for thinking Christianity is declining in the UK because the churches lost credibility and community while other faiths didn’t?

[LoveWFH]

This is not about belief in God versus no God. It is about institutions and what people experience on the ground. The Church of England in particular feels like a faded bureaucracy. Empty buildings. Clergy stretched thin. Services that feel performative or stuck in a time capsule. A lot of talk about tradition but very little that speaks to how people actually live now.

There is also the trust issue. Abuse scandals. Cover ups. Financial mismanagement. A sense that when the church fails it protects itself first and the vulnerable last. You can only ask people to suspend disbelief for so long when the institution itself looks morally compromised. Younger people especially are ruthless about hypocrisy and the church gives them plenty to work with.

Then there is the class and culture gap. Christianity in the UK often feels tied to establishment power and respectability. It does not feel like it belongs to ordinary people anymore. It feels like something you inherit rather than choose. Something you tick at a wedding or funeral rather than something that shapes your life. When belief becomes purely ceremonial it is already on life support.

By contrast other faiths seem to be growing because they are lived not just referenced. They have visible daily practices. Clear moral frameworks. Strong community networks. You see them meeting regularly supporting each other showing up for births deaths crises celebrations. There is structure and discipline but also belonging. For migrants especially faith communities replace the support systems the state no longer provides.

There is also confidence. Other faiths are not embarrassed by themselves. They do not constantly apologise for existing or dilute their beliefs in the hope of being liked. People are drawn to certainty in an uncertain world. Not cruelty or dogma but clarity. Christianity in the UK often sounds unsure of what it even stands for anymore beyond being inoffensive.

So AIBU for thinking this is not some mystery about secularism but a very predictable outcome of an institution that lost its moral authority community roots and sense of purpose while others doubled down on theirs?

I was an Anglican but was received into the Catholic Church some years ago. I agree with you - the clergy I deal with now are less ego-driven, in my opinion, than in the C of E. It was one of the reasons I moved across.

The rector of the rural parishes, where I live, is one like you describe and it fills me with sadness. Basically idle and in it for status. There are many good people beavering away for the good of the congregationand community that are let down by utterly crap leadership, both at parish level and higher up. The rot started a couple of decades ago; I can't remember who said it originally but "There's nothing wrong with the Church of England that a good bout of persecution wouldn't sort out"!

I don’t see it like that. I think the difficulty is almost linguistic, in that we have come to understand truth as meaning ‘empirically provable’, and are forgetting that there are enormous categories of questions—‘how should one live?’—which require answers too.

Aren’t the correct answers to those questions also the ‘truth’? Of course they are, but we are in a time where we are struggling to see that. We don’t know what to do with propositions which aren’t amenable to the scientific method, and we try to get through this in practice by using relativism, and being reluctant to say that there is a correct answer or that any one belief is better than any other.

But I don’t think anyone really believes that. We don’t behave like it – we get disgusted by things which apparently cause no harm, we wish for other people to improve their lives even when they show no inclination to, we have expectations of other people in situations where they owe us nothing. This shows that below the surface we very much do believe in a moral code.

How is that not also ‘truth’? I think it is, and I think the linguistic slip has led us to fail to treat this stuff with the seriousness it deserves.

I can’t speak to poor clergy as the ones I have met have all been impressive, but one thing I don’t get about the CoE is the behaviour shown by some of its more celebrity priests. Richard Coles for example – nothing I ever saw of him suggested that he took the faith remotely seriously. I don’t understand how a church can tolerate that, when taking itself seriously is surely the one thing it must always do.

I also think that when the generation who go to church because they've always gone to church die the c of e will be a better place.

I have few regrets in life. One is when I was a boy out scout troop met in the church hall. We broke a window and the vicar was calling us idiots and stupid and all sorts. I wish I had said "well you're a Christian can't you forgive us"

And yes the Catholic clergy are much more human and compassionate. My next door neighbours brother is one a nicer, warmer, funnier man you wouldn't want to meet. When my mum was dieing of cancer I came home from school and there was a nun sat in the front room. Our neighbour had arranged it...the local c of e didn't rock up though mum and dad were very very well known in the village

A woman who attends the local Anglican church said the same to me on Saturday. She had an extended period in hospital and no one from the local church came near her, nor when she got home.

Not unusual in my experience. Yet I drink in a pub where one of the lads would pop round to make sure you're ok

There are indeed different categories of truth claims - some subjective, some objective. Eg, while it's absolutely true that I think pineapple is an abomination on pizza that doesn't mean everyone thinks the same way about that horrendous choice. Similarly the best choice for how I should live my life isn't necessarily true for everyone. I'm not sure if faith comes in to that though, at least in the sense of faith meaning a conviction that relies more on belief than evidence.

But when we come to objective truth claims like "Is the earth flat?" or "do gods exist?" then it's different. If the earth's round then it's round for everyone and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply wrong, no matter how much faith/conviction/synonym-thereof they have in it being flat.

I agree that deep down we all have a moral code but that moral code varies from person to person because morality is subjective. Point to any moral precept you like and I'll find you a society that has decided there is an exception to it. Are there some morals that are "better" than others? I can't help but feel that ethical structures that most closely match my own are "better" than those that are very different. But that's unmistakably a subjective thing.

Think you're third point is the main reason. While other faiths don't seem to sway too far from their scriptures, Christians seem to bend over backwards to accommodate everyone.

I think it's a bit foolhardy to claim any faith is free from terrorism fully. Judaism has had extreme fringe group, Hinduism has, Sikhism- the prime one for Christianity would probably be the IRA.

I agree there are objective truths re ethics. To me though, although I'm a believer, I don't think believing in objective ethical rules necessitates also accepting there must be a God and/or that one of the major world religions makes accurate claims about God.

It could definitely lead someone to believing those things, but I don't think one HAS to follow from the other.

Unfortunately celebrities of all kinds in faiths often don't take it seriously and this isn't disciplined properly all too often. Although the Cardinals of the Catholic church aren't exactly celebrities, a lot of them do seem to be motivated by desire for luxuries. Pope Francis & some allies spent a long time tackling this but it was quite difficult.. wouldn't be surprised if it hastened his illness, poor man. Pope Benedict too was unable to sort the corruption problems out.
That's another thing : religions should not leave all the leadership to very elderly people. Of course they can often be very competent/skilled but for health reasons majority gerontocracy is not ideal.

Why has the C of E got such bad clergy? Terrible. I'm glad the Catholic clergy helped you.

I suspect a big part is that secularisation has been ongoing a long time so it's hard to attract, and therefore , desperate, they allow people who are attracted for ulterior motives. This probably plays an inexcusable role also in abuse scandals (this also applies to Catholic church too in US, for one, from what I've read)

Maybe Catholics here, being a minority, are more motivated to keep the faith alive.

I can only assume you've never heard the name the Reverend Ian Paisley.

I've not been helped by Catholic priests I can only speak as I find. Please read my earlier posts re the arrogance of c of e clergy.

It's naive to think Christianity is the only faith to adapt stances from the scriptures. Hinduism has had to soften on caste (thank goodness) among other things. Modern Orthodox Judaism, Reform and Masorti are all 3 different responses which in one way or another have adapted somewhat to the modern world. Sikhism less so but that's partly because they started in part as a response to problems within Hinduism (caste, treatment of women etc)

The only faith that has become more conservative not less overall is Islam, and that's because of the 18th century rise of ultraconservative Salafism and Wahhabism (plugged heavily by Saudi Arabia over the last few decades!) which has hardly been positive...

Personally I think it’s laziness/ being too busy! People not bothered to go to mass on Sunday!

I think people have moved away from Christianity now that the fear has gone.
Everyone I know in my previously very religious area has distanced due to crippling hypocrisy and downright viciousness from the church over the years. I don’t know a single person who doesn’t have a personal story of sexual abuse by the clergy, corporal punishment by nuns etc.

Its actually an incredibly small number of Christian’s who actually act Christian.

You’ve got it completely backwards, the Catholic Church in no way endorsed the IRA and neither was the IRA a fringe group of Christianity.
Where on earth are you getting that from??
Loyalist paramilitaries are the ones with the much messier background linking terrorism and Christianity through Paisley etc.

I know the Church didn't, what I mean is that the terrorists were partly motivated by a warped version of religion (since Catholicism was very tied to Irish nationalism). Sorry, should have been clearer!

Didn't know that about Paisley - terrible.

No, they weren’t motivated by religion at all. The agenda of the IRA during the troubles was for Catholics to have equal rights, access to housing, the right to vote etc. They had nothing to do with religion, nor were they motivated by any religious ideology.
What warped version of religion are you claiming motivated them?

Well you've said yourself they were a Catholic group whose aim was better rights for Catholics (among other things...). By 'motivated by religion', I don't mean they were fighting for a theological reason as such, but religion was deeply intertwined with the conflict.

A parallel in some ways is the Hindu nationalist movement RSS which produced the assassin of Gandhi, Godse, on the grounds that Gandhi's tolerance of Muslims meant Hindus were in danger.

A few years ago I was shown through some of the more interesting areas of Belfast by an Orangeman friend of a friend. I asked him whether there was collusion between the Catholic Church and the IRA during the Troubles. I remembering him looking quite startled and saying absolutely not.

The IRA's motive as I understand it was not promoting Catholicism and the fact that the overwhelming majority of its members weren't Protestants is coincidental. I had heard that the IRA had a Marxist thing going on. I don't know whether that's true but if it is it's inconsistent with Christianity let alone Catholicism.

Not better rights, equal rights. Still not sure how that fuels your claim that they were “motivated by a warped view of religion”?

And no they weren’t “a catholic group”. A large amount of people within a group having similar characteristics doesn’t define the group unless it’s part of the agenda. The nature was political, not religious.

It sounds like you have less than an even basic understanding of NI so don’t spout about it.

I know the Church didn't promote the IRA, they promoted peace. Re Marxism, this wouldn't though necessarily preclude members of the IRA who followed that also believing in Catholicism. The South American liberation theology movement was heavily Catholic yet also heavily-Marxist-influenced, to give one example.

I didn't mean superior rights, sorry for that lack of clarity. I said 'better rights' since traditionally Catholics had received unfair treatment often.