Christianity's Greatest Enemy
A long essay appeared recently about what churches with declining numbers are doing. Decision makers are trying to figure this out.
When studying declining church membership, I've noticed a tendency to categorize why people leave. Was it due to unfriendly church goers, an opinionated preacher, too much politics, etc.? People who leave often give such reasons or questionnaires ask people to choose one from a list made up by Christians that include them.
To get at more important reasons, let's compare the journey of a doubter today versus one decades ago. Decades ago a doubter sat in the pews and had thoughts he/she was sure no one else in the church had. Further, he/she had friends in other churches and was certain none of them had such doubts. Doubts about the faith were not appropriate topics to bring up if one's circle of family and friends attended church.
When the doubter was at home, and had the chance to reflect on these doubts, what could he/she do to resolve the doubts? A time consuming trip to the library would have been on option. If there was a large library available, there would have been books by authors questioning the faith. Besides the time it took to visit and find books there was always the chance others would see those books and the person's secret doubts revealed. So, most such a people kept going to church.
Today, that person can secretly find a.) internet information written for doubters and b.) a community of doubters near by. The computer has greased the exit ramp for those who doubt and they are sliding out of the church. When asked why they left the answer does not include finding information and new friends more easily than in the past.
Christian sites often brag that a percentage of "nones" who poll "spiritual" or "Christian." These are people who also say they are not affiliated with religion or religious denominations.
While we don't know what such people believe, we do know they have exited the dominant political and cultural institution known as "the church." The computer is the church's greatest enemy.
Jon; You give the impression declining involvement is a singular Christian problem. It goes much farther than that. At many political caucus's only a hand full show up when in the past, they would fill a community room. Even 30 yr. ago, every town had a Chamber of Commerce, with sub divisions for specific needs. Now most towns don't even have a chamber of commerce. Community chest drives have shrunk due to the lack of people willing to participate. Most med. size towns had IOOF and Masons. Hardly any presence with them due to shrinking participation. Boy / girl scouts down to almost nothing. Long gone too are evening visits between neighbors. On Halloween (tonight) we used to have 80-90 kids at the doors. Now it's large to have only 25. There isn't a single segment f society that has not had a decline in attendance. Drive through many small to medium towns, and you will see many closed bars, with only one remaining, if at all. Our county has only 40% population it had in the early 60's. Those who remain sent their kids to college, with resulting jobs in large cities. We are fortunate that our children and grand children are in regular attendance at church and related activities. Even after being exposed to (quite often) subtle secular dissing of Christianity in colleges. I don't have a problem with that, as it is good to be exposed to what's out there. Much of this starts at home. Both the self imposed isolation of the secular, and the overactive exclusivity of religion. Extremes of both is not beneficial.
ReplyDeleteHelper -- "Jon, you gave the impression declining ...if a singular Christian problem." Thanks for those observations. Certainly you are correct many aspects of participation are smaller today. My theory is we first saw that with cable television, four channels to 30 to 300. Everyone likes their own thing. Maybe its always been like that buy now we see it is real time.
DeleteOf course there is the community of like minded people on the internet, but it looks like the interaction within a specific community is like preaching to the choir. Not as much learning, but expansion of the same thought.
ReplyDeletelittle helper October 31 @ 7:13 PM; “Preaching to the choir.” Good point about the internet. Many times when someone shares an opinion, the most common response is a lethargic “me too” (less the Twitter #). Not even an expansion of the same thought. Only a nod. Ennui, as in “enforced attention to something destitute of interest” might describe the church experience for some. The expected response to the message has been extinguished by repetition. Must be difficult for a pastor to revitalize and invigorate his flock Sunday after Sunday. Bring on the band, multimedia show, and complimentary treats.
DeleteThere is more than enough in life's daily /weekly experiences to be satisfied with the lectionary. (what does this mean).The same verses in a three year cycle is not repetition. Most often less is more. There is that "still small voice."
Delete"Entertainment" is fleeting, and does not promote self inflection or fulfilling meaningful satisfaction.
little helper November 1 @ 11:17 AM: re; “still small voice”. “Inexorable conscience holds his court, with still, small voice the plot of guilt alarms”, Erasmus Darwin. Guilt may keep more of the faithful in pews than a three year rotation of Bible verses. It’s a powerful tool. Even more so if the voice of conscience can be attributed to a god. Sadly that association has put a few in institutions. Care required. It is true most entertainment has a very short half-life. Still a good old gospel song earworm can sustain the message for years. “Do Lord” sung by a local father and his three sons at one of the very few services I attended in my youth comes to mind.
DeleteArdy B "Even more so if the voice of conscience can be attributed to a god. Sadly that association has put a few in institutions." That must be how psychiatrists make a living, discerning between "small voices". I wonder if their rule is, "If it's a god, OK. Someone else, take these meds."
DeleteArdy; re. "still small voice". Nowhere do I see the still small voice relegated to guilt or alarm. It is presented as a comforting, drawing presence, resulting in peace, resolve, and direction after or during a traumatic experience.
DeleteI agree that guilt has been a powerful tool to wrongly control people. As much now as in the Middle Ages. Here in lies the necessity of "The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel". It is available at CPH.
Little Helper "Here lies the necessity of "The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel."
DeleteI got curious enough to find some discussion of this. I found this but I don't know if it is paraphrasing or text from that 1800's book. I kept reading and reading looking for something important. Finally something real came up: Thesis XXII "In the eighteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when a false distinction is made between a person's ....moreover, when a person's inability to believe is mistaken for his not being permitted to believe."
First, this is B.S. for the majority in the world who believe in other gods. Second, it implies that I can believe even if no evidence of a god is ever presented. I am "mistaken" because no one ever came up with anything except a book written by the ancient wealthy who wanted control over the not wealthy? I guess that book is like a gazillion others, "People who do not believe in the branch of Christianity I believe are "mistaken."
Ah-hem, Funny what happens when the key point is omitted , the context is not considered, nor the related explanation of the complete thesis. The following assumption then is equally flawed B. S.
DeleteJust like reading the table of content, and claiming to have read and the whole book. That is real B. S.
Interesting too is this particular thesis is aimed at the errors of the "so called Pietists" during the first half of the 18th century, which continue to the then present (when written,) and is present today in many circles, "as seen on TV".
Helper -- "Ahem, Funny what happens when the key point is omitted.." OK, I'll include what I omitted, "In the eighteenth place the Word of God is not rightly divided when a false distinction is made between a person being awakened and his being converted." I did not clutter up our space here with that because it has nothing to do with what follows that I included previously. I am neither "awakened" nor "converted". What follows as I wrote earlier does not clarify the person who does not believe because he/she has not seen evidence. It's as if such a person is being prohibited or prevented by some other authority from being "awakened" or "converted". I understand this was written in the 1800's for an audience of that time--that's exactly why it does not persuade today. Best to leave the Bible for whoever it was aimed at thousands of years ago and the 1800's to the believers then. The only thing in common is there were atheists both in ancient times and in the 1800's and whatever did not work then is still not working today.
Deletere. "I am neither "awakened" nor "converted". Then it does not apply to you. This thesis is aimed at the pietists.
Deletere. "It's as if such a person is being prohibited or prevented by some other authority from being "awaken or converted". You are getting warmer. "prohibited--prevented", Not at all. Once you reject that "other authority" (Your words), is why you are where you are, way back when or now. (Hint- It's not church, a church, priest, preacher or goat herder..) "Whatever did not work then is still not working today". Very true---for you and yours.
Lots of people at Trump rallies all over the nation.
ReplyDeleteWith Paula White in the White House now, My god, how the money rolls in.
DeleteUp next? "Paula White House."?? Benny Hinn the road manager, and Jimmy Baker as the money manager. With Mr. BIG as CEO.
Lots of people hired to make sure there are lots of people at the rallies. Dems do the same. It's really better if you don't start your practice of trying to confuse us with different screen names.
ReplyDeleteBig Helper--Your reference to crowds reminds me of Castro's political operation. He would order government employees to turn out masses of people, hundreds of thousands at least. I suppose the minders were with the group they were supervising. Castro would ask, "Do we need more soldiers?" People would cheer as instructed. Forever after that, Castro would refer to the shouted approval as being the same as a voter approved measure: "The people have spoken."
DeleteBig Helper--Then there was Kamala Harris' announcement she was running for President. It was attended by an unprecedented 20,000 cheering fans. She is now polling less than 2% of Democrats.
Deletehelper 0736. You make frequent reference to the distinction between Law and Gospel. you probably have explained it somewhere in the past. If you did, I probably missed the explanation: after all, I sometimes just "skim" the posts on this site. So if you are in the mood could you give me a quick definition of your understanding of these two terms. As to guilt, it seems to me that that is something good for us. Makes us shape up and perhaps amend our ways. Seems to me that it pricks our reason, telling us that we have done or desired something that violates the natural law. BTW, if that which unsettles our conscience (a word meaning that which "brings together knowledge") does not come from God, from whence does it come?
ReplyDeleteUnknown @ 1;09 As briefly as possible, since I have brought this up for years.
Delete"The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel. Essentially a large part of the debate between Erasmus's "On Free Will, and Luther's Bondage Of The Will."
The Law, (sacred) In and around the ten c's. Not to be confused with civil law, even though there is an overlap of some subjects, or OT laws around dietary, temple, etc.
The Law shows us our sin when gone against. And resulting admission--------- Confession
The Gospel, (the Good News) of forgiveness through Christ.---------- -----------------Absolution.
The confusion happens when the two are co-mingled, such as in the case of when recognition of sin is disregarded, and doing good deeds is all that is needed., AKA works righteousness., AKA Pelagianism, or Semi Pelagianism, where "Works assists grace". Hence a conversation I over heard at a book store, where a lady said to another; "I hope my good deeds will MERIT, heaven. (Merit--A KEY WORD) Familiar in some circles.
As per book, previously mentioned, there are many shades and application to the abuse, and reversal of the "distinction" between law and Gospel.
The Gospel is of no use if the Law is absent, and the Law is of no use if the Gospel is absent..
It is a hallmark topic and book. Go buy the book.
Unknown; PS. missed "if that which unsettles our conscience ….." That is the work of the Holy Spirit. Not only the unsettling problem, but the solution, ie. The Gospel.
DeleteDeny the Holy Spirit, no need for the Gospel.
Deny the Holy Spirit, only the result of civil law, if caught.
Thanks Helper. I think that I have gotten it thru my thick head.My question about conscience though was really for Jon and his crew. I know that you would say the conscience is of God. But Jon doesn't believe in God, so where then does he think that the voice of conscience come from? Surely he must acknowledge the fact that he has a conscience, thus the question. Freud's super ego perhaps?
DeleteUnknown--"But Jon doesn't believe in God, so where then does he think the voice of conscience comes from?"
DeleteWell, since there is no God or gods (so far no one has come up with evidence of either) then conscience cannot have come from either. If we were all Hindus would we conclude conscience came from the Christian God?
So where does conscience come from? The only source I know of is the evolution of humans. Since this did not occur to you I assume you do not believe in evolution.
re. "conscience is of God" It depends on how you react to it. Does it produce the necessity to repent, and receive absolution, or make excuses, with unpredictable results. I believe there is a chapter on that in the Screw Tape Letters. I'm sure Wormwood would find a reason to take advantage of "conscience." Remember; conscience is also spelled CON-SCIENCE.
DeleteJon has concluded that I don't believe in evolution. Way off the wall Jon. If evolution is the source of our in-wit (the old English word for conscience) then it didn't do a very good job of it. We seem to have a "nature" that both gives a certain amount of animal compassion/fraternity along with the animal survival instinct (with lots of killing, cut throat competitiveness, dishonesty, hate and the rest). Seems to me that you have to do better than evolution to explain morality, conscience and our dadblamed problems with guilt, regret, shame, etc. BTW, the Hindus seem to have some of same problems with morality, guilt and so forth as we do. Or do you think that evolution gave us a jungle mortality and then threw in a guilt complex for good measure? In a few words, evolution appears to be a thin reed on which to hang a coherent morality. Or do you think that we just have to make do with an incoherent morality. that is a morality with no objective sense of right and wrong, If so, no guilt, nothing to be really guilty about.
DeleteUnknown "Way off the wall Jon." So, you don't believe in evolution. That's amazing. I did not think you were a member of the fundamentalist right wing. There is no other source of the human brain except evolution. Now, if you are talking about values and moral principles that is something else. It comes from human experience. Over time humans have learned certain behaviors have bad results. The Ten Commandments did not come from God or Moses--the civil rules included in them are known to have come from earlier societies.
DeleteApparently you also believe the world is only 6,000 years old. If it works for you have at it.
unknown--I did not post your rambling rant. Just because you believe something to be so does not automatically make it so. You need to acknowledge a.) our brains came from evolution and b.) what we believe came from our experience, culture and ability to reason. If you have verifiable information that does not come from religious propaganda sources that a god gave us our conscience please share it with us. I don't think that is an unreasonable request.
ReplyDeleteGood old Jonny: a real true believer. Just read today, tho' that one of Jonny' s atheist heroes (Dawkins by name) is having some second thoughts about the desirability of a atheist utopia. maybe coming to realize that humans are not as rational and fuzzy warm as he once thought. maybe kumbaya isn't chic anymore.
Delete"Just read today..." Please tell us exactly where you read this. I have never seen a quote from Dawkins saying he advocates or expects an "atheist utopia." Christians claim he advocates this. I found a lawyer who writes Christian propaganda who wrote. "Perhaps Dawkins imagines....he will bring about some sort of atheist utopia."
Deletehttps://www.huffpost.com/entry/richard-dawkins-should-be_b_541387
Oh bother. I don't think that my post was a rant. but calling it a rant was a good way of avoiding the thrust of the argument. that's what old Jon habitually does. It's his gut level reaction to anyone who disagrees with him.
ReplyDeleteUnknown "Oh bother." When someone brings up something pointless like "Hitler" or whatever to illustrate atheists then I have to bring up the Crusades and criminal priests and it goes on bla,
ReplyDeletebla bla... Not going to post.