Young believers and Traditional Catholicism vs Evangelicalism

[canadianguy1143]

Aramis,

You say… “But if you go around saying “DOOM DOOM DOOM!” you will cause others to believe it, and to despair.”

My prediction is based on demographics. If you look at the UK census over the last decades, it shows religious numbers (both Catholic and COE) decreasing at a steady rate. This can be applied over the last 80 years or so. The catholic church in 1901, 1941 and today are very different beasts.

So as you say, it is a prediction - but one that is backed up by a steady datastream over a long timescale. For my prediction to be held void, a steady demographic change that has occurred throughout the 20th century has to be undone - and,importantly, *rapidly *.

**The problem is, it is a given principle of forecasting that large scale economic or demographic change, hardly ever happens very fast. If you read the newspapers, this is what we get all the time - big dramatic events are always going to happen tomorrow. Well, they wont. For example, Feminism was not an overnight success - it began in the early 1900s and still progresses today.
**
So, Aramis - I am making a prediction, but I dont believe it is one of “doom”. I believe over the next decades the “powerbase” of the Church will change away from Western Europe towards South America, Africa and Asia, where the majority of believers will be.

This is not doom. But it is serious for anyone that expects the Catholic Church to have any impact on government policy in Europe. It wont.

Instead it appears that the Church in Europe is going to become a much more conservative, far older (on average) organisation.

I highlighted the above text because I want to discuss that in greater detail. Throughout the last century we have seen some drastic changes. Look at how WW2 changed the number of jews living in the world. Feminism, in its current form, took off during the 60s and 70s and that was a dramatic change. Look at how fast abortion was legalized.

 

[ljubim]

I think the charismatic and traditionalist movements will save our Church. It seems to me that young people often want to be a part of something on the extreme side of things to feel out where they belong and find an identity. That is why our universal church is so wonderful. Anyone can find their place. I am 23 and love both the TLM and the charismatic movement. ** We just need to get rid of the wishy washy heretics that took things over during my parents’ generation. **I prefer attending mass in a beautiful church rather than a building that looks like a garage.

I couldn’t agree more!!! At mass my ears hurt when they hear stumming guitars and see the so-called modern choir bouncing around. I can just picture the angel guarding the tabernacle sticking his fingers in his ears and sheilding Jesus from all of that garbage. Unfortunately the nearest Latin mass is two hours away, but I go off to college next year and there will be St. Boniface in Pittsburgh only a ten minute drive. People seem to have lost respect for the mass, we need to make them realize what they have done!

Everybody who’s sad about the decline of birth rates, remember, the good Catholics who will have a bunch of kids and teach them the faith aren’t on the pill! While the relativists, atheists and agnostics are!!

 

[straggleyway]

Ockham

Apologies - my text was confusing. I meant that Muslims as a percentage of the UK are still quite low. They are very religious. The majority are those with no religion. The numbers that attend a Christian Church are around the 3 million mark (incredible for a nation with around 60 million)

My example of legislation affecting the gay community was when the Church tried to get itself excluded from the legislation. Why should it be excluded from the law of the land? If numbers of Church goers crash down - its a hard question to answer.

ljubim,

I dont think you have much to worry about. I see you as representative of the future Church, however in the UK it will be a more conservative, yet far smaller one.

Canadianguy,

You say…
Feminism, in its current form, took off during the 60s and 70s and that was a dramatic change

I dont agree. I see the example of Feminism (there are others) as a long process. In fact legislation did not arrive until the mid to late 70s and continued into the 80s. Considering the Suffragettes began in the early 1900s I would regard this as “steady” change.

 

[Ockham]

Apologies - my text was confusing. I meant that Muslims as a percentage of the UK are still quite low. They are very religious. The majority are those with no religion. The numbers that attend a Christian Church are around the 3 million mark (incredible for a nation with around 60 million)

Because the Church existed before the British state.

I’m assuming your gay legislation had something to do with forcing the gay agenda upon religions. Gay marriage? Clergy? That is why the American concept of separation between church and state evolved. Freedom of religion is a foundation of most Western civilized societies. Just because a disenfranchised group cries discrimination doesn’t mean everyone has to oblige.

You should be spending your time on the coming Islamic changes rather than the Catholic Church. Homosexuality gets a far worse treatment in Islamic nations than Christian.

 

[Ockham]

The influence the UK Church will have on government policy will be questioned. It will also be asked why such a small organisation should run schools? The Church will have to defend why it should hold any influence whatsoever, seen as such a small percentage of the country use it.

Hang on…you might be onto something here (although not in the manner you thought)

*Queen ‘appalled’ at Church of England moves, claim Vatican moles
When Pope Benedict visits this country next year, he is expected to stay at Buckingham Palace as a guest of the Queen. The warmth of her welcome will come as no surprise to the Pontiff, if senior sources at the Vatican are to be believed.

By Richard Eden
Published: 10:56PM BST 03 Oct 2009

According to informants quoted in The Catholic Herald, the Queen has “grown increasingly sympathetic” to the Catholic Church over the years while being “appalled”, along with the Prince of Wales, at developments in the Church of England. *

telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/6258011/Queen-appalled-at-Church-of-England-moves-claim-Vatican-moles.html

 

[4EverHis]

I am in my early 20s, and I converted to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism last Easter I also have Catholic friends who are my age… and at my parish, most people are *not *over 50. So I think maybe it depends on the area. God bless

 

[straggleyway]

Ockham,

You say…

“I’m assuming your gay legislation had something to do with forcing the gay agenda upon religions. Gay marriage? Clergy? That is why the American concept of separation between church and state evolved. Freedom of religion is a foundation of most Western civilized societies. Just because a disenfranchised group cries discrimination doesn’t mean everyone has to oblige.”

First of all its not my legislation. Thats a little confused - it came from parliament and through democratic processes. I appreciate that you would be against such things, however in deciding how we should behave democracy is the best we have.

So you may well feel discrimination against the gay community is how we should behave but the majority in the UK do not. Once again we are back to the issue of demographics. The Church is becoming simply too small to have a sufficiently influential impact in the UK on policy.

Here is a good example:
ekklesia.co.uk/node/9585

Recently, the Church was tested on how it operated its Catholic adoption agencies. They wanted to refuse gay couples. They failed. Personally, I believe that in the 1940s or 50s the Church would have had sufficient influence and it would never have suffered such a defeat. In the end, some agencies gave in and obeyed the new law and others closed.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7806780.stm

 

[Ockham]

No major religion I am aware of condones homosexuality; it is contrary to the Bible and laws of nature. By forcing gay marriage, adoption, or clergy on the Church, the State is dictating how it runs its own affairs. The Church is not discriminating against homosexuals, the State is discriminating against the Church. No one is forcing homosexuals to go to church, but homosexuals are forcing the Church into adopting its agenda.

 

[straggleyway]

Ockham

You say

“No major religion I am aware of condones homosexuality; it is contrary to the Bible and laws of nature”

Yes, that is true generally. But I would push you further - so what?! My interest is how human beings should behave. Now I understand that in your scriptures, it is writen that to be gay is wrong - but so what? Maybe the author is wrong? These pieces of writing were completed by authors who claimed inspiration from a god. So thats their claim for authority - but its there only claim. If I dont believe in a supernatural god - their claim does not function.

You also write that being gay is against the ‘laws of nature’. What laws? What are you defining as nature? Surely if the gay community is found throughout humanity and throughout history - it is, by definition, part of our nature. They may be a minority - but they are part of us as a whole.

You also say “The Church is not discriminating against homosexuals”. In fact, the gay Catholic movement is entirely from the grassroots upwards. For example…

questgaycatholic.org.uk/home.asp
pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/01/new-archbishop-of-birmingham-helped-organise-gay-masses/
dignityusa.org/

There are plenty of gay catholics - but they have organised their own communities - the Church leadership done nothing - and in fact actively discriminates them.

Benedict has gone out of his way to do as much damage to the community as possible. He even compared the ‘threat’ of the gay community to climate change.

The State is not discriminating against the Church. It is simply enforcing the law of the land. Your statement is a good example of where religion trys to struggle with democracy. At the end of the day, democracy must overcome theology. Gods law is not greater than mans. This is a fundamental principle of democracy that must be enshrined.

I appreciate you have particular beliefs - however the rest of society can not and should not be forced to change its laws simply to accomodate these beliefs.

This goes back to my original point - demographics. You will have to become used to the State enforcing laws that you disagree with. This is because you are entering an era were you are becoming the minority. In the past, the Church annointed Kings and created governments. Today, it must obey them.

 

[Ockham]

If the gay agenda was your motivation for this thread you could have been up front about it. If your premise is religious organizations will have to accept homosexuality based on emerging demographics you are in for a sorry surprise. Given current birth rates, the UK will be an Islamic state in this century. That should be your primary focus as their rejection of homosexuality is much stricter than Christians.

The laws of Western nations including democracy were formed on Judeo-Christian beliefs, thus man’s laws are God’s laws. If you are an atheist and believe our existence here is just some cosmic anomaly then how do you account for the perfect order in nature? Nature has laws and homosexuality deviates from them. A gay community is not self-sustaining, gay sex does not have any purpose other than immediate physical pleasure. Just because something can be done (sodomy) doesn’t mean it should be.

The Catholic Church does not force homosexuals out the door. However, it does not condone gay marriage or adoption. Just as a parent loves its child it would be irresponsible to not correct the child when he/she strays from proper behaviour. Once your reading into history goes past the nation state you’ll discover Christianity was the minority for many centuries. It didn’t condone homosexuality then and it won’t in the future either. The Church is not insisting the State adopt its laws regarding this issue and any state doing the opposite is acting contrary to freedom of religion and democracy itself.

 

[straggleyway]

Hi Ockham,

No, I’m not on any particular ‘gay agenda’, but I do believe that within democratic processes human rights are to be upheld. My theme on this thread is the decrease of influence of the Church based on demographics - the rise of non-believers coupled with the high average age of congregations.

I completely agree that you will not accept the gay community - which is partly why I see the RC church as becoming a more conservative, less influential and overall a smaller organisation in the UK. I gave the example of Catholic adoption charities. They attempted to fight the law in the UK and to refuse gay parents. They lost - wheather or not this was a ‘sorry surprise’ for them or not, I dont know. If the Church continues on this line, it will continue to lose.

It is interesting that you comment…

“The Church is not insisting the State adopt its laws regarding this issue and any state doing the opposite is acting contrary to freedom of religion and democracy itself.”

This is not an equal comparison. It is not a case of saying just because an organisation does not force itself on the State, that in turn, the State must not force itself on that organisation. That is a misunderstanding of democracy. All organisations within a country must obey the laws of the land. If you had sufficient support for your organisation, maybe the UK could transform into a Catholic based theocracy. That is unlikely. Therefore, the Church and its associated organisations must transform and change based on the will of the majority.

You also continue…

“The laws of Western nations including democracy were formed on Judeo-Christian beliefs, thus man’s laws are God’s laws.”

First, democracy began in the city states of Greece around 5BC - well before Christianity. Moreover, democracy returned in the 14th century with the Renaissance humanism movement. Philosophers rediscovered the ideas of ancient Greece and looked for secular principles on which society could be organized, as opposed to the concentration of political power in the hands of the Church.

In fact, in this era, the Church was quite anti-democratic. Many politicians in English history were certainly religious - but many were not and were in fact non-believers. Many of the early politicians in the US were also atheist or agnostic. It is therefore incorrect to think the laws of Western nations are formed purely on Judeo-Christianism. They were influenced by it certainly - but secular philosphy was along there beside it.

In particular, it is quite dangerous to state “thus man’s laws are God’s laws.” You seem quite concerned at the rise of Islam. Are islamic laws writen by man, God’s laws? Or is it only the laws that you agree with are the laws of *your * god? The problem with claiming the laws of a god are greater than democracy is that there are many gods worshiped today. For example, would you obey laws claimed from Ganesh, the Hindu god? I would suggest you would not - because you dont believe in Ganesh. But if you state this principle - “thus man’s laws are God’s laws.” - it must apply to *all *gods.

Finally, I notice your concern on the rise of Islam. I agree it is far less enlightened than Christianity. It is the fastest growing religion globally. But the numbers in the UK are still small - there around around 1.6 million in the UK - (2.8% of population). They would require incredible growth to create a Islamic UK. Moreover, they would require cross-racial conversion (where the historical ‘white’ population convert). Cross-racial conversion is extremely rare. The vast majority of the population pay little attention to the state Christian religion - let alone a more extreme type in Islam. It is therefore very very unlikely for there ever to be an Islamic UK.

 

[Ockham]

Good point on the Greeks. I was thinking about modern democracies.

Your assertion that churches need to adopt to modern societal whims is countered by centuries of resolve. Just because some Labour MPs think gay adoption is a groovy thing doesn’t mean the Catholic Church is going to appease them.

Abortion is legal in most Christian nations. You don’t see the Church bowing to that injustice.

Here’s some info for you:

"Britain and the rest of the European Union are ignoring a demographic time bomb: a recent rush into the EU by migrants, including millions of Muslims, will change the continent beyond recognition over the next two decades, and almost no policy-makers are talking about it.

The numbers are startling. Only 3.2 per cent of Spain’s population was foreign-born in 1998. In 2007 it was 13.4 per cent. Europe’s Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015. In Brussels, the top seven baby boys’ names recently were Mohamed, Adam, Rayan, Ayoub, Mehdi, Amine and Hamza."

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html

"They praised the Lord by singing their hearts out and chanting prayers at packed services.

But members of a congregation in north London have abandoned their church - because of a council noise ban.

The Immanuel International Christian Centre was ordered to keep its amplified music and sermons quieter

…]

In court Mrs Odetoyinbo, 55, claimed a council officer had asked her ‘to keep the noise down so as not to offend the Muslim community’.

But magistrates rejected the appeal, and ordered the church to pay £2,250 costs.

It can now only play music for 20 minutes on a Sunday between 11.30am and 11.50pm. "

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218990/Worshippers-abandon-church-slapped-council-noise-ban.html#ixzz0TPBPxCRQ

youtube.com/watch?v=XK1pnCldKZI

“The global Muslim population stands at 1.57 billion, meaning that nearly 1 in 4 people in the world practice Islam, according to a report Wednesday billed as the most comprehensive of its kind.”

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,562101,00.html

youtube.com/watch?v=xlkEYoKC-kA

p.s There is only one God. Here’s a bonus selection for you: youtube.com/watch?v=U6LGSzNW9xU

 

[straggleyway]

I complete agree that European society will change due to immigration and especially with the growth in Muslims. I am not very familar with numbers all across Europe but in the UK, there has been a large influx of Christians from Eastern Europe as well as Muslims.

The article you look at is from the UK Telegraph. This is a very right wing publication - it regular writes articles on ‘foreigners’ and immigration issues simply because these headlines sell newspapers. Much in the same way as left wing papers write headline about ‘big business bonuses’ etc. Newspapers are very aware of their audience and produce content to appease that audience. So the content in the Telegraph has to be taken in this context.

However, I do agree that politicans are simply afraid to criticise Muslim communities. This seems to seem from criticising religious belief - it is seen as taboo generally in the UK. This seems to be a problem across the party lines.

In addition, one of the greater problems in immigration is how it has been managed.
In the 60s and 70s, many European countries allowed immigrants to enter to fill jobs. Now, allowing an educated doctor from Pakistan into the UK national health service is very different to allowing uneducated country people from Turkey. It is hardly surprising that immigrants with a low educational background, a life in poverty, attempted to enter European countries. This should have been managed correctly, with a balance in numbers - it wasnt.

I currently live in Europe and immigration is a pretty hot topic. The UK has a long history of immigration - centuries. However, other European nations are not used to the implications and many right-wing parties have sprung up. Nevertheless, it can be seen that the next generation of Muslims are certainly in a juxtaposition. Many are remaining in their religion - BUT many are not, even with the family divide this causes.

I feel a lot of the pressure on this generation simply results from the parents coming from a poor background with low education. They wish to keep their children in their culture through the enforcement of religion - sometimes it works, but many times it doesnt. Muslim numbers will certainly increase, but I dont agree that the right-wing press prediction of a new Muslim Kingdom will suddenly arise in Europe. The key part is that Muslims are still the minority and you still require cross-racial conversion. This is not happening.

“Just because some Labour MPs think gay adoption is a groovy thing doesn’t mean the Catholic Church is going to appease them.”

Well, in this instance - it was not that some MPs decided something was ‘groovy’ (…is that word still used?!) - it was due to parliamentary process. The Church fought against it and lost - it should not expect special consideration simply because it is a religious organisation. Would you give special consideration to Mosques if they disagreed with some of your laws? The Church has to convince a sufficient number of MPs that it is influential enough for its ideas to be written into law - it is just that is not happening. It is not influential enough.

 

[Ockham]

My first priority is to disregard polemics and focus on facts. Whether a newspaper is “right” or “left” wing is inconsequential in determining the validity of an argument when based on facts. Do you have facts, statistics, or sources to support your claim that Islamic immigration is not the issue the Telegraph and others make it to be?

You caught yourself in a contradiction by first admiting that politicians are afraid to criticize Muslims yet then state that religions must bend to the political whim of the day. It can’t be both and remain legitimite. The reality is politicians (especially left wing) are indeed reluctant to criticize or rule against any Muslim community, yet Christian is open season. Left wing politics often wades into the murky waters of contradiction.

Forcing a Catholic agency into gay adoption is indeed an example of the state forcing itself upon a church thus violating a foundation of democracy - freedom of religion. It’s the same as a Catholic hospital being forced to perform abortions. No one is forcing the gay couple to the agency nor the distressed woman into that particular hospital. If you are gay and want to adopt there are other agencies and the same logic applies to the abortionist.

Have you heard of Sharia law? Look into it. I hear it’s coming soon to a neighbourhood near you.

 

[straggleyway]

Hi Ockham

A long post, I admit! =)

You say…
“My first priority is to disregard polemics and focus on facts. Whether a newspaper is “right” or “left” wing is inconsequential in determining the validity of an argument when based on facts.”

(I’m glad to hear your prioritize facts over politics. If only more right-wing politicians followed your lead…)

First, what is and isn’t a “fact” is an interesting philosophical discussion. Moreover, the press uses our absence of knowledge to create “facts.” For example, Fox News regularly puts out what they describe as “surveys”. The questions are usually phrased in carefully crafted language eg. “Are you afraid of foreigners - yes or no?” Then, the newsreader carefully tells us it is a “fact” that 98% of us are afraid of foreigners. I’m paraphrasing here, but you get the idea…

Second, statistics (as always…) require careful understanding to really interpret what they mean. For example…

“In terms of year on year growth, Latvia was the leading nation in the EU in terms of infrastructure spending.”

This actually means spending in Latvia is so low down the table that when it does begin to start spending more, the percentage increase is huge.

Let me say that again because it is really important. It is easy to look at growth figures, when they are coming from a low base.

This is also complicated by the fact that the 20-35 professional generation from historical christian ancestors are simply not having the same number of children as before. Women are excelling in careers etc. Low-education immigrants generally see their welfare in their dependents and so they have many children. This question on growth rates is much more complex than just growth rates.

Third, you ask

“Do you have facts, statistics, or sources to support your claim that Islamic immigration is not the issue the Telegraph and others make it to be?”

Well, I believe I agreed with you on the level of immigration - I’m quite happy that pakistani and bangladeshi immigrants hold birth rates ten times that of their white counterparts. The objection I have is that the Telegraph et al. wish to imply that some kind of “Islamic Kingdom” is going to arrive. It works. It causes fear among Catholics like yourself and sells newspapers. I agree with the birth rate however I dont agree that this automatically gives rise to some Islamic State. Muslims are still 2% of the country - that growth rate needs to increase even more, and keep going for decades - and then the non-islamic population need to die off (some how…!). Now, do you *really *feel this is going to occur?

Fourth, I am quite happy with a prediction that Islam will be the dominant religion in Europe in around 15-20 years time. But this is only partly due to immigration - the **overwhelming **factor in this is that a great many Catholics in Europe are over 65. Over the next 20 years, they will begin to die off (sorry to be blunt…). And unfortunately, the next generation is simply not following in anywhere near the same numbers. We are back to my original argument of demographics.

Fifth, You say…
“You caught yourself in a contradiction by first admiting that politicians are afraid to criticize Muslims yet then state that religions must bend to the political whim of the day.”

You argue that I contracdict myself by stating the following two beliefs. First, the Church must obey the rules set by a parliament. Second, that I believe politicians should challenge Muslim communities more often.

I do not believe these two points are a contradiction - in fact, I strongly believe they both come from the same ethos - one that I uphold dearly. Let me clarify. The key principle here is that one human being’s theology is not greater, and does not hold presidence over the laws of the land.

I would argue that this principle is self-evident in the first belief - that the Church must obey the rules set by a parliament. Your tone is somewhat concerning - you refer to “the political whim of the day”. I appreciate you may be right-wing, however, that does not qualify you to decide which laws you obey and which you do not - simply because of “faith”. As I mentiones before, this sets a very dangerous prescident - that anyones faith can urserp the law of the land. What happens if all religious communities apply this prinxiple? Would you allow Muslim communities to decide which laws they didnt like ? If you wish to get a law changed, you may do that within parliamentary process. If you can get enough people to believe the ideas you propose should be protected by law, then great - the law can be changed. Otherwise you obey it.

The second belief continue in this vain. Politicians from all sides have worked hard to capture Muslim extremists. However, many feel it is taboo to critise a religious belief they actually disagree with. I want politicians to finally acknowledge that the majority of the UK are, in fact, not religious - and to be honest with ALL religious communities. They are no longer the majority and should not expect respect of their religious views - simply because they are religious. I apply this to Muslim, Christians and all other faiths. It is a principle - simply because someone believes in a particular theology, does not mean that I must respect that belief, should I happen to disagree with it.

 

[CatholicZ09]

Well, in my church it kind of has mostly older people (or maybe that’s just my only aspect because I go early) from what I’ve experienced, younger people like going later in the day, and I was at 11am Mass this past Sunday and there are quite a few younger families, not THAT much, however.

 

[straggleyway]

CatholicZ09,

I appreciated your perspective from your particular church - however the whole argument of this thread is to look at demographics - that is look at all catholic churches.

Now, I believe the US is quite different to Europe - it is far, far more religious.

However, if we look at the demographics across Europe and look at the **average **or median age of congregations - they are in the high age bracket. In the UK, there are many churches with few children.

Many catholics feel now is a worrying time. They are in for a shock - the collapse will occur when the older age group begins to die off - approximately 15 to 20 years time (maybe more…). The drop in Christian numbers will be *gargantuan *and Islam will gradually rise to be the most popular religion.

However, the vast majority of European society will be non-religious i.e. they will have no religon.

Ockham

You asked me if I had any sources. I always recommend academic research as opposed to the media.

The link below is a paper from research with the European Social Survey (ESS). The result is critical for Europe: each generation in every country surveyed is less religious than the last. This is a incredible result and fascinating.

tinyurl.com/yjrt9d6

 

[GeorgeSword]

In Italy, I believe Catholicism is the majority religion by some 87%. Only 37% or so of this group claim to be active Catholics. In every country now, and in the past, faithful Catholics have been the minority. Even in the high points of the history of the Church, when almost everyone belonged to her, I still believe those of great, true faith were a minority.
People don’t listen to the Church because it is large. People listen because when the Church speaks, it speaks the truth.
I believe that in time those who have converted to Evangelicalism will see their errors, as they get a bit older will find it to be a very empty experience and end up back in the Church. Christ promised us the Church would never fall, and I believe Him. We may have low points, it is true, but so what? We have rose up from the catacombs before.

 

[straggleyway]

GeorgeSword,

Your statement needs correcting…

“**A minority **of people don’t listen to the Church because it is large. This minority listen because when the Church speaks, it speaks the truth, in their opinion.”

The reason for this change is obvious when we look at the numbers. How can we analyse if people listen to the Church? What you claim can be measured. Economists analyse belief by what people do. The best metric we have is church attendence.

Both Catholic and protestant churchs had far, far larger congregations in, say the 30s, 40s and 50s. Christianity was a far more influential force. In the UK, attendance at mass in 1991 was recorded as 1.3 million, a drop of 40 per cent since 1963.

If we take the population of the UK to be approximately 60 million, then in 1991, 2.1% of the population went to a Catholic mass.

Now, lets take any other organisation apart from your Church. If they had 2% of the population, how influential should they be? What ability should they have to change government policy by lobbying? If any other Church or Temple had 2% of the population, how influential should **they ** be?

Going by your argument that people listent simply because the Church speaks “the truth” how do you explain that only 2% of the UK are attending? And if you regard it as the truth or not - who cares. What you believe in your own home is your business. The problem for the Church is that they have no mandate any more.

Sources: CIA Factbook, Christian Research

 

[GeorgeSword]

We do not seek to have influence in the government. If they are immoral, as they are now, we do what we can to change them. But that isn’t what the Church is about. If someone listens, it is because the Church speaks the truth and the graces of the Holy Spirit. That simple.
I’m not worried about the Church at all, since I know God will protect it. But I believe many, if not most of these people who leave the Church for Evangelical non-denom churches will be led back into the Church in time, as they find it to be shallow and lacking in truth, as well as disunited.