Study links decline of church attendance to rise of Christian Right

[Marginal Gains]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've sincerely never interpreted the whole sifting of wheat and chaff in that way.  

It seems like you are saying that it's prideful to believe that we are following God and that some people aren't.  How is what you said different than believing that we are right and others are wrong?  I don't think when Jesus said that though He was teaching that everyone who believes they are following God has 'exalted themselves'

Does one have to be a member of an organised religion to be considered to be “following God”?

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I appreciate that. I think you're straw manning the chaff argument a bit, but I'm sure there are some who like to see the world that way. After all it's not like any secularists have said they will be happy when religion is gone and religious people have died out. 

I don't think so. Isn't that the implication of the statement "God is separating the wheat from the chaff on this issue"?

Some secularists are mirror images of this kind of thinking, aren't they?

 

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I do find it interesting that you still attribute so much power to the idea of God. That somehow, the belief that a Supreme Being might offer judgement is more powerful than other types of moral judgement. 

God is a very powerful idea. Do you disagree?

 

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

If by health, you mean popularity, or numbers, then yeah, I totally agree. 

Not just numbers. I think too much political involvement has a corrupting influence in religion.

 

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I'm having a hard time imagining a situation where this type of argument is actually used in an attempt 2 win. Most often, I see it used to justify one's position when attacked, and explain why a person may not feel that a strict loss of numbers is the ultimate tragedy in religion.

How about: "I believe God has revealed that only certain kinds of marriage are compatible with His plan, and that He asks those who follow Him to strive to promote that vision of marriage. He does so, even knowing that this action will cause some to reject him. "

I don't find that statement to be arrogant.

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think so. Isn't that the implication of the statement "God is separating the wheat from the chaff on this issue"?

I think the metaphor here is very important. Do people in today's world even know what chaff is? If someone takes that metaphor to mean that God is choosing who wins and who gets burned, it's clear they don't understand. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Does one have to be a member of an organised religion to be considered to be “following God”?

No.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

All kinds of people pour millions into ballot measures to 'force' their views into 'government law'. Your side certainly has done so. To pretend that this is somehow untoward when the religious do it is -- and I repeat myself -- a blatant act of bigotry.

Well this is your second post to me where you didn't really address the subject that is being discussed and you decide to take a single sentence from what I wrote.  This thread is about people leaving organized religion due to political activism by organized religion.  It is not about their right to do so. (which I have stated repeatedly that they do have a right). And it is not about whether they are the only group that pours millions into ballot measures.  It is about people leaving organized religion because of that political activism and whether doing so is in harmony with how the gospel message should be taught to those that wish to seek Christ. 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

I think the metaphor here is very important. Do people in today's world even know what chaff is? If someone takes that metaphor to mean that God is choosing who wins and who gets burned, it's clear they don't understand.  

I think wise believers are very careful not to identify themselves as "wheat", even if they believe that this sorting is going on.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Just to clarify, I haven't said anything about my feelings about the Christian Right.  In politics, the Christian Right is usually evangelical so my assessment of their theology is obviously from a critical point of view.  Having said that, there are some points of view that LDS  have in common with Evangelicals, and the LDS church has become an activist on some issues, so I understand why we are also sometimes considered part of the political Christian Right.

I don't think that your point of view is unreasonable either, just like I don't think their's/mine is.

I think that religion justifies political activists the same way that people justify it.  It's not about declaring beliefs, it's about working to try to have the most moral laws and government that is possible.  

If someone believes that their country or government is about to implement immoral laws, most people believe they have a duty to fight against that, whether they are religious or not.  And they don't fight against it so that other people will know where they stand (to declare belief, as you called it), they fight against it because they believing that fighting against immorality or injustice is the moral thing to do. 

It's no different with church's.

Also, the bolded sentence doesn't make a lot of sense given the topic.  We live in a democratic republic.  If something is decided by a majority vote (and it's constitutional) then it doesn't make any sense to describe that as 'forcing people under government rule to do someone else's will'.  The majority of the people were the ones who decided it.  Yes, it sucks when the majority doesn't agree with us individually but that's just the way it goes sometimes.  It doesn't mean it's unjust or unfair.

This was a great explanation.  Thanks.  I do see your point.  I guess the question is HOW religion approaches ballot measures.  I certainly think it is the church's responsibility to encourage members to carefully consider ballot measures, especially when the church feels that they may be harmful for society.  What we are really discussing is whether there is a line that religion has crossed that brings influencing political issues to a whole new level.  Obviously, from the study many feel that line is crossed when religion starts raising millions and is directly involved in the passing of a ballot measure.  I don't necessarily have a problem with religion doing that. But I do believe that there are consequences for that kind of activism.  People direct their anger at the church, rather than the loss of a ballot measure.  That can be quite a devastating position for religion to be in.  One that is not easily repaired after the ballot measure is finished.  

[Storm Rider]

On ‎5‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 12:12 PM, Gray said:

https://www.christiantimes.com/article/study-links-decline-of-church-attendance-to-rise-of-christian-right/73870.htm

According to this study, at least, as religious organizations seek to exercise political control, more Christians seem to drop out of church affiliation. Political polarization and the war against marriage for gay people seems to have been a net negative for religion.

 

This study causes me to question their methodology. When I look at the decline of church attendance in Europe, which has been going on for some time, there is zero correlation between it and political activity of the Christian churches in the US.  

Given that the authors of the study felt this political activity was the "major contributing factor in the decline in church membership", I am not real confident in the study's conclusion. 

It would not surprise me that this political activism was one of a great number of influences on declining church attendance, but I reject the idea it was THE major influence. 

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

This was a great explanation.  Thanks.  I do see your point.  I guess the question is HOW religion approaches ballot measures.  I certainly think it is the church's responsibility to encourage members to carefully consider ballot measures, especially when the church feels that they may be harmful for society.  What we are really discussing is whether there is a line that religion has crossed that brings influencing political issues to a whole new level.  Obviously, from the study many feel that line is crossed when religion starts raising millions and is directly involved in the passing of a ballot measure.  I don't necessarily have a problem with religion doing that. But I do believe that there are consequences for that kind of activism.  People direct their anger at the church, rather than the loss of a ballot measure.  That can be quite a devastating position for religion to be in.  One that is not easily repaired after the ballot measure is finished.  

I'm wondering if the poll shows that people become angry and leave if a church is too involved in politics, or if it shows that once people become more aware of their church's position on something (which political activism tends to highlight), they realize their personal beliefs differ than the church and that's why they leave.

I should probably look at the poll more closely to see if it differentiates between those two positions.

[california boy]

If you don’t believe that religion and politics have been intertwined for centuries then you have a completely different understanding of European history than I do. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I'm wondering if the poll shows that people become angry and leave if a church is too involved in politics, or if it shows that once people become more aware of their church's position on something (which political activism tends to highlight), they realize their personal beliefs differ than the church and that's why they leave.

I suspect it's the latter. I find in my experience that when people repeatedly have conflicts between their own beliefs and political/cultural views and Church culture and Church teaching, this results in a decline in enthusiasm and commitment. Sometimes people can "keep going" for a while, but eventually people disengage when this state of dissonance persists. And then when other shoes drop, this just adds to that. 

I don't think it is common for people to have an instant reaction to a single issue, and say, "That's it! I'm mad as heck, and I'm not gonna take it any more!" and to immediately stop going. I think it is almost always a gradual erosion of enthusiasm and commitment. 

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm wondering if the poll shows that people become angry and leave if a church is too involved in politics, or if it shows that once people become more aware of their church's position on something (which political activism tends to highlight), they realize their personal beliefs differ than the church and that's why they leave.

I should probably look at the poll more closely to see if it differentiates between those two positions.

I think both are factors. How far will a person go in attending a church that conflicts with their political beliefs.  If the church and the individuals beliefs are in sync there is not a problem. 

If however there is a conflict on s political position that may make continued participation difficult 

there is a big difference in say how the church is advising members on medical marijuana and how it approached gay marriage. I think one you could easily still feel there is room for you in the church. The other approach, maybe not 

[Gray]

52 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This study causes me to question their methodology. When I look at the decline of church attendance in Europe, which has been going on for some time, there is zero correlation between it and political activity of the Christian churches in the US.  

Given that the authors of the study felt this political activity was the "major contributing factor in the decline in church membership", I am not real confident in the study's conclusion.  

It would not surprise me that this political activism was one of a great number of influences on declining church attendance, but I reject the idea it was THE major influence.  

I don't think they're claiming that political activism is leading to declining affiliation everywhere, or that this is the ONLY factor that ever leads to it.

[Storm Rider]

Just now, Gray said:

I don't think they're claiming that political activism is leading to declining affiliation everywhere, or that this is the ONLY factor that ever leads to it.

No, but they said it was the major contributing factor in the US.  It is just hard for me to believe that church attendance has been declining worldwide for some time but in the US the big reason is political activism.  Hanging your hat on that issue really makes me question the study, its process, and methodology. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I think wise believers are very careful not to identify themselves as "wheat", even if they believe that this sorting is going on.

Right at this moment I am wheat but I could easily be chaff tomorrow.

[phaedrus ut]

The two biggest Items in the last 10 years that I've seen large groups of Mormons leaving the church were Prop 8 in 2008 and the policy change for children of gay couples.  Both were strong conservative political stances from the church that divided many families and pushed many people away. 

Phaedrus 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I think wise believers are very careful not to identify themselves as "wheat", even if they believe that this sorting is going on.

I don't think there's anything wrong with self-reflection and self identification (though it's not always accurate) but I do think that we should be very careful about categorizing others.

[Okrahomer]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I think wise believers are very careful not to identify themselves as "wheat", even if they believe that this sorting is going on.

Out of "likes" for today, but I could not agree with you more here.

[clarkgoble]

On 5/15/2018 at 10:12 AM, Gray said:

https://www.christiantimes.com/article/study-links-decline-of-church-attendance-to-rise-of-christian-right/73870.htm

According to this study, at least, as religious organizations seek to exercise political control, more Christians seem to drop out of church affiliation. Political polarization and the war against marriage for gay people seems to have been a net negative for religion.

There's some truth to this I think. Although this goes more to my point that a lot of the Nones were already loosely affiliated with these faiths. If it were just about these social issues we'd expect congregation switching to liberal sects or even Unitarians. That we don't see that but actually see continued declines of those sects suggests an affiliation issue. That is what I suspect we're seeing is a significant portion of the Nones are people who, when polled, would call themselves Christian or Baptist or whatever but in terms of practice were low intensity. With conflict over politics the only real switch was what they called themselves. This is particularly relevant in certain forms of Protestantism where the place of Church attendance lacks theological grounding. That is there's no religious reason necessary to go to Church, unlike Catholicism where there's confession and the like. 

This lines up with studies where high practicing Christians in the US have largely kept their numbers but it's the low intensity Christians who are getting taken up by the Nones.

Of course Mormons also are switching to the Nones, but I think again we have to distinguish Mormons from the broader primarily Protestant phenomena. There may be some overlap such as on feminist or LGBT issues. The question though is whether people who leave for those issues become Nones or join a different sect. Particularly with the Nones we have to distinguished between Nones simply not associated with a formal group versus those who largely dismiss all organized religion including its theology.

Edited May 16, 2018 by clarkgoble

[carbon dioxide]

12 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Does one have to be a member of an organised religion to be considered to be “following God”?

Nope.   The more important question however is how God feels about it or recognizes it.