African version of Christianity Might be Coming Here
Everyone who follows numbers knows Christianity in Africa is growing while it is declining in the West. Many pundits conclude that while the center of Christianity has been Europe and the U.S., it will be Africa in the future. This would mean it had the votes to impose its version of the faith at gatherings such as conferences. It has already done this in the Methodist denomination. I've been trying to understand what kind or brand of Christianity is most popular in Africa and what Africa might impose in the West if and when it has the power to do so.
Some things jump out about African Christianity. The growth of Christianity there is not attributed to conversions by white Western missionaries. Instead it is from indigenous denominations and a high birth rate. One development celebrated in Africa is the breaking away many decades ago of churches from the missionaries' denominations to form indigenous African denominations.
The cross is not as popular a symbol in Africa as in Europe and the U.S. It is disliked as a display item by some branches.
Abortion is not as popular an issue in Africa as in the U.S. Spiritual healing is popular. Along with Pentecostalism is popularity of the prosperity gospel. Also popular is an African version of Liberation Theology.
I spent a long time reading a thesis written in an African university. It went into detail about the difference between Western Christianity and that of Africa. Of course, any generalizations about the vast continent of Africa face the same problem of Christianity in the vast West. Nevertheless, it contains at least a peek into the mind of many African Christians.
A lot of the thesis dealt with this question. In African Christian theology, does sin cause evil or do evil forces cause sin? Sin in the African context is not just separation from God or "the original sin." When one disrupts the harmony of his/her group this too is sin.
The sources of evil in African Christianity, the thesis explains, are more complicated than in Western Christianity. The current Pope believes there is a literal "Satan." In Africa the sources of evil are often local. They include literal evil spirits and/or witches located near you. In court cases crimes are sometime attributed to these forces taking a accused off the hook. The great war in the faith then may with a local witch or local evil spirit instead of against a global Satan.
A few years ago an African version of "How to interpret the Bible" was published and is immensely popular. I did not read it but I learned it was written because western versions were "wrong."
If Africa becomes the center of the Christian faith ideas from there may well flow from there to the West instead of from it. Preacher and priests here will need to brush up on witches and evil spirits.
Versions of Christianity. There are so many “takes” on the faith. Commercial products like motor vehicles with their make, model, body style, and trim level seem comparable. In the case of Christianity, the number of brands, creeds, dogmas, and doctrines dilutes the authenticity of any of the variants and the enterprise itself. Add to the Abrahamic religions Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Vodou, and Eckankar, perhaps monotheism suffers the same predicament. If so, a return to the defaults of polytheism or atheism are standing by.
ReplyDeleteI always considered the concept of the Holy Trinity to be a somewhat absurd attempt to rationalize a monotheistic concept into something that is clearly not monotheistic.
DeleteIn other words, I have never considered Christianity to be a monotheistic religion.
Bryan K; re. "I have never considered Christianity a monotheistic religion". Perhaps you should reconsider.
DeleteIf you dig up a Catechism (any kind)and elsewhere, and look up each of the Biblical attributes of "1. The father, 2. the Son, and 3. the Holy Spirit/ Ghost", you will find many many verses related specifically to God. Each specifically, to each and every one of the three. There you will also find the familiar "is-is not".
The name, (singular) as in "Baptize in (the name ) of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, should help you.
The term "Trinity" is a difficult non-biblical word to understand because it is an incomplete metaphor, (a shortcut word ). It would be more complete to say "The tri-unity of the Godhead" (SINGULAR), as in the institution of Baptism, see above.
Thusly, tri-theistic, poly-theistic does not apply. Nor does, "three Gods in one".
There are large, clinically accurate words that clearly describe the triunity and relation between the three, but I shall not include them. You may run into them as you consider them in your thorough research.
PS. Re. last paragraph of my 8;07. I failed to mention "modalism", with the does not apply, and is also an error.
DeleteLittle Helper: The issue with the concept you propose is that it is merely natural that someone who has issues accepting the existence of the supernatural will not be able to accept that as an explanation.
DeleteAnd the reason why I personally have trouble accepting that is simply because it's the exact story that I would make up if I was faced with that kind of ambiguity.
But the reality of it, from the outside looking in, is that a significant number of atheists question whether or not Christ even actually existed (the lack of primary historical documentation is a huge elephant in this room), and if he did exist, we have no doubt that he was an ordinary person about whom extraordinary tales were told. To the atheist, on the outside looking in, we see a bunch of Christians who worship a deity, a human as a deity, and the spirit of that human as a deity. I can't speak for all atheists, but I would consider the human and the human spirit to be a singular entity, so I consider Christianity to be a religion with two deities.
And as someone who was raised Catholic, the human was obviously the deity to whom we gave preferential worship.
Brian; Re. "the exact story I would make up" I rather doubt it "exactly". Since you already know the proto plan, that would be hard to prove.
Deletere. 3rd paragraph ; The excuses atheists use for non-belief are many, and varied. That there are so many variations and applications, give cause to consider any or all of them a significant doubt to their value. (It's the same argument you atheists accuse Christianity of.) Then there is the matter of the "hardened heart". A topic the editor poo-poses. It actually is at the core, (oops, I almost said "heart") of the matter. The forest for the trees? Possibly, Not allowing ones self to go beyond self? , essentially making ones-self a demi god. I can see all possibilities for mischief and aggression there. A strong source of a heart problem.
That being raised a Catholic is a valid excuse for your distorted interpretation / understanding. Much of your learning experience has been shallow at best, and "left up to the confessor priest to know FOR you without question." Just throw it all into a shoe box, and throw it out without trying on the shoe. I can't count all the Catholics I have known that don't know what, how or why they believe what they do believe, apart from what the priest tells them. They claim that's changing, but I see no evidence it is.
re. "the human was obviously the deity to home we gave preferential worship"'
That is understandable.
I have seen very few even know of, or explain the TWO natures of Christ. You can't have the human without the divine in equal balance. The Gospel is of no value without it.
The new catechism is convoluted with questionable dogmatic statements. over 800 pages, compared to more than an adequate 200 pages. Again making it almost a necessity to have a priest/coach just to go through the basics, not to mention more complicated dogma.
I feel your pain.
Little Helper---"The excuses atheists use for non-belief are many and varied." There is basically only one reason for non-belief: There is not evidence of a god, miracles, trinities, spirits, after lives or walking on water. That is not an excuse. It's a fact.
DeleteWe know the Christian reply. God wrote the Bible. Therefore it has to be true. Good luck with that.
Jon; I did not say "God wrote the Bible", Nor did I say " it has to be true" due to that.
DeleteYour stock assumption / claim fails.
However, as I said, the excuses atheists use for non-belief are many and varied. A fact !
And what experiences formed those excuses are also many and varied. A fact!
I thought you were here to have a respectful conversation. I'm not interested in being belittled. That belittlement is precisely where the militant atheist point of view comes from.
DeleteI have no excuse for being an atheist. Your usage of that term implies that there is some kind of fault, something I should be sorry for, and I can assure you that is not the case. You used that word more than once, and you even added a qualifier denouncing my "distorted information". These gaslighting tactics are not new to me. That's the church I grew up in, so I understand where you're coming from completely. I do not wish to go there.
So I won't.
I also prefer to not rely on secondary sources (i.e. the opinions of priests) to get my information. If I want to know what it says in The Bible, I'll go read it myself.
And I have.
Brian; I have been respectful. That I have revealed some conditions that encourage or create the swing to atheism and you are offended, that is on you. Your sensitivity is more gas than gaslight. If you feel belittled, that is also on you.
Deletere. secondary sources, that is an all to common situation. Maybe not for you, but others.
re. distorted information, or should I say convenient incomplete information is not my stock in trade. In the long past on Jon's blog, I have consistently provided day-date-time book-chapter and verse to reveal distortions, and there are many, both among Christians and atheists. I have seen it on this blog, both in topic, and responses. I do however see it quite often among atheists. I would prefer not to call it ignorance, but not knowing without examination is coming close. I have also seen it in the Catholic church, where many members believe that the immaculate conception is Mary's conception of Jesus. You want proof? Just for a small example, randomly ask Catholics what it is to them. More like immaculate conjecture.
I agree that belittlement is precisely what tool the militant atheists use.
If you are offended by my 8:07, that too is on you. It is an objective explanation.
Peace.
It really is a shame that this platform doesn't allow for blocking people. who have nothing positive to contribute.
DeleteBryan; I fully know this will not be printed due to jon's editorial mandate, but it at least needs to be said.
DeleteI understand on this site, (platform), agreement with you or Jon is a positive contribution, and disagreement with evidence is not. I do question the objectivity and integrity of this situation. You desire "blocking people" , and are not open to honest discussion. I question what you are afraid of.
Just to clarify, posters can be blocked on this site. At least the poster's computer number can be identified and blocked. I have not done that on this platform except for an occasional troll or advertiser. I have blocked several individual posts. I do this when I don't think the post merits the time of readers. Is it done with "objectivity and integrity?" Not from the point of view of the posters whose posts I tank. Posters let me know how unfair and biased I am. I'm just trying to run the site so readers enjoy stopping in.
DeleteJon: Just to be clear, (I know you probably weren't responding to me), I wasn't suggesting that you block someone from posting. I have found that on Social Media, going all the way back to the Usenet days of the 20th century, that some people are on the internet to disrupt and belittle rather than to actually have a discussion. I'm not immune to getting upset or angry over what others say on the internet, and so I have found that the folks whose method of discussion involves trying to invoke these feelings are not worth my time. I prefer to not see their posts at all. My post was more in line with a desire to have my own "kill filter" rather than having you make any type of moderator decisions.
DeleteArdy B "There are so many 'takes' on the faith."
ReplyDeleteMaybe car, cell phone, TV and computer are metaphors for religions. The former keep getting smaller, more complex, portable and individualized. Religion is trending in the same direction.
Helper "Not allowing oneself to go beyond one's self....A strong source of a heart problem."
ReplyDeleteI could not describe the Christian better. The hardened Christian heart is focused on self.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletetsm re: why would the world not burp up a god or two?
DeleteIt's a lot easier to make gods up in human minds that for them to exist in reality. So far as we know all of them have been made up. Could there be some gods that were not made up? I only know we have never seen one nor seen any evidence of one. What reason would anyone have for thinking they might exist?
Jon @ 1:24; re. "Christian heart is focused on self". To the contrary. Focused outwardly to Christ. Example; "Not my will but thine".
ReplyDeleteNice twist you have there, but it does not work, unless of course you are a prosperity or political wonk.
helper -- "To the contrary. Focused outwardly to Christ."
ReplyDeleteAnd, the Christ character in the Bible promised you would be rewarded. If the Christ character offered you no reward would still be a big fan or forgetaboutit? I asked this question of you and anyone else on the board years ago and I don't recall you ever gave an answer. Perhaps the reward is so built into the deal it's impossible to consider it in the abstract.
"Nice twist" you say. It's not a twist. Reward is clearly offered in the Bible. Or, are you saying there really is no heaven for the faithful after all. If it's the latter we're on the same page.
Jon; re." same page". never.
DeleteThe term "reward" does not apply. That represents a "reward" for doing something to get. That's based on good works as the cause, not the result. Works rightousness.
I There is your answer..concretos and abstractos
. I don't remember you asking me the question. If you actually did, I would have given the same answer then as now.
That might be hard for an economist to comprehend.
Helper : "The term reward does not apply." Are you serious or just making things up on the fly for fun? Colossians 3:23-24 "Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. "
ReplyDeleteSource: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Reward,-For-God~s-People
The is no more room here for your fun and games.