Survey: Non-attendees find faith outside church - USATODAY.com

[Nick the Pilot]

Hi everybody!

Here is an article on people who are choosing to stay away from mortar-and-brick churches. I think you will find some of the results surprising.

~~~

Survey: Non-attendees find faith outside church - USATODAY.com

A new survey of U.S. adults who don't go to church, even on holidays, finds 72% say "God, a higher or supreme being, actually exists." But just as many (72%) also say the church is "full of hypocrites."

Indeed, 44% agree with the statement "Christians get on my nerves."
LifeWay Research, the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, based in Nashville, conducted the survey of 1,402 "unchurched" adults last spring and summer. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.


THE IDEA CLUB: USA TODAY's Cathy Grossman wants to hear from you

The survey defines "unchurched" as people who had not attended a religious service in a church, synagogue or mosque at any time in the past six months.

More than one in five (22%) of Americans say they never go to church, the highest ever recorded by the General Social Survey, conducted every two years by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. In 2004, the percentage was 17%.

Many of the unchurched are shaky on Christian basics, says LifeWay Research director Ed Stetzer.

Just 52% agree on the essential Christian belief that "Jesus died and came back to life."

And 61% say the God of the Bible is "no different from the gods or spiritual beings depicted by world religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.," although Buddhist philosophy has no god and Hindus worship many.

Belief in 'a generic god'

Non-churchgoers "lean to a generic god that fits into every imaginable religious system, even when (systems) contradict one another," Stetzer says. "If you went back 100 years in North America, there would have been a consensus that God is the God in the Bible. We can't assume this any longer.
"We no longer have a home-field advantage as Christians in this culture."
Most of the unchurched (86%) say they believe they can have a "good relationship with God without belonging to a church." And 79% say "Christianity today is more about organized religion than loving God and loving people."

"These outsiders are making a clear comment that churches are not getting through on the two greatest commandments," to love God and love your neighbor, says Scott McConnell, associate director of LifeWay Research. "When they look at churches … they don't see people living out the faith."
But despite respondents' critical views of organized religion, Stetzer is optimistic. He cites the finding that 78% would "be willing to listen" to someone tell "what he or she believed about Christianity."

They already know believers — 89% of the unchurched have at least one close friend who is Christian, Stetzer noted.

And 71% agreed that "believing in Jesus makes a positive difference in a person's life."

"What surprised me is the openness of the hard-core unchurched to the message of God and Christianity — just not as expressed in church," Stetzer says.

"It's a personal thing, not an institutional thing. It's a matter of starting conversations."

The direct approach

Still, most of Christian belief has seeped into popular culture outside church walls and denominational tethers, says Philip Goff, a professor and director of the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

New forms of community, such as Internet Bible study and prayer circles, also mean some people don't believe they need a church, Goff says.

"Is there a workshop for churches in being less annoying, less hypocritical?" asks Arthur Farnsley, administrator for the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and a fellow at Goff's center.

"So much of American religion today is therapeutic in approach, focused on things you want to fix in your life," he says.

"The one-to-one approach is more attractive. People don't go to institutions to fix their problems.

"Most people have already heard the basic Christian message. The question for evangelism now is: Do you have a take that is authentic and engaging in a way that works for the unchurched?"

 

[wil]

Namaste Nick,

Not very surprising to me any of it.

For near two decades I fit that bill exactly. Oh I attended this church or that with friends when I was searching, but found them all lacking, and full of hypocrites. And I gave up, and read my books and did my own thing.

Surely had no use for any building, congregation or organized religion.

Then I found a whole slew of people who think like me! And wherever I go, I can find a church that I enjoy, and people I enjoy.

Now I must say, working on being a little less judgmental now allows me to walk into most places of worship and see less hypocrites, it was me that needed some work as well.

But I surely believe the study, and wonder when the organized religions will quit consciously continually turn people away.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Yoroshiku, Wil.

I think a key issue here is pluralism. I think there are different kinds of people. Because of this, we need different kinds of religions. I think this is where evangelicals miss the boat, saying one religion fits all. Do you think that a widespread embracing of pluralism would help remove the hypocracy we now see?

I was also happy the report said more people are acknowledging the God of Christianity, Hinduism, etc., as the same God. Progress is being made!

 

[Dor]

I was also happy the report said more people are acknowledging the God of Christianity, Hinduism, etc., as the same God. Progress is being made!

That makes you happy? *boggle*

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"That makes you happy?"

--> Certainly! A non-theist can easily appreciate when theists of different religions find similarities in their belief systems.

Certainly!

 

[Dor]

"That makes you happy?"

--> Certainly! A non-theist can easily appreciate when theists of different religions find similarities in their belief systems.

Certainly!

So even if what they believe is false since they all believe a falsehood together it is all good. *boggle* No wonder the world continues to go to hell in a handbasket.

 

[Quahom1]

So even if what they believe is false since they all believe a falsehood together it is all good. *boggle* No wonder the world continues to go to hell in a handbasket.

The issue here is "Deist vs. Theist vs. athiest." By proxy there can be no dialogue, since there is no common ground. Nick there, just did a "bait and switch". I'd call this a "hit and run" thread...

 

[path_of_one]

I have to say that my response to this surprised me.

I did not find it comforting that these people think all the Gods of the various world religions are the same God, not because I'm against universalism, but rather because most Americans just lack enough education about the world religions to know better. That is, perhaps I am being cynical (though I'd argue realistic is more fitting)- but I think that many Americans fail to realize the differences between world religions not out of some sort of mystic awareness, but rather out of ignorance. When I taught Asian religions, many of my students were surprised to know there are atheist religions (Theravada Buddhism) and philosophies that approach religion in ethics but have nothing to do with religion at all (Confucianism). While as a mystic I can appreciate that sincere practitioners of all faiths are probably experiencing the same Divine One, I don't kid myself that the religions themselves and the way they speak of the God(s) (if there are any) aren't very different, not to mention significant differences in how they view certain ethical concerns, the afterlife, and so forth. It may be that a sincere Hindu and a sincere Christian catch glimpses of the same Divine Being, but it would be folly to say that Hinduism and Christianity are just different versions of the same thing. A case in point is the Hindu emphasis on duty and social station, as opposed to the Christian emphasis on eliminating one's ties to all worldly things in order to follow Christ. Two very, very different ideologies, with very different results in society.

Secondly, I think this doesn't get into the real reasons Americans fail to go to church. Yes, on the surface, it may be that they find church annoying or hypocritical or whatever. But deep down, there are really a number of reasons. I myself did not attend church for many years because I could not find a Christian church that fit with everything I wanted out of a church. However, I came to realize that to see church in that manner is rather selfish and doesn't have much to do with what church should be in my life. I wanted a church that had good music, that was interesting, that had good fellowship, that was open-minded, that didn't preach about politics... etc. etc. However, when I thought "What is church really about? What is the point?" I came to find that what mattered was: sermons that were on topic (the Bible, not politics, stories, and other such worldly topics), ritual that was meaningful (communion, baptism, communal prayer), and encouragement in living out the Gospel (above all, loving and serving others). And you know, after I went to a church that did these things, in time I came to deeply appreciate the old hymns and organ, the struggles of those around me to practice a Christian life, the struggle of the church to try to serve its congregation and still survive economically, while being truthful to its purpose rather than trying to get people in the seats. I came to find that ritual can be deeply meaningful, and tradition doesn't necessarily mean stodginess or being outdated.

In short, God worked on the rest of my desires to change how I saw church, rather than changing church to fit what I wanted.

That said, of course, there are a great many churches that I would have issues with still, but not due to vague hypocrisy or annoyingness, but rather because they are not focused on God, which to me is the value and point of church. I can join political activism groups if I want to be political, and go out with friends if I just want some coffee and donuts, and go to a psychologist if I want touchy-feelyness and feeling good about me. Church for me is a place for the Body of Christ to commune together in worshipping God and encouraging each other to meet the upcoming week in Christ's love, patience, gentleness, and goodness. It is a place to reflect on one's sins and repent, to restate one's commitment to God.

The truth is, in my honest opinion (and it isn't flattering, sorry), is that most Americans I know who do not go to church are not deeply spiritual mystics in agony that they can't find a community. They are people who are not interested in and fail to see the value of ritual, and to be honest, generally they are just kind of lazy and don't want to get up on a weekend morning. I'm honest with myself these days- I haven't been to church since I got to Washington and it has been equal parts of my natural introversion making it hard for me to go to a new church and try it out, being busy finding a house (which is no excuse, it is allowing myself to be so), and being lazy on Sunday mornings.

This article had the unintended effect of kicking me in the rear to get out of my house this Sunday morning, overcome my initial trepidation that I have in going to a new church, and trying the local Episcopal one out.

I don't feel guilty when I don't go to church, by the way. In my opinion, it is not mandatory. I've just learned that I have many benefits from attending, but it takes discipline. I like sleeping in on Sundays as much as the next person. But I have noticed that when I attend regularly, I am strengthened and encouraged for the week, I end up reading parts of the Bible I wouldn't otherwise get to in my personal reading as often, and I feel peaceful. It's a huge stress reliever. And it causes me to more carefully contemplate each week and what I could improve.

 

[Saltmeister]

I myself did not attend church for many years because I could not find a Christian church that fit with everything I wanted out of a church. However, I came to realize that to see church in that manner is rather selfish and doesn't have much to do with what church should be in my life.

The idea that selfishness is wrong is a common sentiment, but one with which I disagree. I think sometimes selfishness is right. God made us all to be different. The major problem with many (most, actually) churches that have existed after the first century is that they have been institutionalised. Churches have often been impersonal, and when they're impersonal they're incompatible with your individual personality.

I think you were actually "half right" when you shunned churches. It's good when churches change people for the better, but not good when they force people to give up a part of their individuality. When that happens, the church as an institution does emotional damage. The person is scarred for life and has problems relating to either that church, or to many, if not all churches in the future. Yes, your personal emotional needs were important. That's where you were right. The church shouldn't be an institution. It should be personal.

My personal view of the "half wrong" part would be that in thinking of a church as "provider," we forget that we are providers too. So when we choose not to attend and reject a church as irrelevant, we neglect an opportunity to provide what that church was missing. What that church was missing was you. That was an opportunity for you to fit in and do something. If the church was going in the wrong direction or was neglecting people's needs, it might have been an opportunity for you to provide for that need, or perhaps you could change and reform that church by what you had in yourself. By change and reform, I don't mean confronting the staff (ie. the hard power, political aspect), but the subtle processes of "soft power" where you gradually effect a transformation by assimilating into the congregation, becoming part of that church and contributing but doing it your way and doing what you do best.

It's like in dating. Someone has to make the first move. It's either the man or it's the woman. A man has a little bit of what gets the romance going, but the woman has the other half. The church was a provider, but you were also a provider. If neither make the first move the romance and happily-ever-after won't happen. For the church it was the decision to accept, embrace and include. For you it was to embrace, participate, contribute, change and reform.

the struggle of the church to try to serve its congregation and still survive economically, while being truthful to its purpose rather than trying to get people in the seats. I came to find that ritual can be deeply meaningful, and tradition doesn't necessarily mean stodginess or being outdated.

Sometimes I think churches are like countries and nations. The survival of a church is like that of nationhood. Every country, every nation has its struggles and it's the same with a church. A nation state promotes particular values in pursuit of a goal it sees in the future. When you become a citizen in that country it is assumed you will automatically affirm that country's goals and values. A country has politicians that promote a particular agenda. A church has a pastor/priest/presbyter that does the same thing. The people in a church/country are passionate about what their church/country represents and will achieve in the future, even if you're not. We develop an emotional attachment with something we've known (ie. country of birth/origin) for a long time.

I hope I'm not rambling here, but the point I wanted to make was this: A church/country has a history, it has its struggles and they're never perfect in achieving their values/goals. They all carry some kind of baggage. America is all about democracy, equality and individualism but it has a history of racism and imperialistic hegemony in its foreign policy. A lot of people see the U.S. as a bully. Climate change? Yeah the U.S. is sapping up tonnes of resources, all in the wasteful desire for luxury. China? Yeah China is doing its best to leave communism behind, while retaining some kind of socialism. A lot of Chinese believe China will not only surpass U.S. as a superpower, but will be an even better one. I am somewhat repulsed by its support of tyrannical regimes, but the U.S. too, has supported controversial regimes in maximising its supply of oil. Historical baggage isn't as repulsive to nationalists as to foreigners and outsiders. It's easy to be triumphant about a superpower if it's your country, but anyway, I think it's similar with churches.

It's up to us to fall in love with that church/country and be passionate about its future.

I don't feel guilty when I don't go to church, by the way. In my opinion, it is not mandatory. I've just learned that I have many benefits from attending, but it takes discipline. It's a huge stress reliever. And it causes me to more carefully contemplate each week and what I could improve.

I actually had a rather inspiring experience in church in the last week of December last year that I didn't have in the rest of the year. Yeah, I'm normally bored. It was a sermon about embracing the new and letting go of the old. The year 2007 was a valuable experience and it was time to let go of the 2007 phenomenon and get ready for what was going to happen in 2008. The pamphlet handed out had some quotes from Scripture that really got me thinking and feeling. It just came to life......It was like a light bulb had been turned on. Ok, it wasn't really that great a feeling (it didn't feel like I was in heaven) but it was something that hadn't happened for a long time in church.

I had been yearning for a personal reformation all year and I think this was food for thought.

 

[Quahom1]

The idea that selfishness is wrong is a common sentiment, but one with which I disagree. I think sometimes selfishness is right. God made us all to be different. The major problem with many (most, actually) churches that have existed after the first century is that they have been institutionalised. Churches have often been impersonal, and when they're impersonal they're incompatible with your individual personality.

I think you were actually "half right" when you shunned churches. It's good when churches change people for the better, but not good when they force people to give up a part of their individuality. When that happens, the church as an institution does emotional damage. The person is scarred for life and has problems relating to either that church, or to many, if not all churches in the future. Yes, your personal emotional needs were important. That's where you were right. The church shouldn't be an institution. It should be personal.

My personal view of the "half wrong" part would be that in thinking of a church as "provider," we forget that we are providers too. So when we choose not to attend and reject a church as irrelevant, we neglect an opportunity to provide what that church was missing. What that church was missing was you. That was an opportunity for you to fit in and do something. If the church was going in the wrong direction or was neglecting people's needs, it might have been an opportunity for you to provide for that need, or perhaps you could change and reform that church by what you had in yourself. By change and reform, I don't mean confronting the staff (ie. the hard power, political aspect), but the subtle processes of "soft power" where you gradually effect a transformation by assimilating into the congregation, becoming part of that church and contributing but doing it your way and doing what you do best.

It's like in dating. Someone has to make the first move. It's either the man or it's the woman. A man has a little bit of what gets the romance going, but the woman has the other half. The church was a provider, but you were also a provider. If neither make the first move the romance and happily-ever-after won't happen. For the church it was the decision to accept, embrace and include. For you it was to embrace, participate, contribute, change and reform.



Sometimes I think churches are like countries and nations. The survival of a church is like that of nationhood. Every country, every nation has its struggles and it's the same with a church. A nation state promotes particular values in pursuit of a goal it sees in the future. When you become a citizen in that country it is assumed you will automatically affirm that country's goals and values. A country has politicians that promote a particular agenda. A church has a pastor/priest/presbyter that does the same thing. The people in a church/country are passionate about what their church/country represents and will achieve in the future, even if you're not. We develop an emotional attachment with something we've known (ie. country of birth/origin) for a long time.

I hope I'm not rambling here, but the point I wanted to make was this: A church/country has a history, it has its struggles and they're never perfect in achieving their values/goals. They all carry some kind of baggage. America is all about democracy, equality and individualism but it has a history of racism and imperialistic hegemony in its foreign policy. A lot of people see the U.S. as a bully. Climate change? Yeah the U.S. is sapping up tonnes of resources, all in the wasteful desire for luxury. China? Yeah China is doing its best to leave communism behind, while retaining some kind of socialism. A lot of Chinese believe China will not only surpass U.S. as a superpower, but will be an even better one. I am somewhat repulsed by its support of tyrannical regimes, but the U.S. too, has supported controversial regimes in maximising its supply of oil. Historical baggage isn't as repulsive to nationalists as to foreigners and outsiders. It's easy to be triumphant about a superpower if it's your country, but anyway, I think it's similar with churches.

It's up to us to fall in love with that church/country and be passionate about its future.



I actually had a rather inspiring experience in church in the last week of December last year that I didn't have in the rest of the year. Yeah, I'm normally bored. It was a sermon about embracing the new and letting go of the old. The year 2007 was a valuable experience and it was time to let go of the 2007 phenomenon and get ready for what was going to happen in 2008. The pamphlet handed out had some quotes from Scripture that really got me thinking and feeling. It just came to life......It was like a light bulb had been turned on. Ok, it wasn't really that great a feeling (it didn't feel like I was in heaven) but it was something that hadn't happened for a long time in church.

I had been yearning for a personal reformation all year and I think this was food for thought.

For America, as the nation goes, so goes the church, and vise versa. The "church" is a group of people who come together under a common theme. It binds them to eachother, bolsters and re-enforces eachother. It allows for news and yes, gossip to bring the community up to speed. The Clergy and elder laymen are looked to for guidance, judgement, and stability. And it keeps man in touch with the message from God...that was the church 50 years ago...

Today, news is instant, gossip is unrestricted, freedom to express self takes precedence over common sense, and collective rights. Church is a ritual, with no other support venue, because such support is taken over by government. Clergy are embroiled in battle royales, and elders are looked upon as burdens rather than bank vaults of wisdom. The message from God is being drowned out by the media.

I come here (for church). Because I will get meat, instead of fluff, and gosip and garbage. I will be challenged, and can challenge back, to think instead of regurgitate. I have to look up things and research, instead of simply accepting what is being force fed. And I make "friends" that have no problem correcting me, if I'm off base, and accept the same correction from me.

And since we do not "see" eachother physically, all distractions are laid aside as we focus on our "spiritualness".

This becomes the food for the "soul", and tempering for the spirit...and I'm glad to be a member of this "church" called CR.

v/r

Q

 

[Nick the Pilot]

path_of_one, You said,

"I did not find it comforting that these people think all the Gods of the various world religions are the same God, not because I'm against universalism, but rather because most Americans just lack enough education about the world religions to know better."​

--> It is a fascinating question -- how many people think the God of the various world religions are the same God because of ignorance, and how many think so because they think so.

"When I taught Asian religions, many of my students were surprised to know there are atheist religions (Theravada Buddhism)...."​

--> I am glad you were there to spread the word.

"...it would be folly to say that Hinduism and Christianity are just different versions of the same thing."​

--> I do not think anyone says Hinduism and Christianity are just different versions of the same thing. It is more that they are from the same source.

"...I think this doesn't get into the real reasons Americans fail to go to church. Yes, on the surface, it may be that they find church annoying or hypocritical or whatever."​

--> It is a fascinating question -- how many people avoid church because of ecclesiastic differences, and how many do so because they are lazy. (This is the whole idea behind the article.) I think more people do for ecclesiastic differences than most people realize, and I think that number is increasing.

"I wanted a church that had good music, that was interesting, that had good fellowship, that was open-minded, that didn't preach about politics... etc. etc."​

--> I think this is exactly what most people are looking for.

"What is church really about? What is the point?"​

--> I agree that most people do not ask these kinds of questions.

"...encouragement in living out the Gospel...."​

--> I would add one more idea to your list. Since I am not a theist, I sometimes hear from people who do not like the idea of God as portrayed in Christiantiy. Obviously, these people would also choose to avoid Christian church services.

"...most Americans I know who do not go to church are not deeply spiritual mystics in agony that they can't find a community. They are people who are not interested in and fail to see the value of ritual, and to be honest, generally they are just kind of lazy and don't want to get up on a weekend morning."​

--> I agree. Most Americans have not asked the mystical questions that you and I find so important.

"I don't feel guilty when I don't go to church, by the way."​

--> Good for you!

"But I have noticed that when I attend regularly, I am strengthened and encouraged for the week...."​

--> I am glad it has a positive impact on you.

"And it causes me to more carefully contemplate each week and what I could improve."​

--> You are a good example of how going to church can a good effect on someone, for all the right reasons.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Saltmeister, you said,

"I think sometimes selfishness is right."​

--> Isn't that why we have religion, to make us less selfish?

"The major problem with many (most, actually) churches that have existed after the first century is that they have been institutionalised."​

--> I contend that every religion gets institutionalised (corrupt) as the centuries go by. This is why we need new religions every once in a while.

"The church shouldn't be an institution. It should be personal."
​

--> And the tendency of every church to become institutional is unstoppable.

"...the subtle processes of "soft power" where you gradually effect a transformation by assimilating into the congregation, becoming part of that church and contributing but doing it your way and doing what you do best."​

--> I just do not think members can effect significant, radical changes in their church in this way.

 

[path_of_one]

The idea that selfishness is wrong is a common sentiment, but one with which I disagree. I think sometimes selfishness is right. God made us all to be different.

We would have to disagree. My spiritual path is an effort to let go of self-centeredness. God made us all different, and that is fine. But there is a difference between selfishness and individuality. I can be me and insist a church does what I want, meets all my needs- the view that the church exists to serve me. Or I can be me and think it is an exchange- I exist to serve the church (the congregation) and the church exists to serve me. It won't be a perfect fit, but that's OK. Rather than looking for what I want, I look for what meets my most basic needs and overlook what is missing. Yes, I can contribute some of what is missing, but not to the extent that I force the church to be something it is not meant to be.

Let me explain a bit further. I am a Christian Druid. I can mope around wishing for a Christian church that openly allows me to be a Druid, or conversely a Druid Grove that openly embraces Christianity. But then it kind of gets rid of the traditions and practices of both in the fusion. And who am I to tell a whole congregation of folks they should bring in ideas from earth religions, when Christianity alone seems to be working just fine for most of them? Rather than be selfish about it, and think the world should revolve around me, I enjoy what I can take away from church, and then I enjoy what I can take away from Druid meetings. The reality is that the exterior does not need to match the interior. I can easily go through the ritual of communion, and it can mean whatever unique thing it means to me without my having to force that meaning down everyone else's throats. They can know me through my actions and my words, but as Paul says, I can avoid making them stumble by throwing stuff at them they aren't prepared to understand (and trust me, most Christians aren't prepared to understand fusing Christ with Druidry).

It isn't selfish of me to expect acceptance from a congregation. But it is selfish to expect that I can throw curve balls and everyone will be OK. I have learned I can still be me without giving out all the details.

The major problem with many (most, actually) churches that have existed after the first century is that they have been institutionalised. Churches have often been impersonal, and when they're impersonal they're incompatible with your individual personality.

I don't think institutions are necessarily a bad thing. If we want a small group of folks to discuss Christianity and the Bible, we can always have Bible studies, which are intensely personal. So why have church at all, if both would fill the same function?

I found that there is something powerful and moving about a large group of believers getting together to worship- singing a hymn, taking communion, saying prayers- together. It fills a different function than Bible study (of which I consider CR to be one ).

This is where I will deviate from Christian theology to say... I think the importance (in part) of a church (as a large institution as opposed to small group) is its capacity to raise energy for goodness. When I am surrounded by people focused on Christ and worshipping God, I can feel the enormous energy this puts out into the world for peace, joy, forgiveness. Of course there are problems in the church, insincere folks, whatever. But the energy sometimes even surpasses them, aligning them with Christ. This is what I sense as a Druid when I go to a Christian church. People just don't realize they are doing it. It is the same reason that many Druids simultaneously, on the full moon, meditate and do rituals for world peace. Energy matters.

I think you were actually "half right" when you shunned churches. It's good when churches change people for the better, but not good when they force people to give up a part of their individuality. When that happens, the church as an institution does emotional damage.

But you have to give up a certain amount of individuality whenever you want a group larger than a handful of people to work together. True for any institution- a workplace, a nation, a church, whatever. I think this is good. We have our small groups (family, friends, Bible study) in which we can be ourselves in completeness, and we have our large groups that encourage us to learn to temper ourselves in order to achieve larger goals and unity. We don't have to let go of ourselves and conform in order to be productive and accepted members of a large group, providing the group is reasonably accepting. But neither do we have to insist, selfishly I believe, that the group accept every nuance, detail, and unique belief in our self.

The key, I believe, is that a church should not be "forcing" people to do anything. (Isn't that more like a cult?) A church, whether or not it feels someone is not "correct" in their beliefs, should be open and tolerant, with the virtue of patience. Yet, if a church simply accepts any and all beliefs as relevant, what then is the point? If there is no communal ritual, prayer, belief... why go? What then is the difference between church and a study of comparative religion? Even universalism has its beliefs and draws together universalists, rather than a hodge-podge of completely different people. If the point of a good church (at least to me) is to fill both some personal needs (contemplation, encouragement, ritual beauty, etc.) and to raise energy for goodness, there has to be enough similarity of focus to accomplish the latter. A hundred people meditating on various foci simply does not accomplish energetically what a hundred people meditating on a single focus will.

My personal view of the "half wrong" part would be that in thinking of a church as "provider," we forget that we are providers too. So when we choose not to attend and reject a church as irrelevant, we neglect an opportunity to provide what that church was missing.

Certainly, within reason. That is why we must discern what the best fit is for us, since there are certainly many churches to choose from. If we choose something that is too far from what we ourselves believe and practice, it will neither provide much for us, nor need what we can provide.

A church/country has a history, it has its struggles and they're never perfect in achieving their values/goals. They all carry some kind of baggage.

Yes, so it is with all humans and their groups.

 

[path_of_one]

"...it would be folly to say that Hinduism and Christianity are just different versions of the same thing."​

--> I do not think anyone says Hinduism and Christianity are just different versions of the same thing. It is more that they are from the same source.

This may be true, but I would wager that many of them are not well-versed enough in world religions to put forth how they are from the same source. If there is no basis to why they think this (either through intellectual contemplation or spiritual intuition), how can they be taken seriously?

--> It is a fascinating question -- how many people avoid church because of ecclesiastic differences, and how many do so because they are lazy. (This is the whole idea behind the article.) I think more people do for ecclesiastic differences than most people realize, and I think that number is increasing.

That may be true, but I still would put forth that mostly what you are getting is false data as a result of a common problem in social science methodology- people lie when they feel bad for saying the real reason or information. You find this in all kinds of surveys in which people are asked questions that make them feel guilty about their true intent or actions. There have been many studies that show there is a significant gap between what people report and what people actually think/do in certain topics, and in order to figure out the latter, you typically have to do more ethnographic and depth interviewing as opposed to surveys.

I think what you find in people who do not go to church are:
1. People who are lazy and don't want to give up their time.
2. People who find church boring and don't like being inside, the process, etc. and feel they don't get anything out of it. (My husband is in this category.)
3. People who want to find a church that exactly meets their desires and can't yet. (And they probably never will, from my experience- it's like looking for a mate that is perfect.)
4. People who have a set of beliefs but have not found a good match denominationally (And again, they may never find a perfect match).

I don't think church is a requirement, so I don't see a problem with some people not going if they just don't find the activity useful in their lives. My husband just doesn't like the whole process, just as he didn't like college lectures either. He's more of a "doing" guy- go out hiking or play music or something to express spirituality. I think that's fine. In fact, I think the people in #1 are fine not going to, but should be honest with themselves about their reasoning (which I think a lot of people aren't).

People in #3 and #4 have valid points and are who the study discusses, but I would put forth that their expectations are too high. I know mine were. If you can see church like a good friend, you'll see that it is selfish to expect church to be exactly the way you want it. No person is, no human institution will be. It's just a fact of life. Sure, occasionally someone gets lucky and wins the lottery of relationships and finds "the perfect match" or "the perfect church." But mostly, we have to look at what the essentials are and forgive imperfection.

--> I would add one more idea to your list. Since I am not a theist, I sometimes hear from people who do not like the idea of God as portrayed in Christiantiy. Obviously, these people would also choose to avoid Christian church services.

Well, yes. I would encourage them to look at the other world religions and see if any of them resonate. Obviously, non-Christians have a valid reason for not going to Christian churches.

I would put forth, however, that many people have never read and contemplated the Bible on their own. They dislike how God was portrayed in the church they grew up in, but they fail to see that Christians have a wide variety of ways of understanding God and denominations can be quite different. So I suppose I would encourage them first to read and contemplate on their own, and to pray (to God in general is fine if they are uncomfortable with specifics) and/or to meditate, and try to form what they feel they are trying to find. What is their understanding of God? If they find that the Bible and Christ do not resonate, they know they are not Christian. If they find that they do, but just not in the way they were taught in church, they know to go try out other denominations.

I think too many people simply cast aside God and Christianity all together as a result of childhood frustrations or traumas (parents being pushy about church, shielding them too much from other options, church scaring them or guilting them into submission, etc.) and they don't realize that they are running from something rather than searching for something. There is a big difference, and the intent matters greatly for what they will ultimately find. Conversely, many people simply remain in the church they grew up in without personal thought or exploration of why, and this too is problematic. Whether passively accepting or rebelliously denouncing, neither position is coming from a place of mature contemplation, but rather from a place of "the little kid" inside simply reacting to childhood baggage. And this can be the case for any religion or even any philosophy (communism, atheism, capitalism).
But to do otherwise, to critically reflect on oneself, one's own life and actions, is a lot of work. It's work that is worth it, in my opinion, but many simply won't do it. It is sad, because then they are running from church without knowing what they are reaching for or why. They will seek out a place that is pleasurable and makes them feel OK without questioning what the value of church is to begin with. Not all of life is meant to be comfortable, pleasurable, interesting, and exciting. Some is slightly boring, difficult, uncomfortable, but worthwhile because it brings good results.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I think what you find in people who do not go to church are:
1. People who are lazy and don't want to give up their time.
2. People who find church boring and don't like being inside, the process, etc. and feel they don't get anything out of it. (My husband is in this category.)
3. People who want to find a church that exactly meets their desires and can't yet. (And they probably never will, from my experience- it's like looking for a mate that is perfect.)
4. People who have a set of beliefs but have not found a good match denominationally (And again, they may never find a perfect match).

I suppose I fall mainly under numbers 1 and 2. I don't want to waste my time on church. It's not that I'm lazy, although I do sometimes enjoy sleeping in on Sunday morning. I just have other things I'd rather do with my sacred weekend. Things that are more meaningful and fulfilling for me. Like playing golf! Let's see, I can waste half of my precious day off sitting in a pew, or I can do something that's actually fun. Not a tough choice!

Where there is the benefit of community within the church setting, there is also the inevitable negative of defining what constitutes the "others" in order to get the warm, fuzzy of belonging to the "us." In order for there to be an "us" there has to be a "them." I want to be a universal citizen. I can forgo the emotional reassurance of "belonging." I don't need to stroke myself that way.

Chris

 

[path_of_one]

Where there is the benefit of community within the church setting, there is also the inevitable negative of defining what constitutes the "others" in order to get the warm, fuzzy of belonging to the "us." In order for there to be an "us" there has to be a "them." I want to be a universal citizen. I can forgo the emotional reassurance of "belonging." I don't need to stroke myself that way.

Chris

This is interesting. I agree, to a point. Except that I don't see in us vs. them terms at all, even though I go to church (sometimes). I don't go to church to gain a sense of belonging.

You can feel a sense of communal energy in all sorts of situations without feeling a sense of belonging. I've been at a few rock concerts that had an incredible amount of group energy. It was just without any clear focus.

Maybe it just depends on what you intend to get out of going to church, rather than church itself? A lot of people probably go to gain a sense of belonging, but clearly some people go for other reasons. I think it is the intent that matters and influences one's experience.

 

[Saltmeister]

I suppose I fall mainly under numbers 1 and 2. I don't want to waste my time on church. It's not that I'm lazy, although I do sometimes enjoy sleeping in on Sunday morning. I just have other things I'd rather do with my sacred weekend. Things that are more meaningful and fulfilling for me. Like playing golf! Let's see, I can waste half of my precious day off sitting in a pew, or I can do something that's actually fun. Not a tough choice!

If that is church to you Chris, go for it!! Just make sure you're not alone. Bring your friends along for the social connections. Otherwise you wouldn't have a church. Then again, it is just as possible to have a "church" when you're alone and having a time-out. As long as you're healing and regenerating or helping others in their journey of life, you've got a church. Playing golf would be a somewhat unconventional, but creative and imaginative way to have a church. A more down-to-earth kind of church. Is church not working, resting and playing; living and breathing?

When I played with my teddy bears as a kid and dreamt of teddy-bear picnics, that was a kind of church wasn't it?

Where there is the benefit of community within the church setting, there is also the inevitable negative of defining what constitutes the "others" in order to get the warm, fuzzy of belonging to the "us." In order for there to be an "us" there has to be a "them." I want to be a universal citizen. I can forgo the emotional reassurance of "belonging." I don't need to stroke myself that way.

Chris

Whether it's religion, business, family or nationhood, there's always going to be an "us and them" and with regards to marriage, a "you and me." We all belong, or compare ourselves to something. We could call this Saltmeister's theory of relativity. Or maybe, it's a "him" or "her." You get the "he says" and "she says" kind of thing. Or maybe it's "that multi-billion dollar business over there" and "that country." In life there's always a third person. For someone else it's the next-door neighbour. You might even have that inside the church. Jealousies, comparisons, gossip, girlfriend/boyfriend swapping, flirting, wife-stealing, wife-borrowing, theft, greed, back-stabbing, rivalries . . . You reckon this should be left outside the church? Perhaps we could all ponder that for a while . . .

If people brought this stuff into the church, sure there'd be gossip . . . but gossip can be a good thing. There'd be rudeness and obscenity, but people may finally be able to solve the problem . . . I don't know. I just don't hear many stories of non-church goers bringing their problems into the church to have their problems solved. We expect churches to be peaceful places where nothing bad happens. Maybe that's the problem. Something bad needs to happen. Churches and their communities shouldn't be shy about their problems, particularly marriages and romantic relationships. It'd be a whole new kind of Jerry Springer, though perhaps with a little less decadence (decency please!!!). I'm saying churches shouldn't always be so holy, but that doesn't mean that they should be unholy.

Wow this could be a whole new way of seeing church. Channel your anger in your life at the church.

I do actually have an "us and them" feeling in the church, not of those outside, but of those inside. I don't fit in, but I'm there. That may not always be true, but it's at least true for now.