Quiz: How post-christian are you?

My buddy Charlie sent me this today: interesting stuff from Barna on just how “post-Christian” American cities are. Here’s how Barna determined this:

Post-Christian = meet at least 60% of the following 15 factors (9 or more factors)
Highly Post-Christian = meet at least 80% of the following 15 factors (12 or more factors)

1. do not believe in God
2. identify as atheist or agnostic
3. disagree that faith is important in their lives
4. have not prayed to God (in the last year)
5. have never made a commitment to Jesus
6. disagree the Bible is accurate
7. have not donated money to a church (in the last year)
8. have not attended a Christian church (in the last year)
9. agree that Jesus committed sins
10. do not feel a responsibility to “share their faith”
11. have not read the Bible (in the last week)
12. have not volunteered at church (in the last week)
13. have not attended Sunday school (in the last week)
14. have not attended religious small group (in the last week)
15. do not participate in a house church (in the last year)

I think it’s great the folks at Barna have reached out to the editors of Cosmo to devise a handy, self-administered quiz for determining the state of your spirituality. Next up: “How post-missionary is your sex life?”

So, just for fun, where does your city rank and how many criteria to you meet? I’ll go first: My own city, San Diego, ranks #10 and I myself solidly meet five of the criteria, though possibly eight – depending on how you define “prayer”, “church”, and “accurate”…

Technorati Tags: Barna, Church, post-Christian

Something less than human

From NBCNews.com: Lutheran pastor apologizes for taking part in Sandy Hook service.

“There is sometimes a real tension between wanting to bear witness to Christ and at the same time avoiding situations which may give the impression that our differences with respect to who God is, who Jesus is, how he deals with us, and how we get to heaven, really don’t matter in the end.”

As a Christian, and former pastor, who now works for an interfaith organization I can tell you that this tension is very real for many of the more than 300 congregations we work with (and they’re the one’s who HAVE chosen to engage). As people, we have a deep impulse to exclude others in order to include ourselves. This is a very old religious story; perhaps the oldest of all.

Just recently I spent time talking through this issue with an evangelical pastor in our network, who was struggling to justify getting involved with us because he didn’t want his presence to be construed as affirmation. Yet, at the same time, he desired the opportunity to be involved with something that might have a wider impact on the community. So there it is again: the desire to be included alongside the desire to exclude.

For me, the irony is that the heart of the gospel is a proclamation about the eradication of barriers. And at the heart of this eradication is the willingness to be identified with those who are not just a little different, but perhaps radically so, perhaps ruinously so.

To pray alongside a jew, or hindu, or muslim – especially in a time of grief or crisis – does not make me a jew, or a hindu, or a muslim. It makes me a human. To refuse to do so, makes me something less.

Pastor directed church member to fire woman for being too hot

I don’t know much about this story out of Iowa, but Dan Brennan offers an excellent perspective on the culture of evangelicalism and sexuality:

Irresistible attraction is a story embedded with a cluster of beliefs held by some contemporary Christians (men and women). It is born out of centuries old male-dominated patriarchy. The story sexualizes women and then blames and oppresses women.[...]

This is at the heart of so-called “Christian” rules between men and women like missiologists Ed Stetzer who supports avoidance between men and women. Some Christians like Matt Schmucker believe men and women who are not married to each other cannot share a meal alone together, a cup of coffee or even having a meaningful conversation between each other.

Embedded in this story of irresistible attraction is that any form of sexual attraction is irresistible. In the Christian tradition, some have held sexual attraction as irresistible. It is so powerful, it overwhelms the will. “Sorry, I just couldn’t control myself. You are so attractive, I had to act on my impulses.”

But Christian feminist and ethicist Christine Gudorf says, “It is the root of what makes women fear men as dangerous.”

I can remember being a young pastor on staff at a small church where I was instructed never to have even a cup of coffee with a woman in public who was not my spouse. No joke. But, an especially important comment was made my Amy, who is quoted in the article from her comments at Ed Stetzer’s blog:

“In the outside-church-world, I’m treated less as a latent temptress siren, waiting to lead men astray given mere minutes of a closed, window-free office door. This has been a great relief, and allows for a different level of respect and cooperation between co-workers, regardless of gender. Safe environments, like you say. I found I had to leave the church to find them, unfortunately.”

Spot on. Then, more excellent comments from (presumably the same) Amy in the blog comments on Dan’s post:

It’s been good to be out of church. And despite what I was told my whole life by church, my values haven’t changed, (I do swear more, confession). But regarding patriarchy and sexism, it’s good to be removed from church. Not that there aren’t sometimes undercurrents of some of the same ideas in this regard in the “outside church world” too – because there are, (patriarchy extends beyond Christianity). However, its much more muted. Two main reasons:

1. Patriarchy and sexism are much less tolerated outside of this Christian sub-culture. Therefore, these things are more likely to be called out when they’re seen by either men or women without the man being seen as “not manly” or the woman being seen as “subverting authority”. In general, this helps foster more respect and a more level playing field between the sexes. It’s not a surprise to me that non-christians are confused when commenting on this story, not in the least – it looks like the dark ages to them.

2. This brand of Christian subculture is under-girded by fear, shame and a lack of trust. That may seem harsh, but that’s what I see. I honestly I don’t think most of the world would recognize this particular brand of Christianity without these three things and they may not recognize themselves. In the outside-church-world, there is at least consistent space for places and relationships that aren’t run, (or projected upon by the community) by fear and shame. Therefore, ironically, outside of this culture, it can actually be easier to navigate the fundamental gospel idea of “perfect love” as a love that casts out all fear. If perfect love casts out all fear then how can it possibly exist in any consistent way in a culture under-girded by fear and shame?

It can’t. Until its looked at for what it is, these kind of things will continue to happen, and will continue to confuse non-Christians.

Read the whole post, and the comments. It’s well worth your time.

A centuries old occurrence of Stockholm Syndrome

A very provocative post, Protest of the Nones: Religious Disavowal as Social Critique, from Duane over at The Alchemists Imagination who draws correlations between the Nones, the Occupy Movement, and the anti-slavery movement of America’s recent past:

In a centuries old occurrence of Stockholm Syndrome the church continues to hold the hand of its captors, embracing tyranny, inequality, injustice, and playing the part of a harlot, going to bed with capitalism.
Is it then any wonder that a group that is on its way to becoming the fastest growing, and the second largest, religious affiliations is a group that adamantly claims no religious affiliation. This demographic known as the religious “Nones” now account for one in five American adults. One article also points out that “Now, more than one-third of those ages 18 to 22 are religiously unaffiliated. These ‘younger millennials’ are replacing older generations who remained far more involved with religion throughout their lives.” These under-thirty individuals have no interest in identifying themselves religiously and no desire to “label themselves in any way when it comes to their faith or lack thereof.” They do not see themselves as being a part of any religion. While “Nones” are not necessarily antagonistic towards religion(many do in fact think that churches as well as religious and faith based communities can and do make positive contributions to society), the common consensus voiced by 70% of the “Nones”, however, is one that remains suspicious and distrustful of religious institutions, stating that they “believe…religious institutions are too focused on money, power, rules, and politics.”

Then, in a refreshing maneuver, Duane suggests that the hope of the church lies not in a return to preaching that old-timey religion, or in a reliance on new-fangled technologies, but, rather, in turning its own prophetic critique upon itself:

Perhaps then, revisiting the critique of Fredrick Douglas, Occupiers, Activists, Millennials, Protestors, and “Nones” will all cease to be anti-church movements when the church becomes part of anti-capitalist, anti-hierarchical, anti-authoritarian, and anti-corporate movements, joining the fight against the social and economic inequality and injustice rather than supporting the systems and structures that perpetuate and uphold oppression and exploitation. I would venture so far as to say that those who oppose the church and other religious institutions will cease to do so when the church begins to oppose itself, dialectically negating its own structures and traditions and in essence becoming anti-church itself.

This last bit reminds me of some of Paul Tillich’s writing on what he called the Protestant Principle – both about the role of the prophetic critique of the church and the role of those outside the church:

If the Church does not subject itself to the judgment which is pronounced by the Church, it becomes idolatrous toward itself. [...] In its prophetic role it is the Church which reveals demonic structures in society and undercuts their power by revealing them — even within the Church itself.. And in doing so the Church listens to prophetic voices outside itself, in judgment both on culture and on the Church in so far as it is a part of culture. Most such voices come from persons who not active members of the manifest Church. But perhaps one could call them participants of a latent church.”

Sometimes this latent Church comes into the open. Then the manifest Church should recognize in these voices the spirit of what its own spirit should be and accept them even if they are most hostile to the Church.

What Duane here calls “anti-church”, Tillich might refer to as being part of a “latent church.” Virtually everyone has referred to the “Nones” as a sociologically distinctive religious group, but I haven’t heard many refer to them as latent church or a kind of external-yet-internal prophetic critique. The difference, I think, is subtle yet significant, and to me at least, rings true.

57 percent of Britons think learning about Christianity is essential

In a fascinating recent British poll:

And just how many Brits ascribe to the belief that Christianity should make a comeback? A YouGov poll reveals that nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the 1,800 participants in the study believe that Christianity should be taught in schools because children need to learn about it in order to understand English history. Furthermore, 57 percent say that learning about Christianity is essential for students so that they can truly grasp English culture.

But do the English think that Christianity should be taught for reasons other than to bolster their historical and cultural knowledge? It was found that a slight majority, or 51 percent of those polled, believe that Christianity provides a moral compass that helps children decipher right from wrong.

Many British Christians are apparently finding great hope in this – and I can’t blame them – but here’s another interesting take on the poll results from Andrew Copson, a member of the British Humanist Association:

“Christianity should be taught about, and taught about well, but not, as at present, to the exclusion of other approaches to life and not in any pretense that it is relevant to the developing beliefs, values and life stances of most young people, over two-thirds of whom have non-religious worldviews,” [...] He contends that poll results indicate most British people see Christianity as less of a religion and more of a historical and cultural platform.

“And not in any pretense that it is relevant.” Such a choice sentence. To modify a T.S. Elliot quote: To say that you take Christianity seriously as a historical and cultural platform, really means you don’t take it seriously at all.