www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall from Faith to Myth

Professor, I would welcome your insight and knowledge. I was under the impression (especially from the CUNY survey a few years ago) that substantially more people were reporting that they were non religious than in the 1990s. My interpretation of that and my own (albeit limited) exposure to people is that many of the mainstream churches (Protestant and Catholic) had lost a profound sense for the Sacred in an effort to be "relevant." From my conversations with some of the clergy of those churches, they cited theologians who, essentially, "de-mythologized" Christianity into a social service and fellowshipping club. Meanwhile, the Evangelicals, Pentecostals and other conservative branches of Christianity (including conservative Catholics and Orthodox) have grown in numbers. . . while the more liberal denominations are declining in numbers. But, I am not a professional in your field of comparative religion. Please correct me if I'm wrong. What does the current research show?

-- John

That is the essay.

Terry

The most recent and by far the most comprehensive survey of American religious habits was recently conducted by the religious scholars at Baylor University --- see

http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf

I really recommend everyone on this Forum look at this report carefully as we continue this discussion.

You might also want to consult the follow websites:

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

AND

http://www.thearda.com/index.asp


This is an interesting statistic -- Christianity grew by a rate of +5% from 1990 to 2000.

For those who do not have the time or energy to sift through the report, here are facts directly related to our discussion

Religious belief is increasing in the USA not decreasing.
Barely 1 in 10 Americans is not affiliated with a congregation, denomination or other religoius group.
Fewer than 5% of the US population claim a faith outside of the Judeo-Christian mainstream.


[*]

Fascinating. That is very different from what I thought was happening. Thank you for posting that, professor. I will look at that report when I have more time.

Be well.

-- John

I've thought about your post, professor, and I respectfully disagree.

As for your first point: Yes, a lot of people are self-identifying as Christians in the U.S. However, a lot of people aren't. From personal experience and from the CUNY study, there are a lot of people who are self-identifying as no-religion. And, I suspect that a lot of that is because science as alternatively explained the universe, and scholars like Joseph Campbell, et al. explain to people a way to understand their loss of faith -- namely, that faith was based on a bunch of myths.

As for your second point: Yes, a lot of people (and not just the young) a turned off to the kind of ultra-conservative forms of Christianity out there (for example, that which was depicted in the movie "Jesus Camp"). However, a lot of Christians are also turned off to the ultra-liberal forms of Christianity which turns the Gospel into a mythical metaphor for human life. Those people, instead, want to believe in a transcendent God, whose only Son came to us, and who saves us, and so on. Hence, the conservative churches are growing because of the latter and secularism is growing because of the former.

You wrote, I do however get tired of the "liberals have destroyed the world" mantra -- the reality is that we Christians have often presented a judgmental, harsh model of Christianity to today's youth. As a liberal, I can agree. But there two sides --a polarization-- to all of this.

But, that is just my two cents' worth.

-- John

Actually, as the Baylor study shows, this is not as true as it might appear. (The numbers of "non-religious" seem to have remained constant and/or gone down in the last 20 years.) The reason many reported as "no religion" was due to the way in which the question as asked. The Baylor study points out that these same people belong to local congregations but do not self-identify as members of a denomination -- thus when the CUNY study asked them to identify themselves as members of a denomination, they demurred. But this does not mean they are not religious -- it just means they identify their religious identity differently.

Regarding your second point --


I have serious reservations about the use of the term "conservative." For example, the fastest growing local Church in America is that pastored by Joel Osteen. Is he is a conservative? That is a difficult question -- by Catholic liturgical standards? absolutely not. His worship services make the worse (i.e., most modern) New Order Masses seem VERY TRADITIONAL. By Catholic theological standards? again -- I would say absolutely not. He is a Protestant and thus rejects much of what I would consider to be authentic conservative Catholic theology. By traditional Christian standards? again -- I wonder. Go to this website and see if he measures up to the traditional Christian understanding -- http://joelosteen.lakewood.cc/site/PageServer?pagename=JOM_homepage

I admit that I have not read all of his books but he seems a bit "new agey" to me -- certainly not the classic Protestant that I knew as a child.

This of course begs the question of what "Christian" denomination is growing the fastest. All of the scholarly studies I have seen indicate that the "Mormons" are growing faster than any other group that calls itself "Christian."

The Mormons certainly are not "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination.

What is my point?

My point is that the argument that Catholics have lost ground because the VII reforms were "liberal" and that "conservative" Churches grow the fastest just does not measure up to the data.

As Stark has shown, the reason most people join a Church community ultimately has less to do with what the Church teaches and more to do with the community life of the Church. I would suggest that the Catholics have struggled in the post-1960s because they were slow to develop authentic parish communities that provided relationships to people who found themselves living in an ever-disconnected world. The Catholic Church operated along the older pre-1960s cultural mileiu where people found community in their extended families and looked to Church for services; the reality is that in the post-1960s world the extended family began to fell apart and the Churches that were able to adapt by providing community and replacement relationships grew the fastest whereas the Churches (i.e., mainline and Catholic) that did not adapt struggled.

Thankfully, in recent years many local Catholic Churches has adapted and, like the Churches here in my town (which range from "high" to "middle" to "low" liturigical expressions) are all full on Sundays and feast days. BTW: the same can be said of the mainline denominations whose numbers seem to have stabilized and in some places to have stopped the ebb of member loss.

Professor,


You seem to be suggesting that before VCII, the Catholic Church didn't have any "authentic parish communities"? I think I grew up in one! In fact, we were so authentic as to know that not all Catholics were saints, and so some of us needed to go to Confession from time-to-time!

I was born in 1950, and when VCII changes came in I was well aware of them. The factor that I think "broke up" parishes was heterodoxy and heteropraxis. My suburban parish was comprised of families many of whose fathers had served in WWII and gone on to get college degrees, and were working in NYC or the metro area. "Liberal" and "conservative" were political terms, and both political attitudes were well represented in the parish. I think if you change the adjectives from "liberal" to "unauthentic" and from "conservative" to "authentic", more light could be shed on the topic.

Before the changes, there was a good deal of "community spirit" although not so much "social outreach" (because that's what the government did, and still does). When the changes began to come, liturgical and otherwise, the mode of implementation and the tone of "we know better than you do what you need" gave a lot of authentic Catholics a bad taste in their mouths, and a certain distrust of those who gave themselves up wholeheartedly to the various "experiments". Rather than comments, you would usually just see "the rolling of the eyes". One friend of my father told him that he was going to start going to daily Mass at a nearby monastery because there they didn't believe in "Annie Get Your Gun" liturgies: i.e., shows. That was about 1972.

From the diocesan chancery they relentlessly pursued unauthentic liturgy, watered-down "doctrine", the stripping of the altars, enthusiasm for every passing ecclesiastical fad, and relatively low-key but virulent Anti-Papal attitudes.

I don't know how you factor that into a sociological study, but it probably makes sociological data harder to interpret: i.e., "I go to Mass because I should (Christ's will), but I don't like it (priest and other antics)."

It would be nice if Catholic sociologists could develop some quantitative way of defining relgious "authenticity" vs. "inauthenticity" using statistical measures, then run the interviews, and then see what the results showed. They might open some eyes!

Best regards,
Michael

P.S. I don't think Apostolic Churches are "in competition" with the Joel Osteens of this world; I think he is in competition with the entertainment industry.

This is where you are wrong -- my guess would be (based on studies done of other similar churches) that close to half of his his converts are former Catholics.

Those former Catholics may have needed a good dose of post-confirmation education.

Professor,


Well, you could be right -- I've certainly been wrong before! But the reason I used the term "Apostolic Churches" is simply that one does not go to Mass or the Divine Liturgy to be entertained, but rather to worship God as He wants to be worshipped. Living by the Law of God is not especially fun, and I don't attempt to do they because I find it pleasant, but out of a sense of personal commitment to The Lord.

I'm never quite sure what "former Catholics" means except in the sociological sense. If they are flocking to the Joel Osteen's of the world, it simply means to me, as Terry mentions, that they have still not "understood" what it means to be Catholic. If they learn that there, good for them!; if they don't, and they lose their taste for whatever he's offering, they'll continue to move on. Good for them!

St. Augustine was enthralled by the Osteen of his day, but that was only a stage on his journey. Can "wandering" be prevented? How?

Best regards,
Michael

I like listening to Joel Olsteen on occassion. His sermons are not theological or intellectual (and he has admitted that), but they are, what I might call, very real and practical Christian based psychological counseling for the masses.

The other day he was preaching about love, forgiveness, and the fact that you can never stop people from talking about you...etc. The appeal of such sermons is that they get to the core, with Christ centered overtones, of many of the personal issues we face on a day to day basis in our lives.

Mr. Olsteen is also both sincere looking and charismatic. He makes living a good, clean Christian life seem attainable. Spirituality like this is often a course in 'Spirituality and Christianity 101' for many people.

A cradle Orthodox friend of mine, (a very pious woman with a Master's degree from St. Vladimir's Seminary), and I, were discussing just this the other day. She had been very immersed into her Orthodox church as a child, but it was not until she had a brush with Evangelicalism that she really started to believe in Christ and challenged herself to become a Christian. She returned very shortly afterwards to the Orthodox Church. She said that Orthodoxy was analogous to a Master's degree in spirituality but that she had to go through the '101' course of Evangelicalism to get there.

Another person I know is a cradle Orthodox priest. He too admitted that it was the zeal and conversations with his Evangelical roomate in college that challenged him to explore his own search for Christ, and did this through the Orthodox church of his youth.

Therefore, I would assume that after one has had sufficient time to reflect on oneself enough through Mr. Olsteen's sermons, and has had time, hopefully, to become a better human being in the image of how Christ wants us to be, that the appeal may wear off, and that many of those Catholics will trickle back to their faith.

Alice

Alice,

That was very well put.

And I apologize for spelling Mr. Olsteen's name wrong. And if he is helping people to have a closer relationship with God, then God bless him!

(My wiseguy reference to competing with the entertainment industry was more a reflection on the accoutrements of the "mega-church", rather than a reflection on him personally.)

Best,
Michael

Unfortunately Mr. Olsteen also teaches that you have the power to claim health, wealth, and happiness.

Joe

I haven't heard him MUCH, so I am only assuming, but the above may be in the context of the basics of healthy self esteem. If we have a healthy self esteem, based on Christian principles applied in our lives, we can become happy (through loving, forgiveness, and not 'sweating the small stuff'), and that happiness, for some may also benefit their health and their careers...

If he abides by the credo that God wants everyone to be wealthy, well I would disagree with that, but it just might be what someone who is in despair may need to hear at that moment in order to pick himself up and persevere.

By the time one commits seriously to the difficult spiritual roads of proper Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, one's faith is generally secure, one's self esteem is generally secure, and this is when the evil one finds opportunity to shatter some of or all of the above (happiness, health, finances) in order to challenge and test that person's (at that point) deep rooted faith and commitment to Christ. I have seen it time and time again in both faith traditions.

Alice