conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

Barna has a clear point of view which is far from unbiased or objective. Now, unbiasedness and objectivity are not required for a clergyperson to be good at his/her job. But they are required for a scientist, even a social scientist, when gathering data. So for Barna to draw the conclusion that his respondents are wrong, or even worse, are lying, when they say they're committed to God but not to a church -- that reflects a serious flaw in his reasoning method, in my opinion.

Survey subjects cannot be wrong, especially when you ask them entirely about *themselves*. (Of course, they could be wrong if you were giving them a quiz about something outside themselves.) They can be surprising, but they cannot be wrong.

That means, guess what, Rev. Barna? It's possible to have a strong commitment to God and no commitment at all to a church. Clearly it's not only possible, it's common. Better catch up.

Why might people feel commitment to God but not to church? Perhaps because churches aren't (or weren't) fostering commitment to God. They think they are, but the survey data makes it clear that actual congregants or past congregants (again, we don't know how long it's been since the unchurched respondents last attended a service or were regularly part of a congregation) don't or didn't find that churches fostered, nurtured or advanced their attachment to God.

I find Barna disturbing. I prefer Alban or Hartford. The marketing glitz of the Barna advertising slicks strike me as ... self serving. Yes, good science is done, but.

BTW -- I had lunch with Roberta on Thursday. Bondi, that is. She's officially retired now.

And, thanks.

Not surprising, not only because of the advance of secularism and post-modernism (one isn't pressured socially or professionally to go to church anymore) but because it's a logical terminus of Protestantism. As Mgr Ronald Knox observed ages ago, America is the happy hunting-ground of sectarianism, including 'a sect of one'.

Interesting comments. I want to address this post in a more thorough approach later this week. But let me say that I understand Megan to say that even though Barna does not like the results, the survey suggests that there are faithful people...they just do not go to church. And though this is a disconnect for Barna, it may not be for those surveyed.

The Fogey does make an interesting point as well. If one understands Protestantism as a constant series of schism, then eventually we will all have our own churches...congregations of one. Perhaps.

I think what may also be happening is that people are finding faith communities in places other than formal congregations. We find other places to gather and connect about God. Why? Well, because as Megan suggests the Church has let down many people. It fails in its own mission...especially in Protestant America where many denominations claim Perfection. There is no room in some denominational theologies for any failur at all, so leadership cannot or will not admit to sin. Thus, when an institution does fail, it has no way to seek reconciliation...or corporate repentance.

People will then go elsewhere.

Reconciler is still to young a congregation to claim what I am about to say, but it is interesting to me that many who attend are responding to both Megan and Fogey. They cannot trust the existing institution, but they cannot become individualists in the strictist uses of the term.

Thus, the Church may be emerging in unexpected ways. Who knows?

It's fairly obvious that like in St Athanasius' day (whatever the equivalent in his day was) the parish system is 'broke'. Things like religious orders and matters of administration other than the historic episcopate (we may disagree there) are not of the essence of the church and can and do change.

Emerging in unexpected ways? Whether that means traditionalists really going underground or, at the other end, new rites evolving but based on the same principles as the old, why not?

Half-remembering a quotation I like and adding onto it, the last priest celebrating the last Mass in a shattering universe as the Parousia happens may well be using the Tridentine Missal, the Knott translation of same, or the Russian recension of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom for a congregation in hiding just like people imagine the catacombs... or using some rite that hasn't even been thought of yet... maybe in Africa, not Europe or the Americas, which may go the way of many of St Paul's churches or Carthage.

Wishing you and Reconciler a blessed Eastertide.

I wonder too if there is a "self-labelling" factor going on. I mean, being a "Christian" or a "patriot" or a "lover of Jesus and/or puppies" are all _good things_, and people will tend to describe themselves as being them. I wonder if some of the respondents, far from being seekers who are experientially disillusioned by church, just have never had any interest in church...but this does not prevent them from being "Christians" in the sense that they are "not-bad-people," or "not-Commies," or "not-anti-American" or "not-Jewish-or-Muslim."

I'd kind of like to see the raw numbers, or hear some alternative interpretations from the data by those who have seen it.

Good point, Mr Grazer: much of this simply could be from ignorance/no catechesis. Like the poll that said many Americans claim to be born-again Christians but at least some of the same people thought that Jesus committed sins. Or the one from Brazil where people who claimed to be Catholic didn't know who Jesus was!

'Christian' in the not-thought-out, colloquial sense of 'being nice' like the diplomat who told the Israelis and Arabs to resolve their differences in a Christian manner!

Or Archie Bunker to Edith: 'What are we again?' (In the sense of 'I know we're not Catholic or Jewish but I forget exactly what'.)