Byeeee....

[Gob]

The Church of England is just 'one generation away from extinction', the former Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday.

Lord Carey laid the blame at the feet of Church leaders who he said should be 'ashamed' of their failure to bring youngsters into their services. His stark message was echoed by the Archbishop of York, who told the General Synod that compared to the need to attract new worshippers, 'everything else is like re-arranging furniture when the house is on fire'.

The Most Reverend John Sentamu told the Synod – where leaders will debate how to persuade traditionalists to accept women bishops – that they spent too long 'arguing over words and phrases, while the people of England are left floundering amid meaninglessness, anxiety and despair'. Lord Carey, who stepped down from Lambeth Palace in 2002, remains among the most high-profile campaigners for Christianity in the country.

He said: 'We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We are one generation away from extinction – if we do not invest in young people there is going to be no one in the future.' The series of high-level warnings about a looming crisis comes at a time when Christian belief and the Church of England appear under attack on a number of fronts.

Recent census figures have shown a decline of more than 10 per cent in a decade in numbers of people who call themselves Christian, and the courts have rejected a series of pleas from Christians for respect from the law for their beliefs.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Many are called but few are chosen

So what?

[Big RR]

I just noticed this:

the courts have rejected a series of pleas from Christians for respect from the law for their beliefs.

Does anyone have any idea which Christian beliefs said the law is free to disrespect? I don't think there are any laws in the US that disrespect Christian beliefs, unless those beliefs somehow also include imposing their views on others (which is not a tenet of any Christian belief so far as I know, although some fundamental islamics believe that they can and should impose their beliefs on the heathen).

Indeed, at the core of Christianity is the free choice (and let's not get bogged down on predestination and derail this thread) is the absolute right to accept or reject the "good news". Jesus taught by example, and invited, not commanded, people to follow his path; imposing beliefs on others was not part of his plan, nor should it be part of christianity, even though many have done exactly the opposite in the name of christ.

[Scooter]

I just noticed this:

the courts have rejected a series of pleas from Christians for respect from the law for their beliefs.

Does anyone have any idea which Christian beliefs said the law is free to disrespect?

I suspect they are referring, at least in part, to the fact that the law does not permit them to use their superstitions as justification for discriminatory treatment against those whom their superstitions require them to hate.

[Big RR]

I don't know, they're pretty much free to discriminate all they want in their churches and private lives without any legal problems. True, they may not be able to do the same in many business or public positions, but then jesus did teach to "render unto Caesar ...".

[MajGenl.Meade]

I just noticed this:

the courts have rejected a series of pleas from Christians for respect from the law for their beliefs.

Does anyone have any idea which Christian beliefs said the law is free to disrespect?

I suspect they are referring, at least in part, to the fact that the law does not permit them to use their superstitions as justification for discriminatory treatment against those whom their superstitions require them to hate.

Thank goodness there are no Christian superstitions requiring them to "hate" anyone at all. There are a whole lot of whackjobs out there who create their own "hate" scenarios though - that's true. Some people even "hate" Christianity, I'm given to understand.

What Big RR said is what I meant by "so what?" If I understand the Bible correctly (and I do but I'm trying to be humble ), whether or not any denomination or any church goes out of existence or otherwise does not derail God's plan one bit. If the entire Church of England vanished, that does not alter anything - except the existence of that particular organization. It might be an unfortunate thing - it might be sad - but it doesn't change a thing, in the long run (sorry about that LR).

[dgs49]

Speaking of Europe generally and based purely on attendance, I don't think it is too far off the mark to assess the "Church" as MAINLY the custodian of a lot of beautiful old buildings with historical significance. If the governments withdrew all forms of direct and indirect support, the churches and cathedrals could only survive as tourist attractions, if that.

[Long Run]

It might be an unfortunate thing - it might be sad - but it doesn't change a thing, in the long run (sorry about that LR).

Thanks for that, but maybe they could change their tragectory by adding bingo nights for a little excitement for the young folks.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Too Catholic! (Even for the C of E)

[rubato]

"...

Lord Carey laid the blame at the feet of Church leaders who he said should be 'ashamed' of their failure to bring youngsters into their services. ... "

Typical conservative. Blame someone else then turn your brain off.


But in this case religions' failure has been our gain.

yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

At least they have the sense to blame someone before they turn their brains off...

[Lord Jim]

At least they have the sense to blame someone before they turn their brains off...

Just by having a brain to turn off they're one up on rube...

[MajGenl.Meade]

"...
Lord Carey laid the blame at the feet of Church leaders who he said should be 'ashamed' of their failure to bring youngsters into their services. ... "

Typical conservative. Blame someone else then turn your brain off. But in this case religions' failure has been our gain.
yrs,
rubato

That is rather silly rubato. Carey is in fact a bit of a mild leftist theologically and socially though not nearly as liberal as, say, Leon Trotsky. He heartily supports the ordination of women bishops; he supports civil law unions for homosexuals; he opposes legal enforcement of church marriage of homosexuals. He believes he has already ordained a bishop or two whom he suspected of being involved in homosexual relationships (that seems a bit hypocritical but more cogently it's not a very conservative reaction).

The "someone else" he blames is the leadership of the church of England, which he blamed in the exact same way when he was part of that leadership and still the active Archie. Since retirement, he has done the exact opposite of "turning his brain off" and has continued to engage the church and society according to his beliefs as described above.

Therefore, the first two elements of your post are rubbish as to fact. The third element is your opinion and while I may disagree, that's also just an opinion.

Meade

[rubato]

"Liberal" to you is "conservative" by more general standards. And if he had said "WE should be ashamed" and admitted it was his own fault equally, since he is the retired Archbishop of Canterbury, I would have let it go.


But the real reason that religion is failing in England is that the social welfare network and universal HC mean that people are not miserable and sick enough to go begging for crumbs from the church. Government has done for society what religion never did, actually make life better and reduce poverty, and this is true in most of the rest of the G-20.

This is why American conservatives are trying to keep as many as possible in misery, sickness, poverty, and fear ; they know that superstition is a tougher sell to a healthy and prosperous society who are confident in their futures.

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

You are such a funny person You think a pro-female bishop, pro-civil rights (and union) for homosexuals person is ipso fact 'conservative'. Of course, I can't imagine why I'd find that left of the CofE center, let alone the right wing that Carey detests.

Why should Carey be ashamed of his mildly leftists efforts to change things which were voted down by the opposition? Would you say the same for Obama in any of the vote losses he has experienced - he's to blame and should be saying so? Of course not.

There you go again with false equivalence - I admire the skill though. Being neither English nor in the faith you are an expert in neither. (Me too though, it must be said). Oddly enough people never flocked to church to obtain social welfare and health care - nor did having wealth and health mean people were happy and did not heed religious impulses. People generally don't go to church to feel happy nor does either happiness or misery per se cause them to be religious.

At present, I'd guess from my own experience (look up the word) that the English (of which I are one) are the biggest bunch of whiners in the world - complaining constantly about everything from the weather, to the wogs, to the queers, to the bigots, to the homophobes, to the right wing idiots, to the poor, to the rich, to Europe, to isolationists and the list goes on endlessly. Spend some time there and really listen.

The failure of the church of England - in my opinion - is that it has kowtowed to post modernism and made itself irrelevant by not being an alternative to the alienation of society which no amount of free (ha ha) medical care or sucking at the public mammary can prevent. It is mired in its own vestments, its own stale and dead liturgy which is as relevant to Christianity as you are, and its own theological confusion. The lack of young persons in the church has also more do with TV, video games, social networking and the general growth of laissez faire ignorance.

Not that it really matters (as I've said before) since the success or failure of any church (or indeed all of them) is utterly irrelevent to the salvation of those who have been and will be saved. At least, that's so according to the Bible which is kind of the authoritative manual.

Meade

[dgs49]

In THIS country, the Roman Catholic church is prospering in the relatively affluent suburbs, and in the cities, where most churches are placed in working class neighborhoods that are - shall we say - no longer as prosperous, churchs are closing and consolidating at an alarming pace.

Catholic schools and social organizations have no requirement that beneficiaries be Catholic, and in fact, many Catholic grade schools and high schools are barely half Catholic, with large numbers of "minority" students attending on a partial or full-scholarship basis.

Helps the basketball and football teams, don't you know.

Which is not to say that the rubato person is entirely full of shit.

[Big RR]

And if he had said "WE should be ashamed" and admitted it was his own fault equally, since he is the retired Archbishop of Canterbury, I would have let it go.

You mean like "We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We are one generation away from extinction – if we do not invest in young people there is going to be no one in the future." (OP, Par 3; emphasis added)?

[dgs49]

Like it or not, the learning paradigm of "Christianity" up from the early part of the 20th century until the Beatles era was that children were indoctrinated (literally) by force until about 13 or 14 years old, then encouraged to remain "faithful" until such time as their parents no longer held sway. The early indoctrination took the form of rote repetition, and memorization of key elements of the faith. In the ideal case, they "fell away" from the Church in young-adulthood (classically, while in college), then, when they became emotional adults they ultimately drew on the early indoctrination, realized that although it was force-fed at a child-directed level, it made sense, and they came back to the church. Usually. Then they raised their kids the same way.

Then, in the '70's we concluded that indoctrinating children was a form of mind-slavery, and we tried to keep them interested by making Church and "Sunday School" fun - mainly consisting of empty-headed nonsense and slogans. So when they inevitably got bored with it in early adulthood they went away, and stayed away, since there was no substance to the early-years religious education (formerly indoctrination).

This generation of parents was never taught to take their Faith seriously, so why would you expect them to force their children to take it seriously?

[Big RR]

[quotewe tried to keep them interested by making Church and "Sunday School" fun - mainly consisting of empty-headed nonsense and slogans. So when they inevitably got bored with it in early adulthood they went away, and stayed away, since there was no substance to the early-years religious education (formerly indoctrination).
][/quote]

For many churches this sadly was the case; but church can be made more "fun" by making it more relevant, encouraging people to live their faith rather than recite mindless slogans, or the mindless bible verses/catechisms of the indoctrination era. Get people out establishing/working in food pantries, helping after disasters, etc. and you'll see a faith far more relevant and vital than the boring faith of our grandparents or the slick, Madison avenue faith of our parents. I think this is a bit of what the archbishop was getting at, we can arrange the deck chairs on the titanic or we can help load the lifeboats. But many organized religions are just happy to arrange the deck chairs, or maybe put bright new cushions and bows on them, than to address the problems at hand. It's far easier to discuss things from a sense of detachment than to wade into the fray and do what's needed.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well said Big RR. (And dgs, speak for the Roman practise - which is not the same thing as "the Church".