Brief article on how both Christians and non-Christians are growing critical of the faith. Plus some interesting stats, such as 40% of 16-29 year olds are non-Christian!

Christianity's Image Problem

If this is true, how much longer will Christianity (especially the fundy-evangelical wing) be able to dominate? Will this cause the fundy-evangelicals to become even more rabid and frightful as they feel themselves losing control?

That's the best news I've read in a looonnnnggggg time!

Maybe it's just me but I would say fundy behavior is more unashamedly radical and brazenly blatant and confrontational than it was five years ago. This research was done three years ago. Thus, the fundies would have been hurting badly for several years already--what with their young marrieds not converting, not bringing their young kids to church. I wonder what the stats would look like today.

People who were 29 in 2004 are into their early thirties today. Their kids are in school--unchurched. Or--horror of horrors--perhaps these thirty-somethings have bucked the trend altogether and are not bearing any grandkids for their faithful fundy parents to spoil, as well as save. You can guess what that would do to the atmosphere of a church sanctuary.

I might be wrong but I feel convinced the war has something to do with fundy behaviour and outlook. People--make that Good Fundamentalist Christian Soldiers--are getting killed and Jesus is not returning. In light of the stats of this article, I wonder if the rabid fundy behaviour we are seeing these days might be--dare I say it?--the desperate last-ditch attempts to save a dying religious-political movement.

Jerry Falwell is dead. Has anyone really been able to take his place? From reading his autobiographies I get the impression Falwell had charisma. I'm not sure that Pat Robertson has the same rousing charm. And again, you can't argue with dead soldiers. The kids are dead! They're not coming back!

Nor has Jesus.

Any thoughts?

I had written a lengthy response, but when I went to post it, the forum wanted me to reenter my name and password because I neglected to mark the "log in automatically" box. So my post was lost. Arggggh! Let's try this again, shall we...though my reply may be more abbreviated than originally.


Yes, fundamentalists true believers and their leaders are more strident and confrontational now because they feel they are losing power and influence. Non-fundamentalists have had a chance to see fundyism in full blown power and they don't like it. Even some among the fundamentalist/evangelical ranks are questioning the system that offered them so much but gave out so little. A swift, glorious military victory has turned into a deadly quagmire; church mothers weep and cry "Why?" when their soldier sons and daughters are returned in flag-draped caskets; citizens are disappointed when church and government leaders, who were elected on the basis of their honesty and integrity, are caught lying and cheating; faithful followers are shocked and shaken when respected leaders are found to not only having fallen into a brief temptation, but have been discovered regularly engaging in what is taught to be sinful lifestyles, concealed from the public eye; believers wonder why pet issues like abortion and homosexuality are harped upon while the American health care crisis, global warming, war, and poverty are swept under the carpet...all of these items are causing a rumbling not only among the general population, but among the conservative church itself.


D. James Kennedy, a Christian Reconstructionist minister, recently passed away also. There are new leaders rising in the ranks, but whether they can step into the shoes of the old guard will depend on the newbie's persona... and whether they can address the concerns that are being raised by the dreadful results of the recent fundy attempt to rule. History often moves in cycles; a conservative era will be replaced by a progressive one, which is followed by a new conservative movement...etc. The thing is to control the radicals within each cycle. The recent conservative cycle has gone too far now, only time will tell whether the progressives can pull the situation back from the brink of destruction before even more serious damage is done.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MoreLight ... ssage/3791

In his powerful new book, evangelical theologian and former Moderator of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Jack Rogers argues unequivocally for equal
rights in the church and in society for people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual,
or transgender. Throughout history, he observes, Christianity has moved towards
ever greater openness and inclusiveness. Today's church is led by many of
those who were once cast out: people of color, women, and divorced and
remarried people.

He argues that when we interpret the Bible through the lens of Jesus'
redemptive life and ministry, we see that the church is called to grant equal
rights to all people. 'Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality' describes Rogers' own
change of mind and heart on the issue; charts the church's well-documented
history of using biblical passages to oppress marginalized groups; argues for a
Christ-centered reading of Scripture; debunks oft-repeated stereotypes about
gays and lesbians; and concludes with ideas for how the church can heal itself
and move forward again.

A fascinating combination of personal narrative, theology, and church
history, this book is essential reading for all concerned with the future of the
church and the health of the nation. "This is an extraordinary book, arguably
the best to appear in the long, drawn-out debates within churches over
homosexuality," says J. Philip Wogaman, former senior minister at Foundry
United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C.


Things are looking up, Ex CoG!

Ex-COG, that is beautiful--your middle paragraph. I know what it feels like having lost a really good post. I am glad you found the energy to try again. THANK YOU.

Marti, I tried your link and it takes me to a Yahoo page to sign in. Do I have to be a member of Yahoo to see the article?

From a sociological perspective it will be very interesting to see how things will develop. Perhaps from other perspectives, too. As a Canadian I sometimes ask myself why I am so engrossed with the American religious-political situation. As a scholar in the making I think perhaps I can justify it from the sociological perspective.

Marti, what you say about the Presbyterian Church is theologically very interesting--how that will develop. That book sounds like it might have the ideal compromise for those people who want to retain Christianity without rejecting the traditional outcasts of society. Like I said, I can't get in to see the article...

Have any of you read the books by John Shelby Spong? He's an Episcopal bishop in New Jersey who calls upon Christians to change radically. I have several of his books, including Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism and Why Christianity Must Change or Die. While I've chosen to leave the faith completely, I have respect for those who stay and instigate change. It's fun to see the fundy feathers ruffled, plus knowing that some of the followers may listen to one who still claims Christianity. Those of us who left they will just brush off.

I have not read any of Spong's books yet. However, the one about rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism sounds very interesting because the fundamentalists thought they were rescuing it from the liberals only a century ago and they probably still think so.

Isn't it funny that what is supposedly the Word of God has to be rescued from anything? You'd think it could stand on its own merits.

You might want to look into some of Spongs works just to see how radical he really is. He calls for Christians of the world to debate:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

From A Call for a New Reformation. After reading this list of challenges, I doubt the fundies would even consider Spong to be a Christian.

I don't doubt that they won't. I know they won't. It sounds a great deal like what we discussed on a totally different forum more than a year ago that we labeled liberal Christianity. I was left feeling that if this is all there is to religion, why bother trying to relate to an invisible, imperceptible Being? Why not reserve the energy to deal with life in the here and now? And if this Being exists and there is an afterlife I know I am living the way I am meant to live life and I will be admitted to heaven.

I am very much a hermit type of person. But perhaps some people do better if they have an organized group to meet with regularly for services. Because it seems some people really do want a church for this kind of Christianity. Last night I read an article on exChristian that reported Richard Dawkins as calling for the destruction of all religion. I am not so sure that all kind of human spiritual fellowship should be destroyed. Maybe Spong and Matthew Fox are onto something that would serve as an acceptable alternative?

Are you saying, RSM, that you think this 'Being' might exist, and there might be an afterlife?
Isn't this agnosticism? (rather than atheism)

Also, I'm curious about your use of the phrase 'I am meant to ..' It sounds as if you're obeying someone or something outside yourself - Who or What is telling you what you're meant to do?

I can't imagine why an atheist would even want to be 'admitted to heaven'.

But maybe I've read you wrongly. If so, I apologise.


Marti

No need to apologize, Marti. I think we are learning to understand each other.

I'm experiencing some pretty serious problems with internet connections so if a day passes that I don't come online, that is probably the reason. I tried coming in earlier today and couldn't.

In answer to your question. I think what I am saying is that I don't think it matters all that much whether or not there is a God. I don't think there is. I see no evidence for one. But there is no way to rule it out, same as there is no way to rule out the existence for a Santa Claus, or Purple Leprechauns, or any number of other mythical figures. But, because I was raised in a very strict religion and all my siblings still are in that religion, and the only way I can live a decent life (retain my sanity and peace of mind) is to maintain much distance from them and their religious talk, it is not exactly easy on the psychological level to just said to hell with all the crap.

This is serious stuff and I take it seriously. But I was totally unable to find the peace that religion promised. I was therefore forced to find peace via some other method. And I found it. However, it started before I left religion completely behind so I don't think one has to totally leave religion. The insights that came to me while I was still inside religion were humanist values and I am convinced that these humanist values, by which I continue to live, are what Jesus meant. Whether or not God exists, therefore, is in my mind beside the point. I don't know what label, if any, fits me.

Also, I'm curious about your use of the phrase 'I am meant to ..' It sounds as if you're obeying someone or something outside yourself - Who or What is telling you what you're meant to do?

Many say they don't but hey! I'm human. Just the other day I looked up the description of hell. A lake burning with fire. Sounds pretty ominous. If I have to choose between a nice park with trees and a River of Life, and a lake burning with fire, I am going to choose the park. I just don't think that option exists. I think when we die, that's it. But it's always fun to speculate, don't you think? Just to keep your bases covered, so to speak.