The 2020 election’s most crucial faith group is one you’ve never heard of
The ‘nothing in particulars,’ a subset of the famous nones, have grown to become 20% of the U.S. over the past decade, even as their political allegiances have shifted dramatically.
The nothing in particulars, however, out-none their fellow nones. They are the statistical equivalent of a shrug of the shoulders.When Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, nothing in particulars were about 15% of the general population. A little more than a decade later, that share has jumped to 1 in 5 adults, or about 20% To put that in context, nothing in particulars are statistically the same size as evangelical Protestants or Roman Catholics.The Democratic Party used to be able to rely on receiving a huge share of the nothing in particular vote. Obama won this group by 43 points in 2008. That slipped to 35 points in his reelection bid in 2012, and the slide accelerated when Hillary Clinton was the nominee. Clinton earned 60% of their votes in 2016, while Trump garnered nearly 40%.In a poll conducted Sept. 1 by Data for Progress, 38.7% of the nothing in particulars indicated that they would vote for Trump in 2020, in line with his 2016 results. Biden’s share among this group was 48.5%, a double-digit decline from even Clinton’s slackened performance. Biden would need to win over every undecided nothing in particular, as well as pick up a few third-party voters, to get back to the results of just four years ago.
My interpretation
I have always been concerned about this group, who are mostly the younger people. They started out with being idealistic under Obama, and then with Sanders. However their growth over the years since Obama has been from younger people coming of age to vote and also leaving behind whatever faith formation they might have gotten during high school.
The World Values Study tells us that the years of high school and college are critical for values formation. If young people come of age in secure economic conditions they tend to be attracted to democratic liberal values, if they come of age under unsecure economic conditions they ten to be attracted by authoritarian values. I suspect that is what is going on underneath this study. That the young people without religion are becoming more attracted by authoritarian personalities like Trump.
The Democrats in 2016 and now in 2020 passed up their opportunity to adopt the values of the young people who were attracted to Obama and now support Sanders. Those young people have generally thought their younger colleagues would follow them. That did not happen this year; Sanders did not bring more younger people into the party. He mainly held his own which was not sufficient to overcome the Democratic establishment. Well it looks like the Democratic establishment has passed up their once in a lifetime opportunity to capture the future of the county in its young people. All the insecurity of our present situation make it ripe for authoritarian leaders to attract the young.
I had read the article previously, but it is still unclear to me how these people are different from the "nones*.
ReplyDeleteThe author is saying that growing up in insecure economic conditions can predispose one to look to authoritarian leaders for solutions. Not sure I buy that, it doesn't hold true across racial lines. I think these "nothing in particulars" are likely to be as disengaged politically as they are with religious practice.
The concept still baffles me. I can understand "nones." They are the grandchildren of the Marboro Man riding the range alone, splinting his broken leg and able to hit a sheriff's badge from any position with their old .44 They stand for something -- just not something that involves anyone else. But nothing in particular sounds like a bunch of whatevers, so they probably won't vote if they forget, or if it's raining or Tuesday or whatever. Surely not a group to be appealed to?
ReplyDeleteI don't know, maybe they're the ones Trump is appealing to with his, "We're so bored and tired with all this Covid stuff, whatever" schtick. Hard to get people passionate about indifference, though. Seems like they'd be low information voters, too, if they bothered to vote.
DeleteInteresting points, Katherine.
DeleteTom, you are (once again) oversimplifying about the "nones" - implying that they care only about themselves. If you dig deeper into the nones - especially those who describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious" you might find that your sweeping generalizations are not really accurate - they may be true of some, but not the majority. (I think) I have an entire file folder in my filing cabinet that has data, interviews, studies etc of the "nones" - I could scan them and sent them to you! (Unless I threw the folder away in one of my occasional clear-away-the-clutter frenzies.) Interestingly enough, the "SBNRs" who have found organized religion to be highly hypocritical - look at the evangelicals and conservative Catholics all lining up to vote for Trump again even though he does not exactly exemplify either what they claim to believe nor the gospels - often are very involved in their communities - primarily doing social justice work. They see churches as turned-in on themselves, but are attracted by organizations that reach out to others. They see Trump republicans and "christians" who support him as being self-centered, unconcerned about the poor or disadvantaged - maybe churches run a soup kitchen or used clothing drive, but seldom do you find a focus on justice issues. Is it surprising that they are attracted to the left - less "religious" but not exactly Marlboro men.
I have found though, that people who take umbrage at the reality that young people are unwilling to go along with organized religion in the same way their parents and grandparents did (largely due to societal and family pressure) seem to resent that these young people are finding spiritual paths that do not include sitting in pews every Sunday. Or maybe they don't resent them as much as envy them for exercising the freedom they have chosen to use when it comes to organized religion - a freedom that few of the older generation was willing to use because of the expectations of our parents and grandparents. Those who truly love going to church and being part of a church community seldom try to see the church as the "nones" see it. Instead they condemn them, or at least make snarky assumptions about them (Marlboro men and 44s at the ready). I don't understand why the devout church-goers so resent those who don't need organized religion in the same way they themselves need it. God did not say "thou shalt be at mass every Sunday or you will commit a mortal sin and go to hell if you die with it". God said "Keep holy the Lord's day". There are countless ways to keep days holy - not all of them involve sitting in a building with hundreds of other people for a church service.
Where the "nothing in particulars" fit into this I don't know. But Katherine offers some thoughtful insights.
I wish we could get out of the "missing Mass is a mortal sin" mode of thought, and more into the Psamist's thought, "Come, worship the Lord, for we are his people, alleluia!" Or "I rejoiced when they said unto me, let us go up to the house of the Lord". Spending eleven weeks without Mass or Commiunion brought home to me again that Worshipping God as a community is a privilege and a blessing.
DeleteKatherine, I feel badly for you and Tom and Jim and Jean - people for whom gathering in a church on Sunday is really important.
DeleteBut I do sometimes wonder why those in the pews seem to so greatly resent those who are not there and find a need to "dis" them in some way. People have a right to discover and follow their own spiritual/religious path. For some, that path leads to the church doors every week. For others, it might lead to - yes - the woods, or the lake, or the mountains, or the beach. It might lead to the silence of a quiet room, with nobody around. It might lead to a project where they are joining with others to be God's hands in the world. It seems that the "nones" of various types bring out a lot of resentment in those who have chosen the more conventional path.
Why is that - the falling revenue for the churches? After I stopped going to mass, the only communications I got from the parish (after 30 years as an active, volunteering member) were missives about cutting me off from future communications if I didn't start writing checks again. I know others with similar experiences. So, some might be excused for thinking that the "concern" for the unchurched is, in reality, mostly about money.
Anne, I don't disrespect or resent those who aren't there, they have their own reasons. Some of them were hurt by people in the church, or don't believe anymore, or believe differently. They have to do what they have to do. But if they changed their mind at some point they would be welcome to come back.
DeleteKatherine, I don’t remember you ever being snarky about the “nones”. But a lot of Sunday regulars are. I suspect that Tom, whose comments I find both entertaining and educational much of the time, doesn’t always realize how Some of his descriptions come across - as in his comments about the nones being descendants of Marlboro men with their individualistic grit and implied lack of concern for the community. I actually see that attitude among evangelicals and Libertarians far more often than among the nones.
DeleteOthers are condescending- assuming that those nor in pews on Sunday do not hear “God’s Word” , are apparently considered incapable of reading scripture or praying without some other human beings leading them in a group, and are “ fallen away” people who risk not being “saved”.
Anne, Your "spiritual but not religious" group is only a subset of the nones, as (I suspect) are Jack's nothings in particular. But nones may (and usually do) shun political parties, the Elk's Club, alumni associations and anything else that involves commitments to others. Otherwise, they would be Republicans, Elks, Gators or something other than none.
DeleteI think it's lovely that some nones rise early, enjoy the sunrise (I do, too) and take their crystals out in the forest and have Thoughts. But there are nones of many other stripes as well.
Mass on Sunday, back in the day, was often the high point of my week. I guess I could work myself up into feeling badly for those who don't get the vibe.
"when they are faced with a question about religious preference by a pollster, they check the box next to the words, “nothing in particular.”
ReplyDelete"These are part of, but not identical to, the famous religious “nones,” who now account for some quarter of Americans. That larger group includes the nothing in particulars, but also atheists and agnostics."
"The nothing in particulars, however, out-none their fellow nones. They are the statistical equivalent of a shrug of the shoulders."
(Ryan Burge is an assistant professor of political science at Eastern Illinois University and a pastor in the American Baptist Church)
This guy is trying to make a big deal about his wording on a survey that forces people in the larger category of None to chose among "atheist, agnostic and "nothing in particular" rather than None or None of the above. It enables him to gave his results a certain flavor.
Now as Anne points out there has been a lot of research that points on the Nones, sometimes defined to include atheists and agnostics, sometimes not. The research that does not include atheists and agnostics has been a source of a lot of the ideas about being spiritual but not religious in the sense or organized religion.
What I find interesting about this particular research is that is looks at changes over time, and suggests that the original notion that these mostly young "nones" as a positive force for good, the type that vote for Obama and Sanders is not longer true.
My explanation is that it is not the older cohort that has change, they will still vote for Biden although not enthusiastically but the new young voters who are far less engaged in anything than the Obama and Sanders supporters. These disengaged nothing in particulars are vulnerable to recruitment by Trump. Maybe they are some of the people that he has signed up as new voters in PA and Michigan? Anyway be prepared by this article not to be surprised if that happens.
Gen Z voters loathe Trump and, if they bother to vote, they'll vote against him. But they're not high on Democrats, either, though.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/11/gen-z-politics-2020-poll-takeaways-426767
I don't know what happens when you slice and dice Gen Z and Millennials into religious tribes. My sense is that most young people under 30 are nones or don't-cares when it comes to organized religion. They have seen their schools shot up and the environment eroded. They also see wage/income disparity getting worse, and they don't know what a union is, so they don't know how to begin to fix things.
Neither major party is too worked up about those issues. The TV preachers and religious newsmakers are still mostly talking about homosexuality and abortion, and those are non-starters for most kids.
If Trump wins, it will be because working class white men, women, and conservative Christians put him over the top.
Some interesting developments from the Cornfield: We took our bimonthly trip to the produce/meat market up north. Many more Biden signs, and some of the "my governor is an idiot" signs have disappeared. Also seeing yards full of signs for Republicans down ballot but no Trump signs.
I'd predict as of today that Biden has an even chance of winning if I'm seeing this many signs for a Democrat in very conservative farm country.
Jack, interesting point noting that the nones have changed with the younger cohort - no longer as engaged as their elder none siblings were. I haven't looked closely at the studies for ten or so years and hadn't paid attention to these changes. Thanks for the insight.
ReplyDeleteJean, I hope your observations are a positive sign. My son and his familydrove through Colorado and then several Midwest states to get here. They said the trump signs were everywhere. Both have driven across this country, north and south, east to west, several times. This is the first time they occasionally felt unsafe as an inter-racial family. Nothing overt - but some not friendly staring made them feel uncomfortable at times.
ReplyDeleteI think because of some of the right wing unhinged stuff on display, the Biden supporters would be more reluctant to attract attention. The secret ballot is there for a reason.I think a lot of people are just voting without advertising who they support.
ReplyDeleteAll I know is that Elm Grove, Wisconsin, which once was John Birch Forever has almost as many Biden signs as Trump. We ventured out farther than usual today (wife's skin doctor and Hoffman's chocolates) and say a total of one political sign: Biden, and it was small.
DeleteMy supposition is that the key demographic distinguisher here between Biden nothing-in-particulars and Trump nothing-in-particulars is class. My guess is that the Trump nothing-in-particulars are less educated, poorer, more likely to live in exurbs, the rust belt and rural areas.
ReplyDeleteI think Anne is right that many of them are spiritual but not religious. For whatever reason, they didn't "stick" to organized religion; many of the younger ones probably grew up in homes which also were religiously mixed or ambiguous and didn't have a lot of active religious engagement.
I don't know that it is Trump's authoritarian tendencies which attract them. I would guess it is his focus on keeping jobs in the US (a big worry in the rust belt and rural areas), coupled with his f***-the-establishment vibe, illustrated most spectacularly by his defiance of any rational and community-spirited COVID-19 measures like masks and social distancing.
Most of my once-Catholic friends are now “nones”. Given that we are in our 70s now, and all grew up in devout Catholic homes in the 50s and 60s, and most went to Catholic schools from 1st through college graduation, I wonder how much of this disaffection with organized religion is really new, It’s probably at least on the third generation now, But most of my RC friends did go to church - for decades. Sometimes until their own parents died. We were all raised to be obedient little Catholics who wouldn’t want to upset the elders. So we went through the motions, at least until we couldn’t anymore in good conscience. So I guess it’s not surprising that we ( my once Catholic friends and I) were not particularly upset when our own children dropped out of regular church attendance. Most of us encouraged them to decide for themselves and weren’t upset at all when they made adult decisions to absent themselves from church affiliation. Since our own kids weren’t discouraged from dropping formal religion, it’s not particularly surprising when their kids, our grandkids are never anything other than “nones”. My grandchildren are young, as are the grandchildren of many of my friends. But some do have grandchildren in their teens or college who might respond to a poll. They are the friends who married in college, or shortly after graduation and whose children did the same. One of my husbands closest friends met his first great-grandchild shortly after our fifth grandchild was born.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I suspect the trend towards disaffiliation from church has been there for a long time, but was hidden. Now it’s coming out because most of the current generations of parents and grandparents now don’t disapprove of it. It’s no longer a scandal.
I also have friends from my Catholic high school and Catholic university who now are "nones". Some became nones very early in adulthood, others hung on for quite a while and then let go.
DeleteMy point of view overall is: the heart of Christian discipleship is having a personal relationship with Jesus. Our faith needs to have Jesus at the center of it.
I think it's possible that a person who was formed in a Catholic (or Christian) family and communal environment, and then subsequently separated her/himself from the communal element, could continue to have a relationship with Jesus. I am not conceding that it's optimal! :-) But it's conceivable.
For that person's children or grandchildren, who were not raised in a religious environment - did not go to mass, Catholic school, no sacramental milestones, etc. - that's quite a different "use case", as we say in the business world. In essence, that person never has been evangelized - literally never has heard the Good News nor had a chance to internalize it. That is not to say that such a person isn't a decent, kind and community-spirited person. But such admirable traits are not enough - are not the essence of our faith; knowing and loving Jesus and following him is the essence of it.
The church needs to find the courage and confidence to reach out to such people in a compelling way - to invite them to get to know Jesus.
Anne, I think you're right about our being into our third generation of none-ism. I hear it at every baptism liturgy: when I intone, "The Lord be with you", about a quarter of the respondents mumble, "And also with you", while the rest clearly don't know what to say and just say nothing at all. It's a rare day when anyone manages, "And with your spirit" loud enough for me to hear.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I can't be that detached. It's going to break my heart if the day comes when my granddaughters no longer identify as Catholic. I wouldn't give them a bad time, just say a rosary every day to pray them back. But they might stay in.
ReplyDeleteOne set of great-grandparents stayed Catholic even in the days when they only had Mass once a month. The priest rode the train out from 70 miles away, and they met in someone's house because there was no church. Other ancestors were Lutherans, Baptists, or Presbyterians. But no nothing-in-particulars. It kind of seems a betrayal of their legacy if their descendants give up on a practice of faith.
If they are leaving in depressing numbers, that's on us, and especially our bishops and pastors who insist that they alone get to run this mess. The nones have decided they don't need us, but, to paraphrase from the sermon our then-pastor preached on the Sunday after 9/11:
Delete"I see a lot of people here today who decided they needed to be here. You are welcome, and we are glad you are here. I have to add, we need you here, too."
I saw something the other day that said 13% of all Americans are ex-Catholics (whatever that means). So in any random group of 10 people you see, the odds are pretty good that there is an ex-Catholic there. If you bet on it, you are also is favored by that extra .3 percent, which is enough vigorish to make a casino profitable for anyone but Trump.
Tom, if that ex-Catholic has joined another religious tradition, or is devoutly SBNR, do you consider them lost? Why do you feel a need to try to rope them back into a RC pew?
ReplyDeleteKatherine, why do you feel you have to storm heaven with rosaries if they are good, responsible people who have simply chosen a different spiritual path than yours?
Tom mentions that the odds are good enough to become “profitable “. So it still comes down to needing people to throw enough money into the basket to keep your parish doors open?
In some ways a religious tradition is like a family. If a family member drops out of contact, the ones remaining feel the loss. They may think, "Did I do something to drive them away?" If grandchildren choose a different spiritual path, I wouldn't worry about them as much as feel the loss and wonder if I should have set a better example. And praying for someone is never a waste of time. How God chooses to answer the prayers is up to him.
DeleteAnne, Read what I said without the blinders. I said we need them, not that they need us. I don't know if they need us; only God knows. I am not sending them to Hell, and I'd thank you for not thinking I am. The comment about betting was just a gratuitous swipe at The Don because he is The Don.
DeleteKatherine, if your child or grandchild lived in a different parish, or city or state - IOW, you don't see them every Sunday at church, why do you feel it as a "loss"? It seems that perhaps it's not the spiritual life of your younger relatives that concerns you, but that they don't value the cultural traditions as much as you do. But- should they? Are we all obligated to value in precisely the same way what our parents or grandparents valued? Why would you think that someone following a different path did so because you failed in some way? Does it not simply mean that they are not you? Would you look at one of your grandchildren choosing a vocation as an artist instead of a vocation requiring a degree in science (you are a chemist, right?) as a failure on your part?
DeleteIf your family member is a good person, a kind person, a caring person, and chooses to belong to the EC, or maybe become a Jew - or a Hindu! - or an SBNR - it is not a failure on your part. It probably indicates resounding success - that you have given your family member the respect and moral, intellectual, and spiritual freedom that they needed to be able to make a different choice than that of you or their parents.
It took me much of my life to begin to live MY life - instead of the life my mother planned for me and expected of me. I feel sad that I was so afraid to be who I AM instead of who my mother wanted me to be for much of my life. She did not give me that moral, intellectual, and spiritual freedom. I do have some regrets in how I lived my life - the choices I made - because I was making the choices she wanted me to make, not the choices I wanted to make for myself. It took me until mid-life to face up to that reality. I moved across the country from California as a young woman quite deliberately - I wanted to get away from my mother, because her controlling nature was smothering me. I felt unfree. Even then, it took decades for me to begin to understand why I felt such conflict. It was because I was not her, my "true self" did not share all her values, including religious, although I struggled for years to make myself be what she wanted. By putting physical distance between us I slowly began to discover who I am. But I made compromises - I stayed Catholic for decades longer than I should have. I pleased her by raising the kids Catholic, but I let them know very clearly that they were not obligated to stay Catholic. I told them it was simply a way to introduce christian religious ideas, and that I hoped that they would take the good, but should follow their own consciences as young adults. My mother died when I was in my 40s - and yet I still struggle with guilt because I have made a lot of choices that she would not have been happy with. Especially the choice of leaving the RCC. I left twice before the final departure. She was still alive when I left the first two times. I didn't have the courage to stay away though. I didn't make the final break until she was dead. I would hate to see my sad story repeated in your family - give them freedom. Trust them. Maybe they will be more courageous than I was in being their who they really are in spite of disappointing family members.
Anne, I'm not really very worried about my granddaughters finding their "true selves".'You'd have to know them, they're spunky characters.
DeleteWhat you said about staying Catholic to please your mother sounds miserable. I wouldn't want any of my family to do that. But I don't think there's any danger.
It still sounds as if it is your need that you pray they will satisfy. My mother also thought I would always be RC.
DeleteI'm glad your granddaughters are spunky. I learned to suppress my "spunk", to keep my head down and lay low. Until the day came when I could move away from LA. I didn't intend for it to be forever - just long enough to establish the notion in my mother's mind that I was an adult, fully capable of supporting myself and making my own choices. But I met my husband here and stayed. And, in some ways I wasn't really a full adult.
DeleteIn the religion realm, I continued to toe the line, at least after we had our first child. We baptized him and the other two with all appropriate RC pomp. However, I did not force my sons to be confirmed. They had first confession and first communion - they had to do confession to have first communion. But I never let them go to confession again after that. One son chose to get confirmed - at 13, which I argued against. He did it because his friends were getting confirmed. One was confirmed at age 16 after a lot of thought. One was never confirmed, and boy, did I hear about that from our pastor. And from his RC high school. I refused to force him to be confirmed and he has never been confirmed. His wife is totally against most things church (her mother is Pentecostal or something) and my son is now actively hostile towards the RCC (the sex abuse scandal). They send their son to a Lutheran day school where he does get basic christianity. However, it's a school that has welcomed a gay couple with open arms, and their son is one of my grandson's friends. My son and his wife think that this Lutheran school is much more christian than Catholic schools.
Fair enough, Tom. Why do you "need" them?
ReplyDeleteBecause they have something to offer (and I don't mean money) that would, if we had them, build us up (Catholics/parishioners) in ways only they can do. The more talent there is on deck, the more ways we can meet our charge to love God and neighbor.
DeleteSpeaking personally, I would like everyone to have what I have, and the good thing is that they can have it without taking anything away from me, and, in fact, I will get more of it from them. I do find it hard to believe they would reject it if they felt it the way I do.
I am not unaware, from having interacted with many pissed off Catholics, that their reasons for being ex are often perfectly rational. When we were doing Re-membering, I heard about bunch of monsignori and monsignori wannabes that I would have had no trouble strangling.
Well, as you note, the disaffected Catholics never found what you have found in Catholicism. Perhaps they found it elsewhere, and they are doing their bit for God's kingdom from a different place. It's not just Roman Catholics who love God and neighbor. And it's not just the job of RCs to "build up" God's kingdom. It sounds like you really just want more people in your pews without fully understanding ALL the reasons why they left them in the first place. It's not just due to awful priests and bishops. A lot of the "lapsed" simply don't accept RC teachings. Staying in the RC church when they don't believe what it teaches makes little sense.
DeleteAnd who knows, perhaps if you had ever had the courage, or even the intellectual curiosity, to step out of an RC environment for a while, you would have found something just as "good".
What is "Re-membering"? Another of the dozens of programs designed to bring back the "fallen away"?
Why assume that those of us who stayed in after 6, 7, or 8 decades of life did so because we lacked courage or curiosity? (Personally I've been told that I am altogether too curious).
DeleteAnne, Don't get all huffy now. I never thought of spirituality as a test of courage. As I read the N.T, the only test is love. Next thing, you'll be talking like Joanie Ernst's first campaign. I'm sorry you consider me (and some of the others here) dumb shleeple, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it. I have other intellectual curiosities to look into.
DeleteThe research on conversion says that it mainly comes down to relationships not intellectual beliefs. That applies to religious and nonreligious as well. Now people often give "reasons" for believing or not believing but that is because our culture (including researchers) often expect "reasons."
DeletePeople who are surrounded by religious people among their families, friends, and neighbors tend to remain religious. Those who are surrounded by people of little religion often loose their religion.
If someone is of little or no religion and gets a lot of new religious friends that person is likely to undergo a "conversion."
If parents alienate their children from their own religion often their children are temporarily unreligious (when they escape from their parents control or observation), however these children often end up finding their own religion different from their parents. Sometimes children who are alienated by their parents religion or non-religion find a grandparent whose religion appeals to them.
People without any religion are often very vulnerable to religious experiences as well as beliefs in things like astrology and paranormal phenomena.
Jack, I agree with you that a lot of it is about relationships.
DeleteI am struck by Katherine's comment above: "It kind of seems a betrayal of their legacy if their descendants give up on a practice of faith."
ReplyDeleteMy grandparents had no fixed religious identity. They were, at times, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Methodists, and Nones.
Certainly there were pressures in my immediate family to reject Trinitarian Christianity. There was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from my mother when I was baptized in my 20s, and from both my parents when we moved with The Boy to Catholicism. Neither of them ever tried to understand my POV or listen to ways in which Unitarianism informed my Christianity. My mother, particularly, took it as a personal insult that I had "rejected" her religious ideas.
This led to all sorts of family tension, and certainly a lot of guilt when it came to end-of-life care for my parents (even after a lot of discussion about whether I should continue to have medical power of attorney).
Family life is much easier when everybody is more or less on the same page, shares the same values, and worships the same way. When different ideas are introduced, there are fewer shared assumptions and tensions increase. It is really hard to always be explaining yourself to sometimes hostile or fearful listeners.
Certainly, dealing with non-Christian and non-Catholic family members has tried my faith, such as it is, and my patience. But it has also made me more thoughtful about it. I came to the conclusion through the end-of-life care of my parents that we are supposed to love others. We--or me, at any rate--are not called to scold, reprimand, exhort, or pressure them to knuckle under to our way of thinking.
And that's as far as I've got with that.
We "...are not called to scold, reprimand, exhort, or pressure them to knuckle under to our way of thinking." I agree with that, as Tom said above, in the end it's all about love.
ReplyDeleteI think my comment above about not giving up on my ancestors' faith have to be taken with the understanding that I am a family history buff who identified with the people and stories.
Thanks for explaining.
DeleteI'm finishing up a genealogy project I've worked on for about 30 years.
I'm struck by how little attempt there was to marry into any particular faith. Certainly there was no religious throughline across generations. I'm sure it explains certain aspects of the family dynamic. Family ties tended to be about secrets and making money.
I don't think most of my ancestors were loved by their families so much as valued by certain material standards.
Extended families fell apart as people married and moved away.
My ancestors seem to have been pretty ecumenical, probably because the area they settled in wasn't dominated by any particular religious or ethnic group, and it wasn't possible for anyone to exist in their own little silo.
DeleteSome of them were in on the building of this combined Catholic and Protestant church. My grandmother was one of the teen girls mentioned in the article who helped raised funds for it. Another source mentioned that "...t required a special dispensation from the pope to have dual faiths in the same building. This was given by Pope Leo XIII in a short note to the American Cardinal who had asked for it." The cardinal isn't named, it may have been the papal nuncio at the time.
What a lovely story about the church, Katherine! Thank you for the link!
Delete