Way back in the ’80s I once saw a bumper sticker that said: “Reality is for people who can’t handle drugs.” A pot smoker of my acquaintance thought this supremely funny.
…..It ought to be formally examined by someone someday why single men leave established bodies of believers, and as well how they find their way back, or not. In my virtual travels I have corresponded with the author of this site , whose doctoral dissertation is on the subject of people who leave the fellowship; it is being published as a book. While I gather it does not deal per se with the particular issues and circumstances of single Christian men, I expect that many of the ideas therein will resonate with a keen eyed observer.
It is a cheap shot and, I suppose, functionally “useful” for some pastors to think of single men who fall away as people who “just can’t handle it” or some such; in reality, church is in some places and for some people a place to go because they cannot handle reality, and there are delightful fictions which they can play out there.
… There are single men who have lost faith because they see the fellowship as a place that is spiritually and intellectually dishonest, if not intellectually bankrupt.
Pastor: Consider the younger single Christian man: He is at a point in his life where he is weighing things for himself. He is not going to be receptive to the idea of believing things in order to please his parents, or to fit in with a group (the local fellowship) which may not have much room for someone who asks questions — yet here he is, trying to construct an understanding of the world based on the inputs he receives. If he is asking you a question, your first assumption should be that he is asking it in good faith. You will be rightly ignored if you b.s. him to his face. You might personally prefer to interact with a lady in her 40s or 50s who is asking you to pray for her neighbor’s bunion than a college-trained man asking you about dinosaur bones and the book of Genesis, or embarrassing questions about tithing. However, between the two, who is going to do the heavy spiritual lifting for the church in the decades to come? Who?
Now consider an older single Christian man. He is not looking to you as a surrogate father, regardless of whether you think he should, or not. He may in fact be older than some members of your pastoral team. If he works in industry in middle management or higher, he knows and recognizes what it is to be blown off; and he also intuitively understands the difference between cheering from the stands and playing on the field. If the only “role” you have for him is to sit in the stands and be harangued into cheering, he’ll look elsewhere. Try to (metaphorically) put him in a cheerleader’s outfit, and he will understand all that he needs to about your skills at pastoring.
It is not funny at all if single Christian men cannot get real help in their search for real community, and in their search for Him. Not funny at all.
a pastor does not need to have all the answers (for no one person does) … a pastor needs to know what he knows and what he does not know, and then he needs to be able to say, “i do not know.”
he also needs to be able to honestly be open to questioning his own preconceived ideas in light of the Word. he needs to be willing to take questions asked of him and go in search of truth in the Bible.
the last bible i purchased, probably about 7 or 8 years ago, i’m guessing, presented an interesting experience. i wanted a bible with room in the margins for taking notes, and i wanted a bible with NO commentary. do you know how difficult it is to find the latter?
trite answers have weakened believers and hence have weakend the church. we need real truth.
I’m not convinced that single men are leaving or avoid the church because “it’s too feminized” or because their questions aren’t being answered — although I would agree that churches do need to keep improving in those areas. Young single men are a tough sell as far as committing to any organization other than those they depend on for their livelihood. Just as you were saying, they’re at a point in their lives where they are “weighing things for themselves”. Like that old t-shirt “master of fun, slave to none”.
“Not convinced” – if I changed the word from “church” to “company of believers” how would that change your ideas? That is, if you are who I think you are, I have to say that your ministry — to my less than fully informed impression – boils down to pressing out multiple cookie-cutter versions of some kind of “ideal” christian man insofar as it concentrates on single men. Something like Holiday cookies — a little variation maybe in the kind of frosting and sprinkles, but essentially the same gingerbread man, all ready to step into their roles in your idea of what a gingerbread town is supposed to look like.
…If you don’t “get” the idea of “church” vs. “company of believers” it may be because you have spent so much time inside the echo chamber that you can’t “hear” or “see” what you “look and sound like” to an outsider stepping into the fellowship hall – even if its a “virtual” community.
… Find some unbelievers who have integrity in their thinking and have them review your guides for marrying well; listen to their responses. The value they would add would be in that their eyes would be free of certain assumptions you may have – note that I asked you to find unbelievers with integrity in their thinking, not just any unbeliever.
… And talk to some actual Christian single men who (biblically) don’t give a fig for status in the local fellowship or approval from you or other clerical figures. You may have to go further afield then talking to the intern down the hall – please don’t just hear sarcasm here; it’s there, but it’s sarcasm with a (good) point. GO FARTHER AFIELD, where the game is being played. It’s not being played on your stomping grounds; it’s being played on theirs.
They are a tough “sell” because you are not offering a thing of value to them; real help for their walks with God. It’s a different thing than fitting into the herd. You – I – we – never had any authority to think of them that way anyway; “sheep” is a metaphor; which like all metaphors has a point of breaking down and being inapplicable.
“That is, if you are who I think you are, I have to say that your ministry — to my less than fully informed impression – boils down to pressing out multiple cookie-cutter versions of some kind of “ideal” christian man insofar as it concentrates on single men. ”
I don’t know who you think I am, but if you are suggesting (since it sounds like you are) that I’m “marriage mandate”, then you are off base. Thinking that there’s more to the lesser involvement of young single men in pretty much all things Christian than simply a “feminized” climate does not make me “marriage mandate” or “cookie cutter” in my “assumptions”
(who’s assuming?) about men.
“They are a tough “sell” because you are not offering a thing of value to them; real help for their walks with God.”
Right. Men know value when they see it, and a creating a quality worship experience for them week after week is hard to do. That’s why there’s been a boom in mega-churches where the most talented pastors are concentrated.
By “worship experience”, I also mean programs, projects and other opportunities for involvement. As anyone in ministry would tell you, creating those opportunities is harder than it looks.
“By “worship experience”, I also mean programs, projects and other opportunities for involvement.”
See, you’ve got the cart before the horse, I think. A walk with God on the personal level is what draws the believing man – single or otherwise – into fellowship and activity with others – what you call “involvement.” Using activity in a conventionally organized fellowship is a poor indice. Certainly there is feedback and support from the community, both biblically and practically. But this is a natural sequelae, not a cause, of the man’s spiritual life. It’s still not an indice we can really use. The “goal” is not to talk men into going to potlucks, is it?
We are not meant to be “armies of one” — to use another metaphor. I am not calling for disconnectedness. But we are meant to “armies of ones” – to make another metaphor up on the spur of the moment. I’m saying that it’s easy to try to come up with another “program.” The assembly line concept of discipleship – your “activities” – can only work for certain aspects of life. For others, like down and dirty holiness, it has to be done on a personal level. I think, and I could be wrong, that “institutional” thinking sets in readily among professional clergy, and there is an instinct to draw back from things that can’t be done assembly line style. In my limited and personal experience – and I am not a clergyman – the only traction of substance I’ve had talking and working with men has been personally investing myself in them.
There is this reverse-feedback entropy that happens here; a 20$ of saying “where do you get ernest single Christian men to begin with, or married ones for that matter, who have a clue about the single Christian men, to do the personal heavy lifting of one on one discipleship.” Well, that’s beyond my payscale.
I would bid you to reconsider your idea as to whether men are getting their questions answered in church. As you said, men know value; they also see when quality thought has gone into something. What passes for “science” in the Evangelical world about things like creationism is a joke; and a great deal of reformation needs to take place. The “feminization” — that kicks in when someone’s feeling’s are going to be threatened if we examine (KJV-onlyism — fossils – Cessationism– or whatever) is alive and well, and thus we avoid talking about things that seem to matter more to men than to women. Women in my experience consistently talk about whether a church is ‘nice’ – and men talk about whether ‘they were any help’.
I presume to offer a suggestion to you that can be done “assembly line” style: Find a way to popularize the idea of interceding for single Christian men. You can use the “prayer for single christian men” I’ve written, or come up with another one; but I think it’s a marvelous idea not only in that I think that God hears prayer, but it will – like erosion working on a shoreline – help change attitudes towards single men, Christian or otherwise in those who pray, it will also convey to those men who hear about it that you love them. Given time they – even those who doubt God’s existence — will figure out that this is because God loves them and you are simply following suit.
I wrote a response to your statement that you were not a “marriage mandator” but deleted it. My apologies if you read it. There are ways in good faith to move beyond that reputation if you have it, but that might mean things like naming names in public fora — these who want to shame single men are the people who need to be pointed out. If anything, ernest single men in the Church ought to be honored rather than be the targets of suspicion or public shame. It’s not theological rocket science. Why not trust God to do His work in them — all that’s yours to do is to help them in their walk. If you truly trust God to work out His plans in their lives, won’t marriage be a natural sequelae if that is His plan for them?
“See, you’ve got the cart before the horse, I think. A walk with God on the personal level is what draws the believing man – single or otherwise – into fellowship and activity with others – what you call “involvement.” Using activity in a conventionally organized fellowship is a poor indice. Certainly there is feedback and support from the community, both biblically and practically. But this is a natural sequelae, not a cause, of the man’s spiritual life.”
Actually, it is both “sequelae” and cause (in part). That’s why we’re biblically mandated to witness to those who don’t believe and fellowship with those who do — that’s what I mean by “involvement”, I’m not just talking about “potlucks”. In both of those cases, there seems to be more women doing both. It’s not enough to “just believe”.
“the only traction of substance I’ve had talking and working with men has been personally investing myself in them.”
There’s a limit to how much men invest in other men, especially today where you have a culture where people want to do their own thing without others sticking their noses into their business. The more a man invests in another man, the more he’s going to expect that man to be accountable to show him evidence of his “ROI”.
“There is this reverse-feedback entropy that happens here; a 20$ of saying “where do you get ernest single Christian men to begin with, or married ones for that matter, who have a clue about the single Christian men, to do the personal heavy lifting of one on one discipleship.” Well, that’s beyond my payscale.”
That’s my point. They are not a group that’s easy to engage.
“I would bid you to reconsider your idea as to whether men are getting their questions answered in church… The “feminization” — that kicks in when someone’s feeling’s are going to be threatened if we examine (KJV-onlyism — fossils – Cessationism– or whatever) is alive and well, and thus we avoid talking about things that seem to matter more to men than to women.”
The church is not “feminized” because there’s female opposition to addressing those meaty topics — I can show you just as many women engaged in those topics as men. If the church seems “feminine”, it’s because more women attend. Period. Not to mention the fact that men with quiet, retiring personalities are overrepresented among churchgoers. Even David Murrow admits now that he had assumed that there was a negative attitude towards things masculine and had expected much opposition when he was preparing to challenge the status quo. But he then found that his suggestions about increasing things masculine and decreasing things feminine have actually been well received.
Well, maybe you can address some of those topics in fora wherein you have influence. Do something like publicly advise the young men at a KJV only school like BJU to have a public rally against the administration’s rules and back them up as heroes when they get tossed out on their ears. Host Hugh Ross, for example, and let him offer his commentary on why men don’t see the church as a font of wisdom. Maybe you don’t agree with him, but should you be afraid of this?
If you really want to grow a pair, do a commentary on Doug Wilson’s scratching around in the Old Testament to biblically “prove” his ideas about “biblical dating.” And name him by name.
…. Do you have any idea what it’s like for a grown man to be taken aside and *rebuked* — not because the lady complained, not because one has sinned in any way — but because he was seen having coffee with a lady from a church where the only “script” that they have to follow is that one is sinning if they didn’t have church say-so to have said coffee? Why not find some men like that and interview them?
“Do something like publicly advise the young men at a KJV only school like BJU to have a public rally against the administration’s rules and back them up as heroes when they get tossed out on their ears. Host Hugh Ross, for example, and let him offer his commentary on why men don’t see the church as a font of wisdom.”
Sure those are worthy pursuits, and I don’t think you’d find any more female opposition to them than male, nor will they result in drawing more young men to the faith, because outmoded conservative ideas aren’t what’s causing the imbalanced gender ratio (young people of both sexes are probably equally repelled). If anything, defenders of KJV-only and young earth creationism are characteristically very conservative and thus very male. I don’t know where you get this idea that women are more pro-YEC & KJV-only, or squeamish about challenging same. If anything, women are often blamed for the proliferation of such progressive (ie. “liberal”) challenging in the church.
“If you really want to grow a pair, do a commentary on Doug Wilson’s scratching around in the Old Testament to biblically “prove” his ideas about “biblical dating…Do you have any idea what it’s like for a grown man to be taken aside and *rebuked* — not because the lady complained, not because one has sinned in any way — but because he was seen having coffee with a lady from a church where the only “script” that they have to follow is that one is sinning if they didn’t have church say-so to have said coffee?”
Very few churches take Doug Wilson seriously. Very few churches require “say-so” for singles to go on dates. It sounds like you’ve had a bad experience and may be generalizing that to the larger population. I do empathize with you and think it’s valid to challenge those churches with rigid ideas about so-called “biblical dating”, but I doubt that your experiences are a typical representation. Even churches that give singles a lot of space to work things out for themselves still have shortages of young men. There are larger societal forces pulling them away from the church (more so than internal forces pushing them out).
I checked out Dr. Barb’s site and her excellent work on helping people who have been spiritually abused in their churches. Thanks for the link.
The premise of the post was “Exit Interviews” – my reading of works like “Leaving the Fold” and “Why I left Christianity” are useful preps. If you have the resources to do what I suggest, perhaps that can yield fruitful work. Perhaps “not convinced” will turn into “convinced.” My actual interactions with Christian women – mostly of the Evangelical protestant type — this time around single (about two dozen) have given me the idea that YEC considerations are important to them; in a kind of “circle the wagons” kind of mentality.
There are larger societal forces pulling them away from the church (more so than internal forces pushing them out). << I would agree heartily with the former; but disagree with the latter. Lately I've been contemplating Farley's "naked gospel" and its implications for how single men (not "younger men" but "single men") are taught about the Christian life.
The issue is not so much "biblical dating" but "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." And as I have noted in these pages, I've interacted with **a lot* of men, younger and older, who've had to deal with this. You may in fact — I presume to say — be spending too much time in the echo chamber, where you are only hearing "intentions" instead of "what is really happening on the ground." **Every single man over 25 that I know** — and a few that are younger — that I have talked to about this has run into it. That younger men do not so often is heartening.
… Can you name me a single book in Christian book stores that talks to single men about how to interact with women that deals with that matter per se without instead actually talking about purity?
Not to minimize purity. But the "osmotic" message is that attraction itself is sinful. Some *secular* people I interact with have gotten the idea that Christians are not supposed to feel things like attraction to the opposite gender. A certain ministry that has focused a lot of attention on family issus has given a platform for Coughlin — if it came out of Paul Coughlin's mouth that this is a problem, would you give it greater weight?
Again: Please do consider the merit of a double-blinded study. Have a trained sociologist fine-tooth comb the survey to pick out the leading questions that create inclusion biases. While a college campus would not give you insight into the minds of older single men, it would give you a large pool to assay.
You are thinking pretty linearly, BTW. That bit about Wilson is not about Wilson’s influence — or people like Paul Washer and some people associated with Sovereign Grace, which you may have some experience with — it’s about willingness to confront from widely observed public fora. It’s about putting things on the *table* to make sure everyone’s on the right page. What would be the harm? The potential good is to throw the Light on some things, drive some bugs away from under the carpet. If this kind of thinking is not the problem, then proving that it is not would still be a useful and productive exercise. It might even plant some good seeds. Maybe bring a few hundred or a few thousand back.
“My actual interactions with Christian women – mostly of the Evangelical protestant type — this time around single (about two dozen) have given me the idea that YEC considerations are important to them; in a kind of “circle the wagons” kind of mentality.”
Sounds like these women are either from small towns or the south, or are over a certain age. Most YEC supporters I’ve met are older (and usually male), as well as most you find in on the internet — try to name one well known female YEC champion!
“Lately I’ve been contemplating Farley’s “naked gospel” and its implications for how single men (not “younger men” but “single men”) are taught about the Christian life…The issue is not so much “biblical dating” but “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” And as I have noted in these pages, I’ve interacted with **a lot* of men, younger and older, who’ve had to deal with this.”
Well, I know a lot of Christian women, especially somewhat older ones, who have similar complaints about the unhelpful, extra-biblical, overstated messages about “purity”, “biblical dating”and other concepts that go beyond the basic gospel. Shouldn’t we be concerned that there may be people of both genders being repelled by a lot of the outmoded teachings you’ve mentioned?
“Not to minimize purity. But the “osmotic” message is that attraction itself is sinful. Some *secular* people I interact with have gotten the idea that Christians are not supposed to feel things like attraction to the opposite gender.”
I agree there have been some terrible books and teachings, especially from a few years ago. But things have been changing, with the advent of “Wild At Heart”. Even Boundless is acknowledging the problems created by unhelpful teachings, validating that attraction is necessary, not sinful. Since you asked, “How to Find a Date Worth Keeping”, by Dr. Henry Cloud is very empowering in terms of validating attraction. On Beliefnet, he talked about the problem of making purity into a “sacred cow”.
“You may in fact — I presume to say — be spending too much time in the echo chamber, where you are only hearing “intentions” instead of “what is really happening on the ground…Please do consider the merit of a double-blinded study. Have a trained sociologist fine-tooth comb the survey to pick out the leading questions that create inclusion biases.”
Wha? I think you must be mistaking me for some ivy tower mucky-muck — and one with pull, for that matter! Perhaps you should take on such a research project and test your assumptions.
“You are thinking pretty linearly, BTW. That bit about Wilson is not about Wilson’s influence — or people like Paul Washer and some people associated with Sovereign Grace, which you may have some experience with — it’s about willingness to confront from widely observed public fora.”
It would be linear to attribute the unwillingness to publically confront those issues to women or “feminization”. You’re talking about very conservative environments with very conservative ideas that are resistant to challenge and change. Environments, btw, that tend to take a traditional stance on “male leadership”. Again, I think you’re seeing female opposition where it doesn’t exist, or seeing only the female side of opposition that also comes from the male side –and is actually led from that side.
Note that the names you’ve mentioned (Washer and Wilson) are men, known also for taking a confrontational stance, who don’t hold back lest “someone’s feeling’s are going to be threatened if we examine” hot issues. Rather than repelling men, they seem to draw them.
On your “Leave a Reply” where it says “Email”, next to that in brackets it says “(will not be published)”. Having violated that, it’s clear that you’re not a man of your word. Now take it down.
On your “Leave a Reply” where it says “Email”, next to that in brackets it says “(will not be published)”. Having violated that, it’s clear that you’re not a man of your word. Now take it down.<<
Well, I'm (obviously) not a talking piece of software talking about automated blog management protocols. You, obviously, are a man to walk in forgiveness towards. But since you are His son, too, I will strive not to walk in condescension towards you. As a courtesy to you — a courtesy — I’ve taken it down.
Yes, men like Washer, Wilson, and also Driscoll attract men. They also abuse them. What they offer is something that looks like masculinity in contrast to, say, evasion. It is something less than Godly masculinity to rebuke men for going on dates or asking questions.
“Well, I’m (obviously) not a talking piece of software talking about automated blog management protocols. You, obviously, are a man to walk in forgiveness towards.”
Huh??? Forgiveness about what? Was there something I said that offended you? I thought we were having a reasonable discussion, with some agreement and some debate. You know what they say,”if you can’t stand the heat…”
“As a courtesy to you — a courtesy — I’ve taken it down.”
It’s not a courtesy to not post people’s email addresses, after it’s been made clear in writing that they will not be posted. It’s called wisely sticking to letter of the law. Defy that at your peril.
“Yes, men like Washer, Wilson, and also Driscoll attract men. They also abuse them. ”
I agree that some of their teachings could be called abusive. I just disagree that their abusiveness is something that repels men more so than women. Or that a more progressive stance would result in more men availing themselves to their teachings. Nor have I heard any of them “rebuke men for going on dates or asking questions.”
Look, I agree with you about rethinking the YEC and KJV-only, and moving toward that which is more progressive (or better yet, choose as I do to attend a more progressive church where those things aren’t an issue). I just disagree that women are more threatened by those discussions than men. And I also disagree with the linear notion that feminism has made the church feminine, and that that’s why men are leaving or not showing up to begin with. Churches are having a harder time drawing and retaining men, as are are all organizations today that don’t necessarily offer immediate tangible returns.
Does “abuse of men” happen in today’s church culture? Sure, there are places today as well the past where it has been an issue. Just as there are churches that reinforce the old “madonna/whore” view of women. If you want to stuff out every instance of man bashing or blaming, then it’s gotta be the same thing when too much blaming or bashing gets cast on women. Don’t get me wrong, I do think it’s worthwhile to critique feminism and feminine traditions in churches, I just thing that there’s more credibiity in that when you weed out what really is a feminization” problem and what isn’t.
Well, I don’t think you are up to snuff on the state of the law viz. IP issues. But that is neither here nor there; no money has changed hands. But I grant your point. I enabled the software to do what it did or did not do. Just like editors of ministry blogs bear some responsibility before God for the teachings they propagate.
I am aware of an internet ministry whose editor was sure that “slander” was being committed against them because I said they were saying certain things — so he informed me in a blog comment. I documented that in fact they were saying those things — it all had to do with things like “autonomy” and “authority.” This guy was so sure of his ideas that he wanted me to believe that their use of the word “authority” did not mean “authority” (yet the denomination he was once a part of, in fact, had some churches in which one could get the pastoral rod across the ass for any number of things, including unauthorized dating.) You know what? They put up a kind of, sort of retraction. It’s still kind of confusing to get a coherent sense of what they mean, even nowadays; and I acknowledge they do some good. My point is that he was the one doing the wrong — with this accusation — though “libel” was the word I think he was looking for.
What’s in a word? Tons. You can steer ships. Even ruin lives. Or build them up.
How do you propose to build single Christian men up?
Here’s a bullet point for you take away: Go to the solo femininity blog and try to find an article on creationism or KJV-onlyism. Then go to a college campus and ask a young man why he doesn’t trust the message of the church. Or talk to someone sent by his parents to BJU who lost his faith when he went out into the real world. Like the dog that didn’t bark, what you don’t find might be revealing.
“Well, I don’t think you are up to snuff on the state of the law viz. IP issues. But that is neither here nor there; no money has changed hands.”
“IP issue”? It’s an issue of privacy and consent. And I am beyond up to snuff on the state of the law on that one.
“How do you propose to build single Christian men up?”
Keep kissing their asses, as most churches with a shortage of them actually do.
“Go to the solo femininity blog and try to find an article on creationism or KJV-onlyism.”
Just because it’s not on their radar screen, that doesn’t mean that they oppose dialogue on those issues. When’s the last time you heard Anakin or Amir take on the YECers or the KJVers? These are not the only “things that seem to matter more to men”.
“Then go to a college campus and ask a young man why he doesn’t trust the message of the church. ”
Why not also ask that same question of the young women there as well? You’ll find pretty much the same kind of responses — neither group much likes bad authority. But you’ll also find that neither are all that crazy about good authority either.
If you are going to claim a tort, then some kind of consideration — moolah; or a promise of such — is necessary to create the breach. You might be up to snuff with the guidelines a legal department has written for you, though. These are kind of like the rules the Pharisees erected as a “fence” around the law to keep people from breaking it.
Anakin is a young-earther, last time I checked. His focus is religious misandry in the churches. Amir’s blog is a multi-purpose blog, and is not focused per se on helping men or understanding why they leave the faith — though his blog originally started as an adjunct to a single’s ministry.
Hey, I’m going to be writing on the topic of purity and practical celibacy. If you have any resources to point me towards, I’ll glady consider them. I need to do it well. Mail them to me at cosmokratos@yahoo.com or post it here.
And about that legal bit – don’t you feel awkward with the idea of, uhm, going through public courts to, uhm, protect your privacy?
They – SF – may not be “opposed to dialogue” — but then again you don’t see them dialoging. Ever hang around blogs where people discuss why are aren’t Christians anymore? Perhaps we don’t need to do that study after all; since people are happily spilling their thoughts into the digital ether.
As I’ve written here, I don’t advocate disconnectedness – but at that particular blog – SF – I continually get the sense that the goal is to get men into church. Cart before the horse.
“If you are going to claim a tort, then some kind of consideration — moolah; or a promise of such — is necessary to create the breach. You might be up to snuff with the guidelines a legal department has written for you, though. These are kind of like the rules the Pharisees erected as a “fence” around the law to keep people from breaking it… And about that legal bit – don’t you feel awkward with the idea of, uhm, going through public courts to, uhm, protect your privacy?”
Chill out, no one’s taking you to court. Why don’t you just apologize? It was a shitty thing to do.
“Anakin is a young-earther, last time I checked. His focus is religious misandry in the churches. Amir’s blog is a multi-purpose blog, and is not focused per se on helping men or understanding why they leave the faith…They – SF – may not be “opposed to dialogue” — but then again you don’t see them dialoging.”
Why the double standard? Each of those blogs has it’s own agendas, whether it’s debating this or that, or just “sharing”. Your interests sound pretty specific.
“Ever hang around blogs where people discuss why are aren’t Christians anymore?”
Yeah. I think the emergent types have some good points, as well.