My take on growing secularism is that most churches have very little to offer the present day mindset. They are ritualistic, routine and dull places that may have been dutifully attended by earlier generations that believed that the church stood between them and eternal punishment, but they have little to offer the present generation which has different views of sin and redemption, and perhaps most importantly, what it wants to do with its time. In many cases older people continue to attend out of habit, but younger people will not come.
Yet some churches have been astonishingly successful. This would appear to be not so much because of their message, which hasn't really changed that much, but because of the way it's delivered. We have local Catholic church here in Ottawa that has raised its membership from 200 some six years ago to its current 6,000. It has increased the number of masses it holds and is usually always packed. Much of this is attributed to a charismatic priest who not only understands current social dynamics but who knows a lot about what might be termed "religious entertainment". Because of my association with a local foodbank, I had to do a reading at that church recently and got some understanding of its growth. The service was very moving, the music especially so, led by a young woman with an extraordinary voice and accompanied by guitars. Following the service, the priests, led by their charismatic leader, circulated among the attendees, shaking hands and helping people feel good about what they had just experienced. A few years ago, in Brazil, I experienced something similar in Protestant churches, which were huge and packed. The music was incredible. While the Pastor threatened to send everyone to Hell, he also offered them redemption if they behaved appropriately. The highlight of the service, getting people to come forward and confess their sins, would have put Jerry Springer to shame. Men confessed that they were cheating on their wives or that they were fraudulently selling cars that they knew were in very bad shape. I would speculate that the success of the Pentecostal movement depends on delivering a hard message but in an entertaining "feel good" way. If, in this day and age of Oprah and reality TV you can't entertain while you deliver, you're not going to get very far. Ed Weick ----- Original Message ----- From: "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] yin and yang of the religious mind > > On Thu, 05 Jun 2003, Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I much enjoyed reading David Brooks' article, "Kicking the Secularist > >Habit". I agree with Brooks that many of us have accepted the notion that > >as the world becomes richer and better educated, it becomes less > >religious. But that's only because we (that is, the sort of people who > >read the Atlantic Monthly) are richer, better educated and less religious > >than we used to be. > > > >It is interesting that the main examples of religious revivalism Brooks > >cites -- in Africa and in the Moslem countries -- not to mention two > >large blocs he doesn't cite -- South America (Brazil particularly) and > >India (among the Hindus particularly) -- are plainly affected by being > >"mere conduits for thwarted economic impulses", to use his words, even > >though he doesn't agree with this as a reason for religious revival. > > > >Well, all I can say is that this seems to me to be a very adequate reason > >for the revival of religion in the above regions of the world. What's > >more, this also accounts for the fairly large numbers of lower > >middle-class whites in America, England, and very likely (though I don't > >know for sure) in western Europe who, fearing that they are not going to > >be as secure or prosperous as they thought (in the 1960s, 70s and 80s) > >they were going to be, are now turning to pentecostal and fundamentalist > >sects. (The evangelical wing of the Anglican church is growing healthily > >in England, while the more austere, intellectual, liberal main body is > >losing ground fast.) We can also point to the vigorous revival of the > >Orthodox Church in Russia to which millions have turned after being let > >down by the economic promises of communism. > > I agree, at least in part. The first step in secularism > (other than those instances of secularism by imposition > of state policy, which has turned out to have not "taken" > terribly well) is the time to reflect on received indoctrinations. > The second is the self esteem to consider one's own judgement > in these matters at least as valid as that of the received > authority. Both of these conditions are linked fairly strongly > to, if not affluence, at least a social milieu where one > feels free to hold independent opinions and strike out on > one's own. That latter criterion is also an aspect of the > last step, the security of being necessary to discard the > blanket offered by the recipes of tradition, and the > community of the faithful, in favour of the uncertainty > of some sort of existential philosophical position, however > foggily outlined. This sort of state of mind is surely > aided by conditions of economic security. > > Having said that, I also think that observed > trends to secularism in the west over the past half century > have been distorted by demographics, and thus the "retreat" > is likely due in part to the same mechanism. That is, for > every secularist who makes his way by free thought, there > are some number who are rather in the position of finding > themselves essentially, at least in their own perception, > ejected by their sectarian tradition, due to conflicts between > their peer social values and those of the tradition. This > is a function of coming of age, and so the baby boom resulted > in a blip in the statistics, which may have been overemphasized > by surveys. There is also the contributing factor that the > same demographic event led to a particularly vital and > active peer culture, which accentuated the conflicts with > traditions. The thing is that the individuals who found themselves > thus "disenfranchised" of their religious traditions by > this process are not the same as those who arrive at their > secularism by free thught, and they are therefore not likely > to be permanently secular, but rather to find a way to reconcile > with the traditions which they were not fully equipped to > abandon, later in life; particulary as many of these people > never seem to develop a philosophical scaffolding for their > secular position. For the baby boom, that "later in life" is > happening now. > > I'm afraid I have nothing to back up this notion beyond my > rather limited observations of society. > > -Pete Vincent > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
