next »

[sad_goat]

I meant in their context, not ours of course.

[john_proctor]

Don't have such current numbers for Europe.  F.T.R., the numbers for the US measure mostly self-identification (not attendance, no. of clergy, contribution rate, etc.).

Some of the attendance numbers are skewed, of course.  For example: I'm not a member of the congregation where I attend.  Frankly, I only go about once or twice a month or so (and then, again, largely for the music.  They very kindly post the coming week's order of worship in the Friday paper.  I also will attend if there's a special speaker I'm interested in).  I have "contributed" financially (twice, but only for music-program specific needs).  I've spoken there once (but got paid.  It was a special lenten series highlighting current work in biblical studies; I, along with another faculty member from another area college, spoke.  She did OT, I did NT).

I'm in no way a "member."  I don't affirm any of the creeds.  I'm warmly recieved (I've been forthright about my lack of interest in membership.  They don't seem to care).

How would one "count" me?  Particularly in regards to the vitality of that congregation.  Am I "in" or "out?"

I know lots of people from evangelical backgrounds who go "every time the doors are open" but live lives largely unaffected by it.

Does attendance/activity necessarily equal "vitality?"  Does non-attendance indicate that Christianity isn't relevant to people's lives?

Maybe Christianity is terribly relevant to them; they just don't like to go to church.  Maybe they go to church (as I sometimes do) because they like it, but don't really find "Christianity," per se, as relevant for their own lives (as I don't).

In other words, I'm not sure there is a metric for "relevancy."  Certainly, one can measure some forms of activity and expression, but are these equal to "relevant?"

Stephen Prothero's book _Religious Illiteracy_ brings up a good point.  He surveys both European religiosity and American religiosity (I'd point to his book for any current EU stats I might have).  He's found that Americans (following most of the metrics you suggest) are highly "religious."  Oddly, they're also among the most radically "religiously illiterate" people in the world.  Survey after survey has revealed that Americans, en masse, don't know beans about non-Christian faiths, and little about Christianity.  Only 4 out of 10 Americans can name all four canonical Gospels.

I find the similar results for my students.  You'd be truly depressed to know how many sometimes think the story of Moses can be found in the New Testament or that the Psalms are part of the New Testament.  I'd wager more than half would say (first day of class) that the "sermon on the Mount" was given by Moses at Sianai (b.t.w. happy Shavuot T.F. and others).

In contrast, in Europe, nearly every metric for religious participation is lower, but the population: a. expressed more satisfaction with religion; b. is far, far more religiously literate.

He can't figure out the contrast.  

His end conclusion is that it must be related to religous education (particularly in public arenas).

Now, I agree, we'd profit from more quality, secular religious instruction in the US.  But my solution is simpler.

How does one explain how more than 70% of Americans report reading their Bible often, but less than 30% can identify the canonical Gospels?

Simple.

People lie about how much they read the Bible.

Why?

Possibly because we have a religious culture where it is more important to do some things (or to say one does/values the doing of some things) than it is to actually DO those things.

Real question: are they more religious because they tithe, go to church, etc.?  Or are they doing these forms for some other reason?

Is the religiosity more or less vibrant?

Or is it just differently expressed?

Long post.  I'll sit on my hands for a while and listen (read).

[husqvarna]

I'm in no way a "member."  I don't affirm any of the creeds.  I'm warmly recieved (I've been forthright about my lack of interest in membership.  They don't seem to care).

How would one "count" me? particularly in regards to the vitality of that congregation.  Am I "in" or "out?"

I think some of my comments above were along the lines of, "If we're talking about establishment and non-establishment of religious groups, then we're talking about institutional structures here... so body counts on membership rolls, however flat as far as data is concerned, are a legitimate place to start." 

Of course your experience with the church is worth considering when talking about religious "vitality" within a society... same with "spiritual" practices of people who do not go to church.  But I was thinking more in terms of the institutional religious groups, simply because that's what we're dealing with when we talk about a relationship between a religion and a government.  A limited aspect of the question, I know, but I think there are reasons for looking at it this way. 

Your references to Prothero on illiteracy are EXACTLY the points that concern me about situations of non-establishment in my post above.  Again, without saying that governments should enforce or even officially sanction a religion of any sort, I think it's important to recognize that peoples' religious lives are affected by any theologico-political structure, be it a separation of church and state or a union.  In a situation of separation like the US, religiosity often becomes its own "market"... leading to a different way of valuing religion as a societal, communal, or personal phenomenon.

[john_proctor]

. . . peoples' religious lives are affected by any theologico-political structure, be it a separation of church and state or a union.  In a situation of separation like the US, religiosity often becomes its own "market"... leading to a different way of valuing religion as a societal, communal, or personal phenomenon.

Can't think of much to add to that one other than "yup."

[t_r_b]

State-supported established churches probably tend to be more theologically and liturgically conservative than independent denominations.

I've always wondered about this idea, considering that the Anglican Church was heretical and wildly liberal in its day, yet seems to have become the opposite over time. I suspect the answer has more to do, as always, with the need to mark our turf. What might the UU church look like in twenty years?

To what day of the Anglican church are you referring? And heretical relative to what? Also, why should we expect the UUs to change more in the next 20 years than they have in the last 20, or the 20 before that? The UUs have been around quite a while (the merger happened in 1961, but both denominations had a long history before that).

Also, when I described established churches as "conservative," I didn't mean "conservative" as opposed to "liberal," but rather as opposed to "innovative" or "radical." Basically, my idea here is that established churches profit from and therefore seek to maintain the status quo, and are therefore less likely than independent churches to embrace new forms of worship or proselytizing, to organize or support social movements challenging prevailing cultural norms, or to embrace theological doctrines that might be used to bolster such movements. It's no accident, for example, that Protestant fundamentalism, and the political movements it has inspired, emerged and has flourished within American denominations rather than within the CoE. The fact that we consider these movements to be "conservative" in today's political vocabulary does not change the fact that they reflect a level of innovation and willingness to challenge the status quo that is not often found in institutions that receive state funding.

[sad_goat]

As to surveys, I find value in them, but again I would stress context.

Knowing or agreeing with a specific religious tenant or passage does not require one to have an academic knowledge of its origin or placement in a text. Many folks (and I firmly include myself in this category) are not scholars, academics, sharp-minded folks in the arena of data+interpretation= faith or enlightenment or hogwash.

It is more about a gut feeling. If we have separation in the U.S., why do many folks feel easier in times of crisis when our leaders invoke a supreme being? Not because they have memorized the testaments, but because they understand that they contains some universal solutions, at least as far as they can tell.

Asking a twenty-year-old about Bible content these days is like asking them to explain Apollo 11. They haven't been asked to understand it. But they can, when given the time and resources.

[sad_goat]

State-supported established churches probably tend to be more theologically and liturgically conservative than independent denominations.

I've always wondered about this idea, considering that the Anglican Church was heretical and wildly liberal in its day, yet seems to have become the opposite over time. I suspect the answer has more to do, as always, with the need to mark our turf. What might the UU church look like in twenty years?

To what day of the Anglican church are you referring? And heretical relative to what? Also, why should we expect the UUs to change more in the next 20 years than they have in the last 20, or the 20 before that? The UUs have been around quite a while (the merger happened in 1961, but both denominations had a long history before that).

Also, when I described established churches as "conservative," I didn't mean "conservative" as opposed to "liberal," but rather as opposed to "innovative" or "radical." Basically, my idea here is that established churches profit from and therefore seek to maintain the status quo, and are therefore less likely than independent churches to embrace new forms of worship or proselytizing, to organize or support social movements challenging prevailing cultural norms, or to embrace theological doctrines that might be used to bolster such movements. It's no accident, for example, that Protestant fundamentalism, and the political movements it has inspired, emerged and has flourished within American denominations rather than within the CoE. The fact that we consider these movements to be "conservative" in today's political vocabulary does not change the fact that they reflect a level of innovation and willingness to challenge the status quo that is not often found in institutions that receive state funding.

I meant in the beginning and the decades thereafter.

The rest of your post confused me, sorry.

[fossil]

Having followed this thread at a distance, I am finally moved to express my wonderment that reasonably intelligent people would wish to "understand" the content of the Bible except as a rather tedious exercise in cultural anthropology.  There's some nice poetry in the Song of Songs, which got in there for reasons I don't quite understand, but aside from that, both Testaments are tedious, confused, and ultimately rather nasty.  Certainly, there's no consistent ethical wisdom to be found.

People pretend to take it seriously because they've been told that doing so will earn them brownie points of some kind.  They're wrong.

[scheherazade]

I meant in their context, not ours of course.

I don't know that they'd agree.  But, again, I'm not certain if you mean liberal as in "willing to change" or liberal as in attitudes.

[sad_goat]

Having followed this thread at a distance, I am finally moved to express my wonderment that reasonably intelligent people would wish to "understand" the content of the Bible except as a rather tedious exercise in cultural anthropology.  There's some nice poetry in the Song of Songs, which got in there for reasons I don't quite understand, but aside from that, both Testaments are tedious, confused, and ultimately rather nasty.  Certainly, there's no consistent ethical wisdom to be found.

People pretend to take it seriously because they've been told that doing so will earn them brownie points of some kind.  They're wrong.

Good grief, Thank You !!!

Glad we cleared up that whole mess!

[john_proctor]

Having followed this thread at a distance, I am finally moved to express my wonderment that reasonably intelligent people would wish to "understand" the content of the Bible except as a rather tedious exercise in cultural anthropology.  There's some nice poetry in the Song of Songs, which got in there for reasons I don't quite understand, but aside from that, both Testaments are tedious, confused, and ultimately rather nasty.  Certainly, there's no consistent ethical wisdom to be found.

People pretend to take it seriously because they've been told that doing so will earn them brownie points of some kind.  They're wrong.

Oh My GOD!

You are SOOO right!!!

The text is tedious and confused and nasty. 

I mean, there's really no point in doing any serious scholarship on, say, its origins, its composition and collection history, its impact on art, its cultural influence, its effect on military and colonial expansion, its impact on public morality, its effect on individual values,

I mean, wow.  WOW!  s***.  You're so f***ing brilliantly right.

I was going to work on my monograph more this summer but now, wow, I mean, now I guess I just don't have to.  Hell, I think I'll work on my short game.

Thank you, fossil.

You must be the absolute most smartest person on the whole freaking planet.

If only I'd met you a decade ago...

[fossil]

Oh My GOD!

You are SOOO right!!!

The text is tedious and confused and nasty. 

I mean, there's really no point in doing any serious scholarship on, say, its origins, its composition and collection history, its impact on art, its cultural influence, its effect on military and colonial expansion, its impact on public morality, its effect on individual values,

I mean, wow.  WOW!  s***.  You're so f***ing brilliantly right.

I was going to work on my monograph more this summer but now, wow, I mean, now I guess I just don't have to.  Hell, I think I'll work on my short game.

Thank you, fossil.

You must be the absolute most smartest person on the whole freaking planet.

If only I'd met you a decade ago...

If you're trying to understand how the multiplicity of understandings of the Bible interacted with western civilization, fine.

If you're studying that text for "its own sake" then you're wasting your time.

[kaysixteen]

The difference is, that 20you will have learned about Apollo 11 in school, whereas our ultrasecular elite establishment has all but eliminated instruction *about* religion (despite religion's being one of the most important facets of civilization) from public education.  Thus, by the time he is 20yo, unless raised in an explicitly religious home/ tradition, he probably views religion as irrelevant to his life.  This, as Prothero notes, is bad for America.

That said, JP is quite correct about many Americans lying about the level of their own religiosity and religious participation, whereas this probably does not occur in Europe.

[scheherazade]

The difference is, that 20you will have learned about Apollo 11 in school, whereas our ultrasecular elite establishment has all but eliminated instruction *about* religion (despite religion's being one of the most important facets of civilization) from public education.  Thus, by the time he is 20yo, unless raised in an explicitly religious home/ tradition, he probably views religion as irrelevant to his life.  This, as Prothero notes, is bad for America.

That said, JP is quite correct about many Americans lying about the level of their own religiosity and religious participation, whereas this probably does not occur in Europe.

Why would lack of religious instruction in the public schools lead to lack of knowledge about religion?  Most people in the US have some sort of religious affiliation.  If it's important to them, why can't they teach about religion within their family and church?

My kids learn about religion at church, through catechism classes, through discussions at home, and through visiting other churches/discussing religion with others.  If they didn't know anything about religion, I would have no one to blame but myself.

[invinoveritas]

Ok...partially because I enjoy making k16 cringe, but my children will learn about religion from...guess who?....an atheist!

And who better?  They will learn about 'religion' instead of 'a religion that their parents happen to adhere to'.  They will learn that the earth is very old, that we evolved, that China and India thought about metaphysics and cosmology too!  They will learn that there is much to be learned from the study of religion.  They will learn this without having to drink any kool-aid!

They will learn that when it comes to the ultimate questions about human nature and purpose...the best guide is logic and experience.

Such unfortunate souls!...such victims of the 'ultrasecular establishment'....oh...if only you could speak to them and tell them to be ashamed of themselves....how terrible they are and the evil they have inherited.  The flames that await them...

Please enlighten us k16....and try to be consistent.