Can we discuss this topic amiably?

I did not grow up in household that attended church on any kind of regular basis. I remember a few Easters and that's about it until I was 20 and my girfriend (now wife) and I went to church periodically. I should add that my involvement with theology (specifically Reformed) is but a dozen or so years old. It clearly has caused me to filter all previous experience through more litugical lenses (in spite of the fact that the church I attend is not particularly so.)

I be interested to here from folks who have attended church most of the lives and what type of changes they've seen. (I have some in mind but I don't want to "poison the well".)

Last Edited on 11-Jul-2008 11:27 AM

As society has loosened up, so have parishioners--in what they wear to church, how often they go to services and participate in parish activities, attitudes. When I was growing up, the church was the religious and social center. During the '70s, while I raised my kids, the church was still full of bustle and activity. As more and more women began to work at paying jobs, stores were open on Sundays, and families spent less and less time together, the church became less important as an anchor and resource.

Theological changes --

In reaction, many churches have loosened up their doctrines and their membership requirements in order to attract new members.

There are very few nuns, monks, and priests now. Catholic schools are fewer, and having to actually hire outside teachers. There are fewer members, I think. As far as I can tell, it's all gone nuts.

Instead of putting on your "Sunday best" it's whatever happens to be handy. I realize there are many cultural differences regarding appropriate attire (Africa versus Iowa, for example) but I really have a problem with men wearing Bermuda's and flip-flops and teenage boys wearing ball caps.

As for Joel Osteen, et al, I find him fascinating. To be able to hold sway over a stadium full of people... wow.

That's part of my point. He "preaches" a message that offends no one, convicts no one, but instead makes everyone feel all warm and fuzzy. No wonder he, and many like him, attrack thousands.

On the other-hand, I wonder how Charles Spurgeon or Jonathan Edwards would do in much of today's doctrineless (is there such a word?)churches?

Look at the best seller's at Barnes & Noble, etc. They tend to fit into two general categories: how to be happy and successful, and why the Second Coming could be at any moment. All can be read in a couple of hours, and while you're watching TV. It's not really necessary to engaged your brain.

I also distinguish between theology (the study of religion), religion itself (a set of beliefs and the practice of these beliefs, usually as part of a group of people who share similar beliefs), and spirituality (an intensely personal and largely private experience and understanding of something outside of and beyond our empirical and physical world).

To address the original question, I don't believe that Christianity itself has changed in the last 50 years. Can it? Isn't Christianity, by definition, a set of beliefs based on the teachings of Christ? How could that change? On the other hand, theologians have debated for centuries what these teachings mean and how to interpret them. So, of course, there have been shifts in theological views and, as a result, in church practices. Churches also adapt to new evidence (albeit, in some cases, very slowly). Hardly any church now contends that the sun revolves around the Earth, and many now accept some kind of theory of evolution, if not every tenet of Darwinism. More significantly churches, while attempting to guide society, also adapt to changes in society.

It is in the best interests of a church to attract believers, particularly among the young. It cannot do this if it maintains a course that consists of beliefs and practices that people have difficulty following. To be sure, there are limits to which a church can compromise. Core principles cannot and should not be discarded, and the church cannot and should not yield to every secular fad and fancy. Many secular trends are unhealthy, hostile toward religion, and/or (in the case of Christianity) contrary to Christ's teachings.

If there has been a change in recent years, it has been toward greater variation in the views of Christian churchgoers. In the simplest terms, we have seen a sharper division between traditional churches (which resist change and cling tenaciously to old ways) and more liberal churches (which embrace change and adopt new approaches). In more complex terms, there are schisms even within denominations on everything from how the services are to be conducted to what the church's stance is on social issues. More subtly, some churches emphasize strict adherence to doctrine and dogma, whereas others allow considerable latitutde for individual spiritual development. From what I have observed in the last 50 years, the latter are more likely to attract young people, though many are still more comfortable with a religion that provides a staid ritual and definitive answers rather than one that emphasizes an ongoing spiritual quest – which may involve often painful soul-searching.

I cannot say whether this is a good or bad trend. It doesn't matter really because it's a fait accompli. Just as the increasing complexity of life is a done deal, with concurrent plusses and minuses, it's futile to argue whether the increasing complexity is good or bad. I think Christianity today, in its many forms, reflects that complexity.
----------
Rich Turner (The Curmudgeon Himself)

The differences I see in the last 50 years are the diminishing numbers of mainstream churchgoers and the increasing numbers of fundamentalists and evangelicals. Then there's the spectacular rise of the TV "prosperity gospel" preachers who, no matter how scandalous their behavior may be, continue to attract huge numbers.

Modern popular religion has never been about dogma or doctrine. It's about emotion and consolation and what makes one feel good - which is not necessarily a bad thing. To the degree it influences appropriate behavior, which it generally does, it is a major stabilizing force in any society.

The interest in "New Age" reflects the failure of established creeds to keep up with the times. "New Age" is essentially Eastern (Asian) notions of life's purpose and destination. These notions are in the process of syncretizing with the traditional Western faiths and the ultimate result is anybody's guess.

The evangelicals/fundamentalists won't go quietly.

Last Edited on 14-Jul-2008 7:33 PM

While religious truth is always a part of Theology, it is not the same thing. The Greek origins of the word couldn't be clearer - the rational understanding or study (logos) of God (Theos)referring to the nature of God-in-itself, not how religious traditions have come to ritualize or dogmatize the idea.

Wikipedia defines the term as the study of religion. This is simply wrong. Not all religions include God in their beliefs. Buddhism essentially disregards the question as being unimportant and the Jains are doctrinally atheistic. A religion without God seems like a contradiction, but it is not.

An inquiry into the truths or questions of religions (to answer your question), I would call comparative religion. There's probably a better word but I can't come up with one at the moment.

Now, may we continue the discussion of the original question? I think it's an interesting topic (changes in churches and their approach to Christianity) and one on which I'd like to read more opinions.
----------
Rich Turner (The Curmudgeon Himself)

Brad, what is the difference - as you understand it - between an evangelical and a fundamentalist?

Last Edited on 18-Jul-2008 8:47 AM

In the last 30 years, both movements have become highly politicized and the anti-Catholicism has been modified as all three groups see themselves in agreement with such issues as abortion, family values, homosexuality, women preachers/priests, and, for evangelicals and fundamentalists, a generally right-wing political stance.

The difference, as I see it, between the two is that the evangelicals are somewhere in the middle between mainstream Protestantism and the fundamentalists - the latter inhabiting the far right both politically and Confession-wise.

A major doctrinal difference is the fundamentalist position that non-believers will go to "hell". Most evangelicals do not take this position.

A question for you - what do you mean by "pagan narcissism"?

(PS - My comments refer to these groups within the US).

As someone born into and living for years in an evangelical church body, I maintain that being "born again" has never been part of their rhetoric, and still is not, to my knowledge. That is a fundamentalist term referring to the personal "experience" that takes place during or after conversion, emphasizing that that "experience" is evidence that the person is saved and will avoid hellfire.

Evangelicals use the term only as a description of Holy Baptism, that a person is "born again" by the power of God's Word and promise, through the "washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit" that is made possible by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The "proof passage" is from I Peter 1:23, "For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring Word of God."

Last Edited on 20-Jul-2008 1:51 PM

By it's very nature paganism tends to be a very "me-centered" religious, or areligious, movement. By this I mean that, whereas historic Reformed Protestantism has been Christocentric, paganism considers self the locus of belief. Any religious/spiritual movement which revolves primarily around the individual I would consider narcissistic.

I must quickly add that I believe much of contemporary Christianity is extremely narcissistic, also. Whether it's "God wants you rich and healthy" or "Ten steps to happiness" it is still centered on the individual as opposed to Christ.

Last Edited on 26-Jul-2008 6:59 PM

Au contraire, I believe that first Law must be presented followed by Gospel. Without the Law "I" see no need for the Gospel, without Gospel "I'm" left to my own redemption. What I perceive happening within much of mainstream Christianity is a disregard for Law. Grace lacks meaning unless I fully understand my need for it.

CeeBee, are you familiar with the White Horse Inn?

I likewise would be a member of the the simul iustus et peccator gang. (Do you think Luther and Calvin had special hand signals and colors?)

CeeBee, what is your background (as it pertains to this topic)? And if it's not too nosey, how old are you?

Last Edited on 28-Jul-2008 7:45 AM

I'm somewhere between 36 and 143 years old.

Since this discussion has been so nicely handled so far, I would like to continue.

By paganism, do you mean all non-"historic Reformed Protestantism"? Is this your definition of paganism? If not, I would be interested in reading what your definition of paganism is.

Aren't all religions essentially "me-centered"? What is the difference between Christo-centrism and, say, Allah-centrism or Isis-centrism? Do not all these fundamentally refer to the individual and his/her relation to the deity?

The word "pagan", as you probably know, originally had the connotation of "country bumpkin" or "yokel". This reflected Christianity's early growth primarily in urban areas in the Mediterranean area. Those living in the countryside were "pagans" - country folk. Over time, the word came to mean non-Christian which is the meaning the word generally carries today among Christians.

I find the word demeaning, especially when it includes religions of such great antiquity as Hinduism or Buddhism. Buddhism, by the way, is more a way of life - a psychology - than a religion, but that's grist for another mill.

The most Christo-centric Christians I have ever come across are the contemplative monks (and nuns). They seek one thing, and one thing only, union with the deity. But, even here, one senses a bit of spiritual hedonism.

So I wonder about your "pagan narcissism". Is this simply a reflection of a belief that is exclusive and therefore does not admit the "truth" of other beliefs?

Asked in the spirit of inquiry.

Jesus told us that now there are only two commandments: love God and love each other.

But in order to do that, I have to start with me. Hmmmm. It has to start with me. No. Actually, God is the one who starts with me. It's His taking a narcissistic me, coming into my heart, and then opening my heart in prayer, lifting my soul in worship, searching His Word with an open mind so that salvation and santification are centered on me--not on a group or a neighborhood or a congregation, but on me, on one person. Only when I am right with God can I and will I reach out to others.

With God's help, I reach for moments of holiness by contemplating His goodness to me, His mercy, His glory. I have a running conversation with Him while He lifts me above the mundane--driving to work, cataloging books, and at home washing dishes, doing the laundry, scooping cat litter. It's a little bit like what the disciples experienced at Jesus' Transfiguration. They found themselves leaving the ordinary and up on a mountain where they were literally struck down by holiness, by the very presence of God. They didn't want to, but they got back onto their feet and went back down the mountain and returned to the ordinary and their lives with ordinary people. Once God has claimed my heart and my life, I, along with the disciples, have the responsibility to take up Micah's challenges to love others by doing justice, loving kindness, and walking humbly with my God. Like my minister father used to say, it is at the end of the service that the service begins.

Last Edited on 4-Aug-2008 11:09 PM

Do your words hold true for non-Christians? That was the thrust of my question.

Some people worship an elephant god, some believe in Allah, and still others have no god at all. Can all these people "reach out to others" even when they do not believe in your "God"?

Can others find that holiness you experience and seek with a different god? Can God be more than you may have imagined him in your own worldview?

Is the Tibetan monk at his prayer wheel any more or less closer to God than you are?

Does your God include the Tibetan monk in his religion? The atheist?

I was responding to the narcissism thing, that God begins with the individual.

I do not claim to know the mind of God. Since He is Love and Mercy, in my limited humanness I believe that He has a plan for everyone. I have worked with Hindus and atheists and agnostics and charismatics and so many others. I have watched them show others kindness and go out of their way to improve life in a public library. I've been told by Christians that good intentions aren't enough to "save" someone. That's where those particular Christians and I break.

Yes. I believe "others find that holiness [I] experience and seek with a different god." In fact, I'm not so sure it's a "different god." I suspect He is one and the same.

You ask, "Can God be more than you may have imagined him in your own worldview?" Yes, definitely! And all of what I said in my post above can be true of any other individual who seeks holiness (or whatever synonym you wish to use) within the ordinary and in spite of it.

So often, Christians make their God much, much too small. He is far greater than we can ever imagine!

Last Edited on 4-Aug-2008 11:50 PM

I enjoyed reading your reply (probably because I agreed with it).

Not to put words in your mouth, but I am personally repelled by that part of Christianity that would exclude all who believe differently, and therefore condemn them to "hell".

I have never found such "exclusiveness" in any other religion I have encountered. Since it tends to occur primarily in certain well-defined demographic groups, I conclude that it is a socio-economic phenomenon, and not a true religious understanding.

Who is a Christian? It seems like a simple question, but when I typed my inquiry into Google earlier this week, the answer came back in 20 million hits, each of them a little different from the other.

I've always understood a Christian to be someone who believes Jesus was who he said he was and tries to live the way Jesus said to live. Period.

But there are many people who find that answer lacking, apparently.

What got me thinking about this question was a recent commentary by the syndicated columnist Cal Thomas, based in part on an interview I did with Barack Obama about his spiritual life back in the spring of 2004.

Analyzing what Obama had to say to me, Thomas concludes that Obama is not really a Christian. He says, "Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian, and Obama doesn't meet that requirement."

This puzzles me. When I asked Obama to describe himself spiritually, he said he was a Christian, that he has a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ," and that he believes Jesus was an actual man (a "historical figure," is how he put it) who is "a bridge between God and man . . . and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher."

What I think stuck in Thomas' craw was Obama's elaboration when I asked him whether he was a "born-again Christian." He said, "Yeah, although . . . I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with that language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others."

Thomas singled out another of Obama's answers as an indication of his falling short of Christian orthodoxy when he said, "The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they're going to hell."

It's fascinating to me how two people can hear or read the same thing and come away with diametrically different interpretations. I sat with Obama and listened to him talk about his faith and came away believing that he is very much a genuine Christian believer.

Much has been made of Obama's statements about his faith, and I think the interest in his spiritual life is not only warranted but a good thing. A man's faith should have a bearing on how he conducts himself, makes his decisions and leads.

But the level of scrutiny of Obama's faith has surpassed what is helpful and veered into dangerous territory. At the end of the day, no one really knows what transpires between a person and his God. We must depend in large part -- trust, really -- what the man says about his beliefs.

When Obama was in Israel last month, he visited the Western Wall, one of the most sacred spots in the Jewish tradition, and prayed. As is the custom, he wrote a prayer on a piece of paper and stuck it in the wall. Very much against tradition, someone pried the piece of paper out of the wall and distributed it to the media. Was it an invasion of privacy? Probably. Was it a spiritual faux pas? Absolutely.

Still, while Obama's private prayer is none of our business, what he said was, of course, enlightening. His prayer was:

"Lord -- Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will."

Forgive my sins. Show me what to do. Make me an instrument of your will. Doesn't sound like someone flailing about lost in a spiritual morass to me.

Now, the cynical among us -- including one of my editors -- might wonder if the prayer wasn't written by committee (or by Obama's campaign manager), a calculated move to capitalize on what was already a great publicity opportunity.

I'm not that cynical. Sorry. That prayer sounds exactly like the man I sat with four years ago to talk frankly about Jesus and faith and doubt and living the faith when he was running for the U.S. Senate, well before he was the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

Someone once said to me that trying to prove you're a Christian is like trying to prove you're not a pedophile. You can't "prove" it. It's a matter of faith, not (political) science.

I asked Scot McKnight, a professor at North Park University and author of, among many titles, The Jesus Creed, to answer the question: What is a Christian?

"A Christian is a person who trusts in the redemptive work of God in Christ and seeks to live that out," McKnight said. "I do believe that there is an existential relationship with God that transcends even what we say."

Though Jesus never uses the word "Christian" in the biblical accounts, he answered the question many different ways, which can be summarized as, simply: "Believe in me. Follow me. Abide in me."

Obama says he believes, abides and is trying to follow Jesus.

He's a humble believer and doesn't want to give the impression that he has the corner on truth. I respect that, although it makes fielding questions about his faith more complicated and provocative.

It is dangerous to try to judge the quality of a man's faith. That is God's purview, not ours.

Last Edited on 5-Aug-2008 9:20 AM

1.By paganism, do you mean all non-"historic Reformed Protestantism"? Is this your definition of paganism? If not, I would be interested in reading what your definition of paganism is.

No, since that would make Roman Catholics pagan.
As you may be aware there are folks who call themselves "pagans" in much the same way I call myself a "Christian". Typically pagans worship the earth, animals, nature, etc. instead of a personal being who is both transcendent and immanent. I'm also including those individuals who see their highest goal as pleasing themselves and give no regard for a supreme being. It's actually the latter group that I'm most concerned about.

2. So I wonder about your "pagan narcissism". Is this simply a reflection of a belief that is exclusive and therefore does not admit the "truth" of other beliefs?

While I am exclusive (more on this later) I do certainly accept that truth is found in many places.
The issue is what truth are you talking about? For example, what do you do when religious traditions describe God in entirely different and contradictory ways? The definition of God found in the Qu'ran is not the same definition found in the Bible and neither would agree with the Veda's. The law of logical non-contradiction states that something cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same manner. All three views could be wrong, but they can't all be right.

3. Aren't all religions essentially "me-centered"? What is the difference between Christo-centrism and, say, Allah-centrism or Isis-centrism? Do not all these fundamentally refer to the individual and his/her relation to the deity?

No. By Christocentric I mean simply that rather than basing my relationship with God upon any of my own efforts or merits I base it entirely upon the work of Christ. My right-standing before God is because of what Christ did and not because of what I do. That is to say, it isn't me pleasing God it's Christ pleasing God and my faith in that accomplished work. (We are now heading into deep theological waters and I urge caution on us all.)

Last Edited on 7-Aug-2008 9:02 AM

No need to pass litmus test to be a 'real' Christian
by Cathleen Falsani, Religion Columnist

I've always understood a Christian to be someone who believes Jesus was who he said he was and tries to live the way Jesus said to live. Period.

But there are many people who find that answer lacking, apparently.

Ms. Falsani's understanding is only partially correct.

1. The "partial" portion.
Yes, a Christian is someone who believes Jesus is who he said he was. The real question, however, is "Who did he say he was?" The answer is crucial, and perhaps beyond the purpose of this discussion.

2. The "wrong" portion.
It is not my conduct that makes me a Christian although if I am a Christian my conduct will reflect it. Calvin said, "We are saved by grace alone, but saving grace is not alone." She has fallen into the trap of works-righteousness - the Law-Gospel that CeeBee and I mentioned earlier.

What demographic groups are you thinking of? If you're limiting it to white Bible-belt middle-income Americans I'm afraid you're mistaken. There are Christians who hold to exclusiveness in Africa, Australia & New Zealand, and China and include a very broad spectrum economically, socially, and ethnically.

Aren't you begging the question? Who says "it" occurs in certain well-defined groups?

Remember, Islam is every bit as exclusive as Christianity.

By "exclusive", I mean those groups who condemn to Hell (exclude) those who believe differently.

The demographic groups I'm referring to are the US Fundamentalists. I don't believe such notions are held widely throughout a broad spectrum economically, socially, and ethnically across the planet. Let's hope not.

The mistake you're making is thinking that "they" are the ones who do the condemning. Your argument is not with them but with the New Testament.

The demographic groups I'm referring to are the US Fundamentalists. I don't believe such notions are held widely throughout a broad spectrum economically, socially, and ethnically across the planet.

Are you suggesting that "US Fundamentalists" (a term that has significantly changed in meaning since it was first used) are the only group within worldwide conservative Christianity who hold to exclusivity? How then would you explain black Anglicans in Rowanda, white Australian Presbyterians in the western bush region of the country, or Baptists in northern India who all hold to the exclusive claims made by Christ?

You are quite correct that the majority of human beings dispute the claims of both the Old and New Testament. This does not, of course, make them right and Christians wrong (or vice versa.)

I will be the first one to agree that many US Christians are Bible-thumpers and far more arrogant regarding their "religion" than Christ ever intended us to be. (I might add that I have doubts regarding the actual spiritual regeneration of such folks.) Jesus himself dealt with these folks; the Pharisees.

Last Edited on 12-Aug-2008 10:10 AM

The mistake you're making is thinking that "they" are the ones who do the condemning. Your argument is not with them but with the New Testament.

No, not the NT, but a literal interpretation of the NT.

Sorry, no mistake. If my argument is with the New Testament, then I'm in the company of the other 90% of (non-Fundamentalist) Christians who don't hold to that view.

It's distressing to learn that such views are widespread. I thought they were pretty much restricted to the US.

I never said "the majority of human beings dispute the claims of both the Old and New Testamant". In fact, I would venture to say the majority of human beings never even HEARD of the Old and New Testament!

Oh boy, now we're going to get into hermeneutics and exegesis. This could be exciting. I'm reminded of Betty Davis' line in the movie "All About Eve"; "Fasten your seat belts it's going to be a bumpy ride."

First question: Define literal interpretation.

Of course, we don't believe that the floods literally clapped their hands nor did the hills sing for joy according to Psalm 98:8, but can we say that Jonah was literally swallowed by a great fish or that a flood literally covered the entire world or that a day in Genesis was literally twenty-four hours long?

Friedrich Schleiermacher, a German theologian and philosopher, believed the task of hermeneutics was to acquire a good knowledge of the text's historical context and to discover the author's intent. Can Bible interpretation get any better than that?

As for your definition of literal I concur. Now, how does that impact our discussion regarding hell and the punishment for sin?

Last Edited on 13-Aug-2008 6:30 AM

I do have some issues with F. Schleiermacher, often called the father of liberal Protestant theology.
1. He denied the supernatural character of the inspiration of Scripture.
2. In his book The Christian Faith he contended that Christ's "miracles" were not miracles in themselves, but the anticipation of the discoveries of the laws which govern in the kingdom of God. He said that by the providence of God Christ simply possessed a deeper acquaintance with the laws of nature than any other man before or after him, and was able to evoke from the hidden recesses of nature those laws which were already at work therein and to employ them for others benefits.
3. He broke from Reformed, Augustianian, and Pauline theology on original sin by denying a historical fall.
4. And finally Schleiermacher's revision of Christian theology had its most radical impact on the issue of authority. No external authority, whether it be Scripture, church, or historic creedal statement takes precedence over the immediate experience of believers.

In my opinion, it is his "experience over doctrine" that has so negatively influenced much of contemporary Christianity