43% of millennials ‘don’t know, don’t care, don’t believe’ God exists: study

[AACJ]

but it was his decisive influence and favouritism of the Church and CHristianity as opposed to other cults that helped the Church cement it's position and finally usurp Pagan authority.

Decisive? History has examples of God moving upon apparently Godless men to help his Church (e.g., the book of Ester and the Daniel and the Babylonian King). Was the story of Ester just natural phenomena? There are serious implications for believing so. If we assume or believe that such positive action by godless leaders can be explained only naturally, then why even assume that God would ever supernaturaly move upon a leader to help the Church?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Decisive? History has examples of God moving upon apparently Godless men to help his Church (e.g., the book of Ester and the Daniel and the Babylonian King). Was the story of Ester just natural phenomena? There are serious implications for believing so. If we assume or believe that such positive action by godless leaders can be explained only naturally, then why even assume that God would ever supernatural move upon a leader to help the Church?

I am not a naturalist or materialist. It does seem to me however that our actions do bring forth consequences, whether positive or negative. In terms of Christian history there are things which lead to Christian dominance and the expansion of the Church and things which inhibited that expansion.

Constantine's role was decisive, because he took with him the entire empire and put it on the trajectory towards Christianity. It was culminated in Theodosius. I'm also quite willing to accept that there was supernatural intervention with regards to Constantine, especially if we accept the traditional story about his battle on the Milvian bridge and him being told to conquer in the sign of Christ.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It seems that you are presupposing a natural interpretation for the the positive change in the Roman empire, which presupposes that positive moral change can come forth naturally. That is contrary to what Scripture teaches. How can positive moral/spiritual transformation in a society occur apart from supernatural/ divine intervention, especially in light of the fact that demonic forces must be actively and effectively countered for such change to take place. Satan actively resists those conditions conducive to the spread of the Gospel. Also, it is a basic biblical principle that God has chose to largely work through the Church to effect positive change in society; positive change in Roman society occurred; therefore, such positive change occurred primarily through God working through the work of the Church of God.

I have no objection to the idea that God was working through people in the conversion of the empire. I just think we can see how that worked out in the world and how it came about. It's interesting to look at the spread of the Gospel after the resurrection of Christ and notice how it was at the perfect time to make an impact as Christianity later did. The Apostle Paul was perfectly practical, making use of Roman systems of travel, citizenship and the like to actively undermine Roman society and bring it in the direction of Christ.

I don't believe Christians can afford to be idle in any age, expect God to do a miracle which is undefined, but must continue the God given mission they were entrusted with. This means they need to practice and live life while not compromising, as much as possible, with the world around them. The early Christians did this and the highest expression of devotion was martyrdom, which we honour them for.

I'm not sure what you mean by positive moral change coming about naturally. I believe God was at work in bringing the Roman empire to Christianity.

 

[Pioneer3mm]

Constantine opened the door..
- For the concept/idea of the 'State Church'..
Theodosius I made Christianity ..the State Religion of
the Roman Empire.
----
Interesting to note:
Many early settlers in North America came..
- From England & Continent.
- To escape persecution..from 'State & Church Establishment.'

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Does it make you wonder? Because I'm sure many of these folks would be more than happy to tell you why they don't care and why they find your religion entirely unappealing. Heck, I have a laundry list of reasons and I still attend church every week.

First, attending Church services every week does not necessarily mean that a person has been born again.Jesus had to correct Nicodemus, a Pharisee, on that score. Nicodemus as a Pharisee was well versed in religion and he went through the motions of religious practice much as people do today. Yet he did not understand being born again.
John 3:3 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

There are lots of people who practice religion. It is not religion that saves.. It is Jesus Christ. Once a person opens the door to his/her heart and invite Him in, He will enter. Look at this.
Rev.3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Now who would not want this? Who can say this is irrevelant? The Word of God is truth! Everyone needs to know it.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes, the stark contrast between the old and new system and content of education is great and terrible. There is no such thing as a worldview-netural system of education.

One pastor has said, "If you send your children to Caesar's schools, don't be surprised if they turn out to be Romans."

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. -- John 15

Why do you expect schools rooted in the world, funded by the world, serving the purposes of the world, to be pro-Christ?

 

[RDKirk]

Makes you wonder what we believers are failing to do or doing to cause these depressing statistics. But then again, politics and ideologies have become the new religion.

43% of millennials 'don’t know, don’t care, don’t believe' God exists: study

Only 43%? You mean that 57% do know or care or believe that God exists? Amazing!

Considering that Jesus said, "The way is narrow and few find it," it's truly amazing that the majority of people in any national poll would know or care or believe that God exists.

Why are Christians in America surprised or even dismayed that Jesus tells the truth? Jesus said:

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

Did you think that we could prove Jesus wrong?

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm not surprised. We live in a culture where religion is put on the margins and not allowed to interfere with public life in an ostentatious manner. Our stories are thoroughly secular, education is devoid of the sort of classical notions of anything hinting to the divine and what's more we live in a society of endless and unending consumption; in food, media, inappropriate contentography and any other material good.

These are not the ingredients for a devout society, which requires rules and safeguards that the decadent can and will never abide by.

This is a convenient excuse for Christians who don't want to engage in the sort of hard self-reflection and listening required to understand why so many people find them so off-putting.

If anything, contrary to your assertion, modern cosmopolitan society is returning towards a lot of the attitudes long associated with religious devotion:

The push for things that are "green," or "organic," or "local," or "sustainable" is the opposite of "decadent." Rather, it's a form of asceticism that sacrifices immediate pleasure and convenience for some perceived higher cause.

Contemporary "political correctness" or "wokeness" is little more than a rebranding of religious piety that focuses on certain forms of fairness, justice and personal dignity.

If we were still in the 1980's, then I might have agreed with your point. But these days, secular society is (often literally) screaming for a heightened sense of public morality that is, in some ways, far less decadent than previous decades. That the church can't see this parallel and capitalize on it shows just how out of touch they are.

So it's the Church's fault that at the time of Constantine they constituted a minority? Nevermind overwhelming governmental factors of societal influences of classical Greece, Roman Paganism and the like?

The idea that we can blame a failure of evangelization on the Christian at all times, because they were not devout enough, belies to me a temptation to view oneself as God. Sometimes people reject the Gospel, sometimes Christians find themselves in situations in which effective ministering is impossible or unlikely.

Would you say Charlemagne had no impact on Christianity in Germany? Or were the Copts somehow less devout and that's the only reason why they didn't convert the Muslims who conquered them? Was it the Russian Orthodox Church's fault that it suffered persecution under the Communists?

Your solution is too simple and ignores far too many factors in Western society. It places too much burden on Christians. We have always been sinners, but it didn't prevent those before us from effectively ministering.

Maybe Christians in those previous centuries had a better handle on how to relate to the cultures in which they lived. I can't say how things were in the past, but I can look at America now and see the result of a century-or-so of fundamentalism-inspired anti-intellectualism and cultural self-segregation. In a culture that's growing increasingly educated and scientifically-minded, that's a good way to position yourself as irrelevant.

First, attending Church services every week does not necessarily mean that a person has been born again.Jesus had to correct Nicodemus, a Pharisee, on that score. Nicodemus as a Pharisee was well versed in religion and he went through the motions of religious practice much as people do today. Yet he did not understand being born again.
John 3:3 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

There are lots of people who practice religion. It is not religion that saves.. It is Jesus Christ. Once a person opens the door to his/her heart and invite Him in, He will enter. Look at this.
Rev.3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Now who would not want this? Who can say this is irrevelant? The Word of God is truth! Everyone needs to know it.

Huh? The question was not about what it takes to be born again. The question was what are believers doing wrong that causes a steady decline in religious affiliation over the generations. I replied that I can come up with a laundry list of things (i.e. things that I find off-putting and even repulsive) - and I'm not an outsider who's been turned off to Christianity. I'm an insider who sees a bunch of stuff that's repulsive and who can understand why so many people are turned off by modern American Christianity.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Huh? The question was not about what it takes to be born again. The question was what are believers doing wrong that causes a steady decline in religious affiliation over the generations. I replied that I can come up with a laundry list of things (i.e. things that I find off-putting and even repulsive) - and I'm not an outsider who's been turned off to Christianity. I'm an insider who sees a bunch of stuff that's repulsive and who can understand why so many people are turned off by modern American Christianity.

Oh! My bad ! I misunderstood your message.I wondered about it since sometimes we think alike. Let me try again. I agree that there are things that happen in Christianity that repulses. But remember the parable of the wheat and the tares. It refers to what I said in my earlier post about people who go through the motions of religion but they do no not know God. Here it is for anyone reading who might not know this parable.
Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Thank you for correcting me.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

This is a convenient excuse for Christians who don't want to engage in the sort of hard self-reflection and listening required to understand why so many people find them so off-putting.

If anything, contrary to your assertion, modern cosmopolitan society is returning towards a lot of the attitudes long associated with religious devotion:

The push for things that are "green," or "organic," or "local," or "sustainable" is the opposite of "decadent." Rather, it's a form of asceticism that sacrifices immediate pleasure and convenience for some perceived higher cause.

Contemporary "political correctness" or "wokeness" is little more than a rebranding of religious piety that focuses on certain forms of fairness, justice and personal dignity.

If we were still in the 1980's, then I might have agreed with your point. But these days, secular society is (often literally) screaming for a heightened sense of public morality that is, in some ways, far less decadent than previous decades. That the church can't see this parallel and capitalize on it shows just how out of touch they are.

I think you're partly right. There is a religious influence but it isn't towards anything Christian. The religious influence is towards a sort of global homogeneity, a global liberal view of the world which cannot value Christian distinctives or reasons why we might do the things we do. I wouldn't even say it's a unique phenomenon to our own times. G.K Chesterton called it a laughable pretense that England was a Christian society and was in the end of the 19th century.

The sort of person you're describing, who eats bugs, lives in their pod, rejects the social standards of Christianity, really has no reason to become Christian. Why should they?

I am curious though, what should the Church do that it hasn't always been doing? Obviously we should all try to live like saints but inevitably most of us will fail. Yet the Church didn't restrict itself like modern Christendom has by refusing power when it saw the opportunity. When the Church had the opportunity, be they clerical or lay, they used their power for the good of the Gospel. This is a non-option to the liberal, conservative or leftist. Which I think is partly why Christianity has fallen away in the west.

Maybe Christians in those previous centuries had a better handle on how to relate to the cultures in which they lived. I can't say how things were in the past, but I can look at America now and see the result of a century-or-so of fundamentalism-inspired anti-intellectualism and cultural self-segregation. In a culture that's growing increasingly educated and scientifically-minded, that's a good way to position yourself as irrelevant.

I'm not a fundamentalist nor am I anti intellectual. Though I do reject the liberal cosmopolitanism you subscribe to and the sort of things you value. Yes the sort of Christianity I would advocate for is against liberal society. As much as the sort of Christianity the Apostles advocated for cut against Roman society or how Christianity was against Incan society.

I'm not convinced that the answer to solving the problem of Christianity in the modern world is to reinvent the religion along Liberal lines. That in the end only destroys Christian distinctives in order to make it fit in. By the end of it, you'll end up denying the resurrection just to be liberally enlightened.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Constantine opened the door..
- For the concept/idea of the 'State Church'..
Theodosius I made Christianity ..the State Religion of
the Roman Empire.
----
Interesting to note:
Many early settlers in North America came..
- From England & Continent.
- To escape persecution..from 'State & Church Establishment.

I don't see this as a bad thing. Would you have preferred Roman Paganism be the state religion?

 

[iluvatar5150]

I think you're partly right. There is a religious influence but it isn't towards anything Christian. The religious influence is towards a sort of global homogeneity, a global liberal view of the world which cannot value Christian distinctives or reasons why we might do the things we do. I wouldn't even say it's a unique phenomenon to our own times. G.K Chesterton called it a laughable pretense that England was a Christian society and was in the end of the 19th century.

The sort of person you're describing, who eats bugs, lives in their pod, rejects the social standards of Christianity, really has no reason to become Christian. Why should they?

You don't have to eat bugs and live in a pod to value the things I mentioned. Most left-leaning urbanites I know at a minimum pay lip service to those ideals; many are true believers.

Their reason to become a Christian would be in seeing an institution promoting many of the same values they claim to hold. Would their values and the church's be in perfect alignment? No, probably not. But were the church investing its energy in promoting concepts like thoughtfulness and temperance; caring for others through kindness, fairness, and justice; and stewardship through conservation, then, at worst, these folks would see the church as a bunch of kindred spirits.

I am curious though, what should the Church do that it hasn't always been doing?

It's more like what it should stop doing.

Obviously we should all try to live like saints but inevitably most of us will fail. Yet the Church didn't restrict itself like modern Christendom has by refusing power when it saw the opportunity. When the Church had the opportunity, be they clerical or lay, they used their power for the good of the Gospel. This is a non-option to the liberal, conservative or leftist. Which I think is partly why Christianity has fallen away in the west.

I'm not sure I follow you. Modern Christendom (at least in the US) has absolutely not refused power. If anything, the American church's big flaw is its constant pursuit of power.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You don't have to eat bugs and live in a pod to value the things I mentioned. Most left-leaning urbanites I know at a minimum pay lip service to those ideals; many are true believers.

How do they help Christianity exactly?

Their reason to become a Christian would be in seeing an institution promoting many of the same values they claim to hold. Would their values and the church's be in perfect alignment? No, probably not. But were the church investing its energy in promoting concepts like thoughtfulness and temperance; caring for others through kindness, fairness, and justice; and stewardship through conservation, then, at worst, these folks would see the church as a bunch of kindred spirits.

Sounds like you want the Church of my tradition to conform to modern secular liberaldom. Since I reject that and embrace a historical traditional view of the Church and Christianity, that is not an option. Yet I wouldn't be worried if I were you. Liberalism is on the upward trajectory. You will get all you want and more. In the end, why does it even matter, to you, if a majority of the people aren't Christian? Doesn't God respect and love them regardless?

It's more like what it should stop doing.

What should we stop doing? Take in mind, I am not an American Fundamentalist, though I would prefer that Christianity (as much as it disdains my own Orthodoxy) to Liberal Christianity.

I'm not sure I follow you. Modern Christendom (at least in the US) has absolutely not refused power. If anything, the American church's big flaw is its constant pursuit of power.

I listen to conservative commentators on a regular basis. Their whole operating philosophy is within the bounds of the American secular system. They don't want a state Church. They don't want the expansion of Christian morality in the public space. They want more individual rights to be preserved and follow the libertarian ethos, which is just one expression of liberalism. The other being represented by your side.

It's no wonder you don't follow me. We have two completely different appraisals of the system. You view the Republicans as an effective opposition party. I see them as approved opposition.

 

[Pioneer3mm]

I don't see this as a bad thing. Would you have preferred Roman Paganism be the state religion?

Did I say good or bad?
What I said..on my post ..is historical fact.
---
Concept of the 'State Church' had powerful impact/influence in Christian history.
- There are different interpretations..concerning
that issue.
---
I know your perspective/stance..
- From other threads.
---
I am a student of Christian history.. for 45+years.
- Still learning..

 

[iluvatar5150]

How do they help Christianity exactly?



Sounds like you want the Church of my tradition to conform to modern secular liberaldom. Since I reject that and embrace a historical traditional view of the Church and Christianity, that is not an option. Yet I wouldn't be worried if I were you. Liberalism is on the upward trajectory. You will get all you want and more. In the end, why does it even matter, to you, if a majority of the people aren't Christian? Doesn't God, respect and love them regardless?

I'm coming at it from the other direction. I see modern liberalism adopting a bunch of attitudes that have historically been associated with the church. As I noted, that decadence you described is more indicative of a liberalism or an American culture of the mid-60's through the mid-90's. Modern liberalism hews towards a piety, charity, and asceticism that I find striking similar to some aspects of religious fundamentalism. What I'm arguing is that if the American church had stuck to proper Christian teachings instead of selling out to the Republican party, then it would've had more credibility to shape the cultural narrative now. After all, when it comes to pushing piety, charity and asceticism, organized religion is the OG. Instead of shaping and guiding this new morality, the American church has shut itself out of the argument, decrying it all as "cultural marxism."

What should we stop doing? Take in mind, I am not an American Fundamentalist, though I would prefer that Christianity (as much as it disdains my own Orthodoxy) to Liberal Christianity.

If you're not an American Fundamentalist, then my complaints probably aren't aimed at you. And I'm not arguing for liberal Christianity. What I'm arguing is that there's plenty of overlap between traditional Christian values and modern liberal sensibilities, but nobody in the American Evangelofundamentalist Church recognizes it because they long ago sold themselves out to the Republican party and wove Republican donctrine and partisanship into their Christian doctrine. Instead of recognizing the potential synergies, they wholesale reject everything identified with "liberals" because liberals are bad.

I listen to conservative commentators on a regular basis. Their whole operating philosophy is within the bounds of the American secular system. They don't want a state Church. They don't want the expansion of Christian morality in the public space. They want more individual rights to be preserved and follow the libertarian ethos, which is just one expression of liberalism. The other being represented by your side.

Secular conservative commentators, especially those who are younger and/or skew libertarian may not want a state church (I'm taking your word on that; I don't pay much attention to those guys), but the commentators who market themselves to the religious right absolutely do push in that direction.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'm coming at it from the other direction. I see modern liberalism adopting a bunch of attitudes that have historically been associated with the church. As I noted, that decadence you described is more indicative of a liberalism or an American culture of the mid-60's through the mid-90's. Modern liberalism hews towards a piety, charity, and asceticism that I find striking similar to some aspects of religious fundamentalism. What I'm arguing is that if the American church had stuck to proper Christian teachings instead of selling out to the Republican party, then it would've had more credibility to shape the cultural narrative now. After all, when it comes to pushing piety, charity and asceticism, organized religion is the OG. Instead of shaping and guiding this new morality, the American church has shut itself out of the argument, decrying it all as "cultural marxism."

Churches have never ceased to push piety and all the agenda items of Christianity. It's not as if you can say the Churches are guilty of gunning for Republicans only. Progressive Churches, Episcopalian, other mainline denominations and black Churches will almost exclusively vote Democrat and go along with those policies. Religion being political then is not a problem. Do those progressive Churches bare no guilt then to selling out to the Democrat party and it's values? Or is that you agree with the Left and it's agenda, so that doesn't matter?

Also, how can you attribute liberalism with the historic Church? The Church has never really been all that liberal. Liberalism derives from secular enlightenment thinking which wants to put religion on the backburner and insist it is not a reason to divide nations or societies. Christianity historically has been divisive force, be it against heretics or heathens. I think you want to rewrite the history of Christianity to fit in neatly with liberalism. I tried that once myself and discovered it didn't work.

Religious toleration has not been the standard of Christianity but was a secular standard which forced it's way in recently.

If you're not an American Fundamentalist, then my complaints probably aren't aimed at you. And I'm not arguing for liberal Christianity. What I'm arguing is that there's plenty of overlap between traditional Christian values and modern liberal sensibilities, but nobody in the American Evangelofundamentalist Church recognizes it because they long ago sold themselves out to the Republican party and wove Republican donctrine and partisanship into their Christian doctrine. Instead of recognizing the potential synergies, they wholesale reject everything identified with "liberals" because liberals are bad.

An overlap between liberal and Christian values? Only a liberal Christian could say that, so it seems to me you are arguing for Liberal Christianity. Whether you accept the label or not. That would get us into a whole different debate though.

Yet I don't understand how you view the Republicans as being only guilty of this. Do not modern Liberal Chrsitians try to make their faith go in line with their politics? For instance, I assume you support all the Democratic political positions. LGBT rights/acceptance/toleration. Unrestricted abortion. Endless immigration and acceptance of foreign aliens.

It doesn't sell me on the purity of Liberalism or your brand of Christianity when it engages in the same sort of politics. Not that I mind that. I don't think it wrong for one's politics to be deeply interwoven with one's faith. That's your American bias that suggests it's bad.

Secular conservative commentators, especially those who are younger and/or skew libertarian may not want a state church (I'm taking your word on that; I don't pay much attention to those guys), but the commentators who market themselves to the religious right absolutely do push in that direction.

Even the most religious commentators I listen to, like Steven Crowder or Ben Shapiro, or Andrew Klavan want to abide and preserve the current American system. They want to preserve a society of individual liberty which I see as poison to the prospects of Christianity in any society because Christianity at it's core is not an individualistic philosophy. Even Michael Knowles, who is right to argue it was good to censor commies, doesn't want a state Church but insists on Christianity being the societal standard. That's as far as conservatives in the USA at the moment are willing to go.

These are commentators who appeal to the sensibilities of the religious right in America, who are still too tied to their concepts of the USA to think of any other possibility. Even on these forums there are conservative Americans who will not consider any other government aside of secular democratic/constitutional democracy. I think your perception of the right and how they function in the USA is based on a misapprehension. They don't want to radically overturn society. Not yet any way. God willing they might consider it one day.

 

[AACJ]

Why do you expect schools rooted in the world, funded by the world, serving the purposes of the world, to be pro-Christ?

What schools? The Schools in the US? Why are you apparently assuming that schools are wholly evil and hopelessly corrupt?

Funded by the world? What does that mean? Schools are funded partly by God fearing folk with such funds being partly directed by God fearing folk, or at least folk that have demonstrated by word and action that they support to a great extent the Christian interest in the US.

What do you mean by "the world," a purely godless element or some attempt to define "sacred" to preclude participation of the Church in politics or civil or state/federal government, or maybe something else?

What do you mean by "pro-Christ"? Scripture and history clearly shows that that God has, does, and will continue to move on the hearts and minds of the even those who are not genuinely saved (justified in Christ) to advance certain Christian interests and/or directly or indirectly provide help to the Church.

Contrary to what I have heard so many claim, Satan does not rule the world in the sense of a commission or sovereignty.

 

[AACJ]

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. -- John 15

You are using that verse to advance what idea, that Christian dominance and prosperity in society is somehow severely limited because of the presence of the godless that also hates Christians? If so, you are using it out of context. There are plenty of verses and extra-biblical history showing that despite such hate, professing Christians can and have dominated in societies. In addition, an accurate interpretation of that verse must take into consideration the relevant fact of quantity. That is, at the time of that saying, there was not the sheer quantity of Christians that now exist. It seems to follow that that with an increase in the quantity of Christians in a given society, there will be a corresponding decrease in the amount of hate towards Christians in that same society. All the more reason for Christians to get and keep busy in advancing the Christian worldview at all levels of society.

The whole of society does not have to be genuinely saved for the Christian interest to be advanced in the same society. Scripture and Early America certainly demonstrate that.

There can only be one dominating worldview in society. If Christians fail in their moral duty to advance the dominance of the Christian worldview in society, then some other worldview will be advanced. An example of this is found in education pertaining to which Darwinian evolutionism only is allowed in certain classroom settings.

 

[loveofourlord]

I'm not surprised. We live in a culture where religion is put on the margins and not allowed to interfere with public life in an ostentatious manner. Our stories are thoroughly secular, education is devoid of the sort of classical notions of anything hinting to the divine and what's more we live in a society of endless and unending consumption; in food, media, inappropriate contentography and any other material good.

These are not the ingredients for a devout society, which requires rules and safeguards that the decadent can and will never abide by.

In a country where many people aren't Christian, you should be allowed to interfere with public life to the same level you be happy Muslims dictating public life based upon Sharia, or Hindu's or other religions.

There is also a great saying I've heard, "When Christianity takes over government, it won't be YOUR Christianity, AKA chances are you will disagree with it. For those that want prayer in school, do you want mandatory confessionals to priests, or other things you might not agree with?

 

[loveofourlord]

When has the world ever been other than the world and do you really believe that it is harder to reach people with the truth now than it was in AD 200 when becoming a Christian carried the risk of death?

We have abandoned discipleship because our words say we care about the lost, but our actions say that our words are a lie. Statistically most churches have not led even one unsaved person to Christ in the last 12 months. That is not a lack of “school prayer” or “worldly secularism”. That is either a dead God or a dead church.

I know which one I believe needs a resurrection.

I think it does to a extent, I think a big part of why people are leaving church is they can now more easily tell when Christians tell white lies like about evolution in order to keep people Christian. They can see that being LGBT isn't this great evil the church treats them like. So more and more it's easy to see where the church and CHristianity are standing against truth, and it makes them less likely to want to be part of it.