Why are (young) people leaving the church?

A recent Unbelievable show discussed the 'problem' of young people leaving the church. It followed the pattern of other similar discussions I have heard in the past, whereby it turned out that the 'ex-christian' made a lifestyle choice or had a sexual orientation which was seen as incompatible with the teaching of the church they attended, and so they felt alienated and had to leave. In this case, the guy was gay and believed he had to make the choice between being part of a church or having a meaningful sexual relationship with another man. His natural urges for sex and companionship won, as you might expect. So he left the church and lost his faith in God, more or less in that order. It wasn't the lack-of-faith issue that was the reason he left, it was kind of the other way about.

I've heard interviews with other ex-christians, like John Loftus for example, where the pattern was broadly similar. In Loftus's case (as I recall), he had an affair with a woman in his church, then was surprised to discover that the church rejected him rather than accepting him as the sinner he was and trying to bring him back into the fold. He left the church, somewhat disgruntled, and it was this that ultimately pushed him towards rejecting Christian belief.

This pattern of people leaving the church is broadly what the church wants to hear. People leave because of their own moral shortcomings. In other words, its not the church who is at fault, is is the unrepentant sinner. The initial sin (nothing to do with belief) is followed by other bad choices and further sins that so cloud the former believer's way of thinking that they eventually become deluded and ultimately reject the God they used to believe in.

For many Christians, this is the only deconversion sequence that really makes sense. Indeed, I once heard a minister, when he heard of someone in his congregation losing faith, whose immediate reaction was "I wonder what he's been up to...?"

I suppose, within the Christian mindset, this is the only option that makes sense. Someone who truly believes in God, and furthermore has a real personal relationship with him, cannot, simply cannot come to believe that the God they know does not exist. Well, they cannot, unless they are deceived and deluded, and that will only happen if they are a habitual and unrepentant sinner...

The thing is, there are others, who haven't 'fallen' into sin, who haven't had affairs and who haven't made lifestyle choices that are incompatible with the teachings of the church, who still lose faith. The church doesn't really know what to do with them.

If they truly seek to fix this problem, the church inevitably starts looking for the faults within the church that are the reason the people leave. Of course, the faults must be within the church, for there is no way that it could be the God concept that is flawed. The church can't really ever face the possibility that the leavers could be right and those who stay are in the wrong. As soon as they admit that possibility, the collapse is inevitable. Or at least it was in my case.

With hindsight, the greatest single factor that contributed to my eventual lack of faith was simply considering the possibility that I could have been wrong about God. As soon as I questioned God himself, things began to unravel.

Why are (young) people leaving the church? Maybe they've honestly considered the central beliefs of the church and found them lacking. Maybe they're right to leave. 

Marriage and Sex

I listened to the most recent 'Unbelievable' podcast yesterday, featuring Rob Bell and some random UK based apologist who was simply there to disagree with Rob's opinions on everything.

Eventually, and inevitably, their conversation landed on Rob Bell's much publicised recent affirmation of gay marriage. Listening to the conversation made me almost as annoyed as Rob sounded.

If you were to take the stance of the opponent here, it seems that marriage is all about sex. Indeed, sex defines marriage. I don't know if you've ever been married, but I have to say that in my experience of marriage, sex is only one part of the whole thing. Indeed, occasionally there are weeks and fortnights when sex is no part of being married.

So should we let sex define marriage, or should we let marriage define sex?

Consider the following (made up) example. Imagine there are two people who, for reasons we really don't need to specify, are physically unable to have sex. Indeed, let's go one step further and imagine them to have no sexual urges at all. Their relationship is entirely celibate. Yet they want to get married. Should they be allowed to?

Well, if marriage is all about sex, then clearly no. As they're not going to have sex, they shouldn't have marriage. Right?

If this couple was one man and one woman, then I can't imagine anyone would use this reasoning. We know marriage is not all about sex. Indeed, these days, sex without marriage is quite common and is merely frowned upon by some. But we would permit a marriage between two non-sexual people, if they were of different genders.

But consider this, suppose the couple was two men. Two celibate men, who want to live together in a mutually supporting relationship, without sex. Should they get married? Well, here you can't use arguments against homosexual sex to argue against male-male marriage (note, we're imagining them without sexual urges, so I can't really define them as 'gay' or 'straight'). What reasons are there for preventing this marriage? 

Oh, so you say that as they can't 'consummate' the marriage, they can't be really married? Once again, we're letting sex define marriage. It should be the other way around - marriage should define sex.

So at this point, someone will probably invoke the bible. But this isn't considered in the bible. So this is one of those places where we have to do some thinking, and work out ethics for ourselves. (Oh, and by the way, we know of several instances of celibate male-female marriages in the early years of the church, so we actually have precedent for not defining marriage using sex...)

Once the question of sex is removed, what barriers are left which prevent us from allowing same-gender marriage? You're basically left with convention and tradition. Neither of which are particularly strong reasons for preventing marriage.

So assuming that a celibate couple can have a 'real' marriage, without sex, why do the goalposts shift when we add sex into the equation? Is there something inherently morally wrong about homosexual sex? Well, some would say yes - it is explicitly condemned in the bible. Then again, so is wearing poly-cotton clothing and eating prawns, but never mind that, those things aren't really important, but this thing is. Apparently. Why?

Because its an 'abomination'...?

True, many English translations of the bible use that word in Leviticus. But then again, the same word is used for many things that we don't think twice about, such as eating any seafood that doesn't have fins or scales. The word 'abomination' is also a rather strong (mis)translation of a word that apparently means something more like 'mixing' or 'confusion' in its original language. Seafood that doesn't have fins or scales is a 'confusion' because it doesn't conform to our general concept of 'fish'. Sex between two people of the same gender is a 'confusion' because it breaks down the usual definition of gender roles - that is, one partner in gay sex is confusing his gender by assuming the female role.

Basically, an abomination is any animal or action that doesn't fit with conventional categories (see Mary Douglas's 1966 book 'Purity and Danger', particularly chapter 3 on 'The Abominations of Leviticus' - you can find copies online). And the Israelites were prohibited from 'abominations' not because these were bad for them, or because they were morally wrong, but to clearly delineate themselves as a people 'set apart' - avoiding 'confusions' was a way of ensuring that nobody could confuse them with the other nations. So if we're prawn eating, mixed fabric wearing, non Jews, in what way should these regulations apply to us?

But I seem to have digressed substantially from my original point. Marriage is not defined by sex. Sex is only a part of marriage. So we need to sort marriage out without reference to sex, and then - I expect - all the confusing ethical issues about sex might just fall into place...

---

Oh, and on a completely irrelevant note, I was also niggled by Rob Bell's use of the word 'birthed'. This is a word that I have only ever heard used by preachers. Nobody else uses this word. Just stop it, OK?

The great schism...

And so it begins.

On Monday last week, St George's Tron Church in Glasgow formally left the Church of Scotland because of the stance on homosexuality (particularly in the clergy) adopted by the General Assembly of the kirk. This is the first church to leave the CofS over this issue, and I suspect others will join them soon.

This doesn't surprise me. Indeed, what surprises me is that its taken so long. I can distinctly remember having a conversation about this circa 1995 when I was fully expecting things to come to a head over this issue and the breakup of the kirk to begin.

According to Wikipedia, there are at least 62 CofS congregations who are members of the "Fellowship of Confessing Churches" (who have a website, but it seems to be dead at the moment), who are united in their disapproval of the CofS stance on gay clergy. The ministers of many of these churches are also part of the "Crieff Fellowship" (who have almost no web presence, but you can download their sermons here), which is an informal network of 'conservative evangelical' churches in Scotland (mostly, but not exclusively, CofS, I think) which dates back to the golden era of the 1970s when Willie Still was minister of Gilcomston South Church in Aberdeen, Jim Philip was minister in Holyrood Abbey Church in Edinburgh and George Philip was minister in Sandyford Henderson Church in Glasgow.

You'll note the surname Philip is prominent here. Willie Philip (sorry, the Rev Dr William Philip; but I've known him since I was a boy, so he's still 'Willie' in my head), who is minister of St George's Tron is the son of Jim and nephew of George and, I suspect, named after Willie Still.

With St George's Tron leaving the CofS, I think it won't be long until Holyrood, Gilcomston and others have jumped ship too. I'll be interested to see if they form their own new denomination of if they stay independent. Accountability is important to these folks, so I think an organisation will form sooner rather than later.

But are they right to jump ship? I have a whole heap of mixed feelings about this.

I've made several comments on my opinion on the whole homosexuality in the bible debate on this blog in the past (here, here, here and probably elsewhere too) and my opinion hasn't really changed much since I wrote the old posts. So I'm broadly in favour of what the CofS is doing, and broadly against the attitudes of the Fellowship of Confessing Churches.

But (and this is a big but) I am also in broad agreement with what St George's Tron Church have just done, and agree with their reasons for doing it. You see, the CofS has crossed a line in the sand. It has said, in essence, we will allow contemporary culture to guide us in reinterpreting the message of the bible. Of course, they don't say that in so many words, but that's effectively what they are doing.

Changing your stance on an issue is fine, if you can justify why you have changed your stance. But the CofS seems to be changing stance on their opinion on the bible without admitting that they have done this. St. George's Tron have decided not to change their stance, and so they have to part with the CofS. The real issue here, for them, is the attitude to the bible, not the attitude to homosexuality. I approve of the attitude of St George's Tron, even if I no longer hold the bible to be as inspired and foundational as they do.

Anyway, I'll be intrigued to see what the fall out of this split is over the coming months and years.

Gay marriage?

Having read a load of nonsense on both sides of the debate this week, and having read some really quite sensible comments on both sides of the debate as well, I feel like making a few comments.

If "marriage" is defined as a union of a man with a woman, as is commonly stated by many folk on the no-gay-marriage side of things, then what we need for gays who want to get married is something which is like marriage in every way, but simply has a different name. Then it wouldn't be marriage, it would be something different, and the no-gay-marriage bunch could just give up and go away.

If "marriage" is not defined as involving different genders, then why is there a debate going on?

And why is there no such thing as a heterosexual 'Civil Partnership'?

That is all.