Ship of Fools: the future of the church

Thread: the future of the church Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023326

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

The furture of the church is good. Its growing and even in the 1st world decline is not as grim as some people hav thought.
It all hangs on what we believe . And if we believe in the ressurrection we know the fuuture is great .And that says for the church your future is going to be great .
So quit getting bent out of shape over the future of the church . We have outlasted many
attempts to terminate the church. So be of good
great cheer. [Votive]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Is there a topic here for discussion?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Yes there is, if someone wants to disagree with the OP or say why they do agree.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

Well, I guess I'll make a few predictions about the future of the church in the next 40-50 years, at least in the US.

The Catholic Church will grow slightly, becoming increasingly brown and blue-collar. It will still have not changed its teaching on Dead Horses.

The Evangelicals will decline in numbers and influence (having peaked in both sometime around the middle of the last decade). They are in 2012 where Mainline Protestantism was around 1970, and will be where the Mainline is today in a few decades.

The Eastern Orthodox will receive a surprising number of former Evangelical converts.

The Mainline Protestants, bleeding numbers, money, and influence, will attempt a Untied Church of Canada type merger in this period to save themselves from extinction and/or fiscal bankruptcy.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

and the megachurches that provide entertainment rather than substance will have faded just as the Toronto Movement did.

But the number of unchurched will not have decreased because the churches will still not be addressing their concerns.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
and the megachurches that provide entertainment rather than substance will have faded just as the Toronto Movement did.

Perhaps. Personally, I think they'll still be around, but increasingly abandon even nominal Christian terms and symbols, turning into nothing but weekly self-help seminars based around a cult of personality and a vague, idiot "spirituality". Heck, Joel Osteen is just about there.

[ 22. July 2012, 21:13: Message edited by: Unreformed ]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

I think worldwide I'd put my my money on the exact opposite of your predictions Unreformed. Evangelicalism looks to be on the rise, from being predominantly a US homegrown product, to becoming a worldwide phenomenon.

The mainstream denominations look like they're in the process of cutting their sails to a new wind. It's taking an embarrassingly but not unsurprisingly long time to do so, and at the moment they give the impression that they are becalmed and flapping in the breeze, but once they've sorted themselves out they'll be able to take advantage of the dearth of spirituality in the modern world. People are currently being told that the material is all that matters, but the trend of society will soon swing back as people become desperate for something to fulfill their spiritual needs. It seems to be a pattern of history, a period of rational materialism and general ridiculing of traditional faith, then a period of spiritual revival and renewal.

Catholicism on the other hand looks like its on its last legs. Attacked on all sides, its only USP is its historical Authority, and this has been cut out from under it. Unlike Anglicanism, it is unable to reset its sails, they are nailed in place.

I think some megachurches will fade away but others I suspect will mature into cathedrals of the new evangelical religion.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Evangelicalism looks to be on the rise, from being predominantly a US homegrown product, to becoming a worldwide phenomenon.

Evangelicalism worldwide, at least in its Pentecostal form certainly is on the rise, but it's beginning to wane in the US. It doesn't look that bad right now but it didn't look all that bad for Mainline Protestantism in 1970s. Even the mighty Southern Baptist Convention is beginning to lose members.

quote:
People are currently being told that the material is all that matters, but the trend of society will soon swing back as people become desperate for something to fulfill their spiritual needs.

Now THIS I most certainly agree with. But I'd like to know why you think such people will turn to the denominations that have purposely done their best to ape the attitudes and values of secular society, albeit trying to shoehorn them into Christian creeds and symbols.

I'll also add that, sadly, I'm not sure a religious revival will necessarily be a Christian one this time, especially in Europe. It could very well be syncretic neo-paganism (already starting with the popular phrase "spiritual, but not religious") or even Islam.

As to your point about the Catholic Church, I'd really like to know where you draw that conclusion from. IIRC, the only place its declining is Europe.

With respect to Anglicanism, barring a miracle the Anglican Communion is going to have a big, global crack-up sooner rather than later, along several fault lines. Anglicanism is an expired political compromise trying to hold together several disparate and irreconcilable threads. And I'm not just talking about Dead Horses, either.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
I'll also add that, sadly, I'm not sure a religious revival will necessarily be a Christian one this time, especially in Europe. It could very well be syncretic neo-paganism (already starting with the popular phrase "spiritual, but not religious") or even Islam.

I have a more hopeful (from the Christian perspective) take on the 'spiritual but not religious' trend. I wonder if people are still spiritually inclined, maybe more so given the economic conditions that western governments are struggling with.

It's just that people are less inclined to turn to religious institutions for their spiritual fulfilment. Hence, I think there could be a big future for the emerging / organic Christianity movement, which downplays the role and importance of institutions and focuses much more on being church in the context of existing community relationships.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
As to your point about the Catholic Church, I'd really like to know where you draw that conclusion from. IIRC, the only place its declining is Europe.

Given that Rome has lost Europe, and is in the process of losing Brazil and probably other parts of Latin America to Pentecostals, it seems it's mostly in big trouble...

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
The furture of the church is good. Its growing and even in the 1st world decline is not as grim as some people hav thought.
It all hangs on what we believe . And if we believe in the ressurrection we know the fuuture is great .And that says for the church your future is going to be great .
So quit getting bent out of shape over the future of the church . We have outlasted many
attempts to terminate the church. So be of good
great cheer.

Thanks for that PaulBC. Now let me throw a spanner in the works.. [Eek!]

Not that I disagree with you on anything, but the truth is that the Church can never decline - because it doesn't just consist of those who presently live and keep the Faith, but also of those who have died in the Faith (the Church Triumphant).

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
The furture of the church is good. Its growing and even in the 1st world decline is not as grim as some people hav thought.
It all hangs on what we believe . And if we believe in the ressurrection we know the fuuture is great .And that says for the church your future is going to be great .
So quit getting bent out of shape over the future of the church . We have outlasted many
attempts to terminate the church. So be of good
great cheer.
Thanks for that PaulBC. Now let me throw a spanner in the works.. Not that I disagree with you on anything, but the truth is that the Church can never decline - because it doesn't just consist of those who presently live and keep the Faith, but also of those who have died in the Faith (the Church Triumphant).

Mark Betts;
You aren't throwing a spanner in the works. You just make a very valid point that
the church is not we the current faithful but all our predecessors and those who will follow us .Does give one a sense of hope.
[Votive]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

That may be so on some philosophical level, but it doesn't relate to the significant amount of dechurching that is still going on.

If there are fewer live people taking part in "church" , then "church" will be a visibly smaller entity, with less political and spiritual clout. A church of dead people would necessarily be a dead church to the rest of us, just as there are dead languages. Preserved in the museum sense, maybe, but irrelevant.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
That may be so on some philosophical level, but it doesn't relate to the significant amount of dechurching that is still going on.

Should be qualified by in the West. Certainly that's not true worldwide.

Anyway, HorsemanBree, I hear you talk about this a lot, what exactly is your solution?

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Catholicism on the other hand looks like its on its last legs. Attacked on all sides, its only USP is its historical Authority, and this has been cut out from under it. Unlike Anglicanism, it is unable to reset its sails, they are nailed in place.

yeah, yeah, yeah. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given that Rome has lost Europe, and is in the process of losing Brazil and probably other parts of Latin America to Pentecostals, it seems it's mostly in big trouble...

yeah, yeah, yeah [Roll Eyes]

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

Ecumenism. Mergers. Sharing.

Around here, Anglicans are buddies with Lutherans and Roman Catholics. Mennonites and United Church of Canada (1925 merger of Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Methodists) is also in the mix, but a little further away.

I expect that history of denominations will continue to make less and less difference, at least in places where the roots are shallow about old world culture.

Church authority, bishops and popes and all the rest, seems to mean rather little, particularly when people of conscience are involved.

The only problem I see with all of this on a personal note is the western Canadian tendency to have music devolve in country gospel and annoying all purpose hymns like Amazing Grace, On Eagles Wings and Shine Jesus Shine.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:
That may be so on some philosophical level, but it doesn't relate to the significant amount of dechurching that is still going on.
Should be qualified by in the West. Certainly that's not true worldwide.

I think this is a good point to remember. I don't think certain denominations declining in the West will be replaced by different factions of those same denominations, the future centre of the Church is in the East.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:
That may be so on some philosophical level, but it doesn't relate to the significant amount of dechurching that is still going on.
Should be qualified by in the West. Certainly that's not true worldwide.
I think this is a good point to remember. I don't think certain denominations declining in the West will be replaced by different factions of those same denominations, the future centre of the Church is in the East.

Not nitpicking here, but don't you mean South? Or are you actually saying Eastern Orthodoxy is the future?

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:
That may be so on some philosophical level, but it doesn't relate to the significant amount of dechurching that is still going on.
Should be qualified by in the West. Certainly that's not true worldwide.
I think this is a good point to remember. I don't think certain denominations declining in the West will be replaced by different factions of those same denominations, the future centre of the Church is in the East.
Not nitpicking here, but don't you mean South? Or are you actually saying Eastern Orthodoxy is the future?

No, I don't mean South and I don't mean Eastern Orthodoxy either.

I'm talking about Asia.

[ 23. July 2012, 03:10: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Ender's Shadow: Given that Rome has lost Europe, and is in the process of losing Brazil and probably other parts of Latin America to Pentecostals, it seems it's mostly in big trouble...

My impression is that Pentecostalism is over its peak in Brazil. It grew exponentially in the eighties and the nineties, mostly fuelled by the exodus from the countryside to the favelas in the cities. But that's over, and people in the favelas have much more choices in their lives now.

Many times when I pass by a big Pentecostal church, I just see 5 middle-aged ladies singing out of tune. Pentecostalism is still big in Brazil of course, but they're nowhere near their growth numbers of 20 years ago. I don't see them pushing over Catholicism anytime soon.

Brazilian-style Pentecostalism is still on the rise in Africa though, in my view much more than that coming from the US. Not only in Portuguese speaking countries, wherever I go in Africa, I seem to meet Brazilian missionaries everywhere.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Ender's Shadow: Given that Rome has lost Europe, and is in the process of losing Brazil and probably other parts of Latin America to Pentecostals, it seems it's mostly in big trouble...
My impression is that Pentecostalism is over its peak in Brazil.

In fact, it's still on the rise

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Ramarius:In fact, it's still on the rise

To be honest, I'm a bit sceptical about these numbers. Religion is something very fluid for Brazilians, they often switch between religions and not rarely have two or three at the same time. Ticking a box in an IBGE census doesn't always have to mean that they're active in an evangelical church.

It would really surprise me if these numbers would reflect reality. I'd believe them 15 years ago, but they really don't reflect what I see in society: empty churches, people leaving evangelical groups, declining influence in society...

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
I'll also add that, sadly, I'm not sure a religious revival will necessarily be a Christian one this time, especially in Europe. It could very well be syncretic neo-paganism (already starting with the popular phrase "spiritual, but not religious") or even Islam.

Well I'm obviously biased but I don't think either of those can offer the same level of truth, and fulfil the need for a deep, redemptive and meaningful relationship with the infinite that Christianity does. IMO Neo-paganism is a mish-mash of modern thought and symbolism pretending to use ancient imagery. It's part of the problem with the lack of true spirituality in the modern world, not the solution.

Islam may stand more of a chance as it is more legalistic than Christianity and is well placed to catch people on the rebound from the anything-goes culture who want some certainty and overt sense of traditional morality in their lives. This has been lost from much of day-to-day Western Christianity and its draw is very powerful. However, I suspect this will be of limited effect overall. The problems with Islam run deep, and since historically its main means of converting large numbers was by warfare, or family ties, its ability to evangelise in other ways hasn't been fully developed, both theologically and practically. Globalisation will destroy family ties, and there is no international acceptance of religious war any more.

Evangelising by preaching and discipling individuals en masse has been Christianity's modus operandi since its inception though and we've got pretty good at it, and still have all the organisational structures, theology and teachings, and centuries of experience in place, ready to reap the harvest when the time comes.

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
With respect to Anglicanism, barring a miracle the Anglican Communion is going to have a big, global crack-up sooner rather than later, along several fault lines. Anglicanism is an expired political compromise trying to hold together several disparate and irreconcilable threads. And I'm not just talking about Dead Horses, either.

That's always been the case though, since it was founded. I can't see that the current fault-lines are any worse, or likely to finally knock it over than the ones it survived before.

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Catholicism on the other hand looks like its on its last legs. Attacked on all sides, its only USP is its historical Authority, and this has been cut out from under it. Unlike Anglicanism, it is unable to reset its sails, they are nailed in place.
yeah, yeah, yeah.

Bread and circuses.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I think Hawk is wrong about the Roman Catholic Church. There are certainly areas where it appears to be in trouble, especially parts of Western Europe, but there are others, such as India; parts of Africa and the Philipines where it is alive and thriving and even sending priests to the West to replace older clergy there.

The Anglophone countries: the UK; USA; Anglophone Canada; Australia and New Zealand seem to be going through a process of change, which, if the laity; local hierarchy; clerics and nuns and the Vatican can meet on common ground and speak the same vocabulary, could lead to a real revival.

The Anglican Communion is going through a catharsis; de facto schism and regional realignment. Certain Provinces are growing. Others are shrinking. It seems to be growing most outside the "ethnically Anglican" enclaves.

I know less about Evangelicals and Pentecostals. Ditto Lutherans; Reformed; Methodists et sim.

I wish gorpo were around because he could round out Le Roc's rather interesting comments on Brazil. My understanding is that much which passes for "Catholicism" in Brazil is an eclectic mixture of that and Voodoo. Not really "official" Catholicism.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Sir Pellinore (ret'd): My understanding is that much which passes for "Catholicism" in Brazil is an eclectic mixture of that and Voodoo. Not really "official" Catholicism.

No, I wouldn't say that. There are a number of Brazilians who are being syncretic and who mix their Catholicism with Umbanda and Candomblé, but I'd say they're a minority.

My experience is that Brazilian Catholics are a mixed bunch. There is a lot of folk devotion to certain Saints, there are still a number of Liberation Theology base groups, there are certainly a lot of nominal Catholics who don't go to Mass much, and there are those who are more or less MotR but will sing a lot of evangelical songs. It's very much a mixed picture.

quote:
Sir Pellinore (ret'd): I wish gorpo were around because he could round out Le Roc's rather interesting comments on Brazil.

Yes, I'd like that!

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Unreformed: I don't have a solution. I'm not in a position to exercise my authority as the Expert on Everything, or the One Who Has The Answer.

I'm simply observing the decline of "church" at the local level, which is, yes, in the "west".

But I do see the decline in the "west" as related to the triumphant certainty of the 1950's that the church was going to grow continuously by claiming authority rather than by being Christian, and by being "church" as a place that people would want to come to.

Oddly enough, I can trace the decline of Anglicanism to the insistence on outward shows such as "women must wear hats while in church, even when vacuuming" and confirmation as "something that is done to you" which led to people just getting tired of the whole thing, or people just wandering away because it didn't matter.

I see the same thing in the churches that insist that the exact right way of waving your hands in the air while singing a praise song matters more than the theological underpinnings of what it means to be Christian, or the insistence that the exact theological understanding, and expression of that understanding, that worked for the people of 912 is going to work for the people of 2012.

Just as the almost-violent defense of Seven-24hr-Day Creationism or the refusal to see women as equals, or gays as merely human, makes sure that large numbers of people will see the church as actively nasty, not just irrelevant.

I personally don't think that "Well, My church is the only way to go" is going to work in a world that clearly has many churches/other religious organisations that have worked well for centuries. Simple authority is not going to build a community that works (except, of course, by force - but we all have seen how well that worked with faiths like Communism or is working with some present-day religious organisations)

When I talk to a pleasant guitar-strumming girl who says that her friends ask her "How can you be Christian? You're too nice.", I wonder just how long the church has.

But YMMV, since your locale is different from mine. Just don't prescribe for me how things are where I am.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Thanks Le Roc.

You don't know what happened to gorpo, do you?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
To be honest, I'm a bit sceptical about these numbers.

I'm a bit sceptical about all statitics which have to do with religious adherence.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Sir Pellinore (ret'd):You don't know what happened to gorpo, do you?

No, I'm sorry. I had some PM contact with him in the beginning, but he actually lives 2000 miles from where I live in Brazil. His last posts were in June, so he might come back.

I think we used to have another Brazilian Shipmate, but I forgot his/her screen name.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I was under the impression he was somewhere like Santa Catarina, or even further south, whilst you were up in the north.

Lovely guy. I hope my humour, or attempt at it, didn't put him off.

Anglophones often don't realize what a huge, powerful, industrialised and varied country Brasil is. I think you were from the Netherlands originally, so the difference to Europe would certainly have struck you.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

Islam may stand more of a chance as it is more legalistic than Christianity and is well placed to catch people on the rebound from the anything-goes culture who want some certainty and overt sense of traditional morality in their lives. This has been lost from much of day-to-day Western Christianity and its draw is very powerful. However, I suspect this will be of limited effect overall. The problems with Islam run deep, and since historically its main means of converting large numbers was by warfare, or family ties, its ability to evangelise in other ways hasn't been fully developed, both theologically and practically. Globalisation will destroy family ties, and there is no international acceptance of religious war any more.

People who posit the rise of Islam in Europe usually assert that this will happen for demographic reasons. I.e., immigration and larger families among Muslims will increase the influence of Islam, whereas the indigenous 'Christian' populations are ageing, and not having many children.

quote:

Evangelising by preaching and discipling individuals en masse has been Christianity's modus operandi since its inception though and we've got pretty good at it, and still have all the organisational structures, theology and teachings, and centuries of experience in place, ready to reap the harvest when the time comes.

I can't agree with this, really. I don't think the church is 'pretty good' at evangelism or 'disipling individuals en masse', and I don't think that current 'organisational structures', or 'centuries of experience' would be much use. If a revival started tomorrow, I doubt that our churches would know what to do. What normally seems to happen is that a bunch of new denominations spring up because the old ones can't cope with what's happening. (In time, some of the converts or their children might drift back to the historical churches, though.)

In Western Europe the historical churches are in maintainance mode, and in fact, they're often in the process of managing decline. (Newer churches have problems too - they're small, and our secular society mostly ignores them rather than seeing them as a threat.) It's hard to imagine that these institutions would be able to benefit significantly from a revivalistic era. Indeed, they might see such a thing as a threat.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Sir Pellinore (ret'd): Anglophones often don't realize what a huge, powerful, industrialised and varied country Brasil is. I think you were from the Netherlands originally, so the difference to Europe would certainly have struck you.

Definitely. I've been living on-and-off in Brazil for 20 years now, having stayed there for around 10 years in total. What doesn't fail to surprise me are the big changes in Brazilian society in such a short time in so many areas. Sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad.

Going back to the OP, in the nineties you could actually see the Evangelical churches growing before your eyes. New churches opening everywhere, people converting, loud presence on the streets and in the media. I'm not seeing a lot of that now. Like I said: I see mostly empty churches and people leaving (quite often because they're fed up with titheing). If the Evengalicals had really grown more than 60% in the noughts, I would have noticed it.

I don't really have a horse in this race since I'm neither Catholic nor Evangelical, but I've been looking into Brazilian blogs just now. Evangelical blogs are jubilant of course, and congrulations to them. But if I were them I'd also be thinking in the back of my mind: are these numbers real?

Most Catholic and neutral blogs are more sceptical about it. They suspect that there are a lot of 'nominal Evangelicals' right now, who'll tick the box in a survey but don't actually go to church. Just like there have always been a lot of nominal Catholics.

Another thing is that Evangelical numbers are especially rising in the North region of Brazil. I don't know this region very well (I live in the North-East; it's still a bit of a distance), but it's lagging a bit behind the rest of Brazil in the recent economical boom. That might be part of the explanation.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

If the views described in this blog post by Fred Clark over at Slacktivist are at all true, then the church has no future in America.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Catholicism on the other hand looks like its on its last legs. Attacked on all sides, its only USP is its historical Authority, and this has been cut out from under it. Unlike Anglicanism, it is unable to reset its sails, they are nailed in place.
yeah, yeah, yeah.
Bread and circuses.

If that suits your way of thinking, please yourself.

Anyone who has had any experience of these "bread and circuses" however will tell a different story. The fact that young people from around the globe, at considerable cost to themselves gather in vast numbers for a vibrant celebration of faith, and carry that vibrancy back to their home countries tells a different story. Your prediction of terminal decline is simply confounded by the energy and commitment of the next generation of Catholics. And, as it happens, in total contradiction to analyses such as yours, these young people have a very firm commitment to the "historical Authority" of the Catholic Church. It perplexes (and annoys) the liberal voices within the Catholic Church as well.

Bread and circuses to your cynical eye, something very different to those who actually are involved.

Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :

I think that the Church does have a future. However, I think that several things are going to have to happen.

First, I believe that the Church has got to get off her arse and get to work. People don't give a hoody-doot what we say, because words are cheap and they think most Christians are lying anyway. What speaks is action (like the girl that Horseman Bree mentioned). We're going to have to become more missional. I see this beginning already, and the momentum is building. But it's going to take more for it to really begin making a difference.

This should come as no surprise; Jesus told us point blank to take care of those who are in need -- not if we feel like it, or not if we happen to have a few extra dollars or some guilt to work off, but every single day as a condition to being a disciple.

Second, we have got to stop being so angry at each other and we definitely have to stop flinging poo at each other. People read the reports and especially Twitter feeds and Facebook posts of our meetings (like the UMC General Conference a few weeks ago) and see that we're having a big fight over something they think is largely pointless and write us off. That's not to say that we cannot have differing opinions or be passionate about our causes. But when we resort to language and tone that breaks each other down rather than building each other up, and when we stage protests and disrupt proceedings because we didn't get our way, we're going to find ourselves in trouble.

Third, we have to learn how to extend grace while remaining faithful to Scripture. If, for instance, we decide that homosexuality is not good and that it goes against the Bible, then how do we reconcile that belief with our directive to love everyone the same way that Jesus loves us? How do we learn to show love to someone who is doing something that is contrary to our beliefs, and extend God's grace to them? And further, if we're in the opposite camp (for our example, we believe that homosexuality is good), then we have to learn how to extend grace to those who do not believe as we do (see number 2, above). I may believe that women should be ordained bishops, but if you do not and I treat you like dirt because of it, then how is that any better? Where has Christ's love been shown?

The Church is seen as irrelevant and hypocritical. Perhaps that has something to do with ways of ministry in the modern age, specifically in the 19th and 20th centuries. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that we say we change lives for the better, and therefore people expect more from us, but being human beings we make mistakes. Maybe we've been a bit too full of ourselves. Maybe we haven't put enough action with words. After all, the Kingdom of God is proclamation and demonstration. Jesus proclaimed the kingdom was coming, but then he went and demonstrated it by doing the miracles that identified him as the Messiah to the Jews (Luke 7:18-23, et. al.)

"They will know you are Christians by your love."

Only now they know it by our hate. When are we going to do what Jesus said?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I do not know if my Caminoholic activity of walking on the French and Spanish pilgrimage routes is of any use in this discussion, but it might go to underline what Triple T said. Young people are not looking for anything that is easy-- there is a search for counter-culturality from a deep sense that there is much wrong with western society, there is a yearning for transcendence, and a feeling that it is not supposed to be easy. Without anyone having told them so, they understand that it is supposed to be tough.

For some reason I am repeatedly being dragged into focus groups on outreach etc and find that my advice that young people (by which it is usually meant anyone under 40) are not looking for somewhere/services where they can be comfortable-- they want to be challenged.

It might be that, like the Mesopotamian and Persian churches, the western churches will disappear or become vestigial. In the grand scheme of things, that might not matter, as churches will flourish elsewhere. We were told that the gates of hell would not prevail, not that the Diocese of X would have a balanced budget and a fulfilling and comprehensive programme of activities.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Augustine the Aleut: I do not know if my Caminoholic activity of walking on the French and Spanish pilgrimage routes is of any use in this discussion, but it might go to underline what Triple T said.

But I'd venture that the majority of them aren't into following strict rules.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Augustine the Aleut: I do not know if my Caminoholic activity of walking on the French and Spanish pilgrimage routes is of any use in this discussion, but it might go to underline what Triple T said.
But I'd venture that the majority of them aren't into following strict rules.

From my knowledge of the younger pilgrims, they devise their own strict rules (not mine!) on asceticism in places to stay and what to eat (lasciviousness is curbed by exhaustion and sharing quarters with 20 people). The focus is more on changing what they are or, more precisely, finding out that they have been changed. I'm not sure that they think of it in terms of following strict rules and I suspect that this might be so of Triple T's young folk. Thinking of strict rules might be more of an external observer's perception.

Posted by trouty (# 13497) on :

I'd like to think that the kiddie-fiddlers that the RC church has protected for years will be behind bars. And I'd like to think that those who have protected them, from the Pope downwards, will be in the same place.
I hoppe that the RC church and the wacko evos will decline and that mainstream liberal protestantism will rise. this is what I hope but doubt it is what we will get. Ditto for the kiddie-fiddlers.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
"They will know you are Christians by your love."

Only now they know it by our hate. When are we going to do what Jesus said?

Quite so, Padre Joshua, and what a challenge this is... I'm sure all of us do have stories of Christians showing love to others, but I guess they tend to get less media attention than all the scandals, infighting etc. Not so newsworthy!

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

Philip Jenkins The Next Christendom (revised edition 2007) makes the link between wider demographic change and the growth of Christianity. He makes the link between those nations that are growing fastest in absolute terms, and their currently large, and growing, Christians populations. He compares these to previous centres of Christendom (particularly Europe) where atheism is on the rise, and are facing significant population shrinkage. In 2000 the combined populations of the eight most populous European states was around 535 million. By 2025 this is projected to decline to around 519 million, a decline projected to accelerate significantly by mid-century to around 465 million - a 13% reduction.

In order to keep population stable, it needs a fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman. Of the 23 countries reporting fertility rates lower than 1.5, all but three are European.

Conversely, the southern hemisphere is experiencing a population boom. In 2000 the combined population of the eight largest nations in sub-Saharan Africa numbered around 400 million. By 2050 this will rise substantially, even with the impact of AIDS and could exceed a billion. The same is true for Asia and, in particular, South America. Mexico, for example, grew from 15 million people in 1900 to around 100 million by 2000. Whilst this phenomenal growth is slowing, it is still significantly faster than Europe. Jenkins suggests that between 2000 and 2050, population growth in the eight largest Latin American nations will be around 40%. European nations are getting older (proportion of people 65+ is around 16 -18%), whilst Southern Hemisphere nations are significantly younger (3-4% 65+, with median age under 20, compared to European median ages in their late 30's and rising).

Obviously it's easier to project where people will live in 50 years time than to predict what they will believe. But if past and current trends continue, Christianity will continue to grow among expanding populations. Uganda is projected to be in the top 25 most populous nations by 2050. Its population has grown from 11 million in 1975, to 23 million in 2000, and is projected to rise to 33 million by 2025 and 65 million (overtaking the UK) by 2050. In 2007, around 40% of the population was Protestant, 35% Catholic, and 10% Muslim. Around 85% of the population of the Philippines identify themselves as Christian. Assuming this proportion remains the same, the numbers of Christians will rise with the overall population - currently around 90 million, projected to rise to around 150 million by 2050. There is a similar picture in Brazil where around 90% of the population self-identify as Christians. Population growth here is from 53 million in 1950, to 190 million today, to around 207 million in 2050. It also interested my that in 2001, 37% of all Catholic baptisms in Africa were of adults, showing that conversion was a positive choice (John L Allen "Faith, Hope, and Heroes" NCR Feb 23 2001.) Other examples of denominational growth include Lutherans (9% increase in Africa between 2001 and 2003) and Anglicans (five million in Nigeria in the 1970s, 20 million today, perhaps 35 million by 2025).

The ageing European population will increasingly require young immigrants to fill job vacancies which could both increase the numbers of Christians as they bring their faith, and expand Christianity further as they share their faith. Whilst they could, of course, become secularised in Europe, current trends suggest otherwise with evidence of increased church membership in the UK, for example, in churches as diverse as Black Pentecostals and Orthodox.

Lots to discuss in the detail of all this. But the mega trend, and essential thesis looks sound to me.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Certainly Padre Joshua is onto something when he speaks of us being angry with each other, instead of extending grace to those whom we disagree with. But what should we do? Agree to disagree? Whitewash over the whole thing, and just presume we are somehow in agreement when we are not? Not talk about our differences as if they didn't exist?

Jesus prayed that we should all be one, not that we should learn to live with our differences. If you talk to the man in the street about christianity, he will answer "...but which denomination is the right one?" What a shame we can't just talk about christianity and everyone understand what we mean.

But amongst the 10s of thousands of christian denominations, we can't even agree how to define the church, nor what it's mission to the world is. That's before we think about Salvation, sacraments and doctrine. Even in the Orthodox Church, although we don't have the aforementioned problems, unity and harmony aren't always what they should be, especially when you have all the different jurisdictions which we have in the UK - and we know this has done much damage to the potential of Orthodox growth over here.

So I don't think it's just about wearing a mask of amiability, and pretending to like everyone we disagree with. Ultimately it has to be about Unity - "that they may be one, as the Father and I are one", said Jesus.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Ramarius: There is a similar picture in Brazil where around 90% of the population self-identify as Christians. Population growth here is from 53 million in 1950, to 190 million today, to around 207 million in 2050.

But from 190 to 207 million isn't that big a growth.

If there's one thing that impresses me in Brazil it's the rapid change of demographics. For someone in their forties it's quite normal to have 8 or 9 brothers and sisters, but often someone in their twenties has only 1 or 2. I don't think that the decline in Europe went that swiftly.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Without anyone having told them so, they understand that it is supposed to be tough.

Is it? Since when?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Here and here some articles about Brazil's rapidly falling birth rates. It seems to be something unprecedented that this is happening so fast, and surely this will have consequences for society. Europe already is struggling to adapt to this, I'm guessing that in the future it will be much harder for Brazil.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I do not know if my Caminoholic activity of walking on the French and Spanish pilgrimage routes is of any use in this discussion, but it might go to underline what Triple T said. Young people are not looking for anything that is easy-- there is a search for counter-culturality from a deep sense that there is much wrong with western society, there is a yearning for transcendence, and a feeling that it is not supposed to be easy. Without anyone having told them so, they understand that it is supposed to be tough.

For some reason I am repeatedly being dragged into focus groups on outreach etc and find that my advice that young people (by which it is usually meant anyone under 40) are not looking for somewhere/services where they can be comfortable-- they want to be challenged.

It might be that, like the Mesopotamian and Persian churches, the western churches will disappear or become vestigial. In the grand scheme of things, that might not matter, as churches will flourish elsewhere. We were told that the gates of hell would not prevail, not that the Diocese of X would have a balanced budget and a fulfilling and comprehensive programme of activities.

This sounds very encouraging Augustine the Aleut - it is a shame I never knew about these young people in my youth. [Frown]

Then again, my attitude would have been different, and I would probably have shunned them (in my youthful folly).

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Young people are not looking for anything that is easy-- there is a search for counter-culturality from a deep sense that there is much wrong with western society, there is a yearning for transcendence, and a feeling that it is not supposed to be easy.

Great comment. I have found this to be true of young people here in my church in the USA. They are thrilled to be sent to Africa, Asia or South America to do things they see as worthwhile, even if they are quite challenging. I remember feeling that way myself.

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
It might be that, like the Mesopotamian and Persian churches, the western churches will disappear or become vestigial. In the grand scheme of things, that might not matter, as churches will flourish elsewhere.

Yes, that's the bigger point. [Angel]

I love the fact that this thread acknowledges what most of the ones about the church's future don't, which is that this is a big world and the state of the church in Europe and North America is not the be-all-and-end-all. The church is flourishing world-wide, and if it isn't flourishing in our corner of the world it is our fault, not Christianity's.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
The problems with Islam run deep, and since historically its main means of converting large numbers was by warfare, or family ties, its ability to evangelise in other ways hasn't been fully developed, both theologically and practically. Globalisation will destroy family ties, and there is no international acceptance of religious war any more.

This is true and, when Christianity has had the chance to compete on fair ground for converts it seems to thumping Islam in numbers of converts (see: Africa), despite all the oil money flowing from Saudi Arabia.

But it does have the advantage of being much simpler to understand than the doctrines Christianity, and its chief text is not allowed (often under threats of either violence in the Muslim world or accusations of "racism" in the West) to be put under textual or higher criticism.

quote:
That's always been the case though, since it was founded. I can't see that the current fault-lines are any worse, or likely to finally knock it over than the ones it survived before.

Here's the thing, though. It managed to hold together for so long in Britain because it was the established church, and in the US because TEC was the church of the white, establishment upper class. It was identified with the nation on one side of the Atlantic and respectable society on the other. Both of these things are slipping away. Do you really think Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals, and theological liberals would bother staying in the same denomination if the CofE was disestablished? And with the white uppeer-crust establishment in my country becoming increasingly secular and wanting nothing to do with church (seeing even the most mild forms of belief as embarrassing), I don't see it holding up here, either.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Here and here some articles about Brazil's rapidly falling birth rates. It seems to be something unprecedented that this is happening so fast, and surely this will have consequences for society. Europe already is struggling to adapt to this, I'm guessing that in the future it will be much harder for Brazil.

Thanks for the update LeRoc. I noticed the fertility rate in Brazil is 1.9, about the same as the UK, but higher than Russia or Germany at around 1.4. It will be easier for Brazil to adapt since it has a much younger population.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Here and here some articles about Brazil's rapidly falling birth rates. It seems to be something unprecedented that this is happening so fast, and surely this will have consequences for society. Europe already is struggling to adapt to this, I'm guessing that in the future it will be much harder for Brazil.
Thanks for the update LeRoc. I noticed the fertility rate in Brazil is 1.9, about the same as the UK, but higher than Russia or Germany at around 1.4. It will be easier for Brazil to adapt since it has a much younger population.

Brazil can also rely on immigration in the future to replace its population, since like the US and Canada its primarily a settler country. It's harder for a place like Germany to do that.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I think you are quite right, Augustine the Aleut. Young people seem to want something which both challenges them and gives life meaning. Much
confected Christianity in the West today, especially amongst the rapidly decreasing denominations, is incredibly narcissistic and wide of the mark IMHO. It caters to a rapidly decreasing number of "in" young people. That is why I think something archetypally Western Christian, like walking the Camino, helps them dig deep.

Last Sunday I was much heartened at a young man, who had had a bit of a "rest", inviting other young people to what seems like a fairly lively young people's Catholic conference. The Catholic place I was at had the young people. My previous Anglican place didn't. Or they were pushing 40 and boring, conformist and wanting something not spiritual from the place.

I think whatever needs to be done to restore life to the Western churches needs to be done now, before they lose critical mass.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Without anyone having told them so, they understand that it is supposed to be tough.
Is it? Since when?

Yes. Since ever. YMMV

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Brazil can also rely on immigration in the future to replace its population, since like the US and Canada its primarily a settler country. It's harder for a place like Germany to do that.

Germany has no particular problem with boosting its population by immigration, of course. As one might expect from economic circumstances, Germany is the leader in immigration both in absolute and relative numbers within the EU, ahead of France and the UK. On a worldwide comparison, Germany is number three after the USA and Russia in total immigration numbers, and barely behind the USA in percentage of population (12.81% USA vs. 12.31% Germany). Unsurprisingly, Brazil is a complete joke concerning getting immigration so far. If you want to look at "classical" places that make Germany (as well as the USA...) look somewhat behind in immigration numbers, then you would have to go to Australia or Canada. The real immigration stars at the moment are however the Arab nations (Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, ...) or for example Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong, ...

In short, give people the slightest chance to go where the serious money is, and they will.

Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Certainly Padre Joshua is onto something when he speaks of us being angry with each other, instead of extending grace to those whom we disagree with. But what should we do? Agree to disagree? Whitewash over the whole thing, and just presume we are somehow in agreement when we are not? Not talk about our differences as if they didn't exist?

Jesus prayed that we should all be one, not that we should learn to live with our differences. If you talk to the man in the street about christianity, he will answer "...but which denomination is the right one?" What a shame we can't just talk about christianity and everyone understand what we mean.

But amongst the 10s of thousands of christian denominations, we can't even agree how to define the church, nor what it's mission to the world is. That's before we think about Salvation, sacraments and doctrine. Even in the Orthodox Church, although we don't have the aforementioned problems, unity and harmony aren't always what they should be, especially when you have all the different jurisdictions which we have in the UK - and we know this has done much damage to the potential of Orthodox growth over here.

So I don't think it's just about wearing a mask of amiability, and pretending to like everyone we disagree with. Ultimately it has to be about Unity - "that they may be one, as the Father and I are one", said Jesus.

I agree, wholeheartedly. I think the tension is in that dichtomy: The need to be agreeable and unified, versus the need to be faithful to one's beliefs, even when others believe differently.

I unfortunately don't have a good answer. Hopefully someday they'll look back at us, shake their heads with bemusement, and wonder why it took us so long to figure it out.

I also suspect it will have something to do with mission and the Eucharist.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
...I also suspect it will have something to do with mission and the Eucharist.

Properly understood, both the Church and the Mass/Liturgy/Eucharist are Christ's Mission on Earth and the Perpetual Renewer of It.

That might sound trite, but, I think, any general, legitimate renewal of the whole Church always seems to come out of left field from a direction the wise men of Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, Heidelberg etc. never imagine.

It is not what we don't know but what we don't do which has brought Western Christianity to its present predicament. Everything necessary exists: it's just not being properly respected and implemented. We are talking about rediscovering the wellsprings of real holiness, both individually and community wise, not starting another study or focus group.

We really and I most certainly include myself here seem to have lost the ability to be as little children and really "see". Our blindness and impotence are self-caused. The responsibility for change lies with every individual Christian and church to do as much as he/she/they can on a practical day by day basis, without anticipating an immediate pay off. Even though it might seem futile. The irony is nothing good in this regard, however small it seems, is futile.

I am quite sure, despite the doom sayers, God actually has a plan which is slowly but surely unfolding. We need to pray, watch, listen and attempt to see and cooperate with aforesaid plan. It's not an intellectual exercise for the terminally bored but something real and tangible.

In this time I think we really need to fast and pray for wise leaders and good clergy.
[Votive]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Without anyone having told them so, they understand that it is supposed to be tough.
Is it? Since when?

When someone said 'Take up your cross and follow me'?

Every revival movements tends to end up as legalistic because at the height of the revival a lot of things are abandoned which are OK in their own right, but can be a distraction. Once the way of revival is over, people tend to cling to the outward forms and lose the inner reality; this is seen both in monastic movements and more recent Protestant ones - prohibition was the child of this in the USA.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Ultimately it has to be about Unity - "that they may be one, as the Father and I are one", said Jesus.

I'd guess this comment is thoroughly uncontroversial, except that for some people (not saying you, Mark Betts, just making a general comment) 'unity' means some combination of 'uniformity' and a single church institution across the whole world. But I think 'unity' can mean 'unity of purpose', requiring every Christian neither to (a) practice their faith in the same way, nor (b) to belong to one global institution.

As I mentioned upthread, I think there's a growing distrust of institutions and authority figures, so maybe the future of the church involves more working together (e.g. across denominations) but in a less formal way, for example with things like the New Monasticism movements.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
IngoB: Unsurprisingly, Brazil is a complete joke concerning getting immigration so far.

That's one of the other things that I'm seeing changing. The last couple of years, a number of Africans (mostly Angolans and Cape Verdeans, but also from other countries) are entering Brazil. Not in such a scale as in Europe, but I guess it's starting.

What this will do for the future of the church, I don't know [Confused]

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Certainly Padre Joshua is onto something when he speaks of us being angry with each other, instead of extending grace to those whom we disagree with. But what should we do? Agree to disagree? Whitewash over the whole thing, and just presume we are somehow in agreement when we are not? Not talk about our differences as if they didn't exist?

Jesus prayed that we should all be one, not that we should learn to live with our differences. If you talk to the man in the street about christianity, he will answer "...but which denomination is the right one?" What a shame we can't just talk about christianity and everyone understand what we mean.

But amongst the 10s of thousands of christian denominations, we can't even agree how to define the church, nor what it's mission to the world is. That's before we think about Salvation, sacraments and doctrine. Even in the Orthodox Church, although we don't have the aforementioned problems, unity and harmony aren't always what they should be, especially when you have all the different jurisdictions which we have in the UK - and we know this has done much damage to the potential of Orthodox growth over here.

So I don't think it's just about wearing a mask of amiability, and pretending to like everyone we disagree with. Ultimately it has to be about Unity - "that they may be one, as the Father and I are one", said Jesus.

Agree with everything here - but it creates a huge tension! I wonder if one step along the road of resolving it is for Christians to be better at disagreement.

I don't mean by that that we should disagree more (!), but that we need to be better at handling disagreement and conflict. It seems that we see every single issue as a primary importance and, therefore, a potential deal-breaker if we disagree about it. This seems especially prevalent in the current DH issues, where all sides in each argument seem to come with the attitude of "we're right and if we don't get what we want we'll denounce you and split", rather than, "we disagree about this - and that's no small matter. But we're one in Christ first and foremost - let's see if we can't work together to find a way forward that we can all live with, however difficult that may be."

This extends (IMHO) to some of the comments on this thread about certain denominations and wishing that they were no longer around. That, to me, is a dangerous path to go on - setting ourselves up as the "correct" way of being Christian only makes problems worse. (Hey, even us Baptists have realised you don't need to be Baptist to be saved...)

And then the world sees a church that is divided and arguing about some issues and never the extremely good work the church is doing [Frown]

.

Perhaps if we could understand that disagreement is a) normal, even for Christians, and b) in most cases not a deal-breaker for us, perhaps people might listen to what we have to say.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
"we disagree about this - and that's no small matter. But we're one in Christ first and foremost - let's see if we can't work together to find a way forward that we can all live with, however difficult that may be."

Yes indeed! I'd just add that wouldn't it be good if Christians assumed good faith on the part of fellow believers who disagree with us. We can't pretend disagreements don't exist, certainly not, but hopefully we can be gracious in our disagreements and assume (until there's clear contrary evidence) that those on all sides of an argument are following God as best they can.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Yes indeed! I'd just add that wouldn't it be good if Christians assumed good faith on the part of fellow believers who disagree with us. We can't pretend disagreements don't exist, certainly not, but hopefully we can be gracious in our disagreements and assume (until there's clear contrary evidence) that those on all sides of an argument are following God as best they can.

I think most of us try to do that anyway - but it still doesn't resolve the problem of the man-in-the-street, who doesn't know which is the right denomination and sees us all believing different things.

I think there are some things we can peacefully disagree on (such as local traditions) but others which are more difficult to just sweep under the carpet, because they are too important and affect the very essence of our core beliefs.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Mark Betts

I think the 'man-in-the-street' is being disingenous when talks about being confused.

When Christians agree with each other, the accusation is that we're behaving like sheep, meekly agreeing with everything our priests/popes/pastors tell us. Yet when we disagree, we're accused of being muddled, of making things up, of avoiding a simpler truth, which is that diversity of views means we're all just making things up for our own convenience.

The point is that many people simply want a reason, any reason, to dismiss Christianity, and both unity and disunity can serve that purpose.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Mark Betts

I think the 'man-in-the-street' is being disingenous when talks about being confused.

When Christians agree with each other, the accusation is that we're behaving like sheep, meekly agreeing with everything our priests/popes/pastors tell us. Yet when we disagree, we're accused of being muddled, of making things up, of avoiding a simpler truth, which is that diversity of views means we're all just making things up for our own convenience.

The point is that many people simply want a reason, any reason, to dismiss Christianity, and both unity and disunity can serve that purpose.

Agreed - I must admit that most of the people who declare such a statement seem to be using it as an excuse for their apathy.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If the views described in this blog post by Fred Clark over at Slacktivist are at all true, then the church has no future in America.

I agree-- to the extent that I understand a rant that is about as clear as the book of Revelation. It would be much easier to promote such an agenda in the name of Mohammed than Christ. But let's not clue Doug Wilson (whoever he is) in on that. Heaven help us all if and when the Christian far-right and the Islamist far-right discover how much they have in common.

quote:
Unreformed writes:

quote:
People are currently being told that the material is all that matters, but the trend of society will soon swing back as people become desperate for something to fulfill their spiritual needs.
Now THIS I most certainly agree with. But I'd like to know why you think such people will turn to the denominations that have purposely done their best to ape the attitudes and values of secular society, albeit trying to shoehorn them into Christian creeds and symbols.

I'll also add that, sadly, I'm not sure a religious revival will necessarily be a Christian one this time, especially in Europe. It could very well be syncretic neo-paganism (already starting with the popular phrase "spiritual, but not religious") or even Islam.

Maybe, but if so, would Europe still be Europe? If Europeans surrender to Islam, do they realize how profound that surrender would be? Richard Florida's Flight of the Creative Class contains a world map showing levels of creativity in various countries and regions. Islamic territory is as black as night.

Admittedly, creativity can be over-rated. But there goes freedom as well... political and other self-determination... the ballot box... women's equality... education worthy of the name... give them a few years and they're not gonna like it. This is not the direction that people the world over go when they get a chance to vote with their feet.

Ross Douthat is deservedly in the doghouse right now on another thread, but I was impressed when he wrote a few years back, "This is what decadence looks like: a frantic coarseness that 'bravely' trashes its own values and traditions, and then knuckles under swiftly to totalitarianism and brute force." As much as folks who fit that description may be getting exactly what they deserve, you have to feel sorry for their kids.

Syncretic neo-paganism is a dilettantish mirage at best and Satanism at worst. One interesting thing about the Christian faith is how materialistic it really is. If your are a Christian, maybe the material is not all that matters, but it is quite real and it does very much matter. The idea that one becomes spiritual by leaving the material behind is gnostic, and therefore deeply alien in another way to everything that has made Europe and America desirable places in which to live.

One might have considerable respect for Buddhism; but again, how authentically can a Westerner practice it? Fr. Lloyd tells of a group of would-be Zen Buddists in Seattle who invited a master from Japan to teach them How It's Really Done. His first words to them: To understand Zen, your native language must be Japanese.

Evangelical groups are as ephemeral and insubstantial as so many bubbles around the edges of a broth. We have to confront what John Henry Newman said: "to understand history is to become a Catholic." He wrote that (or words to that effect), of course, after he had immersed himself in patristics and history thoroughly enough to compose The Development of Christian Doctrine. He was an Anglican at that time, but found this prayerful study so illuminating as to feel that he had to swim the Tiber before it had emerged from the publisher's gestation. I'm not there yet, still believing that Anglicanism is part of the Catholic fold. Nor is it entirely by accident that the Episcopal church is associated with intelligent and successful people. I think that its values have promoted an unusual degree of vitality and balance in life; and as the smoke clears away it, this will be rediscovered. On the other hand, Newman may have been correct. Time will tell.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

If Europeans surrender to Islam, do they realize how profound that surrender would be? Richard Florida's Flight of the Creative Class contains a world map showing levels of creativity in various countries and regions. Islamic territory is as black as night.

There's no sign that Europeans of indigenous ancestry are turning to Islam in any significant numbers. It's not clear why they would do so in the future - except that, with the ongoing decline of active Christianity, Islam might be the only religion that they actually see around them, practised by immigrants and their descendants. But by that stage, Europe would already have ceased to be 'Europe' as we imagine it. The most powerful world economies would already be outside the West, and creativity would be in the hands of the young - most of whom would not be of European descent.

[ 24. July 2012, 17:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
I'd like to think that the kiddie-fiddlers that the RC church has protected for years will be behind bars.

I will believe that the RC church has a particular problem in the area of sexual abuse when I hear that liability insurance rates for RC churches are higher than for others. Unless they are, you are merely repeating a scurrilous and lazy stereotype.

But it does appear that a chronic and worsening shortage of RC priests has encouraged bishops to keep men in parish ministry whom it would have been wiser to terminate. Something must be done. If allowing priests to marry, or even ordaining women, would relieve this situation (although I personally don't look forward with delight to either prospect) it would be hard to deny that the Holy Spirit may be pointing the way.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

The church has no future other than its members. To quote someone or other, "We are the body of Christ....."

This is, of course, simplistic and foolish to some extent, but I still think it's true. By continuing to be part of the life of the church, we all contribute to the development of tradition. The tradition is us, because the church is us.

[ 24. July 2012, 20:45: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
The church has no future other than its members. To quote someone or other, "We are the body of Christ....."

This is, of course, simplistic and foolish to some extent, but I still think it's true. By continuing to be part of the life of the church, we all contribute to the development of tradition. The tradition is us, because the church is us.

I would certainly hope the future of the Church is much, much more than the sum total of some of its discrete churches, FOTS, especially its more lifeless outposts.

The "Body of Christ", to me, seems, in some places, to be in an Intensive Care Ward, whilst in others, where they often don't seem to have as much materially, it's alive.

The Almighty is far more than the sum total of the Church and I suspect, somewhere well away from the media circus and ecclesiastical politics, the modern day equivalents of St Francis of Assisi and others are quietly at work renewing the Church at grassroots level. Most of us in the opinionati never get to see it.

Church Tradition is something real and needs to be rediscovered by every generation.

I am guardedly optimistic about the medium term.

Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :

The Church always seems to grow best in times of adversity.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
The Church always seems to grow best in times of adversity.

I dunno. How about the Church has always endured during times of adversity?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
The Church always seems to grow best in times of adversity.

Or, to put it another way, it grows in times of oppression.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
The Church always seems to grow best in times of adversity.
Or, to put it another way, it grows in times of oppression.

The growth of Christianity in its first three centuries and the story of the church in China during Mao's time being two examples. I did some research on this for an essay a couple of years back and the China story I found just amazing.

The western missionaries were all kicked out soon after Mao came to power, then when they were gradually allowed back in after Mao's death they were expecting to find small groups of disheartened, persecuted Christians but instead discovered a thriving grassroots movement.

Whenever I get into conversation about whether Christians might soon face (or are already facing) restrictions and unfavourable treatment in the western world, I tend to think 'bring it on'. Maybe some persecution would be good for the body of Christ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

South Coast Kevin

I hear what you're saying. But I don't know if pampered Westerners such as us could really cope with all of that. We might admire other people's steadfastness, but we have no memory of serious suffering and oppression ourselves, so where would that strength come from? The Holy Spirit does give her power, but she has also withheld it at certain points in history.

When I hear British Christians whingeing about being 'marginalised' by the authorities I find the whole thing curiously underwhelming.

Maybe there are hidden reserves of 'testicular fortitude' among us. Or something.

[ 25. July 2012, 12:41: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

If Europeans surrender to Islam, do they realize how profound that surrender would be?

I think you should give up reading far-right racist propaganda.

There is one thing that the people show bleat on about Europeans "surrendering" to Islam have in common - they are all evil stinking fsacist racist liars. I hope no-one ever does to Hell, but if they do,Melanie Phillips and Mark Steyn and Anders Brevik have to share a cell and listen to the shite that comes out of each others mouths.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

There's no sign that Europeans of indigenous ancestry are turning to Islam in any significant numbers. It's not clear why they would do so in the future - except that, with the ongoing decline of active Christianity, Islam might be the only religion that they actually see around them, practised by immigrants and their descendants.

Except that cultural Muslims here aren't much more likely to go to the mosque than cultural Christians are to go to church. We'll see what happens, but I expect that by the fourth generation they'll pretty much be assimilated into general society - the only chance of that not happening is if the widespread anti-Islamic bigotry (itself pretty often a surrogate for increasingly unacceptable racism) pushes immigrant groups together for security - and so bring about the opposite of that what bigots say they want.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
The Church always seems to grow best in times of adversity.
I dunno. How about the Church has always endured during times of adversity?

Not always. There have been places and times where large Christianit populations have been almost or entirely extinguished, either by persecution or expulsion - the Arabian peninsula and north-west Africa in the early Middle Ages, central Asia and western China in the later Middle Ages, Japan in the 18th century, western Anatolia in the early 20th century, much of Palestine and Iraq in our own lifetimes, possibly Syria next?

[ 25. July 2012, 14:22: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Not always. There have been places and times where large Christianit populations have been almost or entirely extinguished, either by persecution or expulsion - the Arabian peninsula and north-west Africa in the early Middle Ages, central Asia and western China in the later Middle Ages, Japan in the 18th century, western Anatolia in the early 20th century, much of Palestine and Iraq in our own lifetimes, possibly Syria next?

Indeed. I was just trying to moderate the apparent glee at the next persecution of the Church. "Let thy congregation escape tribulation" and all that.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Whenever I get into conversation about whether Christians might soon face (or are already facing) restrictions and unfavourable treatment in the western world, I tend to think 'bring it on'. Maybe some persecution would be good for the body of Christ...

It would certainly sort out the men from the boys! ...and of course women/girls who are serious about their commitment to Christ, from those who aren't.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
and the megachurches that provide entertainment rather than substance will have faded just as the Toronto Movement did.

But the number of unchurched will not have decreased because the churches will still not be addressing their concerns.

Okay, I'll bite : what concerns?

Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Whenever I get into conversation about whether Christians might soon face (or are already facing) restrictions and unfavourable treatment in the western world, I tend to think 'bring it on'. Maybe some persecution would be good for the body of Christ...

You might be right. When sacramental confession becomes illegal, and we can no longer offer sacramental marriage openly, we'll find out whether we can run underground churches as effectively as the Chinese.

And the Chinese are good at it....

I suspect we'll have fewer people involved, but those that are will be far more committed, and far clearer about what their faith means to them.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There is one thing that the people who bleat on about Europeans "surrendering" to Islam have in common - they are all evil stinking fsacist racist liars. I hope no-one ever does to Hell, but if they do,Melanie Phillips and Mark Steyn and Anders Brevik have to share a cell and listen to the shite that comes out of each others mouths.

And Bruce Bawer? And Theo Van Gogh? And Ayaan Hirsi Ali? These used to be voices crying in the wilderness, but they have more and more company.

If saying I'd prefer neither myself nor anyone I know to make submission (which is what "Islam" means) to that alien faith, especially under duress as is usual, suffices to be called a racist, I'm thinking the easiest thing to do is call your bluff and plead guilty. It beats the alternative.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims (probably not just cultural Muslims, but observant ones) once lived together in harmony and mutual respect in Lahore, for instance. Those days are ending. Other guys are in the saddle now, and they're gonna ride that horse just as hard as they can into power.

I'm just as leery of Christian fanatics in this country-- as Bruce Bawer has been.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

fr W: almost everyone has concerns about relationships, whether friendships, partners, workplace or whatever; they have comcerns about being able to support themselves or their families; they have some concern about their government or community in action.

Most of the unchurched have no concern about "what to do on Sunday morning" or liturgical minutiae or the argunent about roofing during the vestry meeting.

Our church is trying to get some action going in dealing with the welfare /working poor crowd, but the bleating during our meetings is always "But what if they don't come to church?", as if we should insist on church attendance by those we aid. The poor (in cash or spirit) can't know about what we do until we offer something they can relate to, and get the chance to talk about what gives us strength.

Same with "back to Church" Sunday. Saying to someone,"come back and do exactly what you did before when you didn't like it and left" isn't going to lead to a parade through the doors. Something different has to be going on or you've lost them for the last time.

Think of someone who can't feed his/her kids because he/she's a wage slave at the level where the money isn't enough to feed one, let alone a family (i.e. the "working poor"). Do you offer a meal for the family or a chance to sit at a prayer meeting? Do you offer daycare/after-school safe place or Morning Prayer from the 1662?

If they do come to a service, do you preach the immorality of common-law partners, or do you preach the Love of God as to be shown by your congregants? Do you make sure to exclude GLBTs (might be catching, y'know) in a society. like mine, that has had SSMs for years?

Are there people in your congo who are simply good listeners, or who are competent fixer-uppers? Is there some time that is NOT service time when people can come in and be part of the community without signing up for the dusting rota?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
I suspect we'll have fewer people involved, but those that are will be far more committed, and far clearer about what their faith means to them.

Yes, this is what I was getting at - but also I'm thinking that the faith lived out by these more committed people might be far more attractive than what we have now, in more comfortable times (therefore leading to an increase in the number of people involved).

Of course, I'm speculating, and I do note the cases mentioned upthread where persecution has driven Christians out of an area or a country. It's just that I'm so frustrated by apathy among Christians, apathy which would perhaps be reduced if practising the Christian faith became a bit harder

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Not always. There have been places and times where large Christianit populations have been almost or entirely extinguished, either by persecution or expulsion - the Arabian peninsula and north-west Africa in the early Middle Ages, central Asia and western China in the later Middle Ages, Japan in the 18th century, western Anatolia in the early 20th century, much of Palestine and Iraq in our own lifetimes, possibly Syria next?
Indeed. I was just trying to moderate the apparent glee at the next persecution of the Church. "Let thy congregation escape tribulation" and all that.

This. Perhaps I'm a wuss, but I don't get the "praying for persecution" tendency amongst some Christians. It just seems... wrong, like praying for a serious illness or something. I suspect that if Christians in (say) the UK were persecuted, we'd be shocked at how awful it really is - nothing like the spiritual virility test some seem to see it as.

I also think it's vaguely insulting to those who are suffering persecution.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Cultural Muslims here aren't much more likely to go to the mosque than cultural Christians are to go to church. We'll see what happens, but I expect that by the fourth generation they'll pretty much be assimilated into general society - the only chance of that not happening is if the widespread anti-Islamic bigotry (itself pretty often a surrogate for increasingly unacceptable racism) pushes immigrant groups together for security - and so bring about the opposite of that what bigots say they want.

The movement goes both ways, I think. Some commentators note that the second generation of Muslims are often more religious than the first. My own experience, living close to predominantly Muslim areas, is not that young Muslims are becoming more 'westernised', if by that we mean entirely indifferent to religion.

Also, it's relevant to note that ongoing immigration from various Muslim countries, as well as the Pakistani custom of seeking spouses 'back home', means that even the second, third and fourth generations are constantly exposed to fresh Muslim influences.

However, in other parts of the country, with different immigration and assimilation patterns, the outcome for young Muslims may will be different.

I agree that in the media there seems to be a heightened degree of anti-Islamic feeling.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I don't get the "praying for persecution" tendency amongst some Christians. It just seems... wrong, like praying for a serious illness or something. I suspect that if Christians in (say) the UK were persecuted, we'd be shocked at how awful it really is - nothing like the spiritual virility test some seem to see it as.

I think it reveals a certain arrogance amongst those who pray for persecution to come. It's not so much that they want to be at constant risk of torture and death for simply practicing their faith - who in their right mind would ever wish for that? - it's more that they want something to come along and weed out all the other Christians who they see as being wishy-washy liberal types who don't really care about Jesus the way they do.

Of course, they always assume that they would be strong enough to remain faithful. They remind me of Peter at the Last Supper - proudly proclaiming "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will" even though they don't know what's coming. It's easy to assume - and to genuinely believe - that you'll always stay strong when you've not been tested yet, but as Peter found out the time of trial may prove differently.

Nobody should hope for persecution to come upon the Church. They may find that when it does, they are the ones hearing the rooster crow.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think it reveals a certain arrogance amongst those who pray for persecution to come. It's not so much that they want to be at constant risk of torture and death for simply practicing their faith - who in their right mind would ever wish for that? - it's more that they want something to come along and weed out all the other Christians who they see as being wishy-washy liberal types who don't really care about Jesus the way they do...

Nobody should hope for persecution to come upon the Church. They may find that when it does, they are the ones hearing the rooster crow.

Hmm, guilty as charged, perhaps. I suppose I'm reacting to comments I've heard (in the media and from friends) about Christians being marginalised and having restrictions placed on our faith and practices. Why should we Christians be upset when we lose certain privileges, or when we find it harder to do or say what we want? I mean, opposition can indicate that we are doing something that's actually having an impact, instead of just being an irrelevance that people can ignore if they wish.

But, yes, there is a sense within me of almost welcoming persecution; because it would, I think, force us Christians to decide whether we're really serious about following Jesus. And I have no certainty that I would choose faithfulness in the face of hardship or opposition, no certainty at all...

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...Also, it's relevant to note that ongoing immigration from various Muslim countries, as well as the Pakistani custom of seeking spouses 'back home', means that even the second, third and fourth generations are constantly exposed to fresh Muslim influences...

There is a practice amongst Muslims in many countries, based on authentic hadith(sayings) and sunna (practice) of Muhammad to marry a family member, often a cousin of some degree. Bear in mind some traditional Muslim families are vast. This certainly happens in the Lebanese Sunni Muslim community in Australia and the Punjabi Pakistani Muslim community in the UK. More so then amongst Lebanese Christians or Punjabi Hindus or Sikhs. So there is an extended familial reinforcement amongst certain Muslim communities.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
fr W: almost everyone has concerns about relationships, whether friendships, partners, workplace or whatever; they have comcerns about being able to support themselves or their families; they have some concern about their government or community in action.

Most of the unchurched have no concern about "what to do on Sunday morning" or liturgical minutiae or the argunent about roofing during the vestry meeting.

And yet, if they wish to be part of that church's community, they need to care about those things--at least to some degree.

Community is a two-way street. You give, you get. The trouble with many of the unchurched is that they want to get without understanding what giving is. And related to that, quite often people seem to expect instant relationships, instant community. The reality is that these things build, and that takes some time. It's the job of clergy and congregation alike to extend the hand of goodwill immediately (though God knows both often fail at this), but a relationship just can't be immediately manufactured--it's fake, and sooner or later the newcomer will catch on to that.

In my view, the church's most important job is worship and sacrament. Everything else we do flows from that. If the church is not primarily a community of worshippers, given grace by Baptism and the Eucharist, then it devolves into a vaguely-theistic charitable association. Nice, I'm sure, but if that's what you want why not volunteer for the United Way?

I preach on the lectionary. The sermon is an opportunity to explain difficulties in the lessons, and to let the congregation know what it has to do with them. I have no interest in riding political hobby-horses on either side of the divide.

I don't have any time or interest for quasi-corporate paraphernalia like mission statements, endless committees, position papers and the like. I have seen baby-boomer navel-gazing destroy other churches, laying waste sometimes entire denominations. I don't care about being "relevant"; the Church's job is not to be relevant, but to be constant. We preach the faith once delivered, we dispense the sacraments, and we love God and each other. To shift focus from those things makes us something other than the Church.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Fr. Weber: [Overused]

I'll only add this utter lack of concern with such practical details is par for the course if one harbors the assumption that we become "spiritual" by forgetting about the material. It's a very common opinion partly because it often goes along with a temptation to join an imagined elite.

But institutional life offers particular threats and temptations of its own, as you also appreciate. Life has its messy dilemmas. In this regard, Fr. Reid's blog at S. Clement's celebrates the decision of General Convention that the Presiding Bishop, while in office, shall once again continue as a diocesan, as used to be the case. I'd never heard of this development or ever given the matter a thought. His reasoning is that the necessary duties of P.Bs. do not require a full-time bishop, and that with too much time on their hands they will only conjure up measures that usurp the diocesans, step on their toes, and otherwise be out of touch with the grass-roots life of the church. When they still have their own dioceses to look after, they will better keep their feet on the ground. He predicts that in another twenty or thirty years, this will prove to be a more important act of General Convention than what has garnered all the publicity.

[ 26. July 2012, 19:08: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Pentecostalism will wax and wane like a great Mexican wave as it moves across the globe. Protestantism will shrink a fair bit as it falls out with itself....again. Catholicism will become like an expanded Talmud which fills an entire room in every faithful Catholics home that lets you know which cornflake producer is moral and therefore edible; or maybe they'll get an app for that. Orthodoxy will be teetering on the edge of extinction as it discovers its canonised way to many lads and now there are no days left on which to eat decent nutritious food. Anglicanism will still be debating whether or not it should bother to actually live up to its calling, Presbyterianism will have completely disappeared after spray on starch has been taken off the shelves forever after a cancer scare and all over the world there will be an horrific shortage of wee cuppies. Meanwhile, people will still stop and wonder.....who was that Jesus lad anyway?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

My point to Fr. W was more about getting the attention of the "unchurched" in the first place, so that you can eventually get them to want to come in to the worship.

BUT if you attack this situation as "they're going to come to our church" as the first step, you won't get anyone at all.

You have to preach with your actions first, and then like the apocryphal version of St. Francis, use words later on.

If the worship gives you the strength and focus to do the active preaching, that is probably what it is all about. Mere words do not impress, except maybe negatively.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
...

Community is a two-way street. You give, you get. The trouble with many of the unchurched is that they want to get without understanding what giving is. And related to that, quite often people seem to expect instant relationships, instant community. The reality is that these things build, and that takes some time. It's the job of clergy and congregation alike to extend the hand of goodwill immediately (though God knows both often fail at this), but a relationship just can't be immediately manufactured--it's fake, and sooner or later the newcomer will catch on to that.

In my view, the church's most important job is worship and sacrament. Everything else we do flows from that. If the church is not primarily a community of worshippers, given grace by Baptism and the Eucharist, then it devolves into a vaguely-theistic charitable association. Nice, I'm sure, but if that's what you want why not volunteer for the United Way?

...

One of the things that strikes me these days is that many churches don't see the deeper significance of the Eucharist: there is so much going on around it in terms of lengthy (and often irrelevant) intercessions; sharing of the peace and a post communion solo for some favoured person that the deeper meditative element, which should really inform all our worship, is lost.

It is possible to build up a bogus "Christian" community, which basically provides baby sitting or hobby options for people, without touching the depths of what Christianity is about and therefore not being genuinely supportive in quiet worship when it is really needed.

It is not accidental the Orthodox refer to the Eucharist as "the medicine of immortality". Without real focus on the Eucharist and its universal significance I don't think a church can either be alive or give life. There are plenty of dead churches around, and, as you say, they have wonderful mission statements and supposedly great outreach. The problem with places like that is that most people subconsciously understand their lack of genuine spirituality and move on.

I think some discrete churches, of various denominations, may well die, but, long term, the genuine Church will arise from the ashes. I think we are in for a tough time in the West. A time of fairly active pruning and weeding.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0