You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘surveys’ category.
State school supporters — including left-leaning ‘committed Christians’ — often downplay the questionable influence that sex education has on students.
Yet, such plans and lessons have long been part of school curriculum in varying degrees. Four or five decades ago it was generally an annual hour-long talk given by Scouting leaders and/or nurses to classrooms of respective sexes. In Catholic school, we were aged between 10 and 12 at the time. These were optional and permission letters were sent home to parents reassuring them about the nature of the talk yet giving them an opt-out if they objected. The adults giving the talks were members of the churches connected to the schools. No questions were asked of any opt-outs. The parents of nearly all the pupils I knew allowed them to attend the talks.
The lectures, complete with a short slide show from toiletries companies, showed biological diagrams of male and female ‘plumbing’ and described what we could soon expect to experience: changes in our bodies, our emotions and an interest in the opposite sex. Girls learned about menstruation, sanitary protection and the importance of keeping track of their menses using a small calendar.
That said, at the time, there were a few state schools which promoted a mixed class of sex education which lasted for several weeks. The children were also aged between 10 and 12. There is a YouTube video of one of these classes from the mid-1960s. If I find it again, I’ll post it.
As concerned parents predicted at the time, it would all get out of hand. And, now that my generation are becoming grandparents, so it has come to pass.
In 2011, Washington, DC schools decided to implement an examination on matters sexual for students. This was scheduled to begin in the Spring of 2012. In January 2012, prior to implementation, more details emerged about the guidelines for the course, aimed at primary and middle school students from age seven upwards (emphases mine):
A new set of sexual education guidelines have been released by a coalition of health and education groups, which says that young elementary school students should use the proper names for body parts and, by the end of fifth grade, know that sexual orientation is “the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender.”
The non-binding recommendations by Advocates for Youth to states and school districts are to be used to formulate school curricula for each age level, with the goal of giving schools the opportunity to build a foundation that in the long term will better help teens as they grow into adults, writes Kimberly Hefling at the Associated Press.
One of the reasons why the guidelines were collated was because of the inconsistency in the teaching of sex education in schools.
By the end of second grade, the guidelines say students should use the correct body part names for the male and female anatomy. By fifth grade, the guidelines say students should be able to define sexual harassment and abuse.
When they leave middle school, they should be able to differentiate between gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation, and those leaving eighth grade to also be able to evaluate the effectiveness of abstinence, condoms and other “safer sex methods” and know how emergency contraception works.
Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Education Abstinence Association, said she does not agree with the topics and goals of the standards:
“This should be a program about health, rather than agendas that have nothing to do with optimal sexual health decision-making,” Huber said.
“Controversial topics are best reserved for conversations between parent and child, not in the classroom.”
Wow. DC’s schools haven’t been the only ones journeying down this path. Certain schools in Europe also helped youngsters feel comfortable with their sexual parts as long ago as the early 1970s. Some regular readers might recall one of my posts on French Socialists from 2011. In it I described Daniel ‘Dany’ Cohn-Bendit’s career after he was deported from France back to Germany for ten years after his activities in the 1968 Paris demonstrations. Cohn-Bendit, incidentally, currently serves as an MEP (EELV [Green] Party) — Member of the European Parliament.
However, in the 1970s he worked as a teaching assistant in Germany. In 1975:
Dany wrote a book called Le Grand Bazar, in which he described his teacher’s aide experiences at the crèche. This is a quote from the book, wherein he describes his sexualisation of his young charges, who ranged from the ages of 1 to 6:
It happened on several occasions that certain kids opened my fly and started to tickle me. I reacted in a certain manner, depending on the circumstances. I would ask them, ‘Why don’t you play together? Why did you choose me — me — instead of the other kids?’ But they would insist, and I would caress them all the same.
In 1982, Dany appeared on the much-watched (and much-missed) highbrow television show, Apostrophes, which discussed the latest books. He said:
You know, a kid’s sexuality, it’s absolutely fantastic … When a little girl, five years old, starts to undress you, it’s fantastic!
Combine all this highly questionable and, to my mind, indecent, interest in children’s sexuality with today’s increasingly unstable home life — single-parent household, boyfriend or deviant relative on the prowl, violence, crime as well as other unhealthy factors for children — and we can end up with millions of maladjusted youths. Sex, naturally, will be at the forefront of their thoughts.
A 2003 study of adolescent girls from homes where the father was absent in the United States and New Zealand concluded:
father absence was an overriding risk factor for early sexual activity and adolescent pregnancy. Conversely, father presence was a major protective factor against early sexual outcomes, even if other risk factors were present. These findings may support social policies that encourage fathers to form and remain in families with their children (unless the marriage is highly conflictual or violent; Amato & Booth, 1997).
I sincerely hope that school curriculum anywhere will exclude frank discussions of the following activities — this link is a must read for every parent and guardian, even if they concern the NHS and not schools — yet, somehow, I think what is in that URL will be discussed in the classroom.
We also have the issue of paedophilia, which is likely to gain more traction as activists seek to normalise it. Earlier this month, a resolution made its way to the legislature in the State of California. Whilst it is not about paedophilia in so many words — ‘sexual orientation’, rather — the author of the article shot back at her critics with this:
Elsewhere, a gay man, Doug Mainwaring (pron. ‘Mannering’), has written about why he opposes gay marriage. Here is part of what he has to say:
We are in the middle of a fierce battle that is no longer about rights. It is about a single word, “marriage.”
Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together. Same-sex relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.
Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable “social units,” and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives.
And while same-sex marriage proponents suggest that the government should perhaps just stay out of their private lives, the fact is, now that children are being engineered for gay and lesbian couples, a process that involves multiple other adults who have potential legal custody claims on these children, the potential for government’s involvement in these same-sex marriage households is staggering.
Solomon only had to split the baby in two. In the future, judges may have to decide how to split children into three, four, or five equal pieces. In Florida, a judge recently ordered that the birth certificate of a child must show a total of three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man (the sperm-providing hairdresser of one of the lesbian moms). Expect much more of this to come.
Now we can better understand why half of French society is so concerned about the state of play with regard to same-sex marriage and with it the right to adoption and assisted reproduction.
As we begin Holy Week, many people calling themselves Christian do not know about Easter.
Although it seems hard to believe, our fellow ‘believers’ cannot explain what happens on the most important feast of the Church year.
A few years ago, I worked with a supposedly Eastern Orthodox woman in England who said, ‘My son came home from nursery school where they had a lesson about Easter. The women told the children that Christ died on the Cross.’
I asked, ‘And what else?’
‘What do you mean?’
‘What happened after He died on the Cross? Did they explain?’
‘I’m not following you,’ she said.
‘Did the women tell the children about Easter?’
‘I’m not sure. All Easter means to me is that we passed around coloured eggs in church. Kind of a sharing thing. I don’t know why. It was very stinky and messy. Stupid, really.’
‘Okay,’ I said, ‘so I guess your son does not know that Christ rose from the dead and without that there is no salvation.’
‘No, I don’t think they went into that.’
From the look on her face, I had the distinct impression that I was telling her something new — that Christ rose from the dead.
However, she is not alone — read more here from my 2010 post which examines a Barna survey about our general ignorance about Easter.
Yes, Christians were surveyed. Be prepared for a shock.
Although somewhat pessimistic — or ‘realistic’, as I prefer to think of it — I see a glimmer of hope on the horizon for Western countries.
Early in December Britain’s National Centre for Social Research released its latest findings in their British Social Attitudes Survey. The survey shows that more of us are moving away from communitarianism and collectivism.
The Telegraph provides a few highlights (emphases mine):
More than half of Britons believe unemployment benefits are too high and that they discouraged those out of work from finding new jobs, research has suggested.
I believe the current allowance is approximately £60 a week, which is just enough for modest weekly grocery shopping and incidentals. Remember that working people pay into this fund in case they are made redundant. However, long-term unemployed benefits are sometimes a different story. That said, the media should try not to conflate the two.
And there is more:
Support for rising taxes to fund public services has also weakened as has opposition to private health and schooling, the report found …
Britons are increasingly looking to themselves for solutions to social problems rather than the Government, it found.
Seventy five per cent of those questioned agreed the income gap between rich and poor was too large yet only just over a third (35 per cent) believed ministers should take steps to redistribute wealth.
It also revealed that although people see child poverty as an issue the Government must tackle, 63 per cent of the 3,297 people questioned believed parents who “don’t want to work” were a reason why some children lived in poverty.
Naturally, the National Centre for Social Research is disappointed by the findings. Meanwhile, I’m smiling — finally, we’re beginning to regain some sanity as a nation!
Penny Young, the Centre’s Chief Executive is not happy:
In a time of economic austerity and social unrest, the big question coming out of this year’s report is whether we really are in it together, or just in it for ourselves?
No, Ms Young, we are trying to repair the damage done by collectivist policies, most notably those of Labour over the past 13 years.
People need to start taking care of themselves and their families again. It’s the only way we can heal our nation.
The study showed that … there was not much evidence of common interest, with almost half (45 per cent) opposing new housing, particularly in areas where it was most needed.
Despite widespread acknowledgement of housing shortages, opposition was highest where the problem was most acute, with more than half (58 per cent) against it in outer London and 50 per cent opposing new development in the South East.
Is it any wonder? We are inundated by all and sundry stretching our public resources — education, health and water — to the limit.
Also increasingly unpopular are environmental taxes — another cause for rejoicing:
The number of people prepared to pay much higher prices to safeguard the environment has fallen to just over a quarter (26 pre cent), compared to 43 per cent in 2000.
So too has the proportion willing to pay much higher taxes to protect the environment, from 31 p[er] cent to 22 p[er] cent.
Thank you, people of Great Britain!
Much of the commentary on these rather startling figures has centred on the change in economic circumstances: when people are affluent and believe that their financial future is secure, they tend to be more relaxed about tax rises (and perhaps more indulgent of spendthrift government). Now they are facing hardship and have become, as the Left would believe, “meaner” and more reluctant to part with a high proportion of their earnings.
I do not believe this to be the explanation – or, at least not the whole explanation. What has influenced this change of public mood at least as much is that the theory of public spending as the cure for all social evils has been tested to destruction (thank you Gordon Brown) and been exposed as not only fraudulent but pernicious. Government spending of the most lavish kind has not significantly improved public services, and enforced re-distribution of wealth has resulted in welfare dependency and moral decline. That is what we know now – and what we did not know back in the day when those public opinion polls that so impressed the Tories were being done.
This debate goes on in Western countries all the time: to spend or not to spend ‘for the greater common good’. From what I read on French fora, the opinion is pretty much split 50-50. A number of French socio-political commentators say that their nation is wed to Socialism in one way or another. The French people can’t imagine living without it. I’m not so sure; that, too, could well begin to change before next year’s presidential elections.
A number of Americans are still unhappy about their election results from 2008. 2012 gives them another opportunity to vote in better legislators and, perhaps, a new President.
If we get down and depressed, we can study history and recall the many cyclical swings and roundabouts. Nothing lasts forever.
A few days ago I ran across this item on the FamilyGP site in the UK highlighting a recent survey done by the Children’s Society.
The article says, in part:
Children aged between eight and 15 were quizzed about the ‘essentials’ of life for someone their age.
A list of the ten ‘must-have’ possessions was then drawn up – including iPod, pocket money, family holidays, a satellite TV, garden and “the right kind of clothes”.
After surveying 5,500 boys and girls, researchers found that those children lacking two or more of the items were “significantly more likely to be unhappy” than those given everything they wanted.
And those without five or more of the ‘must-haves’ were five times more likely to have “low levels of wellbeing”.
It is the first time children themselves have been polled about what they see as deprivation.
The mind boggles. Let us hope that this definition of ‘deprivation’ does not become a legitimate measure of ‘poverty’. Most kids in the UK, even those living under the poverty level, have access to a TV, a telephone, a council flat, hot water and heat — as well as the latest trainers and, often as not, some sort of electronic gadget.
Another recent survey in the December issue of Tatler, the British high-society magazine, profiled 250 students from public (private boarding) schools. Not available online, it can be found on pages 125-130 of the print copy. It’s a fascinating read.
I’ll largely skip the sections on what I considered to be commonplace in the US when I was growing up — e.g. alcohol consumption, drug experimentation — and give you a few excerpts about the sexual aspect of the lives these students lead.
Before I get to the findings, though, this post is not a comment on class as much as it is on today’s mentality, no doubt fostered by parents and other authority figures who still follow — and promulgate — the 1960s maxim, ‘If it feels good, do it’. We know now that such ideology comes to us courtesy of the Frankfurt School, whose influence helped give rise to youthful rebellions around Europe and the US in 1968.
Having said that, there is an element of ‘class’ to this. Those who have studied class behaviour — among them Vance Packard, Paul Fussell and Jilly Cooper — have noted that the upper and lower strata of society adopt the same mores and attitudes. The more middle classes concern themselves with propriety, reputation and closer family cohesion. Yet, the extreme mores of the upper and lower classes eventually trickle down to most of the population: ‘Everyone’s doing it’.
Without further ado, this is what Tatler found among the nearly 250 students they interviewed:
- ‘Nearly half had had their stomachs pumped, or knew someone who had’ (p. 125)
- Eighty-eight per cent approve of homosexuality (p. 125)
- Two-thirds have had a same-sex encounter (p. 125)
- Over 75% said they had hoped to have children someday, yet ‘over 50% had taken the morning-after pill or knew someone who had’. Furthermore, nearly a third had ‘had an abortion or knew someone else who had’. (p. 125)
- Nearly two-thirds were sexually active and more than a third of them were under the age of consent (p. 125)
- Eighteen per cent have had more than four sexual partners. An additional five per cent have had more than 10. (p.125)
- Everyone received a monthly allowance, yet 31% admitted to shoplifting. (p. 128)
So, these will be our national — perhaps international — leaders of tomorrow.
Additionally — sad though it is — these are likely to be our social attitudes of tomorrow.
On February 11, 2011, the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) featured findings from the 2008 Pew Forum survey and asked researchers for more information about the Catholic ‘mass exodus’ in America.
I’m not clear on why this is still news three years after its appearance, but the interview does shed light on where disaffected Catholics go to worship after they leave Holy Mother Church.
John L Allen Jr spoke with Pew Forum Director Luis Lugo and Pew Senior Researcher Greg Smith. Before going into details of the interview, here’s what Allen had to say (emphases mine throughout):
… almost half of American adults have either switched religions or dropped their ties to religion altogether.
For Catholicism, the banner headline was that there are now 22 million ex-Catholics in America, by far the greatest net loss for any religious body. One in three Americans raised Catholic have left the church. Were it not for immigration, Catholicism in America would be contracting dramatically: for every one member the church adds, it loses four. On the other hand, the study also found that the Catholic church has a higher retention rate than other major Christian denominations, and that 2.6 percent of the adult population is composed of converts to Catholicism, representing a pool of nearly six million new Catholics.
Naturally, critics of various aspects of Catholic life, such as the sexual abuse crisis or what some see as an overly conservative ideological drift, see the defections as proof of malaise. (A prominent American theologian recently claimed the Pew data reveal a “mass exodus” from the church, which he linked to a preoccupation by some bishops with the culture wars.) Equally predictably, Catholics content with the status quo play up the good news …
Here’s the bottom line: In comparison with other religious groups in America, the Catholic church’s struggles aren’t really with pastoral care, but missionary muscle. Overall, Catholicism serves existing members fairly well, as measured by the share that chooses to stick around; what it doesn’t do nearly as well is to evangelize …
To put all that into crass capitalistic terms, in America’s highly competitive religious marketplace, the real Catholic problem isn’t customer service but new sales.
Speaking as one of those ex-Catholics, I would disagree and say that a major part of the problem is customer service. We’ll see that in the comments later in the post.
But, first, excerpts from the interview. Bold type, as in the original, indicates Allen’s questions.
What reactions do you get when you discuss these findings with Catholics?
Lugo: People are often a little befuddled when I present the full range of evidence … You have to compare it to retention rates of other religious groups, and see it in terms of retention plus recruitment. It’s the net relationship between those two factors that’s so crucial.
Everybody’s losing members in this country, some even more than Catholics … Protestants are losing lots of members too, but for every four Americans who are no longer Protestant, there are three who are Protestant today who were not raised that way. Protestantism is declining as a whole, but the recruitment rate is pretty good. Catholics are not replenishing their ranks through conversion in the same way.
There are two other key variables. One is immigration, and the other is higher-than-average fertility rates among Hispanic Catholics. If the only factor driving a religious group’s share of the population were conversion, the Catholic church would be declining.
Smith: One of the things I was struck by, especially with regard to the Catholic church, is the degree to which apparent stability masks enormous change just below the surface. If all you look at is the percentage of the population who told us they’re Catholic, it’s exactly what we’ve found for four decades, and you would think nothing much is going on. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In his recent Murray/Bacik Lecture at the University of Toledo, noted Catholic theologian Richard Gaillardetz said the Pew data confirm a “mass exodus from the church.” Is it accurate to talk about a “mass exodus”?
Lugo: In the context of American religion as a whole, it’s not really accurate. In fact, Catholic losses are right in line with what we see overall in terms of people changing affiliation in this country. Look at the fastest-growing religious group in America, the unaffiliated. Even there, half of all people who were raised without an affiliation have since joined a religion! …
What really strikes me about the Catholic numbers is on the recruitment side. The Jehovah’s Witnesses grow because they recruit even more than they lose, which is not the case for the Catholics.
Smith: It’s not fair to say there’s a “mass exodus” from Catholicism more than any other faith … But one of the points of the report is that to understand the dynamics of American religion, you have to see retention and recruitment together. It’s the churn, the ratio of leaving to joining, which matters. It’s the recruitment side that sets Catholics apart. Four people leave Catholicism for every one who joins, and there’s no other religious group where you see a similar ratio. Baptists, for example, also have more people leaving than joining, but their ratio of 2-1 is twice of what we see for Catholics.
Is the take-away not that Catholics have a problem serving existing members, but that Catholics need to ramp up their missionary efforts?
Lugo: In terms of sheer numbers, that’s right …
I know that all the RCIA people will probably be mad, because they’re already over-burdened, but your question nails it: The most striking thing about Catholicism in America isn’t that it’s losing people, but that it’s not recruiting them as successfully as other groups. I should add that … the 2.6 percent of American adults who are converts to Catholicism is a huge pool of folks, so it’s not like nothing is going on.
What do we know about why those 22 million ex-Catholics left the church?
Lugo: It’s very interesting, because we have to break it down between those who have joined the ranks of the unaffiliated and those who have become Protestants … it’s by no means clear … whether the church ought to become more liberal or more conservative! Bear in mind that among those becoming Protestants, a majority are Evangelicals. One out of ten Evangelicals in America today is a former Catholic, and many of those folks say the Catholic church isn’t conservative enough.
Smith: It’s impossible to say in broad strokes why people leave, because it depends on where they’re headed. Among former Catholics who are now unaffiliated, 65 percent say they just stopped believing the religion’s teachings … 58 percent say they were unhappy with the teaching on things like abortion and homosexuality, and 48 percent or so were unhappy with the teaching on birth control. However, even more say they just gradually drifted away. 71 percent of former Catholics who are now unaffiliated say that.
Lugo: For that group … Many were already fairly “secularized” before they stopped identifying as Catholics …
Smith: For those who have become Protestants, 71 percent say their spiritual needs weren’t being met … More than half of those who are now Evangelical cite Catholic teaching about the Bible as a factor … most say that the Catholic church does not view the Bible literally enough …
Lugo: We also find that where ex-Catholic Evangelicals tend to cite reasons of belief and theology, those in mainline Protestant churches tend to be influenced more by what we might call “life cycle” factors, such as marrying someone of a different faith, or they didn’t like the priest at their parish, and so on.
For those who leave the church, when do they do so?
Smith: In 2008 we did a follow-up survey, and we found that switching is something that usually happens early in life. Most who left Catholicism did so prior to reaching the age of 24 …
Catholic membership is being replenished largely through Hispanic immigration. Are those Hispanics likely to remain Catholic?
Smith: People often assume that fewer Latinos leave Catholicism as compared to non-Latinos. There’s something to that, although the difference is not as large as you might expect. Among non-Hispanics who were raised Catholic, 66 percent are still Catholic. Among Hispanics raised Catholic, it’s 73 percent … Among those who have left, it’s just like the non-Hispanic Catholics — roughly half are now unaffiliated and half have become Protestants, mostly Evangelicals.
Now, to two of the comments, which really nail the issue.
First, from Mary Margaret Cannon (page 1 of the comments — sorry, no permalink — caps in the original):
… I believe: …
1. From a marketing perspective (as crude as that may sound) … Catholics literally threw off external “signs” of their Catholic identity at the time of Vatican II — Manifested chiefly by avowed religious who tossed aside habits and collars — at the very same time Americans were rushing to embrace “logos” and “brands”, in a pattern which has grown exponentially over these decades …
2. For the last dozen years or so, we’ve been most definitely moving into another age — not merely “collecting” things we like — but CONNECTING with those we identify with. Hence — the skyrocketing success of social networking places like Facebook …
3. The “problem” of Church membership isn’t as much about “conservative” vs. “liberal” — it’s about which experience — IF ANY — offers people the chance to connect with one another FIRST and foremost, so that they can then connect with God …
Having traveled all over America and having attended Catholic Masses in countless churches — contrast this push from Fundamentalist Churches to “reach out”, with the mumbled responses and lackluster welcomes (if any at all) as you walk in the door at a huge number of Catholic Churches. . . .Small wonder that younger people are slipping out the back door, in search for an experience of connection and joy, belonging and promise.
If we really REALLY want to turn around the numbers — however anyone interprets them — the answer is clear: …
Instead of concentrating on rewriting the Roman Missal (sorry — not a segue or a rant — just an observation) — it’s a huge pity that the following 3 SIMPLE elements are not added to every Sunday Mass (at least), at every single Catholic church in America:
1. Take 1 minute (literally) of every homily to EXPLAIN the origins of Catholic rituals like genuflecting (a fascinating story) — or the origins of the 12 Days of Christmas Song — or why bells were/are rung during the Consecration. People DON”T KNOW this stuff any more — But it’s fun, it’s trivia and it INFORMS the congregation — AND it helps the congregation CONNECT to 20 centuries of Christians before us. It helps Catholics understand that there IS a reason for everything we do — that it’s not just because “father said so”.
2. Devote 3 minutes (literally) during every Communion meditation to the “personal testimony” of a Catholic-in-the-pews, to tell a quick story of how Jesus is working in his/her life. (Take a look at the denominations attracting ex-Catholics: they all celebrate personal testimony/witness — enabling people to lift one another up in encouragement, enabling people to get to know one another, lessening a sense of “embarrassment” that faith should somehow be “private”, enabling people to connect with one another AND with the Church as a whole. THIS IS EVANGELIZATION and Catholics need to do it first and foremost in our own houses of worship — then, we can spread the Good News more effectively than ever.
3. I’m 56 years old, with several fabulous relatives who are avowed religious & I’ve had friends my whole life who are priests and nuns. I cannot ever remember a time when a priest gave a homily where he shared his own faith journey — where he openly shared his own desert experience and how God walked him through the desert. But, Why????? …
At the end of the day, this isn’t a perplexing problem of stemming the tide of defections. It’s not about the scandals (as much as I abhor them) or about whether the Church is “conservative” or “liberal”.
All we have to do is incorporate new ways to connect, to share, to “see” Jesus in our daily lives — and if we build that Church, they will come at a run …
And, from page 2 of the comments, Patrick Buckley:
… I was in the seminary when Vatican II started up, and I was there when Pope Paul VI gave his famous encyclical “Humanae Vitae” (of Human Life) … Nonetheless, many priests had been expecting the opposite decision, and rebelled and in the privacy of confession told many Catholics that is was okay to use the pill.
Next: mortification by abstaining from meat on Fridays was abolished and people were told to do their own mortification privately. Guess what? Nobody did. I certainly didn’t and happily ate hamburger and steak on Fridays from then on. Also, full abstinence and fasting were dropped to almost nothing in Lent. No penance to remind us that we are sinful beings who need to regularly practice the rites of self-control …
Next: the Church dropped it’s emphasis on the Rosary during the months of October and May (the month of Mary). Soon, nobody was praying the Rosary …
Next: the change of Confession to Reconciliation. One could go to Confession in the 50’s and early 60’s, spend some time before confession reviewing our sins, confess them, and receive some sort of penance. The whole time spent was not much, and therefore, I was much more inclined to attend confession regularly. But……….after Vatican II “reconciliation” greatly lengthened the time in the confessional from an average of 2 minutes to 15 minutes … Four people per hour, and there were no longer 2 priests to hear confession but only 1 priest in a parish with 4000 people! It doesn’t take a mathematician to figure out that it was impossible to hear even 1 confession per year for each of the parishioners. So, general confession had to take place, and pretty [soon] individual confession dropped even more.
Finally, sermons became bland; we had one priest for 10 years who spent most of his sermon making light jokes and entertaining us. My kids despised him, and all 7 dropped away from the church for many of the above reasons. I have had 3 that have come back partway, but that’s no consolation. All difficult topics were avoided from the altar. The priests explained to me that their sermons had to confine their topics to the 3 readings, but they no introduced none or very little relevant matter regarding the moral dissolution of our society during that period …
They could have preached that Catholicism is and has been under attack since year one. They never gave any historical background to why our faith is so important. They never mentioned the anti-[C]atholic[is]m of Napoleon, Mao, Stalin-Lenin, Planned Parenthood, and indicated that if we fell morally, the forces of anti-God authortarianism would take the place of the Church.
Next: the rol[e] of CCD—Confraternity of Catholic Doctrine or the teaching of the Faith to our children has been another disaster. While it’s fine and dandy to tell 1st-4th graders that Jesus loves us, it ‘s a qualitatively different matter when you then fail to instruct the children about Catholic Doctrine in detail and give reasons “why” it is truthful and divinely inspired. Instead, right up thru 12th grade, the main intent is to “entertain” the youth first during the first 20 minutes with games …
Our current and best priest at our Parish in the last 35 years is our current priest- a convert from Presbyterianism, whose father is indeed a pastor in that faith … He includes Church history from the first 2 centuries of our Church that explain many of our Doctrines, and he uses Latin words and then defines them into English for purposes of clarity …
Kent/Renton Washington locale
My purpose in compiling this post is less a call to or criticism of Catholicism than it is a warning to Christians around the world: if we don’t bring up children properly in the faith or have appropriate pastors willing to preach Scripture and doctrine from the pulpit, then we must accept the consequences.
Regardless of what we think about Catholicism, we have been warned about being lax and lukewarm.
The UK Government’s Office for National Statistics recently issued results of a survey which explodes myths about Britain left, right and centre. Those interested in more detail can find more on the Integrated Household Survey page.
I published the religious affiliations yesterday, but in case you missed that post, here they are again:
- 71.4% of Britons are Christian
- 20.5% have no religion
- 1.5% are Hindu
- 0.7% are Sikh
- 0.6% are Jewish
- 0.4% are Buddhist
- 4.2% are Muslim
- 1.1% follow another faith
So, only one-fifth have no religion. Secularists demand all sorts of concessions and have pronounced this a non-religious country for many years. This influences other world faiths to believe that we are heathens and pagans. Not true!
Statistics on sexual orientation are equally revealing:
- 94.8% of Britons are heterosexual
- 1.0% are gay or lesbian
- 0.5% are bisexual
- 3.7% were unsure or did not wish to respond
The survey also has a racial breakdown.
The Daily Mail tells us that the Integrated Household Survey is the furthest reaching survey of its kind to date:
It was compiled by putting new questions to individuals who already take part in six existing large-scale surveys.
As a result the ONS has managed to draw answers from a large number.
In total, the new Integrated Household Survey can cover 450,000, hundreds of times the size of databases commonly used in research.
The questions on sexuality were put to 247,623, of whom 238,206 provided an answer.
By contrast, the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles which last tried to make a count of the gay population in 2000, used a database of 12,000.
Hat-tip to Gairney Bridge for this article from the United Methodist Church (UMC) on vitality, growth, worship and church programmes. Oh, dear. Gairney Bridge is right — ‘Worship is NOT like going to the mall!’
This kind of thing really frightens me — as much as when Catholics rail against sola Scriptura.
In July 2009, I reported on a UMC survey which found that its members were dying faster than the American population as a whole. I realise that, as with the Anglican Communion, there is a good and faithful remnant, but they too must shudder when they read about the promotion of church growth, vitality drivers and so forth.
In the UMC’s ‘Keys to building vital congregations’, they champion the following concepts (okay, I’m just using the corporate-speak that they have used):
- a pastor is effective by the third year, by which time he should be contributing to ‘congregational vitality’
- ‘effective pastors are those that develop, coach and mentor laity in leadership roles’
- ‘contemporary services work best when the music echoes what people hear on pop radio’
- ’25 percent to 50 percent of attendees in leadership during the last five years’
Another thing that scares me about this is that the UMC hired a consulting firm, Towers Watson, to conduct this survey. But, even scarier, a Methodist, Fred Miller, president of The Chatham Group — another consulting firm — is the lead consultant on this vitality project. He had this to say:
The primary responsibility of everybody in all parts of our system — clergy, laity, general agencies, conferences — is to order our ministry around the drivers of vitality … Because if we are a more vital church, we will make more disciples of Jesus Christ.
Well, I worked for a worldwide top-10 consulting firm for 11 years and, until I started immersing myself in Scripture and orthodox Christianity a year and a half ago, I would have said, ‘Yeah, that makes sense.’ Now, I’m no expert in either Scripture or theology, but even at my neophyte stages, I can point out that something is very wrong with this picture. And, it’s all been said before — ‘Rick Warren’s Purpose-Driven Church and management theory’ — what an eye-opener!
Read again what Mr Miller says (emphases mine):
The primary responsibility … in all parts of our system … is to order our ministry around the drivers of vitality…
Hmm. ‘Primary responsibility’ — shouldn’t that be ‘Jesus commanded us’? ‘System’ — shouldn’t that be ‘church’? ‘Drivers of vitality’ — shouldn’t that be ‘Gospel message’? What New Testament verse did that come from?
What did Jesus actually say? He gave His disciples — and us — the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20), specifically:
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
I lament the absence of anything Christ-oriented or biblical — including a New Testament passage — in that article. I also abhor the Peter Drucker-Rick Warren orientation of their programme. (The link has a series of my posts exposing the errors in it.) As Voddie Baucham preached yesterday — our Christian walk is about God’s sovereignty and Christ as the propitiation for our sins. It’s not about us!
The worst sentences in that article — for me — were the following:
- ‘The research also showed pastoral tenure contributes to congregational vitality. Whether a pastor is effective is usually apparent by the third year. If a pastor is effective by then, this success is likely to grow over time with the highest level at 10 or more years.’ So, if your church doesn’t grow by then in terms of numbers, you’re a failure? Think of the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3. Some of them, like the persecuted church in Smyrna, no doubt lost members and remained purer as a result.
- ‘[Contemporary] services can use traditional hymns, but they had better have a backbeat.’
- ‘Churches also have rotating lay leadership with people sharing their gifts in a variety of ways over time. People do not serve year after year in the same position.’ That is very consulting-oriented, and that’s one of the things I enjoyed about working in that industry. But management consulting has nothing to do with God, Christ and church. So — what will happen? Something like this: ‘I’m sorry, Mrs Jones, we’ve found you are a great success as head Sunday school teacher. But, as successful as you are, we’re going to move you off now onto something else. Mrs Smith will take over starting in September. In the meantime, you can work out the transition with her.’ Whaaaat??
What the UMC needs are sermons that drive home the importance of detaching ourselves from the world and secular pursuits, including vitality drivers. The UMC would fill its pews quicker than lightning if only they had preachers like Baptist pastor Voddie Baucham.
Here, he preaches on our man-centred approach to the terrible things which happen in our world and tells us to judge ourselves before we start judging God (hint: if you do the first, you’ll never be tempted to do the second!):
In this next one, he tells us to put our social and racial divisions aside — God’s grace still works through us (abolition of slavery) and reminds us that He created all of us in His image — ‘something secular humanists will never understand':
I pray along with many traditionally-oriented Methodists that this church growth thing does not go too far.
For anyone who still thinks this is a good thing, please read the experiences of the Lutherans on Dr Gregory Jackson’s Ichabod, the Glory Has Departed.
Yesterday’s post featured John MacArthur’s views on the modern church. Whilst he was discussing today’s Evangelical churches, many of us would nod our heads in agreement at his assessment and clarion call for biblical truths and clear teaching.
Today, let’s look at the 2008 statistics for the Presbyterian Church (USA), or PCUSA. This is the mainstream — and very much politically-oriented, man-centred — Presbyterian Church in the United States and many onlookers equate it with American Presbyterianism in general. However, a number of smaller but more orthodox Presbyterian denominations exist, e.g. PCA and OPC.
Back in June 2010, a few surveys about the PCUSA’s beliefs and practices were published. We examine them here.
First, to the ‘Religious and Demographic Profile of Presbyterians, 2008′, based on 5,188 PCUSA members, elders and ordained ministers (including specialised clergy who serve as chaplains, seminary professors and counsellors):
- The PCUSA is a solidly middle-class church. Over 90% of these Presbyterians are white and have an average annual household income of $80,000. Two-thirds have at least a Bachelor’s degree. (p. 6 — PDF page number)
- Two-fifths of these Presbyterians live in the South. Twenty-seven per cent live in the Midwest. The remainder are split between the Northeast and the West. (p. 6)
- Most clergy (50% of pastors and 65% of specialised clergy) are Democrats, whereas less than a third of elders (29%) and members (31%) are. (p. 6)
- Nearly two-thirds of PCUSA members are women (64%), although 73% of pastors are men. Average member age is 60; average clergy age is mid-50s. (p. 6)
- Over half (51%) of female ministers and 62% of specialised clergy consider themselves theologically liberal. By contrast, only 23% of male ministers and 45% of male specialised clergy would put themselves in this category. (p. 6)
- Women comprise 27% of pastors and 45% of specialised clergy. (p. 18)
- Eighty-seven per cent of elders attend church weekly or nearly every week. Sixty-five per cent of members attend with the same frequency. (p. 7)
- Only two-fifths of current PCUSA members and elders grew up as Presbyterians, although 60% of pastors and specialised clergy did. (p. 7)
- The largest intake from other churches includes Methodists (16% of members, 15% of elders) and Baptists (10% and 11%, respectively). (p. 7)
- Seventy-seven per cent of elders believe Christ will return to earth one day. Only 68% of members believe this. (p. 9)
- Annual median church contributions as a percentage of income are 8% for pastors, 4% for specialised clergy, 4% for elders and 3% for members. In general, the amount donated increased with the amount of time spent in church-related activities outside of worship. (p. 10)
- Only 82% of pastors and 75% of specialised clergy pray privately as frequently as daily (or almost daily). This compares with 67% of elders and 59% of members. (p. 11)
- Only 77% of pastors and 65% of specialised clergy say grace daily or almost daily. Only 49% of elders and 42% of members do so. (p. 11)
- Less than half (45%) of specialised clergy believe ‘the only absolute truth for humankind is in Jesus Christ’. This contrasts with 66% of pastors, 68% of elders and 60% of members. (p. 12)
These figures will come as little surprise to those who believe the PCUSA has lost its way. This is very much a baby-boomer oriented denomination in many ways. The survey had no questions about specific aspects from or about the confessions of faith, incidentally.
However, this next survey, ‘The Sacraments’, also based on 2008 findings from approximately 2,200 participants, gives us a better portrait of PCUSA beliefs:
- More ordained (32% each of ministers and specialised clergy) than laypeople (8% of members and 10% of elders) would prefer the Supper to be celebrated weekly. (p. 1)
- At least half of the participants from each group — including 60% of pastors and 58% of specialised clergy — believe that ‘children who have not been baptized should definitely or probably be permitted to participate in Lord’s Supper celebrations’. Similar figures were polled with regard to reception of the Supper by unbaptised adults. (p. 2)
Then, there is ‘The US Congregational Life Survey: Fastest Growing Presbyterian Churches’ from 2001. Again, this focuses on PCUSA congregations — more newly-established and growing versus long-established and static or decreasing congregations:
- Worship service elements make no reference to Bible-based preaching or the Psalms. (p. 4)
- More growing churches have started ‘seeker-friendly’ services (14%) as opposed to established PCUSA churches (10%). (p. 6)
- Interestingly, those in growing churches are more theologically conservative than in other PCUSA congregations. Only 40% of those in growing churches say that all religions are equal pathways to the truth. This compares with 51% of other PCUSA congregations. (p. 11)
This survey also offers an interesting PCUSA statistic (p. 12) — emphasis mine:
Since 1983, the denomination has experienced a net loss of 679,259 members, or almost 22%. The average congregation size (mean) fell from 268 members to 221 in that period.
On the Puritan Board (hat-tip to them, by the way, for the first PDF), a discussion took place about PCUSA churches leaving the denomination to either go independent or become affiliated with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). The EPC is offering a transitional, trial period to certain PCUSA churches, which are listed at Layman Online.
A member of a more conservative Presbyterian church, Scott, explains why some PCUSA churches wish to be disassociated and why they are moving towards a possible affiliation with the EPC (emphasis mine):
… the large majority of particular churches departing are going to the EPC at present. A (very) few, though, are making their way into biblical, reformed denominations like ARP, PCA and OPC.
The EPC is graciously providing a generous transitional arrangement to see if these churches are fit for that denomination, or if the EPC is a fit for them.
Likely, it is refreshing to find a “safe” place where they are not having to fight for the most basic doctrines of Christianity or against a leftist political agenda.
I suspect the failure of EPC to deal with serious doctrinal issues that would define it as a confessional denomination will result in the same splits and divisions as in the past within Presbyterianism. Avoiding a clear confession and unity around that will likely result in a substantial number of these congregations will gradually migrate back home to some of the biblical reformed Presbyterian denominations — if they remain faithful.
Right now, they [the PCUSA churches] are coming out of a situation of having to fight for the deity of Christ, and not paying tithe money to terrorist organizations (really).
With that kind of background of fighting those kind of battles, they have not had time much to contend for a reformed theology and practice, nor define themselves to the degree of a Confession.
They [the EPC] have developed somewhat of a conservative culture, a more independent mode of operation, but not really a reformed faith based on things like a complete Calvinist soteriology, covenant theology, connectional polity, or church discipline based on a clear doctrinal confession.
And this is what John MacArthur means about the importance of being vigilant about biblical and doctrinal truths.
The Anglicans at Stand Firm have also discussed the PCUSA’s plight.
Some of you have been searching for this information. Here is a breakdown of abortions by number and demographic since 2006 in California alone.
White females carried the burden at 53.6%. Black females had 35% of terminations. The remainder, roughly 12%, are made up of ‘others’ and ‘unknowns’.
Make of it what you will. In total, 627,321 abortions were carried out that year — in only one state.
Hats off to Iain Dale, a political blogger and a Scottish Tory (a rare breed indeed). Mr Dale took a break from his usual subject matter to post the latest British abortion statistics.
I suppose the good news, if you can call it that, is that the trend is down. But Britain still carries out more abortions per head of population than virtually any other European country. Whatever side of the pro-choice, pro-life debate you happen to be on, surely we can agree that these figures continue to horrify.
His blog post has a summary of the stats, excerpted below:
- the total number of abortions was 189,100, compared with 195,296 in 2008, a fall of 3.2%
- the age-standardised abortion rate was 17.5 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44, compared with 18.2 in 2008
- the abortion rate was highest at 33 per 1,000, for women aged 19, 20 & 21, each lower than in 2008
- the under-16 abortion rate was 4.0 and the under-18 rate was 17.6 per 1,000 women, both lower than in 2008
- 91% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation; 75% were at under 10 weeks
- 2,085 abortions (1%) were under ground E, risk that the child would be born handicapped
Of course, the debate in the comments included the usual references to ‘blastocysts’ and ‘…we are not talking about human beings here’, although most see such a high rate of abortions as an ongoing issue. Someone noted, ‘That’s like sixty-three 9/11s every year (going by death toll). Just in the UK.’
Just a reminder to those who think that a fetus is a blastocyst. The picture at the top of this post is an eight-week old fetus. Does it look like a blastocyst? No, it looks human; it has arms, legs, a head — as well as ears, fingers and toes! All that in just eight weeks.
Something to think about next time abortion comes up in conversation.
You’ll find more resources in my posts below: