Mainline Protestant and Evangelical denominations both declining, how do we change that?

[Albion]

True...to a certain extent. But the New Testament does inform us that they gathered together for weekly worship, broke bread, chose leaders we'd call clergy today, heard the message of Jesus preached, administered baptisms, and even settled disputes among the members.

 

[tampasteve]

Not to mention many believe there was a basic liturgy and there is quite a bit of information in the Didache as such, which is generally believed to be 1st century. Followed with a basic continuation of the Jewish Rites and liturgy of the time, there is a fair substantial basis of evidence to point towards a liturgical form of worship. Also, it is quite reasonable to believe that house churches functioned out of necessity in many places rather than it being the "correct" way to worship, even at the time.

 

[dzheremi]

I could make some educated guesses, but that's all they would be; certainly not definitive answers.

Well, better than my not-educated guesses, right?

- Singing the psalms is something that has to be learned and taught, and we have, on the whole, moved towards making our liturgy easier for beginners to participate in.

Well, yes, but the why would such learning not be a part of the education of new members? Granted, in the Oriental churches, such things are very different, since it's very much a matter of learning by doing and everything except the sermon is sung anyway, so you learn at least the laity's parts of the liturgy just by showing up, but even then...I'm not sure if it's that something is lost by writing it down or what, but it strikes me that the Coptic tradition has always been orally retained and passed on (Coptic liturgical chant only began to be written down in the 1800s, and then it was Western musicologists doing it, not Copts themselves) from as far back as anyone can know down to this very day, and while that has meant a lot of lost hymns over the centuries, still the core parts which make up the liturgy have remained remarkably consistent. In fact, in the Coptic tradition in particular, the tradition of blind cantors has evolved due to a folk belief that their blindness gives them an edge over sighted cantors in being able to detect and reproduce fine modulations in pitch and tone, as can be necessary in the long, melismatic forms of chant we have.

At any rate, this is very interesting. Is the thought that teaching chant would be too much of a burden to people? I don't think I'm speaking out of turn even as a convert to say that we enjoy learning it. I've interviewed a lot of deacons and chanters for some field work I did on Coptic language revitalization efforts a few years ago, and their attitude is always "Of course we teach the hymns and love the hymns...this is our Church, and our language, and so of course we want it to be as strong as it can be." In at least some sense, the health of a given parish can be measured by how well people know the hymns, since that's directly correlated with their ability to actually participate in the liturgy.

- The decline of church choirs. Where once every parish worth the name boasted a choir which rehearsed and could lead the congregation in something like this, now (at least where I am) that's the exception rather than the rule. Without the choir there is a crisis of confidence in this.

What led to that decline? It seems like these things feed off of each other: Nobody teaching the hymns > Nobody learning to chant > Nobody to be in a choir > No choir

- The decline of chanting in general. We do not (except for a very few parishes) expect our clergy to be able to chant (although in many parishes if we can it is welcome), nor are we properly taught to do so. I learned only because I had a supervising priest who insisted, but many of my colleagues have never had the opportunity. So - if you have a priest who does not know how to lead, and no choir, and little musical expertise, then it is easier to read without singing...

Of course it is easier...it would be easier not to chant our liturgies, too...we could go home sooner that way...and then eventually we could just stay home, because oh who cares...sorry for the sudden burst of cynicism, but it seems like you're recognizing how this is like a row of dominoes, and it's sad to see the venerable Western traditions of chant be neglected and left to die to the detriment of Christianity in favor of what seems to be exalted simply because it's easier. I should hope that there are forces counteracting this spiritual and corporeal laziness. Lord have mercy.

To that end, on a more positive note, what is being done to combat this?

While I know you can't just take what works in one church and transplant it into another, just for an example, we in the Coptic Orthodox Church hold a yearly event called Mahragan el Keraza. Its name literally means "Evangelism festival", but it's not about evangelizing outsiders so that they'll become Coptic Orthodox, but about evangelizing our youth so that they'll understand and appreciate their unique heritage. It is organized in each diocese according to grade level (Kindergarten to 3rd grade, 4th to 6th, etc.), and each group learns the various aspects of the Church's life at the level appropriate for that age: scripture, history, hymns, language, etc.

From what I've seen and heard of the results (I've never been in a parish that was large enough to participate, so I can only go by YouTube videos and what friends in larger churches which have participated in it have told me), this event has been highly successful in helping kids (and adults!) learn the hymns, the theology, the history, etc. of our Church. Perhaps this is something that could be adapted by other forms of Christianity, to get back the sense of uniquely Christianity identity in Western Christianity. I don't know.

The children (3rd-5th grades) of St. Antonios Coptic Orthodox Church in Portland, Oregon, USA chant some of the short Gospel responses in Coptic. They even have one kid count off "1, 2, 3" in Coptic at the beginning, to make sure they all start at the same time. (They probably teach the kids to count in Coptic during other lessons.)

And if a particular child shows exceptional ability or promise, they may be asked to perform in competition with others who are selected from other parishes, as is the case with Ibrahim (2nd grade), who sings the hymn "Apenchois" (Our Lord) and gives some of the seasonal Gospel responses below:

My enunciation is not anywhere near as clear as this kid's, and I'm in my 30s and have been in the Church for almost as long as he has been alive!

I know that restoring the church in the West is not all about the finer points of diction, but in terms of reviving the teaching and chanting of hymns in particular, I believe that there is something to be said for establishing a love for them and for the whole enterprise of chanted worship in children when they are very young, so that you will not have to start from scratch with a bunch of adults who do not know how to lead, to borrow your phrasing. That is a tough place to begin from.

 

[PhantomGaze]

Now listen here you smiling pup! You better settle down or I'll git out the hose!

Seriously now,

I don't know. Who says they can't be included in anything until sterilized? I haven't. What I have said is that all unbelievers ought to be brought to faith in Christ before they are brought into the community of believers, the Church, to worship God and learn more of His truth and be encouraged and supported spiritually by brothers and sisters in the faith.

Of course we ought to be kind and welcoming of sinners! Just not into the Body of Believers, the Church.

I think I have misunderstood what you were trying to communicate. Let's try to bring this full circle. Now that I see what you're saying, that is an interesting idea. It might even add some depth to the characteristically shallow modern sermons since it would be all to believers, but I think reversing Christianity's decline in the West will require more than that. I think Christianity as it stands fails to capture the imaginations of people because what people hear is so shallow and politicized. It doesn't have to be that way, but that's all people are shown.

No it's not. The very reverse is true. Everywhere I look I see churches accommodating the sin of homosexuality in their company. In fact, this was the point the OP made.

The original poster didn't mention homosexuality or even sin generally. He was only asking how we can change the fact that Christians are leaving the faith in droves, far faster than conversions can keep up with.

You're the one who made the assertion that they didn't support my points, so you bear the burden of demonstrating this is so. Can you? If not, then, as I said, you've expressed mere opinion rather than fact.

Like I said, I believed you were making different points than you were. I haven't really looked over the idea that you presented yet, so I'll provisionally accept them for the sake of argument.

 

[hedrick]

I talked to a minister who lamented declining attendance that threatens his church's financial sustainability and very existence.
...
I talked to a Mason who lamented that young people aren't becoming Masons so much and his lodge is dwindling in number.
I believe a contributing factor to all of these events is a changing culture. We no longer look for social connection and affiliation in the same way we did before the tech revolution.

I agree that there is a change in culture. But attendance rates were low until the 20th Cent. A Christian America? What History Shows. So it's not just technology.

 

[Paidiske]

I think perhaps there is a bigger cultural gap between our traditions than you realise, dzheremi. You talk about educating "new members," but for many of our parishes, membership is a relatively fluid thing. As long as you've been validly baptised somewhere, you can worship with us and take communion and we're unlikely to pressure you about becoming Anglican. (A few months ago, in the parish I've just left, we formally received into membership a woman who was raised Roman Catholic but had been worshipping in that parish, highly involved as a lay leader, etc for the last 25 years). So requiring people to learn the Anglican way of things, in any way more formal than by osmosis, would be problematic right there.

Here's the thing: the focus, for many of our parishes now, has become the question: If a random person who had never been to church walked through the door today, would they be able to understand and participate in whatever is happening? And if the answer is no, then the momentum is towards abandoning what that person could not understand and participate in. Since chanting vs. speaking is seen as adiaphora, chant has been a soft point that has, in most places, been abandoned very quickly. Because it's seen as a barrier, something that would be off-putting to that hypothetical random person.

Now you could argue that that question is putting the focus on the wrong thing, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you, but the fact remains that it is so.

The decline in choirs is related to the shifting trends in church music, I think. Once you have a parish that prefers a worship band, with drums and bass guitar and a lead singer with a microphone, the choir begins to be seen as outdated or even an obstacle to growth. Again, I might argue with that view (I think choosing a musical style and doing it excellently will generally attract people, rather than being hung up on one particular style as the answer to all our woes), but the fact remains that in most parishes, certainly where I am, the days of a "proper" choir are long gone.

What is being done to combat this? There are a few hold-outs. As I mentioned, the parish where I was after first being ordained maintains a proud "catholic" musical tradition, where I had to learn to chant and there is still an excellent choir. The cathedrals tend to nurture a proud musical tradition. But the problem here is that we are a church divided, and the more catholic parishes are in the minority. Others are pushing ahead seeking excellence and numbers with the contemporary band-type approach. And when the majority of your clergy and parishes think the old styles of music are literally a waste of time, then... what do you do with that?

 

[hedrick]

True...to a certain extent. But the New Testament does inform us that they gathered together for weekly worship, broke bread, chose leaders we'd call clergy today, heard the message of Jesus preached, administered baptisms, and even settled disputes among the members.

I agree that this is a common reading. But it's not so clear from the NT that everyone met weekly. Act 20:7 talks about meeting on Sunday, but a skeptic could say they met because Paul was there at the time. It doesn't actually say it's a regular weekly meeting. We also don't know how many of the Christians actually were in the meeting. How much evidence do we actually have?

 

[Albion]

Well, of course, we can't say that every member showed up on Sunday, not any more than they do today. But then again, we don't say that our congregations aren't meeting unless all the members are in attendance.

Anyway, I try to be alert to the pitfall of taking any verse too literally, but in this case, I really don't see the Sunday gathering referred to as you do. To me, it's described too much as a standard event, even with an explanation for why that day would be the preferred one.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I agree that there is a change in culture. But attendance rates were low until the 20th Cent. A Christian America? What History Shows. So it's not just technology.

I agree, but the changing culture pushes the snowball downhill a little further.

 

[dzheremi]

I think perhaps there is a bigger cultural gap between our traditions than you realise, dzheremi.

That's highly likely. I tend to think of Anglicanism as one of the more traditional Protestant churches, but maybe that means something different in an Anglican context than it would in a Coptic Orthodox context.

You talk about educating "new members," but for many of our parishes, membership is a relatively fluid thing. As long as you've been validly baptised somewhere, you can worship with us and take communion and we're unlikely to pressure you about becoming Anglican. (A few months ago, in the parish I've just left, we formally received into membership a woman who was raised Roman Catholic but had been worshipping in that parish, highly involved as a lay leader, etc for the last 25 years). So requiring people to learn the Anglican way of things, in any way more formal than by osmosis, would be problematic right there.

Yeah, I did, but what I meant was the same as what you write here about learning by osmosis, not about pressuring people to become Coptic (Anglican, etc.). That's not what we do. But in terms of education, you learn what we believe and what we do and why/how by showing up. So it seems like our two churches are substantially the same, as far as that's concerned. During my time at St. Bishoy COC in Albuquerque, New Mexico, we had Jordanian Catholics, Jewish people, Roman Catholics, an Anglican family, etc. all come to visit us, presumably out of curiosity. Only the Jordanians ended up staying for an extended period of time (they said they felt that our liturgy was more truly 'Eastern' than theirs, and ended up staying and worshiping with us for several months before moving out of the area), but in no case were any ever pressured to convert, or even to give responses as we do. The Jordanians eventually got the hang of the responses (I guess it helps when some of them are given in Arabic and that's your native language), same as anyone would with repeated exposure. Learning by osmosis really works.

Here's the thing: the focus, for many of our parishes now, has become the question: If a random person who had never been to church walked through the door today, would they be able to understand and participate in whatever is happening? And if the answer is no, then the momentum is towards abandoning what that person could not understand and participate in. Since chanting vs. speaking is seen as adiaphora, chant has been a soft point that has, in most places, been abandoned very quickly. Because it's seen as a barrier, something that would be off-putting to that hypothetical random person.

(Why) is it assumed that chanting would make it not possible to understand or participate in what is happening? I can understand it being foreign to people who are not used to it (as it was to me, coming to Orthodox from Roman Catholicism), but so long as it is in a language that they understand, or translations are available in real time (this is the thinking behind the regrettable proliferation of the screen with slides in modern Coptic churches in the West), then it should at least be understandable.

I will put it like this: When I go to confession, Father and I will discuss my sins and ways to overcome them in English (he is definitely a fluent English-speaker, and I am very much not a fluent Arabic-speaker), but when it comes to pronouncing the actual absolution, which involves a set prayer said over the bowed head of the penitent in the Coptic ritual, he always does it in Arabic. He has explained it to me in English, but he either does not know the proper translation and doesn't want to 'wing it', or more likely is simply more comfortable praying it in Arabic, and so lapses into it easily. I am being absolved in either case by the Holy Spirit, Who is above such differences and matters of human comfort, and that is what I ought to focus on anyway. At the end of the ritual, we pray together the Our Father, usually both in English, while in the liturgy we (all) pray it together in whatever language we know. Usually it is me praying in English and everyone else praying Arabic, but sometimes it has been me praying in English, others praying in Arabic, and still others praying in Amharic. And nobody bats an eye at any of this, because we know what we are doing and why. I have even worshiped in Arabic with Ethiopians who worshiped in English, because they felt more comfortable reading the (to my ears, clunky) English translation than attempting Arabic. After the conclusion of the hymn in question, one of the Egyptians leaned in to the Ethiopian man next to me to complement him on his Arabic, not realizing that it was me and not him who was singing it in Arabic.

So based on my own experiences I question just what understanding in worship actually means for the liturgy or any other ritualistic aspect of church life as it might be realized in any given situation. Not to take anything away from the very admirable and Christ-like motivation to make sure that all are welcome, I would say that there are some things that are so central to our understanding of what worship is (and from that, what can be included in it and what cannot) that they are beyond being modified in any serious way as an accommodation to anyone, regardless of their status within or outside of the Church. (So it's not so much a matter of ecclesiology in the sense of maintaining an in-group/out-group dynamic, but a more basic question of "Are we worshiping God or not?", to be answered according to what we have been given regarding how we are to do that.)

Now you could argue that that question is putting the focus on the wrong thing, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you, but the fact remains that it is so.

I understand. Things are as they are regardless of whether or not you personally agree that they ought to be that way.

The decline in choirs is related to the shifting trends in church music, I think. Once you have a parish that prefers a worship band, with drums and bass guitar and a lead singer with a microphone, the choir begins to be seen as outdated or even an obstacle to growth. Again, I might argue with that view (I think choosing a musical style and doing it excellently will generally attract people, rather than being hung up on one particular style as the answer to all our woes), but the fact remains that in most parishes, certainly where I am, the days of a "proper" choir are long gone.

Am I to understand from this that there would have been a point in the past when this would not have been the case? If that's so, what is preventing at least an attempt to return to the earlier practice beyond the fact that it is now seen as antiquated and/or an obstacle to growth? Because I think the fact that we are having this discussion in a thread that is all about how Western Christianity is not growing but shrinking ought to allow the Christians whose churches are affected by this trend to seriously consider that what they think will cause their churches to grow may actually be having the opposite effect. What if people actually want things that are antiquate, perhaps because in this time of rapid change and disorientation there is an accompanying sense of rootlessness in a lot of Western Christian religious practice? (Note: I'm not accusing Anglicans or really anyone in particular of anything by asking that; just wondering aloud at what point the people who advocate for all kinds of changes to traditional practice and theology in the name of attracting people will recognize that all these changes are not having the desired result. Or are the very modern parishes actually exhibiting sustained growth, despite all indications to the contrary about Western Christianity in general?)

What is being done to combat this? There are a few hold-outs. As I mentioned, the parish where I was after first being ordained maintains a proud "catholic" musical tradition, where I had to learn to chant and there is still an excellent choir. The cathedrals tend to nurture a proud musical tradition. But the problem here is that we are a church divided, and the more catholic parishes are in the minority.

That is sad. It is sad to see any church divided against itself. Lord have mercy.

Others are pushing ahead seeking excellence and numbers with the contemporary band-type approach. And when the majority of your clergy and parishes think the old styles of music are literally a waste of time, then... what do you do with that?

I don't know. To the extent that we have this kind of problem in my Church, the response is the opposite, and the majority who are against any innovations are not shy in saying so, with HE Metropolitan Serapion saying that the D.C. area (a notorious problem area for our Church in America) needs an Orthodox bishop, and HG Bishop Abanoub, who oversees the beleaguered area of Mokattam in Egypt, openly and explicitly banning anyone who refuses to conform to the norms of the Church from operating inside of it:

Perhaps this is another cultural difference, as I know that Egyptians are not shy and have no problem yelling about things when they feel it necessary. But whatever will help you recover your neglected patrimony, I hope you do it.

 

[Paidiske]

(Why) is it assumed that chanting would make it not possible to understand or participate in what is happening?

Because singing is a learned skill. Singing in a liturgical style, even more so. Whatever else it is, it is easier to read in unison than to sing as a congregation.

Am I to understand from this that there would have been a point in the past when this would not have been the case? If that's so, what is preventing at least an attempt to return to the earlier practice beyond the fact that it is now seen as antiquated and/or an obstacle to growth?

Sure. I can't put a date range on it, because I wasn't a church goer until after this shift, but certainly my guess is that 50 years ago the discussion would have been very different.

I'm not sure much else is preventing it, except that, as I said, lots of people don't want to, and see it as detrimental to the mission of the church.

What if people actually want things that are antiquate, perhaps because in this time of rapid change and disorientation there is an accompanying sense of rootlessness in a lot of Western Christian religious practice?

I certainly think that there is a group of people who want, if not antiquated things for their own sake, something with a sense of depth and value which has stood the test of time. A sense of having deep roots and rich storehouses of corporate memory on which to draw to resource our living faith.

But many churches are overlooking that group, in an attempt to appeal to the group who want the quick buzz or the easiest possible offering. In a way, when I attempt to argue in my own church that it is possible to offer "traditional" forms of worship which actually appeal to young people, I am frankly disbelieved.

 

[dzheremi]

Because singing is a learned skill. Singing in a liturgical style, even more so.

True enough, but you don't think it could be argued that singing is a rather natural form of worship? Not learning particular modes or settings, but just the act of singing. I seem to recall reading somewhere St. Augustine, that most Western of saints, once said that he who sings prays twice.

Whatever else it is, it is easier to read in unison than to sing as a congregation.

I'm not sure how true that is across the board (what about the Anglican Church in Africa or elsewhere where the literacy rate might be lower than in the West?), but I could certainly see it being true in certain places where reading is a more common skill than singing.

Sure. I can't put a date range on it, because I wasn't a church goer until after this shift, but certainly my guess is that 50 years ago the discussion would have been very different.

Ah. Thank you.

I'm not sure much else is preventing it, except that, as I said, lots of people don't want to, and see it as detrimental to the mission of the church.

Hmm. And there is nobody out there who can show the people who feel this way why it is important? I understand your earlier bit about it being adiaphora, but I would think that it could be explained in some way as being beneficial rather than morally prescribed. Can you 'pray once' and not sing? Sure. But could you benefit from learning another style of worship that is far older in your own tradition than whatever the current mindset is? I don't see how the answer to that could be anything but yes, unless those who think that it is detrimental to the church are actually actively against learning about their own history, which would be an odd stance for those who show concern for the church in these other ways to have.

I certainly think that there is a group of people who want, if not antiquated things for their own sake, something with a sense of depth and value which has stood the test of time. A sense of having deep roots and rich storehouses of corporate memory on which to draw to resource our living faith.

But many churches are overlooking that group, in an attempt to appeal to the group who want the quick buzz or the easiest possible offering. In a way, when I attempt to argue in my own church that it is possible to offer "traditional" forms of worship which actually appeal to young people, I am frankly disbelieved.

If it's possible to compare the retention and expansion rates of traditional parishes versus modern ones, I would be very interested to know whose belief is actually backed up by the numbers. Since the traditional appears to be denied on the grounds that it will harm the growth of the church, you'd think those advancing this view would be able to back it up by showing that eschewing the traditional has actually led to growth, while embracing it has led to diminution.

I know I'm inherently (and unabashedly!) biased, but I know which trend I would expect to see, and it does not favor the "let's get rid of the old ways because they'll turn people off" crowd, again, because we are having this conversation in the context of a situation in which we all recognize that Western Christianity in general is not growing, but shrinking.

 

[Paidiske]

True enough, but you don't think it could be argued that singing is a rather natural form of worship? Not learning particular modes or settings, but just the act of singing. I seem to recall reading somewhere St. Augustine, that most Western of saints, once said that he who sings prays twice.

I do think it could be argued. As you might have realised by now, you're not particularly arguing with me, here.

Hmm. And there is nobody out there who can show the people who feel this way why it is important? I understand your earlier bit about it being adiaphora, but I would think that it could be explained in some way as being beneficial rather than morally prescribed. Can you 'pray once' and not sing? Sure. But could you benefit from learning another style of worship that is far older in your own tradition than whatever the current mindset is? I don't see how the answer to that could be anything but yes, unless those who think that it is detrimental to the church are actually actively against learning about their own history, which would be an odd stance for those who show concern for the church in these other ways to have.

I don't know how to explain it to you. There is a level, not just of disinterest, but even of contempt for "traditional" practices.

If it's possible to compare the retention and expansion rates of traditional parishes versus modern ones, I would be very interested to know whose belief is actually backed up by the numbers. Since the traditional appears to be denied on the grounds that it will harm the growth of the church, you'd think those advancing this view would be able to back it up by showing that eschewing the traditional has actually led to growth, while embracing it has led to diminution.

I know I'm inherently (and unabashedly!) biased, but I know which trend I would expect to see, and it does not favor the "let's get rid of the old ways because they'll turn people off" crowd, again, because we are having this conversation in the context of a situation in which we all recognize that Western Christianity in general is not growing, but shrinking.

From what little actual data I've seen, the suggestion is that the traditional parishes grow less/grow more slowly... but if you follow up on the people who come to faith in each, much later - ten, twenty years - the retention rate and commitment of people in more traditional parishes is better. So the slick contemporary folks meeting for worship in a movie theatre might have 800 people through the doors on Sunday, but twenty years from now, the little staid traditional parish next door with 80 people on Sunday will have nurtured a higher proportion of people into a sustaining faith.

So I see both as having a place, actually, but when one dominates much more than the other, it becomes hard to sustain.

 

[dzheremi]

I do think it could be argued. As you might have realised by now, you're not particularly arguing with me, here.

Haha. Yes, certainly.

I don't know how to explain it to you. There is a level, not just of disinterest, but even of contempt for "traditional" practices.

Oh. See, that I didn't realize. To me, there is a distinct difference between disfavoring something out of a reasonable concern that retaining it might impede the adoption of the faith (assuming that concern is backed up by evidence) and being actively hostile toward something because it is traditional. That is distressing. Lord have mercy.

From what little actual data I've seen, the suggestion is that the traditional parishes grow less/grow more slowly... but if you follow up on the people who come to faith in each, much later - ten, twenty years - the retention rate and commitment of people in more traditional parishes is better. So the slick contemporary folks meeting for worship in a movie theatre might have 800 people through the doors on Sunday, but twenty years from now, the little staid traditional parish next door with 80 people on Sunday will have nurtured a higher proportion of people into a sustaining faith,

I see. So it appears that slow and steady wins the race. Good, then.

So I see both as having a place, actually, but when one dominates much more than the other, it becomes hard to sustain.

An interesting choice of verb in that final clause, as it seems from what you wrote immediately preceding it, the modern approach is the only one which is truly hard to sustain.

So then you are left with what I suppose is probably the perennial question in all churches throughout the world: Is it better to be smaller and more faithful, or larger and more lax? (Not that you can't be large and faithful, but I mean if that's the dichotomy shows...) Well, if those are the two choices for Western Christianity, then it seems like we finally have something to rejoice over in this thread, as the cultural currents of our time seem to be aiding the movement of Western Christianity in general toward one of the two without our having to phrase things in quite such a divisive manner. In a time when nobody feels compelled to go to church -- or to put it more bluntly, may feel in some sense driven by conscience or culture to not go -- then those who remain or come in can probably be reasonably assumed to actually want to be there.

I am as a rule not a fan of the idea of the 'faithful remnant' conception of the Church, if only because I've noticed that usually when it is brought up it is with a veneer of pity or self-congratulation, neither of which strike me as befitting a mature Christian life such as the one I am trying to live. That said, I can certainly see the attraction of it to Western Christians, if the things they say are happening to Western Christianity are true (and they seem to be). From talking to the people in my parish who were raised in Egypt (which is all of them except the youngest, ages 0-12 or so), they look at Western Christianity in their adopted homeland and see the position it is in now as old hat, which makes sense given that Egypt already went through the near-complete displacement of Christianity by a foreign belief system by the turn of the first millennium. But today in Egypt there are still anywhere from about 5.5 million (or 6%; the government's figure) to 20 million (22%; the church's figure) Coptic Christians, which is not terrible considering what they've gone through and continue to go through for their faith. And when you ask them how they've managed to do that when they have not a few times faced complete extermination, they say it is because God is with them, and they have kept to their traditions.

I pray that one day the Christians of Western traditions will be able to say the same, maybe even without suffering such a precipitous decline beforehand. (I should hope so, but that is ultimately up to God and those who are willing to labor in His vineyard today.)

 

[bekkilyn]

I don't think I've ever been to a church service that had chanting.

In my current church, we have a contemporary early service on Sunday morning and a traditional service after Sunday School. I believe that the traditional service gets a bit larger attendance, but not sure if it's because people prefer traditional or because they don't want to be up early in the morning for the early service. We do have a small choir for the traditional service and it's always looking for more members.

My previous church did the same thing, but it was larger and offered an additional service on Saturday evenings.

 

[NeedyFollower]

Now listen here you smiling pup! You better settle down or I'll git out the hose!

Seriously now,




I think I have misunderstood what you were trying to communicate. Let's try to bring this full circle. Now that I see what you're saying, that is an interesting idea. It might even add some depth to the characteristically shallow modern sermons since it would be all to believers, but I think reversing Christianity's decline in the West will require more than that. I think Christianity as it stands fails to capture the imaginations of people because what people hear is so shallow and politicized. It doesn't have to be that way, but that's all people are shown.



The original poster didn't mention homosexuality or even sin generally. He was only asking how we can change the fact that Christians are leaving the faith in droves, far faster than conversions can keep up with.


Like I said, I believed you were making different points than you were. I haven't really looked over the idea that you presented yet, so I'll provisionally accept them for the sake of argument.

I have been reading the postings and replies between you and Albion as I am also concerned about the health and readiness of Christ bride as we watch for His return. While our Lord did tell us to go and make disciples of all nations , teaching them to observe all that He commanded them , I believe the cost of discipleship and making disciples needs to be considered. What did it cost Jesus to make disciples ? What did it cost Peter , John , the apostle Paul and many of the early church fathers ...It cost them everything to make disciples .

While Jesus preached to many ( not all ) , he also never coddled anyone . Even the rich young ruler , Jesus said , loving him , If thou will be perfect , etc. Jesus loved him enough to tell him the truth . When Jesus spoke some hard sayings , many no longer walked with Him ...His response to the twelve ? What are you still doing here ? Aren't you going with them ? And Peter answered , "where will we go ? You have the words of life . "

Are we sharing with potential followers just how difficult it is to turn your back on the world ? That they should count the cost ? To turn from the god of this world and walk a different direction will invite ridicule ( often from believing family members ) , You will be subject to fiery trials and become a gazingstock and /or a companion of those so used . Do we share with them that they must love God , His Son Jesus Christ and others enough to be hated ? The truth will often be rejected . The Truth has been known to have been crucified . If we wish to build the church ..the best place to start is with repentance but numbers is never the answer . You will get more fruit from two well tended vines than a a mixed congregation of vines with one foot in the world . ( You can only get money from great numbers of people. )
All the admonitions and warnings against apostasy in the bible were to believers ...not to the world. I find it quite easy to "go to church , be involved , etc. " I am finding it quite challenging to die to self that Christ might live . To be a reproach is never fun but we were not promised fun were we ?

 

[aiki]

I don't know how to explain it to you. There is a level, not just of disinterest, but even of contempt for "traditional" practices.

Having a formerly Catholic wife and several friends who were also Catholic in their upbringing, what they tell me about their experience of the traditions and rituals of Catholicism is that they compete or interfere with having genuine and personal fellowship with God. The pomp and circumstance of a Catholic mass, the sense of ancient tradition and ritual, obscure rather than illuminate Christ. And the repetitiveness of the liturgies and rituals leads to rote, disengaged behaviour. My wife and my formerly Catholic friends are all deeply contemptuous of Catholicism as a consequence. Now, they haven't swung to the opposite end of the extreme and embraced the foolishness and chaos of many modern seeker-sensitive churches, but they are very opposed to anything in a church service that has a liturgical quality to it.

P.S. - I know you aren't Catholic.

 

[dzheremi]

When I was a Roman Catholic, the people around me even had a term for that: "ABC Christians/Christianity", meaning "Anything But Catholic".

I think it was with this tendency in mind that I was told by several people during the three years I spent in between leaving Catholicism and being received into the Coptic Orthodox Church that I should always be mindful that I am to convert to something, rather than away from something else. I think that's pretty good advice for everyone, regardless of where in particular they may be coming from or going to.

 

[Albion]

Having a formerly Catholic wife and several friends who were also Catholic in their upbringing, what they tell me about their experience of the traditions and rituals of Catholicism is that they compete or interfere with having genuine and personal fellowship with God. The pomp and circumstance of a Catholic mass, the sense of ancient tradition and ritual, obscure rather than illuminate Christ.

What you describe is very unfortunate, but I am sure that some people do feel that way.

I know, however, that liturgical worship--not everything that the Catholic Church does and teaches, but liturgical worship as practiced also by a number of other church bodies--doesn't have to produce that kind of reaction. Many who understand what is going on are edified by this ancient and uplifting type of worship.

Those others who never get beyond the warning that it's a mortal sin if you don't show up...and who have never been adequately instructed in the meaning of the various parts of the liturgy are apt to think of it as "pomp and circumstance" or dressing up or something else of that sort.

 

[ripple the car]

Can leaven be separated from dough? Maybe Christianity shouldn't be all that distinctive from the culture? Especially because western culture has been shaped so heavily by it?

I disagree. If we're going to get into a mode that most here would be more likely to agree with, let's just take the New Testament as an example. A text which praises modesty and condemns immodesty, promotes sexual purity and life-long heterosexual monogamy under Christ and describes all else as sin, which decries gross materialism, greed, lying, self-promotion, vanity, pride, cruelty, and hypocrisy. More and more, our society seems fascinated by the opposite of all that the New Testament promotes as good and honorable, even promoting and honoring these things publicly and vocally.

Christianity should, imho, be a culture in and of itself, which may or may not resemble the surrounding culture, but which should always be definable as something unique, whether the culture around it is conservative Islam, a mostly gay neighborhood in New York, a college town full of young liberal idealists, or a hamlet of violent racists.