Christianity Continues Decline in America: Pew Survey Results

[Tumah]

Christianity is not, by and large, anything about forced conversions. Some have erred, but very few. It is mostly about taking great risks with their own lives to first help others with their most basic needs to sustain themselves. And only then to share the gospel with them for their spiritual needs. If they refuse to accept Christ they are not driven away. That I believe.

I assume you mean not any more.

 

[leibowde84]

Two accounts given. The first one does not make it clear, by any means, that the money given for education, housing, etc. has to be returned if the husbands do not convert. Yes, in that particular case, but more evidence is needed. I see in the second example they attributed this coercion to one man doing it all. That is what the article said so is that a good representation of how Christian missionaries operate in India?

I am sure I can find many articles or documentation how Christianity is being persecuted in India in many ways and violently often enough. And yet, missionaries remain, the care given is vast, and the numbers of converts continues to grow. Same for far more dangerous countries like Muslim countries, like Asian countries. In Africa, the growth is exponential year after year. Are you suggesting it is all done with the lure of a meal or by lying about the faith? I seriously doubt it for many reasons.

This is what Wikipedia reports under the subject “Forced Conversions” with respect to Hindus and Christians specifically in India. Hardly sounds like anything close to the norm given the larger scope of the endeavor.

Forced conversion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christians in India
The Baptist Church of Tripura is alleged to have supplied the NLFT with arms and financial support and to have encouraged the murder of Hindus, particularly infants, as a means to depopulate the region of all Hindus.[28] In 2009, the Assam Times reported that about fifteen armed Hmar militants, members of Manmasi National Christian Army, tried to force Hindu residents of Bhuvan Pahar, Assam to convert to Christianity.[29] A few Christian evangelists in India have been accused of forced conversion of Hindus, and some of them have been for allegedly converting others by force.

Hinduism
Indian Christians have alleged that "radical Hindu groups" in Orissa, India have forced Christian converts from Hinduism to "revert" to Hinduism. These "religious riots" were largely between two tribal groups in Orissa, one of which was predominantly Hindu and another predominantly Christian, over the assassination of a Hindu leader named Swami Lakshmanananda by Christian Maoists operating as terrorist groups in India (see Naxalite). In the aftermath of the violence, American Christian evangelical groups have claimed that Hindu groups are "forcibly reverting" Christians converts from Hinduism back to Hinduism. It has also been alleged that radical Hind groups like Vishwa Hindu Parishad have converted poor Muslims and Christians to Hinduism against their will and through allurements.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Christianity is not, by and large, anything about forced conversions. Some have erred, but very few. It is mostly about taking great risks with their own lives to first help others with their most basic needs to sustain themselves. And only then to share the gospel with them for their spiritual needs. If they refuse to accept Christ they are not driven away. That I believe.

Wait ... you mean just currently, right? Because, these things could not be said about the church during the middle ages, right?

 

[sun rise]

"The current atheist movement" does not accept the position of materialism. The current "materialist" movement certainly does that, but not all atheists are materialists ... not by a long shot.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the current "atheist movement" (whatever that is) has "accepted the position of materialism"?

Your post confused me. What do atheists believe if not materialism? "Spiritual but not religious" people can believe in God and not follow organized religion. But what can an atheist believe if not that the material world is all that there is?

 

[leibowde84]

Your post confused me. What do atheists believe if not materialism? "Spiritual but not religious" people can believe in God and not follow organized religion. But what can an atheist believe if not that the material world is all that there is?

One example ... the idea of Karma. There are many more but we can start with that. Remember, all that is required to be an "atheist" is a lack of belief in God or Gods. Also, why do you think that without God, materialism is necessary? There are tons of spiritual concepts that aren't associated with God.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your post confused me. What do atheists believe if not materialism? "Spiritual but not religious" people can believe in God and not follow organized religion. But what can an atheist believe if not that the material world is all that there is?

Pretty good questions, with far less obvious answers that it seems at first glance.

In order to answer it, I want to ask you a few questions to establish common understanding of the relevant concepts.

1. Are ethics, mental and emotional health, social responsibility and being commited to the overall good part of the material world? In the whole or in part?

2. Is belief in something beyond the material world (however we agree to delimit it) necessary for someone to be commited to those matters?

3. How does your understanding of the meaning of "religion" relate to god beliefs? To materialism?

4. What exactly defines materialism? What exactly is NOT materialism?

 

[thau]

I assume you mean not any more.

No, I was referring to conquest of nations like the areas and indigenous of spain, france, germany, England, et al. Yes, I will grant you the treatment of the Jews was far regrettable and sinful, but a very different case. Even during the Inquisitions the primary objective was to keep “holy” and “pure” the Catholic faith and not the trials of heathens or other unbelievers, including Jews. The fake Jewish "conversos" were a pointed focus of scrutiny and punishment.

So, again, I am not claiming "saintliness" was always the machinations of Rome, but I still maintain Christianity spread throughout Europe without forced conversions, by and large. Even the events of the New World, far too much blame of the treatment of the natives is put upon the Church and not the monarchies and their minions. Which does not even touch upon the conversions of the Indian people, that too is maligned in its treatment. The Jesuits were far more good to the people than the opposite.

 

[JoStories]

I care about it. To give a very brief explanation of why, it has to do both with my own felt need to reconcile my religious impulses, experiences, ethics, and general perspective with science, reason, the plurality of religions and cultures, and etc. The Pew polls seem to demonstrate empirically something that I feel in my own experience, that the Christian institutions in the US are (speaking broadly) failing in some way to address the issues that are important in our culture. They are failing to make the tradition meaningful, especially to younger Americans. To the extent that I feel that within Christianity there are perspectives that are worth preserving, it worries me. To the extent that I feel that the largest obstacle to handing down those traditions in a meaningful way are the churches themselves as institutions, I think the "rise of the nones" is a good thing. In any case, the polls point to fairly rapid changes in our culture concerning issues that are important to me, both for myself but also in the part of my life that I wish to share with others.

A very well written post that I mostly agree with, except of course that I am not Christian. I do concur that the institutiona nature of churches are the most to blame here. They are antiquated and refuse to come to the present. Acceptance of gays, and so many other issues that should change to meet the times.

 

[JoStories]

Pretty good questions, with far less obvious answers that it seems at first glance.

In order to answer it, I want to ask you a few questions to establish common understanding of the relevant concepts.

1. Are ethics, mental and emotional health, social responsibility and being commited to the overall good part of the material world? In the whole or in part?

2. Is belief in something beyond the material world (however we agree to delimit it) necessary for someone to be commited to those matters?

3. How does your understanding of the meaning of "religion" relate to god beliefs? To materialism?

4. What exactly defines materialism? What exactly is NOT materialism?

Good questions Luis. I want to give this some thought but I will briefly answer the third and last question, together if you don't mind. I don't have a religion per se as I didn't like the antiquated feel and the way they viewed the concept of God. Most have a 'picture' of God that is human in nature and I just don't believe that. And they are often more after money than anything else. I am not materialistic. I do have a nice home, a barn. Etc but I don't run out and buy the newest whatever because it's a much have, I live simply.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Correlation is not causation.

agree there

 

[JoStories]

I think part of the problem is that American Christianity is largely expressed, or seems to be largely expressed in the public consciousness, in vapid ways. You have the post-modernism of the liberal mainline denominations such as Episcopalianism with their desperation to accommodate every leftist/progressive "feel good/do what you want" impulse, then you have the megachurches with their equally vapid money worship and self-help nonsense and then you have the angry religious right with their portents of gloom, doom and hellfire. Obviously that's not working and is leaving people feeling empty and pushed away. People need beauty, compassion, structure and substance. American Christianity is largely a failure in those areas. But what do you expect in a shallow, capitalist society where substance went out the window decades ago.

As for me, I just shrug. This is to be expected, since we are living in a dark age (no, I don't mean the "End Times", necessarily, just a state of cultural decline). I'm not losing my faith in God and His Church. We've been through much worse.

A good post and I believe you made some really excellent points about this decline and the why of it. I also agree about the overt lack of cultural structure. It's one of the things I like about my people (native American) as we don't put people in homes, we care for each other, and young are tribally raised, etc. I wish whites would stop with the damned video games, texts, iPhones 24/7 and so on.

 

[JoStories]

Many people today I hear say, 'I do believe there is something' but they are not active members of the family's traditional Church. To me this seems to be a growing class.

I'm assuming that you see this increase in agnosticism as a bad thing. Why? What if that person doesn't follow the faith of their family? Is that a terrible thing?
Perhaps this,was what they're here to experience. I don't think it a bad thing to find the path or beliefs or lack thereof that best suits the person.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A good post and I believe you made some really excellent points about this decline and the why of it. I also agree about the overt lack of cultural structure. It's one of the things I like about my people (native American) as we don't put people in homes, we care for each other, and young are tribally raised, etc. I wish whites would stop with the damned video games, texts, iPhones 24/7 and so on.

It's not just white people. It's pretty much all young people. Black, white, Asian, Latino, etc. But you have a good point.

 

[gsa]

Which is an interesting factor to note. China will not grow larger because it "won't be allowed." By the regime in charge.

Which says to me this --- if there were a level playing field and all religions were able to show their wares to those interested, Christianity would be the clear victor and religion of choice. It works that way in poor countries. It is the affluent materially focused nations that tend to "lose their religion." Because now they feel less dependent on God to help them attain basic needs in life and a basic level of contentment. They become more self centered.

That is why America, Canada and Western Europe have declined in Christian worship. They have become self-centered, materialistic, hedonistic and do not have time for God. Totally unbelievable to someone like me.

1. The regime in charge is willing to tolerate indigenous Christianity, but not fringe cults, particularly ones that are influenced by foreign opponents of the regime.

2. The regime is way nicer to Christianity than the ultranationalists would be.

3. Even if China became the largest Christian nation in the world and surpassed the US, it would still be a minority of Chinese identifying as Christian.

4. While there is some support for the proposition that development brings liberation from religion (with some serious qualifiers there), there is no reason to suppose that is solely because of material wealth and less dependence on "God" to bring material satisfaction. It might also have quite a bit to do with education.

 

[thau]

I think part of the problem is that American Christianity is largely expressed, or seems to be largely expressed in the public consciousness, in vapid ways. You have the post-modernism of the liberal mainline denominations such as Episcopalianism with their desperation to accommodate every leftist/progressive "feel good/do what you want" impulse, then you have the megachurches with their equally vapid money worship and self-help nonsense and then you have the angry religious right with their portents of gloom, doom and hellfire. Obviously that's not working and is leaving people feeling empty and pushed away. People need beauty, compassion, structure and substance. American Christianity is largely a failure in those areas. But what do you expect in a shallow, capitalist society where substance went out the window decades ago.

As for me, I just shrug. This is to be expected, since we are living in a dark age (no, I don't mean the "End Times", necessarily, just a state of cultural decline). I'm not losing my faith in God and His Church. We've been through much worse.

I agree with another here that you made some good points as to how things look from here. American Christianity is a big disappointment in many profound ways, but I think it even more the blame of the "faithful" than it is the clergy. But having said that, you also point to some misguided clergy or churches I cannot disagree with.

The only issue I wanted to bring up was where you say the ineffectiveness of "the angry religious right with their portents of gloom, doom and hellfire." I think one needs to be more specific as to who that refers to? I am sure I can point to a number of voices, but I do not see this as any Catholic mission, even if we traditional Catholicism could be termed as a religious right. But from the pulpit you will virtually never hear mention of hell or purgatory. All the less in any evangelical work. I healthy dose of that I think would be healthy, but not as a major scare tactic.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I agree with another here that you made some good points as to how things look from here. American Christianity is a big disappointment in many profound ways, but I think it even more the blame of the "faithful" than it is the clergy. But having said that, you also point to some misguided clergy or churches I cannot disagree with.

The only issue I wanted to bring up was where you say the ineffectiveness of "the angry religious right with their portents of gloom, doom and hellfire." I think one needs to be more specific as to who that refers to? I am sure I can point to a number of voices, but I do not see this as any Catholic mission, even if we traditional Catholicism could be termed as a religious right. But from the pulpit you will virtually never hear mention of hell or purgatory. All the less in any evangelical work. I healthy dose of that I think would be healthy, but not as a major scare tactic.

Oh, I'm not talking about conservative Christians. I'm a conservative Christian generally, myself. I mean these types of people:

Surely there's a way to talk about sin and hell without being an uncharitable loon. (I didn't use Westboro as an example because I don't consider them to be Christians at all, just a fringe cult made up of Phelps' severely abused children and those close to them.)

 

[gsa]

As a well-off Western European, who had more exposure to Christianity than any other religion growing up, why do you think I've become Hindu?

For some people in the West, I think that the dharmic religions seem attractive because their practices are in some sense liberating. But I don't really hold it against animists who convert to Christianity for the same reason. Believing that your life is controlled by spirits, for example, can be quite oppressive. There's a pretty good novel about this, called Fieldwork, that I read some years ago now. Basically this northern Thai tribe is being converted by Christian evangelical missionaries, which results in an anthropologist studying the tribe murdering one of them. The book is basically the story of unraveling the mystery for why she did it, and this excerpt explains why they were so successful in converting the tribe:

“It was the hardest thing for that woman to understand. We understood that the Dyalo people . . . the Dyalo had certain needs, and the Dyalo recognized that we understood those needs. Do you understand what I’m telling you?”

Mr. Walker spoke so calmly, so reasonably, that I was sure that when I thought it over later it would all make sense. I nodded. Mr. Walker seemed satisfied with this response.

“The Dyalo would tell her that they were in bondage—bondage!—to the demons, and she’d write in her little notebook, ‘The Dyalo have a rich hierarchical system of animistic spirit worship.’ She didn’t believe them. But we knew what was going on, because we’ve been here so long. Back when we first came, family after family asked us, ‘Two thousand years! Why did it take you so long to come with God’s word? To bring us this Good News? We were orphans and slaves to the forces of darkness! Our fathers have died, our grandfathers all died in bondage—and they died without hearing this Word.’ Foolish people don’t talk like that, you know—people know when they’re slaves, and I tell you, brother, no man wants to live in chains.”

Of course, the master-slave relationship is an approved analogy in Christianity and basically the dominant one in Islam, but you can see how something new that promises liberation from the restrictions of an old failed system can be potent and attractive.

 

[thau]

1. The regime in charge is willing to tolerate indigenous Christianity, but not fringe cults, particularly ones that are influenced by foreign opponents of the regime.

2. The regime is way nicer to Christianity than the ultranationalists would be.

3. Even if China became the largest Christian nation in the world and surpassed the US, it would still be a minority of Chinese identifying as Christian.

4. While there is some support for the proposition that development brings liberation from religion (with some serious qualifiers there), there is no reason to suppose that is solely because of material wealth and less dependence on "God" to bring material satisfaction. It might also have quite a bit to do with education.

>>The regime in charge is willing to tolerate indigenous Christianity, but not fringe cults, particularly ones that are influenced by foreign opponents of the regime. <<

Cults? The underground Catholic Church is much more vibrant and a concern of the regime than the regime approved Catholic Church with the bishops they themselves appointed in opposition to Rome. I suspect the Protestant counterparts have similar situations.


>> The regime is way nicer to Christianity than the ultranationalists would be. <<

Well maybe but it’s all relative. Christianity is greatly suppressed to be sure, no one can hold a govt post and call themselves a Christian.


>> Even if China became the largest Christian nation in the world and surpassed the US, it would still be a minority of Chinese identifying as Christian.<<

It’s already at 50 million +, but I feel if it were wide open without any reprisals it would change drastically.


>> While there is some support for the proposition that development brings liberation from religion (with some serious qualifiers there), there is no reason to suppose that is solely because of material wealth and less dependence on "God" to bring material satisfaction. It might also have quite a bit to do with education. <<

It might have to do with education, but I submit that is the very reason many others would convert to Christianity as well.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm assuming that you see this increase in agnosticism as a bad thing. Why?

You misunderstood my post. This is the second time in different threads that this has happened to us. But anyway, first of all I'm not seeing it as agnosticism but perhaps a weak theism. It may not be a bad thing as it is may be paving the way for a better post-Christian spiritual landscape of the western world.

What if that person doesn't follow the faith of their family?

That's OK by me, it happens. I was raised Catholic and am now an Advaita Hindu.

Is that a terrible thing?

No, or I wouldn't have done it myself. We are seeing the spiritual landscape evolve before our eyes.

Perhaps this,was what they're here to experience. I don't think it a bad thing to find the path or beliefs or lack thereof that best suits the person.

I agree (that's why I am saying you read something into my post that I didn't intend)

 

[sun rise]

Pretty good questions, with far less obvious answers that it seems at first glance.

In order to answer it, I want to ask you a few questions to establish common understanding of the relevant concepts.

1. Are ethics, mental and emotional health, social responsibility and being commited to the overall good part of the material world? In the whole or in part?

I would say yes, in part. The part is that ethics, health etc are part of the material world. And it does not matter to me whether or not someone believes in God or not.

2. Is belief in something beyond the material world (however we agree to delimit it) necessary for someone to be commited to those matters?

No. I've stated it before in this thread and elsewhere - believing in God does not necessarily imply virtue and disbelief imply evil.

3. How does your understanding of the meaning of "religion" relate to god beliefs? To materialism?

This is where it gets tricky for me. Religion is an exoteric structure with an intellectually constructed set of beliefs. Buddhism at least to some has no required belief in God.

4. What exactly defines materialism? What exactly is NOT materialism?

To me, what is materialism is the belief that the physical world is the only reality which would make transcendence nonsensical since there's nothing to transcend to. Spiritual experience is beyond materialism.

Sam Harris in "Waking Up" asserts "Self-transcendence is the foundation of what I am calling spirituality." This to me is classic "spiritual but not religious" rather than classically atheist. Harris to me supports this contention when he talks about the "shelf in the atheist library":

“There is no modern, scientific, skeptical context in which to unpack spiritual experiences,” Harris said. “People know they have had these experiences and then they hear atheists or skeptics discount them. There is no shelf in the atheist library for these deeply transformative experiences and they are left with absurd religious stories and doctrines by which to understand them.”

Here's where we part company. To me the ideas are not "absurd" but rather limited since they're products of the intellect.

And we get into very tangled semantic territory because we get involved with defining the word "God". This leads us to the concepts of immanence and transcendence. To speak of God's immanence is to speak of God manifesting in the physical world. To speak of transcendence is to speak of God being outside the material world.

So where Harris writes about "deeply transformative experiences", I would use a phrase like "the veil thins and the individual experiences the divine within".

 

[LuisDantas]

You know, Sunrise, I get the sense that you don't need a concept of god, but did not fully realize that.