Study finds christianity losing the young

robindch

The Barna Group, a research company which specializes in carrying out reasonably good religious surveys, has published a book in which it claims that religion, and the reputation of religion, is significantly down amongst the under-30's today, than they were with a similar group of under-30's ten years ago. A short piece on the book is available from Barna's website here:

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=280

This coincides with my own experience of religion, which is that the overall numbers are down, even if the level of marketing of religion, and the public time spent discussing religious matters of one kind or another, have both increased.

Comments?

BrianCalgary

Not really surprising considering all the anti Christianity being portrayed in pop culture and media.

Not to mention in our schools over the last 40 years.

Sad.

Also worth noting is that when people are economically well off they don't see a need for God. There is also the problem in America of Christianity being experiential without substance. Whereas Christianity is substantial with experience coming second.

I also think that there is a failure among our churches to answer the question, 'why?'

PDN

In the US, where Barna does his research, this is undoubtedly so. In my opinion this is a natural consequence of Christianity's muddle-headed alliance with the Republican right. Young people are, statistically, more likely to vote Democrat than Republican and, quite rightly, reject much right-wing fundamentalism as 'unChristian'.

In Ireland, where the dominant religion has been Catholicism for many generations, the same thing is happening. The age profile of Irish Catholics appears to be rising all the time. Evangelical churches, while statistically a small minority, tend to have much younger congregations, as do most immigrant churches.

Worldwide the trend is in the opposite direction to the American experience. In many developing countries Christianity is seen as something trendy that draws the younger generations. I was talking to a prominent missiologist recently who declared that the Christian Church (across the board worldwide) is getting younger. In China, for example, Christianity is especially popular among young intellectuals.

Hopefully these twin processes will lessen America's influence upon the global Church.

philologos

It hasn't lost me just yet

Juza1973

PDN wrote:

In the US, where Barna does his research, this is undoubtedly so. In my opinion this is a natural consequence of Christianity's muddle-headed alliance with the Republican right. Young people are, statistically, more likely to vote Democrat than Republican and, quite rightly, reject much right-wing fundamentalism as 'unChristian'.

I don't get it: if they are lost to Christianity why would they care what is uncristian or not?

PDN

Juza1973 wrote:

I don't get it: if they are lost to Christianity why would they care what is uncristian or not?

One of the reasons they are rejecting Christianity is because it they see a manifestation of the Church that they (rightly, in my opinion) perceive to be unChristian. Many young Americans are open to authentic Christianity, but reject the hypocrisy they see in the institutional church.

There is a small, but growing, number of American churches that would be attractive to younger people. These churches, known as 'emergent' or 'emerging' churches are evangelical, but also liberal (politically), post-modern (philosophically), and generally much more inclusive & tolerant than fundamentalists. Although still, statistically, a small minority, some of these churches are growing very large (ie 10,000+ in attendance) very quickly.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

One of the reasons they are rejecting Christianity is because it they see a manifestation of the Church that they (rightly, in my opinion) perceive to be unChristian. Many young Americans are open to authentic Christianity, but reject the hypocrisy they see in the institutional church.

There is a small, but growing, number of American churches that would be attractive to younger people. These churches, known as 'emergent' or 'emerging' churches are evangelical, but also liberal (politically), post-modern (philosophically), and generally much more inclusive & tolerant than fundamentalists. Although still, statistically, a small minority, some of these churches are growing very large (ie 10,000+ in attendance) very quickly.

Not that PDN has any particular position on the right type of church, of course...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Barna wrote:

Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is "anti-homosexual." Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity.

Its interesting that they mentioned homosexuality, an issue that has raised a lot of heated debates on this forum as well.

And, unfortunately for Christianity, its not an issue that the Christian churches can easily white wash over to attract non-Christians "into the flock". The simple fact is that a lot of young people do not see homosexuality as wrong, so a religion that teaches that it is, even in a friendly way, is not going to appeal that much to them as it will seem counter-intuitive (why does God not like homosexuals having relationships as much as heterosexuals?).

But the problem seems even bigger than that, with even the Christians polled (who one would assume have already accepted that God views homosexual sexual relationships as wrong) having a very strong perception that their own churches are actively hostile towards homosexuals (which the regulars Christians posters here will no doubt explain they shouldn't be)

To me homosexuality is going to be a major issue for the Christian churches in the coming years. Unless there is some kind of fundamental shift in how it is interpreted (turns out God loves homosexuals having sex as much as heterosexuals!), as there was with slavery a few centuries ago, I can't see the Christian churches moving on from this issue.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Not that PDN has any particular position on the right type of church, of course...

Well, no more than you would have a position on the right kind of atheism. I presume you would find the spread of an intellectual and tolerant atheism to be preferable to the variety that is enforced by Communism, for example?

The emergent churches would be right in my opinion because they agree with me politically & in their basic theology, and because they are effective in reaching people with the Gospel who otherwise would simply be alienated from Christianity. I would, however, also see them as being wrong in their post-modernistic philosophy, which drives me crazy.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Its interesting that they mentioned homosexuality, an issue that has raised a lot of heated debates on this forum as well.

And, unfortunately for Christianity, its not an issue that the Christian churches can easily white wash over to attract non-Christians "into the flock". The simple fact is that a lot of young people do not see homosexuality as wrong, so a religion that teaches that it is, even in a friendly way, is not going to appeal that much to them as it will seem counter-intuitive (why does God not like homosexuals having relationships as much as heterosexuals?).

But the problem seems even bigger than that, with even the Christians polled (who one would assume have already accepted that God views homosexual sexual relationships as wrong) having a very strong perception that their own churches are actively hostile towards homosexuals (which the regulars Christians posters here will no doubt explain they shouldn't be)

To me homosexuality is going to be a major issue for the Christian churches in the coming years. Unless there is some kind of fundamental shift in how it is interpreted (turns out God loves homosexuals having sex as much as heterosexuals!), as there was with slavery a few centuries ago, I can't see the Christian churches moving on from this issue.

Without going over the same tired old ground yet again, it is certainly true that some churches in the US are actively hostile against homosexuals (the people) as opposed to simply believing that homosexuality (the act) is wrong. Generally such homophobia tends to be part of a cultural package where certain churches have a siege mentality and are opposed to anyone who threatens their 'Little House on the Prairie' image of America (homosexuals, Muslims, atheists, immigrants, 'Demoncrats' etc).

The idea that churches should become more attractive by 'moving on' and declare that there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts may sound reasonable, but is flawed on two levels:

a) It is very hard to still treat the Bible as authoritative and yet to approve of homosexuality. Such a position involves such hermeneutical contortions as to effectively destroy trust in Scripture. Now, Wicknight, you may think that is a good thing. But in terms of church growth it would be a very bad thing, because every piece of research into churches who abandon belief in the authority of Scripture demonstrates that this results in numerical decline. On average, in the US, churches who hold a 'high' view of Scripture grow, while churches that deny the authority of the Bible are declining. This pattern has been observed for at least 50 years. Also, despite Barna's findings, those denominations and churches that see homosexuality as OK, such as Episcopalians, have a much higher age profile than those churches that see homosexual acts as sinful. So, for churches to 'move on' in accepting homosexual acts (in the hope of attracting young people) would necessitate 'sliding back' in downgrading the Bible (thus driving away much larger numbers of young people). This is why the emergent churches, with typical postmodernistic vagueness, avoid making any statements on homosexuality at all - thus managing to appear to be both accepting and biblical.

b) There is a second problem with churches 'moving on' regarding homosexuality. Christianity's position on homosexuality, while a problem to many young Americans (and Western Europeans) has the opposite effect in most other parts of the world. And remember that the vast majority of the world's Christians live in the developing world. This is currently being demonstrated within Anglicanism where that denomination now faces the prospect of losing the majority of their worldwide membership due to the American wing of the denomination ordaining practicing homosexuals as clergy. Barna's findings about American young people's attitudes towards homosexuality hardly apply to Nigeria or China. For the western minority within Christianity to try to enforce their cultural norms on the two-thirds world would be seen as colonialism (a perception encouraged by those pro-gay activists at an Anglican General Synod who shouted at Nigerian delegates to 'get back to the jungle').

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Generally such homophobia tends to be part of a cultural package where certain churches have a siege mentality and are opposed to anyone who threatens their 'Little House on the Prairie' image of America (homosexuals, Muslims, atheists, immigrants, 'Demoncrats' etc).

I would imagine that they feel that the promotion of homosexual as being "OK" by society at large leads to the results seen in this study, that people turn away from the Christian church because it's teaching conflict with what society says it perfectly fine and normal.

Of course that is a very flawed way of looking at it (society saying it is perfectly fine and normal is a reflection of the fact that it is perfectly fine and normal), but it at least understandable.

PDN wrote:

The idea that churches should become more attractive by 'moving on' and declare that there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts may sound reasonable, but is flawed on two levels:

Well, that is the problem the Christian churches face, since a lot of young people don't see homosexuality as something that is wrong, and therefore would strongly question the authenticity of a religion that claims it is.

PDN wrote:

It is very hard to still treat the Bible as authoritative and yet to approve of homosexuality.

Heaven knows we have tried

PDN wrote:

Such a position involves such hermeneutical contortions as to effectively destroy trust in Scripture. Now, Wicknight, you may think that is a good thing. But in terms of church growth it would be a very bad thing, because every piece of research into churches who abandon belief in the authority of Scripture demonstrates that this results in numerical decline.

Well that is the thing, you don't "abandon" authority of scripture. You "re-interpret" the scripture in a different light, while holding onto its authority.

The Christian churches have done for centuries, over issues such as slavery, the Catholic Church, science etc. How many Christians still think the Bible really says that slavery is a good idea?

Its not actually that hard to get out of things if people actually want to. Give me a reason why the Bible doesn't actually support slavery and just replace "slavery" with "homosexuality".

The issue if of course that most people don't agree with slavery, where as a lot of people, including posters on this forum, still personally believe that homosexuality is bad/wrong. And they choose to view the Bible in ways that support this position, where as very few these days choose to view the Bible as supporting slavery because they personally believe it is morally wrong.

Of course I don't really care, since I think the whole process is nonsense. But it would be rather bizarre to say that such an re-interpretation would require abandonment of scripture as authoritative. It didn't in the past.

PDN wrote:

Barna's findings about American young people's attitudes towards homosexuality hardly apply to Nigeria or China.

Not now, but then they didn't apply to American young people 50 years ago.

The idea that this is simply an American/Western issue would be rather short sighted, simply putting off dealing with the problem in a uniformed manner.

Homosexuality is an issue that will eventually have to be dealt with in all areas. When exactly will depend on the area, the level of social and civil development in these areas, education etc.

If in 10 years, 50 years, or heck 100 years, when social development, civil liberties etc have reached equivalently levels in all parts of Africa or China, are the Christian churches then going to deal with the issue (assuming they still exist)?

The question raised then will be why didn't they deal with it 50 years ago?

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

Not really surprising considering all the anti Christianity being portrayed in pop culture and media.

Not to mention in our schools over the last 40 years.

Sad.

Also worth noting is that when people are economically well off they don't see a need for God. There is also the problem in America of Christianity being experiential without substance. Whereas Christianity is substantial with experience coming second.

I also think that there is a failure among our churches to answer the question, 'why?'

I think there are six reasons that are often overlooked:
1. The correlation between 3rd level education and low religious pariticipation. Countries with high education have lower levels of religious participation: Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland (interestingly only now when 3rd level participation is high).

2. Countries where people travel more and are exposed to various belief system are less likely to hang onto indoctrinated belief system. It is easier to hang onto an indoctrinated belief if you only ever met people who have the same indoctrinated belief..

There was a time where Irish Catholics only knew Irish Catholics. Now Irish Catholics will meet people from various cultures, beliefs.

3. A number of atheist intellectuals are now more forthright with their views:
Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennet, Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens etc.Science and Philosophy have usurped Religion for many people.

4. The number of scandals from the Catholic Church.

5. George Bush and Tony Blair have failed miserably in Iraq. Many people question how men of such strong faith can inflict so much disaster.

6. Other edifices for mystics have manifested: Tarot cards, horoscopes, pyschic readers. They all give people who are willing to put faith in something with no scientific evidence the feelings they want and don't make them repent or have to read verbose scripture

My own view about Ireland is religion will filter out just like the Irish language. If they losed their grip on schools, many people wouldn't bother with indoctrination because they wouldn't have to.

Who would have thought 30 years ago, Churches would be sold and now be pubs or apartments.

I can see the Evangelical movement picking up new recruits alright but IMO they will always be in the minority in areas where education in Science is high.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

5. George Bush and Tony Blair have failed miserably in Iraq. Many people question how men of such strong faith can inflict so much disaster.

That is an interesting point

JimiTime

robindch wrote:

The Barna Group, a research company which specializes in carrying out reasonably good religious surveys, has published a book in which it claims that religion, and the reputation of religion, is significantly down amongst the under-30's today, than they were with a similar group of under-30's ten years ago. A short piece on the book is available from Barna's website here:

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=280

This coincides with my own experience of religion, which is that the overall numbers are down, even if the level of marketing of religion, and the public time spent discussing religious matters of one kind or another, have both increased.

Comments?

TBH, I don't need a survey to show me. What I see here in Ireland, and what I've seen on my travels, its obvious religion is declining. Church attendances falling. Those remaining, just as likely to be seen at a Daniel O'Donnell show.
Also, alot of those who, for want of a better term, 'Want' to believe in a god, they usually, in my experience, mould one for themselves. Either, they'll 'update', the Living God, or they'll just say, I believe there is something more, and that about covers their interest. Society has definately cast a shadow over Christianity. Christianity is not PC, and in modern society, that is a very great crime. In a world that says 'live and let live', and 'anything goes', unless we deem it to be hurting someone, who doesn't consent to being hurt; christianity says, no, this is the 'right way', anything outside of this is not. To have such a christian view, is to be a bigot, homophobe, judgemental, self righteous, deluded etc etc. Now, if you have the 'intelectual' world pushing such a view, it becomes more and more of a challenge to the youth to express a counter view. I remember my biology teacher scoffing at my questioning evolution (He was a great teacher btw, and my favourite for leaving cert), but i have always been secure enough to speak my mind, so I didn't care (Thanks mum and dad). However, how many teenagers are not afraid to risk ridicule? In my experience, very few. Now combine popular culture making Religion the but of the joke, TV, Music etc with this, and you have a situation whereby, to be a Christian is to be stupid, a bit like still believing in Santa Claus. In such an environment, Christianity is bound to suffer. Also take into account the flawed view and corruption much of the 'keepers of the faith' have, and the problem is huge. However, Christianity, is about planting the seed, the emphasis on growth of churches etc is misplaced IMO. While, it is great to see numbers increase, and sad to see them decrease, The message is the message. Trying to 'update' or 'modernise' etc to appeal to a wider audience is nonsensical IMO. As I said, the mesage is the message, give it freely and let those who have it, accept or reject it. Thats my 2 cent anyhoo:)

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

George Bush and Tony Blair have failed miserably in Iraq. Many people question how men of such strong faith can inflict so much disaster.

We live in a truly weird world if wishy-washy religious compromisers like Bush and Blair are perceived as "men of such strong faith".

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Well, no more than you would have a position on the right kind of atheism. I presume you would find the spread of an intellectual and tolerant atheism to be preferable to the variety that is enforced by Communism, for example?

Oh, I'm not accusing you of anything! I'm just pointing out, for those who may not know you so well, that you do have a particular stance - and you are quite correct that I do too.

PDN wrote:

The emergent churches would be right in my opinion because they agree with me politically & in their basic theology, and because they are effective in reaching people with the Gospel who otherwise would simply be alienated from Christianity. I would, however, also see them as being wrong in their post-modernistic philosophy, which drives me crazy.

Quite normal. I don't think I know any intelligent, thoughtful person who it doesn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

We live in a truly weird world if wishy-washy religious compromisers like Bush and Blair are perceived as "men of such strong faith".

I would imagine they think their faith is just as strong as your's.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Now, if you have the 'intelectual' world pushing such a view, it becomes more and more of a challenge to the youth to express a counter view.

You seem to be working on the assumption that they actually want to.

Has it occurred that they might not actually wish to express a counter view because they don't believe in one, they don't believe that something like homosexuality or sexual relations outside of marriage is actually morally wrong?

Young people have never been particularly quiet about expressing counter-culture views, particularly if they come from "adults" or the establishment. They often wear them like a badge of honor.

The idea that there are tons of young people who long to believe things like homosexual sex is sinful but are keeping quiet out of fear of being perceived as un-PC is a little far fetched.

I would imagine it is more that they already believe that homosexuality isn't wrong, and can't reconcile that with the Christian religion saying "homosexuality is wrong"

And they are more likely going to not adopt the religion that start believing that it is actually wrong because they want to adopt the religion.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote:

Now, if you have the 'intelectual' world pushing such a view, it becomes more and more of a challenge to the youth to express a counter view.

Yes, I don't see the intellectual world pushing the christian view.
I remember top 5 intellectuals in last Guardian poll:
1. Noam Chomsky - Jewish agnostic ( I think)
2. Umberto Eco -agnostic
3. Richard Dawkins - atheist
4. Vaclav Havel - ?
5. Chris Hitchens - atheist

I struggle to name a well known contempory Christian intellectual who has achieved something of intellectual note.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1594654,00.html.

It wouldn't have been this way pre-Darwin.

My point here is Christianity just isn't considered intellectual by the populance.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yes, I don't see the intellectual world pushing the christian view.
I remember top 5 intellectuals in last Guardian poll:
1. Noam Chomsky - Jewish agnostic ( I think)
2. Umberto Eco -agnostic
3. Richard Dawkins - atheist
4. Vaclav Havel - ?
5. Chris Hitchens - atheist

I struggle to name a well known contempory Christian intellectual who has achieved something of intellectual note.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1594654,00.html.

It wouldn't have been this way pre-Darwin.

My point here is Christianity just isn't considered intellectual by the populance.

That would indeed be my assertion. Now if the trend is that the people that the world view as 'smart', consider Christianity, or belief in God stupid, or foolish etc etc, then it is bound to have an effect on people, young and old. One of the factors will be a rise in Atheism and Agnosticism IMO. I find though, that more often that not people just don't care. They wont say they are atheist or whatever, they just say, it doesn't bother them.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

You seem to be working on the assumption that they actually want to.

'They'? I'm not saying that there is this huge amount wanting to challenge what they are taught. What I'm saying is that it is getting harder, if one does wish to, as there is a huge stigma attached. I.E. The perception that u r an idiot etc.

Has it occurred that they might not actually wish to express a counter view because they don't believe in one, they don't believe that something like homosexuality or sexual relations outside of marriage is actually morally wrong?

Wicknight, you'd pick a fight in an empty room! Here you go with 'they' again. As if the youth must just be one way. I'm sure you have the capacity to realise that there are some that would share your view, and some that would share mine. So the 'they' you talk about is not just one big group of robots.

The idea that there are tons of young people who long to believe things like homosexual sex is sinful but are keeping quiet out of fear of being perceived as un-PC is a little far fetched.

Do my posts go through some special filter before they reach you? What the hell are u crappin about?? Actually, don't bother answering that!

I would imagine it is more that they already believe that homosexuality isn't wrong, and can't reconcile that with the Christian religion saying "homosexuality is wrong"

And they are more likely going to not adopt the religion that start believing that it is actually wrong because they want to adopt the religion.

'THEY', again! who is this 'they'? Wicknight, your powers of manipulation are astounding. Ever think about setting up a religion;)

Fallen Seraph

Erm, to be honest I found his post a cogent and relevant rebuttal of your previous assertions...

I think the "they" was referring to the youth in question...

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

'They'? I'm not saying that there is this huge amount wanting to challenge what they are taught. What I'm saying is that it is getting harder, if one does wish to, as there is a huge stigma attached. I.E. The perception that u r an idiot etc.

Fair enough, you appeared to using that as a possibly explanation as to why Christianity is not being taken up by youth (that is the theme of the thread). My mistake.

If you just wanted to rant about how no one listened to you biology class possibly another thread is required

JimiTime

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Erm, to be honest I found his post a cogent and relevant rebuttal of your previous assertions...

I think the "they" was referring to the youth in question...

Erm, thanks for that input. Personally, i think that he took one small part of the post out of its context, and instead of contributing to the subject, and my overall point of the intellectual stigma attached to Christianity these days, he straw manned and went off on a tangent, harping on about the morality of homosexuality.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote:

That would indeed be my assertion. Now if the trend is that the people that the world view as 'smart', consider Christianity, or belief in God stupid, or foolish etc etc, then it is bound to have an effect on people, young and old. One of the factors will be a rise in Atheism and Agnosticism IMO. I find though, that more often that not people just don't care. They wont say they are atheist or whatever, they just say, it doesn't bother them.

Well therein lies the challenge for Christianity - show that it has some intellectual basis. Can that be done?
Personally, I think the Pope writing Jesus of Nazerath this year was attempt to do that.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Fair enough, you appeared to using that as a possibly explanation as to why Christianity is not being taken up by youth (that is the theme of the thread). My mistake.

Well at least someone(Tim) knew what my point was. I'm not saying you've got to agree with my conclusion. But there you go.

If you just wanted to rant about how no one listened to you biology class possibly another thread is required

I hate u:)

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well therein lies the challenge for Christianity - show that it has some intellectual basis. Can that be done?

I don't think so tbh. I don't think it should even bother neither. In fact, such behaviour is warned about in the Greek scriptures.
Colossians 2:
1I want you to know how much I am struggling for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally. 2My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. 5For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how orderly you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Personally, I think its about living the message of Love, and sharing it with everyone. Some will not accept, and some will. Some will not accept it on the basis of science or all things intellectual, some will not accept it on the basis of morality. One thing is certain though, to accept the message, its all about Faith, yes the word the 'thinking' man hates.:)

Personally, I think the Pope writing Jesus of Nazerath this year was attempt to do that.

Ey? Whats this?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Erm, thanks for that input. Personally, i think that he took one small part of the post out of its context, and instead of contributing to the subject, and my overall point of the intellectual stigma attached to Christianity these days, he straw manned and went off on a tangent, harping on about the morality of homosexuality.

Well yes you would think that, you do hate me after all.

If you actually read my post (this seems to be a reoccurring theme) my point was that the "intellectual stigma" attached to Christianity is caused by an underlying moral stigma.

Your apparent assumption is that young people agree with Christian view of morality or science (ie your view of morality or science), yet lack the intellectual leaders to articulate this in into an intelligence response, so they fail to argue their point when confronted with secular arguments (from for example your biology teacher). They therefore shut up, lest they be viewed as stupid or intolerant, and turn away Christianity despite sharing similar moral position.

I would (did already) challenge that idea.

They ("the youth") don't appear to being agreeing in the first place, even in private, with the fundamental issues.

They are disagreeing with the fundamentals.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Well yes you would think that, you do hate me after all.

If you actually read my post (this seems to be a reoccurring theme) my point was that the "intellectual stigma" attached to Christianity is caused by an underlying moral stigma.

Personally, i think its down to the individual. In modern society i do believe it has both a moral and intellectual stigma, and these are exclusive of one another. i don't necesarily think that one leads to the other. though as i said, it is an individual thing. I think Society says things about morality that would go against Christian teaching, so there is a moral Stigma with Christianity. Then we have the whole atheist science thing, which sniggers at Christianity, the knock on effect being an intellectual stigma.

Your apparent assumption is that young people agree with Christian view of morality or science (ie your view of morality or science), yet lack the intellectual leaders to articulate this in into an intelligence response, so they fail to argue their point when confronted with secular arguments (from for example your biology teacher). They therefore shut up, lest they be viewed as stupid or intolerant, and turn away Christianity despite sharing similar moral position.

The only assumptions being made are by you. I merely said, that it is getting harder to hold a christian view because of the stigma attached. Nowhere did I mention that there were lots of people holding back from speaking out etc. You interpretted it in such a manner, but I can't help that I'm afraid. What I said, is that if someone were to have an incling towards such a view, it wouldn't be easy for them, due to the stigma attached. Why would I assume to know numbers?

I would (did already) challenge that idea.

Precisely, you challenged your own assumption. Its nothing to do with me.

They ("the youth") don't appear to being agreeing in the first place, even in private, with the fundamental issues.

They are disagreeing with the fundamentals.

Ok, and you don't realise that my post was me giving my 2 cent into part of the reason why this is the case?

Seriously Wicknight, sometimes i don't know if you are just being pedantic?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

I would imagine they think their faith is just as strong as your's.

Yes, 'imagine' being the key word. This is, after all, about perception.

Bush and Blair claim to be Christians. As of course do Bill Clinton & Al Gore, both of whom have made claims to be 'born again'. (I don't think I've ever heard of Blair claiming to be born again). Yet, Bush & Blair (hate figures to many young people) are perceived as damaging to Christianity. So since Al Gore is so cool these days why doesn't that attract young people to Christianity?

Great emphasis is made on Bush speaking at Christian Colleges during election campaigns. Yet Hillary Clinton & Barak Obama are speaking at African-American Christian Churches nearly every week in order to gain votes. Do you see why I say this is a matter of perception rather than reality?

Mention has already been made on this thread of homosexuality as an issue repelling young people from Christianity. Where do Bush & Blair stand on this. Both Bush and Blair belong to churches which accept practicing homosexuals as members. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry all belong to churches that exclude homosexuals from membership. Yet Bush & Blair are cited, along with negative attitudes towards homosexuals, as reasons why younger people are rejecting Christianity. What a strange world we live in!

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Seriously Wicknight, sometimes i don't know if you are just being pedantic?

No, I'm in what is commonly known as a "discussion"

The topic of this thread is the declining number of young people taking up Christianity through out the Western world.

You appeared to be making the statement that it is hard in this modern world to hold Christian views publicly without facing ridicule.

While one would have assumed the opposite, this statement apparently (according to you) had nothing to do with the topic of the trend, that being the declining number of young people taking up Christianity through out the Western world (the topic of the thread).

Fair enough. It was obviously ridiculous of me (and Fallen Seraph) to assume it did and attempt to discuss it in the context of this thread. Silly me.

But if you just want to make random points and then get pissy when someone assumes you were actually relating these points to the topic at hand and attempts to discuss them ... well .. I don't know .. the mind boggles.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

The idea that this is simply an American/Western issue would be rather short sighted, simply putting off dealing with the problem in a uniformed manner.

Homosexuality is an issue that will eventually have to be dealt with in all areas. When exactly will depend on the area, the level of social and civil development in these areas, education etc.

If in 10 years, 50 years, or heck 100 years, when social development, civil liberties etc have reached equivalently levels in all parts of Africa or China, are the Christian churches then going to deal with the issue (assuming they still exist)?

The question raised then will be why didn't they deal with it 50 years ago?

Given current growth trends I don't think we need to worry about whether the churches will still exist in 100 years.

I like your idea that our Western values are so correct and that, given time, the poor savages in other countries will eventually abandon their primitive ideas and learn our ways. What a quaint Victorian notion. I didn't know people still thought that way.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Given current growth trends I don't think we need to worry about whether the churches will still exist in 100 years.

Well thats what they said about the Roman Empire

The point is that if the current social trends in the West are eventually repeated in the developing world Christianity may face hard times there as well.

PDN wrote:

I like your idea that our Western values are so correct and that, given time, the poor savages in other countries will eventually abandon their primitive ideas and learn our ways. What a quaint Victorian notion. I didn't know people still thought that way.

Er, weren't you just boasting that African has experience a huge growth in uptake of Christianity in the last 100 years. What, did Christianity emerge from the Congo?

Though I imagine you put that down to the inherent "truth" in the religion or something ...

But anyway back to the original point,

Yes I have the idea that "Western" notions (actually a lot of them are Eastern in origin) that developed from the periods such as the Enlightenment, such as tolerance, attention to reason, abandonment of superstition, focus on civil liberty etc will spread to the wider world, eventually.

In fact I would actually see the massive uptake of Christianity in the region in the last 100 years as an actual stage on this march of progress.

Using the example of homosexuality, if the superstitious/Christian notion that homosexuality is inherently immoral is still common in Africa in a hundred years I would (assuming I'm still alive) be quite surprised.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Er, weren't you just boasting that African has experience a huge growth in uptake of Christianity in the last 100 years. What, did Christianity emerge from the Congo?

No, it emerged from the Middle East which, unless you're running the Eurovision Song Contest, is hardly Western.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote:

Personally, I think its about living the message of Love, and sharing it with everyone. Some will not accept, and some will. Some will not accept it on the basis of science or all things intellectual, some will not accept it on the basis of morality. One thing is certain though, to accept the message, its all about Faith, yes the word the 'thinking' man hates.:)

Well the "thinking" man lives a life of love and believes in sharing it too :-)
I don't see the value add of Christianity, but others do.
In fact I thinkyou can make some very intellectual points for love and compassion, Dalai Lama would be an a good example.

Ey? Whats this?

The Pope's book this year, was supposed to critically acclaimed in Theological circles. He is supposed to be an extremly intelligent man. My point here was here was the leader of the largest Christian Church trying to give an intellectual angle to the Church and the faith. Makes a change from just telling people not to use condoms.
Have you read it?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Yes, 'imagine' being the key word. This is, after all, about perception.

Bush and Blair claim to be Christians. As of course do Bill Clinton & Al Gore, both of whom have made claims to be 'born again'. (I don't think I've ever heard of Blair claiming to be born again). Yet, Bush & Blair (hate figures to many young people) are perceived as damaging to Christianity. So since Al Gore is so cool these days why doesn't that attract young people to Christianity?

Great emphasis is made on Bush speaking at Christian Colleges during election campaigns. Yet Hillary Clinton & Barak Obama are speaking at African-American Christian Churches nearly every week in order to gain votes. Do you see why I say this is a matter of perception rather than reality?

Mention has already been made on this thread of homosexuality as an issue repelling young people from Christianity. Where do Bush & Blair stand on this. Both Bush and Blair belong to churches which accept practicing homosexuals as members. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry all belong to churches that exclude homosexuals from membership. Yet Bush & Blair are cited, along with negative attitudes towards homosexuals, as reasons why younger people are rejecting Christianity. What a strange world we live in!

The problem with your rebuttal is you have completly omitted the Iraq war.
It's as if the war didn't happen. This war, would be far worse in most people's eyes than belonging to a Church that has negative attitudes towards homosexuality. You are not comparing apples with apples.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

The problem with your rebuttal is you have completly omitted the Iraq war.
It's as if the war didn't happen. This war, would be far worse in most people's eyes than belonging to a Church that has negative attitudes towards homosexuality. You are not comparing apples with apples.

It wasn't a rebuttal. It was a few comments.

Sometimes I like to discuss things without feeling I have to fight.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

No, it emerged from the Middle East which, unless you're running the Eurovision Song Contest, is hardly Western.

Is it African?

Actually never mind, I think you know the point I was making.

PDN wrote:

It wasn't a rebuttal. It was a few comments.

Well you seem to be saying Bill Clinton belongs to a church that excludes homosexuals yet for some reason people pick on George Bush and his Christianity

Tims point is that the "some reason" is the Iraq war. Both Bush and Blair made strong points about there faith and the war, how they put faith in God, claimed to listen to God, when making decisions about the war. Young people look at that and go "I don't want to be like that"

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

No, I'm in what is commonly known as a "discussion"

Ahhh. I was wondering about that. Great method you got for discussion. Take a point, change it to suit yerself, argue against it. Gr8. now where's that ignore button!

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

It wasn't a rebuttal. It was a few comments.

Sometimes I like to discuss things without feeling I have to fight.

It was worded as if it was a rebuttal. But maybe that was just my perception

hairyheretic

Wicknight wrote:

Is it African?
Tims point is that the "some reason" is the Iraq war. Both Bush and Blair made strong points about there faith and the war, how they put faith in God, claimed to listen to God, when making decisions about the war. Young people look at that and go "I don't want to be like that"

Wasn't Bush quoted some time back as saying God had told him to invade Iraq?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Take a point, change it to suit yerself, argue against it.

I didn't change your point at all Jimi

You made a point that was, apparently, unrelated to the subject of the thread and not meant to be discussed in the context of the subject of the thread. You were just, as people say, throwing it out there.

I, mistakenly, assumed that you were attempting to discuss the underlying reasons for the subject of the thread, rather than making an unrelated statement.

You obviously weren't (or so you claim now)

But at no point did I change your point to suit myself. Out side of the context of this thread I'm not even sure it could be said that you had a point, just a statement.

Now you just seem more interested in arguing with me that discussing the topic of the thread (if you ever were interested in discussing the topic of the thread)

Zombrex

hairyheretic wrote:

Wasn't Bush quoted some time back as saying God had told him to invade Iraq?

Not quite. He claimed that he conversed with God and God agreed with his plan of action, that it was a righteous cause.

"God on our side" as they say.

JimiTime

Actually, another point, that ties into a part of my previous post regarding 'the keepers of the faith'. With the abuse scandals etc, I think a disillusionment occured. No-longer were these organisations in a position to take the moral high ground, so I think alot of people went, feck you, sure you're worse than any of us. This attitude then gets passed from parent to child, so that Christianity unfortunately is wrangled amongst the horrors of these people. In my personal experience growing up, most Catholics were very uneducated in a religious sense. Their 'Faith' was more centred around the traditions of Going to Mass, or taking the wafer in Church, or making their conformation. I think if ones faith is placed in such a place, it is on a shaky foundation, and liabl;e to be rocked if the particular organisation is shown to be flawed in such a horrid manner. Many people I talk to these days, say lines like, 'Sure Religion is the cause of all the wars', or 'They're all the same'. I find that there is a real culture of resentment, even bitterness. Filter this down through generations, and it just becomes unimportant. Parents not passing on any spiritual knowledge, and the child grows up, with society his moral guide, through his parents. Personally, I can see the collapse of religion. I used to think, no way, but I would not be shocked if it happened. Its already lost vast amounts of power in the Western world, I think its just a matter of time. The fact that the survey shows that its losing the young, i.e. our future leaders etc, shows that it is not far fetched. Obviously, this is just my opinion, but I think its got a foundation to it. There will always be those of us who are spiritually minded, but as the world moves on, I do think it is going to get more and more difficult to proclaim your Christianity.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

In my personal experience growing up, most Catholics were very uneducated in a religious sense. Their 'Faith' was more centred around the traditions of Going to Mass, or taking the wafer in Church, or making their conformation.

Sure. The decline in what you might call 'institutional' or 'social' religion is hardly surprising, if you consider the similar declines in political party membership and trade union membership, as well as the diminishing role of the extended family and local community in most people's lives.

All of these reflect the greater wealth of modern populations, and easier access to credit - the greater resources available to any given modern Western family or individual make membership of such groups less vital than it was in the past - and make social unconformity far less dangerous.

There will always be a yearning for a social group in people, but there is now less need to accept the social groups handed to you by birth and geography. Even in religion, people are more willing to experiment - moving from church to church until they find one that is congenial either in doctrine or as a community, depending on their personal requirements.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

hairyheretic wrote:

Wasn't Bush quoted some time back as saying God had told him to invade Iraq?

He was quoted, by a Palestinian official, as saying that to President Abbas of Palestine. However, the White House denied the report and President Abbas said it was "completely false" and that Bush made no reference to religion during that meeting.

That has not stopped it from being reported on many websites and blogs, nor will it stop people from believing it to be true because, as I have already observed, the perception is more important than the reality.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

as I have already observed, the perception is more important than the reality.

Unfortunately the reality is often far scarier than the perception.

hairyheretic

PDN wrote:

He was quoted, by a Palestinian official, as saying that to President Abbas of Palestine. However, the White House denied the report and President Abbas said it was "completely false" and that Bush made no reference to religion during that meeting.

Ah, ok. I was a bit hazy on that one.

PDN wrote:

That has not stopped it from being reported on many websites and blogs, nor will it stop people from believing it to be true because, as I have already observed, the perception is more important than the reality.

I think people are willing to believe it because it seems in character for him. Bush has made plenty of effort to gain the support of the religious right in the States. Saying something along the lines of that quote would seem to play right in there.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yes, I don't see the intellectual world pushing the christian view.
I remember top 5 intellectuals in last Guardian poll:
1. Noam Chomsky - Jewish agnostic ( I think)
2. Umberto Eco -agnostic
3. Richard Dawkins - atheist
4. Vaclav Havel - ?
5. Chris Hitchens - atheist

I struggle to name a well known contempory Christian intellectual who has achieved something of intellectual note.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1594654,00.html.

It wouldn't have been this way pre-Darwin.

My point here is Christianity just isn't considered intellectual by the populance.

I notice there are no women in that list, females obviously aren't considered intellectual by the populace (if you can describe Guardian readers as being representative of the populace).

JimiTime

PDN wrote:

I notice there are no women in that list, females obviously aren't considered intellectual by the populace (if you can describe Guardian readers as being representative of the populace).

TBH, I tried to think of a female intellectual when I read this post, and I couldn't. Obviously there are female intellectuals, but I do think the majority of the more famous ones are men. I know there was also a big drive here in Ireland to get the fairer sex into science, so obviously they weren't going for the sciences here in Ireland. Now, i realise one does not have to be a scientist to be an intellectual, but I think the populace holds scientists up as the major intellectuals, so that may be the issue? Maybe?

Also, from your perspective PDN, in reading my two posts commenting on the OP, at the start and end of my stupid my wranglings with wicknight, what would you reckon on my assertion? Actually, I'll repost them below for your convenience:

Jimitime wrote:

What I see here in Ireland, and what I've seen on my travels, its obvious religion is declining. Church attendances falling. Those remaining, just as likely to be seen at a Daniel O'Donnell show.
Also, alot of those who, for want of a better term, 'Want' to believe in a god, they usually, in my experience, mould one for themselves. Either, they'll 'update', the Living God, or they'll just say, I believe there is something more, and that about covers their interest. Society has definately cast a shadow over Christianity. Christianity is not PC, and in modern society, that is a very great crime. In a world that says 'live and let live', and 'anything goes', unless we deem it to be hurting someone, who doesn't consent to being hurt; christianity says, no, this is the 'right way', anything outside of this is not. To have such a christian view, is to be a bigot, homophobe, judgemental, self righteous, deluded etc etc. Now, if you have the 'intelectual' world pushing such a view, it becomes more and more of a challenge to the youth to express a counter view. I remember my biology teacher scoffing at my questioning evolution (He was a great teacher btw, and my favourite for leaving cert), but i have always been secure enough to speak my mind, so I didn't care (Thanks mum and dad). However, how many teenagers are not afraid to risk ridicule? In my experience, very few. Now combine popular culture making Religion the but of the joke, TV, Music etc with this, and you have a situation whereby, to be a Christian is to be stupid, a bit like still believing in Santa Claus. In such an environment, Christianity is bound to suffer. Also take into account the flawed view and corruption much of the 'keepers of the faith' have, and the problem is huge. However, Christianity, is about planting the seed, the emphasis on growth of churches etc is misplaced IMO. While, it is great to see numbers increase, and sad to see them decrease, The message is the message. Trying to 'update' or 'modernise' etc to appeal to a wider audience is nonsensical IMO. As I said, the mesage is the message, give it freely and let those who have it, accept or reject it. Thats my 2 cent anyhoo

Jimitime wrote:

Actually, another point, that ties into a part of my previous post regarding 'the keepers of the faith'. With the abuse scandals etc, I think a disillusionment occured. No-longer were these organisations in a position to take the moral high ground, so I think alot of people went, feck you, sure you're worse than any of us. This attitude then gets passed from parent to child, so that Christianity unfortunately is wrangled amongst the horrors of these people. In my personal experience growing up, most Catholics were very uneducated in a religious sense. Their 'Faith' was more centred around the traditions of Going to Mass, or taking the wafer in Church, or making their conformation. I think if ones faith is placed in such a place, it is on a shaky foundation, and liabl;e to be rocked if the particular organisation is shown to be flawed in such a horrid manner. Many people I talk to these days, say lines like, 'Sure Religion is the cause of all the wars', or 'They're all the same'. I find that there is a real culture of resentment, even bitterness. Filter this down through generations, and it just becomes unimportant. Parents not passing on any spiritual knowledge, and the child grows up, with society his moral guide, through his parents. Personally, I can see the collapse of religion. I used to think, no way, but I would not be shocked if it happened. Its already lost vast amounts of power in the Western world, I think its just a matter of time. The fact that the survey shows that its losing the young, i.e. our future leaders etc, shows that it is not far fetched. Obviously, this is just my opinion, but I think its got a foundation to it. There will always be those of us who are spiritually minded, but as the world moves on, I do think it is going to get more and more difficult to proclaim your Christianity.

PDN

JimiTime wrote:

TBH, I tried to think of a female intellectual when I read this post, and I couldn't. Obviously there are female intellectuals, but I do think the majority of the more famous ones are men. I know there was also a big drive here in Ireland to get the fairer sex into science, so obviously they weren't going for the sciences here in Ireland. Now, i realise one does not have to be a scientist to be an intellectual, but I think the populace holds scientists up as the major intellectuals, so that may be the issue? Maybe?

I think it has more to do with who reads the Guardian than anything else. I don't see any black intellectuals in that list either.

If the Sun had a poll for the top 5 intellectuals we would probably see David Beckham, JK Rowling, and whoever won Big Brother listed.