Your experiences with organized Christian religion

[Xilren's Twin]

Dang, i forgot to put "Sense of Humor" in my top 5 desirables.  Generally speaks, zealots don't have one...

Xilren

[Samprimary]

Lengthy and late, typical of me.

Part the first:

I'm another casualty of postmodernism; I wasn't ever forced to attend any church, and assembly in organized religious functions was not important to either of my parents except in one regard: My mother used our Episcopalian church as free singing lessons, after joining the choir.

Our Episcopalian church is a wonderful place. I certainly enjoyed it, and my favorite part was the communal meetings after church on Sunday where the adults stopped being boring and went to a lounge where free drinks, tea, and classy snacks were provided for free -- everyone would hang around for a long time and chat with each other. Episcopalians are the reason why I like tea so much today.

I suppose I'm agnostic. I have no idea whether a higher power exists. I do not believe I have the capacity to prove or disprove much of anything to myself. I always wonder, thus, I ask questions that I likely will never have an answer to. I will never pretend to have faith where none exists, feeling this disrespectful to the faithful.

Two years ago, I made the observation that there was probably a lot of guilt involved in the story of any of my buddies being forced to attend church. Classic story, latchkey kids, single moms, bad families, all waning in their own observance to church functions. They had made the professional and independant decisions to not attend church for any one of a number of reasons; apathy, busy schedule, so forth. Yet the guilt imposed on them from earlier generations that were far more rigid in attendanc practices ...? Apparently, it lingered.

It'd happen to my childhood friends without warning. Anywhere between them being ... say, 5 or 14, the parent(s) would evidently have that guilt trip spring in their heads, followed by an almost out-of-the-blue campaign where bewildered JT/Preston/Ronnie/Kayla/etc would suddenly find themselves getting a talk about how it was very important for them to attend church, with a few weeks or months of mandatory attendance coupled with an attempt to inject religious morality and lessons into home life. Many would spuriously introduce religious practice and ritual prayer into activities like bedtime or dinnertime. Many recall, at some point, a variation on the theme of "We just felt that you were ready/it was important for God to be in your life."

These campaigns wavered, then faltered, at the hands of the plenary dissuasion and discouragement techniques that seemingly every child posesses. As is typical of those not rigorously involved in religious involvement and reinforcement from very early childhood, most would drop out given the slightest hint of optional participation.

The best Christian I ever knew is the head guy of St. John's. Father Raul. Humble, giving, soft spoken, accepting, caring, total turn-the-other-cheek. He's basically the sort that acts as a direct contrast to those practices discussed in the Harper's article "The Christian Paradox: How a Faithful Nation Gets Jesus Wrong" if one will pardon the potentially ideological can of worms opened by both this concept and by any such position or discussion endorsed by a magazine such as Harper's.

The worst Christian I ever knew was hardly an endorsed figure of any religion; he was Christian in name only, as far as I was concerned. He tried to assault me after I asserted that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. were Deist, not Christian. If I were to cite a better example, it would be from the Christian youth group from Colorado Springs who we went paintballing with one day. Kids from age 18 to 12. Arrogant, forceful, eternally justified, holier-than-thou. They would revel in self-sanctified hubris as we won matches, proclaim loudly the favor they recieved from God, the righteousness of their every action. The one in particular I could single out would be the one who openly advocated the deportation of homosexuals, among other things. That they didn't have a right to live in God's country.

Part the second:

1. To hold to a level of faith that demeans or prosecutes inquiry or wonder; the aforementioned 'lack of discussion' element.
2. Using the pulpit for ideological indoctrination, or to any way implicate God's favor for the benefit of political interests.
3. Manipulative, almost codependant immersion techniques used to assure indoctrination in the very young to 'keep the faith'.
4. The use of religious beliefs to justify attacks on pluralism.
5. Asserting the religious element of personal beliefs in order to say that this means they don't have to be justified or rationalized.

'Good' christian traits are not something I'd want to classify offhand. I personally observe that each generation teaches christianity in a way that integrates it with what values are important to them, so .. you can't stop religion from changing. It was not too long ago that Christianity was used prominently to justify racism.

[schild]

Responding to the 1st post:

I went to mass a number of times. Two things come to mind: "Sheep" and "Going through the motions"

As for my own experience with temple (Jewish): "Networking" and the burden of guilt.

[Paelos]

Again, all good responses. Thank you.

The final question is a simple and very complex one that you might need to expound upon as to the "why" that I think we are all looking for.

The question is, is the church fixable?

[Fargull]

Top five issues with the christian church

1)  Intolerence for other views.
2)  Ignorance is propegated, while open mindedness is stifled.
3)  Wealth and Power are cornerstones
4)  Judgement against the community
5)  Those damn pews.

I don't think the five positive reflect my view of what I see as christian values, but as human values.

1)  Humility
2)  Honor
3)  Wisdom
4)  Fortitude of Spirit and Body
5)  Courage

[Fargull]

The question is, is the church fixable?

I have an answer that is not intended to be tounge in cheek.

Did you find Stigmata to be a horror movie in the classic sense, or a horror movie at the state of the christian pathos with a tinge of hope?

Again, I am being serious.

[Paelos]

I'd have to rent it, as when it came out, it never appealled to me. So to answer I have no experience with the film.

[Calantus]

A very complex question really. I haven't given too much thought to it as yet (working, kinda, sorta, maybe) but it has a lot of variables. First thing I'd have to say is define "fix". What what would be the ultimate goal you'd be working towards in this quest to fix the church, and in what way is it broken (as in, what objective is it not achieving).

[Samprimary]

The question is, is the church fixable?

If it is to be wondered if an institution is to be fixable, I'll guess that this entails that it has potential good in combination with recognized problems.

Disregarding that the concepts of what is good or bad for the Church varies between people and groups, all such institutions are fixable.

In the case of the church, I'll reference that I think that each generation of Church authority alters biblical authority as it sees fit; the church generally mutates as it absorbs the values inherent to altering cultural worldviews. No institution is immutable, no institution is static. Anti-homosexual agenda in Christianity, for instance, I believe to be doomed. it's only a matter of time. We've already seen the death of racist agenda in Christianity. Young-earth creationism is also faltering.

[stray]

The question is, is the church fixable?

I have an answer that is not intended to be tounge in cheek.

Did you find Stigmata to be a horror movie in the classic sense, or a horror movie at the state of the christian pathos with a tinge of hope?

Again, I am being serious.

I'm not sure if that was a question for everyone or just Paelos, but I didn't see it as a horror. I'd sound insane if I went into all of it, but suffice to say, I identified with the main premise. Wash away all of the Hollywood embroidery, and I was very much in a similar position as the before/after periods of the girl in the story.

As for the circumstances and what exactly happened, no, I didn't have stigmata or anything. Nor did I bounce off walls or turn my head around 360 degrees. It's just that I didn't exactly become a Christian because I decided to have faith. "Faith" and "belief" had nothing to do with it. Not at first at least.

[Paelos]

A very complex question really. I haven't given too much thought to it as yet (working, kinda, sorta, maybe) but it has a lot of variables. First thing I'd have to say is define "fix". What what would be the ultimate goal you'd be working towards in this quest to fix the church, and in what way is it broken (as in, what objective is it not achieving).

That's kind of the point. I offer no definitions as that becomes semantics. If you want to define fix in your way, please do, but it's meant to be a broad question inspiring many different points of view. I don't mean to be dodgy, but I think if it nail it down to what I think I don't get new answers I would never think of.

[Kitsune]

I'm lazy.  Behold a link to a relatively close post I made on the subject elsewhere:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/valatar/771.html

[Evangolis]

I haven't read this thread beyond the first post, and I may not read it.

My family initially attended a Disciples of Christ church in Eureka, IL.  Grandma is still a member of the Kahoka MO DC, and it has always been a pillar of her life.  For me, it was a place that I had to put on a suit and tie to go to once a week.  I hate suits and ties, and I hated them more when I was little.  I didn’t care much for the sermons, either.  The people there didn’t mean much, one way or the other, but the thing I always remembered was that each of us boys had to have a quarter every Sunday, so that when they passed around the little cardboard church in Sunday school, we had something to put in it.  My family didn’t have much money, and it bothered me that I had to give up a quarter to a bunch of relative strangers just because it would embarrass our family if we couldn’t.  That always rankled me.  On the other hand, they had a lovely building.

I don’t know why we stopped attending services at the DC church, but I was happy we did.  It was never more to me than an annoyance.  However, it didn’t set me against Christianity.  It took the Christians in Roanoke, IL to do that.  Mind, there were Christians in that community I respected; Apostolic, Mennonites, Catholics among them, but there were also a lot of hypocritical and proselytizing Christians who put me off the whole faith.  I can respect a person who is a witness for their faith by living it, but people who witness for their faith by telling you what is wrong with how you live your life can get stuffed.

Meanwhile, my family had begun attending a new church, the Universalist Unitarian church in Peoria.  The minister was a former Catholic priest who had married one of his flock, and had a bit of a drinking problem.  A fair number of the parishioners were cheating on each other with the spouses of other parishioners.  The youth group advisors were post-60s hippies, and in Sunday school our curriculum was Rock Music, Sex Education, and Situational Ethics.  It was as awkward a collection of misfits and malcontents as you could hope for, and it was the happiest place I ever found.  My brothers and I all found a social and moral setting we’d been looking for, and real friends and common interests.  The church was beat-up and rundown.  Nobody asked us for money.

Although I am theologically a Taoist, I am denominationally a Universalist Unitarian.  I consider it to be a church with Christian roots and heritage, and I do not consider those to be diminished by the church’s acceptance of other belief systems.  I see no reason to limit the Divine to a single system of human beliefs.  If the Queen can believe six impossible things before breakfast, I see no reason that God couldn’t do them.

I think the thing that most traditional Christians do that most offends and annoys me is the casual assumption that not being a Christian means you have not experienced true faith.  That, and assuring you they will pray for you, which is generally a lie, since what they really are going to do is pray for someone they want you to be, and not for the person that you are.

That’s the short version.


Edit:  I decided to read the thread, and I have a couple of things to add.

In fairness, while I never warmed to the DC church, when my mother died this winter, my brothers and I turned to the ministers of both the Eureka and Kahoka DC churches to speak, although none of us (nor mother) felt any real affinity for the church.  We felt that the christians among the family and friends who knew mother deserved some connection to her life and her passing, and these men did good service for us, even though they understood that we were not of their faith.  I have known others who would have done less.

As to whether the church is fixable, I question that it is broken.  Core to church is community and connection.  I do not think that any one faith can serve all of us.  Naturally, this is in part my own faith talking, but I think that a spectrum of religion is what is needed.  One size does not fit all, and it shouldn't.  Whether it is the Mennonite and Apostolic biblically centered churches in the place I went to high school, or the Diciples of Christ church that gave my grandparents so much of the structure and meaning in their lives, or the eccentric and liberal UU fellowships that have comforted me, all churches are communities, and as such they cannot be entirely inclusive, or they will have no meaning or coherence as a community.  This is not to say that churches should not examine the way they treat others outside the faith frequently and critically.  However, churches must have principles for which they stand, and shared experiences and beliefs that bind them togather.

[Llava]

The question is, is the church fixable?

In the sense that any system is fixable if it wants to be fixed and has the time to do it, yes.

Realistically?

No.  It will never happen.  There are too many people with too much to lose.  And some people with their heads just far enough up their own asses to think their religious beliefs ought to dictate the way our society is run.

[Sky]

Ok just to help me out, lets make a little summary list. If you could do it, give me the top five things that bother you the most about organized Christian churches in order. Then, give me the top five characteristics you think a ideal Christian person should have. Thanks!

1. Hypocrisy. (Thou shalt not kill, adultery, graven images, etc, etc...but just say a few hail mary's...not to get into catholic priests and boys)
2. Exclusivity. ("Our God is the only real God, Jesus is the only real prophet, everyone else dies in eternal suffering")
3. The backward thought process in which things must match the scripture, unlike science which draws its conclusions from available facts.
4. Tangential to the last one, the belief that their beliefs are directly from god and infallible (like the pope  ), whereas science is predicated on the knowledge that most of our current understanding of science will be superseded by new discoveries in the future. Cherishing the heretics, so to speak, for they are science's prophets.
5. The need for money.

I don't buy into your whole religion thing, an ideal christian would follow things a bit more along the lines of forgiveness and sacrifice, but here's what I think embodies a spiritual person:

1. Respect.
2. Kindness.
3. Humility.
4. Honor.
5. Passion.

The question is, is the church fixable?

I don't know that it's broken. It does work for some people, I just have no use for it, and nothing could be done to change that. I'd like to see humanity divorce their personal spirituality from archaic humanistic institutions. The world would be a better place. When I think of how many cultures were crushed by christianity alone..."converting" "heathens"...that whole thing about two unique language types being found in south america would be a glaring example of what I'm talking about...good thing they survived the conquering christians...

[Sky]

Oops, after reviewing some posts, I forgot Tolerance and Humor. I struggle with the former, but embody the latter. Both are critical, Tolerance being the core of my political beliefs (Libertarianism).

[Roac]

Ok just to help me out, lets make a little summary list. If you could do it, give me the top five things that bother you the most about organized Christian churches in order.

1) Most churches (or people) do not allow themselves to be intellectually challenged.  Whether secular or theological, churches need to be willing to take up the challenge against any position they hold.  Christianity (or for that matter, Islam and Judaism) is about one's relationship to God, but too many churches are stuck with a grade school mentality towards it.

2) Failure to effectively justify dogmatic stances.  I don't care if it's anything from "don't steal" to "homosexulaity is bad" to "wear purple hats on Fridays".  The burden of proof is on one making an assertion, and while the assertion may be valid, it needs to be communicated effectively. 

3) Church service is boring.  I can't sing, and won't unless I'm trying to aggrevate my wife or entertain my daughter with terrible parody.  Changing gospel to gospel-rock doesn't help; it's still not relevant to me, and I don't want to tithe for entertainment.

That's just three, but I would be happy if they could even start on that.

[Roac]

The question is, is the church fixable?

Potentially, yes.  Any problem is fixable, because we're the ones causing it.  Realistically, probably not, because human nature is such that it doesn't often allow for such change.  For any criticism of the church you can make, it's difficult or impossible to skirt the issue that the congregations allow or support such attitudes.  People don't want to think, don't want to work, don't want to fix.  What they do want is to do the minimum possible to earn a ticket to Heaven, and/or social appearances of such. 

And this isn't a religious exclusive item; it's the same poison that hits all social spheres.  Politics is stuffed with it.  Business thrives on it.  Culture is built on the back of appearances and hype.  Religion, by its nature of higher orders and higher ideals, is in a fight against human nature.  Human nature, in turn, finds religion an easy target for ever having the audacity to say "thou shalt not..." anything.  Humanity exists as a minimally contained explosion, and religion is trying to douse the flames.  Good luck when it doesn't want to be put out.  It's much easier, instead, to water down religion to the point of uselessness.  Sugar coated religion is cheap Soma. 

[Xilren's Twin]

The question is, is the church fixable?

Highly subjective of course.  I'd be careful even using the word church in your question b/c that itself has it's own implications (i.e. which, of the thousands of flavors of christianity, do you mean?),  If you ask me if organized religion as a whole is fixable, I'd say no, not as a single entity.

Best you could shoot for is a plethora of kinds of organized religion that practice tolerance and understanding towards each other version...which sadly ain't gonna happen, humans being what they are.

Put it this way, even if somehow tomorrow every Christian began practicing true brotherhood towards their fellow man, there's plenty of other religions that still wouldn't thus this the problem of organized religion being broken would continue...

That being said, any given version of church is certainly improvable, but you have to have people willing to change first, and most simply are too lazy and selfish to want to change something they like (or at least tolearate) currently just to make someone else feel good.  How do you think the average congregation would react if their priest/minister/rabbi/etc next sermon began "you're all doing this wrong.."? 

Xilren
PS The short answer is most would decide to replace the speaker with someone who tells them what they want to hear rather than engage in true reflection and soul searching on their beliefs

[shiznitz]

Ok just to help me out, lets make a little summary list. If you could do it, give me the top five things that bother you the most about organized Christian churches in order. Then, give me the top five characteristics you think a ideal Christian person should have. Thanks!

Dislikes
1) "The way we worship is the correct way."
2) If I don't go to church for 6 months, I don't miss anything because the service is 85% the same every time.
3) Passing the money plate during the service just blows my mind. It is designed to shame people into giving.

Christian qualities

This would just be a list of what makes someone a nice person - friendly, non-judgemental, etc.

[voodoolily]

Embuggerances, in order of annoyance:
1) Evangelism - trust me, YES, WE HAVE ALREADY HEARD THE GOOD NEWS. 
2) Self-righteousness
3) Intolerance (especially since this is what seems to lead to violence against gays, people of other faiths, etc.)
4) Hypocrisy/selective following observance (I dunno, but I kinda think it should be all or nothing in the "what parts to heed" department)
5) Ignorance

S'alright by me (what churches should promote or represent; qualities Christians should strive for):
1) Brotherhood/fellowship - in the human sense, not just among other Christians
2) Charity/asylum
3) Acceptance/understanding/forgiveness
4) Humility/modesty/humbleness
5) Flexibility/adaptation - being era-appropriate

[Llava]

4) Hypocrisy/selective following observance (I dunno, but I kinda think it should be all or nothing in the "what parts to heed" department)

What really gets me about this, actually, is not so much when they interpret the Bible... but when they refuse to acknowledge that someone else's interpretation is just as valid.  Like the people who hate gay Christians because they're disobeying the Bible, but have no problem disobeying plenty of other rules in the Bible (meat on Friday trivial and giving to the poor non-trivial alike).

[Paelos]

That pretty much answered my questions fully, and I thank you for that. Let me say that as a Christian man, I'm not the best representative. I don't live the life I should either, and as such I try not to preach at people about things that I struggle with.

This community is a special thing whether or not you realize it individually. You are all from different viewpoints and different places, and yet inside this box we can fellowship together without ripping each other's heads off. That's rare in the real world. Frankly, many people wouldn't even get past the simple things of life without writing off the other as a nutball in whatever fashion they happened to disagree with. I enjoy hearing your sides, even if I don't agree. I enjoy our fellowship, even if it stirs up a hornet's nest.

As stupid as it may sound, my model of a good church has a base in what we have here. Take a look around and you'll see why.

[stray]

Take a look around and you'll see why.

Heh

[NowhereMan]

Heh, this thread reminded me of the first sermon our new priest gave in the church. He said a lot of people had come up to him and said, "Father, we know you'll be looking to make improvements in the parish and that's fine with us but we'd really like it if you wouldn't make any changes."

In some ways that's the problem with organised religions, it's not that people don't like improvement, it's that they see change as something inherently bad and so essentially different from improvement.

[Paelos]

Heh, this thread reminded me of the first sermon our new priest gave in the church. He said a lot of people had come up to him and said, "Father, we know you'll be looking to make improvements in the parish and that's fine with us but we'd really like it if you wouldn't make any changes."

In some ways that's the problem with organised religions, it's not that people don't like improvement, it's that they see change as something inherently bad and so essentially different from improvement.

Well, yes. That, and change doesn't alway mean improvement.

[shiznitz]

Take a look around and you'll see why.

Excuse me but I really don't need to know what everyone here looks like.

/nightmares

 :-D

[Bunk]

Evangolis had a good line up there: "Core to church is community and connection".

I could accept that the church had a value in society if this really was what it was all about. I could accept a church that was really about supporting and connecting the community. You won't have that though until you take away the all the red tape (doctrine) that seperates the various denominations.

The church is way too hung up on the particulars of how to worship to ever effectively deal with problems in the real world.

This of course would never happen. There are numerous denominations because there have been numerous oppinions over the years as to the "right" way to have faith. The splitting of the church is probably also affected by the political ambitions of people as well. Didn't get to be the boss of the No Homer church? Start up the No Homers church. I know I'm oversimplifying here, but that's just the easiest way for me to explain my views.

Religion should be about helping and supporting your fellow man, regardless of whether he lives his life exactly the way you do or not.

[Evangolis]

Most fundamentalist churches I've known have been entirely about community, which is part of why questioning the faith is so threatening to them.  The faith is not a philosphical or theological issue, it is the common touchstone that binds the community together, a set of customs and beliefs that is safe ground even for relative strangers.  An example of this comes from the Masters thesis of Mr Sutter, who taught high school history in the community I went to high school in.  The Apostolics in that community do not beleive in Original Sin, thus all children are born innocent, and only need the Salvation of Jesus as they discover true wickedness, generally in their teens.  Sutter found that you could chart the conversions of young girls to the church (these are fairly dramatic events, involving being possessed by the Spirit, publically speaking in tongues, and adopting strict standards of dress and conduct afterwards), and when you charted the conversions, it became obvious that groups of friends tended to convert in a domino effect, with one friend converting and the rest soon following, generally in order of closeness to prior converters.

I've seen similarly powerful group support systems in other places and faiths.  My grandmother is one case of a person powerfully supported by her church community, both in her active life and in particular, since she suffered a massive stroke.  Churches can have great benefit for members.

Unfortunately, if you are not a member, such tight-knit groups can be fairly hostile.  Thus such community can be a double edged sword, and it is also open to abuse by cults and other unethical persons and groups.  Community can be a great and terrible thing, like most sources of power and strength.

[WindupAtheist]

Been inside a church five times in my life, and four of them were funerals.  I vaguely recall a couple women whom I would later realize were Jehova's Witnesses coming over to talk to my mother, but I couldn't have been older than five and eventually they quit coming around.  Other than that, no religious exposure whatsoever.

Now the fifth time, there was this girl I worked with for whom I had developed a bit of a crush.  She was UBER-religious, but wasn't really a pain in the ass about it or anything.  She'd bark at me when I said 'the H-word' from time to time, but she didn't flip out when she found out I didn't believe.  To be honest, I think she considered it a bit 'daring' for a nice Pentacostal girl like herself to hang around with a heathen like me.  Anyway, it's December and she asks me to come to this church thing with her.  Some manner of Christmas pageant.  Alarm bells go off in my head, but I figure what the hell.

So we get there, and it's cool.  Nobody was speaking in tongues or anything.  (Though that was something she had made straight-faced reference to in the past.)  Some kids did a little nativity play, the goat tried to eat a wise man's robe, I mouthed along to a couple of songs I didn't know the words to, and everyone had coffee and pie/cake/cookies/etc.  Really, it was a nice scene.  People chatting, kids running around, really nice atmosphere.  I got the impression that my crush was hoping I'd want to come back.  But the "impression" was all I ever got, because she wasn't pushy about it.  Good times.

And really, of course I wanted to come back.  It seemed like a great place.  But you know, I couldn't shut off the analytical part of my brain.  This story about the god-figure who defies death was never going to seem like anything except yet another myth to me, barring some tremendous worldview-altering supernatural encounter.  I just plain couldn't believe this fantastical story without some bloody good evidence, even if I wanted too, and just going through the motions was unthinkable.  I'd be betraying myself and lying to them.

So this girl and I just sort of drifted apart over time, and I started dating this other girl.  We spent two months debauching ourselves, with never a peep from her about religion, or any indication that Sunday was anything but another day to hang out.  One night the topic of religion finally comes up.  Figuring that since we were catching our breath on her living room floor at the time, she must not be the type to give a shit, I went ahead and told her I was an atheist.  Oh boy, bad move.  The relationship ended shortly thereafter, when I told her I had no interest in her out-of-the-blue attempts to convert me.

Doubleyoo tee eff.

As far as fixing the church, it depends on whose perspective we're coming from.  From my perspective, it's all bunk.  Just give it up entirely and find a different reason to hang out.  From their perspective, there's nothing to fix.  They're having fun.

Unless you mean the tribulations of the Catholic Church in particular.  But then their problems are more a matter of policy than theology.  Just let the priesthood marry so that you can start drawing more healthy non-pedo adult men into the mix.  Really, if you made it so that being a doctor meant no marriage/family/pussy ever, you'd probably have a disproportionate number of pedophile doctors too.

[shiznitz]

Sutter found that you could chart the conversions of young girls to the church (these are fairly dramatic events, involving being possessed by the Spirit, publically speaking in tongues, and adopting strict standards of dress and conduct afterwards), and when you charted the conversions, it became obvious that groups of friends tended to convert in a domino effect, with one friend converting and the rest soon following, generally in order of closeness to prior converters.

That study right there just demonstrates that the whole "conversion" is total bullshit. The pastor/minister lays out what it means to "find God" and then the congregation delivers. How can any rational person not become immediately circumspect? The religion is a demonstrable farce. Not the people's faith, the religion. Jesus Christ would be horrified by such dramatics.

Let's say someone new moves to this town and starts attending church. After several months, this person decides they have been saved and asks the pastor/minister for baptism. Does the pastor put that person on hold until he figures out he is supposed to pretend to speak in tongues?

[Roac]

Science suggests that Humans, by and large, are very good being sociable within intra-group relationships, but hostile toward inter-group relationships.  Note the first isn't required to be a social species, as demonstrated by chimps, who are mean as hell to their peer group.  What our disposition does is to creat the "Us vs Them" mentality so prevalent in everything we do.

Any social group, religious or otherwise, is going to become subject to that rule of behavior.  That's why you have the appearance in many churches that they are great if you're a member, but somewhat cold, "off", or distant if you are not.  Recruitment for social groups often becomes less one of open enrolement, and more of a "friend of a friend" nature.

The other result is that social groups become, by their nature, more and more extremist in attitude over time.  Whether this be in a "holier than thou" attitude in a church, "tow the party line" in politics, or whatever else, social groups often become self-reinforcing in the "Us vs Them" mentality.  On the flip side, if the group fails to have a collective "We", it may fail to become cohesive and may break apart.  You see that in organizations that grow too quickly and "lose sight" of their goals.  Getting it right is extremely difficult to do. 

My suggestion, incase you need any, would be to pick up on something like this when trying to answer any sort of "is it fixable" question.  If the church is in any way broken, it is because of human behavior and disposition.  Most of the problems people cite with the church are issues that if strictly keeping with theology, shouldn't be a part of the church.  Yet, they plainly are; why?  Human nature.  Any potential solution should be viewed in light of whether it addresses the actual problem or just symptoms of it, and to do that one has to know what the problem(s) is to start with. 

[voodoolily]

Science suggests that Humans, by and large, are very good being sociable within intra-group relationships, but hostile toward inter-group relationships.  Note the first isn't required to be a social species, as demonstrated by chimps, who are mean as hell to their peer group. 

I'm no moderator, but I'm pretty sure this kinda talk has no place in this thread. Just sayin'.

[Roac]

Science suggests that Humans, by and large, are very good being sociable within intra-group relationships, but hostile toward inter-group relationships.  Note the first isn't required to be a social species, as demonstrated by chimps, who are mean as hell to their peer group. 

I'm no moderator, but I'm pretty sure this kinda talk has no place in this thread. Just sayin'.

The question is, is the church fixable?

The question assumes that a serious attempt is given to the answer, beyond something like "more communion wine, plz".  To answer whether it is fixable requires you to know what is broken, and why.

[Evangolis]

Sutter found that you could chart the conversions of young girls to the church (these are fairly dramatic events, involving being possessed by the Spirit, publically speaking in tongues, and adopting strict standards of dress and conduct afterwards), and when you charted the conversions, it became obvious that groups of friends tended to convert in a domino effect, with one friend converting and the rest soon following, generally in order of closeness to prior converters.

That study right there just demonstrates that the whole "conversion" is total bullshit. The pastor/minister lays out what it means to "find God" and then the congregation delivers. How can any rational person not become immediately circumspect? The religion is a demonstrable farce. Not the people's faith, the religion. Jesus Christ would be horrified by such dramatics.

Let's say someone new moves to this town and starts attending church. After several months, this person decides they have been saved and asks the pastor/minister for baptism. Does the pastor put that person on hold until he figures out he is supposed to pretend to speak in tongues?

I'd disagree that the conversion is bullshit, regardless of the sincerity of the actions, since the behavior changes that follow really are life-changing.  More, while it is easy to look in on something like this with a jaundiced eye, I know from my own experience that belief in both philosophical and spiritual ideals can make seemigly silly rituals very real to those involved.

As to other entry routes to the church, there are those as well.  Many young Apostolic men became hellions before settling down.  One fellow, Kieth, as part of the court settlement for speeding (140 mph, but Kieth told me that he knew the radar guns didn't scale beyond 120), evading police, and a bunch of other traffic offenses, sold his car (a lovely Chevelle) and joined the church.  (He also had more standard penalties applied, although this was in a rural area 30 years ago.)  He did in fact settle down and became a good churchman thereafter.  This was not an uncommon path for teenaged boys to take into the church, and I did not find these guys to be insincere in their beliefs.  For the Apostolics, such conversions tended to be dramatic, life-changing events, but the drama was optional.