From Bene Diction has some questions about the Prairie Bible Institute and allegations of abuse.

The Episcopal Cafe hosts Giles Frasier’s comments on unity and Rowan Williams’ retirement as Archbishop of Canterbury. A tidbit:

His much more pressing task is to speak clearly out of the Christian tradition in a way that will resonate with those who no longer think that religious belief has anything left to offer.

At the same site, there’s a few non-roses to throw at the retiring Archbishop.

At Faith in Public Life, Paul Ryan fails the moral budget test.

At Mainstream Baptist, Bruce Prescott looks at the passing of employer-based insurance.

Reverend Mommy talks about third place (see explanation).

Debra Haffner’s Sexuality and Religion ask for survival help.

At Islamicate, bigotry in sports is examined.

And Rachel at Velveteen Rabbi (who will always hold a place in my heart for the blessing of my children) looks at Leviticus.

Here’s my version of her argument. She attends Georgetown Law School, one of the top-ranked law schools in the country (ranked number fourteen last year – and it’s cost is actually one of the real bargains at that level). Like most graduate schools, students are required to have insurance, which is available through the school, unless they are covered elsewhere. Law school is considered a full-time endeavor and students are discouraged from working outside of school, and especially to have a full-time job with benefits that might interfere with their availability for school. Unlike most school insurance plans, Georgetown’s does not cover contraceptive medications. According to Ms. Fluke’s testimony, she pays around $3,000 a year – on top of her insurance premiums – to buy her contraceptive medication at full price.

Limbaugh’s argument is that she wants to force Georgetown to pay for her decision to have sex. This is a crazy argument. First of all, adding contraceptive coverage to their prescription plan would probably not even raise the rates the college has to pay. Second, if it did, at least part of that cost would be passed along to students. Third, if they wanted to isolate the costs of contraception to only those students who are interested in having it; then they could over it as a rider on their prescription policy.

Beyond that, Limbaugh’s argument descends into ridiculousness. He claims that those who pay premiums should then have some sort of claim on Ms. Fluke’s privacy, because they are paying to shield her from the consequences of her actions. But Limbaugh was famously treated for addiction to painkillers and not once did he offer to make a reality-style film for those who contribute to his insurance program.

The argument is that contraceptives are a drug of choice that allows a specific type of lifestyle – one that some people find objectionable. Great. Lipitor is also such a drug. High cholesterol is easily treated by switching to a vegan diet. So why should those of us (um, I better make that “those of you”) who don’t have high cholesterol have to pay higher premiums for someone else’s dietary decisions – decisions which are, after all, entirely voluntary?

On my drive home last night, I listened to a talk show where a caller voiced a religious objection to contraception (the caller actually said that women “need to be responsible with their bodies” as if preventing pregnancy when it isn’t wanted is somehow irresponsible). Instead of engaging the objection and overcoming it, the “expert” stupidly insisted that a person’s morality has no place in the discussion of public policy. This is the typical liberal response, and it’s why religious people often feel like liberals are outright hostile to them. And I actually will include myself in that group.

The religious argument against contraception is this: By separating sex from conception, people are able to have sex for other purposes…like pleasure. Since a woman doesn’t have to worry about the potential fathering or husbanding abilities of her sexual partners, she can decide to have sex with a man simply based on her belief that it would be fun. Of course, this makes Jesus very sad because he was totally against fun and sexuality being linked in any way, right? (This is sarcasm, okay?)

Funny, I can’t find a scripture that references that part of Jesus’ teachings. That’s because it actually comes from the Pope, not from the Bible. As a Protestant, I formally rejected the Pope’s station as the arbiter of morality in my life. However, I am fully comfortable with someone making that argument in favor of a specific public policy. It’s what they believe, and if they want to use that argument, they have the right to try and convince people of its veracity.

My reply to that argument is this: The moral condition of someone’s soul is not my concern as a citizen, and therefore, it has no place in a debate of someone’s public policy. As a Christian, I can talk to them – reason and argue, even – and try to convince them of what I believe is the correct path in life. But the decision as to what they actually do must be their decision. By saving someone from the opportunity to sin, I also stand in way of their salvation.

This, incidentally, is the example that was set by Jesus. At no point did he argue that the Romans should be overthrown. At no point did he suggest that control of the Sanhedron should be seized by his followers so they could then force everyone to do as they believed. At no point did he even twist an arm to make someone do his bidding. Instead, he plucked at their heartstrings. He appealed to their better angels. He urged them to make the hard decision to become a better person.

As a final point, there are several examples of Jesus saving someone from the consequences of their actions. One of the overriding values practiced by Jesus was that of mercy and forgiveness. If we are to aspire to call ourselves his followers, I think we should follow that example as well.

So who cares what Rush Limbaugh says anyway? Was there anyone at this point who doubted his misogyny? He’s a pompous fool, but he has the right to expose himself as such – just like all the people who called Michelle Bachman gendered slurs. Or any other woman, for that part. Language generally says more about the person using it than the person being attacked by it.

But if we allow a policy debate to get sidetracked into a gender-war issue of language; then we will lose both the public agenda and the public policy debate, as well.

From the above article:

While Blunt’s amendment took a broad approach, the main issue involved whether religious employers should have to include coverage for contraception in health plans offered to employees at affiliated institutions, such as hospitals.

snip

Blunt’s amendment stated the president’s health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, imposes requirements that infringe on the rights of conscience of insurers and plan sponsors. While the law exempts some religious groups, it does not allow all those with religious or moral objections to decline providing coverage, the amendment says.

The short explanation of this is as follows: Federal law stipulates that employers must provide healthcare insurance, and, as part of that coverage, women must be allowed to have their contraception medication paid for exactly like any other medication prescribed by a doctor. However, some religious groups – those directly involved in ministry, I would say – are allowed to be exempt from this, based on the faith-based decision that contraception (or, at very least, contraceptives that are designated by faith, but not by science, as a potential abortifacient) is a morally evil action.

Personally, and based on my religious and political ideology, even this compromise should not be allowed. The Church claims spiritual dominion of humanity. It should be allowed unfettered opportunity to exercise its influence and its power in that realm – but that is its natural limit. To claim that the Church has the right to extend its power over the biological body of a human is to claim that the Spanish Inquisition was wrong on in the details.

It is helpful to refer to Marsilius of Padua’s masterpiece Defensor Pacis. The points I believe to be most cogent are as follows:
* The gospels teach that no temporal punishment or penalty should be used to compel observance of divine commandments.
Even if it correct that God hates abortion, and therefore contraception that may be used to induce abortion, or even all contraception; then it is still wrong to try and force individuals to adhere to that. A forced confession is no real confession. A forced faith is no faith at all. It may be true (from that perspective) that contraception is evil; but without the presence of evil, we cannot choose to follow God and eschew evil. If we are not given the choice between good and evil; then there is no evil, but there is no good. Without the possibility of damnation; there is no chance of redemption, no chance of salvation.

*It is necessary to salvation to obey the commandments of the new divine law [the New Testament] and the conclusions that follow necessarily from it and the precepts of reason; but it is not necessary to salvation to obey all the commandments of the ancient law [the Old Testament].
The New Covenant of Christ’s sacrifice means that humans are no longer bound to uphold every single scriptural law – a practice that was impossible from the beginning. The New Testament is entirely silent on the issue of abortion, and doesn’t even talk about contraception – and I’m sure that crude forms of both existed. Christ said, “Love one another as I have loved you.” This was after he had allowed his disciples to break kosher and to work on the Sabbath and all manner of things that conservative Judaism of his day considered evil. He gave his disciples a choice at every step of the way.

*No bishop or priest has coercive authority or jurisdiction over any layman or clergyman, even if he is a heretic.
Even in the case of direct ministerial employees, the Church has no authority or jurisdiction over their corporeal bodies, only their souls.

It is that last point that I have in mind when I say that the Obama Administration should not have compromised and allowed church employees who are not members of direct ministry to be exempted without their consent. If the church should have no coercive jurisdiction over the body of their clergy; then why should they then have that power over the clergy’s secretary or janitor?

There is a sort of argument that can be made that says that the Church should not have to pay for a medical treatment it does not believe is morally in line with its teachings. The problem with this argument is that it is stupid. Should we discharge the Department of Defense because the Quakers believe in pure non-violence? Should we prevent the American Red Cross from holding blood drives among those who willingly participate because the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that transferring blood is evil? Should we do away with highway spending all together because it utilizes the evil technology that the Amish find objectionable?

I think it’s apparent that pretty much any action is objectionable to some and seen as absolutely necessary by others. If the Catholic Bishops and Evangelical Christians have the veto-power over parts of the healthcare legislation; then what parts of other legislation do other churches have veto power over?

The problem is that the Religious Right in America does not want to live in a plural society. This is not a new problem, and, given that adherents of the Religious Right are intolerant to other Christians, not to mention other religions entirely, it should not be allowed to throw stumblingblocks before our secular government. This is, in fact, the Paradox of Tolerance as identified by Sir Karl Popper and John Rawls. Rawls, who believed there is a place for the intolerant within tolerant society, wrote this (from the preceding link):

While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.

I would argue that when a highway bill is held hostage for a pointless vote about religious interference in healthcare that “the institutions of liberty are in danger.” The Republican Party, increasingly aligned entirely with the Religious Right, has become ever more intolerant and willing to grind the wheels of government to a halt whenever some bit of their “social conservatism” – codewords for “religious dogma” – are not given top billing.

I used to write that “the Religious Right is neither religious, nor right.” While I like the catchiness of that line, it isn’t exactly true. They are, of course, highly religious. But in their self-righteousness; they have forgotten that faith in America requires tolerance. In our long history of not living up to the promises enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, we have continually strove for a society that more closely adheres to those ideas. While I respect political conservative ideology; the truth of the matter is that religious conservative ideology is patently un-American and wants to turn back the tides of time and the progress of human rights.

What they would take from us is the very spiritual promise that faith holds for humanity: that one can grow close to God as their spirit dictates and as directed by the voice of God, however it may be discerned. In its place, they hold up a hollow sepulcher of faith, filled with the bones of choices made in our “best interest” by people who have no concept of what the details of our lives might hold. They are the Sadducees and Pharisees of modern life, and they are deserving of our respect no more than their historical counterparts were deserving of the respect of Jesus and his band of disciples.

Take starter out of refrigerator and let it come to room temperature – I do this overnight (about eight hours).

Dump it in a large mixing bowl and feed it. Generally, I give it a cup of flour and a cup of water. Mix it to a constant consistency and cover it loosely. Let it sit for about eight hours (generally, I do this in the morning and then go to work).

Feed it again – a cup of flour and a cup of water. Let it sit overnight.

In the morning, it’s ready to go. If you aren’t going to use it right away, feed it again. At any rate, measure out a half cup to a cup and refrigerate it. This is your new lump of starter for next time.

When you are ready to use it, you are ready to move away from science and into art. You have, at least, four or five cups of goo. It’s time to turn it into either batter (if you want pancakes) or dough (if you want actual bread).

Start adding flour by the quarter cup. Mix it until it is well incorporated and wait for about fifteen minutes or so. If it’s still too liquid, toss in another quarter cup. After you make several batches of bread, you’ll do it by half-cup or even full cup, but to start out with, go slow. You can always add, but you can never take away.

Once you get the bread the consistency you want – it’s decision time. You can let it rest and punch it down again. Form it, let it rest, then pop it in the oven. Or go straight to the oven. If you go straight to the oven, it will be fairly dense. If you let it rise and punch it down, you’ll get a more tasteful bread. If you form it, let it rise, and then bake it, you’ll get a fluffier bread with more mature taste. No way is wrong – it depends on what you want.

Before you put it in the oven, coat it lightly with a bit of oil. I usually spray canola oil on it. But different oils will give different results. The reason is to keep the crust from drying too quickly and becoming hard. If you like a harder crust, then try it without any oil.

A lot of recipes talk about spraying water on the bread or in the oven – it’s for the same reason. It bad for any sort of electronic control you have in the oven, though. And oil, I think, can add yet another bit of flavor to your bread.

The Oven
Basically, you want a 400F pre-heated oven. How long you leave the bread in depends on how you’ve formed it. If you put it in a muffin tin, then twenty minutes will probably be enough. If you plop it down as a huge “artisan” bread; then probably thirty-five or so. If you put it in a regular loaf pan – try thirty.

Before you toss it in the oven, though, score the top so the bread can rise without erupting. It will look prettier if you do, but it will taste the same regardless.

If you want a harder crust, turn the temp up a bit. It will shorten the baking time, too. If you want it softer, lower it a bit and increase the time. Remember, changing the ingredients may change bake times, too.

At its most basic, you need nothing more than water and flour and time. There are enough yeasts in the air, and enough sugar in the flour, to create a culture. However, this process is slow and not very predictable. So everything else is just to make it faster and more predictable.

This recipe makes a decent starter in about a week:

1 package dry yeast
1 cup warm water
1 tablespoon granulated sugar
1 cup flour

In a large cup, dissolve the sugar in the water. Make sure it is body-temperature or below and add the yeast. Stir briefly or just walk away. Come back in about half an hour and it should be bubbly. If it isn’t, throw it out and try again – either the yeast was bad or the water was too hot.

If the water is bubbly, dump it in a large mixing bowl and add the flour. Stir it just enough that everything is the same consistency. Cover lightly (excreted gas needs to be able to escape) and wait. And wait. And wait. And wait.

If you just want a regular bread starter, then you only need to wait for a few hours. Feed it. Separate a lump (half a cup to a cup) and refrigerate it in an air-tight container. If you want sourdough starter; then let it sit for about twenty-four hours and feed it. Then let it sit for another forty-eight hours and feed it. Then a final forty-eight hours and feed it, save a lump, and use it.

How to feed it.
Add an equal measure of flour and water. Mix until it is of equal consistency throughout. Most recommendations are to use 1 cup of water and 1 cup of flour, but the amount is inconsequential – it’s the proportions that are important.

Don’t be afraid to experiment.
Sourdough starter has a distinctive smell and taste. The “sour” part comes from bacterium that live in the starter. You are trying to achieve a balance between yeast and bacterium. The wetter it is, the more yeast will dominate the dough. The drier it is, the more bacterium will dominate. So if your dough smells/tastes too sour, add a bit more water to the starter. If it isn’t sour enough, cut back on the water just a bit during the next feeding.

Different flour will react differently with the water, and with the yeast and bacterium. Basic white flour is the yardstick. But you can mix in whole wheat flour if you want. Or a bit of cornmeal. Or rye flour. Or whatever catches your fancy and/or tastebuds.

Similarly, you are not limited to water for feeding. Just be aware that any liquid you put into it will change the balance of yeast/bacterium and will add different flavors to it. Try some milk. Try some grape juice. Remember different fluids have different levels of sugar and acid in them, so they will change the yeast/bacterium growth differently.

My recommendation is this: Any experiment you are going to try should be done AFTER you separate your lump. If you like the outcome, you can reproduce it. If you don’t; then you haven’t spoiled your starter lump.

NO SALT! You’ll notice that I didn’t mention salt at all. There is an important reason: It isn’t needed. Often you will find mentions of salt being needed to control yeast growth. It’s bogus. It adds flavor. It isn’t needed. Use different flours and fluids for flavor. Sprinkle in ground sesame or flax seeds (or sunflower seeds…)

Five and a half years ago, while my wife was in the hospital waiting to deliver our twins (that makes it sound rather like a pleasant vacation or something), the older of my two brothers died. He was five years older than me, and only made it a few months older than our father was when he died. It is possible that there is something about being forty-three that my genetic material doesn’t like – although there were significant lifestyle issues for both of them.

Anyway, shortly after the twins were born, the head of the NICU sat next to me while I was holding one of them. For some reason he began quizzing me about my health. Then he took my pulse. Then he took out his Rx pad and wrote a phone number on it. “Put the baby down, and go call my cardiologist. Tell him I said you need to go in today.”

The appointment I made was actually a few days later. But I was immediately put on blood pressure and cholesterol medicine. I was slightly more than three hundred pounds at the time. I had horrible headaches on a regular basis – so bad that I couldn’t keep my eyes open – and I was out of breath when I climbed the stairs to our second floor. My resting blood pressure was 154/97.

I was also depressed. A separate occasion found me sitting in a psychiatrist’s office where he shook his head as he scribbled on his Rx pad. “Why didn’t you come here a few years ago?” he asked. Well, I was too depressed to do that, I suppose.

So I’ve been making some changes. I started exercising – walking every day and now adding push-ups and sit-ups to the mix. I take medication for blood pressure, cholesterol, and depression. I make sure I take good care of myself. I gave up red meat (mostly) and started putting more fresh veggies and fruit in my diet. I cut back on salt…

I’m now down to 255 and my resting BP (without meds) is 148/94 (at least it’s going the right way). I had a great medication called Diovan HCT that pulled my BP all the way down to 122/81, but a change in insurance coverage boosted the cost from $10 a month to $171…so I’m not taking that anymore (who was it that was afraid of the GOVERNMENT telling our doctors what to prescribe, and why aren’t the afraid of BCBS doing the same thing?). I can run a half-mile without getting too winded (I can catch my breath fairly quickly) and the stairs are barely worth noticing now.

Of all the things I’ve done, the hardest has been cutting back on salt. I’ve never been someone who reads labels, so it was shocking to see how much salt is added to everything. I never thought I had a salty-tooth until I started cutting it out of my diet. Then I started counting calories and realized what didn’t have added salt probably had added sugar.

One of the major issues in cutting salt, and sugar, has been finding bread that isn’t loaded with both. I’m trying to keep my daily intake of salt below 600 mg, and each slice of Wonder Bread (as an example) contains 130 mg of sodium (approximately). A slice of Wonder Bread is also about 58 calories, so a regular sandwich would contain 260 mg of sodium and 116 calories. That’s before anything actually goes between the slices of bread.

So I started making my own bread – technically a sourdough since the starter is recycled endlessly. It has no salt added to it and no added sugar. Despite what you’ll find in most recipes, there is no need to add these ingredients (or extra yeast – something I am truly puzzled to find in a sourdough recipe). It tends to be a bit dense and it takes a long time to rise, but it tastes great.

If you want to cut your salt and sugar, and don’t want to give up bread, I’ll post my basic recipe separately.

Christians in the U.S. who labeled themselves politically liberal or conservative told researchers Jesus wouldn’t necessarily agree with their social views if he were alive today, according to a study.

The conservatives said Jesus would probably be more against abortion and same-sex marriage than they are, and less opposed to helping illegal immigrants obtain citizenship. Liberals believe Jesus would be tougher than them on morality and more open on questions concerning fellowship.

I’m not sure about the “more against abortion” thing. “Conservative” is almost synonymous with “never allow any abortion” and it’s hard to see how Jesus could be more extreme than “never.” The same thing goes for same-sex marriage. It is interesting, though, that they seem to think “Jesus would be like us…but more so.”

Similarly, I’m not sure what “tougher…on morality” means. Especially since we’ve already eliminated abortion and same-sex marriage from the consideration. Are we discussing theft or cheating on one’s taxes? Are they the same thing?

Even more odd is the “questions concerning fellowship.” I can’t even imagine what that might me. Are there Christians who are against fellowship?

Still, it seems to appear that more liberal Christians are saying “Jesus is a lot like us…but not quite so much on some things.” Which seems to be a big difference from the conservative stance.

As it stands, this is pretty much a useless blurb. I can’t tell anything from it – even if it is only my personal bias that slants my interpretation of it.

She is 16, the daughter of a firefighter and a nurse, a self-proclaimed nerd who loves Harry Potter and Facebook. But Jessica Ahlquist is also an outspoken atheist who has incensed this heavily Roman Catholic city with a successful lawsuit to get a prayer removed from the wall of her high school auditorium, where it has hung for 49 years.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion. In the weeks since, residents have crowded school board meetings to demand an appeal, Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion.

Okay, the author probably didn’t mean “dense” as a jab at the collective intelligence, but…I took it that way and had a laugh at their expense.

As far as prayers go, it’s pretty innocuous. It barely mentions God and it really doesn’t promote religion beyond the fact that it is, in fact, a prayer. But that, all by itself, is enough to set it aside. If a prayer is not religious; then what is it? There is no such thing as “secular God” so there is no such thing as “secular prayer.”

Katherine Stewart shows a remarkable insight when she writes:

Under our Constitution, religion is something special, something that is and ought to be treated differently from every other kind of activity. I bring this up because some of the recent jurisprudence on church/state issues is based on the very opposite view: that religion is just like everything else.

Defenders of the status quo – the idea that Christianity has a special and protected place in American society – too often want to argue both sides of the coin. The prayer, or religious exemptions to law, should exist because there is “something special” about them. But if people don’t like the prayer or exemption, they should ignore it as if it were not special after all.

It’s hard for me to get behind that argument.

On the other hand, atheists make it particularly hard to be sympathetic when they say things like this:

Does she empathize in any way with members of her community who want the prayer to stay?

“I’ve never been asked this before,” Jessica said. A pause, and then: “It’s almost like making a child get a shot even though they don’t want to. It’s for their own good. I feel like they might see it as a very negative thing right now, but I’m defending their Constitution, too.”

Yes, she is saying that the purpose of this lawsuit is to save us from our own beliefs. Sigh. I don’t need that. I don’t need it when the Baptists want to tell me that I don’t understand God’s will and I don’t need it when the atheists tell me there is no God. I’m an intelligent man and I can make up my own mind – and I have done so. Even if I am wrong, I have the absolute right to be wrong.

Elsewhere, Jessica has said:

“This isn’t about religions anymore, it’s about the constitution and it always has been and those of you who are bringing religion into this need to stop,” she said.

Which part of the Constitution, Jessica? Yes, the part that deals with religion. Demanding that religion be taken out of a religious question is as effective as arguing a fish out of the water. It is also dishonest and, at best, self-indulgent.

It’s about religion. Religion holds a special place in our Constitution – mainly that the government will not endorse any specific form nor stop people from worshiping as they feel they must. Just be honest about it, on all sides.

It is possible that the Supreme Court would allow it to stand – like they did in the case of the Ten Commandments monument in Texas. Because it was part of a larger display, it was fine. But if it is part of a solitary display, that includes no other culturally significant features than to acknowledge and promote the Christian God…then it is not fine.

So here are a couple of suggestions for Cranston:
1) Remove or cover the words “Heavenly Father” and “Amen” from the display. It is now a wonderfully secular exhortation of morality and effort.
2) Allow an atheist to post a similar moral exhortation without reference to God.

I don’t understand the need, on both sides of the issue, for people to enforce their view as the only correct one. Yes, I know both sides think that only they are right. That doesn’t mean they have the right to impose their belief, or to utilize public spaces to promote it. Arguing otherwise is promoting tyranny and double-sided logic.

Barna Group, an evangelical company based in California, found that 46 percent reported no change [in their life from church attendance]. About a quarter of Americans said their life was greatly affected by church attendance and another quarter said it was somewhat influential.

Remember this as the foundation for the rest of the numbers. Otherwise, it’s just interesting that nearly half of the people who go to church are not being changed by the experience…which could mean a number of things. It could mean that they simply found a church that says things they agree with. It could mean that they aren’t really paying attention. It could mean that what they hear simply isn’t relevant to their daily lives. We just don’t know.

The second thing to note is the polling methodology. Barna writes:

This report is based upon telephone interviews conducted in the OmniPoll? (part of Barna Group’s Barna Poll series). This study consisted of a random sample of 1,022 adults selected from across the continental United States, age 18 and older. The research included 150 interviews conducted among people using cell phones. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample is ±3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Minimal statistical weighting was used to calibrate the aggregate sample to known population percentages in relation to several key demographic variables

All this means is that it was pretty standard, which is a good start. I wonder about the 150 cell phone calls…firstly that it’s only 150 out of 1,022, and secondly that these people actually answered a call from someone they didn’t know and answered these questions. I wouldn’t. I’m definitely in the “don’t bother me” section of such things.

The problem lies earlier when they write, “…Barna Group surveyed Americans who have attended a Christian church sometime in the past…” So someone who hasn’t attended church in fifty years (or more) would still be included. Given the problem churches have with ongoing attendance, this is absolutely going to skew the numbers downward. I think a better method might have been to pick churches at random and then poll their membership. Or perhaps asking, “Do you remember the last time you went to church?” and if they said, “No.” then their response should not be counted because if you can’t remember it, it isn’t likely you can answer questions about it.

Back in the Post, we find this: “Two-thirds of respondents said they had felt “a real and personal connection” with God while attending church.” Remember that only “about a quarter” had felt their lives had been changed by attending church. So if everyone who felt their lives changed also had a personal connection with God…then 5/12 (about 41 percent) of the people who felt a connection with God were not changed by the experience. That’s interesting to me because one would tend to think that connecting to the Almighty (or whatever one calls it) would change them. Apparently not. Maybe 41 percent of people were told by God, “Everything is just fine like it is. Don’t change a thing.

Next we find this:

Among weekly church attenders, 44 percent said they felt God’s presence every week and 18 percent said they had that experience once a month.

Unfortunately, we aren’t told how many of the 1,022 people who were polled attend church weekly. SO this is a factoid devoid of any meaning. We also aren’t told what weekly means – how many weeks in a row does one have to go before it is “weekly?” If they miss a single week, is their status revoked? If so, how far back into the past or forward into the future does that revocation reach?

This is the next factoid:

Of those who attended in the previous week, 50 percent could not recall walking away with a significant new understanding.

Again, we have no idea how many people this is. Two? Nine hundred and twelve? Such details matter.

“Significant new understanding” is also undefined. I understand that they are letting people define that however they want, and that should result in more positive responses than if it were defined for them. In that light, it is surprisingly low.

What it does managed to do is show some real researcher bias in that it supposes that the purpose of going to church is to get significant new understandings of faith/God. Somehow, I think that by the time someone has gone to church “weekly” for fifty years or so, they probably are not looking for that. The can find deep meaning in the service without it being a learning experience. It may simply deepen their faith or increase the level of a significant older understanding. It’s important to understand how unimportant this question is, because Barna says it is “One of the most significant gaps uncovered by the research was the fact that most people cannot recall gaining any new spiritual insights the last time they attended church.” In this case, at least, we are told that “most” means 61 percent.

Flipping back to the horse’s mouth, we learn that “connecting with God is perhaps the most important outcome facilitated by churches.” Yet “most” (meaningless term) “describe these encounters as rare.” What does that say about churches failing in their most important outcome? And who says this is the most important outcome?

Churches score much better in the categories of “feeling cared for” and “helping the poor.” However, there is a significant minority of people who don’t identify this at all.

Also, the size of a church doesn’t seem to matter appreciably.