"Sharing the Gospel" Doesn't Work Like it Used To
What I suspect is the pushy marketing, calling up your neighbor, maybe more than once, and inviting her to your church once worked better a few decades ago than it works today. And, if this is true, why doesn't it work?
Recently someone wrote that religion is a good reflection of the society where it lives. Thus, Hinduism reflects the cultures where it is popular, Islam where it is popular and the same for Christianity. That is, a culture writes its religions rules. It's not the other way around.
I grew up on a farm, twenty miles from a city of 25,000. Our little town had one church and one of it powerful tenets was not working on Sundays. In the Bible working on Sundays is listed as one of the grave sins. One would have had to drive several miles to find a tractor in a field on a nice summer Sunday.
But, society's view of working on Sundays changed and churches did what they have always done, stopped talking about it. It may remain in official founding documents of a denomination but preachers know better than to say much about it. The church's new approach to working on Sunday reflects that of society.
Today, there is so much marketing in people's faces they instinctively tune it out. This was not true when the Bible was written. In a earlier day probably people were pleased to be invited to a church.
Times have changed. The church needs to adjust.
(I have started posting these blogs on the Forum Communication's new site, TheSkrive.com. That site will be officially announced in a week or so but you might want to look there and try to navigate it.)
this is getting boring. seems that you can't even stir up an exchange with Noah. or with Noah and Jinx. and where are some of the old combatants when you really need them.
ReplyDeletemark, "this is getting boring. seems you can't even stir up an exchange..where are some of the old combatants when you really need them."
ReplyDeleteI don't blog for the comments. The number of readers has never been followed the number of comments. If the volume of comments never returns that is fine with me.
The number of readers is way down. Comments are way down. It's sad that this appears how anyone would live, blasting out disdain for one's fellow man over their choice of religious expression. To save Jinx the effort, I will call myself a "green worm" and heap praise on Jon for whatever he wrote today. Heap, heap, heap.
DeleteIt is interesting on the annual or is it once every 2 years Fargo Forum makeover of InForum.com that the Shanley "Cupcakes for Life" event got front page, top fold coverage. The event converted at least 2 women from pro-abortion/pro-"choice" to pro-life. Both had had abortions early in life. The theme this year was the post-abortive woman. The Forum article is praiseworthy. The panel of local women conveyed their stories of pain, grief, remorse and anguish over their incorrect decision. Of course, the decision was reinforced by "clinic" staff who preyed on these women in their time of vulnerability. 'No, it's not a baby. No, there is no pain. No, you won't feel pain. No, you will not feel bad.'
DeleteContrast that with the positive, life-affirming support from the local Crisis Pregnancy Center and churches.
Matt: "It's sad...how anyone would live blasting out disdain for one's fellow over their choice of religious expression."
ReplyDeleteMy disdain is for people who want make their "religious expression" the law of the land. You have wanted to do this often.
Poor Jon, he only wants to make his anti-theistic views the law of the land.
DeleteHere in the USA, we have communists, socialists, Birchers, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. (everyone) wanting to make their views - or at least some of their views - the law of the land. You seem to only have problems (bigotry) towards one kind of American - those who adhere to a religion. At one point or another, only men participated in American democracy by virtue of holding office or voting. That was sexism, sexual bigotry. At one point, only white people participated in American democracy by virtue of holding office or voting. That was racism, racial bigotry. Personally, I don't have a problem with any American participating fully in American democracy. The question is, why do you? Are you not aware of your religious bigotry?
ReplyDeleteMatt 6:59 "Poor Jon, he only wants to make his anti-theistic views the law of the land."
ReplyDeletePoor Matt, he wants his religious view on when a human being comes into existence the law of the land.
And, don't you dare doubt what you have been instructed to believe. Remember Lot's wife. If you don't believe as commanded you will be turned into a pillar of salt. This is serious stuff.
Some elements of Catholicism also make for appropriate public policy. Protecting human life is both fundamental to the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, basic human biology and my Catholic Faith. It is also fundamental to Islam, Judaism and a host of other religions.
DeleteOn the other hand I don't want a law, policy or regulation requiring people to be Catholic, recite any prayers, go to Confession and hundreds of other things which should be a matter of free will. If people choose Hell, that is their business. Just don't kill another human being and expect to be a free person.
Go peddle your bigotry and misinformation elsewhere.
BTW I know that you blog for one simple reason: you want to make your views public. Maybe even wanting to help make your views the law of the land. For me, I like the verbal combat. As to your abortion "hang up", you clearly want your views (whatever they are specifically) regarding human beingness and morality be the law of the land.
ReplyDeletemark 8:31 "BTW I know that you blog for one simple reason; you want to make your views public. Maybe even wanting to help make you views the law of the land."
ReplyDeleteThat is mostly correct. The founding fathers did not make our country a theocracy. They refused, even though they knew well how to write a Constitution that names one particular religion the official one because several colonies had done so, to write in Christianity as the nation's religion. So I publicize efforts to violate efforts to over rule our Constitution.
Efforts to outlaw abortion are clearly contrary to our Constitution because the definition that one fertilized cell is a human being is based only on religion. Lots of folks do not like my blog because I point this out.
You must think we are morons or idiots. The so-called right to abortion was made out of an imaginary right to privacy found nowhere in the US Constitution. Roe v. Wade has been on a pathway to repeal ever since it was written.
DeleteHow many decisions would you strike down for not being contained in the Constitution? Should Connecticut be able to outlaw contraception? (right to privacy) Should Texas be able to outlaw homosexuality? (privacy) Should Virginia be able to outlaw mixed marriages? (right to marry--state's sphere--and the foundation for same sex marriage) Should the Miranda warning be eliminated? How about the right to an attorney if you cannot afford one? What clause of the Constitution otherwise prohibits separate but equal racial segregation? What about the fundamental power of the Supreme Court to overturn unconstitutional legislation? Your strict construction argument is pathetic and unavailing. And what exactly will you achieve when Roe v. Wade is overturned? Do you think it will be so overwhelmingly difficult for women in North Dakota to travel all the way to Minneapolis to terminate a pregnancy? Do you think they will be unable to figure out the internet to order abortive medication online? Do you plan on imprisoning nearly a million women every year? What have pro life voters actually done to reduce the number of abortions other than smugly judge women on the sidewalks of clinics? If you were actually pro life, you would care about income security, you would start to focus on the fathers who abandon their children rather than the women who are desperate because they have been abandoned, you would insist on universal medical coverage, contraception, and comprehensive sex education. But no, you are a hateful, judgmental bigot, who believes in outrageous myth, fantasy and implausible arguments: Why on earth would an omnipotent god have to kill his son to absolve his creations of sin? Why would he invent original sin? And then permit the "murder" of a million human embryos that he apparently cares so much about. Stupid.
DeleteYou ask good questions but like all who ask good questions you provide no answers. You know you are setting a trap but I am not political. But you need to answer questions if you expect answers to your questions.
DeleteFirst, there is right to privacy in the US Constitution. If you think I am wrong, please cite the part of the US Constitution which refers to this 'right'.
If a "contraceptive" is an abortifacient, it should be illegal since it takes a human life.
Homosexuality cannot be outlawed but certain sexual acts can and should be allowed, hetero- or homo-.
Mixed marriage should not be outlawed.
The Miranda doctrine is on solid constitutional footing.
If asked, more people would rather have their Internet or cable TV bill paid than have a right to an attorney. This one is questionable but it hasn't bankrupt the country, yet.
Your questions are amazingly political in nature. They also display a lack of understanding or knowledge. For example, when you start, "What have pro-life voters ..."
Do 2 simple things if you want to continue the conversation. You will do neither because you are a timid person who hides his identity. First, provide your real name as I have. Be a big boy or girl. Second, answer the questions you ask and provide your reasoning.
Matt is referring to the post by anonymous.
DeleteDifferent Anonymous poster here.
DeletePerhaps Anonymous 9:52 AM did an internet search like I did and decided it was not physically safe to engage with dogmatic authoritarian personality types. That is rational not timid. Consider the MAGAbomber in the news today if you don't understand.
"Matt Noah October 26, 2018 at 6:39 AM You ask good questions but like all who ask good questions you provide no answers."
Matt has all the answers but none of the questions. His remarkably black and white world view rejects questions and detests ambiguities. This thought process results in the dichotomous thinking errors that have been displayed so often here. Sometimes it's accidentally funny or informative but usually it is just depressing. I can see no way to reach someone incapable of curiosity and this applies to a large segment of our society.
The questions asked by Anonymous 9:52 essentially answered themselves and a majority of people can understand that. I used to think that people were being purposely obtuse to avoid such obvious points but the events of the last two years have changed my mind.
Two possibilities, right wing thinking has had an impact on my opinion
or I am just weak for changing my mind.
Good points, Anonymous 8:48. Perhaps you could use Anonymous II next time.
ReplyDelete"Sometimes it's accidentally funny or informative but usually it is just depressing. I can see no way to reach someone incapable of curiosity and this applies to a large segment of our society."
I liked that. There was a great news clips in the last few days with the sheriff of the Wyoming county where Matthew Shepard was murdered. He said he was homophobic until after the murder. He was forced to visit with young gay men, Matthew's friends. The sheriff came to realize they were like everyone else and no threat to anyone. If he had been incapable of curiosity he would have remained in the stone age--just as so many today who are against abortion and gay rights.