Atheists, agnostics, non-Christians that still go to church

5,469 Views | 61 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by Removed:09182020
Removed:09182020
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Are there any of you out there that still regularly participate in church apart from visiting home/in-laws a few times per year? Why do you do it? I am considering attending services again with my spouse because she finds Catholic mass meaningful, but has not attended regularly since I stopped going. She's a big girl and can go by herself, but is a very extroverted and doesn't like doing alone, and we don't have a very religious network for her to go with.
Woody2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tyson goes almost every week.
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I go fairly regularly to a large contemporary non-denominational because it means a lot to the girlfriend.

I get zero and I mean zero out of it.

I occasionally go to a Catholic Mass or LCMS service with family and find the ritual soothing
unimboti nkum
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fortunately, I haven't had to sit in a church since my dad died five years ago.
Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am moving between completely agnostic and an evangelical Christian. I know it's complicated but that's my life at this point. I used to attend Mass regularly with my wife just to make her happy. But the truth of the matter is that Mass meant nothing to me and actually made enjoy religion less. It made me mad for being "forced" to go and my wife mad for having a husband that didn't want to be there.

I no longer attend mass, and both my wife and I are happier for it. Obviously your mileage may vary, and I'm not saying don't go to church with your significant other. But make sure that your being there isnt making your relationship worse.

In full disclosure. I've told my wife I would attend any church of her choosing, every Sunday, as long as it wasn't "high church". She is very much a cultural Catholic so I don't see us attending any church together anytime in the future.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ol Ag, if I could toss some unasked-for advice. You need to develop and exert some spiritual leadership. Whether you wind up as evangelicals or agnostics your household and your wife is your responsibility. This is literally the single most important aspect of your role as husband. Don't let anything stand in your way - not apathy, not how you were raised, not cultural Catholicism, anything - of steering this ship. Be gentle, be patient. But you can't abdicate or delegate this role.
Removed:09182020
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
While I know you meant this with a sincere heart, that attitude is honestly one that makes me cringe. His wife is her own person who has agency of her own spiritual choices. She doesn't need a man to be her spiritual or household leader any more than he needs a wife to be his.
Mort Rainey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
While I know you meant this with a sincere heart, that attitude is honestly one that makes me cringe. His wife is her own person who has agency of her own spiritual choices. She doesn't need a man to be her spiritual or household leader any more than he needs a wife to be his.


This^^^
Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

quote:
Whether you wind up as evangelicals or agnostics
This is the part that confuses me. I get that your religion (and plenty of the wrong religions) tell you that testicles are the key to being in a position of authority over women, but to an agnostic who doesn't believe in your (or one of the other) ancient books, this notion is pretty ridiculous.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cringe all you like, then go re-read what I wrote without putting additional words into it or presumptions about my thought process.

A few points.

  • I never denied her agency or her responsibility for her own choices. A leader doesn't dominate those he leads. If anything, leadership should empower the personal agency of a follower.
  • None of my advice was about what she needed, but instead what he needed.
  • Everyone needs a spiritual leader, husbands and wives.
  • I never said anything about authority or where it is derived from. I spoke about responsibility. They are not the same thing. If his wife had posted here, I would probably have said a very similar thing to her.

Putting on a completely secular hat, we can change the topic from church to nearly anything else, and my advice to him would be the same.

"My wife really likes eating at a restaurant. I used to go, but I hated it. Now we don't eat together. I told her I'll eat at any restaurant she wants but that one. She really likes that place (it's not even about the food) so I don't see us eating dinner together any time in the future."

You don't think that's a situation that calls for some leadership within the relationship?
Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

quote:
You don't think that's a situation that calls for some leadership within the relationship?

Not really. It just requires you both to be adults and realize you're not going to like doing everything together, and that that's ok.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k2,

Does this image (EDIT: specifically the bottom portion) sort of get at what you intended in your advice?

FlyFish95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
I go fairly regularly to a large contemporary non-denominational because it means a lot to the girlfriend.

I get zero and I mean zero out of it.

I occasionally go to a Catholic Mass or LCMS service with family and find the ritual soothing
Not sure what church you go to, but the one I attended in Houston before moving was great. I thought to myself quite often that anyone could benefit from attendance, even if they weren't Christian. This pastor did a great job to weaving real life and religion together in a way that everyone could benefit.

Also, dude, if you're not religious, why go? It's not like going to a restaurant or a movie you're not crazy about because of her, but church?
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I can see where most of the congregation gets something out of it. They do A LOT of good in the community, so I don't begrudge them.

As far as why do I go. Why not? It is shorter than the movie you compare it. It makes the gifriend happy to go. I work from home, so actually having a reason to get dressed isn't a bad thing. It doesn't hurt. I find that I am able to do a lot of introspection while Faith+1 jams on the stage.



diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Not really. It just requires you both to be adults and realize you're not going to like doing everything together, and that that's ok.

In any other case, I'd agree with you...but in this one, I think it's really hard to be in a relationship with someone of a different religion unless the religious person really isn't that..well...religious.

Just about every major religion will overtly or subtly insist that people only engage romantically with others of the same faith, and they will also having teachings about roles in relationships that will only further highlight the difference between the 2. To further explain, a pastor might not teach explicitly on "not being yoked with unbelievers", but he will probably talk about Christians husbands and wives together and this might only serve to plant the believer's mind that they will never have this and drive a wedge between them.

In just about every situation that "works", the reality is that either the believer really doesn't believe enough to worry about it...or they carry this tension on their own until they can't handle it anymore.
Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

quote:
In any other case, I'd agree with you...but in this one, I think it's really hard to be in a relationship with someone of a different religion unless the religious person really isn't that..well...religious.

I was referring primarily to the restaurant example, but I see your point. That said, religious people have gotten really good at ignoring the parts of their religion they don't like; I don't see why this can't be added to the pile.


quote:
Just about every major religion will overtly or subtly insist that people only engage romantically with others of the same faith, and they will also having teachings about roles in relationships that will only further highlight the difference between the 2. To further explain, a pastor might not teach explicitly on "not being yoked with unbelievers", but he will probably talk about Christians husbands and wives together and this might only serve to plant the believer's mind that they will never have this and drive a wedge between them.

I guess that could be the case if you let it be the case.



quote:
In just about every situation that "works", the reality is that either the believer really doesn't believe enough to worry about it...or they carry this tension on their own until they can't handle it anymore.
Or they did like I mentioned above and just filed that away in their "my loving God wouldn't let this wonderful person burn in Hell so I'm not going to worry about it" file. But I can see the argument that such a person is in the "not as much of a believer" category.
BustUpAChiffarobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
While I know you meant this with a sincere heart, that attitude is honestly one that makes me cringe. His wife is her own person who has agency of her own spiritual choices. She doesn't need a man to be her spiritual or household leader any more than he needs a wife to be his.
See I disagree with this; the husband and wife have complementary but differing roles in the household and as regards the spiritual need of the family. That's an area where it's going to be hard for Christian's and agnostics to reach any middle ground; because you're talking about individual spiritual choices and agency; and we're talking about the cohesive spirituality of the family itself; the oft-mentioned "two-become one" in marriage paradigm is very real in this scenario.

It's hard to discuss these things, because one side is arguing that there is no "right" answer and just differing opinions; and the other is asserting the exact opposite. Both sides are using major concepts of natural law to bolster their argument, while one side is arguing that they still don't exist.

kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
I go fairly regularly to a large contemporary non-denominational because it means a lot to the girlfriend.

I get zero and I mean zero out of it.

I occasionally go to a Catholic Mass or LCMS service with family and find the ritual soothing

By soothing, you mean it puts you to sleep, right?

The last few services I've been to were non-denomination and a far different experience from the Catholic services I was used to. For lack of better words, and without intention of insult, Catholic mass is awfully bland. With all the singing and happy smiling people, I can see why a lot of people would get something (other than the spiritual) out of going to church.

diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
I was referring primarily to the restaurant example, but I see your point. That said, religious people have gotten really good at ignoring the parts of their religion they don't like; I don't see why this can't be added to the pile.

You say that like someone's sitting a pew every week and having their own internal debates on what to do...or that someone's "cafeteria Christianity" can't change when getting the same message over and over again.

I've known many a cohabitator who went to church together and not many of them weren't thinking about their situation while at church. True, it might not change their actions. But there really aren't that many people who are just flippant about something that's directly against their religion.


quote:
Or they did like I mentioned above and just filed that away in their "my loving God wouldn't let this wonderful person burn in Hell so I'm not going to worry about it" file.
that's the point: they do worry about it.
Removed:09182020
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Your premise was not that everyone needs leadership. You said twice very specifically that the husband is in charge of the household and he needs to lead.

That's the cringeworthy part to me, that he, rather than they are in charge. I'm not a hapless cuckold that needs a red pill for knowing and practicing that my wife and I are equal partners of our home and spiritual life.*

*You didn't say or imply that part, that's my own strawman. I did read your advice as more or less "man up" to gender roles/norms that are patrimonial.
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No. I mean I find it comforting. Partly due to the familiarity of the service, partly due to the repetitive nature of it, partly due to the spectacle of it.

BustUpAChiffarobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
No. I mean I find it comforting. Partly due to the familiarity of the service, partly due to the repetitive nature of it, partly due to the spectacle of it.


it's like this with more incense

kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
See I disagree with this; the husband and wife have complementary but differing roles in the household and as regards the spiritual need of the family.

I don't think any of us would disagree with the idea that two partners in a relationship can have complementary or differing roles. I think it is the rigidness of paradigm of the family model that is sometimes discussed as natural law that many of us take exceptions to.

I think my wife and I complement each other very well. Sometimes our 'roles' follow traditional lines and sometimes they do not. She is meticulous with the finances and I am a good cook, why wouldn't we deviate from the model to optimize the relationship? I realize that these are relatively superficial examples compared to 'spiritual needs of the family', but I think it illustrates in some way why some of us have an aversion to a such a rigid definition of gender roles.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
it's like this with more incense

And a lot of kneeling. . . . and my knees suck.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I hate to reiterate, but I didn't once mention who was in charge or who should be in charge. You're reading a great deal into my advice.

I advised him to develop and exert spiritual leadership. I said this, in this case, because the situation he is describing does not show a great deal of leadership at all. Currently his wife is going to church alone. She doesn't have the ability or desire to drive consensus, and isn't budging. He feels like he either "has" to go with her, or won't go at all. The black/white adversarial nature of this dispute means no one is effectively leading. He's resigned himself to the status quo, and that's not a good thing. I don't think what he's described is a healthy approach to a pretty significant aspect of any relationship. It's not a healthy way to decide where to eat dinner, much less something of this magnitude.

Without anyone "steering the ship" there is no chance for the situation to resolve itself. So, my advice to him was...get after it. There's only two people involved, and for something to change, someone has to change.

I never said the husband was in charge of the household. I said his household and his wife is his responsibility. Who would argue with this? A woman's household and her husband are her responsibility. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Leadership isn't about being "in charge". Leadership isn't about the title or official position you have. Leadership isn't about domination or overbearing or ordering decisions. Leadership is about establishing an environment, setting the example, and empowering others in order to achieve success - in whatever situation that describes.

Providing spiritual leadership is the most important part of the role of a husband.
Providing spiritual leadership is the most important part of the role of a wife.

Each one has complete responsibility for themselves and the other, because they are a single unit. Neither can abandon their responsibility to the other, and neither can delegate their responsibility to the other.

The spiritual leadership above is expressed by husbands and wives in different ways. Practically speaking, a husband can lead while cooking, sewing his own button, dressing his kids, vacuuming, mowing the lawn, or being the breadwinner. A wife can lead by being the breadwinner, raising children, cooking, encouring, or whatever else. The details of this aren't important, what's important is the motivation for the activity and the execution of it.

I don't think that anything I've said here should be objectionable to anyone based on religious (or non-religious) grounds.
Removed:09182020
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Your household and your wife is your responsibility. This is literally the single most important aspect of your role as husband.

Don't let anything stand in your way of steering this ship.

You can't abdicate or delegate this role.

I'm sorry you feel misunderstood, but I really can't comprehend how you would expect someone to read this and not conclude that you think the man is not the primary leader of the household. You're literally saying exactly that.

ETA: I have posted things in the past where what I wrote and how it was interpreted did not line up with what I meant. No disrespect intended for calling out your position, as it looks like this is what happened to you here.
AggieRain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I still attend Mass with the family, and my wife and I raise our kids as Catholic. My drift was not a result of a fallout with Catholic teaching but more of a personal journey. Despite what many in the atheist community preach, there are far worse ways to raise your kids than within the confines of Christian principles...
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I didn't title the post: "K2's thoughts on marriage, leadership, and gender roles". It's advice. Any advice that isn't situation specific is pretty useless.

Not sure you're using literally literally, but I did not, in fact, literally say that the man is the primary leader of the household. I didn't even figuratively or practically say it.
Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So are you not one of the Christians who subscribes to the "The man is the head of the household" thing that always gets brought up around here? If not, that's great and good for you. I really do mean that. It's just that your post sounded exactly like what those who do hold that stance always say.
Removed:09182020
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
I still attend Mass with the family, and my wife and I raise our kids as Catholic. My drift was not a result of a fallout with Catholic teaching but more of a personal journey. Despite what many in the atheist community preach, there are far worse ways to raise your kids than within the confines of Christian principles...

This is more or less where I'm at right now, with the caveat that I stopped going to church because "what's the point" and a desire to not be a phony and/or establish friendships with people based on false assumption of a common spiritual bond.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
So are you not one of the Christians who subscribes to the "The man is the head of the household" thing that always gets brought up around here? If not, that's great and good for you. I really do mean that. It's just that your post sounded exactly like what those who do hold that stance always say.
Hmm. Generally speaking, I've found that in Orthodoxy things are almost always more nuanced than in the modern evangelical counterparts.

The answer to your question is "yes...and no".

Orthodox weddings crown the man and the woman in the ceremony as king and queen of the household. This is not just fluff, there is a great deal of spiritual authority tied into the this concept of marriage. Husbands and wives are expected to govern their household as their kingdom - including governance of spiritual matters. In practice, this means that to some extent whatever works, works.

I do believe that men and women have both physiological and psychological differences, and that the majority of the time there are healthy and unhealthy roles for men and women to play. In this regard, I think that I would describe the optimal or best role of them to be that men lead and women submit. This is when people's modern ears and warning bells go off, but they really shouldn't -- because I think when done in a true Christian way the male's leadership and the womans' submission wind up being indistinguishable to an outside observer.

When people are first learning to dance, or are dancing with a new or unfamiliar partner, or to a new routine, one person must be the leader. A good dancer can lead his partner without anyone watching being able to tell, and the partner will feel it more as flow than pull or jerks. And when people are dancing with familiar partners or with routines they know well, this same flow becomes second nature and a complete partnership and unity. This is marriage. But, just like dancing, you can't have two leaders.

I've said before that properly a husband and wife should fall over each other bowing to meet the other's needs.

I think the role of leadership in this sense falls to the male not because of any gender or patriarchy or masculine supremacy, but simply because of those general physiological and psychological differences - which are real. This doesn't preclude exceptions; the exceptions don't disprove the rule.

Is that ambigious enough?
Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not really ambiguous at all. It seems pretty clear that you do agree with that stance, and thus Malibu's original interpretation of your original post was pretty spot-on.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You can put me in whatever box you like and draw any conclusions you like, along with Malibu.

Suffice to say, though, I don't agree that "the man is the head of the household" - not the way you're framing it, not the way it is expressed. The husband and wife are king and queen of their household. What this means is that it is up to them to manage it properly - not me, not the priest, not their mother or father, etc.
Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's just the same argument we always hear: "They're equal, but the man's in charge!" It's BS, but whatever, it's not what the OP asked about.

Maybe he should've tagged the OP with an (A) to prevent this hijacking.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Man if you got they're equal but the man is in charge as an axiom from what I wrote, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.