Survey: Americans switching faiths, dropping out

[path_of_one]

Hi, Thomas-

I think something I am curious about is what your definition of the Church to be. Do you refer to the Body of Christ, to all Christians, or only to those who agree with your own denomination, your own place of worship and structure of authority? Early Christianity was, to the best of my knowledge, not a large institution. The Church was a body of believers who formed a community. They managed to find salvation despite having little written text, and none of them had all the pieces of it. Somehow, despite all this, their faith was so great that they were willing to be martyred for it. Christ prevailed in them because of their strong sense of the Spirit within them, and their sense of community among them. This is not to say these early Christians were perfect (we know they were not from Paul), but I do not doubt their salvation despite not having a large institution to oversee it.

I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the body of believers (my definition of Church- where two or more are gathered in Christ's name) has a purpose in transmitting the Gospels, the Message of Christ (His life and His teachings). However, to say that these are the transmission of grace is, I think, going too far. I have faith in God alone. God is sufficient to spread His own message, through the Church and through other means (both of which I believe are active), and God alone is sufficient for salvation. No matter how many people leave a church, we will never be without the Church- the body of believers in Christ, the followers of His message. I believe that Christ cannot fail. We are not dependent on any human institutions, but rather only on Christ.

As for Whom the Christ is, the myth/metaphor is as significant as the historical person. I believe that while the historical Christ is of great importance, we should focus so intently on Christ as sacrificial lamb, as God incarnate, that we lose sight of Christ as human being, as bridge between humanity and divinity, as teacher and messenger. I think to say that people who are not in a particular church are turning Christ into a “God of their own invention,” is to ignore that many people retain the historicity of Christ despite their lack of association with a registered denomination. Remember, just because I may meet with a group of individuals that don’t claim 501c3 status and hire a priest does not mean that I am unchurched. And so it is with others, too. Some people avoid a church because they wish to water down the message, make it more palatable, and so forth. Some people go to church for the same reason. Going or not going to any particular church is not evidence of faith or of being in Christ, nor is it a guarantee that we will be so. Christ Himself said many will say “Lord, Lord” and He will not recognize them. Christ Himself set the standard by which to discern someone’s commitment to His teachings and the Spirit: the fruits of the Spirit. “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit…” What is this fruit of which He speaks, since people may do things in His name and yet not be known by Him? I believe the fruit is a consistency of character, of right awareness in the world, that is evidence of one’s being in Love, in God- for “God is Love” (the agape kind).

How, then, can we reconcile the fact that some individuals are outside the boundaries of any Christian church, and yet show the fruit of the spirit? What do we do with this? I would say that being against a church’s doctrine is not being against the words of Christ. Doctrine is composed of the thoughts, the interpretations, that humans come to in reading the words. Whether they are my interpretations or another’s, they are still interpretations. Whether they are substantiated by a particular tradition or not, they are still tradition and not the message itself. I do not believe Christ picked a single institution to spread His message. I believe He called on His followers to do it. And His followers are His alone. They may gather together on a regular basis, create tradition to embrace the mystery, appoint leaders or not, build buildings or meet in someone’s house… but the followers are the Church, are the Body of Christ. We should not divide the Body and provide stumbling blocks for our brothers and sisters, but rather encourage all to grow in the Spirit and to “die to self, that we might live in Christ.” If we do this, God will bring us into wisdom, whether we all agree on one particular tradition or not.

The liturgical aspect of church is to embrace the mystery, to celebrate the mystery. But we do not need one tradition to show us a proper way to do this. The multiplicity of liturgies shows that there is more than one approach to the mystery, more than one way to celebrate. There is only One Mystery, but there are many ways to come near to It.

As for the eschatology, this may mean (in the case of the mystics) a reunion with the Divine, or it may mean some idea of an actual end times event. In either case, the tradition prepares us for it, guides us to it, but it is not the reunion itself. In my own Buddhist quote, I would say once more that tradition is the raft that brings us to the shore (reunion). The Church is a body of people who will (hopefully) be reunited with God- the Bride of Christ. I do not see how the tradition itself could be the reunion, when it is clear that many people follow the tradition (any tradition) and are not showing evidence of the fruit of the spirit, much less mystical reunion.

As for the sacraments, I will make no pretense of pretending that any of it is mandatory in my belief system. I believe the sacraments are a blessing, but not necessary. I do not believe anything is necessary for salvation except a turning toward God. Salvation is given by God freely, through grace. It is not earned through any particular actions, whether performed by the Church or by oneself. These actions are evidence of salvation, not causes of it.

I think far more troubling than people leaving churches in the United States is the straying of churches from the message of Jesus Christ. A church can always claim that it is the one and only entity able to interpret God’s word. But the history of the church shows that it must not be infallible, for its own actions have gone against, at times, the heart of Christ’s message- of love, of equality (no emphasis on class or caste), of service to the most poor and vulnerable, of distance from worldly desires… This is not to say to abandon the church, but to try to hold it (which is really to say to hold each other, as brothers and sisters) to the narrow path of Love, of service to God and others rather than to self. This may mean that one abandons an institution- a building with a leader and a bunch of his/her ideas- but that is not abandoning the church. Abandoning the church is to turn one’s back of Christ’s message.

Peace,
Kim/Path

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I believe that while the historical Christ is of great importance, we should focus so intently on Christ as sacrificial lamb, as God incarnate, that we lose sight of Christ as human being, as bridge between humanity and divinity, as teacher and messenger.

Of course, I meant to say "we should not focus so intently..." But then, those who know me would have guessed that...

One little word slipping out changes the meaning so dramatically! (Thank goodness we have the Spirit to guide us in reading scripture, eh?)

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think far more troubling than people leaving churches in the United States is the straying of churches from the message of Jesus Christ. A church can always claim that it is the one and only entity able to interpret God’s word. But the history of the church shows that it must not be infallible, for its own actions have gone against, at times, the heart of Christ’s message- of love, of equality (no emphasis on class or caste), of service to the most poor and vulnerable, of distance from worldly desires… This is not to say to abandon the church, but to try to hold it (which is really to say to hold each other, as brothers and sisters) to the narrow path of Love, of service to God and others rather than to self. This may mean that one abandons an institution- a building with a leader and a bunch of his/her ideas- but that is not abandoning the church. Abandoning the church is to turn one’s back of Christ’s message.

Peace,
Kim/Path

Indeed, we are the living stones from which the church is built. ~1 Peter 2:4-5

[Ciel]

Thomas,

An honest question........

From your posts here do you feel you are drawing people towards The Church or pushing them further away?

Does it matter?

- c -

[gp1628]

I found the report to be very interesting but there is one lack (which might have been mentioned since I didnt read the whole thread, sorry).
According to another often quoted study, Wicca is one of the fastest growing religions and if it continues on the scale it has then it could become the 3rd largest religion in the US by 2012.

[Dream]

Again we see the false dichotomy, if we make an enquiry outside the model of religion we are automatically in the realm of what is percieved to be the self as defined by the very model we are leaving behind. This kind of black and white thinking is what I mean to transcend.

Truly. The self has always been the final arbiter of truth for itself. The alternative is to accept all things as true.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by gp1628

According to another often quoted study, Wicca is one of the fastest growing religions and if it continues on the scale it has then it could become the 3rd largest religion in the US by 2012.

I am not sure what religion Wicca would supplant, but I would also think Atheism to be gaining ground as well. I suspect for much the same reasons.

[juantoo3]

My brother Thomas,

In the course of my travels I have met many who for various reasons became disenfranchised with Christianity, or more generally disenfranchised with certain people who sat in positions of authority within and claimed to speak for and represent Christianity or some faction therein. For a layperson there is little distinction; the pastor *is* Christianity. And when a person in authority abuses their privilege, the layperson is apt to chuck it all and seek somewhere else.

If anything, I am probably an anomaly in that I still cling however tenuously to Christianity when those around me who have been similarly disheartened by abusive authority do indeed exchange their Christianity for another faith.

The point that some may switch religions for personal gratuity is not lost on me, but neither is that an all encompassing reason. People lose their religion for a variety of reasons. Abuse of power is what keeps me out of church. Which is just as well from my point of view, I always had a hard time dealing emotionally with all of the hypocrasy and pretense since I can remember.

If "church" were about worshipping G-d, I would not hesitate; I would be in the front row every time. Now church has become an institutional endorsement of politics and gambling and gossip and fashion shows and dating services and pot luck dinners...and that's just in the sanctuary! It's not a matter of forgiveness, if it were I would have left by now for another religion like others before me.

It *is* a matter of tacit and complicit endorsement of the figurative money changers still conducting their business and selling their wares within the confines of the Tabernacle. It seems normal and correct through repetition; even though we know instinctively it is not because our Messiah specifically and unequivocally set the example that it is not in no uncertain terms. Yeah, I know, church is BIG business. Look at me, BSBA, an advocate for business; free enterprise, conservative politics, Keenesian economics, blah blah blah...but not in church. That is not the purpose of a house of worship. Yet all too often business becomes the primary purpose of church, at the expense of worshipping G-d.

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The last part of this teaching seems to get ignored more often than not.

I accept there are marvelous teachings to be had from some wonderful and insightful teachers, and the fact I am jaded does not mean there are no sincere teachers still out there. But they are few and far between, and finding them is all the more fraught in dodging the pretenders along the way. Like a school textbook, I can learn in some setting outside of the school building. I do not require a church building to read and understand the Bible. If anything, the real world examples set inside a church appear to conflict with the teachings of the Bible.

Faced with the conflict between Bible and Church, to which side do you lean?

For me it is a no-brainer. I'll take the teachings of Jesus over the money-grubbing business conducted in his name any day of the week, especially the Sabbath.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think Paladin was referring to me. I am a social scientist (a cultural anthropologist, to be exact).

Imagine as an example if I were to make statements that maybe trees and plants had spirits, and then I said that I imagine it would take a Botanist to figure this out. Yet the truth is, I'm not really a Botanist but I still cling to the belief that trees and plants have spirits and in my spare time I project that belief onto Botanists. Later I insist that it is true, or my belief... but I've already forgotten, I never was a Botanist. Would I be honest with myself or with others?

I fully agree with Thomas in his defense of whatever he calls Church, as an institution or an ekklesia: community. As I read it, Paladin's expressed model of an institution or a community is one of a prostitute who shows him a thing and then is no longer of use... a congitive dissonance. I can imagine several reasons: like graduating from a school and then it is no longer of personal value to return to that school. Yet it would be of value for others to return if you later found something wrong with their teaching. In a sense Paladin claims that graduation day is the day that he was kicked out for thinking counter to or outside of the teaching of the school. To me, I have no 'cognitive dissonance' with the school... I am in school every day of my life. I can think outside of and counter to members of a university without rejecting the value of the university. I value the institution, and I have yet to find one where there was not at least a shred of love, faith, and truth in it... even within the military which goes to war. Every institution I have seen is like most every person I have met... there is some good, and there is some evil in it. I see Paladin rejecting the good in church. God is real and baptism in your own bathtub is just not the same.

The Gospel of Thomas 43 comes to mind... loving the tree and hating the fruit, or loving the fruit and hating the tree. I see the trees not as a person, but as what a person does.

Yet I fully disagree with Thomas with the claim that any single institution or community is the sole voice or hands and feet of God. I have seen a glimpse of God doing things in this world, outside of people, in other people, in my life, and in my mind... so the lessons here are not solely from a teacher in a school or a person in a church. But I do have to eat the words of others if I want to learn... both the agreeable and the disagreeable. I do not know what is there until I look, and I do not learn it until I also do it. If a church is a place of incest, theft, and murder, then I am going to attend just to expose it. If a church is a place of love, faith, and truth being exchanged, then I'd be nuts to not want to attend and be a part of it. Whether I find more good than evil in it, or more evil than good in it... I wish to attend. I am fooling myself if I claim to know what it is that I like or dislike within a church if I have never even attended it. Or a mosque. Or a buddhist temple. Or a synagogue. Or the street side where there are homeless drug users, prostitutes, thiefs, liars, paranoids, and murderers... real people.

[Thomas]

Hi Paladin —

Much to discuss, but at the heart, I think, lies this:

Originally Posted by Paladin

... but a religion is still a man made paradigm.

We see it as a God-given paradigm — I think that explains all the difference.

Thomas

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Ciel

From your posts here do you feel you are drawing people towards The Church or pushing them further away?

Does it matter?

I'd say you are proof that he obviously draws people towards... you have been drawn here and even asked him questions.

Perhaps you think people are better drawn towards a happy void of emptiness. Don't ask, don't tell is rather popular in the world. Or perhaps you advise surrounding the building with strippers... a house of LOVE. Surely then you could attract people if that is what matters to you.

[Paladin]

Thomas,
Good of you to answer so quickly my friend. As abstract as it may sound I wonder if there is ultimately any paradigm at all.
Your points are well taken and have given me pause to consider just what it is I really think and believe and from a conventional standpoint, or subject-object mode of thinking I could concede many points.
My study of the great Christian mystical writings leads me to believe that beyond a wholesome discipline those that experienced God at any point in their lives did so because they were willing to give up the "me" and realize that "thou art". I see this in other traditions as well.
You are probably right that many turn away to merely indulge their own egos but I think it unfair to label everyone not in the same household as your own in the same manner.

If indeed God did give mankind a paradigm which implies something outside of it, consistent with the dualistic mindset then the other traditions must indeed be wrong. And somehow I cannot embrace that idea.
I also cannot embrace the idea that if I do not belong to a particular club I am less than real, less than disciplined less than dilligent in having a relationship with actuality, that which is all in all or perhaps what you call God. I have asked for a loaf, will I recieve a stone?

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I'd say you are proof that he obviously draws people towards... you have been drawn here and even asked him questions.

Perhaps you think people are better drawn towards a happy void of emptiness. Don't ask, don't tell is rather popular in the world. Or perhaps you advise surrounding the building with strippers... a house of LOVE. Surely then you could attract people if that is what matters to you.

Cyberpi,

As my grandmother might say........"what on earth has got in to you today"

- c -

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Ciel

As my grandmother might say........"what on earth has got in to you today"

Only today? Must it be of the Earth?

A person who merely reads and contemplates will never learn and see it. A person who will not read and contemplate is even further behind.

Communication is an important part of communion, but not the only part.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Imagine as an example if I were to make statements that maybe trees and plants had spirits, and then I said that I imagine it would take a Botanist to figure this out.

I wasn't referring to that of the spirit when I was referring to the value of social science. I was engaging a social question: why does Hinduism, as an organization, have a much higher retention rate than Christianity?

Now, you could propose a hypothesis that speaks to the spirit- that Hinduism is offering more to people's souls, or that it is a better version of God's message, etc. (None of which I agree with, by the way.) I was offering a hypothesis that is social, organizational- that there may be social reasons that some religions are gaining ground or retaining more members and others are not. These reasons may be institutional, cultural, social, even economic- and not only having to do with people's spirituality.

Every person is on a spiritual journey. Whether or not they join with a religion is a social issue. There is no religion of one person. Religion is, by definition, a group endeavor. So I study it as I study other social organizations.

That said, on the other hand, I am a spiritual person as well. But I limit my spirituality to my self. That is, I don't see it as my job to judge other people's spiritual progress, their relationship to God, their reasons for joining this or that religion, etc.-- in the case of their spirit. I can make observations about social stuff, but not others' spiritual life.

Yet the truth is, I'm not really a Botanist but I still cling to the belief that trees and plants have spirits and in my spare time I project that belief onto Botanists.

Not sure what this means. I really am trained as an anthropologist (that is what my degrees are in), but I consider that an entirely different matter from my spiritual life. The former utilizes analysis of data vis-a-vis a history of social theory. The latter (for me) is embracing the mystery- it is mysticism (reunion with God), it is intuitive knowing guided by the Spirit, it is growing in Christ. I see science and spirituality as two different approaches to reality (and approaching two different realities!). I use science to study human institutions structurally and functionally- what works, what doesn't, what is inefficient, cause and effect. I use spirituality to approach God and in my interactions with people.

In short, I am simply me- one unique creation of God. But that unique creation took a bunch of training in a particular type of science. It's not "me" in the sense of my spirit, but it is "me" in the sense of one of my roles in society. We are each spirit (permanently), and a bunch of roles in society (temporarily).

I fully agree with Thomas in his defense of whatever he calls Church, as an institution or an ekklesia: community.

I do also. I defend the Church (Body of Christ) as a community of believers. I don't defend it as an institution. I fully acknowledge that is because of my nit-pickiness about what an institution is vs. what a community is in the social theory world of Path.

As I read it, Paladin's expressed model of an institution or a community is one of a prostitute who shows him a thing and then is no longer of use... a congitive dissonance. I can imagine several reasons: like graduating from a school and then it is no longer of personal value to return to that school. Yet it would be of value for others to return if you later found something wrong with their teaching.

I agree with what (I think) you are saying, in the sense that after we have grown to the limit of our community of believers (the Church), the limit of our tradition, we should stick around so that we may help others. In fact, I actually think we can never outgrow a religion or tradition, or a community of believers. Once we think we've learned it all, we show we are lost and not learned at all. We can always learn something from every person, every tradition, every culture, every organization. We just have to make up our mind to be open to it and humble enough to take in the lessons God has for us.

I also think we should ask ourselves "What can I do for others?" and not the other way 'round. We can be a service to others anywhere.

That said, there are many churches, many traditions. I do not think it does good for a person to remain in a situation that is abusive to one, or that teaches something so opposite to one's own spiritual experience (found through reading the Bible guided by the Spirit) that one exists in a constant state of cognitive dissonance and so is a liar- playing a role of something one is not. Furthermore, what I have found is that while I would be fine with almost any group of people if they would but love me and accept me (flaws and all), generally this is not what happens. If I do not conform to every doctrine, to every action, to every political viewpoint (and indeed, non-religious opinion) that the group purports, then I am viewed as a threat. And in rapid order, I am made to feel very unwelcome. I have been in churches that literally said the college-educated, the scientists, the professors were, as a group and wholesale, on the pathway to hell because they relied on reason for some stuff. How is that to make people feel? If it were a person relationship- if my father told me on a regular basis that I was going to hell for being a scientist- this would be considered abuse. Should I accept it because it is an institution that is abusive and not a single person? I think not.

So I withdraw in love. If I am seen as a threat in a community, I certainly do not want to be abused and made to feel unwanted, and I certainly do not want to be a stumbling block to others' faith. It is better that I withdraw and find a community in which I am not a threat, in which I can be of some service and I am not forcing that service and love down others' throats.

In some cases, it is as much for others' sake that one leaves as it is for oneself.

Yet I fully disagree with Thomas with the claim that any single institution or community is the sole voice or hands and feet of God.

I have seen a glimpse of God doing things in this world, outside of people, in other people, in my life, and in my mind... so the lessons here are not solely from a teacher in a school or a person in a church.

I wholeheartedly agree. God is everywhere if I will but see Him.