Why is Christianity declining?

[rturner76]

As somebody who has been a Christian for 15 years and served as a full-time minister for a few of those... those are the sources of doubts that I have among others.

I have also struggled with some of these things. In my Church, things that can't be explained intellectually but are proven in Bible history we call "mysteries." That notion led me to believe that some things we just don't know for sure or can't prove. Then it is our choice to take it on faith or examine the natural world for evidence that we can see with the eyes that God gave us.

The me, and what I have been told by some people is that the Bible has many purposes. It's an instruction manual, it's a history book, a it has artful poetry, prophecy, and many other uses. I believe that the history depicted in the Bible is the history that was passed down through oral tradition until we gained the ability to read and write. From a position based in the natural, we know that in just about every other instance of oral history there is also included legend and even myth. I don't think Bible history is exempt from this.

Many believe that the Bible is basically God himself speaking to us directly but I don't believe that exactly. I believe God inspired a chosen few to inspire their writings to give us the information we need in order to seek him. It says the Bible is God-breathed, but it doesn't say "God written." I see God-breathed as God-inspired. Even if some of the creation is not 100% true compared to what we can prove now, there is still a lesson to be learned especially about what separates us from the animals and the gift of dominion over the Earth and everything in it. Some take that to me we can do whatever we want with whatever we find and there is no need to recycle or take steps to curb our consumption of the Earth's resources. I see it as we are stewards or caretakers of the Earth, not just commanders of the Earth and I think the message of Jesus Christ bears that out.

Sorry, didn't mean to rant but I found your statement very relevant to the question of how do we view the history depicted in the Bible, namely the creation story.

BTW, I do believe there was a global flood and maybe even a few as ic shelfs freeze and thaw and ice ages come and go. I don't think there was just one that killed everyone on Earth besides one family. I think people who lived in mountains and the top of valleys may have survived all over the world but our numbers were critically reduced.

 

[Merrill]

I think we should admit that in some ways we have failed the faith by not being very good examples of what it means to be a Christian. Priests and ministers abusing kids. Church hierarchy sweeping sexual abuse under the carpet; Drunk Episcopal bishop hit and run killing a bicyclist. Mega-church pastors with corporate jets, $1,000 suits, and Rolexes on their wrists. Prosperity gospel. Lack of charity and division among Christians. Christian extremism (left and right). Unwelcoming attitudes. Sometimes we look pretty crazy and we need to stop that.

The extremism comes from the entry of secular politics into the faith

that doesn't mean pastors should never contend with secular and political issues, but the minute those things take precedence over the Gospel, we have a problem

I was sad to see today that Tony Evans had to step down from his church because of some sin --it shakes the faith of many when admired pastors fall-from-grace

"We" need to reform all of this

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sounds like you have some bad experiences, and have generalized or universalized them

It's true I have had a lot of bad experiences at the various churches I've been too, whether SBC, Christian or Evangelical.

However, as a person who doesn't generalize very easily, I don't think that all Christians everywhere in the U.S. are a bunch of schmucks. No, I assume I have to take each Christian on a person by person basis, even though I now have an aversion to two or three denominations.

So no, I don't universalize. I think that right now in the U.S. we're in the middle of the Teeter-Totter game, with churches trending to one of two polar political opposites. That's a sad situation----Goldilocks has yet to find the bed that's "just right," one that's neither too hard nor too soft for the Gospel message.

I did that too many years ago

Pastor Baucham has a nice sermon that touches on some of the stuff we are discussing here. Recommended

I know who Baucham is. I'll take a listen when I have the time.

 

[1Tonne]

Maybe because they cannot see it lived with joy and peace.

Sorry. I don't understand the statement.

There are multiple factors, one of the most prevalent ones that comes to mind is that a message of guilt and forgiveness became deeply ingrained as "the gospel" in a way that became largely irrelevant to people.

Are you saying that when we share the Gospel, we should not show a person their sin? If we show them their sin, then they should feel guilty. If they don't then they have most likely dulled their conscience.

 

[Fervent]

Are you saying that when we share the Gospel, we should not show a person their sin? If we show them their sin, then they should feel guilty. If they don't then they have most likely dulled their conscience.

No, we have to understand how they contextualize such things. There are essentially 2 cultural paradigms, one that focuses on guilt and another that focuses on honor/shame. Western nations have largely transitioned from a guilt-based society to a shame based society, so for people to realize their sin the metaphors we use need to connect with how they understand these things. It's largely an issue of the penal substitutionary model of atonement not only taking center stage, but being nearly exclusively presented as the gospel in popular culture.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sounds like you have some bad experiences, and have generalized or universalized them

I did that too many years ago

Pastor Baucham has a nice sermon that touches on some of the stuff we are discussing here. Recommended

Unfortunately, I think that Baucham's sermon here represents some of the problem .............................................................................................

This is exactly the sort of sermon I've heard more than once in churches I've attended (i.e. SBC, & Christian Church/Instrumental, Bible Church, and I've listened a lot over the years to various messages on the Bot Radio Network). These sorts of sermons rarely get to the heart of the problem because they deal so little with what people are actually going through and they place those difficulties into niche little conceptually platonic compartments, usually coming back at the audience as a hit below the belt by connecting all of one's own suffering with one's own sin, showing that those Christian preachers don't really know what's going on because their hyper-focus on the Bible "ALONE" gets in the way of any deeper, finer, more clinical levels of insight.

The world we are in, presently, isn't merely in a solidified trap of The Double-Mind due to brokenness from sin. No, it's now residing also in the trap of the "Epistemological Double-Bind," and many Christian Apologists, Pastors and lay leaders have no idea what this is and, because they face-palm all human problems with the Bible, can't deal with it as it is.

Moreover, all the churches I've been to also have failed to deal with the fact that many people are broken simply because life is either financially difficult and riddled with health problems OR they've been victimized mentally or physically by other people. This fact shows up in the further results of their ministries, when those very leaders within the capacity of their respective ministries split and break up their entire church, causing it to go in two separate directions, because the leadership had some apparent irreversible squabbles about 'correct doctrine' in their midst (and I'm not even referring to the splits regarding doctrines about sexual sin), disregarding each other's humanity for the sake of claims that ".........OH, OH, OH, by the Spirit, I'm standing for Truth!!!!!!!" Then they divorce their wives because those very same leaders weren't capable themselves of living what they were preaching.

 

[Merrill]

Unfortunately, I think that Baucham's sermon here represents some of the problem .............................................................................................

This is exactly the sort of sermon I've heard more than once in churches I've attended (i.e. SBC, & Christian Church/Instrumental, Bible Church, and I've listened a lot over the years to various messages on the Bot Radio Network). These sorts of sermons rarely get to the heart of the problem because they deal so little with what people are actually going through and they place those difficulties into niche little conceptually platonic compartments, usually coming back at the audience as a hit below the belt by connecting all of one's own suffering with one's own sin, showing that those Christian preachers don't really know what's going on because their hyper-focus on the Bible "ALONE" gets in the way of any deeper, finer, more clinical levels of insight.

The world we are in, presently, isn't merely in a solidified trap of The Double-Mind due to brokenness from sin. No, it's now residing also in the trap of the "Epistemological Double-Bind," and many Christian Apologists, Pastors and lay leaders have no idea what this is and, because they face-palm all human problems with the Bible, can't deal with it as it is.

Moreover, all the churches I've been to also have failed to deal with the fact that many people are broken simply because life is either financially difficult and riddled with health problems OR they've been victimized mentally or physically by other people. This fact shows up in the further results of their ministries, when those very leaders within the capacity of their respective ministries split and break up their entire church, causing it to go in two separate directions, because the leadership had some apparent irreversible squabbles about 'correct doctrine' in their midst (and I'm not even referring to the splits regarding doctrines about sexual sin), disregarding each other's humanity for the sake of claims that ".........OH, OH, OH, by the Spirit, I'm standing for Truth!!!!!!!" Then they divorce their wives because those very same leaders weren't capable themselves of living what they were preaching.

In Christian theology, suffering is the consequence of sin

Now you can disagree with that, which is fine, but it is a standard Christian concept

But what do you mean by pastors gaining "deeper, finer, more clinical levels of insight"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In Christian theology, suffering is the consequence of sin

Now you can disagree with that, which is fine, but it is a standard Christian concept

Always? I think not.

But what do you mean by pastors gaining "deeper, finer, more clinical levels of insight"?

Just look at my list of references on my CF personal page. ALL of those sources are exactly what I don't see talked about, preached about or otherwise referred to in today's evangelical churches. That list, along with several hundred more where that came from, are those by which I defy the 'usual bread and butter' of today's American evangelicals. And what's more, I don't even have to sign on any Marxist sorts of lines in order to push philosophical analysis and truth ............ further ahead. No, Reality does that for me, and Communists can fall just the same.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

"Christianity" has degraded to a political prop.

And we have to ask "Why is Christianity declining?"

 

[Merrill]

Always? I think not.


Just look at my list of references on my CF personal page. ALL of those sources are exactly what I don't see talked about, preached about or otherwise referred to in today's evangelical churches. That list, along with several hundred more where that came from, are those by which I defy the 'usual bread and butter' of today's American evangelicals. And what's more, I don't even have to sign on any Marxist sorts of lines in order to push philosophical analysis and truth ............ further ahead. No, Reality does that for me, and Communists can fall just the same.

Which major denominations deny original sin and the "fallen world" concept?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which major denominations deny original sin and the "fallen world" concept?

Shouldn't the question be, instead, why do so many Christians end up putting stock into an interpretation and application of a bit of scripture that the history and origination of that specific theological term don't clearly bear out? I think it is the more pertinent question.

For my part, I don't subscribe to "Original Sin"; no, I only apply myself to what we might call 'basic human sin.' But if you think you need to rely upon the notion of Original Sin, notice here that I don't mind much if you do, just as long as you don't start placing the sorts of false guilt trips on my wife (or son) that are all too often expressed these days in evangelical and charismatic churches. [And what was my wife's "sin" that pastors and others at those churches thought she was committing? It was the lack of a desire to recognize their 'visions for church programming' as valid and simply jump in to help. Yeah.......................terrible sin, that, especially since she didn't grow up in the U.S. and never carried with her the American evangelical social sense that is so common in today's evangelization, church organization and other programs]

Moreover, even the Jewish rabbis and their ancient forerunners don't seem to recognize a substantive, prior view on "Original Sin." No, for the most part, we owe that fuller conceptualization not to Paul the Apostle, but to St. Augustine, and in line with some of the things that Peter Enns has recently taught [and for which he was fired for at a prior university in which he worked], I think it's time for the Church to realize the limits of this 'tradition' in biblical interpretation.

It'd especially be great if we all could become more educated, and thereby more empathetic of others, so I don't have to hear any more accounts about how in some churches Christians will come up to other Christians permanently bound to wheel-chairs, inappropriately asking them, "When are you going to assert your faith and get up out of that wheelchair in the Name of Jesus??!................................."

 

[Merrill]

Shouldn't the question be, instead, why do so many Christians ended up putting stock into an interpretation and application of a bit of scripture that the history and origination of that specific theological term don't clearly bear out? I think it is the more pertinent question.

For my part, I don't subscribe to "Original Sin"; no, I only apply myself to what we might call 'basic human sin.' But if you think you need to rely upon the notion of Original Sin, notice here that I don't mind much if you do, just as long as you don't start placing the sorts of false guilt trips on my wife (or son) that are all too often expressed these days in evangelical and charismatic churches. [And what was my wife's "sin" that pastors and others at those churches thought she was committing? It was the lack of a desire to recognize their 'visions for church programming' as valid and simply jump in to help. Yeah.......................terrible sin, that, especially since she didn't grow up in the U.S. and never carried with her the American evangelical social sense that is so common in today's evangelization, church organization and other programs]

Moreover, even the Jewish rabbis and their ancient forerunners don't seem to recognize a substantive, prior view on "Original Sin." No, for the most part, we owe that fuller conceptualization not to Paul the Apostle, but to St. Augustine, and in line with some of the things that Peter Enns has recently taught [and for which he was fired for at a prior university in which he worked], I think it's time for the Church to realize the limits of this 'tradition' in biblical interpretation.

It'd especially be great if we all could become more educated, and thereby more empathetic of others, so I don't have to hear any more accounts about how in some churches Christians will come up to other Christians permanently bound to wheel-chairs, inappropriately asking them, "When are you going to assert your faith and get up out of that wheelchair in the Name of Jesus??!................................."

So then Palagianism?

 

[Fervent]

In Christian theology, suffering is the consequence of sin

Depends on what is meant by that, because it's clear from Biblical data like the book of Job that this isn't always the case. There is no direct link between a person's sins and their suffering, though the general principle that suffering exists because sin exists is true.

Now you can disagree with that, which is fine, but it is a standard Christian concept

Depends on how the statement is understood.

But what do you mean by pastors gaining "deeper, finer, more clinical levels of insight"?

Not to speak for @2PhiloVoid, but here's how I understand that statement. One of the chief difficulties of a pastor is accurately identifying human needs. Standing on personal interpretations of the Bible tends to lead to making the real human needs of the congregation an abstraction, and leads to a disconnect between theology and praxis. So if pastors want to truly be effective in their role, they need to take the time to study the dynamics of human behavior and apply it to their teachings. It doesn't mean discarding Biblical truth, but supplementing the understanding we gain from it with insights gleaned from secular study. Allowing empiricism to color our understanding of what the Bible is saying, as much as we allow the Biblical data to color our understanding of empiricism.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I doubt most folks are staying away from church because of difference over theological issues such as creationism, original sin, etc. I think those subjects are more interesting to folks that are in church, not the unchurched. Fact of the matter is that membership organizations of all types don't have the level of participation they once did, whether that is the church, your Rotary Club, or your Moose Lodge. People are less likely to relate to each other that way through our old institutions than they once were. In my youth the church was the hub of community, a place where people came together to be with others and interact. There were few other competing opportunities, so the pews and the potluck dinners were full. Now we are more likely to interact with each other virtually, whether on Facebook, Tik Tok, Instagram, or Christian Forums for that matter. We once sat around the kitchen table and played board games with each other. Now we sit in our basements playing over the computer with others sitting in their basements. How many of us spend more time interacting with persons on this forum on a weekly basis than we do engaged with members of our congregations? If you add up the minutes, I know I do. Many churches experienced a drop-off in attendance after COVID shutdowns. Some folks just didn't come back. Watching services online in your pajamas was just too easy...or then not watching at all. If we want to see folks come back to church - or come for the first time - we have to offer them something attractive enough to have them get out of bed, get dressed, and come join us. Church has to be relevant to them. We have to end our hypocrisy, our politicization, our Christian in-fighting, our unwelcoming attitudes, our judgmentalism, etc. We need to give them reasons to be there and stop giving them reasons not to be there. If we get them in the pews, can we not trust God to do the rest?

 

[Fervent]

I doubt most folks are staying away from church because of difference over theological issues such as creationism, original sin, etc. I think those subjects are more interesting to folks that are in church, not the unchurched. Fact of the matter is that membership organizations of all types don't have the level of participation they once did, whether that is the church, your Rotary Club, or your Moose Lodge. People are less likely to relate to each other that way through our old institutions than they once were. In my youth the church was the hub of community, a place where people came together to be with others and interact. There were few other competing opportunities, so the pews and the potluck dinners were full. Now we are more likely to interact with each other virtually, whether on Facebook, Tik Tok, Instagram, or Christian Forums for that matter. We once sat around the kitchen table and played board games with each other. Now we sit in our basements playing over the computer with others sitting in their basements. How many of us spend more time interacting with persons on this forum on a weekly basis than we do engaged with members of our congregations? If you add up the minutes, I know I do. Many churches experienced a drop-off in attendance after COVID shutdowns. Some folks just didn't come back. Watching services online in your pajamas was just too easy...or then not watching at all. If we want to see folks come back to church - or come for the first time - we have to offer them something attractive enough to have them get out of bed, get dressed, and come join us. Church has to be relevant to them. We have to end our hypocrisy, our politicization, our Christian in-fighting, our unwelcoming attitudes, our judgmentalism, etc. We need to give them reasons to be there and stop giving them reasons not to be there. If we get them in the pews, can we not trust God to do the rest?

I agree with everything you've stated, though I must ask...should our goal be to get people back into churches? Or should we re-shape how we practice our faith to fit better with modern digital socialization methods? I'm not suggesting we stop gathering together, but it seems like a loose federation of house churches would be a more workable model for our modern situation than large congregational gatherings.

On the other hand, the things you listed present real challenges for people to believe in the Biblical narrative in the first place, because there are a lot of unbelievable happenings in the Bible to a modern scientific mind. Talking animals, outrageous lifespans, global floods, inheritable guilt, and on and on. The debates may hold more interest for those inside the church, but such things present real challenges to the credibility of the Bible for those outside the church.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So then Palagianism?

Hardly. Don't jump to conclusions. This isn't a game of 'either/or'.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I must ask...should our goal be to get people back into churches? Or should we re-shape how we practice our faith to fit better with modern digital socialization methods?

I think both! In fact, many churches kept and continue to enhance the digital methods they initiated by necessity during COVID shutdowns. The church I attend tracks and reports its virtual utilization just as it does its in-person utilization.

there are a lot of unbelievable happenings in the Bible to a modern scientific mind. Talking animals, outrageous lifespans, global floods, inheritable guilt, and on and on. The debates may hold more interest for those inside the church, but such things present real challenges to the credibility of the Bible for those outside the church.

Sure, but those aren't core, essential beliefs of the faith. Many faithful Christians also don't accept the literalness of some of the things in the Bible (e.g. Methuselah, unicorns?) and both question and debate them. I don't think those are the things that matter most in folks not being more open to full participation in Christianity. I think it us. I think we have to start living more like faithful disciples. And, we have to stop doing things reasonable persons find distasteful.

 

[seeking.IAM]

it seems like a loose federation of house churches would be a more workable model for our modern situation

I think different people want different things. For everyone that would like the intimacy of a small house church, there is someone who would like to get lost within a larger congregation. When I was a part of welcoming ministry in a former church, our aim was to find out what newcomers wanted and try to provide it. We avoided a one-size-fits-all-this-is-how-you-do-church mentality. It was pretty successful at retaining inquirers and incorporating them into the body.

 

[Fervent]

I think both! In fact, many churches kept and continue to enhance the digital methods they initiated by necessity during COVID shutdowns. The church I attend tracks and reports its virtual utilization just as it does its in-person utilization.

I suppose it's true it's not a strict either/or situation. Though my main point is that part of the equation is our willingness to adapt what we mean by church to fit with modern social dynamics. Our current social context seems to fit far better with a structuring like the pre-Constantinian church than how it has operated during the time of "Christendom."

Sure, but those aren't core, essential beliefs of the faith. Many faithful Christians also don't accept the literalness of some of the things in the Bible (e.g. Methuselah, unicorns?) and both question and debate them. I don't think those are the things that matter most in folks not being more open to full participation in Christianity. I think it us. I think we have to start living more like faithful disciples. And, we have to stop doing things reasonable persons find distasteful.

I'm not sure we can say that so easily, even though I agree with you. Popular image certainly seems to be that being a Christian means interpreting the Bible in a direct literal way. Especially where protestantism dominates, since belief in the Bible serves as the justifying precondition for belief in Christ for many. I certainly agree that a lot of it comes down to living like faithful disciples, but if the Bible doesn't seem credible to people who don't already believe in Jesus than they'll never even bother considering believing in Him for salvation. So having debates and making it clear that such things are debateable within the faith rather than essential to it is an important part of helping the unchurched be open to belief.

 

[Fervent]

I think different people want different things. For everyone that would like the intimacy of a small house church, there is someone who would like to get lost within a larger congregation. When I was a part of welcoming ministry in a former church, our aim was to find out what newcomers wanted and try to provide it. We avoided a one-size-fits-all-this-is-how-you-do-church mentality. It was pretty successful at retaining inquirers and incorporating them into the body.

That's fair enough, though I'm not sure someone just getting lost in a crowd is necessarily participating within the body in any meaningful way. Not saying we should have dictates on how services should be conducted but if someone isn't participating they're not really a part of the church. So I'm not sure making it possible for people to get lost in the crowd is necessarily of much benefit, unless our only intent is to get the numbers up rather than to engage as the people of God.

And when I say a loose federation of house churches, I mean more of a "do church where you are" kind of thing rather than a seeking out of a structured service.