Except that the two churches which are losing people to atheism fastest are the Episcopalians and Congregationalists, not coincidentally among the two that have been most quick to embrace cultural, um, innovations including feminism. By contrast, the evangelical Protestant churches that have been more critical of feminism tend to be, at least, holding on to their numbers.
Read the Pew Survey document again. Overall, only 13-14% of people raised Christian end up converting to atheism/agnosticism/nonbelief as adults. Among those two churches though, it’s closer to 20%.
I don’t want to hijack this thread into a debate about the merits and demerits of feminism, so without getting into that, I’ll say that strictly as a matter of demographics, slavishly embracing cultural fads and trends does not appear a promising path for a church to be successful. Strictly from the point of view of increasing their numbers, I’d suggest that it would be a better strategy for churches to resist feminism, not to embrace it.
What context did I lose there? You and Fred Phelps both think that biblical literalism is the proper way to read the Bible. I’m not trying to imply that you agree with the Bible. I wasn’t trying to say you’re a homophobe, or anything like that. I’m just saddened that both you and Phelps lack the imagination and intellect to understand any way to approach a text other than a strictly literal one.
And I’m just saddened at the number of people who lack the intellect to realize that “metaphor” does not mean “I disagree with that part.”
I’ve said, repeatedly, that I accept that some parts of the Bible are metaphorical. But some aren’t. If you want to explain how “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death” is a metaphor for “Have fun, you two!”, I’m all ears.
I really do hope so, but I think you are more optimistic than I am on this. I have seen (on blogs) folks respond to Catholics who want women priests (and acceptance of homosexuality) by saying, if you really want that, the Episcopalians are over there. As in, they would rather see them join another church than entertain the notion of changing their traditions on this. Of course, there is far more ecumenism than in the past, so the notion of a Catholic telling someone that maybe they should just leave mother Church isn’t as shocking these days.
The numbers also show, however, that if you discount the numbers from Hispanic immigration, Catholic adherents in the United States are falling quite rapidly. So the drop has nothing to do with embracing “feminism” or not. I mean the most rapidly growing church is Pentecostalism, which has had no issues with female pastors since its founding.
Conservative Evangelical churches are declining at a lower rate, true. However, I feel that is less due to “standing firm” on social issues (I feel conservatives are going to realize too late that wasn’t what was bolstering them) and more offering ‘answers’ as opposed to a more nuanced view of things as you’d find in mainline Protestant churches or Catholic Churches. I attended a Pentecostal Church for a few years - they were much into certainty and less interested in things like doubt (I almost felt like they considered doubt to be a weakness).
Perhaps more to the point; what is the key to understanding why parts of the Bible are meant to be taken as metaphor, which parts of the Bible are meant to be taken as historical truth, and which parts are meant to be taken as myth-disguised truth?
Because every answer to this I’ve seen ends up as either divine inspiration or personal reasoning. Either of which obviates the point of having the Bible in the first place. Literalism is just one way of looking at the Bible, it’s true, but at least with literalism there’s a point to its existence.
Fair enough, I think you have a good point about Pentecostals. I don’t actually know if embracing women’s ordination would make people more or less likely to join a particular church. I do think though that there is no positive evidence for what Trinopus said, that churches which don’t embrace women’s ordination will see greater declines in membership than those which do.
It’s probably true that the biggest factor in hanging on to members and attracting new ones, is less about attitudes on social issues and more about offering ‘answers’ in general. Churches which have been open to women’s ordination and to feminism have tended also to be churches which are open to higher criticism, denial of core theological doctrine, etc., but as you point out, there’s no real reason that necessarily has to be true.
I do think another separate bpart of the decline in mainline churches has to do with their lower birthrates- which may somewhat overlap with openness to feminism- but that’s a separate issue which doesn’t have anything to do with the Pew Survey numbers.
A while back, you said that someone who said, essentially, “You’re stupid, but I can’t be bothered to tell you why you’re stupid,” was just wasting everyone’s time. I agree.
Agreed on the above, but I do think that eventually women’s ordination will be key. I have a feeling (not based on anything concrete in particular) that not allowing females to be ordained will be seen as akin to not allowing African-Americans to be ordained - though that may be well after our lifetimes.
I think the seemingly ability to offer ‘answers’ can account for things like prosperity gospel megachurches packing the house every Sunday, while churches dedicated to reading the lectionary and making sense of the tough passages on the Sundays that they come up (there by not always having the pat answers) can sometimes unnerve folk. FWIW, it just came to me that I wonder how many non-religious folks realize that the lectionary churches - Catholics, Anglican/Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. actually do have some of the trouble passages read out loud in church as part of the readings and the pastor’s sermon is partially trying to make sense of it (and, of course, in at least my liberal Church you’ll hear plenty of folks saying “I didn’t like that reading” - but you can’t ignore it, it’s there in Scripture).
I am not sure if you just don’t get it or if you just don’t want to get it.
We are not talking about dividing scripture into literal depiction vs metaphor. (I am even puzzled by your use of the word metaphor which does not correspond to the meaning that it has when discussing literary devices.)
To return to an earlier post:
As I have noted in other threads, (although it has not previously come up in this one), scripture proceeds from faith. Faith does not proceed from scripture.
The way that pre-Enlightenment peoples used myth, (and even history and biography), was through the use of Story. Each telling of Story conveyed its own meaning and was not necessarily consistent with other examples of Story supporting the beliefs of the people. (In some cases, the Story was not even internally consistent.) This is not how only Hebrews or Christians treated Story, but how people treated Story. For that matter, people continue to employ Story to provide the framework of their beliefs, today, although many do not recognize it. With the rise of science and historiography, the manner of expressing Story has changed, but it remains a vital part of the way humanity identifies its beliefs and justifies its attitudes and behavior. Once it is codified, Story is then used as a touchstone, reinforcing beliefs of the people, employed in further stories, in art, in liturgy, and in other ways. As the beliefs or understandings of the people change, Story is recast to be relevant to the current generation, but that recasting is imposed on the Story, not derived from it.
The changes that occurred during the Enlightenment are still shaking out, resulting in conflicts. When pre-Enlightenment Story is examined as if it had been written as post-Enlightenment history or biography, the examination fails, resulting in conflicts between the various literalist believers and literalist unbelievers. Examining pre-Enlightenment Story in the way that it was written eliminates that particular conflict. It allows one to see the one’s faith displayed in Story. Conflicts in the narrative are understood and resolved in light of the faith expressed in one’s community of believers.
The examples of Story assembled by the Hebrew people and later taken and enlarged upon by Christians, provide the touchstones that reinforce their beliefs, but it does not prevent those beliefs from evolving. People point to specific stories or verses in order to be able to say “Here is an example of God’s word supporting our belief.”
Does everyone specifically recognize what they are doing? Probably not, but that is the dynamic that is occurring. (It would probably help if everyone on all sides of the issue recognized the role that Story played in all belief systems, although I doubt that that recognition will occur any time soon.)
I just don’t get it. But I do appreciate you taking the time to actually try to explain something.
This seems to be the kernel of your argument, and I don’t get it. Yes, it may have been true for the original authors (whoever they were), 2000 or so years ago, but surely you aren’t trying to tell me that the typical Christian today is somehow born with Christian faith, and that all the indoctrination he receives from parents or Sunday School or Bible Camp or whatever is just a minor adjunct to that innate faith.
But I think I’ve already made my points about that upthread, so I see no point in repeating them. I reluctantly conclude that we are talking past each other because our fundamental assumptions are so different — you’re so sure that Christianity is true that the absurdities and contradictions in the Bible don’t bother you, while I think it’s blindingly obvious that they provide compelling evidence that Christianity is not true.
My vacation ends today, so I must drastically cut my posting time (and these posts take a lot more time and thought than posting about my Ducks in the national championship game), and I thank everyone for their responses.
I thought it was sort of circular. People have faith in the Bible, and that leads them to believe that the Bible is true. They teach their kids the Bible is true…and the kids grow up believing the Bible.
They both sort of proceed from each other, at least in practice.
Most people are taught their faith by their families and their communities. Children learn their faith before they can read. It is extremely rare for some unbelieving person to pick up a bible, (or the Quran or the Upanishads or whatever), read them, and begin believing in a faith when they had none, originally. There was a Hebrew people before someone collected the Torah and Prophets into a single set of scrolls, (with plenty of evidence that there were separate beliefs and narratives that were reconciled to be written down as scripture for an existing believing community). Aside from borrowed Jewish texts, Christianity did not have its own scriptures (other than some scattered texts held in specific locales) until around 150 (and lacking general literacy, few Christians were actually reading scripture for the next 1800+ years). Missionaries went out and converted new nations and only after the conversions were pretty well established were translations of the bible into local tongues undertaken. Regardless whether one accepts conservative Muslims’ view that Mohammed finished writing the Quran just before his death or the view of other scholars that it was not fully gathered and published for another 30 years, Islam existed for either ten or forty years before most Muslims could have had an opportunity to read it.
The faith existed before it was codified in scripture. In the cases of both Judaism and Christianity, we have a basic understanding of how that faith developed among a group of believing peoples before the scriptures were created.
The scripture codified the existing faith. As such, as faith evolves, the interpretations and understandings of scripture change while the texts remain (relatively) static.
And, again, you are missing the point that I am treating all belief systems equally, regardless whether Christianity is “True.”
The “blindingly obvious” points you have raised, previously, are based on a post-Enlightenment understanding of history and biography. That was not how those texts were written.
It has only become an issue in the post-Enlightenment West where we have changed our approach to history and biography, with two groups of people insisting that we view the texts in the modern mode and others recognizing that such an approach is anachronistic.
If you actually read of Jesus’s ministry, you’ll find it’s full of him denying the law of Moses, saying that religious devotion to the text of the law is wrong. He was very much against the legalistic interpretation of Scripture. A lot of people want to ascribe that to Paul or other apostles, but it’s all over Jesus’s message.
Anyone can take certain parts of Scripture and twist it to mean what they want, but you have to read it as a whole. If you want to know what Christians think God wants, you have to read the New Testament as being authoritative.
Plus, if Phelps was truly literal, why wasn’t he going out stoning these people, as God commanded?
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
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 law was fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Christ.
After that it is the new covenant that is in force.
If you want to ignore that then we can look at Paul who clearly states that the Jewish Christians were to continue to live under the law but the Gentile Christians (which in modern times would be 100% of Christians?) do not have to live under Mosaic law. No circumcision etc
Also how would you explain the attitudes of the pharisees etc towards the sabbath in comparison to what Jesus taught?