|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bringing people back to God.
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, why is my life (without Christ) futile? I don't get that.
I think footwasher and I have different answers to that question.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, why is my life (without Christ) futile? I don't get that.
Christianity is a worldview, a (gasp!) philosophy. I had earlier linked to an article that explained why theologians are uncomfortable with philosophy: they don't think it's relevant. Strange, because both deal with the same issues.
http://thefloatinglibrary.com/2009/04/20/suicide-the-one-truly-serious-philosophical-problem-camus/
Quote
But if it is hard to fix the precise instant, the subtle step when the mind opted for death, it is easier to deduce from the act itself the consequences it implies. In a sense, and as in melodrama, killing yourself amounts to confessing. It is confessing that life is too much for you or that you do not understand it. Let’s not go too far in such analogies, however, but rather return to everyday words. It is merely confessing that that “is not worth the trouble.” Living, naturally, is never easy. You continue making the gestures commanded by existence for many reasons, the first of which is habit. Dying voluntarily implies that you have recognized, even instinctively, the ridiculous character of that habit, the absence of any profound reason for living, the insane character of that daily agitation, the uselessness of suffering.
[From Albert Camus’ essay The Myth of Sisyphus
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
See, that's a rich and robust unpacking of the material. Not like the impoverished pap we hear on any given Sunday morning.
Actually, it seems quite similar to what I hear on Sunday mornings. Perhaps you could point out how your sermon differs from the average "impoverished pap" one hears in other churches?
Which is more compelling?
To be told that the desired result is to escape eternal torment in hell (that's not even congruent with the image of a loving God, therefore leading to skepticism about the veracity of the message)
Or
To be told that you are escaping a futile way of living (something that is immediately obvious)?
Certainly the latter. Which is what I hear most Sundays-- but then these days I eschew the Calvinist denoms you seem to be more familiar with.
It's a good (biblical even) but not a new thought-- this is a common thread in NT Wright and a variety of other theologians and preachers, from both evangelical and mainline denoms. (Tony Campolo uses almost identical wording in fact: "saved from a fruitless way of life", whereas Wright favors "God's big rescue plan").
But that fact that you perceive this as a unique or distinctive pov goes exactly to the point I was making earlier-- that despite the fact that there are a large number of churches & preachers and theologians articulating precisely this pov, the airwaves have become so dominated by narrow fundamentalism (and in particular, Calvinist fundamentalism) that many, many people-- both Christians and non-Christians-- are simply not aware that there is anything else out there.
Give me a link to an article or talk where the person tells the audience that all their work is going to amount to nothing, all the relationships they have built up is going the same way, all the efforts to create a good image or reputation, ditto.
If you say that this is common, then you should be seeing people throwing themselves on swords or off cliffs.
You are moving the goal posts just a bit-- and in a typically Calvinist/total depravity sort of way. There is a difference between saying that our lives without Christ, our lives outside the Kingdom, are futile (Col. 1:13) and saying that everything we do and all our relationships are worthless. This sort of overreach is one (although not the most significant) of the problems I have with the hyper-Calvinist Dortian paradigm. And, to the OP, I think is one of the thing that detracts people from God-- since they can observe all sorts of nonbelievers out there in the real world doing good things and having good, positive relationships (as well as Christians doing not-so-good things and having destructive, broken relationships).
But to your earlier summary of the gospel as "rescued from a futile way of life", again, the two authors/theologians I mentioned earlier both use near identical language in these books, while still avoiding the overreach you seem to want to impress now:
Wright (vs. Piper) on salvation/ justification
Brian McLaren/ Tony Campolo: "rescued from a fruitless way of life"
Nothing in the Wright article about what Camus called the absurdity that is life. The Campolo link is dead.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Theologians are uncomfortable with philosophy? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, yes, I did realize that the French existentialists, beautiful though their prose can be, are a bunch of depressed people, who rationalized their depression in their philosophy. How does that take us any further into the futility of life without Christ, if one does not agree with Camus, Sartre, and so on?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Theologians are uncomfortable with philosophy?
Quote
It is important to note that despite its overwhelming acceptance, many American Christians were unaware of Common Sense Realism as an actual philosophical system. Writes Noll, “For much of the history of the United States, evangelicals denied that they had a philosophy. They were merely pursuing common sense.”7 Diogenes Allen adds that the resulting effect of this catechesis of Common Sense Realism was, “a static view of Christian doctrine and morals with no sense of historic [one might add, philosophic] development.”8 In fact, as dispensationalism was first being articulated, it seems to have simply assumed as unquestioned fact many of the tenets of Common Sense Realism. After all, one wasn’t necessarily doing philosophy by simply using common sense, was he? Thus, when one encounters hermeneutics texts by early dispensationalist authors (and other Enlightenment theologians, as well), very little space, if any, is given in defense of the philosophical foundations of the interpretative methodological approach being offered. It seems that more often than not, dispensationalists were either unaware of or had simply ignored the role of philosophical presuppositions in their hermeneutical methodology. Bernard Ramm points out this characteristic ineptness towards philosophy in Lewis Sperry Chafer’s theology, in particular. “In reading Chafer’s theology, it is apparent that he is not at home at all in philosophy. He makes rare references to philosophers, and in most cases Chafer is citing some other source and not the philosopher directly.”9
https://bible.org/article/relationship-common-sense-realism-dispensationalism%E2%80%99s-hermeneutics-and-ia-priorii-faith-com m
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Hm, I've philosophised with theologians rather often. It must have been because they already had their second glass of wine.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, I did realize that the French existentialists, beautiful though their prose can be, are a bunch of depressed people, who rationalized their depression in their philosophy. How does that take us any further into the futility of life without Christ, if one does not agree with Camus, Sartre, and so on?
Any school of thought you know of which has given a satisfactory explanation for the purpose of our existence, with proof?
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, I did realize that the French existentialists, beautiful though their prose can be, are a bunch of depressed people, who rationalized their depression in their philosophy. How does that take us any further into the futility of life without Christ, if one does not agree with Camus, Sartre, and so on?
Any school of thought you know of which has given a satisfactory explanation for the purpose of our existence, with proof?
None. Christianity very prominently included in that.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, I did realize that the French existentialists, beautiful though their prose can be, are a bunch of depressed people, who rationalized their depression in their philosophy. How does that take us any further into the futility of life without Christ, if one does not agree with Camus, Sartre, and so on?
Any school of thought you know of which has given a satisfactory explanation for the purpose of our existence, with proof?
Now you are reversing the burden of proof - an old trick. You are supposed to be demonstrating the futility of life without Christ. How does it go?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Well there are exceptions.
Galaxy Song Monthy Python.
I think my new sig is quite significant.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, I did realize that the French existentialists, beautiful though their prose can be, are a bunch of depressed people, who rationalized their depression in their philosophy. How does that take us any further into the futility of life without Christ, if one does not agree with Camus, Sartre, and so on?
Any school of thought you know of which has given a satisfactory explanation for the purpose of our existence, with proof?
Now you are reversing the burden of proof - an old trick. You are supposed to be demonstrating the futility of life without Christ. How does it go?
You can stop me at any stage, but it's going to take a few posts to flesh it out. Fine?
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Brian McLaren/ Tony Campolo: "rescued from a fruitless way of life"
Nothing in the Wright article about what Camus called the absurdity that is life. The Campolo link is dead.
Well, again, you've shifted things a bit by framing it in existentialist terms as a response to nihilism (may I suggest Ecc. 2 then as a source?). It should not surprise anyone that Wright sees life a bit differently than Camus. But the interview with Wright very much does focus on his understanding of salvation as being "rescued" from a meaningless life (Col. 1:13). I'm not sure what you're missing there.
Sorry about the Campolo link. It comes up fine here. It's the chapter on salvation from his book with Brian McLaren,
Adventures in Missing the Point.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Just to point out, I was not being offensive. I can be if I want, and I wasn't.
What I was doing was challenging and rejecting the idea that getting more people to go to church is something positive that we should be supporting.
The response from Frankenstein particular is very typical, and (to me) explains a lot of the problem. If we are serious about enabling people to engage with God, we have to ask some very difficult questions.
So often, church start to ask "What should we do to bring more people into the church?" If you start by suggesting that the first thing is to stop all of the things you are currently doing, because that is clearly not working, the response is "Oh no, that is not what we want. We want to carry on doing what we are doing, but we just want more people to come and enjoy it." Which is like saying that "we are doing nothing wrong, it is everyone else's fault for not wanting to join in". Yeah.
If it is expressed as "How do we bring more people to know God", if you start by suggesting that we stop doing what we are, that we cancel Sunday services and do something more useful instead, the response is "Oh no, that isn't what we mean. We want people to come to church and meet God".
The truth is, asking these questions, making these radical suggestions helps to formulate what is actually being asked, what is actually important. It doesn't mean that these things have to happen, but if you cannot start from nothing, the chances are you will end up with exactly what you have. Only smiling a little more. And that doesn't cut it.
In case you think I am just totally down on everything, I am absolutely, utterly, totally passionate about enabling and helping people to meet with, engage with, worship God. I just feel that the church is not helpful, and very often extremely damaging in this pursuit.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, I did realize that the French existentialists, beautiful though their prose can be, are a bunch of depressed people, who rationalized their depression in their philosophy. How does that take us any further into the futility of life without Christ, if one does not agree with Camus, Sartre, and so on?
Any school of thought you know of which has given a satisfactory explanation for the purpose of our existence, with proof?
Now you are reversing the burden of proof - an old trick. You are supposed to be demonstrating the futility of life without Christ. How does it go?
You can stop me at any stage, but it's going to take a few posts to flesh it out. Fine?
Not really. If you can't summarize it, then it's not credible for me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Of the cuff response to the OP question:
De-empathize rules, including "go to church" and "women can't do this or that just because they are female" and however else church and the Bible are viewed as rule books.
Emphasize God's character, the overriding importance of love.
A lot of vocal people believe God's love is conditional and only for a few, that most of the people we value will be shipped off to hell. Why would anyone find that god attractive?
If that isn't your God (generic you), you need to be vocal about it - in art, in song and dance, in chit chat, in how you deal with others on the job and off.
The conversation in the public is dominated by the worshipers of a harsh, rejecting god, so that's who they assume church is all about.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
[/QUOTE]Not really. If you can't summarize it, then it's not credible for me. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Um. Deliver your thesis in one overwhelmingly convincing sentence?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
Not really. If you can't summarize it, then it's not credible for me. [/QUOTE]
Um. Deliver your thesis in one overwhelmingly convincing sentence?
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Why do you say one sentence? Do you think that a summary is always one sentence long? I used to summarize books for publishers on one side of A4.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
Not really. If you can't summarize it, then it's not credible for me.
Um. Deliver your thesis in one overwhelmingly convincing sentence?
[/QUOTE]
Why do you say one sentence? Do you think that a summary is always one sentence long? I used to summarize books for publishers on one side of A4. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Okay, that's actually good, because going into too much detail is not really feasible for me because of time and energy constraints.
Really, what we need is to answer the question why the numbers are falling and what we can do about it, and a subset of the view should do the job. Most people sign on to a world view because of its reasonableness and stay on because it remains sensible on further examination. Seeing most believers are forced to attend church as children and stay on because of dependence on social relationships because of the safety net that provides, it's only logical that when the safety net provider is now the state, sustained monetarily, pressure to conform no longer exists.
Having said that, my proof should therefore be in the form of providing a schema that resist objections on the following grounds, that the view is not:
Moral: where would we be if the plan is not moral, if God was capricious?
Accessible: how would we know what's the plan?
Permanent: what's the point if death renders the plan pointless?
All objections raised against the competing world views, that fail on some or all points.
It's also good that it has been pointed out that no worldview provides the required answer, leaving me to just show that Christianity does provide said answer.
The best description of the plan is to liken it to a project taken up by God to create a garden, for his enjoyment, just as a gardener would enjoy a real garden, that is, when it brings forth flowers and fruit.
The fruit expected from the creation of man is justice, mercy and love.
As the project advances, some plants will resist healthy progress, and as a person with a commitment and investment in the project, God will attempt to rescue the malingerers. However, it's not open ended. When the deadline is reached, when help from God yields no results, the defaulters need to be uprooted, and consigned to the incinerator. There is enough evidence in the text that annihilation is being communicated.
Although the text describes actual events, the take away from the lessons are the principles involved.
As Wright and others have noted, Genesis takes the form of other documents in the ANE, the account of the building of a Temple. The last element that the format describes is the placing of the image of the deity in whose honor the temple was built, inside the Temple. So when God rests, it means that God finally takes up residence in His creation, uses His house, stays in it, operationalises it. It's going to do exactly what He set it up to do.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
You really think that's significantly different from what every other church is teaching, such that it will reverse a 30-some year decline in church attendance?
I'm not seeing it.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
re: science and religion. Imagine the following debate between a skeptic and a clergyman...
SK: I don't wanna go to church. You guys are against science.
CL: Not at all. You're thinking of the fundies. Our church accepts evolution and the big bang theory.
SK: Hey, that's cool. But what about the Virgin Birth?
CL: Oh, uhh, well, some of us think that's just a holdover from paganism.
SK: Okay. And the miracles of Jesus?
CL: Uhh, metaphorical?
SK: Right. And the Resurrection?
CL: ....
You can all write your own reply for that last one. Bouns points if it still manages to reconcile science with any recognizable version of Christianity.
Would you consider a Christianity that relies primarily on figurative interpretation rather than literal narration of long-ago events, in order to convey timeless spiritual truths through metaphorical meaning rather than propositions of historical fact, unrecognizable?
Well, I guess it depends how you define "Christianity". I tend to go with a definition that includes, as a sine qua non, at least some of the supernatural claims about Jesus, specifically that he was either God incarnate, or at least someone divinely ordained in one way or another.
I don't know what the noun is for describing people who worshipped the Greek gods as supposedly real beings. But, whatever it is, I would not personally apply it to contemporary folks who find moral inspiration in Greek myths, while disbelieving the reality of the stories.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, why is my life (without Christ) futile? I don't get that.
Christians believe that Christ is (or at least personifies) the Logos, the essential source and unifying order of all that exists. In that sense nothing is without Christ: for "all things were made by [or through] him, and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3).
So I believe a Christian answer would be: Your life is not futile, because it is from Christ and in Christ -- in the sense that it exists within and is sustained by the omnipresent Logos -- whether you are aware of it or not. But most Christians would also contend that your life would at least be richer and more fulfilling if you were aware of it.
And I believe a Christian who answered that your life is indeed futile if you do not know Christ would be theologically incorrect.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
re: science and religion. Imagine the following debate between a skeptic and a clergyman...
SK: I don't wanna go to church. You guys are against science.
CL: Not at all. You're thinking of the fundies. Our church accepts evolution and the big bang theory.
SK: Hey, that's cool. But what about the Virgin Birth?
CL: Oh, uhh, well, some of us think that's just a holdover from paganism.
SK: Okay. And the miracles of Jesus?
CL: Uhh, metaphorical?
SK: Right. And the Resurrection?
CL: ....
You can all write your own reply for that last one. Bouns points if it still manages to reconcile science with any recognizable version of Christianity.
Would you consider a Christianity that relies primarily on figurative interpretation rather than literal narration of long-ago events, in order to convey timeless spiritual truths through metaphorical meaning rather than propositions of historical fact, unrecognizable?
Well, I guess it depends how you define "Christianity". I tend to go with a definition that includes, as a sine qua non, at least some of the supernatural claims about Jesus, specifically that he was either God incarnate, or at least someone divinely ordained in one way or another.
I don't know what the noun is for describing people who worshipped the Greek gods as supposedly real beings. But, whatever it is, I would not personally apply it to contemporary folks who find moral inspiration in Greek myths, while disbelieving the reality of the stories.
I suppose we disagree about that. I think there is room within the big tent of "Christianity" for natural, scientific truth. I do not believe they must necessarily be contradictory, even if some of the more fantastical stories in the Bible must necessarily be understood as metaphors or teaching tales rather than objective facts in order for them not to be contradictory. For example, it would have been a physical impossibility for the sun and moon to literally stand still in the sky when observed from the earth as described in Joshua 10, but it is far more sensible to understand that incident as a literary device than as a refutation of either the laws of physics or the Christian theological system.
Likewise, many who consider themselves faithful Christians understand the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection figuratively but not literally, because if understood literally they would be a biological impossibility. Many more probably understand them as inexplicable supernatural exceptions to the ordinary laws of nature, but not as a refutation of the general validity of scientific truth. Do these Christians fall outside your definition of "recognizable" Christianity? Must "recognizable" Christianity necessarily deny scientific truth in order to preserve the validity of its own truth claims? If so, that might explain why it is becoming increasingly difficult for that particular strain of Christianity to bring people to God.
[ 01. March 2016, 01:48: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You really think that's significantly different from what every other church is teaching, such that it will reverse a 30-some year decline in church attendance?
I'm not seeing it.
You gave two links, which I just managed to read.
Wright doesn't talk about futile living, Campolo writes one line on it. I believe the matter is urgent, I believe people should know they are doing things by rote, thoughtless habit, doing things to live a trouble free life and the more time they waste on this mechanistic way of living, the less time they have to acquire and live the life God meant them to live. Paul of course adds that they are also in danger of being found non compliant:
Acts 17:29"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
Verse 29, futile act, serving self.
Verse 30, required act, serving God.
Verse 31, penalizing of the non compliant.
That is not the message we hear in the mainstream churches.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You really think that's significantly different from what every other church is teaching, such that it will reverse a 30-some year decline in church attendance?
I'm not seeing it.
You gave two links, which I just managed to read.
Wright doesn't talk about futile living, Campolo writes one line on it. I believe the matter is urgent, I believe people should know they are doing things by rote, thoughtless habit, doing things to live a trouble free life and the more time they waste on this mechanistic way of living, the less time they have to acquire and live the life God meant them to live. Paul of course adds that they are also in danger of being found non compliant:
Acts 17:29"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
Verse 29, futile act, serving self.
Verse 30, required act, serving God.
Verse 31, penalizing of the non compliant.
That is not the message we hear in the mainstream churches.
Verse 31, Arian/Socinian christology! Eat dirt, Nicholas and Athanasius! ;-)
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mstevens
Apprentice
# 15437
|
Posted
As a long-time atheist lurker my personal answers are:
- You have terrible PR - people don't actually know what it is they're turning down, the church assume it's obvious. Even assuming some interest, trying to engage with the church from the outside is intimidating and will lead you to scary places like the Alpha Course.
- There's a huge spiritual claim about God existing that seems to either get handwaved as obvious, or the implication is that we should believe because it's socially convenient.
- What little PR the church gets seems to be about hating various groups.
- This is a little fuzzy, but eg the CoE acts as the default whereas to most people it's a novelty.
There's a popular metaphor about the church offering medicine for the sick - these days I think the first thing you need to do is convince people they actually are sick.
I've noticed one group of online friends get increasingly interested in christianity as a result of being interested in morals and philosophy...
(personally I'm actually thinking about trying a dose of church, but arrangements are still in progress (the relevant friend is busy for a few weeks...))
Posts: 44 | From: London,UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mstevens:
There's a popular metaphor about the church offering medicine for the sick - these days I think the first thing you need to do is convince people they actually are sick.
Not sure about this. I think a lot of people believe that the church thinks them sick. The problem is convincing people that the church has any more answers than anyone else. Your list touches on some of the reasons why this is not very obvious.
What I find interesting is that, having left church, it is far easier to see from the outside how it appears, in a way that I couldn't while a part of it. The impression from the outside is generally not good.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
When did they leave?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Bringing people back to God or back to Church are two different things.
Where I live and work, a rural area, it's becoming more and more apparent that the game's up for the Church and the culture which used to surround it. The Church hierarchy might as well accept this and plan accordingly as opposed to fantasising about a return of the 19th Century.
God will draw people if people are willingly to be drawn and that can happen in the middle of a field or a storm.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
My previous vicar posted this on FB,
"A faith that has not been tested cannot be trusted." @nickygumbel #nwlc16"
I responded,
"I find my faith that violence is never the answer, that God does not ever do magic, that it's ALL down to us in the light of the simplicity of Christ - that all is well forever - wavering in the face of IS, looming unemployment and the helpless [useless, feckless] privilege of rich Christians respectively, admittedly."
It feels relevant here. The church is doing NOTHING that could possibly bring people 'back' to where it's almost never been.
Back to redemptive violence? Back to superstition? Back to piety? Sure. Some will buy that. There's always a politico-religious market for that.
I struggle to believe in my God. Not against atheism, but against falling, backsliding in to those sins.
There was some poor Yazidi girl on the BBC Radio 4 Today Program yesterday morning who'd been gang raped as an IS spoil of war after the 700 men of her village were murdered. I yelled and sobbed at God. He heard. But no fire fell.
I screwed up at work on Sunday and I'm waiting for the hammer to fall and praying for miracles and despising myself out loud for it before God at the same time as I do.
Virtually ALL I see of churches, literally, quantifiably 99%, is 'worship'.
[ 01. March 2016, 22:17: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You really think that's significantly different from what every other church is teaching, such that it will reverse a 30-some year decline in church attendance?
I'm not seeing it.
That is not the message we hear in the mainstream churches.
Maybe not your mainstream church. But as I and others here have indicated, it is certainly not a new concept or one that is absent from other churches, both mainline and evangelical.
I think there is power in moving the discussion re salvation away from just "getting into heaven/avoiding hell" and the problematic "Godward" theories of the atonement (substitution and satisfaction) and instead focusing on the (IMHO biblical) view of salvation as an invitation to the Kingdom and the "Satanward" theories of the atonement (ransom and
Christus victor).
But again, this is not unique to me by any means. And this alone will probably not be sufficient to turn around the decades-long decline. There are multiple factors behind the decline, most of which are failings of the church itself. Some factors are even positive (church attendance becoming less of a social requirement, and therefore more a reflection of true spiritual commitment or seeking).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There was some poor Yazidi girl on the BBC Radio 4 Today Program yesterday morning who'd been gang raped as an IS spoil of war after the 700 men of her village were murdered. I yelled and sobbed at God. He heard. But no fire fell.
I screwed up at work on Sunday and I'm waiting for the hammer to fall and praying for miracles and despising myself out loud for it before God at the same time as I do.
Virtually ALL I see of churches, literally, quantifiably 99%, is 'worship'.
Which if what they really meant by "worship" was, in fact,worship as portrayed in the Psalms-- i.e. filled with lamentations, accusations, doubt, questions, fist shaking, heart-rending sorrow and anger mixed in with the thanksgiving and praise-- well, then, there could possibly be something there of interest to Martin and possibly even to the Yazidi girl. But if all it is is just cherry-picking the happy-clappy parts-- the praise and adoration-- and leaving the lamentations and questions and heartache unnoticed in the dust-- then yeah, what Martin said.
btw, Martin: ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
cliffdweller.
I forgive you your weakness for dualist Greg Boyd unconditionally. How can someone so wrong be so gracious in the face of my hostility and kind?
Huh!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You really think that's significantly different from what every other church is teaching, such that it will reverse a 30-some year decline in church attendance?
I'm not seeing it.
You gave two links, which I just managed to read.
Wright doesn't talk about futile living, Campolo writes one line on it. I believe the matter is urgent, I believe people should know they are doing things by rote, thoughtless habit, doing things to live a trouble free life and the more time they waste on this mechanistic way of living, the less time they have to acquire and live the life God meant them to live. Paul of course adds that they are also in danger of being found non compliant:
Acts 17:29"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
Verse 29, futile act, serving self.
Verse 30, required act, serving God.
Verse 31, penalizing of the non compliant.
That is not the message we hear in the mainstream churches.
You know, if you want to get people back or even get them in the first place you could try to avoid talking about them and treating them as if they are stupid.
Many people who have engaged with religion sincerely have also rejected it. They don't do this lightly or frivolously. In a nutshell, if the Church shows respect for people then they might show respect for the Church.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ProgenitorDope
Apprentice
# 16648
|
Posted
I admit my own experience is limited, but from what I've seen, a lot of young people just don't care and nothing can jostle that. Or at least nothing I'm aware of.
The church survives centuries of antipathy in one form or another, and it looks like its going to be a century or so of apathy that does it in.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Paul of course adds that they are also in danger of being found non compliant:
Acts 17:29"Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
Verse 29, futile act, serving self.
Verse 30, required act, serving God.
Verse 31, penalizing of the non compliant.
That is not the message we hear in the mainstream churches.
Bringing people into the church is not the same as bringing them to God.
Significantly, Paul is not addressing non-believers here, but the members of his own audience whom he calls "the children of God". The people whom he is warning of judgment and punishment are those who already know what it means to comply.
When Christians ignore Paul's warnings to comply with God's will for them and to expect God's judgment of themselves, and substitute instead their own judgments and warnings of punishment against non-Christians, which are not God's judgments or punishments but only ideas "formed by the art and thought of man", that does not serve to bring anyone to God -- not non-Christians, and not even themselves. Rather, it is itself a form of the non-compliance that Paul was warning against.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Martin60
This is a pretty good thread. I've got alot out of it.
I reckon life is about worshiping God, and I also wish I could remember that for more than a few seconds after I think it.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mstevens:
As a long-time atheist lurker my personal answers are:
- You have terrible PR - people don't actually know what it is they're turning down, the church assume it's obvious. Even assuming some interest, trying to engage with the church from the outside is intimidating and will lead you to scary places like the Alpha Course.
- There's a huge spiritual claim about God existing that seems to either get handwaved as obvious, or the implication is that we should believe because it's socially convenient.
- What little PR the church gets seems to be about hating various groups.
- This is a little fuzzy, but eg the CoE acts as the default whereas to most people it's a novelty.
There's a popular metaphor about the church offering medicine for the sick - these days I think the first thing you need to do is convince people they actually are sick.
I've noticed one group of online friends get increasingly interested in christianity as a result of being interested in morals and philosophy...
(personally I'm actually thinking about trying a dose of church, but arrangements are still in progress (the relevant friend is busy for a few weeks...))
The dominant message from the church is that Christianity saves from hell.
This idea doesn't even arise in the minds of seekers after God, since it is a future event and people generally don't plan too far into the future.
Second, it seems so out of sync with the image of a loving God that accompanies the first message. If God provided for escape from Hell by the giving of his precious son in the first place, it seems that he would provide a more humane end for those who choose not to accept his offer. A punishment of eternal torment compotes more with the reaction of a tyrant than a loving God.
The atheist decides to live a selfless lifestyle as a pragmatic choice. It seems to make human society run smoother. He may even choose to stand against promiscuity, same gender relationships , women's lib, not because the letter of a law requires it but for the exact same reason as stated above, the smoother functioning of society! The atheist works to preserve society, the church works to follow the letter of the law! On the face of it, the atheist's choice of a selfless lifestyle is more reasoned than that of the church!
Where Christianity gains is that it has God on its side.
If God exists and his power is real and his promises sincere, conditional on loyal response from his people, then what results will be better and more permanent than what human effort and decency can achieve.
It's a compelling message. It's the actual message of Christianity. Observed in the breach by the church.
[ 02. March 2016, 05:52: Message edited by: footwasher ]
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
God's power is in being. Ours is in doing.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Bringing people back to God or back to Church are two different things.
Where I live and work, a rural area, it's becoming more and more apparent that the game's up for the Church and the culture which used to surround it. The Church hierarchy might as well accept this and plan accordingly as opposed to fantasising about a return of the 19th Century.
God will draw people if people are willingly to be drawn and that can happen in the middle of a field or a storm.
This is one of my big problems with so much of the church today. In putting so much effort into supporting the institution, there is so little in looking forward to a post-institution world and making that a better place.
In truth, a church group who were to focus on post-institution faith support would probably find that they grew, both numerically and in terms of change and moving on.
The church is not dying. Only the institution is dying.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
There are some lovely things written here—and some good ideas for solutions. Here are a few thoughts on what drove me from the church and ultimately from belief in God.
If you want to know what drives many from the church, just read or listen to the first Alpha talk, or read one the Alpha tracts (the worst/best is Challenging Lifestyle). Here you will see that this particular church is completely happy with carrying out a con job on the audience, fabricating testimonies, misattributing quotes and using tried-and-tested hard-sell manipulation techniques taken straight of out the advertising industry. If you want to invite people to join, here are a few tips:
1. Don't lie to them (a sincere admission of ignorance is much, much better than a 'heartfelt' fabrication—even if it 'brings someone to Jesus')
2. If there is no proof or evidence for something say: 'I/we don't know' [that's fine, by the way, there world is full of things we don't fully understand.]
3. Don't share apocryphal testimony stories
4. Don't embarrass people
5. Don't judge other people for who they are—especially homosexuals. You must realise by now that being gay is not a sign that something is wrong with someone.
6. Don't bully people
7. Don't create a false sense of engagement with the 'real world' ('We've invited a Christian mathematician to talk to us about the fact that science and God are reconcilable').
8. Admit that you might not have it right—and that that's OK
9. Don't use expressions like 'the secular world'. There is only 'the world'
10. Do try, if at all possible, not to be an arsehole
This discussion board is closest thing I have to church. If you all met in my local, I'd come along to see you for a chat.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Bringing people back to God or back to Church are two different things.
Where I live and work, a rural area, it's becoming more and more apparent that the game's up for the Church and the culture which used to surround it. The Church hierarchy might as well accept this and plan accordingly as opposed to fantasising about a return of the 19th Century.
God will draw people if people are willingly to be drawn and that can happen in the middle of a field or a storm.
This is one of my big problems with so much of the church today. In putting so much effort into supporting the institution, there is so little in looking forward to a post-institution world and making that a better place.
In truth, a church group who were to focus on post-institution faith support would probably find that they grew, both numerically and in terms of change and moving on.
The church is not dying. Only the institution is dying.
Sorry for the double post; and while I am apologising, I didn't intend my previous post to sound so bitchy. I should have couched my suggestions in positive, rather than negative, language.
Schroedinger's Cat raises an good point here. In my experience in UK evangelical circles, there is tremendous pressure to 'belong' and to be 'involved', in everything from regular attendance to running course and activities.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mstevens
Apprentice
# 15437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by mstevens:
There's a popular metaphor about the church offering medicine for the sick - these days I think the first thing you need to do is convince people they actually are sick.
Not sure about this. I think a lot of people believe that the church thinks them sick. The problem is convincing people that the church has any more answers than anyone else. Your list touches on some of the reasons why this is not very obvious.
What I find interesting is that, having left church, it is far easier to see from the outside how it appears, in a way that I couldn't while a part of it. The impression from the outside is generally not good.
I think I sort of agree and sort of disagree? I'm not sure I can explain this clearly. When the church works (for me!) it hits a sense of morals people (I) already have - picking something a bit drastic, maybe you're a kleptomaniac and a bit worried about your tendancy to steal stuff, the church pitch is "it's a real problem, and we have the solution".
Whereas what people actually get most is "gays are sick", when to most people they look perfectly healthy, AND most people who make that kind of claim have turned out to be pretty unpleasant - it taints any claim from the church to know anything.
Posts: 44 | From: London,UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mstevens
Apprentice
# 15437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
There are some lovely things written here—and some good ideas for solutions. Here are a few thoughts on what drove me from the church and ultimately from belief in God.
If you want to know what drives many from the church, just read or listen to the first Alpha talk, or read one the Alpha tracts (the worst/best is Challenging Lifestyle). Here you will see that this particular church is completely happy with carrying out a con job on the audience, fabricating testimonies, misattributing quotes and using tried-and-tested hard-sell manipulation techniques taken straight of out the advertising industry. If you want to invite people to join, here are a few tips:
1. Don't lie to them (a sincere admission of ignorance is much, much better than a 'heartfelt' fabrication—even if it 'brings someone to Jesus')
2. If there is no proof or evidence for something say: 'I/we don't know' [that's fine, by the way, there world is full of things we don't fully understand.]
3. Don't share apocryphal testimony stories
4. Don't embarrass people
5. Don't judge other people for who they are—especially homosexuals. You must realise by now that being gay is not a sign that something is wrong with someone.
6. Don't bully people
7. Don't create a false sense of engagement with the 'real world' ('We've invited a Christian mathematician to talk to us about the fact that science and God are reconcilable').
8. Admit that you might not have it right—and that that's OK
9. Don't use expressions like 'the secular world'. There is only 'the world'
10. Do try, if at all possible, not to be an arsehole
This discussion board is closest thing I have to church. If you all met in my local, I'd come along to see you for a chat.
K.
I've been totally turned off by the Alpha Course for years, and I know at least one other person its had the same effect on. I got the impression christianity is about the worst kind of emotional manipulation.
Posts: 44 | From: London,UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The point about being sick seems important. It reminds me of the famous Fulke Greville line, 'created sick, and commanded to be well'.
But then I am sure that different groups of Christians see this differently. But if you are saying, 'there is something wrong with you, and we have the cure', that immediately raises hackles.
Well, it just seems to emphasize guilt overly, for me.
But I suppose it is pretty intrinsic to Christianity - why else would one need a saviour?
But it's interesting to think of a numinous framework, which doesn't begin with that premise (there is something wrong). Well, some Eastern religions look at the premise, but don't see it as foundational, but as a habit of mind.
I recall a friend of mine doing a Zen retreat, and for several days, she kept saying, 'life is hard', but by the end she was saying 'life is easy'. Hmm. I suppose this is a kind of salvation.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
/QUOTE]I can't speak for the UK, in the US it's really that fundamentalism has dominated the airwaves. I find even among my religiously diverse students, the only version of Christianity they're even aware exists is con-evo fundamentalism. They aren't even aware there is a more moderate form of evangelicalism that would favor women's rights, theistic evolution, and possibly even gay marriage or universalism. Much less any awareness of non-evangelical Christianity. So yeah, they really honestly don't know there is an alternative. Some of that's on journalism in general, where print media has savaged budgets for the "religion beat" and broadcast media just wants to get the most extreme, oddball whackadoodle Christians they can in front of the camera. But some of it's on us for failing to enunciate the alternatives in a meaningful way. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Exactly. Here in the States, mainline Christian preaching and teaching is almost unknown on radio and television, while con-evos (ranging from the sane and thought-provoking to the totally batshit crazy) are everywhere: there are more Christian television networks and radio stations than one can count. There is an outfit called Odyssey Networks that produces faith-based, fiction and nonfiction films for television (you have to go to their website to find them), and Day1 --- the successor to radio's old, historic Protestant Hour --- can still be heard. But try to find it. It's a generalization, but mainline, ecumenical, moderate-to-liberal Christians don't strike me as terribly media-savvy.
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I certainly don't meant to suggest that this is how all, or even most, churches operate. However, HTB was probably the worse thing I've experienced in terms of a church. So long as you don't shine a light on what goes on, you'll have a great time—and I do have many fond memories.
This brings us back to the OP. Most of these 'crisis' conversations make similar assumptions: we know we are right, it must be that we are not selling it in the right way. If you have a strong stomach, read William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith. He's very clear that his particular take on Christianity is completely and inscrutably correct (on the basis of nothing but 'knowing'). If the rest of the world can't see that, the reason they can't see it is because it isn't being explained well. He then goes on to be clear in the fact that his entire career as an apologist is not to 'prove' anything, but to bring people to Christ'. The thing that is completely off the table for people like that is the proposition that it is not that the world doesn't (necessarily) like your sales pitch, it is that they don't want what you are selling.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Good points here. Do you think that perhaps the absence of the media-savvy presence might be a good thing? The evangelicals will be the first to tell you: people are not going to have 'conversion experiences' because moderate Christians stand up for women's rights, the environment or even some form of gay rights—people are drawn to the 'show'. They need stories of people being raised from the dead, miraculous 'healings', visions from God, direct intervention, lives transformed! Those goals must be pursued at all costs.
I hear you about the US. I have met many American Christians who are completely normal. You get the impression on this side of the pond that they are all homophobic God-appoointed nutjobs like Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, Joyce Meyers, Bill Johnson, Joel Osteen and much, much worse (those are only the famous ones). How can you hope to compete with them by using some plan of sanity?
K.
[ 02. March 2016, 11:28: Message edited by: Komensky ]
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
