43% of millennials ‘don’t know, don’t care, don’t believe’ God exists: study

[loveofourlord]

Yes, the stark contrast between the old and new system and content of education is great and terrible. There is no such thing as a worldview-netural system of education.

Schools aren't meant to be worldview neutral, they are meant to be opinion neutral. They are to teach the best we understand of the world, no more teach A Christian understanding of science or other subjects then a Muslim one.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

In a country where many people aren't Christian, you should be allowed to interfere with public life to the same level you be happy Muslims dictating public life based upon Sharia, or Hindu's or other religions.

There is also a great saying I've heard, "When Christianity takes over government, it won't be YOUR Christianity, AKA chances are you will disagree with it. For those that want prayer in school, do you want mandatory confessionals to priests, or other things you might not agree with?

The problem with the argument from tolerance is that it only ends up diluting existing ideas, groups or things instead of maintaining them. It doesn't strengthen Christianity or Christendom in general, it only encourages the dissolution of Christianity into the grey of liberal secular progressivism.

A society can never truly be broadly tolerant of everything. There are always limits or else the whole things falls apart. Liberal democracy is no different in this regard than past Christian monarchies. It's almost as fanatical as the inquisition.

Look at Europe for example. Has toleration of Muslims and mass immigration of Muslims made Europe better? To the Muslim it has, but not to the Christian or even the secularist atheist Euro. Yet in Europe and the west it is considered an illicit criticism. When Hungary limits immigration it is shunned by the European community. Why? Because it wants to preserve a Hungarian way of life and this goes completely counter our liberal sensibilities.

The question I have for you is simple. Why should I support a system which seems to utterly corrosive to Christendom?

 

[loveofourlord]

The problem with the argument from tolerance is that it only ends up diluting existing ideas, groups or things instead of maintaining them. It doesn't strengthen Christianity or Christendom in general, it only encourages the dissolution of Christianity into the grey of liberal secular progressivism.

A society can never truly be broadly tolerant of everything. There are always limits or else the whole things falls apart. Liberal democracy is no different in this regard than past Christian monarchies. It's almost as fanatical as the inquisition.

Look at Europe for example. Has toleration of Muslims and mass immigration of Muslims made Europe better? To the Muslim it has, but not to the Christian or even the secularist atheist Euro. Yet in Europe and the west it is considered an illicit criticism. When Hungary limits immigration it is shunned by the European community. Why? Because it wants to preserve a Hungarian way of life and this goes completely counter our liberal sensibilities.

The question I have for you is simple. Why should I support a system which seems to utterly corrosive to Christendom?

And why would others support a system corrosive to their beliefs and morals, you live in a society and country that is secular that doesn't get to make rules based on religion or such. If you don't want Muslims doing it then you know why others don't want you doing it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

And why would others support a system corrosive to their beliefs and morals, you live in a society and country that is secular that doesn't get to make rules based on religion or such. If you don't want Muslims doing it then you know why others don't want you doing it.

It's quite obvious why I would support a system which would be corrosive to the forces I don't believe in and consider negative or bad. I don't want those systems of thought or those sorts of communities to flourish. Islam should not really be tolerated in the western world, were it sane. But the sort of thinking which you represent leaves people unable to consider the risks of a growing Muslim presence in a part of the world which has completely antithetical values.

When did I ever suggest I don't want Muslims to enforce their culture? I don't like it, but I don't hold Muslims to a different standard. They have every right to preserve their way of life to the exclusion of the infidel. Likewise, I consider Islam the enemy and any attempt to get them to not persecute Christians comes from a sense of duty towards my fellow Christians. Not liberal notions of unending and boundless tolerance of everything I disagree with. Because once you agree with the latter premise, Christians then become unable to effectively proselytize, unable to be an effective counter force within society. Like Christians currently now are in the West.

 

[Believer000]

Jesus predicted this. He said once He returns would He find faith on earth?.

 

[Taodeching]

Makes you wonder what we believers are failing to do or doing to cause these depressing statistics. But then again, politics and ideologies have become the new religion.

43% of millennials 'don’t know, don’t care, don’t believe' God exists: study

I wonder what millennials though, there are two groups of millennials.

 

[Michie]

I wonder what millennials though, there are two groups of millennials.

True.

 

[CatsRule2020]

I attended a college and was a member of a very conservative church with a new building, some years ago. The church was maybe a quarter mile away from the college.
I went online yesterday to see how that town looks today. The town has grown in population about 25% and the college has added some new buildings. However, when I traveled the Google map to the church building I used to attend, it was now a secular business. I know churches are losing members but to be so near a place of constant incoming prospects, only to have to have to close up and sell, is mind blowing.

I had to go back in time and recall what that church was teaching when I left college and ventured out into the the big bad world.

1. They never kept up with the science supporting the philosophy of Evolution.

2. They never considered that the Old Testament was written to reach a primitive illiterate people.

3.They failed to check crucial words in the Old and New Testaments concerning the GLTB issue, before publicly attempting to address the issue.

4.They would teach that the Bible only contained tiny print errors of grammar and that it was infallible word for word.

5. They allowed politics to influence their mission.


By the way, I found what was left of that congregation on the other side of the town, meeting in a tiny nondescript building.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Churches have never ceased to push piety and all the agenda items of Christianity.

I never said that churches have ceased to push piety, though I would absolutely argue against the notion that they've pushed "all the agenda items of Christianity." Have they pushed some of the agenda items? Sure. But lots and lots of churches are pretty selective about the agenda items they choose to push.

It's not as if you can say the Churches are guilty of gunning for Republicans only. Progressive Churches, Episcopalian, other mainline denominations and black Churches will almost exclusively vote Democrat and go along with those policies. Religion being political then is not a problem. Do those progressive Churches bare no guilt then to selling out to the Democrat party and it's values? Or is that you agree with the Left and it's agenda, so that doesn't matter?

I think there are a lot of problems in other branches of Christianity, too, but I talk about the culture with which I'm most familiar. From what I've seen of liberal mainline (mostly white) churches, they're much more into the ideals of liberalism than they are the Democratic party. Predominantly black churches (which I'm also not terribly familiar with) have been very political, but a good chunk of that was originally imposed upon them during Jim Crow.

An overlap between liberal and Christian values? Only a liberal Christian could say that, so it seems to me you are arguing for Liberal Christianity. Whether you accept the label or not. That would get us into a whole different debate though.

I'd argue that the only way to argue your position is to either be ignorant of modern liberalism or to have one's own Christianity improperly infused with contemporary American political conservatism.

As I've already noted, there are many ideals floating around modern liberalism that line up with traditional Christian values. Environmentalism, for example, promotes stewardship and self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. Various social justice movements promote (depending on exactly which ones we're talking about) a suite of virtues including sexual restraint; care for the poor, weak, and oppressed; accountability for those in power; compassion and love for others; and personal humility.

No, the overlap isn't perfect and there are some very substantive differences that could constitute deal-breakers for certain individuals trying to live entirely in both camps. But I argue that there's enough overlap that, had the American evangelicofundamentalist church stuck to its Biblical roots instead of selling out to politicians and embracing the worst parts of fundamentalist culture, then it would've maintained its own credibility and had a voice and influence in modern, secular culture. How great would it have been if the church had had the influence to look at modern culture and say, "Hey, we're glad that you're finally coming around on the ideas of caring for the poor; speaking truth to power; not flaunting your wealth and status; not forcing yourself on women; taking care of the resources you've been given; etc. We've been promoting those same values for 2,000 years. Let's find common ground to work together."

Instead, we get asinine complaints about Marxism.

Even the most religious commentators I listen to, like Steven Crowder or Ben Shapiro, or Andrew Klavan want to abide and preserve the current American system. They want to preserve a society of individual liberty which I see as poison to the prospects of Christianity in any society because Christianity at it's core is not an individualistic philosophy. Even Michael Knowles, who is right to argue it was good to censor commies, doesn't want a state Church but insists on Christianity being the societal standard. That's as far as conservatives in the USA at the moment are willing to go.

These are commentators who appeal to the sensibilities of the religious right in America, who are still too tied to their concepts of the USA to think of any other possibility. Even on these forums there are conservative Americans who will not consider any other government aside of secular democratic/constitutional democracy. I think your perception of the right and how they function in the USA is based on a misapprehension. They don't want to radically overturn society. Not yet any way. God willing they might consider it one day.

Then maybe you should listen to some of the more overtly religious commentators - for example, folks from the American Family Association and whomever took over for Dobson. That whole crowd. They've been open for decades about wanting to shape American into a more "Christian society." They probably wouldn't tell you outright that they want to implement a theocracy, but if you look at the policies they espouse, they're pushing in that general direction.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The problem with the argument from tolerance is that it only ends up diluting existing ideas, groups or things instead of maintaining them. It doesn't strengthen Christianity or Christendom in general, it only encourages the dissolution of Christianity into the grey of liberal secular progressivism.

A society can never truly be broadly tolerant of everything. There are always limits or else the whole things falls apart. Liberal democracy is no different in this regard than past Christian monarchies. It's almost as fanatical as the inquisition.

Look at Europe for example. Has toleration of Muslims and mass immigration of Muslims made Europe better? To the Muslim it has, but not to the Christian or even the secularist atheist Euro. Yet in Europe and the west it is considered an illicit criticism. When Hungary limits immigration it is shunned by the European community. Why? Because it wants to preserve a Hungarian way of life and this goes completely counter our liberal sensibilities.

The question I have for you is simple. Why should I support a system which seems to utterly corrosive to Christendom?

It's a rather shallow and twisted form of Christianity that thrives in isolation and sees outsiders as corrosive forces.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's a rather shallow and twisted form of Christianity that thrives in isolation and sees outsiders as corrosive forces.

It's a plain acknowledgement of the truth. For instance, why should we as Christians think Islam is a positive force for Christianity and it's growth? Is the same true with atheism? Has the sexual revolution been a good thing for Christianity?

How am I wrong?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I never said that churches have ceased to push piety, though I would absolutely argue against the notion that they've pushed "all the agenda items of Christianity." Have they pushed some of the agenda items? Sure. But lots and lots of churches are pretty selective about the agenda items they choose to push.

Lot’s of Churches and Christians of liberal and conservative are selective about what they push. I’ve noticed there are Liberal Roman Catholics who refuse to acknowledge what their Church says about the nature of LGBT people and how they are intrinsically disordered. It is clear that they disagree with the teaching of their Church.

I just don’t see how you blame traditional or conservative alone Churches of being guilty of this.

I think there are a lot of problems in other branches of Christianity, too, but I talk about the culture with which I'm most familiar. From what I've seen of liberal mainline (mostly white) churches, they're much more into the ideals of liberalism than they are the Democratic party. Predominantly black churches (which I'm also not terribly familiar with) have been very political, but a good chunk of that was originally imposed upon them during Jim Crow.

If the problem in your mind is politics being mixed with religion you cannot only blame one side then and act as if they are the problem or somehow contributing to a decline in Christianity. Liberal Churches are incredibly political in what they teach and go along with the modern culture. This doesn’t seem to prevent them going through the same sort of demographic collapse we see happening broadly in the west concerning Christianity.

Hence it seems to me that it is the culture we live in that doesn’t foster any need to become Christian. The countries and their modern day ethos’ which accord Christianity little to no credibility.

I'd argue that the only way to argue your position is to either be ignorant of modern liberalism or to have one's own Christianity improperly infused with contemporary American political conservatism.

How is Christianity, improperly infused with political conservatism? You might not like it, but how is it improper exactly? The two go hand in hand, as an appeal to traditional ways of living and retaining the past.

As I've already noted, there are many ideals floating around modern liberalism that line up with traditional Christian values. Environmentalism, for example, promotes stewardship and self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. Various social justice movements promote (depending on exactly which ones we're talking about) a suite of virtues including sexual restraint; care for the poor, weak, and oppressed; accountability for those in power; compassion and love for others; and personal humility.

Those virtues find different expressions in the right. But I’m curious as to how Liberal Christians can argue for sexual restraint. Why, in the modern world where we have the technology to cure a woman inflicted with a child, should the Liberal Christian say she should restrain herself sexually? Why should men restrain themselves sexually?

Then maybe you should listen to some of the more overtly religious commentators - for example, folks from the American Family Association and whomever took over for Dobson. That whole crowd. They've been open for decades about wanting to shape American into a more "Christian society." They probably wouldn't tell you outright that they want to implement a theocracy, but if you look at the policies they espouse, they're pushing in that general direction.

More overtly religious commentators? I’ve listened to some of the bigger names and they’re all overtly religious. Who has more influence than the following people and you would say advocates completely overturning the USA? Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ben Shapiro and Stephen Crowder? Those are people I listen to or have listened to in the past and none of them advocates overturning the constitutional democracy of the USA and all of them defend it. I think they are foolish to do so because the system as it stands now will never be truly conservative.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Makes you wonder what we believers are failing to do or doing to cause these depressing statistics. But then again, politics and ideologies have become the new religion.

43% of millennials 'don’t know, don’t care, don’t believe' God exists: study

Im not surprised, they’re still young. Many people don’t come to Christ until later in life.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's a plain acknowledgement of the truth. For instance, why should we as Christians think Islam is a positive force for Christianity and it's growth? Is the same true with atheism? Has the sexual revolution been a good thing for Christianity?

How am I wrong?

I think any outside culture has the potential to be a positive force for Christianity. There is no witnessing if there is no one to witness to. There is no being a light without some sort of darkness.

Lot’s of Churches and Christians of liberal and conservative are selective about what they push. I’ve noticed there are Liberal Roman Catholics who refuse to acknowledge what their Church says about the nature of LGBT people and how they are intrinsically disordered. It is clear that they disagree with the teaching of their Church.

I just don’t see how you blame traditional or conservative alone Churches of being guilty of this.

If the problem in your mind is politics being mixed with religion you cannot only blame one side then and act as if they are the problem or somehow contributing to a decline in Christianity. Liberal Churches are incredibly political in what they teach and go along with the modern culture. This doesn’t seem to prevent them going through the same sort of demographic collapse we see happening broadly in the west concerning Christianity.

Hence it seems to me that it is the culture we live in that doesn’t foster any need to become Christian. The countries and their modern day ethos’ which accord Christianity little to no credibility.

I don't know why you think I blame conservative churches alone.

But if the concern is decline in church attendance, they're the ones who make up the bulk of church attendees in this country and, thus, are the ones with the most numbers to lose. They're also the most vocal and most culturally and politically influential. IOW, the mainline denominations are already irrelevant and, outside the black community, the black denominations were never relevant. The only denominations that have the ability to turn people off in large numbers now are the ones making the most noise now - and that's the evangelical / fundamentalist / charismatic groups.

How is Christianity, improperly infused with political conservatism? You might not like it, but how is it improper exactly? The two go hand in hand, as an appeal to traditional ways of living and retaining the past.

There's nothing inherently Christian about "traditional ways of living and retaining the past." There are many things from the past that should be discarded. Hanging onto something merely because we've always done it is arguably a step towards idolatry.

Racial attitudes are a good example. Conservative Christian groups have a long history of supporting racist ideas and practices and of resisting progress on those issues in greater society.

Those virtues find different expressions in the right. But I’m curious as to how Liberal Christians can argue for sexual restraint. Why, in the modern world where we have the technology to cure a woman inflicted with a child, should the Liberal Christian say she should restrain herself sexually? Why should men restrain themselves sexually?

The whole MeToo movement is about a form of sexual restraint.

More overtly religious commentators? I’ve listened to some of the bigger names and they’re all overtly religious. Who has more influence than the following people and you would say advocates completely overturning the USA? Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ben Shapiro and Stephen Crowder? Those are people I listen to or have listened to in the past and none of them advocates overturning the constitutional democracy of the USA and all of them defend it. I think they are foolish to do so because the system as it stands now will never be truly conservative.

I never claimed anybody advocated "completely overturning the USA." But it's not uncommon at all for advocates of certain policies (restrictions on LGBTQ rights comes to mind) to be guilty of attempting to foist rules on the rest of society that are entirely religious in nature.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I think any outside culture has the potential to be a positive force for Christianity. There is no witnessing if there is no one to witness to. There is no being a light without some sort of darkness.

What outside culture? What specifically? When I identify Islam as a corrosive force to Christianity or secular liberaldom as a corrosive force it is from the position of an observer, seeing things from a historical advantage.

This should be obvious with regards to Islam because historically Islam whenever it has been in a position of dominance never let Christianity or the infidel thrive. They kept the people of the book in their dhimmi status and told Christians if they tried to convert a Muslim to the faith, they would execute them. Islam, unlike western Christianity, has not shed it's fundamental religious character hence why the emergence of Islam in the west is corrosive.

With regards secular liberalism. How can it be argued that since the enlightenment the Church has not only ever been in retreat? Christianity is the not the guiding force of the west any more and why should we expect it to thrive in the current conditions it faces? You want to blame a specific conservative subset of Christianity as the leading cause in the USA, namely Evangelical conservatives. Yet it goes beyond any criticism of that community (and I have plenty) to the wider social order. IN a society which encourages individual liberty and praises it and makes it the rule, Christianity being a norm is impossible. Because Christianity has at it the idea of a social contract between it's members. This is why one of the only groups growing are the Amish, despite any flaws you can attribute to them.

When you open the door for practices which were regarded as immoral only a century ago and give wider and wider permissiveness to practice them, as secular liberal democracy does, why be surprised at how this corrodes Christendom in the west?

I don't know why you think I blame conservative churches alone.

Mainly because you seem more concerned with them and never mention the liberal Churches which engage in politics.

Still, why is this a bad thing inherently for the Church or Christians to be politically active?

But if the concern is decline in church attendance, they're the ones who make up the bulk of church attendees in this country and, thus, are the ones with the most numbers to lose. They're also the most vocal and most culturally and politically influential. IOW, the mainline denominations are already irrelevant and, outside the black community, the black denominations were never relevant. The only denominations that have the ability to turn people off in large numbers now are the ones making the most noise now - and that's the evangelical / fundamentalist / charismatic groups.

It goes beyond just Church attendance to the whole of our society and what we are immersed in. Can it be argued that we live in a Christian culture in any western country? That we have positive forces that seek to reinforce our faith? You might say that's what it means to live in a secular democracy but that's part of the problem of why Christianity has no appeal to the masses of young people today. They are awash in a progressive culture, not a Christian one.

There's nothing inherently Christian about "traditional ways of living and retaining the past." There are many things from the past that should be discarded. Hanging onto something merely because we've always done it is arguably a step towards idolatry.

I was describing conservatism and how it wants to retain a religious identity rooted in tradition and the past. Not making an argument for it, though I believe that to be the wisest course. I understand why you as a progressive Christian would not accept the historic standards of Christianity.

Racial attitudes are a good example. Conservative Christian groups have a long history of supporting racist ideas and practices and of resisting progress on those issues in greater society.

Isn't it the left who argues that blacks should get preferential treatment to bring about equity?

I also find it hilarious that the first thing the leftist appeals to is racism, as if people on the left had not been historically racist. But hey, if you think this is just an excuse to boost racism, feel free to think that.

The whole MeToo movement is about a form of sexual restraint.

It also lead to people being accused falsely and unable to defend themselves. The sexual ethics on the left are unable to deal with metoo effectively because they don't understand human nature and the restraint one must put on one's life. I recall Mike Pence was criticized for not meeting with women alone because it would deny them opportunities, yet his rule prevents the sort of thing we see with men who are less controlled.

Still, would you not support the sexual revolution more broadly? No fault divorce, inappropriate contentography, sex outside of marriage and the like? If not, why not?

I never claimed anybody advocated "completely overturning the USA." But it's not uncommon at all for advocates of certain policies (restrictions on LGBTQ rights comes to mind) to be guilty of attempting to foist rules on the rest of society that are entirely religious in nature.

Actually none of the people I listed advocate for restricting the individual freedom of the homosexual to do whatever they want. Which is part of the problem and why the right continually looses the culture war.

Have you ever listened to a widely respected Conservative commentator?

 

[iluvatar5150]

What outside culture? What specifically? When I identify Islam as a corrosive force to Christianity or secular liberaldom as a corrosive force it is from the position of an observer, seeing things from a historical advantage.

This should be obvious with regards to Islam because historically Islam whenever it has been in a position of dominance never let Christianity or the infidel thrive. They kept the people of the book in their dhimmi status and told Christians if they tried to convert a Muslim to the faith, they would execute them. Islam, unlike western Christianity, has not shed it's fundamental religious character hence why the emergence of Islam in the west is corrosive.

With regards secular liberalism. How can it be argued that since the enlightenment the Church has not only ever been in retreat? Christianity is the not the guiding force of the west any more and why should we expect it to thrive in the current conditions it faces? You want to blame a specific conservative subset of Christianity as the leading cause in the USA, namely Evangelical conservatives. Yet it goes beyond any criticism of that community (and I have plenty) to the wider social order. IN a society which encourages individual liberty and praises it and makes it the rule, Christianity being a norm is impossible. Because Christianity has at it the idea of a social contract between it's members. This is why one of the only groups growing are the Amish, despite any flaws you can attribute to them.

The United States has been a secular society based on personal freedoms for a couple hundred years; Christianity has been the norm for all but the last handful of years.

When you open the door for practices which were regarded as immoral only a century ago and give wider and wider permissiveness to practice them, as secular liberal democracy does, why be surprised at how this corrodes Christendom in the west?

I don't think the cultural acceptance of certain practices corrodes Christendom. I think what corrodes Christendom are Christian responses to those practices. In some cases, their hyper-overreaction (e.g. reaction to sexual issues) is what corrodes Christendom. In other cases, it's their acceptance and adoption of those sins (e.g. the selfishness inherent in capitalism; narcissistic celebrity culture) that undermines them.

It's possible to respond to things in society you disagree with in a responsible and wise manner that may not always win you converts, but that still maintains the dignity and respect of you and your institutions. Too many churches take shortcuts.

Still, why is this a bad thing inherently for the Church or Christians to be politically active?

I didn't say it was.

It goes beyond just Church attendance to the whole of our society and what we are immersed in. Can it be argued that we live in a Christian culture in any western country? That we have positive forces that seek to reinforce our faith? You might say that's what it means to live in a secular democracy but that's part of the problem of why Christianity has no appeal to the masses of young people today. They are awash in a progressive culture, not a Christian one.

Until about the 1960's, American culture attempted to be overtly Christian.

The problem was that large parts of that culture used Christianity as cover for racism, misogyny, and a host of other disfunctions. The Christian culture that existed then was garbage and it's nobody's fault but the Christians who imposed it.

True Christianity can have loads of appeal if you know how to communicate with people, which many of the more conservative Christians IME don't know how to do.

I understand why you as a progressive Christian would not accept the historic standards of Christianity.

Please stop. You've tried to assess me and my beliefs a number of times and you keep getting them wrong.

I also find it hilarious that the first thing the leftist appeals to is racism, as if people on the left had not been historically racist. But hey, if you think this is just an excuse to boost racism, feel free to think that.

Nevermind. It's clear you're not here to converse in good faith.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The United States has been a secular society based on personal freedoms for a couple hundred years; Christianity has been the norm for all but the last handful of years.

Last handful of years? Try the last century and a half. The length of time of Chrisitanity being a dominant force only matters if in that time Christianity continues to grow in strength. If the faith has declined over time, I would say it's declined since at least the 60s with the sexual revolution in the USA then what does that tell us?

You want to put the blame for the collapse on conservative Christian approach to morality. More likely the Evangelical side, whereas that seems completely inaccurate to me. The whole culture of liberalism and the increasing toleration for ideas which were once considered immoral in American society is what has made Christianity unpalatable.

It's not jus the last few years. It's been decades in the making.

I don't think the cultural acceptance of certain practices corrodes Christendom. I think what corrodes Christendom are Christian responses to those practices. In some cases, their hyper-overreaction (e.g. reaction to sexual issues) is what corrodes Christendom. In other cases, it's their acceptance and adoption of those sins (e.g. the selfishness inherent in capitalism; narcissistic celebrity culture) that undermines them.

How does the current culture have no impact on Christianity? As people are consumers and members of society, what we consume and associate with is what defines us and guides us. Laws, Media, Education and a whole number of factors come into the development of anyone growing up. Now, given the collapse of Christianity in these arenas, why should we be surprised that there are kids growing up not knowing anything about the faith?

Take for instance education. You perhaps support secular education and keeping Christianity out of the curriculum in a fashion that doesn't promote it. But what's the consequence of that? The position that Christianity once filled has been replaced by education focused on raising up the system, on teaching the good of secular liberal democracy and thin vaneer of an attempt to be 'neutral.' Classical education doesn't exist and thus no one has any grounding in western society.

This goes beyond culture to law itself. Take no fault divorce. Are we surprised that the divorce rate is so high? Are we surprised with libertine free speech laws that Christ is publicly mocked? That the obscene and decadent are allowed to do whatever they want in public?

In blaming the reaction to this, in saying that Christians are at fault and should submit to the progressive system you are arguing for Christianity to change with the times. A proposition I and most others of the same opinion cannot accept. Christianity should not be assimilated into progressive secularism.

It's possible to respond to things in society you disagree with in a responsible and wise manner that may not always win you converts, but that still maintains the dignity and respect of you and your institutions. Too many churches take shortcuts.

In order to do that you need a strategy and broad agreement on what the outcome should be. There is no such broad agreement within Christianity to effectively counter the current culture and therefore Christianity in the West is weak. I'm not completely despairing. Demographic collapse can result in a small but hyper dedicated group and I suspect that the first demographic to disappear from this world will be Liberal Christians, like the Episcopalian Church USA.

The problem was that large parts of that culture used Christianity as cover for racism, misogyny, and a host of other disfunctions. The Christian culture that existed then was garbage and it's nobody's fault but the Christians who imposed it.

Given that you seem to reject classical Christian culture with regards to gender roles and seem to celebrate the obliteration of that culture. How are you strengthening Christianity with this position instead of merging it with secular progressive liberalism?

True Christianity can have loads of appeal if you know how to communicate with people, which many of the more conservative Christians IME don't know how to do.

Christianity can have appeal to people. Your brand of Christianity is indistinguishable from the society around you, therefore why should anyone believe it? They can get what they need spiritually from wicca or any number of esoteric ideas, like gender ideology or LGBT inclusion.

 

[dzheremi]

When all of the impulses that may have in other contexts been nurtured within a Christian paradigm can now be nurtured within a non-religious paradigm without the attendant guilt and/or shame found in many forms of Christianity, it shouldn't be surprising that so many people choose the non-religious avenue.

So I think part of it might be the yardstick that people are choosing to measure everything by. There's no competing with every societal influence out there, as though if we could only get back to time or circumstance X, things would magically be better (re: prayer in school, a certain % of weekly church attendance, whatever). That's a losing battle not because Christianity is somehow not the better option, but because 'winning' in this context would involve deforming the faith to absolutely no good end, such that it becomes indistinguishable from the world (more or less what our friend Ignatius has observed in this thread about what happens to Christianity that carries worldly approval). Only in the case of American pop Evangelicalism, I must be honest and say that I think it still is distinguishable, in that it's worse. To quote Fr. Andrew S. Damick of the Antiochian Orthodox Church concerning the project of making 'Christian-branded' entertainment, the world's rock'n'roll is quite simply better rock'n'roll. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯