I agree that when we put any sort of politics ahead of, and above, the Cross, we are ultimately preaching a weak message. As Paul says, the only power we have is that of Christ crucified.

I can’t say this with absolute certainty, but I don’t believe that the slave issue of the 1800’s was a “you aren’t a ‘real’ Christian” issue. Today, we obviously look back at that and can’t imagine how a self-proclaimed follower of Christ could possibly support slavery in any form, but whether or not that was a general sentiment…there are no significant evidences of this huge political force conflating the “true” Christians with abolition.

To compare it to today, many might say, I can’t imagine a Christian supporting abortion. Whether or not that is a correct sentiment, we have raised the issue in a political way and conflated it into the sphere of theology as to infer that a “true Christian” has to be pro-life. Which creates an artificial wall for many people. EVEN IF it is the correct viewpoint, people will not be saved and become co-heirs for Christ based upon their political position regarding this issue.

I don’t see any great unity between various denominational groups in the past century except in opposition to certain cultural and theological trends. To come along now and say that certain groups are more tribal, I always thought they were back then too. Compare say the SBC (semi-calvinist mostly then) and the free will baptists (arminian) and where is the agreement on theology, then or now? I always experienced it as tribalism, and in a big way. So, I am not sure where these people are coming from. And lost their kids? How do they define that, and who determines what the criteria are to define lostyoukidness?

Maybe the Great Kahn could pull warring tribes together for a while, but that sort of thing may not last for too long. “They” came up with the idea of evangelicalism as some sort of bigger tent, but I don’t see where anybody ever actually sold their old tent. They just agreed on a few things for a while.

Maybe I am missing the point, but I don’t get it.

In my part of Canada, the prairie provinces, church history in the early 20th Century mirrored a lot of what is described above, except in the opposite political direction. The evangelical and mainline churches at that time both shared a concern for the gospel (aka: preaching the Word, salvations, faith in Christ, in essence the internal and individual impact of faith) and social issues (external, community impact of faith) equally and were very involved in community change. A shift happened, however, during labour disputes in Winnipeg. The churches (now I’m speaking of general consensus, rather than how each individual congregation may have reacted) supported the workers because of the horrific conditions and many churches became platforms for the workers rights with the pulpit being used for speeches and sermons of solidarity etc. The riot in 1919 in Winnipeg by the workers caused many Christians to become wary of the movement and also concerned that the social issues were overshadowing the gospel message. In essence, that was happening on a very real level. The more mainline churches began to shift towards a theology of social change as being more crucial than the internal change of salvation, and the evangelical churches reacted with concern at this idea, and began to emphasize the internal aspect of the gospel as being primary over societal change. So, an ideological split happened that is still in place to this day. The result? The more mainline churches aligned themselves with causes that would be considered liberal/left in nature. In my province, Saskatchewan, our most well known premier, Tommy Douglas, was a United church minister who brought in universal health care and started the New Democratic Party (a left wing party that is now the federal official opposition to our government). (An aside, Tommy Douglas’ daughter, Shirley, became an actor and married Donald Sutherland. Their son is Kiefer Sutherland.) The evangelical churches concerned themselves with the gospel message of salvation and the internal work of Christ. But, and this is the crux, it was the mainline churches that lost the youth over the next decades. Several very influential revivals happened in the prairies in the fifties (latter rain movement and Pentecostal revival) and seventies (Jesus People) and people planted themselves in churches that understood and embraced what was happening to them internally as they powerfully encountered God. The mainline churches slowly emptied and aged, while the evangelical and charismatic churches grew and thrived (1950’s-80’s).

Now it seems there is a shift back towards a social gospel emphasis, a century later. The political liberal ideas that permeated the church in the beginning of the 20th century eventually alienated the youth because it was disconnected to the reality of what God was doing on a large scale level and was ignored the reality of the internal work of God. I would argue the same is happening now. The politically conservative ideas that permeate the evangelical church in the late 20th and early 21st century are alienating the youth because it is disconnected from what is happening all around them (discrimination against gays, cognizance of world issues on a before unheard of way because of the immediacy of the internet etc) and seems to ignore the reality of the external influence of God in favour of an individual relationship with God and the hypocrisy between the internal and external worlds (as documented so well on WW) is an issue to the youth. (Again, these are just my theories, so feel free to disagree, I just see a lot of parallels!)

My ultimate theory? God will continue to build His church and draw everyone to Himself in varying ways through varying historical and political realities. The evangelical church will age and decline, and that’s ok, because the Church (big C) is a people and a spiritual reality, not a building, ideology or specific doctrine. So, enjoy the ride people! (Dee, feel free to not post if this is too long or too rambling!)

linda wrote:

That doesn’t mean they are out of the faith. And while, indeed if, they disagree with us politically, that doesn’t mean we “lost” them.

Yeah. My kids went from baptist to episcopalian. Does that mean I “lost them?” I think not, and I want to say “watch our mouth” to anybody who would say so. That kind of talk makes me look ignorant and inflexible and makes them look rebellious and irresponsible. Really? I mean, really?

I think these gentlemen (Bradley especially) who want to talk about people losing their kids need to maybe limit their conversation to the latest thing at Starbucks or other safe topics. Mama bear and all that, don’t you know.

@ Nancy:
I think Bradley is referencing the “Nones,” not kids who’ve done what yours have. Though I can think of more than a few parents whose understanding of their kids’ moves to other churches have *not* been like yours – they think their kids really *are* “lost.”

I agree that things have always been tribal, but post-80s-90s-00s version of the Culture Wars, my hunch is that there has been a relapse into “tribalism” and suspicion of Others Who Are Not Like Us on all sides. There has been a lot of discussion of these things over the past 8+ years at blogs like Internet Monk, which is linked in this blog’s sidebar.

Just my .02-worth.

Bradley’s entire premise is very generalized and he doesn’t define what he means by “lost their kids.” How is someone reading going to make sense of his article at all without an understanding of what he actually means about losing your kids. He ends up sounding like a “fear” inflictor. Not much different than Morris with his titheorbadthingsmayhappentoyou teaching.

dee wrote:

I think Bradley is basing his essay on the polls that show a decline in church attendance in the Gen X and Millennial groups. Think “nones.”

A none is completely different than “lost kids” to me. I’m a none and a babyboomer 🙂 I’m not lost (which to me is an unbeliever). So, he didn’t do a good job at defining his words. He could be in the camp that considers “nones” unbelievers because they are not in a 501c3 institution. I have heard this proclaimed from the pulpit.

A couple things. Dr. Bradley comes at this from a PCA (conservative Presbyterian) angle. In the interest of follow disclosure, I do follow his Facebook feed and read a number of his blog posts. I don’t think he could be fully lumped in the same categories as a Morris or even certified conservative Republican.

1) In terms of “lost kids,” his definition would roughly be along the lines of the so-called none category, even yielding some variations of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD). He would need to speak for himself, but his definition of “lost kids” would very likely include many within nondenominational and other evangelical circles, and not be so focused on liberal Christians.

2) Politics, for Bradley, more or less came to define the lines of Christianity. I think that sentiment is encapsulated in “There is no longer a space where Arminians and Calvinists share a common theological enemy…”

In other words, very little focus is on the core theological elements of the faith. Some commentators would label this (little “o”) orthodoxy (as would I) because there are certain core beliefs which make you a Christian – a-la the deity of Christ, trinitiarianism, etc. Instead, the battle lines become things like gay marriage, abortion, etc. Those are now the litmus test.

Putting aside stereotypes, poll the average mainliner or evangelical and there would be an arena of agreement with some shades to the right or left in terms of those core (orthodox) issues. However, start polling the political issues and you begin to note a clear divergence, and these church congregations are often very much defined by these issues, even with the exceptions.

Thus, we have this exit ramp where the younger generation refers to itself as “spiritual but not religious” because the entire working connotation of religious refers to the Pharisaical tendency for laws and customs above heart and people.

I’ve grown up in both Baptist (SBC) and Methodist (UMC) traditions and my thought was that I always longed to see a fusion of the Baptist intense personal faith with the Methodist desire to get out and do. In other words, the marrying of personal salvation narrative (properly influenced/tempered by social connection) joined with the so-called social gospel. Social gospel is code for liberal and personal salvation is code for conservative, and the politics are easy to guess from there, which I think validates much of what Dr. Bradley said.

@ Nancy:
Again, i truly think he is talking about the Nones, as well as – in his words – those who went with so-called “emergent” movements.

I don’t think Dee expected this to be so polarizing!

I’d also like to argue that perhaps the kids are not in the churches because the churches don’t speak to them where they’re at in their lives. And I’m not talking about politics. I’m talking about basic stuff like lifestyle. Churches put a whole lot of emphasis on marrying and raising families. TWW has talked about how Boomers feel pushed out of church as a result. What about young people who have graduated from college and are living at home because they’re un/underemployed? What about young people who are working a couple of jobs and going to college part time because that’s the only way they can make ends meet up against crushing college tuition and loans that have to be repaid? What about young married couples working to make ends meet because they’re underemployed?

Demographically, young people are returning home after college and getting married older. They’re underemployed and unemployed. If they’re married, they’re working their tails off to afford a place to live . If they have kids, ditto. The churches seem to be operating on the idea that husbands work and wives stay at home with the kids**. Most people I know can’t afford the luxury of doing that. And then if they go to many churches, the price of membership is profoundly steep for them: 10 percent off the top of their income. When you’re poor, that can make the difference between eating and heating or not eating and no heat.

I’m hearing nothing from the churches as the economic fortunes of younger Americans slide further into the toidy. Instead, they’re chasing after an ever-diminishing segment of the American population that can fit into the mold of middle-class traditional roles.

**Go look on evangelical Protestant websites and see when womens’ meetings or Bible studies are held. Usually on some weekday, from 9:30 am to 11:00 am. I don’t know about you, but the moms I know are at work during that time of the day and they’re not taking time off work to go to a church meeting.

And pastors, of course, must always be a “he.”

GSD wrote:

I wonder if there is also some disdain for a pastor who has never had to deal with the realities of the secular workplace. It limits his ability to speak to the pressures of real life, which leaves otherworldly issues. When the scriptures, especially the Epistles, speak clearly to both.

You have hit the nail on the head. Read Bradley’s “about” page. He lives in an ivory tower situation, too.

These types have nothing to teach us about being Image Bearers in the real- every- day world. Most pastors are even worse. They are clueless as to what is going on out there but all they know is that they have to have nickels and noses in the pews to survive. People have to come to church or their salvation is questioned.

And, when the “church” is treacherous in the Name of Jesus, the real world actually looks safer. What do most churches want from us these days? Our money, time and adoration of the pastor. And most folks have little of first two these days and are weary of the latter.

I spent Thanksgiving with a bi-vocational pastor who is also a journalist. His very small church– which in constant need of repair– instead– rebuilt a home for a single mom, replaced someone’s roof, bought a used car for a needy member, sent a member’s alcoholic son to rehab, etc. It is a true fellowship. Everyone pitches in what they can. They actually spend time dealing with real world issues–together.

@ Lydia:
Fwiw, I’d like to point out that teaching on the college level is an evety day, real-world job. Most people who do it are at a greater remove from the elite of,,say, the Ivy Leaugue schools than earth is from heaven. You make it s8und like it’s all super high-paying and insulated fromm”the real world,” but most people in those jobs get modest salaries, have kids in public school and shop at the same grocery stores and go to the same mechanics and plumbers as everybody else. Please don’t make the mistake of assuming that they’re all light the high and mighty at your local Southern Baptist seminary.

@ dee:
Dee, after looking at the writer’s “about” page, i have to wonder how you chose his piece over something by Chaplain Mike or Matthew Paul Turner or…? Not saying this to be critical – this guy is in a rather highly partisan camp himself, given where he works. (Note: it’s not a place i would ever want to work, though i actually did get pressured to take a job there, way back when.)

@ numo:

This is Kings College in New York. I don’t know that it is related to the Idaho clan.

@ Bridget:
See also my comment of 8:12, about pressure being put on me to accept a job at this place – though that was back when it was located north of Manhattan. (A good while ago at that.)

Yes! Agreed!linda wrote:

The first thing in my mind is that I’m not convinced we have “lost our kids.” Sure, many are not clones of us. Many don’t show up at the 501(c)3 known as church on Sunday. That doesn’t mean they are out of the faith. And while, indeed if, they disagree with us politically, that doesn’t mean we “lost” them.
What I am seeing is they are just living their faith the way they see fit. Just as my generation did and does.
Not a big deal unless you depend on that 501(c)3 for your paycheck.

@ Josh:
Maybe you – and they – need to head out for other kinds of churches.

Hey Marie2,

🙂

Parents want *nice* kids. *Nice* is defined, in this instance, as kids who are like their parents.

“I shall call him — MINI-ME!”

I guess I was thinking of Matt B. Redmond, and his excellent blog about how his perspective on life has changed, now that he is employed by a bank instead of a church. And how I wish more of the pastoral types I’ve known could share his experience. I think it has a great deal to do with the disconnect.

And perhaps we haven’t lost the kids, but they’ve left us behind.

And I’ve always considered plumbing a noble profession, and far more useful than my English degree.

@ GSD:
I don’t think any differently than you about plumbing, and wish i knew more about it. But i don’t regret my education, eithrr.

@ numo:
I never said being a prof was high paying. but it can be very insular.

@ Lydia:
You’re right – it can be, but that doesn’t mean it always happens.

mirele wrote:

I’m hearing nothing from the churches as the economic fortunes of younger Americans slide further into the toidy. Instead, they’re chasing after an ever-diminishing segment of the American population that can fit into the mold of middle-class traditional roles.

**Go look on evangelical Protestant websites and see when womens’ meetings or Bible studies are held. Usually on some weekday, from 9:30 am to 11:00 am. I don’t know about you, but the moms I know are at work during that time of the day and they’re not taking time off work to go to a church meeting.

Good take mirele. How can they (traditionalist model) survive if they’re this divorced from reality?

@ Josh:
Josh – if i were you, I’d leave *before* they figure it out. Having been kicked to the curb myself (albeit for entirely different reasons), i would far rather see you do something proactive rather than get stomped on. The repercussions are no fun, either, and are potentially greater for you than they ever were for me.

I think the point is largely accurate, though probably in reality conservative politics is one of a number of factors that alienate people from the church, but a major one in many cases. Speaking from my own experience and that of my kids as well as several friends, rigid conservative politics have certainly been a barrier to church involvement. Where I live there are a lot of people who assume you either can’t be a Christian or will never be a good one if your politics are not right-wing. One friend during a 6-month search for a new church talked with the pastor of a large local congregation who stated plainly that he didn’t see how a person could be both a Democrat and a Christian. For myself, this mindset has certainly been one of the more significant factors in becoming one of the nones. The reality is that in most cases we will never be accepted as one of the tribe until we conform in this area. There were other factors, to be sure (e.g. church as theatre/performance; shallow sermons — including illustrations that one can go home and find on Snopes; lack of pastoral care or interest; cliquishness; etc), but the political aspect definitely looms large. BTW, both I and the friend I mentioned are in our 50s, so it’s not just the younger generations that are affected.

Bridget wrote:

A none is completely different than “lost kids” to me.

That is what I think too. Basing decisions on who is or is not a believer on church attendance is a bad idea, especially since our culture is rife with lots of ways to be “churchy” without being “in church,” as if being “churchy” or “in church” were the goal in the first place, which as a protestant I think it is not. I suspect the Deebs may have somewhat similar feelings about what constitutes a believer since they offer E-Church here at TWW (and first rate quality at that.) There are non-believers on the pew and there are believers not on the pew, and we need a better determinant of who has or has not abandoned the faith.

I personally have had to make the decision of following Jesus or following the church (which was seriously off the track) but that did not make me an apostate and unbeliever. It put me in the camp of some believers who have to make difficult choices. I had to resign from a certain job once, also, for ethical reasons, but that did not make me permanently unemployed and liking it. Eventually I got back “in church” but that was never the issue between God and me, only between the church and me.

The churches had a “culture” composed of beliefs and customs. These determined who were the “we” and who were the “they.” When this ecumenical and big tent and huge evangelistic crusade and such came along a lot of compromises were made in the living out of customs and the preaching and teaching of beliefs. But part of what kept the big tent up was celebrity (Billy Graham for example-who was really good at what he did-and the US loves celebrities) and money and the excitement of the crowd, and part of it was that the big tent did not require nearly as much of the individual either in terms of catechesis or life style, and of course the culture war fought with political methodologies.

Now I hear beliefs being thrown in with the pejorative “tribalism” and customs being called laws and denounced as such which pretty much hobbles the churches if they tried to return to the old beliefs and customs. And now that the culture war/political issues have changed, what now? This all at a time when the hospitals and colleges and residential orphan homes, etc (the old brick and mortar church missions) have almost disappeared, and the missionary sending agencies have reprogrammed themselves in various ways based on cultural changes here and abroad, and so on, so what do the churches have to fall back on? Most of what they had “before” is either gone or is disparaged.

I do think that there are still some choices. My offspring opted for substance and went high-church protestant, and as I have said to everybody’s surprise all the children aged 12 and down absolutely love it precisely because it is substantive and liturgical. That works for us. No doubt there are other choices for other people, but what we had before in the baptist tradition, for example, looks to me to be gone for good. The world has changed, and some bad choices were made, and the former structure is gone, and I am thinking clamp off the IV and call the hospital chaplain and notify the family.

As the father of a ‘none’ I think it is primarily church culture that these younger ones have rejected–not Jesus. My observations and interactions with my son and his friends (most of whom grew up in perhaps what would best be called a hyper-church culture) is that they abhor hypocrasy and pretense. Rather than staying engaged with that culture and trying to reform it from within, they simply have sought a more relational structure (or non-structure) to work out their faith-issues.

They strongly pushback against political conformity, and the church’s treatment of gays and women. They tend to be natural egalitarians and simply reject any explanation tha elevates male heirarchy, and cannot understand the refusal to relate and engage with those who would identify themselves as gay.

The love I see expressed in this community of ‘nones’ often looks and sounds more like Jesus than what I have seen and experienced in the organized church structure that I have not only been a part of but have, at times, engaged from a leadership position. Its messy looking–

Jeannette Altes wrote:

The love I see expressed in this community of ‘nones’ often looks and sounds more like Jesus than what I have seen and experienced in the organized church structure that I have not only been a part of but have, at times, engaged from a leadership position. Its messy looking–

My thoughts on this: Thank God the religious institutions (contrary to what they seem to think) cannot control what Jesus does or to whom he may choose to engage…or how.

On the basis of examining the fruit of people’s faith, well…my vote is with the ones that looks more like Jesus.

@ Sopwith:

One of the issues I noticed in my earlier days (baptist) was that it was held that tithing was one OT procedure that was carried forward to the church but that fasting was an OT procedure that was not carried forward to the church. Therefore one must tithe while at the same time one must not fast since the latter would be legalism while the former would not. So I thought about it, checked out exactly what is said in the NT about tithing and about fasting, and asked myself where they got the reasoning behind all that. I did not make me drop out of church, young or not, just saying that this makes no sense.

And while I am ranting about all this, is not King’s College the former employer of a man who was willing to break the law to help accomplish some political goal? Again, I know nothing about Dr. Bradley, but he may have fallen in with a way too radical situation, based on what little I have been able to google about King’s College.

@ dee:

Thanks! I’ve lurked for some time, the Morris-Hodges-etc. article has pulled me in a bit because I’ve listened to Church of the Highlands for a while, and their association with Morris had already began to spur questions for me. I’ve spent a couple years in the Newspring Church circles with guys like Driscoll et al.

I’ve grown a bit disillusioned with the money machines.

Muff Potter wrote:

And yet they (independents) will swear up and down that it’s the old liturgical churches that are dying and need to have the IV clamped off.

In their village maybe that is the case. But if you look at world wide statistics clearly the majority of people who call themselves christian are affiliated with churches which are old (they can quibble with each other about how old is old enough to be old) and churches which are liturgical. Half the christians in the world are catholic, and another 12% or so orthodox, and the rest of the pie chart includes some large numbers in older liturgical protestant churches (if one considers anglicans to be protestants.) So the rest have what, maybe a fourth or so of the pie chart, world wide, to fight over.

But when one considers what does dying look like in a church, I see dying when people forsake sound doctrine and take up superstition and legalism and foolishness. It looks like dying when the professionals are professional mostly at entertainment and manipulation. And it looks like beyond hope when churches can look around at the world and not be able to find anything more beneficial to humanity to do than sit around in little groups and focus on themselves and each other.

But that’s just me. Everything has its problems and its downside.

I hate partisan politics. For me, political parties plus church is the same as uniting the temple with the money changers. Years ago I attended a megachurch that held voting drives in between services, and the pastor made it no secret how I should vote. Conservative Evangelicals were very much involved in the culture wars. It was over the teaching of evolution in public schools, or the homosexual agenda, or over radical feminism, or abortion, or some very offensive television show (believe it was Hillstreet Blues). Some of these issues people no longer care about the same way they did in the 90’s. Television is more sexually explicit with people of both sexes making out with no shame. Radical feminism– what is radical feminism? My wife works. Homosexuals: uncle Bert is gay. He is not involved in an agenda. I don’t believe present pew sitters are as repulsed by our sinful culture. Those that are may be more libertarian towards sinners. Some view that Christians can influence the culture, but the secular kingdom is viewed as never having been Christian. Some just go about their business trying to change hearts with their daily witness. I am more likely to pray for people, including our president, instead of telling people they are going to hell, which is something I have no authority to judge. God gave Obama his position and I should pray for my countries leader, so I believe.

  __

“No Yoke”

Hey Nancy,

glad U R bedder.

hmmm…

…ta put is succinctly, young folks R be’in fleeced, lied to, bamboozled, pied piper’d, brainwashed, N’ ______ (fill in da blank); all in da name of ‘jesus’. Now da church pedophiles pick um off at will, and no one sayz nuffin.

And da kidz they haveta pay for it?

No wonder they are saying, “No thanks!”.

🙁

Under this present dark ‘church’ circumstance(s), can anyone blame them?

(bump)

The only ‘free-will’ da enters dis ‘church’ picture for these young people, is mak’in 4 da door.

—> His burden is easy, His ‘yoke’ is lite?

$ure.

Sopy
__
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF8kMK-M6wM

—

Nancy wrote:

But when one considers what does dying look like in a church, I see dying when people forsake sound doctrine and take up superstition and legalism and foolishness. It looks like dying when the professionals are professional mostly at entertainment and manipulation. And it looks like beyond hope when churches can look around at the world and not be able to find anything more beneficial to humanity to do than sit around in little groups and focus on themselves and each other.
But that’s just me.

It’s not just you, Nancy. It’s me, and a lot of other people like us, who have had it up to the neck with the culture of the Celebrity Pastor (who is often really no pastor at all).

GSD wrote:

And perhaps we haven’t lost the kids, but they’ve left us behind.

Gives a whole new meaning to Left Behind, doesn’t it?

@ linda:

Where did anyone say that having mid-day, mid-week study group meetings was wrong? It seems obvious that the mid-day time accommodates the people who attend at that time. The observations that I saw (and made) were about that being the only option. Are people not allowed to ask why there isn’t an option available that would work for their schedule (or, in my case, for the working women I know)?

@ Ken:
Considering the fact that debt from student loans today is staggering, and that a lot of young people who are trying to pay off said loans are either underemployed or making next to nothing, i think your sweeping statements are probably more than a little off the mark.

@ dee:
There was much else that was going on in terms of rejection of the country club-style churches that were typical of many upper middle-class communities atthe time, along with some prominent (mostly non-evangelical) white clergymen aligning themselves with the Civil Rights movement – itself a product of black evangelicalism.

Remember the “God is dead” scuffle?

@Dee – I’m with you on bible studies that don’t allow you to talk. And I too hate fill in the blanks. I feel like it belittles our intelligence. My all time least favorite thing, though, is alliteration in sermons. I attended a church where the pastor alliterated ALL of his sermons. He later got booted because he was plagarizing most of his sermons. Since that time, I can’t listen to an alliterated sermon.

Has Deb become a “none?” She certainly appeared to be heading in that direction.

@ Lydia:

I have not seen the resurgence of religious orders with vows of poverty in the people who want to talk about crass materialism. I think the idea is subject to over-hype. Just for fun I looked up what percentage of women have had breast augmentation surgery, for example–about 5%, according to one plastic surgery practice web site. I would have thought a lot more. Sure, few reject “the world” or see it exclusively as a mission field like Saul/Paul did, but there is nothing new about that. It is just hard for me to imagine somebody so upset that Dad drives a Jag and Mama is held together with surgical steel that they would make major life decisions based on that alone. Of course just across town we have a little university here packed out with rich kids who obviously are not rejecting materialism as a life style, so maybe that colors my perception of this. I don’t know but there just has to be more to the story than what’s in Dad’s portfolio.

Dee wrote:

Nancy wrote:

My offspring opted for substance and went high-church protestant, and as I have said to everybody’s surprise all the children aged 12 and down absolutely love it precisely because it is substantive and liturgical.

“I am beginning to see this more and more. I believe the liturgical churches will begin to see a rise in attendance in the coming years.”

I have been leaning this direction for years, although for a variety of reasons I have not been able to act on it. I think my husband has realized I probably won’t remain Presbyterian the entire rest of my life. The real question for me is, where is my real spiritual home? Where will I actually experience communion with God, though He is not far from any of us? This is partially related to my current difficulties of being in church with my autistic son and hyperactive 4 year old. Not sure how they would respond to a high liturgical church. I do know that given the way the megas and their wannabes do worship, that would never work.

And regarding women’s bible study, ours is ALWAYS Kay Arthur, all the time. Which means a ton of colored pencils, along with a willingness to mark up one’s Bible with them. I realized I was going more for the fellowship afterward, than the study itself. A weekday evening when the kids need help with homework and being shoved off to bed, leaves me with plenty on my plate as it is.

@ Seneca "j" Griggs.:

Interesting comment…Why would you think that?

I am enjoying fellowship at a wonderful Southern Baptist church, which had steered clear of the issues we discuss here.

Two Sundays ago a group of us enjoyed an outing after church to Petersburg VA to see White Christmas (a play), and last Saturday the association of churches that includes the one I attend held an event for needy families so they could buy Christmas presents for their children. I donated new toys along with many others, and parents of over 350 kids came to shop.  They paid 10 cents on the dollar of their own money.  It was a heartwarming experience.

Love being involved with these wonderful brothers and sisters in Christ!

Before I became a “none and done”. There were many women in the church not only doing Botox and “tummy tucks”. But expensive plastic surgery. Drivers of BMW, Cadullac, etc. I don’t have anything against ones personal preferences, but when I mentioned that when our circumstances excel , our lifestyles don’t need to, I was greeted with glazed stares. Am out of there.
Finding a church that is real is hard.i am almost too tired to make the effort

Deb wrote:

@ Seneca “j” Griggs.:

Interesting comment…Why would you think that?

!

I recall reading you might be holding on by the skin of your teeth – applying to the church you were attending.

As I said earlier…There is no “litmus” of political positions that can make someone a Christian….

But, where do we draw the line, or, HOW do we draw the line? For instance, if a politician was running on a platform that we should enslave minorities, should I not, as a Pastor, publicly preach against such heinousness? As you mentioned earlier Dee, you became a Christian and later moved pro-life. I would contend that abortion is the “slavery” issue of our modern era. While I have never preached a “political” sermon supporting, or, attacking, a candidate, I have preached on the importance of pro-life.

One of our main ministries our church supports is a Women’s Resource center that has a primary focus on providing resources and training POST birth for young and unprepared parents. They do have a role in the pro-life movement in our area, but their main work is after the baby is born. Inevitably our support of this ministry can be construed as “political”. Do we pull our support/never talk about it because it might be a turn off to a visitor who is not pro-life?

For all those who commented on the boomers and materialism, some clarification.

We can all only talk in generalities here, always a dangerous thing to do! I had in mind that section of the boomer generation who decided never to have children, 20% or so. Here in Germany, this is still reflected in the low birth rate, offset for years by importing families of ethnic Germans from eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. I’m sure a lot of the reason for this anti-family mentality was and is a desire for untrammeled material comfort, permanent double incomes, the hassle of bringing up children neatly avoided. Anyone with children knows they do indeed impinge on your personal autonomy and take their toll of your poor bank account!

This seems to me to reflect an attitude born after the privations of WW2 had become history that life does indeed consist of the abundance of possessions. Of course this existed before and has always done up to an extent, but it is much more widespread now. It has even crept into the church in places in the form of the prosperity gospel. As for megachurches, aren’t they described to a T in the Loadicean church of Revelation 3? Far from vast numbers being a sign of God’s blessing, he is on the outside.

In case I am misunderstood, I don’t think you can make marriage and family compulsory either, going to the opposite extreme, but it is if you like the ‘norm’ in the sense of entered into by the majority.

@ Bridget:
Ken and i have been around the block on this before. Needless to say, i think you hit much closer to the mark.

@ Ken:

Wait a minute here. The boomers were not born until after WWII. They did not go through the deprivations of the great depression or the war. Post war was difficult in Europe, but by the time the boomers were old enough to reproduce had not things improved? And 20% decided not to have kids? And the word boomer is from baby boom (where populations tend to rebuild themselves after significant numerical loss of whatever cause) and apparently that is what those who did go through the deprivations actually did. So I am wondering what else may be at play in this scenario also. Destruction of prior beliefs (like “uber alles”) and loss of vision for a future perhaps? What if you really don’t believer in the fatherland that much any more? This is just guessing of course, but it looks like a possibility. I certainly would not commit myself to much reproductive activity if I were wandering around feeling culturally disoriented with the constant cold war fears of the next big one. Or maybe the environment reached its carrying capacity and mercifully reproductive rate dropped off before more radical measures took hold? But no such thing as dropped birth rate happened adequately in certain Asian countries when population exceeded the ability to support that population.

There is a similar but not quite that bad trend in the US, with some indication that were it not for the reproductive rate of recent immigrants the US would fall below the birth rate needed to sustain the population. This is not just centered on the affluent if I understand correctly. Nor is it a boomer issue now, since the boomers have aged out of their prime reproductive years, and yet births per female in the reproductive age range stays below what it used to be. So something is going on somehow. And we are way past remembering deprivations, which were nothing compared to Germany anyhow. I might add, marriage stats are way down over here, so it is not just birth rate. Interesting thing in the US, people who actually do have more than a very few kids are subject to much criticism. Hmmm. Interesting topic.

Where did all the babies go?

@ Nancy:
People are also marrying later, in part due to crushing debt from studrnt loand
Many can’t afford to live on gheir own and are either unemployed or underemployed – a lot live with their parents for a while after college due to this. The trend has escalated since thenginancial crash of late 2008.

@ numo:
Financial crash.

@ Nancy:
But that was in health care. For middle-class women who didn’t work in that field, it was generally accepted that women should be at home, raising children. How we reconciled the obvious cognitive dissonance, I’m not quite sure.

Of course, poorer women never had the luxury of a choice about working, then or now.

@ numo:

Poor women have been almost obliged to work, sometimes even as domestic help. Women worked in my Dad’s law office back then. They used to call them legal secretaries before they became paralegals. My mother’s sisters all worked, though not necessarily full time or permanent. This town is swarming with women realtors and real estate agents. And have you seen who is working at the mall now? At the grocery stores? In the restaurants? No way is it all nurses and teachers. And no way are all these hoards of women childless by choice. I just happen to have close up exposure to some and not others. This thing about don’t work and stay home was, or so I read somewhere, a middle class status thing–look what a success I am I got my wife at home, and “no wife of mine is going to work.” It does not say anything about whether or not it can be done, only about whether it will be done and/or whether somebody thinks it should be done.

The recent economy has been a problem. The church where I was until recently had a large half-day preschool program until last year when they had to close down. What happened? Some people put their kids in full time day care so they could go back to work and some just took them out because they could no longer afford it. Closed down the whole school which had been quite large. Lack of good jobs is a problem right now for sure, but the fall in birth rate has been notice for a long time before 2008. As early as 2001/2 when I was in RCIA the catechists were mentioning the disappearance of the “large catholic family” and this was before the current economic disaster.

I think that all these factors probably play a part, but there also seems to be a decreased willingness to take the risks, endure the problems, settle for less, and make babies anyhow. Maybe people are correct to refrain from parenting. I am not arguing that. But the people who know about these things say that without the current masses of immigrants and their birth rate we would go under, just based on the math. If we have come to that place then it is an issue of concern for the nation.

numo wrote:

The privatisation of US healthcare that began in the 80s has had catastrophic consequences.

What was it before since it was “privatized” in the 80’s? Are you referring to it being mostly non profits?

@ Lydia:
It became an industry, run by private corporation. Many, many public hospitals either closed or were bought out by corporate gatekeepers.

I saw it happening in D.C. and surrounding area, and the effect on poorer people was catastrophic. What had once been understood to be about public welfare and public service was turned into a very much for-profit business venture. That was a VERY bad thing, imo. And still is, to this day.

@ Nancy:
Yes, well… the “ideal” was Barbara Billingsley, of Leave it to Beaver, wearing pearls and perfect, unwrinkled dresses while doing household chores.

Yet another example of impossible – entirely fictional! – standards being held up as the thing to which all middle-class women must aspire.

@ numo:

Numo, My dad was on the board of a Catholic Hospital here, St Marys, back in the 50’s and 60’s. So I do get it. I think we use terminology differently, that is all.

Nancy, It is interesting to think of my childhood and the hospital names such as Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Jewish and so on. I see the change you mention totally different and believe the slide started with the advent of HMO’s. but that is a topic for another day.

” At the same time there were also private hospitals, many (probably most) run by religious orders or denominations. In Louisville at the same time there were several catholic hospitals, one presbyterian, one baptist, one jewish and one masonic. Some for-profits were also around. ”

That is what I was thinking of as “private” which is why Numo’s “privatization” threw me off a bit.

@ Nancy:
If you look at my post, I agree the boomers are post-WW2 privation. It’s the generation after that that started the trend in not wanting a family.

I am sure there are many reasons for this. The whole permissive thing, the breakdown in the family, the unwillingness to make permanent commitments, the absence of fathers on a mass scale, now very much a part of UK life.

Overall though I think materialism is the prime factor in this. The generation who have ‘never had it so good’ materially opting out in largish numbers from the responsibility of parenthood. The generation who have had the welfare state to guarantee their basic needs will be met. This is more than say my grandparents’ generation, who did not opt out of having families

As to your question where have the babies gone, tragically the US and UK between them have ensured that some 57 million of them never made it as far as being born.

numo wrote:

It became an industry, run by private corporation. Many, many public hospitals either closed or were bought out by corporate gatekeepers.
I saw it happening in D.C. and surrounding area, and the effect on poorer people was catastrophic.

What’s funny is usually when something like this happens, my mailbox and inbox gets spammed with HOT INVESTMENT TIPS junk mail about said industry — “MASSIVE RETURN ON INVESTMENT! GET IN NOW OR BE LEFT BEHIND FOREVER!” — and I didn’t get any on this one.

Dee–I think you would love our women’s studies. First off, while we occasionally request a Kay Arthur (we ladies choose) or Beth Moore (ugh and double ugh!) we are just as likely to tackle election, free will or predestination, or any other topic. Comes out a quite a mix during the year. Currently some did a Beth M and some stuck to Hebrews.

We offer two times on two different days. And invariably someone will complain about the day offering with “don’t we realize women work outside the home today?” And some will complain about the night offering that they are stay at home mom’s, with public schooled kids, and “doesn’t anyone care about not fracturing the family further with evening meetings?”

We do what we think best, and realize we won’t get it all right, and that even if we could some folks just LIKE to criticize and complain within jumping in and doing the work.

My husband and I are in our mid/late 60s. He recently became a Done with my blessing. Maybe I’ll join him someday. @ dee:

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

I’m not going to cite any examples now.

Oh, please do, I reckon you’d do a great Russell Brand, Bulbeck. Go on, get your own YouTube channel, PLEASE. Also see the YouTube rants in series 1 of Treme if you need other inspiration. You know, what you describe in the UK (and in Australia), it’s the Poor Laws/Poor House – with metrics. We have been thoroughly conquered by managerialism and metrics…

Nancy wrote:

Given the sad (hopeless now?) condition at that church right now we are thinking that there seem to be a lot of “dones” dragging themselves to church regardless…

Although I obviously cannot speak for the condition of the particular congregation whereof you spake, I have often heard believers talk about their frustration and even near-despair at the condition of their local churches which they nevertheless keep attending out of a sense of duty. Behind this, I think there’s a basic truth: many groups calling themselves churches are actually powerless.

This is one reason, I think, for the middle-class dominance of church memberships in the UK. The middle classes generally have jobs and stable lifestyles – otherwise they wouldn’t be middle class – and so they come to a meeting each Sunday with most of their needs already met. Thus, a little singing and praying (which can deeply move our emotions with a bit of practice) tops up the corners of their appetites, and gives them just that little extra sense of love and belonging, and that’s all they need.

While ever we are kept warm, safe, fed and comfortable by secular technology, it’s easy to pretend that “our real security is in God”. But it may be very different if that theory is ever put to the test. If our job or our health is taken from us, what does our church membership provide then? We may find that it never actually provided us with anything – instead, we were propping it up. And it has no idea how to mourn with those who mourn.

TWW often features telltale warning signs that a church is to be avoided. But consider the converse…

Lots of churches like singing the Robin Mark song:

As the deer pants for the water
So my soul longs after you…

… and there’s nothing wrong with that. But if you can find a church that knows how to sing the other parts of that Psalm:

My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When can I go and meet with God? My tears have been my food day and night, while people say to me all day long, “Where is your God?” These things I remember as I pour out my soul…
… I say to God my Rock, “Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?” My bones suffer mortal agony as my foes taunt me, saying to me all day long, “Where is your God”…

then maybe that’s a church worth joining.