If the religious left believes in one thing it’s that religious conservatives are doomed.
America is becoming more religiously liberal with each generation, and religious conservatives, though more numerous now, will become dinosaurs. That’s the confident projection of a new poll from the liberal leaning Public Religion Research Institute. It’s predictably gotten good media play, as claims about irrelevance for religious conservatives often do. And it supplements other polls supposedly proving the rise of the religiously unaffiliated in America.
The Left, in its alternative cosmology, believes in its own nonreligious providential destiny. But history moves in more crooked, unpredictable paths. And religious traditionalists, most of them conservative, believe that history has a another ultimately inexorable direction, guided by The Lord of history. The Left’s own more secular faith is often buttressed by short term trends.
“Our new research shows a complex religious landscape, with religious conservatives holding an advantage over religious progressives in terms of size and homogeneity,” PPRI admitted when releasing its poll. “However, the percentage of religious conservatives shrinks in each successive generation, with religious progressives outnumbering religious conservatives in the Millennial generation.”
Nearly half of the older than age 66 crowd is religiously conservative, while less than 20 percent of the under 33 crowd is. Only 12 percent of oldsters are religiously liberal while almost a quarter of the young are. So — presto — the future belongs to the Religious Left. As the much vaunted Millennial Generation ages into leadership, the Religious Right’s doom supposedly will be sealed.
This determinism of course assumes that these Millennials will not change their views as they age. And it assumes subsequent generations will not react against previous generations, even though most generations, when young, assume they are wiser and therefore must be different from their immediate predecessors. In the future, a new crop of youngsters will look somewhat smugly on the by-then aging Millennials.
The PPRI poll, done with the Brookings Institution, shows only 19 percent of Americans overall are religious progressives, compared to 28 percent who are religious conservatives, while 38 percent are religious moderates. Fifteen percent are nonreligious. The survey emphasized views on economic issues, not social issues. Predictably religious liberals want more government-orchestrated equality, and religious conservatives want more economic freedom and opportunity. When focused strictly on theology, 39 percent are conservative versus 19 percent liberal.
Unsurprisingly, the poll also showed that religion is less important to religious liberals than for conservatives. Eleven percent of religious progressives say religion is most important compared to 59 percent of religious conservatives. And nearly 90 percent of religious liberals believe religion should be a private matter, limiting its political application, while only about half of conservatives agreed.
At the poll’s unveiling, former New York Times religion writer Peter Steinfels readily admitted that religious liberals will not necessarily outpace conservatives in American politics. He doubted religion for liberals “can play anything like the motivating, energizing, and organizing force of religion among religious conservatives.”
The head of PPRI likewise admitted that religious progressives are a more “complicated heterogeneous group of people to communicate with and organize with.” They are less committed to religious institutions and less frequent attenders of places of worship than are religious conservatives.
Still, some media reports have latched onto the poll as evidence of the Religious Left’s ascendancy, even though the premise only works if each generation stays on the same fixed trajectory. Secular elites have nearly always reserved special contempt for religious conservatives, befuddled by their vast numbers in middle America, and miffed by their intransigence to the full liberal agenda. They never figured out how to outflank them, since most religious conservatives don’t care much about secular elites or their mockery. But this new poll gives hope that demography eventually will eradicate the dreaded Religious Right.
Their hopes will likely be disappointed. Many Millennials will become more religious and conservative as they age, especially if they marry and have children. And the subsequent generation almost certainly will rebel against their predecessor’s hipster outlook, just as diligent Generation Xers reacted against the soaring hippy activism of their Baby Boomer predecessors. Religious conservatives also have more children than religious liberals or secularists.
There is also the institutional collapse of organized liberal religion. All liberal-controlled denominations are suffering massive membership loss. Fifty years ago, one in six Americans belonged to the largest seven liberal Mainline Protestant denominations. Today it is one in 16. All growing denominations are theologically conservative, as are most thriving non-denominational congregations. Almost all the largest seminaries today are conservative. Among Catholics, young priests are decidedly more conservative than retired priests. Urban churches that attract the much vaunted Millennials are typically evangelical, not liberal.
Liberal religion is usually a reaction against trans-generational orthodoxy, not a sustaining alternative to it. In contrast, religious orthodoxy is not a guarantee of vibrancy and growth but it almost always is a prerequisite.
The next generation of religious conservatives may speak differently from yesterday’s Religious Right. But they will still be conservative and likely much more numerous than liberal counterparts. The Left often expects abstract tides of history to ensure its final victory. But religious liberals, who almost always dilute the doctrines of their faith to replace or supplement them with secular fads, usually ensure their own demise.
This article originally appeared on The American Spectator and was reposted with permission.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 27, 2013 at 7:53 am
I rather suspect that the survey here is accurately pointing to the way of the future. For instance, in the case of marriage equality, I think that, increasingly, those who stand opposed to gay folk getting married – which on the face of it, sounds like a good, moral, rational thing to support – will be an embarrassment and just gradually shrugged off as irrelevant and a remnant of less moral times.
Just two generations ago, it was not uncommon to still find plenty of people who thought it was morally wrong for people of different races to marry. That was the moral sentiment of the day, common in probably most churches (if not two generations, certainly three generations ago).
Now, within two generations, that view is considered an embarrassment. People, by and large, consider those who hold such views as incredibly immoral and irrational. We would go out of our way to NOT go to a church or organization that believed that.
I suspect the same trend will hold true in the area of gay folk. Before I die sometime in the next 50 years, those churches will be viewed as a sign of less moral times and people will roll their eyes and sigh at the mention that such people are still around.
Churches will most likely, by and large, accept this idea of marriage rights for all, and our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters will be embraced.
I guess we’ll see soon enough…
~Dan
Comment by Vince Talley on July 30, 2013 at 8:28 pm
If what you say is true, your church should be growing like a mushroom. Is it? What’s the average Sunday attendance? All those poor gay folk being spiritually abused by those nasty “irrational and immoral churches” – and thousands of them flocking to your fellowship of saints? Because they sure aren’t flocking to any other liberal churches. 🙂
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 30, 2013 at 9:04 pm
I have not stated that liberal churches will grow, only that – as the evidence suggests – conservative churches are likely to decline.
So, the point is rather moot, but to answer your question:
My church is 125-ish years old – always a small struggling church in the inner city, always working with the poor, the marginalized, the “least of these…” always with ~50-100 members. It got down to the lowest probably in the 1950s – 1970s, when probably it was at its most conservative (although I don’t know that for sure – just guessing based on trends of the day) and dwindled down to a dozen or two by the 70s, when a progressive Seminary student became pastor. Since then, we’ve raised back up back to about 70-100.
And yes, we do hear from a good number of gay folk who have been abused and mocked and rejected by traditional churches, many of them have joined us, many have visited us and they all are a blessing.
One of our deacons was kicked out of his church and his own family, saying if he was gay, then he could not be part of their family. And so, he’s a beloved and cherished member of our family and a great blessing to us.
The point, for us, is to be faithful, not to pull large numbers. In fact, we don’t really believe in large numbers – don’t think that’s an effective way to manage a local church. But being faithful is not always a good way to bring numbers in. We know many folk who appreciate us but don’t want to come worship with us because we are downtown, worshiping with the homeless and mentally ill, those with AIDS… and that intimidates some people. And that’s okay, that’s probably just where they’re at. The point being, the point is faithfulness, not numbers.
Peace.
Comment by Vince Talley on July 30, 2013 at 10:04 pm
In other words, the mass exodus you foretold is not happening. Liberal churches are NOT growing due to all those enlightened, hip, PC types who fled screaming from the “abusive” churches.
Gosh, I’m so shocked.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 31, 2013 at 7:22 am
The exodus is being predicted by many in the years to come. You can’t keep losing those under 30 and remain a growing church. Indeed, factually speaking, all US denominations are trending towards losing those under 30.
And I never said liberal churches would grow. “Church growth” is not our goal, typically, but faithfulness.
Why the bitter sarcasm, Brother Vince? This is the sort of thing that people are tired of. We need to embrace grace.
Peace.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 31, 2013 at 7:35 am
The mass exodus is occurring, has been occurring, by the way.
Protestant churches are losing young adults in “sobering” numbers, a survey finds.
Seven in 10 Protestants ages 18 to 30 — both evangelical and mainline — who went to church regularly in high school said they quit attending by age 23, according to the survey by LifeWay Research. And 34% of those said they had not returned, even sporadically, by age 30. That means about one in four Protestant young people have left the church.
USA Today, from 2007
That’s 1 in 4, leaving, back in 2007. In the Pew Survey of last year, that number was up to 1 in 3, for young adults.
The numbers are what the numbers are, I’m not making that up.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 31, 2013 at 8:10 am
As to this…
Liberal churches are NOT growing due to all those enlightened, hip, PC types who fled screaming from the “abusive” churches.
People are not stupid. They can see the disdain you have for them (mockingly calling them “enlightened, hip, PC…”). Why would anyone continue at a church where they are held in such obvious disdain? And the way you scare quote “abusive,” also makes light of the very real ill-treatment people have received at churches.
Again, one of our deacons was kicked out – not only of his church, but also, of his own family! – for the “crime” of being gay. That is an abuse of power (change your God-given orientation or you can no longer be part of us and, in fact, you’ll go to hell…) and yes, people do find that abusive and ugly and have no desire to be part of such a group. Your disdain for them here is just a repeat of what they have experienced there and people just won’t stick around to be beat up. And folk who do love and appreciate them won’t want to be part of that disdain and mocking, either.
Why would they?
Instead, they just want to know “Where is the Love? Where is the Grace we read about in Jesus’ teachings?”
Good questions.
Comment by Vince Talley on July 31, 2013 at 10:23 am
Apparently you didn’t read my comments. I did not express disdain for gays. I express (with good reason) disdain for churches that condone sin. In fact, I don’t think liberal churches love gays at all. Yeah, you accept them “as is.” But they’re not going to find salvation in a liberal church, because the church will tell them they’re fine just as they are. the only “sinners” that the left recognizes are people who believe in sin (mean old conservatives). Weird and warped theology, but that inevitably happens when you replace the idea of salvation with political activism. For the left, you can’t be saved from your sins or from hell, but only from the sinister clutches of the Religious Right.
Incidentally, you’ve done some major backpedaling, because your original post was so confident in predicting the swift demise of Christian churches and explosive growth of the liberals.
Btw, MY church is growing, and we owe that growth not just to the grace of God but to the UCC, Episcopalians, and PCUSA who continue to drive out the faithful. Your loss is our gain.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 31, 2013 at 11:16 am
Vince…
because your original post was so confident in predicting the swift demise of Christian churches and explosive growth of the liberals.
If you read my actual words, you will see I made no such prediction, as to the “explosive growth of the liberals…” It’s simply not there in my words. All I have done, as others have done, is point to the hard numbers that indicate that young people are leaving conservative churches, that there is an increasing trend to that end.
I do think that, failing some repentance and change on the part of conservative churches, they will become increasingly marginalized and irrelevant. I have made no predictions one way or the other about liberal churches.
Vince…
But they’re not going to find salvation in a liberal church, because the church will tell them they’re fine just as they are.
At my church, we teach the hard but wonderful teachings of Jesus. NOT to say, “You’re fine just as you are,” but to challenge us to walk in the steps of Christ our Lord.
If you think that’s easy, by all means, begin to live it out. I find it plenty challenging and nothing at all like this false charge. And “not find salvation at a liberal church…”? That’s a pretty bold and entirely unsubstantiated charge. God will use who God will use, and that may be a more liberal church, that may be a donkey, that may even be a conservative church! God certainly has used both to point me towards salvation and grace.
Grace, dear brother, Grace. Embrace it. It’s not just cheap grace for your own salvation, it’s a way of life and that is what people are wanting to see.
Seems to me.
In Christ,
Dan
Comment by Vince Talley on July 31, 2013 at 12:39 pm
Sorry, but I just don’t get all weepy about your gay deacon anecdote. Here’s why:
1. A church is a private association and can control its membership as it likes. I’m glad that some churches still maintain discipline. Given that our culture is going to hell in a handbasket, I expect the government will, soon enough, make it a crime for a church to exclude anyone. That will be a very sad day.
2. How did the church know he was gay – unless he told them? I never walked into a church and announced, “Hi, I’m straight!” Why this compulsion with outing oneself? The same loudmouths who ran around for years telling us all that it’s no one’s business what they do in the bedroom are not insistent about announcing it to the world. Why? I mean, the obvious answer is, they’re drama queens and want to stage a showdown, which gets them some attention and (obviously) gives them a great sob story to tell later. We have several single people in my church and I have no clue if they are straight or gay, and thankfully, they aren’t getting in my face to announce it. Your deacon friend probably could’ve gone on his merry way serving as a deacon, IF he didn’t have the compulsion to air his private life to people who would prefer not to hear about it. I have no use for drama queens, they are way too fixated on themselves. Church is about God and our neighbor, not lavishing attention on narcissists. I’d say the church that booted him out ought to be an example to all churches. Btw, both Paul and Jesus gave instructions about how to discipline and excommunicate, so don’t say that doing so is “unChristian.”
Comment by Greg Paley on July 31, 2013 at 5:46 pm
When a liberal tells you to “embrace grace,” he means “turn liberal.”
I found these posts so amusing that I got out my old faithful Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (aka, “Kittel”) and looked up charis, usually translated “grace.” Lots of different meanings, but didn’t see charis ever defined as “politically left-wing.”
My church’s pastor warned all of us kids before we went off to college: be on your guard about liberal churches, they will use the same theological vocabulary as orthodox churches, but the meanings will be completely different. Pastor did a good job – out of our UMYF, not one liberal in the bunch, either in theology or politics. Having committed pastors and youth workers is crucial for the churches.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 31, 2013 at 10:48 pm
Vince…
I have no use for drama queens
Fine, send them our way. We’ll take drama queens, fussy folk, gripers and all manner of sinners at our church. We are, after all, poor sinners ourselves, saved by grace. It would be rather ungracious of us to not accept others by grace in the same manner that we’ve been accepted by grace.
Do you all know how you sound? Is it surprising that young people and others don’t want to be part of this sort of elitist “we don’t want you” crowd?
Vince…
not lavishing attention on narcissists. I’d say the church that booted him out ought to be an example to all churches.
Seriously, you don’t even know this guy or folk like him and you feel free to judge them sight unseen. Seriously, where is the grace? Did it ever occur to you that not everyone might be as perfect as you?
Narcissist! Ha. It’s just a bit sad that you don’t see the irony, brother.
Vince…
both Paul and Jesus gave instructions about how to discipline and excommunicate
And, if you’ve read the Bible, you’d know that there is NOT ONE SINGLE instance of them excommunicating or disciplining someone for their orientation. Not one time.
Do you seriously think you’d kick out your own children if they were gay? Tell them “you’re not my child anymore…”?
Lord have mercy.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 31, 2013 at 10:58 pm
Greg…
When a liberal tells you to “embrace grace,” he means “turn liberal.
With your kind permission, sir, I’d prefer to speak for myself. When I say “embrace grace,” I mean, “Embrace grace.” I don’t want you to “turn liberal” especially and clearly, that is not what I said or meant.
I mean that kicking your children out of your family (or church) for “being gay” is graceless as hell and has nothing to do with Christ our Lord.
When I speak of Grace, I mean God’s kindness at Christ’s expense. I mean the love of God acted out in Christ’s life and teaching and the offer of eternal life. I mean the unmerited (on our part) divine gift of God offered to humans and that same grace extended to us, being extended to others.
THAT is what I mean.
For instance, giving me the leeway to speak for myself, rather than presuming to say I meant something I did not say. Ever. That is what I mean by Grace.
I am not telling you what you are saying, please allow me to speak for myself and don’t presume I mean something other than the normal meaning of words.
Does that not sound like the graciousness that God would have us live by?
I mean apologizing when one has made a mistake, even if not intentionally.
Does that not sound like the graciousness that God would have us live by?
Comment by Vince Talley on August 1, 2013 at 10:31 am
Let me get this straight (oops, bad choice of words): You think that because the NT does not record any instance of a person being excommunicated for his “orientation” that the NT church had GAY DEACONS? I mean, puh-leez. An argument from silence = no argument at all. Check out 1 Corinthians 6, it lists the types that will “not inherit the kingdom of God.” I gather you don’t like the Christian teaching on homoexuality. Fine. But don’t try to pretend it doesn’t exist. There is no way that Paul or any of the apostles would have tolerated a gay deacon or pastor – although maybe they could’ve tolerated a gay guy who didn’t compulsively announce his carnal desires to everyone he meets.
You’re right, I don’t know this gay deacon personally. So what? You told enough about him: he’s someone with a compulsion to tell people what he does in the bedroom. Adults don’t act that way. Why should people be flaunting their vices in church. Deacons ought to be spiritually mature believers. Check out 1 Timothy 3:8-13. No one has a “right” to be a deacon, it’s a post that should be given to someone who has an impeccable life and can set an example of Christian living. It’s obvious that one key factor in the decline of the religious left is that they choose the worst people for leadership posts, as if God had imposed some kind of Affirmative Action policy. I’d love to see all the churches do some major housecleaning, discipline the philanderers and porn addicts, and if they persist in something that is clearly ungodly, boot them out of the church. Jesus said the church should be “the light of the world” and “a city set on a hill.” I’d love to see the churches be the spiritual equivalent of the Marines, a small but distinguished spiritual force in the world, people of moral courage, not fickle, trendy types who follow every silly fad.
Comment by Dan Trabue on August 4, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Vince…
You think that because the NT does not record any instance of a person being excommunicated for his “orientation” that the NT church had GAY DEACONS?
If you read my actual words, you can see that I did not say that. I did not say that for a simple reasoning: That is not my reasoning, nor something I believe.
Come, let us reason together, friend, but let’s do so at an adult level, taking what the other actually says, rather than making stuff up entirely.
This sort of reasoning is part of the reason why conservative churches are losing young people, along with many other rational thinking people. We need to learn to disagree rationally, respectfully and with God’s sweet grace, my good man.
As to the rest of what you say, you are not speaking of my arguments, but strawman falsities. If you’d ever like to discuss what I’m actually saying, just let me know.
Truth and grace, my man. Truth and grace.
In Christ,
Dan
Comment by Dan Trabue on August 4, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Okay, I will respond briefly to one more strawman you lifted, Vince…
I gather you don’t like the Christian teaching on homoexuality. Fine. But don’t try to pretend it doesn’t exist.
No, I don’t agree with the traditional position on homosexuality. I do not find the traditional position to be in keeping with Christian teachings as found in the Bible nor with rational thinking, from our own God-given reasoning. I do not find your traditions on this point to be either moral or rational or biblical and, for that reason, I disagree with you and would not attend a conservative/traditional church any more.
Jesus I love and agree with. But, dear friend, you aren’t Jesus, nor do you get to speak for the Church of Christ.
I disagree with you, not with Jesus.
See the difference?
Comment by Vince Talley on August 5, 2013 at 8:22 am
By all means, Don, keep us posted on the number of young and/or rational people who flee traditional churches and join your liberal church. Of course, it’s unclear from your posts whether numbers matter. You think it’s a real blow to us to lose people, but if your own little slice of heaven remains small, that’s OK, because you’re just being “faithful,” and numbers don’t matter.
Numbers matter. Numbers don’t matter.
That sort of muddy nonsense is why I could never be a liberal.
Btw, still puzzling over your deacon pal. Did his church torture or interrogate him to find out he was gay – or did he (as I suspect) TELL them he was gay? If he told them, then whose fault is it? I mean, when you know what the rules are, and you deliberately violate them, isn’t that called “setting yourself up”? The guy obviously WANTED to play the martyr game. There have been real Christians who have paid the ultimate price for their commitment. We ought to honor them, but I certainly don’t honor someone who deliberately outs himself so he can play martyr. Back in the Roman empire, bishops counseled Christians not to deliberately provoke the imperial authorities.
Comment by Vince Talley on July 31, 2013 at 9:59 pm
You seem absolutely giddy that the sexual libertines are leaving evangelical churches (this is supposed to upset us?) Is that how low the religious left has sunk, that you’re praying, Please, God, help fill up our empty pews with people who don’t believe in monogamy. The UCC has been doing exactly that for many years now, even ran TV ads showing “bouncers” at evangelical churches, barring gays – something that doesn’t happen in real life, btw? Check the UCC’s numbers to see how effective that membership drive was. If it weren’t so sad it would be funny – the old members are dying off, couples with families are heading for the evangelical churches, and the left-wing (and left-behind) churches are reduced to recruiting members from people whose spiritual needs take a back seat to their sex drives. Heck, the Anton LaVey and his Church of Satan with its gospel of sex only attracted a small minority of people. I just don’t see much of a future for churches whose chief selling point is contempt for other churches.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 31, 2013 at 11:06 pm
Vince…
You seem absolutely giddy that the sexual libertines are leaving evangelical churches (this is supposed to upset us?)
Um, yes? God would have us reach out to all sinners because we, after all, are only fellow sinners. We can’t afford to be so haughty as to want to kick out those who are sinners just like us.
How does that story go? The man was forgiven his $10,000 debt by the boss. He thanked the boss then turned around and found the fella who owed him $20 bucks, shook him around and had him thrown in jail. And when the boss man found out, what did he do? He FREED the fella with the $20 debt and tossed the FIRST man back in jail for his gracelessness and sheer lack of class.
We need to learn from these stories, not repeat the same mistakes.
Now, having said all that, folk at our church are not “sexual libertines.” We are gay and straight folk who believe in chaste, pure lives, keeping the beautiful act of sex reserved for our monogamous marriage relationships. I’ve been faithfully married to one woman for 28 years – the only woman I’ve ever “been with.”
You should not make such brass and ignorant claims when you don’t even know the first thing about the people you’re making the (false) claim about. Making claims based on ignorance only makes the gracelessness abound.
Seriously, friend, embrace grace. It’s good for us all.
Comment by Paul Hoskins on August 5, 2013 at 10:05 pm
They always come around to playing the race card. I’m not surprised they do it, I’m amazed that the churches are so cowardly that they have LET them do it. No comparison at all between being black and being gay, NONE, zip, nada. They need to be called out on this tactic every time they try it.
Comment by Ray Bannister on July 27, 2013 at 11:24 am
Regarding the earlier post: Not all of us consider it an “embarrassment” to follow the moral standards of Christianity, nor do we regard as “brothers and sisters” people who unashamedly flaunt their immoral lifestyles. Last time I checked, we were counseled not to conform to this world, and the way to salvation was narrow, not broad. The numbers don’t lie: the “inclusive” churches may be attracting a handful of disgruntled ex-evangelicals, but they certainly don’t attract “Nones.” No doubt the evangelical churches will continue to lose members too, but that is as it should be, as the distinction between “believing Christian” and “conformist churchgoer” becomes more and more obvious. We will lose some of the lukewarm evangelicals, but we’ll be left with the committed ones, toughminded and steelspined. Persecution and scorn and contempt are inevitable for the committed, but people who rely on the Spirit instead of the Zeitgeist will be able to stand firm. Those who embrace the cultural version of “Christianity” cannot possibly understand what it means to hunger to please God.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 27, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Ray…
Last time I checked, we were counseled not to conform to this world
Last time I checked, I was not counseling anyone to conform to this world… The point I was making is that, JUST AS popular Christian opposition to “mixed race marriages” was eventually realized as embarrassingly SINFUL and WRONG, so to, opposition to marriage rights for gay folk will one day be recognized as embarrassingly sinful and wrong.
The point, Ray, is NOT conforming to the world, but conforming to righteousness, moral living. That you can take my intent which has been explained to you repeatedly and twisting it makes it a bearing of false witness and a slander.
There again, you are engaging in embarrassingly obvious sinful behavior. People see this debate style and, IF they are concerned about righteousness, they will (and increasingly, are) just writing that sort of approach as irrational and immoral, eventually abandoning churches that condone it.
If you can’t disagree respectfully and without twisting the words of others, you should not expect that people will be impressed by your concern for righteousness.
My point is, I think the evidence holds up that this survey is probably correct in that young people will eventually trend towards abandoning these traditionalist churches that seem sinful and irrational to them.
Time will tell.
~Dan
Comment by Alex Soderberg on July 27, 2013 at 6:33 pm
It’s a sign of the left’s intellectual hollowness to play the race card when discussing this issue. I have some Christian friends, black and Asian, who find it very offensive that the left compares interracial marriage to gay “marriage.” This is absurd. The Bible has no mandate prohibiting marriage between the races, but it’s pretty darn clear about sexual relations two men or two women, and the notion of marriage in such situations would have been unthinkable. The advocates for same-sex “marriage” would have us believe that all the human beings who ever lived prior to, oh, 1990 or so, were completely wrong in prohibiting same-sex “marriage.” Really? All those millions or billions of people were mistaken, whereas the smart, enlightened super-cool American liberals of today finally got it right? That’s intellectual arrogance that is way beyond hubris, that’s more like delusional God-complex. Suddenly, the Wise Ones of earth “discovered” that it was a good thing for churches to bless a “marriage” that people in the past would have regarded as a sick joke. Men marrying each other? That’s the will of God? Really? Not the God I’m familiar with, and not the one in the Bible. Must be one of the faux gods that people create in their own image, which is pretty much the definition of the religious left – a god with no sexual ethics but with strong opinions about immigration, feminism, and climate change. The left worships its own adorable self.
Sorry, but playing the race card doesn’t work on people who think.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 28, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Alex…
It’s a sign of the left’s intellectual hollowness to play the race card when discussing this issue.
This issue is not being discussed here, I was using it only for purpose of analogy.
The point was, while YOU may not find the bans on mixed race marriages comparable to bans on marriage for gay folk, increasingly, most people do.
And just as most people today would find the idea of a group who’d ban people from marrying simply because they were of different races to be morally offensive and rationally ridiculous, so too, soon, most people will find the notion of bans against something as innately and obviously good as marriage for this other group of people – gay folk – to be morally offensive.
Today, IF and where there are anti-mixed race churches, they are held up to contempt because their behavior is an affront to righteousness and liberty. In the same way, soon, if and where there are anti-gay marriage churches, they will be held up to contempt because the behavior is viewed as being an affront to righteousness and liberty.
Now, will there be some churches who hold to that teaching, because they believe it’s true? Sure. And they SHOULD hold to it, if they think it’s true. But at the same time, you can’t expect people who find that position to be morally reprehensible and rationally goofy to attend those churches. They just won’t do it and, for that reason, I suspect those churches will – like the anti-mixed race churches – dwindle down to irrelevancy and be ignored and eventually, nearly all peter out.
That’s my point.
Comment by Alex Soderberg on July 30, 2013 at 9:49 am
Don, You’re probably right about one thing: There really are people dopey enough to swallow your ridiculous analogy of mixed-race marriage with gay “marriage.” If so, they are idiots. You seem to be happy that people that moronic would leave the conservative churches and flee to the welcoming embrace of churches like yours, where they will find other people who accept that analogy. Are liberals that desperate for members that you are hoping the dimmest bulbs will end up in your churches? It’s certainly no loss for us. My own pastor preaches his sermons on the assumption that the adults in the pews are capable of rational thought. I’ve listened to liberal pastors, and the fact that their congregations don’t stampede for the exits tells me they really do shut down their brains when they walk into church.
I will bet everything I own that my very healthy evangelical congregation will be meeting long after the liberal churches have, as you put it, “petered out.” I doubt any liberal church will exist ten years from now.
Comment by Tim Vernon on July 30, 2013 at 11:27 am
Please give us an example of one of those mixed-race churches that are “held up to contempt.” Just one. Or is this one of those “facts” liberals like to toss out without verification?
FYI, the United Church of Christ, the most liberal denomination, is 97 percent white. They talk “inclusive,” but the numbers say “monochrome.” So who are they to lecture evangelicals? I’m no fan of Joel Osteen, but if you ever saw one of his broadcasts, his church is very multiracial.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 30, 2013 at 6:37 pm
Alex…
There really are people dopey enough to swallow your ridiculous analogy of mixed-race marriage with gay “marriage.” If so, they are idiots.
We are all entirely capable of being mistaken. Me, you and the Pope, too. We’re human, we can make mistakes.
I strive (albeit imperfectly) to not consider my dear brothers and sisters – especially those within the church – to be dopey or idiots or moronic simply because I suspect they are mistaken.
I may be an idiot, but I believe I’ve learned at least one thing in my 40 years of being a Christian: That we are to live lives of Grace – that Grace isn’t just what saves us, it’s how we are to live towards one another.
I’d suggest that this style of disagreeing – considering anyone who disagrees with the mainstream to be idiots or evil – is part of the reason why younger folk are leaving the church. They want to see Jesus and folks living lives of love and grace, not squabbles and political posturing.
Can we learn to disagree in a more respectful manner, brother Alex? After all, I think you are mistaken in your exegesis on this point, but I don’t consider you dopey or to be an idiot. Will you extend the same grace towards us, then?
Alex…
I will bet everything I own that my very healthy evangelical congregation will be meeting long after the liberal churches
God willing, I pray that it is so – at least that your congregation is around. I, of course, am not hoping for bad things to happen to “liberal” congregations or “conservative” ones.
May God bless us all and give us wisdom.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 30, 2013 at 6:42 pm
Tim…
Please give us an example of one of those mixed-race churches that are “held up to contempt.” Just one.
I believe you have misunderstood my point, Tim. My point was that, today, those churches that still opposed “mixed marriages” are held in contempt. Such groups seem so far off the path of wisdom and grace as to be despicable, not worthy of paying any attention to.
If you need an example of that, I’d offer the church earlier this year that was in the news for refusing to marry a “mixed race” couple. They were mocked and shamed by the culture at large.
My point was that I believe, given the demonstrable changing views of our nation, that not too far from now, churches that oppose marriage for gay folk will be viewed the same way by the popular culture – as immoral remnants of a bygone time.
My church is blessedly diverse, in all manner of ways, including race and orientation. It’s a beautiful thing, thanks be to God.
Comment by Ray Bannister on July 27, 2013 at 5:24 pm
I’m not concerned about people with no sexual morals “abandoning” the churches. Their behavior proves they have already abandoned the faith. You can’t just SAY you’re a Christian, our BEHAVIOR has to be Christian too. You seem to think it’s a horrid think that the immoral and amoral would flee in horror from churches that have moral standards. What’s horrible about it? As Christians we can only present the truth. Many people will embrace it, most won’t.
Btw, why do you engage in dialogue with people that you constantly smear as “irrational and immoral”? I mean, there’s probably some pleasure in demonizing those who disagree with you, but has this scolding, schoolmarmish approach to the opposition ever WORKED, as in, converting someone to your ideology? I can’t imagine it would. Telling people who try to live by the Bible that they are “sinful and irrational” shows that the moral compass is way off.
I’m amazed you would use the word “righteousness” in your response. Having read the NT, a lot, in the original Greek, I can assure you that the Greek word dikaiosune, “righteousness,” does not translate as “advocating marriage for two men.” Rather the opposite, in fact – true dikaiosune would mean embracing a moral standard far higher than the world’s. I wish liberals would stop twisting biblical words like “righteousness,” it just isn’t righteous.
Comment by John Thomas on July 28, 2013 at 7:56 am
Remember the confidence with which the communists, in both the USSR and then the post-war Warsaw Pact countries, believed that the process of history was flowing unstopably in their favour, and that inevitably, before long, communism/communist states would rule all, and everything? And now, they’re all dust. The same will happen to these “librerals” or “progressives”. We just have to wait … God’s time frame, not ours.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 28, 2013 at 8:46 am
Ray…
why do you engage in dialogue with people that you constantly smear as “irrational and immoral”?
1. I don’t believe I have every “smeared” anyone as being irrational and immoral.
2. Rather, I have said THAT LINE OF THINKING is irrational and immoral.
3. I love and respect you, Ray, and entirely believe that you are, indeed, capable of being rational and moral.
THAT is why I engage in conversations. That, and because the Bible teaches (and logic supports) the notion of “Come, let us reason together.” I believe rather than talking about “those awful conservatives” or “Those evil liberals…” we would be better of trying to engage one another, find common ground where it exists, clear up misunderstandings where they exist and disagree respectfully and in love when we disagree.
Can we agree that this is not unreasonable?
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 28, 2013 at 8:49 am
Ray…
I’m amazed you would use the word “righteousness” in your response.
I use the word “righteousness” because I believe in righteous living, Ray. For instance, I believe it is right to not twist the words of others, nor to demonize other people, especially my brothers and sisters in Christ.
That we disagree on a behavior is not evidence that you or I are not concerned with righteousness, right? Rather, it is just evidence that, WHILE striving for righteous ideals, you and I simply honestly disagree.
That is what I assume about you, my brother Ray. NOT that your intentions are suspect, just that you are sincerely mistaken. Do you not extend the same benefit of doubt and grace to folk like me?
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 28, 2013 at 8:53 am
Ray…
Telling people who try to live by the Bible that they are “sinful and irrational” shows that the moral compass is way off.
Do you realize the irony of this comment, Ray?
You DO understand that I and mine ARE striving to live by the Bible and you and yours are constantly telling us that WE are sinful and irrational. Does that mean that your moral compass is way off? By your own testimony, it is. (I don’t believe it, myself, but just judging you by your own words, you probably would, if you were being consistent.)
By the way, as already noted, I’m not saying YOU are, innately to the bone, immoral and irrational. I’m saying “THIS argument is not rational nor moral…” while entirely believing that you are.
Do you see the difference?
Comment by Ray Bannister on July 29, 2013 at 8:08 am
No, I don’t see that liberals are “striving to live by the Bible.” If you were “striving to live by the Bible,” you would have to accept its ethical teachings, and the ethical teachings on marriage and sexuality are crystal clear, no wiggle room. Something is seriously amiss when people who really DO strive to live by the Bible are tagged “immoral.” Heck, maybe we’re wrong about other ethical issues. Get enough people together in the media to organize a pressure group and they’ll probably manage to convince the weakminded that the word “not” in “Thou shalt not steal” has been misinterpreted by evil right-wingers trying to impose their outmoded morality on kleptomaniacs. Once you start slicing and dicing the Bible, where do you stop?
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 29, 2013 at 5:18 pm
But, Ray, the evidence shows that I DO try to live by the Bible (ie, by walking in God’s ways), for anyone who knows me. Now, to be sure, I do so imperfectly, but the evidence is there to see.
So you can’t say “Liberals like Dan don’t try to live by the Bible and the evidence is that they disagree with me on this topic…” That would be irrational.
Nor can you even say, “…and the evidence is they disagree with traditional teachings…” since the church is not an infallible institution, but a whole set of human traditions and, for better and worse, human traditions are quite fallible. “The church” has been mistaken on many fronts – from slavery to racism to sexism. So, the evidence is there for those who have eyes to see.
If you knew me and my views (and those like me), you would know that we do not slice and dice the Bible, but rather we seek God’s will and go where that leads.
You have to keep in mind that your interpretation does not equal God’s Word. I know that’s true for me and I hope you understand that, as well.
It is exactly that sort of false certainty and conflation of “my will” with “God’s Word,” that is chasing young people away from the church. People want to see the humble, fearless, loving Jesus, not a bunch of bickering know-it-alls.
That you “don’t see it” does not mean that it isn’t so.
Comment by Ray Bannister on July 29, 2013 at 8:30 pm
Sorry, but judging from your comments, I see NO evidence you strive to live by the Bible. The Bible is unequivocally opposed to homosexuality. Therefore, someone actively promoting the “marriage” of two men or two women is also actively opposing the teaching of the Bible. There is no “gray area” here. Here’s a basic principle of philosophy, one that even a lefty ought to be able to grasp (but chooses not to: A cannot be non-A. You can’t claim to live by a biblical ethical AND, at the same time, actively work to undermine that ethic.
Your reference to “my interpretation” of the Bible is pure nonsense. Do you think I’m the only one who reads the Bible? Do you think Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Thomas Aquinas were WRONG? You need to get outside your tiny little congregation there and meet Christians – not just contemporary Christians but, you know, those millions of Christians who have ever lived. You think we’re ALL wrong, and you and your left-wing fellowship are right? One little tiny group of ex-evangelicals trying to prove they are hip and cool and PC – versus most of the Christians who ever lived? Kind of arrogant, isn’t it? You know the truth, but Paul and Luther and Calvin and Wesley didn’t? My my. Serious egoism there.
Btw, I did not say “liberals like Dan don’t try to live by the Bible.” Don’t put words in my mouth. You can twist the Bible if you like, but I prefer that people react to what I actually say, not what I didn’t say. Of course, if people were restricted to truth-telling, the left would completely collapse, wouldn’t it?
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 29, 2013 at 11:42 pm
Ray…
Do you think Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Thomas Aquinas were WRONG?
Yes, clearly on some topics, I think they were abundantly wrong. They were just men, friend Ray. Fallible men. Like you. Like me.
Ray…
You need to get outside your tiny little congregation there and meet Christians – not just contemporary Christians but, you know, those millions of Christians who have ever lived.
I traveled for ten years in a gospel band and met plenty of Christians from all stripes. I have read Aquinas, Calvin, Billy Graham, Billy Sunday, Thomas More, Oswald Chambers, CS Lewis, L Ravenhill, Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Eberhard, Foxe, etc, etc. I am not unfamiliar with church history, both the things that they got wrong and the things they got right (in my opinion).
I’ve also read the Bible and know it enough to know that Paul (nor Jesus, etc) did not claim what you are claiming. You ought not put words in their mouths.
Again, that gets back to the point of this post: People are looking for churches and Christians who are not combative, divisive, slanderous, irrational, etc. The way folk disagree on this topic, and their whole stance on this topic, is likely to eventually lead to an abandoning of more conservative churches. Increasingly, in the view of young people today and many others, your position is the immoral and irrational one.
That’s all I’m saying. That people aren’t leaving you behind because we embrace immorality, but because we are seeking the good, the pure, the rational, the righteous.
You are free to disagree with us, but you are not free to falsely represent our motives. That, my brother, would be immoral and irrational.
Comment by Adrian Croft on July 28, 2013 at 11:26 am
Our evangelical congregation had an average Sunday attendance of about 400, but we’ve lost a few in recent years, mostly people in late teens or early 20s. A few of those made it clear they were not comfortable with the “judgmental” sexual standards which are laid out in our statement of Core Values. Naturally we hope they will some day return, but in the meantime we just have to accept the fact that the constant propaganda from the left is bound to have this effect on some churchgoers and there’s really nothing we can do except to try to stress that the point of biblical standards it not to make life joyless but to keep sex within the context God intended. Most of us support our pastor’s insistence on not watering down the gospel. If the secular youth want to deride us as “reactionary,” so be it. Standards are never out of date, that’s what makes them standards.
Comment by Ben Welliver on July 29, 2013 at 9:14 pm
Liberal churches are not going to grow, period. They’ve had 50 years to test this ridiculous notion that discarding the Bible’s moral teachings will fill up the pews – and just the opposite has occurred.
I think the dirty little secret of the whole “marriage equality” debate is that lots of liberal clergy and laity have their own agenda: opening the way for polyamory, even polygamy. They aren’t pushing for gay “marriage” just out of sympathy for gays, but because they’d like to apply the standards of gay couples (“open” relations) to their own situations. the promiscuity in the liberal seminaries has become an open secret, and you can bet that the left-wing professors – all ordained, and most of them married – have a lot to gain from discarding the standard of monogamy. What does that tell you about liberals? That they are drawn together not by any spiritual fellowship, but by their vices. Not much of a foundation for a church, is it, and as I said earlier, they’ve had 50 years that should’ve convinced them that “We think it’s OK to sleep around!” isn’t exactly the slogan to build churches on. Watch for some big-time shrinkage in the mainlines, and speaking bluntly, I’m glad to see it, just as I’m glad I abandoned that sinking ship 30 years ago.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 30, 2013 at 7:35 am
Ben…
lots of liberal clergy and laity have their own agenda: opening the way for polyamory, even polygamy. They aren’t pushing for gay “marriage” just out of sympathy for gays, but because they’d like to apply the standards of gay couples (“open” relations) to their own situations.
Do you have ONE SHRED of evidence to support such a charge? Do you have one single legitimate source that suggests there is this ulterior motive of promiscuity on the behalf of those who support marriage equity?
I am the husband of one wife, faithful for 28 years. The same is true for the other married couples at my church (give or take on the number of years). Where are the “lots” of supporters who are doing this for promiscuity’s sake?
You know, people can see that there are folk like me and my church who are obviously not promiscuous or pushing for promiscuity. They can see that this is a false charge (Oh, I’m sure SOMEWHERE out there, there may be an isolated conservative, liberal and otherwise individual or two who would do this, but it’s nothing like mainstream or “lots…” I’ve never met anyone like that in progressive Christian circles…)
When you make obvious false, slanderous charges, you undermine your argument, adding credence to the notion that it is your side that is immoral and irrational.
Comment by Ben Welliver on July 30, 2013 at 7:46 am
What sort of “evidence” do you want? I’m not going to list names and phone numbers. Sheesh.
There are some liberals who are, probably, very decent in their private lives. So what? If they’re supporting the “anything is OK” sexual ethic, they’re on the wrong side, aren’t they? I’ve spent enough time around the so-called “progressives” to know that the few who are monogamous are happy to aid and abet the ones who make a mockery of marriage. that proves that they are more motivated by peer pressure than by what God wants. It’s all about going along with the crowd, and if the crowd is jumping off the cliff, morally speaking, well, then let the cowards and go-alongers go with them. Courage is not a virtue in the religious left. It’s all about conformity – spiritually speaking, laziness. Jesus was not a go-alonger.
Regarding this formulaic “immoral and irrational”: People debate ideas, mynah birds repeat phrases.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 30, 2013 at 8:04 am
It is immoral and irrational to use strawmen and false witness as debate methods. People can see this, which makes you, not me, look to be clearly immoral and irrational.
The point of this post is: Will conservative lose out as young folk (and others) increasingly disagree with your ideals and methods? I’m pointing to a very specific example in your own words as to why people would abandon folk like you.
It’s a rational point to make.
Ben…
If they’re supporting the “anything is OK” sexual ethic, they’re on the wrong side, aren’t they?
I’ve spent the last ~17 years in what you’d call liberal circles. I haven’t met a single person supporting the “anything is OK sexual ethic…” Not one.
This is not a serious line of thinking on the religious Left. There is no evidence for it.
Being able to anecdotally cite a few isolated individuals who support promiscuity is not evidence of a trend. I can cite several conservative types who were secretly (or sometimes not secretly) promiscuous, does that mean that all conservatives are perverts? No, of course not.
You have no evidence to make such a sweeping charge and people are not interested in mean-spirited and graceless slander and gossip, but evidence.
Ben…
I’ve spent enough time around the so-called “progressives” to know that the few who are monogamous are happy to aid and abet the ones who make a mockery of marriage.
Why would we do that, Ben? We believe in marriage, in faithfulness, in family, in purity, in commitment. WHY would we support promiscuity or making a mockery of marriage?
Where is the evidence?
Thou shalt not bear false witness. Those who slander and gossip are not part of the kingdom of God.
It is possible to disagree respectfully and gracefully, Ben. It is exactly this sort of ugly behavior that is driving people away from God. “If that’s how Christians behave, I don’t need any of that. I can get slander and gossip and lies on Jerry Springer and at least it’s funny…”
Ben, I’ve been married faithfully 28 years. My pastor, for something like 30 years. Our youth minister, for something like 20 years. Our pianists, for 27 and ~25 years.
Down the list I could go of the ~20 or so married couples at our church. Faithful, sweet, committed, supportive of clean living and healthy sexuality in the context of marriage. When you make sweeping and obviously false charges to a whole group of people, you come across as a bitter and graceless liar.
Don’t do that, son. In the name of Christ our savior, don’t do that. For your own sake, don’t do that.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 30, 2013 at 8:21 am
Tell you what, Ben, let’s take a look at your anecdotal evidence.
You personally know how many progressive/liberal Christians?
20? 100?
Of those, how many actively support and believe in promiscuity as an ideal? Please limit it to the ones you have evidence for (ie, where you’ve heard them say, “Yes, I believe in promiscuity, in having multiple, uncommitted sexual partners… I think this is morally right…” – actual hard evidence, not rumors or gossip, as that is not a rational grounds for making moral judgments).
What is that number? 15? 5?
So, of the 25? liberals you know personal, 5? support promiscuity and you have evidence of that? What are your numbers (no names, necessary)?
Once you have your numbers, what is your evidence that your numbers are a representative sampling?
After all, I personally know, let’s say, 200-300 more progressive type of Christians and I know of 0 who actively support promiscuity as a moral ideal. Indeed, of those ~300 people, they – to a person – support monogamy and fidelity and committed marriage relationships.
What is the evidence that your sampling of whatever percent (5? 10?) is representational, whereas my (probably larger, since I’m in that community) sample (0%) is not representational?
I’m speaking of evidence, rather than slander. Facts, rather than gossip. What is your evidence to support this sweeping charge?
Comment by Ben Welliver on August 1, 2013 at 6:23 pm
How long you or your pastor have been married does not concern me or prove anything. Liberal churches condone sexual practices that the Bible condemns. That is not right.
If you think I live in some evangelical cocoon where I never meet liberals you are quite mistaken. I know LOTS of them, having attended a mainline college where most of the faculty, including several ordained ministers, slept around, so I got a real education in immoral people who eagerly signed on as pro-gay because obviously they had a vested interest in lowering sexual standards.
Regarding anecdotal evidence, I trust mine more than I trust yours. You give the impression that your church is made up of utterly sinless people. Call me skeptical, but even if it were true, I know way too many theoliberals who promote and condone immorality even if they’re not engaging in it themselves.
You must not read the postings on this site very carefully or you’d be aware that many people who post comments here are themselves ex-mainliners, appalled at the apostasy in these churches. I don’t need to engage with straw men, I’ve known plenty of real-life liberals and I’ve got their number, especially their tendency to lie. I can tell propaganda from fact a mile away. Any person who tells a sexually active gay person that his lifestyle is just fine is a disgrace. I do what I can to keep friends and family members informed on the mainlines’ shennanigans, plus encouraging them to seek out real Christian fellowships.
Comment by Dan H on August 1, 2013 at 5:22 pm
The article “cuts to the chase.” The joy that greeted this prediction of conservatives’ doom is based more on liberals’ hopes than on reality. Some of today’s liberals will inevitably become more conservative as they age and have children. Liberalism is the stance of children, not adults. As the article points out, conservative seminaries are considerably larger than liberal ones, AND many of the liberal seminaries are either shutting down or merging. Let me add some more data: there are numerous “union” churches, formed when 2 or 3 liberal congregations could no longer afford to exist separately. These “unions” are signs of sickness, not health. On the other hand, extremely rare are new congregations being planted by liberal churches, whereas evangelical churches, especially the large ones, continue to spin off new churches. Given the “union” phenomenon, let me make a prediction of my own, one that is much more likely than the demise of evangelicalism: By 2025 or so, look for 2 or 3 of the mainline denominations to merge, laying off loads of national and district staff. The UCC and Disciples of Christ have already merged their mission boards, and the two denominations recognize each other’s ordained ministers.
I’m not depressed by the article, nor am I convinced that the Millennials will “inevitably” remain liberals throughout their lives. Christianity has been around 2000 years, and it’s an anvil that has worn out a lot of hammers. The left would be foolish to start popping champagne corks, the body is far from dead.
Comment by Dan Trabue on August 6, 2013 at 8:24 am
re… the left would be foolish to start popping champagne corks, the body is far from dead…
And anyone would be foolish to try to conflate ONLY the Religious Right with “the Church.” The Church of God is much broader than your particular group of friends and those who agree with you.
The Left, too, can be and are saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus, the Christ. We can disagree with each other without denying the others’ faith and family-hood.
Comment by Dan H on August 6, 2013 at 11:55 am
My comment didn’t mention the Religious Right, so I don’t know what you’re referring to. I mentioned “Christianity.” It will endure. The faux versions, such as the mainlines, will not endure, thankfully. “Secular” is from the Latin saeculum, “the age,” meaning the present. A secular Christianity is an oxymoron. The real thing is eternal.