Christianity relevant in a secular society?

[JonMiller]

So I take it that everyone's response is to convince all the atheists and religious that there is no difference between secular and non-secular?

I agree that that is a solution.

How would you work to make such a solution come to pass?

JM

 

[AzA]

So I take it that everyone's response is to convince all the atheists and religious that there is no difference between secular and non-secular?

That's not my solution, no.
Playing well with others isn't about making them the same as me.

Part of the fun about living in a plural society is coming to agreement on pragmatic things. It may be important that we agree it's important to dispose of our waste. It is not important that we all agree on why.

We've already learned that we can build functional and productive communities around common action.

 

[JonMiller]

Then why has everyones response been that they (personally) don't see a difference between secular and non-secular?

It seems than, that everyone was just not answering the questoin?

JM

 

[AzA]

Then why has everyones response been that they (personally) don't see a difference between secular and non-secular?

It seems than, that everyone was just not answering the questoin?

I wouldn't say that. It's difficult to answer a question whose premises you don't accept. Kind of like answering "When did you stop beating your wife?"

The advantage for you has been that if you'd asked "How is Christianity relevant to society?" you might not have come to know quite as much about your fellow posters.

Because I don't accept the concept of "secular society" in the way that some do, I don't have the trouble of wondering what role I should play in that society, or whether I should play at all. The fact that I am in it and I recognize myself in others makes me engaged.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

it generally means that I feel like my posts are constantly pointing out that you are completely ignoring what is being talked about.

What have I ignored?

Your original post relates to "a secular society." I am trying to wrap my brain around that concept. In your original post, you wrote the following:

So the US is joining Europe in becoming more secular.

I'm trying to understand how one could measure such a thing if the concept of "secular" is based merely on human opinion.

Europe is already a very secular society

Although this may be true, I don't really know what this means. What is this statement based on?

how do we reach out to people who consider Christians as alien basically?

Perhaps we start by not viewing them as "secular" and instead view them as "beloved."

And then we have the other issue of secularism, which is that every day life isn't very conductive towards a spiritual life.

There have always been distractions. Is it possible that the solution is not to avoid "the secular," but to integrate "the religious" into "the secular?" Can a tennis game be ordained by God?

There is a culture that is presented in our TV, by our friends, in our music, in our books, and even in our churches... and it isn't one of following God.

What is the alternative?
​

BFA

 

[sentipente]

Non-secular means selfish. It means out of touch with reality. It means applicable only to a subset of humanity. Secular is always better than non-secular.

 

[JonMiller]

I wouldn't say that. It's difficult to answer a question whose premises you don't accept. Kind of like answering "When did you stop beating your wife?"

The advantage for you has been that if you'd asked "How is Christianity relevant to society?" you might not have come to know quite as much about your fellow posters.

Because I don't accept the concept of "secular society" in the way that some do, I don't have the trouble of wondering what role I should play in that society, or whether I should play at all. The fact that I am in it and I recognize myself in others makes me engaged.

The issue isn't your perception, but rather societies perception as a whole. This has been agreed upon? Or do you think that societies perception does not matter?

JM

 

[JonMiller]

What have I ignored?

Your original post relates to "a secular society." I am trying to wrap my brain around that concept. In your original post, you wrote the following:

I'm trying to understand how one could measure such a thing if the concept of "secular" is based merely on human opinion.
​

It perceives itself as more secular?

Although this may be true, I don't really know what this means. What is this statement based on?

For most the people I know from europe, the idea of God is completely foreign to them. It is unreasonable and not rational.

Perhaps we start by not viewing them as "secular" and instead view them as "beloved."

I think that this shows that you don't know what is being talked about.

There have always been distractions. Is it possible that the solution is not to avoid "the secular," but to integrate "the religious" into "the secular?" Can a tennis game be ordained by God?

Sure. So that is your answer then? That we must convince those who are secular (And those who aren't) that everything is both religious and secular? How would we accomplish that?

What is the alternative?

BFA

It claims to not be following God. It perceives itself as not following God. Obviously that is the view in general, in our churches it is perceived as following God but it is the same as that which isn't in our churches.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Non-secular means selfish. It means out of touch with reality. It means applicable only to a subset of humanity. Secular is always better than non-secular.

Will you use the perceived definitions? We can call them something else if you want. I am interested in your insights.

JM

 

[Byfaithalone1]

It perceives itself as more secular?

For most the people I know from europe, the idea of God is completely foreign to them. It is unreasonable and not rational.

I think that this shows that you don't know what is being talked about.

Sure. So that is your answer then? That we must convince those who are secular (And those who aren't) that everything is both religious and secular? How would we accomplish that?


It claims to not be following God. It perceives itself as not following God. Obviously that is the view in general, in our churches it is perceived as following God but it is the same as that which isn't in our churches.

JM

Is it safe to say that our discussion is based on your opinion that Europeans are far from God and that Americans are becoming increasingly like Europeans? Is this based on your perception of what a "religious" person should look like? Is this a judgment?

No, I don't believe that our mission is to teach people to be less secular. Our calling is to present Jesus Christ. It is He who will teach men to integrate all of the pieces of their lives in a healthier manner.

If you want to know how we can be more relevant, I would suggest that job #1 is for us to begin to realize that life doesn't so neatly fit into categories such as "us" versus "them," "secular" vs. "religious," "good" vs. "bad." Christians are loved despite who they are, not because of who they are. As such, Christians should view themselves as being on an even playing field with Europeans who don't seem to fit the Christian mold that we have designed for ourselves.

BFA

 

[Avonia]

Non-secular means selfish. It means out of touch with reality. It means applicable only to a subset of humanity. Secular is always better than non-secular.

Often the religious quest to be distinctive results in confusion about our identity. To be among the remnant is an attempt to be a fractional people.

If you listen closely to people using the world secular, it's often about a rejection of what they naturally experience as humans. The "worldly."

 

[JonMiller]

Is it safe to say that our discussion is based on your opinion that Europeans are far from God and that Americans are becoming increasingly like Europeans? Is this based on your perception of what a "religious" person should look like? Is this a judgment?

Europeans perceive themselves as being far from God, and American perception is also going in that direction.

No, I don't believe that our mission is to teach people to be less secular. Our calling is to present Jesus Christ. It is He who will teach men to integrate all of the pieces of their lives in a healthier manner.

How do you present Jesus Christ?

If you want to know how we can be more relevant, I would suggest that job #1 is for us to begin to realize that life doesn't so neatly fit into categories such as "us" versus "them," "secular" vs. "religious," "good" vs. "bad." Christians are loved despite who they are, not because of who they are. As such, Christians should view themselves as being on an even playing field with Europeans who don't seem to fit the Christian mold that we have designed for ourselves.

BFA

Who ever discussed an uneven playing field? Once more I will say, it seems like you aren't listening to me.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Often the religious quest to be distinctive results in confusion about our identity. To be among the remnant is an attempt to be a fractional people.

If you listen closely to people using the world secular, it's often about a rejection of what they naturally experience as humans. The "worldly."

Most religious people don't have the view of remnant/etc, I think.

Will you direct your comments for people (or even the religious) in general, rather than adventists in particular?

There aren't many who hold to the traditional adventist mindset here...

JM

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Europeans perceive themselves as being far from God, and American perception is also going in that direction.

Do they? Or do you perceive them to be far from God?

How do you present Jesus Christ?

The best evidence is a life of love, filled with emotional, relational and spiritual health. If words are necessary, I'd discuss that which He did and not the things that I do. My calling is not to call a person away from "the secular."

Who ever discussed an uneven playing field?

Perhaps no one has. What do you think? Are the "secular" on the same playing field as "the religious?"

BFA

 

[Avonia]

Most religious people don't have the view of remnant/etc, I think.

Will you direct your comments for people (or even the religious) in general, rather than adventists in particular?

There aren't many who hold to the traditional adventist mindset here...

JM

The comment is not made in an "Adventist" context - you read that into it.

That Christians have a different status than non-Christians is the same distortion as the view that Adventists have a different status than non-Adventists. Or the religious than the the non-religious. Remnant in this sense is "a surviving piece separated from the rest."

 

[JonMiller]

Do they? Or do you perceive them to be far from God?

Yep, they do, by statistics and polls and studies. Has nothing to dow thi my perception.

The best evidence is a life of love, filled with emotional, relational and spiritual health. If words are necessary, I'd discuss that which He did and not the things that I do. My calling is not to call a person away from "the secular."

OK. Why are more and more people perceiving themselves as secular?

Perhaps no one has. What do you think? Are the "secular" on the same playing field as "the religious?"

BFA

Sure.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

The comment is not made in an "Adventist" context - you read that into it.

That Christians have a different status than non-Christians is the same distortion as the view that Adventists have a different status than non-Adventists. Or the religious than the the non-religious. Remnant in this sense is "a surviving piece separated from the rest."

OK, but my understanding of non-adventist religious people is that they don't have such a clear view of being the remnant as traditional adventists.

I mean, there are other religious groups that have even more of that identity. I am just saying about people I talk to, maybe I am wrong?

So you think that the people who view themselves and their lives as having nothing to do with God (and often don't believe in any god) have the correct perception, while the people who believe in God (or other gods) and make decisions in their life based on their perception that they are following God (or other gods/etc) have the incorrect perception?

JM

 

[Avonia]

OK, but my understanding of non-adventist religious people is that they don't have such a clear view of being the remnant as traditional adventists.

There's truth to that - we have taken it to another level - so to speak.

So you think that the people who view themselves and their lives as having nothing to do with God (and often don't believe in any god) have the correct perception, while the people who believe in God (or other gods) and make decisions in their life based on their perception that they are following God (or other gods/etc) have the incorrect perception?

In all cases they are perceptions based on a very limited view - therefore they are all incomplete - but from different perspectives.

I find much more variation in the scope/depth of individuals than the organizations they've joined. Some people live in small circles and some people live in much larger circles.

I'm suggesting something about parity - not equality.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Why are more and more people perceiving themselves as secular?

Are you sure that they are? Why do you think so?

BFA

 

[AzA]

The issue isn't your perception, but rather societies perception as a whole. This has been agreed upon? Or do you think that societies perception does not matter?

I think "society's perception" is not monolithic. If it were, all of society would agree on the premise and likely resolutions, and there would be nothing to discuss. Ever.

That is not the case, even in the context of those surveys that are not evaluating spiritual sensitivity, awareness of the transcendent or immanent, consciousness of beauty, morals, or truth, or commitment to nature's systems or human development -- but which are evaluating self-reported identification with organized religious structures, physical attendance at organized religious events, and/or participation in organized religious communities.

How close or far someone is from God is not normally the basis of these studies. Self-reported organized religious participation often is. It is quite a logic leap to say that there is a relationship between the two variables.