About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Monday, December 03, 2007

Focus on values as churchgoers become scarcer and older

David Leask for The Scottish Herald

August 27 2007

Christians have never been scarcer - or older. There were fewer than 500,000 regular churchgoers in Scotland in 2005 and their average age was 47. In the last quarter of a century there has been a drop of nearly 70% in the number of children under 15 going to Sunday services. For the churches, the clear and unrelenting decline in Christian worship means we should have more religion in schools. For the secularists, it means we should have less.

Cue a debate, not just on how schools teach their only compulsory subject, RE, but on what, if any, prominence should be given to Christian values and doctrines in other classrooms. The Roman Catholic Church, now Scotland's biggest by attendance, believes the country's proposed new curriculum should stress the importance of common values such as compassion, mercy, integrity, tolerance and justice. Crucially, it also believes schools should stress the Christian origin of those values. It has produced a new school pack, Values for Life, which it hopes will spark a national conversation. Secularists are baffled by why values have to be Christian in an increasingly unchristian nation. Most of the values in the Catholic pack, they argue, long predate Christianity. The church, they say, has "no copyright" on goodness.

"Church attendance and religious belief for young people is very low and even Christian statisticians acknowledge that the precipitous decline of recent decades is set to continue," said Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society. "This explains the churches' anxiousness to increase their presence in schools, where pupils are a captive audience." John Haldane, professor of philosophy at St Andrew's University, welcomed the stress on values. "The conversation," he said, "is due and timely." Alternative versions of morality, he said, had failed to rival Christianity's "ennobling conception of the human condition".

[We should indeed be having a much more public and much more structured debate on morality in an increasingly Secular Europe. With the apparent terminal decline in religious observance in most European countries we need something to replace the ‘command morality’ so long imposed by the Church in its various incarnations. What that ‘something’ turns out to be will be up for a Secular society to decide. Let the debate begin.]

8 comments:

Sadie Lou said...

Hello!
I don't get the point of the article. I don't know, personally, any Christians that believe morality & values are unique to believers *ONLY*.
I don't subscribe to any ideal that would say Christians are more moral or have stronger values than that of the secular world.
What is up for debate?
~Sadie

Unknown said...

The fact that a lot of people disagree with you (though I wish they didn't!)- its a common argument levelled against atheists that without God you can't be moral.

In a secular society (in which I include believers of various and 'opposed' faiths as well as agnostics, aetheists, humanists and any other 'ists' there is a search for a common standard that stretches across that population.

I would hesitate to suggest that while the debate can be informed by and pay consideration to existing codes of some groups the populations overall 'morality' (or at its most pragmatic level the rule of law) should not be based wholly, exclusivley and literally on a set of beliefs not shared by everyone.

To give a simple but realistic example, those of ceratin faiths will not consume Pork or alcohol, is it reasonable to expect in a plural society that everyone should be made to follow that rule even if they are not of that relegion/belief?

Sadie Lou said...

RCA-
"To give a simple but realistic example, those of ceratin faiths will not consume Pork or alcohol, is it reasonable to expect in a plural society that everyone should be made to follow that rule even if they are not of that relegion/belief?"

Goodness no.
I believe that Jesus was the Son the of God. I believe he rose on the third day and lives at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. I believe he died for my sins.
This is the core of *MY* Christian faith.
This is the only belief I desire for others to hear & share in.
The doctrines, dogmas, rituals, rules, regulations, etc. of organized religion are not truths in which to *LIVE* by.
I would never force others to abide by rules & regulations that do not lead them to the gospel.
If you believe in Jesus Christ and that he is who he says he is, you will eventually desire to serve him in his teachings--it doesn't do anyone any favors to make them follow Jesus without faith in who he is...

CyberKitten said...

Sadie said: I don't know, personally, any Christians that believe morality & values are unique to believers *ONLY*.

Hi Sadie. Nice to 'see' you again. How's things? Ready for Christmas?

Unfortunately I have such people you've mentioned who believe that morality comes exclusively from God and a 'rejection' of God means a rejection of morality. I still haven't figured this out yet.

Sadie said: I don't subscribe to any ideal that would say Christians are more moral or have stronger values than that of the secular world.

If *only* more Christians were like you! If they could all be as level headed and reasonable as you are we wouldn't have so many issues between the religious and non-religious and probably between religions too.

Sadie asked: What is up for debate?

I think that the article is saying that with the obvious decline of Christianity/Religion in some reasons it makes no sense to teach Christian morality in schools (or anywhere else). The debatable point is what kind of morality we *should* teach our children and what we should base it on. Maybe they could teach 'Comparative Ethics' as well as 'Comparative Religion' which would be a good starting point to teach these things...

RCA said: I would hesitate to suggest that while the debate can be informed by and pay consideration to existing codes of some groups the populations overall 'morality' (or at its most pragmatic level the rule of law) should not be based wholly, exclusivley and literally on a set of beliefs not shared by everyone.

Very true. It's a real problem in a multi-cultural Liberal secular state. Beliefs & morality are not shared by everyone or even these days by the majority. What can we do about this? Indeed *can* we do anything about this? Do we *need* to do anything about it? It's a fairly difficult area, but I think it should be discussed in a public arena.

Sadie said: This is the only belief I desire for others to hear & share in.
The doctrines, dogmas, rituals, rules, regulations, etc. of organized religion are not truths in which to *LIVE* by.

Can I just say again that "If only more Christians....etc"

Sadie Lou said...

Hi Sadie. Nice to 'see' you again. How's things? Ready for Christmas?

Things are good; busy.
:)
Ready for Christmas? Nope. *smile* I wish December had 40 days in it.

Unfortunately I have such people you've mentioned who believe that morality comes exclusively from God and a 'rejection' of God means a rejection of morality. I still haven't figured this out yet.

I don't get this either. There are people who do not believe in God that do VERY moral things. I also believe that morality and "good" comes from God--I just don't think he *only* blesses believers.

If *only* more Christians were like you! If they could all be as level headed and reasonable as you are we wouldn't have so many issues between the religious and non-religious and probably between religions too.

It's unfortunate you haven't run across more people that share my beliefs. There are quite a lot of us. And it's not just a new Christian movement either--the very same men that wrote the Bible would agree with me on these points as well.
:)

The debatable point is what kind of morality we *should* teach our children and what we should base it on. Maybe they could teach 'Comparative Ethics' as well as 'Comparative Religion' which would be a good starting point to teach these things...

Interesting!

I only wish that people could view Jesus through "clean", untainted glasses that are not clouded with the man-made version of what Jesus stood for and who he was. I think organized religion needs to take a step back and let the truth of the gospel stand alone.

CyberKitten said...

Sadie said: I also believe that morality and "good" comes from God--I just don't think he *only* blesses believers.

So our morality comes from God whether we believe in Him or not? Obviously I cannot agree with that. Can't we be good without God?

Sadie said: I only wish that people could view Jesus through "clean", untainted glasses that are not clouded with the man-made version of what Jesus stood for and who he was.

Is that possible? Surely your either going to have Jesus interpreted for you - or do the interpreting yourself? Either way he gets interpreted. How can you have a 'clean' view of Jesus?

Sadie said: I think organized religion needs to take a step back and let the truth of the gospel stand alone.

Again: How is that possible? If the 'truth' of the Gospels was self-evident... then why do so many people disagree on the interpretations? If it's obvious why do so many 'flavours' of Christianity exist?

Sadie Lou said...

So our morality comes from God whether we believe in Him or not? Obviously I cannot agree with that. Can't we be good without God?

Nope.
:)

Is that possible? Surely your either going to have Jesus interpreted for you - or do the interpreting yourself? Either way he gets interpreted. How can you have a 'clean' view of Jesus?

Easy. I heard about Jesus when I was a child. I heard about him when I was a teen. I didn't actually believe until I was able to understand what he stood for, what he had to offer, who he was and is...nobody told me; I didn't follow anyone's dogma, religion, organization--I just believed in Christ.

Again: How is that possible? If the 'truth' of the Gospels was self-evident... then why do so many people disagree on the interpretations? If it's obvious why do so many 'flavours' of Christianity exist?

It is totally possible. Imagine you are a famous person with ideals that people believe in and want to get behind.
Pretend that many people form groups devoted to your teachings--pretend that some of these people followed your teachings but also through in bits and pieces of their own ideals--ideals that you DO NOT subscribe to or believe.
Now people have a wrong interpretation of who you are and what you stand for right?
How would you combat this?
You would suggest that people *ONLY* read statements made by you--you would write books to set people straight. You would write letters and articles and you would clarify what you believe.
On a larger scale, this is how how view Jesus. I read the Bible and I gather with other people that closely resemble my own understanding of Jesus.
It's easy to take doctrines from the different faiths and weigh them against scripture to see if they ring true or not.
Example:
Catholics pray to Saints (dead people).
Can I find this in Scripture?
Nope.
Catholics believe that Jesus is the Son of God and died on a cross for the sins of the world. Can I find this in Scripture?
Yep.
Mormons believe that they will be "like God" and rule over other planets when they die and go to Heaven.
Can I find this in Scripture?
Nope.

See? Its like that.

CyberKitten said...

I asked: Can't we be good without God?

Sadie said Nope. :)

There I think we have to *fundamentally* disagree.

Let me get this straight in my head....

Are you saying that our belief in or acknowledgement of God is irrelevant to our morality. That God has made us moral beings and that without the existence of God that we cannot act in a moral way? That morality is objective and external to us - something to either be discovered or shown to us and indeed validated by an external authority?

If so I *really* disagree with you. What do you base that belief on? - if I understand you correctly that is. Do you think that morality is, in fact, Christian morality and that any other variation (of which there are and have been many) is basically wrong?

Sadie said: I didn't actually believe until I was able to understand what he stood for, what he had to offer, who he was and is...nobody told me; I didn't follow anyone's dogma, religion, organization--I just believed in Christ.

So... it's *your* interpretation of Jesus. Other people who had similar experiences to you will have *their* interpretation of Jesus which may be (and probably are) different to yours. Are *all* personal interpretations 'correct' or equally valid? Are some better than others? You see my point....

Sadie said: It's easy to take doctrines from the different faiths and weigh them against scripture to see if they ring true or not.

But that assumes that the statements you refer to are unambiguous. Some are (or at least seem to be) but *some* surely are not? These ambiguous statemts give rise to competing interpretations which have been the cause of schism within the Christian faith almost since Day One. If that wasn't the case we wouldn't have a myriad of church organisations and the idea of heresy. Are you saying that the original interpretation of the NT should stand - and that we should all be Catholics? [grin].