The New 'Nones' Aren't Atheist--Just Unaffiliated

Kevin appears your just catching on to what has been happening to the whole church for some time now . Not so much as new converts as people changing addresses of where they attend , or not attending at all . I always tell people they can on looking for the perfect church , but as soon as they walk into it the perfection is gone .

Putting a political spin on it misses the point . If you think people are in dire need of political spirtual fulfillment . Our Bible Study has about a third of the particpant s who came from liberal main line denominations . Basically The LIVING Jesus is what the church lacked they came from .

The conservative non political church I attend has a food bank , reaches out to the homeless and takes care of about 50 kids on a daily basis in a Christian Day Care .
They take in and actually minister to those who can not afford it also . Support Missions that provide Ministry and medical, food and care . That does not make one denomination better , or conservative better then liberal . The good you do for the poor , as taught for us to do is commendable . The fact that Christ has always been a target is nothing new , if your ministtry has Christ in its center , and isdoing good , I am sure you face obstacles and know somewhat what i am speaking to .
Their is a spirtual world that does not want you to succeed when Christ is reaching his hands out through you .

What Chruches need more of is what you spoke to , putting a political spin on it is exactly what people walk away from . They want God in their lives , a and he does not have narrow people in our churches while you do . Shhhh. They want the real thing . Did you ever perhaps consider you were just more compassionate then others in general , and your compassion could be used to help and support the whole church instead of the tiny part of it you embrace . We could use your help my friend .

You may probably take from the Pew study what you want to take from it. ;-) But about 10% of the respondents claim to believe in "God" or a "higher power", but not necessarily in a "personal God". In other words, they are Deists (as were many of the American Founding Fathers), whether or not they call themselves that! As a Deist myself, I find that encouraging.

Really, most "Christians" are actually "Paulists". They follow the teachings attributed to Paul, and to his interpretations of the Jesus story. In the day, Jesus' followers were Jews, as Jesus himself was, and considered Jesus as a "rabbi" or teacher. A lot of his teaching obviously went over their heads, LOL. In any case, there is no real evidence that Jesus was establishing a new religion, rather than merely trying to reform the old one. Many of his followers believed he would deliver them all right - but not from the devil! They were looking for deliverance from the Romans.

Personally, I do believe that a teacher/rabbi named Jesus (or the Aramaic equivalent of that name) existed. I do not believe that he was a deity. I believe, as Thomas Jefferson did, that a certain amount of Jesus' teachings were actually captured by the NT writers, and that one can cull those from the myths by studying them. There is a great deal of wisdom to be found in them - along with the teachings of others, such as the Buddha, Mohammed, Hamurabi, etc. They all, in fact, have a lot in common, if you look past the purely cultural embellishments. I believe, too, that it is the cultural embellishments that get us into trouble - those mythologies attached to the core ethical teachings of all religions. The ones that teach how special this particular group is, and how God values them above all others.

I believe in God, but not in dogma. Dogma spelled backwards is "am-god", and that is how most religions view their particular dogmas. They venerate them to the point that they lose sight of the real God. The dogmas become God. The legalism attached to those dogmas becomes God's "command". And the practitioners of the particular religion check their reason at the door, and soak up the dogma like sponges. And like a sponge, when you squeeze it, all that comes out is the recirculated dogma. Where is God in all this?

Am I attacking Christianity? Perhaps, but no more than I am attacking all the rest of the "revealed" religions, and for the same reason: Reason itself, which is lacking in all of them! Am I attacking Christians? No, nor am I attacking other people who follow other religions. (Though I do reserve the right to attack the personal ideologies of religionists who would legislate their personal beliefs on others who follow a different path.)

People tend to follow whatever spiritual path they were born into, without giving it a great deal of thought. Those who DO have the audacity to think are often shunned by their peers. I wish others to think, and to truly examine the nature of their beliefs, and how rational they really are, to examine commonalities between various ancient religions (and why those commonalities exist). And, as a special challenge to Christians, to examine Jewish beliefs on things like heaven and hell, the devil, and how to live, and to contemplate how a simple Jewish teacher could have created the fractious lot of religions claiming to operate in his name out of those Jewish beliefs. Please consider those things when you talk about "Judeo-Christian" belief systems, too!

We humans want - or need - to "create" a God we can relate to, and have done so since the beginning of cognitive thought. We want to understand, categorize, organize, and make the complex into something that is simple enough to understand - and to relate to. How limiting!

God has left a signature here, but we fail to see it, and want to make "him" write just like we do. We have done this as prophets and preachers and elders and teachers, putting words into "his" mouth. If we will but look, we can see God's signature everywhere: in Nature! This "signature" is revealed by Mathematics, and known as "Phi". (Be amazed! www.goldennumber.net)

Do we really need to simplify God to the lowest common denominator? Do we really need bronze-age superstition when the reality is so much greater? Do we really want to reduce the unimaginably great God of the universe to a petty tribal God favoring one race or group over another? THINK about it. You might even find out that you, too, are a Deist, as so many great thinkers through the centuries have been!

Really, most "Christians" are actually "Paulists". They follow the teachings attributed to Paul, and to his interpretations of the Jesus story.

That overstates the case. Paul himself was a Pharisee (and thus Jewish); however, he primarily evangelized the Gentile world, which had a different orientation from Judaism and thus had to be treated differently. Besides, he quoted the Old Testament at length, so it's not as though he came up with some new teachings for embellished those of Jesus.

Be advised, however, that this is an overtly Christian blog and that you will be seen as attacking Christianity. And if you don't really believe that Jesus was divine, then kindly explain the resurrection.

I recently read John Meacham's article in Newsweek on the end of Christianity, and I couldn't help but notice that a feeling of relief and a smile came over me as I read it, while thinking that finally Christianity can take a backseat to God (it reminds me of the bumpersticker "Jesus is my co-pilot"-why would He want to ride co-pilot?) For too long Christianity has substituted humility for power and faith for certainty, so often being certain about the wrong things. As the book Unchristian talks about Christians have become known for what they are against instead and what they hate instead of what and how they love. I often hear people say, when asked who the most Christlike persons have been, their response is Gandhi or the Dali Lama...a hindu and a buddhist.

Many of the questions you raise, I have and often have to ask myself the same. "Am I turning God into a rorschach test?" Many great "Christian" thinkers have proposed the same questions. Kierkegaard talked about how once a person becomes a Christian, he or she immediately commits idolatry, as they begin to worship something that is not God, but their own version of God. I don't think that Sojourner's intent is to usurp a Christian right with a Christian left, but to work a lot of these differences out. Let God speak in "His" own narrative beyond the left vs. right divide.

welcome to this forum. I hope you stick around for a while.

Footnote to All Prayers by CS Lewis

He whom I bow to only knows to whom I bow
When I attempt the ineffable Name, murmuring Thou,
And dream of Pheidian fancies and embrace in heart
Symbols (I know) which cannot be the thing Thou art.
Thus always, taken at their word, all prayers blaspheme
Worshipping with frail images a folk-lore dream,
And all men in their praying, self-deceived, address
The coinage of their own unquiet thoughts, unless
Thou in magnetic mercy to Thyself divert
Our arrows, aimed unskilfully, beyond desert;
And all men are idolators, crying unheard
To a deaf idol, if Thou take them at their word.
Take not, O Lord, our literal sense. Lord, in thy great
Unbroken speech our limping metaphor translate.

PS- Jesus' Hebrew name was Yeshua bar Yosef...there was also another Yeshua who was born around the same time and from the same town that Jesus was from. His name was Yeshua bar Abbas. Our English Bibles refer to him simply as Barabbas. The symbolism and significance of the story in the gospels is quite beautiful once you've gathered all of the contextual pieces.

Unfortunately, you will be told by some here that being non-political renders your church less useful. Because, of course, everything is "political".

Another note: A number of years ago a colleague at work started to come to my former church. She, in turn, invited her fiance. In time, the pastor invited them for a discussion. The fiance was impressed by the "community" of our church, but when the pastor asked him about the Resurrection, the fiance did not think that was all that important in becoming a Christian. So, Christ is often THE stumbling block in a post-modern age where truth is often irrelevant. BTW: He was a PhD. candidate in Genetics. A science where there is continual search for some truth.

I am not a Christian, I am a Deist. As a Deist, I do not believe in "miracles" as such, including the resurrection. (I do believe that sometimes very unusual things happen, but they have a natural rather than supernatural explanation.)

I realize that this is a Christian blog, and I lurk more than I participate. However, the subject matter of the article lends itself to interpretation, and invites other viewpoints on the subject of "nones".

I find Wallis' point of view interesting, and though I still consider him conservative, he is certainly a better role model than some of the other highly visible pastors of today. (Had I been Obama, I would have invited Wallis, rather than Warren, to give the invocation.)

You may certainly accuse me of attacking Christianity if you like. As I said, I "attack" all revealed religions, though I hope it is not really construed so much an attack as offering up what I consider a much more rational - and reverent - view of God, and a spiritual path that is not littered with superstition and ancient mythology.

I am certainly willing to make common cause with Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, or whomever, if they are working to help the poor or oppressed. I don't think any particular religious path has a monopoly on "goodness".

Thank you for the kind welcome. As I answered BlueDeacon (LOL, makes me think of a truckwash... ;0) ), I lurk more than I post, since I realize that my point of view may not be terribly welcome. I felt that in this case, the subject matter left open a door to other viewpoints.

But, perhaps I will visit more often.

Unfortunately, you can't always relate to God -- or anyone else -- rationally because in order to have a real relationship you have to trust. In fact, reading the Scripture God personifies himself so that He can be known. In fact, the difference between Christianity and all other "religions" is that God can actually be known personally; you can't say that about Islam, Buddhism or anything else. Besides, Jesus made some claims about Himself that, were He not truly divine, made him either a lunatic or a first-class con.

That's the thing at this forum. Your point of view is quite welcome here. I think most people here would rather converse with a voice of reasonable dissent like yours than have to debate a woodenly literal evangelical about why I think women should be allowed as pastors or something along those lines. However, it is important for us (the "us" being the Christian community) to hear a sensible voice of reason from the "outside." The last thing we would want is for this community to become an echochamber. You play a valuable role in our development as a community of Jesus followers. We shouldn't be so arrogant as to simply think that God uses only those who claim to be Christians. You should check out Descartes, during the 30 year war of Catholic vs. Protestant slaughter, and his story and his story of doubt and reason while at seminary.

As a Deist of the "French School", I don't relate to God. (Deists of the
"English School", though probably a minority of Deists, believe in a "personal God". The "French School" encompasses those Deists who do not.) I do not believe that it is possible to relate to a being that is of unfathomable greatness and power. I can only stand in awe of the majesty of Nature, which is how we know God.

Revealed religions, whether Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, or any other, rely on the written word to show them the way. Although human, mortal men wrote the books, they were supposedly inspired by God. The problem is that each sect believes that they, and only they, have the Truth. This is irrational, if you look at it without the memes of the religion that you were born into or adopted.

Further, you must accept the holy book of your particular sect as being true and accurate. All holy books have contradictions, lapses, and downright myths in them. Since Jesus left no writings of his own - at least not that anyone knows of - you must accept second, third and fourth hand stories. You believe, but you cannot know, that Jesus really said what was written.

To me, any God who is big enough to create the universe is certainly far too big to take sides in religious warfare among his children. He (and I am using convention, here, as I believe God to be way beyond gender) has left us with his signature all over Nature, and if we study and learn from Nature, we will know what he wants us to know.

We are born with a sense of morality, and a sense of wonder. If those were preserved, instead of stamped out in rigid educational institutions (both secular and religious), we would be far better off, all of us in the family of man.

Thanks much for your posts. For brevity I will be simplistic.

Religion emerges once humans think and communicate about that in which they ultimately trust. I think it a valuable discipline to set religion aside and turn to God. On the other hand, I don't think it valuable to make the setting aside of religion into a religion. It is simply a challenge. The propensity to worship religions formed in our own image simply reminds us our submission and worship is something beyond our inventions.

But I won't make Jesus to be small. Jesus was not dogma nor religion. The Word, present in the beginning, did not become dogma, but became the living word dwelling among us. God, revealed, came most clearly in a person. The Holy Spirit, the go-between-God, illuminates, and relates us to, all that is.

You are a seeker of God. I could ask of nothing more. Jesus may have been an obscure Rabbi. Jesus could be the Beginning and the End of all that is. He may be that for which you have always sought!

That was interesting. Thank you for the thoughtful analysis and nuance in your thinking. It is certainly more refreshing than what some religious people do by simply attributing a diversity in beliefs to meaning that Christ is the stumbling block.

To me, any God who is big enough to create the universe is certainly far too big to take sides in religious warfare among his children.

I completely agree with this. I think most Christians will be surprised at who they meet in heaven that they thought wouldn't be there.

This is a great discussion, now if only I could find a church that would at least discuss this stuff.

"and a spiritual path that is not littered with superstition and ancient mythology."

"All holy books have contradictions, lapses, and downright myths in them."

i am sorry that you appear to have such disdain for myth as a way of getting at things we can't really get at directly. is it myth or that maybe some people take myth for fact that is the problem? If it's the former, then i suppose music, art, poetry and literature are of no value or meaning to you either. If it is the latter, perhaps your critique of what you called 'revealed religions' is more of a caricature of them based on literalism & fundamentalism. this, of course, my not be your fault, as you may simply not know of any other way to be religious. there are many of us working on trying to change that perception (without & within). in the meantime, if you do happen to know of religious people who are not as you described, please do not be lazy or dishonest & make arguments or observations about religion as if those people don't exist. peace to you,

I don't have a disdain for myth at all. In fact I recognize myth as a powerful social adhesive! Mythology is a way of transmitting cultural traditions and mores in a dramatic way, and has been the basis of many great works of literature, including the Bible.

Because I don't believe spirituality should be predicated upon any particular holy book does not mean that I dismiss that holy book as worthless - either artistically or morally. We certainly can learn a great deal about early peoples from their myths, as well.

But you have to admit that in the modern world, mythology is much more diffuse. Old stories are told, but we know how silly they are in the light of science. People may once have actually believed in Zeus and his thunderbolts, but now, we know where lightning comes from. And just as we would look somewhat askance at someone today who believed in Zeus' thunderbolts, it is not unreasonable to look askance at turning water into wine, or parting the waters of the Red Sea. (And how many Biblical literalists are still looking to NASA to prove the "lost day"?)

I realize that many Christians, particularly in denominations like the UCC and Methodism, are trying to look at the Bible in a less literal way. I am a great fan of the writings of John Shelby Spong in that regard. But in the end, as long as people of the Christian faith cling to trinitarianism and "atonement" by a proxy as more than yet another myth or allegory, then I cannot embrace it again. (Yes, I was once a Christian, and even a fundamentalist one.)

fair enough; plow your own road or whatever works for you by all means. there will always be people of the christian faith, perhaps a majority of western christians through our lifetime, that insist upon a literalistic way of seeing things, but that should not stop someone who sees things differently from enjoying the fruits of a faith tradition if they experience it in a different way (the same way i would think you wouldn't let other people's ways of being deist stop you from doing so). i can speak personally to this, having grown up a literalist, grown to find it not compelling & moving to the 'none' column (or the 'church alumni association' as spong would say), then hearing different voices in this christian tradition like marcus borg to bring me back to the beauty at the heart of it. Jack Spong, by the way, is not as much of an outlier as he used to be or has always claimed to be, though he is far from the majority view. in any event, he was a bishop of a mainline denomination, as was joseph sprague who went through the same pains in the methodist church for saying similar things in 'affirmations of a dissenter'.

i see your point about the problems with people taking things literally and even doing things in the name of religion ('we were promised this land,' 'allah wants you to blow yourself up'), but i am convinced that it is the human condition and our selfishness, not religion, that is ultimately the problem. wars would still be waged in the absence of religion, though the surface justification may sometimes be different.

finally, i think there is a difference in the mythology you cite and the metaphors of the bible, certainly those of the gospels. i do not think they were written to be factual or to explain things we now explain scientifically - i think they were written to show the character of jesus, and ultimately the character of the god they saw through him.
peace to you,