Protestant denominations and beyond the vision
of most "experts." Scholars and the media have tended to identify
the fate of Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and to some
extent Catholics with the direction of American religion itself. The
remarkable growth among evangelicals, both fundamentalist and
Pentecostal, was either ignored or viewed with condescension.
The first attempt at tracking this development was Dean M. Kelley's
now-classic Why Conservative Churches Are Growing in 1972. Kelley was
pilloried at the time for suggesting that the mainline denominations
themselves-not the culture, not social tumult-were responsible for
their own demise. The academy and mainline church leaders largely
ignored Kelley's thesis, but Finke and Starke's study, first
published in 1993, was so compelling that scholarly resistance was
finally broken.
Thus Shiflett's fine study comes at a good time, when both experts
and interested readers are willing to entertain first-person accounts
from people who have abandoned liberal mainline churches for more
conservative church homes.
Shiflett himself is an Episcopalian in what I would call the "C. S.
Lewis tradition." He obviously feels the call to Rome, like some of
the converts he interviews, but has not yet answered. Unlike Finke and
Stark, Shiflett is not an objective scholar; he is a professional
writer and committed Christian, saddened by the demise of his own
denomination. Using a series of interviews with clergy and laypeople on
both sides of the debate, he sets out to document why the exodus from
liberal churches is occurring.
The introduction is good, but one might say it reveals too much of what
Shiflett discovered along the way. "Most people don't go to church
to learn the minister's opinions on whatever happens to be in the
headlines. They can get similar opinions sitting on their sofas
watching television, quite possibly presented by someone much
better-looking." Yes, the author can be quite funny, which is helpful
for a book like this, but good lines like this belong in the
conclusion. Some things readers would like to figure out for
themselves.
Fortunately Shiflett's interviews go well beyond the conclusions
presented at the beginning. He shows great sympathy for the liberals he
obviously disagrees with, while not treating the conservatives
uncritically.
Some of his conservative subjects are well-known-Rev. C. J.
McCloskey, Al Regnery, Chuck Colson, and Bernard Nathanson. Less known,
at least to me, are Andy Ferguson, a convert to Roman Catholicism, and
the Matthews-Greens, converts to Greek Orthodoxy. The stories they tell
will confirm the convictions of most, if not all, crisis readers, which
is why I will focus my attention on Shiflett's treatment of the
liberal cause.
Rev. Bruce Gray is the rector of St. John's Episcopal Church in
Richmond, Virginia. Gray represents the faction supporting gay priests
and homosexual marriage. The author is surprised that Gray sees a broad
right-wing conspiracy in the coalition of African bishops and American
conservatives threatening to break away from the Episcopal Church USA.
Gray thinks this coalition, the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses
and Parishes, is being funded by a single "individual who has
supported reactionary political and religious causes." I guess
right-wingers aren't the only ones who believe conspiracy theories.
Shiflett then turns to Rev. Sandra Levy, rector of St. Mark's
Episcopal Church, also in Richmond. Levy left the Catholic Church for
the Episcopal because, as she said, "They would ordain me." Levy is
kinder toward the conservative wing of her denomination than Gray, but
when the subject of Catholicism returns she lets it fly: "No
self-respecting woman can be Catholic."
Levy's theology, it turns out, has similar discontinuities. She
rejects the Virgin birth, literally understood, while affirming the
bodily resurrection. Shiflett's observation on this is an example of
why I think his book is important, especially for those on the right
who are in the throes of fighting the left: "Rev. Levy did make it
clear that a visitor can enter a politically liberal Episcopal church
and hear it preached that Christ was crucified, buried, and risen."
The culture wars have produced caricatures, and Shiflett has
successfully recaptured the human face on both sides, with one
exception-his treatment of Episcopal Bishop Shelby Spong. Spong's
theology is about as far left as you can get, and the author provides a
list of examples. But no matter how much he disagrees with Spong's
position, it was jarring to read the following: "When placed in a
wider context, Spong is simply another character from what might be
called America's Religious Freak Show, a group that includes
Resurrection-rejecting priests, televangelists who do battles with
hurricanes one moment and remove cysts from viewer's backs the
next...." Such declamations, however clever, detract from the
seriousness of his effort.
At that effort, Shiflett succeeds. He goes beyond the casual
observation that liberal churches are in decline because they are
nothing more than glorified social services. He shows that what
liberals don't have, and what sends some of their members to the
conservative churches, is a "crusading spirit." Why? Liberal
churches have a "lack of a unifying set of beliefs that would inspire
such a spirit." In other words, the cafeteria approach to the Creed
does not make it easier for churches to fill their pews; rather, it
makes it easier for those in the pews to leave them without a backward
glance.
If Father McCloskey is right, Shiflett's conclusion is bad news for
the Catholic Church. Father McCloskey is quoted in the final chapter
saying that only 10 percent of Catholics are "with the
program"-attending Mass regularly and embracing Church
teachings-a pessimism that concurs with the views of Finke and Stark.
Shiflett documents what happens when a religious denomination gives up
its core beliefs: loss of membership and dispiritedness. If the
Catholic Church is not going to go the way of the other mainline
denominations, then we have got to do better than 10 percent.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Peace of Christ*" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches |
19 Dec 2005 10:43:09 AM |
|
|
ne-Quarter of Self-Described Born Again Adults Rely On Means Other Than
Grace to Get to Heaven
November 29, 2005
(Ventura, CA) When someone calls himself a Christian, what does he
really mean? What does someone imply when they adopt the label ³born again
Christian?² A new national survey released by The Barna Group indicates
that the terminology used by followers of Jesus Christ reflects a breadth
of meanings. While the most widely-held description is simply ³Christian,²
that term represents a segment of adults who engage in less religious
activity and possess less orthodox views than do people who associate
themselves with other descriptions.
Four Ways Of Viewing Faith
Overall, 80% of adults in the U.S. call themselves ³Christian.² In
comparison, the phrase ³a committed Christian² is embraced by two out of
every three adults (68%). The words ³born again Christian² are adopted by
just less than half of the population (45%). A two-part description of a
personıs faith, in which they say they ³have made a personal commitment to
Jesus Christ that is still important² in their life today, and in which
they claim they will go to Heaven after they die because they have
confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, is also
claimed by just less than half (44%). (This latter definition has been
used by The Barna Group for nearly two decades to describe ³born again²
people without using the term ³born again² in its surveys.)
The study showed some interesting relationships among these terms. For
instance, one-quarter of those who call themselves born again did not meet
the Barna Group criteria for born again which generally meant they rely
upon something other than Godıs grace as their means to salvation. The
³born again Christian² self-description tends to attract a greater
percentage of blacks, people under 25, and people over 60 than does the
Barna Groupıs theologically-oriented descriptor. That two-part definition
used by the research firm also attracts a larger share of upscale adults
and more people who share their faith in Jesus Christ with other people.
Demographic Differences
The various religious descriptions had varied appeal across demographic
segments. Age was related to these terms in some intriguing ways. Mosaics,
the youngest adults (those 21 and younger) were comparatively comfortable
with the terms ³Christian² and ³born again Christian² but were much less
comfortable calling themselves committed Christians (just 29% did so,
compared to a national norm of 68%). The preceding generation, the Baby
Busters (now ages 22 through 40), were significantly below the national
average in relation to all four of the terms tested, reflecting their
relative distance from conventional organized religious groups and
beliefs.
Blacks were the ethnic group that most deeply resonated with the term
³born again² (75% embraced it to describe themselves, compared to only 31%
of Hispanics and 44% of whites). Hispanics were comparatively likely to
adopt the term ³committed Christian² (58%).
Catholics, in general, were uncomfortable with the phrase ³born again
Christian.² Although just 14% said it described them accurately, 23%
qualified as born again according The Barna Groupıs definition.
Regionally, residents of the Northeast generally accepted the terms
³Christian² (74%) and ³committed Christian² (61%), but were far less
likely to adopt the ³born again Christian² phrase (29%) or to meet the
Barna Groupıs born again standard (29%). People living in the West had a
similar portrait. Adults in the South were comparatively less likely than
others to say they were a ³committed Christian.² People in the Midwest
were the most likely to claim to be a ³committed Christian.²
The research also found that self-described conservatives were three times
more likely than self-described liberals to embrace the ³born again²
label; blacks were two-and-a-half times more likely than Hispanics to do
so; and people without any college education were almost 60% more likely
than those with a college degree to stake a claim to being ³born again.²
Only half of both of the ³born again² segments (i.e., those self-described
by the term and those defined by The Barna Groupıs questions) had prayed
to God, read from the Bible and attended a religious service in the past
week. In comparison, nine out of ten ³committed Christian² adults had done
so and just one-third of those who said they are ³Christian² engaged in
the three behaviors.
Thoughts On Religious Language
The research suggests that phrases do not necessarily possess universally
understood meaning. ³Blacks, Catholics and young adults are groups who
conjure up different images than do other people when terms such as born
againı or committed Christianı are used,² noted George Barna, who
conducted the research. ³With more than 250 Protestant denominations in
the United States, and the increasing diversity and customization within
the spiritual realm, itıs not surprising that there is very limited common
understanding with such language. The challenge,² he continued, ³may be to
avoid reliance on labels and brief adjectives as religious profiles. In
our sound-bite society, with everyone moving quickly and making snap
judgments, the temptation is to rely upon simple characterizations to
provide a broad perspective on who a person is and what they represent.
This is part of the challenge to churches: to know each person more deeply
in order to serve them more meaningfully. Ideally, people of faith will
recognize the value of genuine relationships in which we know each other
at a deeper level and can therefore foster real connection and growth.²
Source of This Information
The data reported in this summary are based upon telephone interviews with
a nationwide random sample of 1002 adults conducted in October 2005. The
maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample in
this survey is ħ3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All
non-institutionalized adults in the 48 contiguous states were eligible to
be interviewed and the distribution of respondents in the survey sample
corresponds to the geographic dispersion of the U.S. adult population. The
data were subjected to slight statistical weighting procedures to
calibrate the survey base to national demographic proportions. Households
selected for inclusion in the survey sample received multiple callbacks to
increase the probability of obtaining a representative distribution of
adults.
The ³Baby Busters² refers to the generation of people born from 1965
through 1983. The ³Mosaic² generation includes all people born from 1984
through 2002. In this study, only those Mosaics born from 1984 through
1987 were included that is, those who were 18 or older.
The Barna Group, Ltd. (which includes its research division, The Barna
Research Group) is a privately held, for-profit corporation that conducts
primary research, produces audio, visual and print media, and facilitates
the healthy spiritual development of leaders, children, families and
Christian ministries. Located in Ventura, California, Barna has been
conducting and analyzing primary research to understand cultural trends
related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors since 1984.
=================================================================
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of
any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US
Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
=================================================================
--
*Peace of Christ*
http://grace.break.at
To send e-mail, remove "youhat" from address
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches |
18 Dec 2005 02:33:01 PM |
|
|
words of truth <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches
Hate sells better than love.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches |
18 Dec 2005 02:26:58 PM |
|
|
words of truth wrote:
Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches
http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2005/book1.htm
Packing the Pews
By Deal W. Hudson
Exodus: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative
Christianity
Dave Shiflett, Sentinel, 224 pages, $23.95
Years ago, when I was a young assistant pastor at a Southern Baptist
church in Atlanta, the deacons had an expression for low attendance:
"There's too much wood showing today." It meant, of course, that
more glossy wooden pews were showing than people.
Um... are you sure that's what it meant?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches |
18 Dec 2005 03:03:54 PM |
|
|
words of truth wrote:
Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches
http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2005/book1.htm
If Father McCloskey is right, Shiflett's conclusion is bad news for
the Catholic Church. Father McCloskey is quoted in the final chapter
saying that only 10 percent of Catholics are "with the
program"-attending Mass regularly and embracing Church
teachings-a pessimism that concurs with the views of Finke and Stark.
Shiflett documents what happens when a religious denomination gives up
its core beliefs: loss of membership and dispiritedness. If the
Catholic Church is not going to go the way of the other mainline
denominations, then we have got to do better than 10 percent.
Between 1990 and 2000 Catholics grew in this area from 15,382 to 19,483
(26.7 %)
Evangelical prodestants grew 2.2 percent.
More than 72% of the population (147,520) went unclaimed. The question was
not asked in 1990.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "3D Master" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches |
20 Dec 2005 02:01:31 PM |
|
|
words of truth wrote:
Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches
So basically; exactly during the time the American educational system
went more and more down the drain, more and more people accept antics of
a bunch of hate-mongering, fundamental religious freaks as the word of god?
Hmm... now why do I think there's a correlation between that one...
3D Master
--
~~~~~
"I've got something to say; it's better to burn out than to fade away!"
- The Kurgan, Highlander
"Give me some sugar, baby!"
- Ashley J. 'Ash' Williams, Army of Darkness
~~~~~
Author of several stories, which can be found here:
http://members.chello.nl/~jg.temolder1/
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
