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?

in Islam where to declare yourself apostate is to literally invite severe ostracism from family and community.

Except it’s not literally the case in the UK, the vast majority of Muslims are used to living with and socialising with other Muslims of varying faith or no faith. Many marry outside the faith, and they are not ostracised from their families.

That's really interesting. Why do you think it took a couple of hundred years each time to detonate? Was each step a necessary but insufficient condition maybe (reformation + something = enlightenment. Enlightenment + something = secularisation)?

I've often thought that I inherited my atheism from my mother, who is a very sincere truth-prioritising protestant. In a way I'm thankful for that inheritance, which has rigour and sincerity, but equally feel that a lot of the richness and value of religion had been stripped out of the version I was raised in.

There is a certain type of Judaism/Jewishness that I admire that seems to manage both: everything can and should be questioned, often to the point of disbelief, yet somehow the community preserves the inheritance conveyed through what are essentially religious practices.

This view puzzles me. In your view, is it possible for a religion take a turn for the better or worse?

(i.e. when Christianity was inquisitioning and crusading, was it worse than Christianity is now?)

And so many other questions..... is there any set of beliefs that, if it got wrapped up in a religion, would be worse than the religions we currently have? If one religion turns out to be true, however we would determine that, would that make it better than the others? Some religions teach that there are many religious paths to God/enlightenment, while others say that their faith is the one true one and the others are wrong and sinful. Is a religion that says, roughly, all religions are equal better because it says that?

“Fantastic news” feels a bit much.

You might not like churches. Fine. But thousands of buildings closing isn’t some cartoon villain losing his lair. In a lot of places the church is the food bank, the warm space in winter, the toddler group, the place old people go for a chat so they don’t sit alone all week. When it shuts, it’s usually the lonely and the broke who lose out first, not some powerful bishop.

There’s also the fact that these buildings are part of the fabric of towns and villages. Centuries old, paid for and maintained by ordinary people over generations.

I think re Judaism, it's not necessarily such an instructive comparison as it's an ethnoreligion : so it involves culture, language, peoplehood, nationality if you make aliyah to Israel. This is fundamentally different from religions which are not tied directly to ethnicity/culture. Sikhism & Hinduism aren't technically ethnoreligions but in practice function like them to some extent as they're heavily tied to ethnicity.

BTW, that reminds me of this Jewish joke :

'Two Rabbis argued late into the night about the existence of God, and, using strong arguments from the scriptures, ended up indisputably disproving His existence. The next day, one Rabbi was surprised to see the other walking into the shul for morning services.

"I thought we had agreed there was no God," he said.

"Yes, what does that have to do with it?" replied the other.'

I don't know what religions you're talking about but Judaism is constantly adapting and altering halakha to adjust to the times.

I'm proud to be a Jew because of what Judaism stands for building a better world and being in the present. Rather than Christianity where it's be good or you will go to hell and far right organisers within.various Christian churches to control what others do and dictate politics. You seem to think Christian churches are meek a d weak when the absolute opposite is true.

As someone else said Christianity is growing amongst men in their 20s but the majority are drawn to it because they wish to return to a "traditional life" and go back to a time before feminism, hence the growth in trad wife stuff. The church is becoming a home for fascists like Nick Tenconi, Tommy Robinson again because Christianity can do easily be used to control others and it places power in the hands priests/fathers, whereas Rabbis don't have the same power and have to back up any decision/advice/argument with hundreds of years of discussions and debate amongst the sages and prominent ravs.

In my mind I can't see what is positive about being a Christian. All religions have blood on their hands but Christianity has by far the most and continues to do atrocious things. It was only very recently that the Catholic church changed the law that priests must report rape and pedophila mentioned in the confession box, how can you sit in a pew being proud of you know that your father/priest had to be forced to report pedophila?

There's also massive difference in spiritual approaches to faith that come into it. Christianity demands "moral purity" while being very impure it's self.

Also neither the church of England or the Catholic church are poor the latter having vast wealth and could save all the churches and still have their pope eat of solid gold plates. They just choose not and turn to ordinary folk to fundraise for their buildings. Again morally repugnant.

I agree it’s an ethno-religion, but I still think it can be instructive. Becuase the things I admire about that type of Judaism/Jewishness are still ultimately a choice made by people. Jews could have jettisoned all the religious traditions at the same pace as they became unbelievers. Just as English people could have infused meaning in Anglicanism even after they secularised.

I suppose one thing that is genuinely different is that religious Jews believe that non-religious Jews remain part of their community in some important, religiously-commanded way. Maybe that’s enough to keep a cohesiveness.

Pope Francis did try & simplify things but many cardinals are indeed quite avaricious. There are a lot of good ones too, but quite a lot seem to take being a 'prince of the church' very literally.

Leaving behind those traditions would have meant leaving behind culture, language, habits etc So it's not fully the same as Anglicanism..

'I suppose one thing that is genuinely different is that religious Jews believe that non-religious Jews remain part of their community in some important, religiously-commanded way. Maybe that’s enough to keep a cohesiveness.'

• that's true but it's not solely a religious commandment. Secular Jews can still feel strongly about Jewish peoplehood/community with other secular & with religious Jews due to ethnocultural element. But I agree broadly.

Islam has plenty of blood on its hands too : ethnoreligions like Judaism & ethnically tied ones like Sikhism & Hinduism are safer from that because they're not missionary in the same way.

I’m an atheist but Christianity absolutely does not preach:

“be good or you will go to hell”

If anything that’s what Christ came to overturn. (One can argue about the hell bit, but the focus on commanding specific action is far stronger in the OT/Tanakh than in Christianity)

Yes,,I agree on that. The point is stronger re hell as Judaism doesn't have a concept of a permanent hell.

https://jewinthecity.com/2018/12/do-jews-believe-in-hell/

Hence why ai said all religions. And if you think Hinduism and Sikhism have a fair amount of Muslim and Buddhist blood on their hands as an effect of the partition of India due to British colonialism.

Islam isn't meant to prothosise or recruit that's something they took from Christianity

“Was each step a necessary but insufficient condition maybe (reformation + something = enlightenment. Enlightenment + something = secularisation)?”

Probably, but I’d need to write a book to work out precisely what those extra conditions were. Printing press/cataloguing of knowledge, and material abundance/welfare state respectively, I would guess.

I think a lot of how we behave is a function of extremely long waves, where some idea emerges and only takes full effect generations later, once material conditions catch up, or there’s nobody left who can pass on the older ways of thought properly. That’s how I’ve come to understand history the older I get – you note something odd in the air, extrapolate idly and wildly while daydreaming, and then if you hang around long enough eventually you might see it happen.

Truth-seeking Protestantism turning into atheism a generation or two later feels very much of a piece with that. Your mother could easily combine the two within herself (my assumption being that she acquired her Protestantism first), but passing both things down together feels like an impossibly tall order. It feels almost inevitable that an attempt to do that will result in the truth-seeking negating the Protestantism before it gets to take root.

Yes it was an over simplification but Christianity does have a focus on the after life and weather it's true to scripture or not can/is used as a way to manipulate behaviour it likes. Tell a Catholic priest you had an abortion and have absolutely no regret and will never repent, I'd bet my last penny that he would not be very receptive to the idea of you going to heaven. Whereas, Judaism doesn't focus on the after life it's much more about the now and fulfilling the mitzvot.

As for jesus's teachings/aims I think if he were to see Christianity today it would be very far from what he taught.

I think Christianity hasnt been embedded in the lives of people in the way other religions often are. Even when it was more popular it tended to be a Sunday only thing, and hardly thought about the rest of the week. There's few to no rules or customs around diet and meals, clothing or behaviour, prayer times etc to keep it front and centre and a part of people's identity. So when there started to be other options for things to do on Sundays, it was easily dropped and not much missed.

Point taken re Hinduism & Sikhism.

Re Islam though, that isn't correct. There’s a core concept called da‘wah (“invitation” or “calling”). Muslims are told to: “Invite (ud‘u) to the way of your Lord…” (Qur’an 16:125) And: “Let there arise among you a group inviting to what is good…” (3:104) Da‘wah is still a whole field today:street preaching, mosque outreach etc

Muhammad’s own life involved preaching outward from the start . Preaching to Meccans, sending letters to foreign rulers, calling tribes to accept Islam.

I agree with this.

I stand corrected I was mislead

I think the commercialising of the the Christian festivals and celebrations is a big thing. Christmas and Easter are now about the presents not about the celebration of Jesus. I have friends who are vocal atheists but there they are with the piles of present/eggs. That doesn’t happen in other religions, no one who is not Muslim is celebrating Eid, no one who isn’t Hindi is celebrating Diwali. It makes a bit of a mockery out of the religion.

also the tradition of going to mass on a Sunday morning, a lot of people I know work on a Sunday now,

This is the thing though there are dietary restrictions, Catholics are more likely to follow them especially around Easter. I think being a Christian just hasn't been the core part of people's identities. I will say I'm Jewish first if I'm listing my identities/intersectionality and think that goes for a lot of people.

I guess it comes down how to the religion is passed on, from birth we are taught Judaism and it becomes a very loved thing. Which is why you get secular Jews who absolutely don't believe but still light candles every Shabbat. Whereas Christianity has been a very passive thing for white British folks.

If you go to a black church the whole vibe is different and people are very involved attending sevral times a week and it being much more of a community.

Fruidian slip I meant very lived thing but I guess also loved thing. We're taught we should proud of who we are.

Church buildings are money pits. Money that would be better spent giving to food banks, supporting single mums and the disadvantaged.

"Church" has another meaning: a group of Christians. My Church meets in a primary school. There's no need for a fancy building. Jesus had nothing to say about that, but He did have quite a lot to say about supporting marginalised groups and hypocrites.

I don't think you can use building closures to measure this