Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: EmJayBee83 on March 11, 2009, 10:09:50 AM
-
The Coming Evangelical Collapse
An anti-Christian chapter in Western history is about to begin. But out of the ruins, a new vitality and integrity will rise....
Full article can be found at http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html)
Thoughts, disagreements, concurrences?
-
I'm still mulling it over. My initial reaction is that there's going to be some change, not a collapse, and it's going to be a considerably longer time frame.
-
wow. I don't think his timeline is accurate but I do agree with some of his fundamental assumptions. #1 and #2 seem logical and correct to me. I think his view of the church in #3 is too simplistic but it is hard to deny the fact that consumer-driven mega chruches have a prominent place in our evangelical landscape. # 4 is interesting and I believe true but largely because of #1. Since we seem to be driven to see ourselves as soldiers on the front line of a culture war we send our kids to evangelical schools to protect them/"train" them for combat with the "enemy" (Media, the "Left", etc.) but since #1 is fundamentally flawed, then #4 is. #5 is already happening. #6 is is a little difficult to prove and I dont count that one. #7 will likely happen to, but that is not necessarialy a bad thing. Christianity has survivied a lack of money before and it will survive a lack of money again.
-
I'm having a hard time disagreeing with any of the points indicating the possible collapse. In particular, I do think our churches are losing the plot and leaving the kids out to dry. I've had several conversations with youth here on the board who are disillusioned with the church structure, and find it nearly impossible to convey to them the benefits and the necessities of the formal church.
But there's something I've heard and agree with regarding our economy that seems to resonate with what is in this article. The feds are fighting so hard to prevent what may be inevitable, and prop up a faltering system. Sometimes, for a forest to stay healthy, a controlled burn is needed so that new trees and grow and thrive. I think our economy is better served by a controlled burn than all of our gyrations to try and prop it up. Maybe this is what the church needs, too: to separate the wheat from the chaff and come out of it leaner and "meaner". The resulting new church - I would imagine - would be something worth believing in.
-
THAT DUDE IS NUTS!come on the church is though we'll last another 2 centurys!
-
We'll last another 200 centuries.
Just not in its current form, in America.
-
From what I've observed in my generation, many Christians my age have been going either to non-denominational "hipster churches", to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, or adopting the whole "coexist" thing. From what I read in that article, it seems like more or less an accurate assesment.
As for the whole "going back to Catholicism" deal, the goal of the reforamation was to "reform" the church; I'd say it's been reformed. Protestant churches have a habit of breaking up into more denominations every second. It seems like their first disagreement with the church (and the adoption of sola scriptura) led to an infinite amount of disagreements.
I, for one, don't know if I'd be complaining if organised evangelism stops. I mean, it seems like a lot of the "fire and brimstone" has done nothing but given Christians a bad name. As much as I hate the title of the "frozen chosen", doesn't living by St. Francis' "preach the gospel always, and if necessary, use words" have a much more powerful application in today's society? I mean, everyone knows the "story" of the gospel.
America's church is dying and so is America. Fortunately, China's church is growing fast and so is China. This is a pretty typical historical pattern; I'm pretty sure we're looking at China as the next Rome.
-
doesn't living by St. Francis' "preach the gospel always, and if necessary, use words" have a much more powerful application in today's society? I mean, everyone knows the "story" of the gospel.
1. St. Francis didn't say that. It's one of the most misattributed quotes ever. (http://www.symphonyofscripture.com/?p=377)
2. How can you preach repentance and faith without words?
3. People have heard the "Jesus died" part. Many have no idea what it means or why it's important.
-
doesn't living by St. Francis' "preach the gospel always, and if necessary, use words" have a much more powerful application in today's society? I mean, everyone knows the "story" of the gospel.
1. St. Francis didn't say that. It's one of the most misattributed quotes ever. (http://www.symphonyofscripture.com/?p=377)
2. How can you preach repentance and faith without words?
3. People have heard the "Jesus died" part. Many have no idea what it means or why it's important.
The citation says that it was a paraphrased quote.
God saves people by his grace, not by our rhetoric.
-
2. How can you preach repentance and faith without words?
By example. This ties directly to your #3 question, knowing what is the significance of His sacrifice. Salvation is a heart condition. It changes us, inexplicably and inexorably, from the inside out. We can never go back, we can never be the same. We are COMPELLED to His will. If we claim with our lips to love God and accept Jesus, but our actions do not convey the significance of accepting that love, then our actions will speak A LOT louder than our words. But living a truly loving and righteous lifestyle will compel people to wonder. The point of the expression is to LIVE our salvation, LIVE our testimony, LIVE our witness.
Our mouths are a critical part of our body, but they are only one part, and the rest of our body does speak about our lives. Our words are a critical communication tool, but why do forums have formatting, all-caps posting, smilies, etc? Because 90% of our communication is body language, unspoken. Why do some people think I'm a megajerk online, but get along just fine with me in person? Because they see the 90% of me that they don't get from reading a post. The things we say are important, but the things we don't say are just as important, if not much more so.
The phrase is not a call to silence, as our blogging friend woefully mischaracterizes it. It's a call to action, to passion, to REAL hope and change.
-
to REAL hope and change.
(Off topic) Isn't it ironic how the connetations of the words "hope" and "change" seem to have changed over the last few months?
-
Schaef, I completely understand and agree that body language is important. But it only confirms the words coming from our mouths, it doesn't work instead of them.
How about this:
:-X
You can add all the bold and similes you want. But without the text, it won't mean much of anything. For instance, the line above this (before the simile) has John 3:16 written out, but I typed it "without words". Ridiculous example, sure, but I'm not convinced it's much different. You can't communicate the gospel message -- that sinners were given Jesus to die for them so they can be guiltless if they repent & trust -- without words [with the exclusion of ASL]. Will make the message more clear if we have the right attitude? Sure. Confirm it? Absolutely. But using certain body langage or formatting alone cannot replace preaching or sharing the gospel.
As Ray points out, see Ezekiel 3:18 (NASB):
"When I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.
But living a truly loving and righteous lifestyle will compel people to wonder.
I have never, ever had someone walk up to me and ask me about "the hope that lies within" outside of church.
Oh, and Colin, I know it is intended to be a paraphrase, but the common expression is quite different. Expression implies speaking to people about the gospel should almost be a last resort, while St. Francis is saying what Schaef is saying, that our deeds and actions convey the attitude that comes from being saved.
-
I think you're forgetting the accessibility of the internet and other resources. Simply living an excellent life (which is what Christianity claims to offer) will make a person wonder what it is that makes you that way. Using the resources availible, this person may decide to also seek this "excellent lifestyle". This same person will not see a "Jesus freak" on the side of the street preaching and think "wow, I wish I could live that kind of life".
-
doesn't living by St. Francis' "preach the gospel always, and if necessary, use words" have a much more powerful application in today's society? I mean, everyone knows the "story" of the gospel.
1. St. Francis didn't say that. It's one of the most misattributed quotes ever. (http://www.symphonyofscripture.com/?p=377)
2. How can you preach repentance and faith without words?
3. People have heard the "Jesus died" part. Many have no idea what it means or why it's important.
The citation says that it was a paraphrased quote.
Uh, no it doesn't. Did you read the article?
-
doesn't living by St. Francis' "preach the gospel always, and if necessary, use words" have a much more powerful application in today's society? I mean, everyone knows the "story" of the gospel.
1. St. Francis didn't say that. It's one of the most misattributed quotes ever. (http://www.symphonyofscripture.com/?p=377)
2. How can you preach repentance and faith without words?
3. People have heard the "Jesus died" part. Many have no idea what it means or why it's important.
The citation says that it was a paraphrased quote.
Uh, no it doesn't. Did you read the article?
If you noticed, the article cited a Catholic website to back its claims.
-
I think you're forgetting the accessibility of the internet and other resources.
If this is in reference to why people don't talk to me, then very well, but it makes the need to "preach without words" unnecessary unless I use words to reveal I am a Christian.
Simply living an excellent life (which is what Christianity claims to offer) will make a person wonder what it is that makes you that way. Using the resources availible, this person may decide to also seek this "excellent lifestyle".
I'm not aware of any 'excellent' life being offered (in fact, Paul promises persecution, and this is evidenced by Foxx's Book of Martyrs and many numerous stories of Christians being killed or tortured for their faith). What I am offered is an unbelievably kind gift of the forgiveness of my sins and eternal life in Heaven when I repent and trust.
-
But it only confirms the words coming from our mouths, it doesn't work instead of them.
Nobody said instead. This is the principal reason that criticism of this axiom is reactionary and often missing the mark.
But without the text, it won't mean much of anything.
Nobody said without.
But living a truly loving and righteous lifestyle will compel people to wonder.
I have never, ever had someone walk up to me and ask me about "the hope that lies within" outside of church.
That begs the question: why not? And why does it have to be outside? You're welcome to invite them. That's sort of the point of the building.
Expression implies speaking to people about the gospel should almost be a last resort, while St. Francis is saying what Schaef is saying, that our deeds and actions convey the attitude that comes from being saved.
The paraphrase IS the common expression, and it's what was cited in the article. If there's any other way this is written/stated other than exactly what was quoted, I would like to see it, because I haven't seen it expressed another way in the article or in this thread. So this whole time I thought we were all talking about the same thing, but you seem to be saying that you think we're talking about two different things.
I'm not aware of any 'excellent' life being offered (in fact, Paul promises persecution, and this is evidenced by Foxx's Book of Martyrs and many numerous stories of Christians being killed or tortured for their faith). What I am offered is an unbelievably kind gift of the forgiveness of my sins and eternal life in Heaven when I repent and trust.
Colin didn't say anything about "offering" an excellent life. He said LIVING an excellent life, excelling in the way you live.
-
Shaef, this is the second time we've found ourselves agreeing in a thread.
Dejavu, they must have changed something!
Simply living an excellent life (which is what Christianity claims to offer) will make a person wonder what it is that makes you that way. Using the resources availible, this person may decide to also seek this "excellent lifestyle".
I'm not aware of any 'excellent' life being offered (in fact, Paul promises persecution, and this is evidenced by Foxx's Book of Martyrs and many numerous stories of Christians being killed or tortured for their faith). What I am offered is an unbelievably kind gift of the forgiveness of my sins and eternal life in Heaven when I repent and trust.
It may not be a pleasurable life or a perfect life, but that's kind of the point of Christianity, a "revaluation". The Christian life is so "excellent" because it recognises that life is hard and rejoices in sufferings. It recognises that we cannot be moral, so we have grace. It recognises God is good, therefore in all things we rejoice.
I think Nietzsche picked the wrong antithesis for his ubermensch.
-
I generally don't need to specifically state to people that I am a Christian. There are many times that my repeated actions over time will make an impression on people and they will figure it out. As a corollary, I tend not to make the declaration of my Christianity up front when I meet people. After all, I am a sinner. I have found that I'll commit a sin soon after meeting someone new, usually something I almost never do like uttering a curse. The enemy is always waiting for opportune times and meeting a soul that's still up for grabs is "primetime" for revealing my shortfalls.
Ideally I like people to ask me whether I am Christian. It seems to "cement' the idea in their minds if they observe my behavior first and make the connection themselves. Even then I run into those that are really "out there". I had one lady tell me I was such a good soul, and that she could see the color blue enshrouding me which meant I had inner strength gained from Mother Earth! :D
-
The Coming Evangelical Collapse
An anti-Christian chapter in Western history is about to begin. But out of the ruins, a new vitality and integrity will rise....
Full article can be found at http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html)
Thoughts, disagreements, concurrences?
I will probably read it again, and break down some different points that stand out to me. In short, it got me to thinking and reflecting on my ministry which I think is important. I don't agree with a lot of it, and after talking to my wife, a former youth, and Pastor...I think he made some assumptions based on his personal experiences, feelings, and life. He is disenchanted with the evangelical church and therefore it looks like he feels the need to bash it. My pastor gave me some great advice and an article that I would like to pass on to you guys:
Couple of quick observations: Consider the venue –Christian Science Monitor
Consider the source-Michael Spencer “Internet Monk”
For a response to some of Spencer’s teaching please visit this link
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=364 (http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=364)
My initial thoughts? Certainly some of what Spencer writes is true—
But when you back up a bit, you realize it is basically a lot of bashing without any solutions
-
In regards to "preach the gospel always, and if necessary, use words", I think that the whole concept of "holiness" has evolved Christianity into something completely different than its liberal origins. Because of this, I believe many Christians have lost their authenticity (in the philosophical sense), moaking the maxim ("preach the gospel always, and if necessary, use words") useless. The world does not wish to see us live a strict moral life, and living a strict moral life is not Christianity in the least. Christianity is the path to true authenticity through ultimate resignation to God. In my own personal experiences, I have found that just living my life authentically has (at least) brought a great deal more respect for my beliefs from my friends, as well as resulting in several of those friends wishing to also walk the Christian life. I think the authentic life is the whole concept behind "be in the the world but not of it", that is why I think Kierkegaard pointed out the difficulties of being a Christian within Christendom; one cannot be "in the world but not of it" if Christianity is the game at which the world plays.
-
Thoughts, disagreements, concurrences?
I will probably read it again, and break down some different points that stand out to me. In short, it got me to thinking and reflecting on my ministry which I think is important. I don't agree with a lot of it, and after talking to my wife, a former youth, and Pastor...I think he made some assumptions based on his personal experiences, feelings, and life. He is disenchanted with the evangelical church and therefore it looks like he feels the need to bash it.
Soul Seeker, when you break down the different points, could you comment on the author's second reason...
2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught.
Specifically I would like your thoughts on the claim that our youth "know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it." Obviously this doesn't mean every young person, but a recent Barna survey (http://www.blogcatalog.com/search.frame.php?term=barna+group&id=b7539e05d070935c651bea742e391c14) found that only 1/2 of 1% of 18-23 year olds have a Biblical Worldview.
In terms of the whole "living out the gospel" theme, the sad fact is that most non-Christians don't see Christians doing that. Once again, according to the Barna Group (http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/16-teensnext-gen/94-a-new-generation-expresses-its-skepticism-and-frustration-with-christianity) among young non-Christians the two most of the more common perceptions is that Christianity is judgmental (87%) and hypocritical (85%).
-
Thoughts, disagreements, concurrences?
I will probably read it again, and break down some different points that stand out to me. In short, it got me to thinking and reflecting on my ministry which I think is important. I don't agree with a lot of it, and after talking to my wife, a former youth, and Pastor...I think he made some assumptions based on his personal experiences, feelings, and life. He is disenchanted with the evangelical church and therefore it looks like he feels the need to bash it.
Soul Seeker, when you break down the different points, could you comment on the author's second reason...
2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught.
Specifically I would like your thoughts on the claim that our youth "know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it." Obviously this doesn't mean every young person, but a recent Barna survey (http://www.blogcatalog.com/search.frame.php?term=barna+group&id=b7539e05d070935c651bea742e391c14) found that only 1/2 of 1% of 18-23 year olds have a Biblical Worldview.
Wouldn't that be 0.5%?
-
only 1/2 of 1%
Wouldn't that be 0.5%?
I was paraphrasing the original source, but yes, that is correct.
-
Wouldn't that be 0.5%?
1 out of every 200 people are OCD over math.
-
Wouldn't that be 0.5%?
1 out of every 200 people are OCD over math.
Wait, no, that's 0.5%!
You know, it could rather be 50% of the 1% of teenagers that were surveyed...
That means 50% of teens have a biblical worldview (which makes alot more sense, if we're speaking of America and not France or Minnesota or something).
-
No, it means that almost no teenager believes in an absolute right or wrong. Many teenagers see morality ona sliding scale that they get to shift depending upon where they are or who they are with. It is one of the most frustrating things I have had to endure in ministry. Kids have one mask for chruch group and another for school.
-
No, it means that almost no teenager believes in an absolute right or wrong. Many teenagers see morality ona sliding scale that they get to shift depending upon where they are or who they are with. It is one of the most frustrating things I have had to endure in ministry. Kids have one mask for chruch group and another for school.
Well, I don't believe in an absolute right or wrong but I don't agree with the whole concepts of "masks" either. I believe the "masks" come from the spreading virus of political correctness.
-
Thoughts, disagreements, concurrences?
I will probably read it again, and break down some different points that stand out to me. In short, it got me to thinking and reflecting on my ministry which I think is important. I don't agree with a lot of it, and after talking to my wife, a former youth, and Pastor...I think he made some assumptions based on his personal experiences, feelings, and life. He is disenchanted with the evangelical church and therefore it looks like he feels the need to bash it.
Soul Seeker, when you break down the different points, could you comment on the author's second reason...
2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught.
Specifically I would like your thoughts on the claim that our youth "know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it." Obviously this doesn't mean every young person, but a recent Barna survey (http://www.blogcatalog.com/search.frame.php?term=barna+group&id=b7539e05d070935c651bea742e391c14) found that only 1/2 of 1% of 18-23 year olds have a Biblical Worldview.
In terms of the whole "living out the gospel" theme, the sad fact is that most non-Christians don't see Christians doing that. Once again, according to the Barna Group (http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/16-teensnext-gen/94-a-new-generation-expresses-its-skepticism-and-frustration-with-christianity) among young non-Christians the two most common perceptions is that Christianity is judgmental (87%) and hypocritical (85%).
I don't have time to fully explain this out or expand upon my reasoning, but I would like to comment right now and go more in depth tomorrow. I just heard on KLove that in this same survey said that adults are only 9%, so this is not becoming exclusive to the younger audience. The reason I mention this is that I think that it is a contributing factor. It's not getting taught because most adults don't believe it themselves. I don't think there is one easy solution here...I think it is a lot of X factors that are contributing to the problem. Let me see how many fires I can light before I comment more tomorrow. :P ;) IMO, here are some contributing factors. Three jump out right away off the cuff, and I will contemplate it more tonight and write tomorrow.
1. "Poor" Parenting: This manifests itself in different ways that brings about the same results of no root in the Word or Absolutes. Inconsistent parenting (parents who undermine each other with rules) teaches a precedent of sliding scale mentality as crustpope mentioned above. There is no consistency in rules. -or- Smothering or Helicopter Parents is another term that is used. These are parents who do everything for their kids including feeling out college applications, helping with projects, etc. The kids don't learn how to think for themselves or to work through things critically. -or- Finally the Uninvolved or Bailout Parent. These kids don't learn responsibility and ultimately they define their own rules.
2. The indoctrination of Evolution: It irritates me to know end that the THEORY of Evolution is taught as FACT. That's beside the point...I see the result as generations of people being encouraged to explain away the supernatural with reasoning and science. There is no need for a supreme being because nature is continually improving itself. The logic continues to follow along the flow that God is not needed anywhere in the process. By questioning God in one area of life (nature/science), then why not in other areas of life (morality).
3. The American Consumeristic Buffet God: Our society is very consumer oriented like that of the ancient Roman Empire. However, we "have" this "awesome God" that we can pick and choose what aspects he really does or doesn't have like a buffet. God is put into a "box" and is ultimately what we "make" Him. True, Americans don't make little wood or iron idols, but they are making an idol nonetheless. People want a God who approves of everything they do. Repentance, Sin, and Remorse are almost nonexistent terms.
These are but 3 contributing factors in my opinion. There are more, but I'll let you guys read this and not bore you with anymore wall of texts. I wish we could talk about this in person MJB because it is an issue near and dear to my heart, and I'm glad that you pointed this article out. I hope to reverse this trend.
-
I think the end of morality is a result of the questioning of former presuppositions. People have more or less forgotten the reasoning behind their moralities (and divine word theory itself, from which they draw their moralities), and in that they have become presuppositions that have become irrational. In the rise of the new generations, parents are unable to answer their children's inquiries as to why a certain thing is right or wrong (because they infact were not taught the reasoning behind the morality they believe). Morality has become a mix of utilitarianism and deontological ethics based off church tradition. Neither has valid grounds. Utilitarianism is shallow and deontological morality is impossible and irrational. Neither morality leads to authenticity.
The issue of parenting made me thing about something. I hate the way I was parented and still hate my parent's methods, but I like the person that I am now so, in that, I feel like the methods worked (as much as I disagreed with them).
-
I disagree that traditional ethics are impossible or irrational. They usually become traditions because it was deemed wise to cement them, and there's little reason those same principles would not continue to apply. Because an answer is not close at hand does not mean that no reason exists, or that reason is automatically invalid. It just means someone is going to have to go to a more informed source for their answers.
It is well to ask questions and seek valid reasoning, but this is also a mask behind which many young people question or dismiss authority simply for the sake of doing so. In particular, it has become chic to do so in order to appear smarter than one truly is, to question everything simply to give the impression that person is wise enough to ask the questions no one dares ask. Sometimes no one dares ask them because they have been adequately answered, or because they are inane. One example of this is the 9/11 conspiracy nuts, who claim to be the only ones not buying the company line, and talking about how steel can't melt and blah blah blah. Like you guys were the only ones smart enough to wonder how the whole thing happened.
So some morality shift might be attributed to the lack of real answers, but just as much if not more can be a rebellious spirit cloaked in pseudo-intellectual tripe.
-
I disagree that traditional ethics are impossible or irrational. They usually become traditions because it was deemed wise to cement them, and there's little reason those same principles would not continue to apply. Because an answer is not close at hand does not mean that no reason exists, or that reason is automatically invalid. It just means someone is going to have to go to a more informed source for their answers.
It is well to ask questions and seek valid reasoning, but this is also a mask behind which many young people question or dismiss authority simply for the sake of doing so. In particular, it has become chic to do so in order to appear smarter than one truly is, to question everything simply to give the impression that person is wise enough to ask the questions no one dares ask. Sometimes no one dares ask them because they have been adequately answered, or because they are inane. One example of this is the 9/11 conspiracy nuts, who claim to be the only ones not buying the company line, and talking about how steel can't melt and blah blah blah. Like you guys were the only ones smart enough to wonder how the whole thing happened.
So some morality shift might be attributed to the lack of real answers, but just as much if not more can be a rebellious spirit cloaked in pseudo-intellectual tripe.
Well ethics and morality are different. One's morality is defined by the code of values that one chooses to adopt, one's ethics is defined by the decisions one makes based on character.
Something like the temperance movement was an attempt at making abstaining from alchohol a universal moral law. When reason is applied to this, we see that it was a rather foolish idea.
Something like choosing not to drink because you know that it is unwise for your current circumstances is a decision based off good character (or good reason, if you will).
If children are taught that something is "just wrong because", they will not integrate it into their character. However, if you explain to them the rational behind the illogic of such a decision (and they reach such a conclusion themselves), they will integrate that maxim into their character. As Kant said, reason is universal; however, I would argue further to say that situations are not universal (therein morality/ethics is realitive).
Someone who comes from a family of alchoholism might have a stronger reason not to drink than someone who holds their alchohol well. Therefore, in application of universal reason, the former person will come to a different decision based of his situation.
-
But it only confirms the words coming from our mouths, it doesn't work instead of them.
Nobody said instead. This is the principal reason that criticism of this axiom is reactionary and often missing the mark.
But without the text, it won't mean much of anything.
Nobody said without.
Your (collective) expression implies instead/without (unless absolutely necessary): "Preach the gospel, and when necessary use words."
But living a truly loving and righteous lifestyle will compel people to wonder.
I have never, ever had someone walk up to me and ask me about "the hope that lies within" outside of church.
That begs the question: why not? And why does it have to be outside? You're welcome to invite them. That's sort of the point of the building.
1. The point of the building is to provide a place for believers to meet and grow in faith.
2. If someone there is unsaved, unspoken preaching is not as useful within the church since it would seem "required".
3. Many people think that just inviting someone to church "counts" as meeting their commission to evangelize, but note that we are to "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all..." (Mark 16:15), not "bring them to church so your pastor can preach for them for you."
4. As for why not... my guess is that people don't have time for a fifteen minute analysis of my life in order to realize I might be different. A few that I interact with frequently, sure, but not "all" or "everyone" can be preached to this way. (Besides, it takes far longer than just telling them about the gospel...
The paraphrase IS the common expression, and it's what was cited in the article. If there's any other way this is written/stated other than exactly what was quoted, I would like to see it, because I haven't seen it expressed another way in the article or in this thread. So this whole time I thought we were all talking about the same thing, but you seem to be saying that you think we're talking about two different things.
Common expression (so-called paraphrase): "Preach the gospel, and when necessary use words."
St. Francis: “Let all the brothers, however, preach by their deeds.”
Big difference. In fact, St. Francis was known to be quite vocal in preaching repentance.
Colin didn't say anything about "offering" an excellent life. He said LIVING an excellent life, excelling in the way you live.
Misunderstood what he was referring to, my mistake.
-
If children are taught that something is "just wrong because", they will not integrate it into their character. However, if you explain to them the rational behind the illogic of such a decision (and they reach such a conclusion themselves), they will integrate that maxim into their character.
Your conclusion is based on the assumption that children are rational beings. I would submit that you have a lot to learn about children.
Your (collective) expression implies instead/without (unless absolutely necessary): "Preach the gospel, and when necessary use words."
No, AND is an inclusive term. If you think words are necessary 100% of the time, then by all means, use words 100% of the time, with my blessing, with no contradiction whatsoever of the expression.
To argue against this phrase is to miss the point entirely. 10% of our communication is verbal and 90% is non-verbal, and yet we're lucky if people direct 10% of their attentions to their actions, while spending 90% and more on their verbal eloquence. Those who do so, do it at their own peril.
Lastly, you equated what I was saying with what Francis was saying. I was explaining the meaning of the paraphrase. Therefore, if A = B and B = C, A must equal C. No reason to bag on the expression.
1. The point of the building is to provide a place for believers to meet and grow in faith.
The church is a focal point of a community. That does not contradict what I said earlier.
2. If someone there is unsaved, unspoken preaching is not as useful within the church since it would seem "required".
I'll leave that to you. I've seen a lot of genuine people express a lot of frustration with a lot of plastic churches, which leads me to believe that it's not hard for a discerning heart to tell the difference. That's why Jesus preached against it in His sermon on the mount.
3. Many people think that just inviting someone to church "counts" as meeting their commission to evangelize
I agree that's not good. I do not know what bearing it has on the discussion of the phrase.
4. As for why not... my guess is that people don't have time for a fifteen minute analysis of my life in order to realize I might be different. A few that I interact with frequently, sure, but not "all" or "everyone" can be preached to this way. (Besides, it takes far longer than just telling them about the gospel...
It may take a long time for someone to realize you're genuine, but it will take a lot less than 15 minutes to spot a fake. And five seconds of hypocrisy can easily undo months of verbal proselytizing.
Big difference. In fact, St. Francis was known to be quite vocal in preaching repentance.
Again, this is not action to the exclusion of vocalizing. Please understand this.
-
Your conclusion is based on the assumption that children are rational beings. I would submit that you have a lot to learn about children.
Humans are rational beings. Every action is taken from some form of reasoning.
-
Humans are rational beings. Every action is taken from some form of reasoning.
Not every action is taken strictly from reason. People are not Vulcans, they act out of passion.
Your attempts to cloud this with semantics aside, the fact remains that children can still tend to act in their own interest, even after being given a rational reason not to behave a certain way.
-
Humans are rational beings. Every action is taken from some form of reasoning.
Not every action is taken strictly from reason. People are not Vulcans, they act out of passion.
Your attempts to cloud this with semantics aside, the fact remains that children can still tend to act in their own interest, even after being given a rational reason not to behave a certain way.
Who's to say that acting in one's own interest isn't rational?
-
You know what, find someone else to play word games with. You're going 180-degrees apart from your original statement and I'm not interested in chasing you down any rabbit holes.
-
Overall, I agree with the article. The present facade of Christianity in America is doomed to destruction, and I think it will happen sooner rather than later. For a long time I have said that America as a nation won't exist in a recognizable form by 2050, and I think the outlawing of Christianity will happen before it ends. At first the laws will view Christianity as annoying, but will allow people to practice their religion on their own time, but not in public. Next laws will view Christianity as actually harmful, and therefore religious schools will be banned to protect the children. Finally churches will be banned as well, and Christianity will move underground.
So what? I also agree with the article (and some of my fellow board members here) that this is not a bad thing. It will cause all the lukewarm christians to quit calling themselves that. Getting rid of that chaff will actually cause the Church to be a brighter beacon leading people to true relationship with God. One of the biggest stumbling blocks to people becoming Christians is the hypocrisy of the people who call themselves that. When all the hypocrits leave, people will see what truly being a Christian is all about.
As for some of the other comments in this thread:
1 - Francis Assisi's paraphrase: I agree that we should live out our faith. I also agree that doing that requires speaking our faith sometimes.
2 - American Christian's ignorance: I agree that most "christians" in America don't really know what their religion believes and don't live it.
3 - Soul Seeker's sources of the problem:
a - Poor parenting: I agree that this is probably the biggest reason behind the fall of US Christianity, and the fall of the US in general
b - Evolution: I think this is less of a big a deal anymore. Evolution is a different "truth", but today's youth don't believe in any "truth"
c - Consumerism: I think that the church trying to become Burger King ("have it your way") is a huge part of the problem
-
I don't have time to fully explain this out or expand upon my reasoning, but I would like to comment right now and go more in depth tomorrow.
I appreciate you taking the time with this.
I just heard on KLove that in this same survey said that adults are only 9% [with a Biblical Worldview--mjb], so this is not becoming exclusive to the younger audience.
Both of these numbers are based on a specific definition of what "having a Biblical worldview" means, so they should be taken with a grain of salt. Does it surprise anyone, however, that the younger generation is down by a factor of 20 or so from the older generation?
These are but 3 contributing factors in my opinion. There are more, but I'll let you guys read this and not bore you with anymore wall of texts. I wish we could talk about this in person MJB because it is an issue near and dear to my heart, and I'm glad that you pointed this article out. I hope to reverse this trend.
I look forward to further hearing your thoughts on the subject.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to people becoming Christians is the hypocrisy of the people who call themselves that. When all the hypocrits leave, people will see what truly being a Christian is all about.
Obligatory Argument: I don't think we'll ever see a time when all the hypocrites leave the church.
Although I feel things have gone off in the weeds a couple of times, I am enjoying the discussion.
-
Both of these numbers are based on a specific definition of what "having a Biblical worldview" means, so they should be taken with a grain of salt. Does it surprise anyone, however, that the younger generation is down by a factor of 20 or so from the older generation?
Here's Barna's complete analysis (http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/252-barna-survey-examines-changes-in-worldview-among-christians-over-the-past-13-years) (directly from them). "Biblical Worldview" means:
- absolute moral truth exists
- the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches
- Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic
- a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works
- Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth
- God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today
I'm actually surprised that 9% believe a couple of those themselves, much less all of them. Sure doesn't seem like it at times...
-
Here's Barna's complete analysis (http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/252-barna-survey-examines-changes-in-worldview-among-christians-over-the-past-13-years) (directly from them). "Biblical Worldview" means:
- absolute moral truth exists
- the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches
- Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic
- a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works
- Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth
- God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today
I'm actually surprised that 9% believe a couple of those themselves, much less all of them. Sure doesn't seem like it at times...
Barna claims that 45% of Americans self-label themselves as "Born-Again." Which are you surprised about for that 45%? The only ones I can see are the second (the Bible is totally accurate) and the third (Satan is real), but both of those have huge wiggle room as people are free to define "principles it teaches" and "force" as it pleases them.
-
Here's Barna's complete analysis (http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/252-barna-survey-examines-changes-in-worldview-among-christians-over-the-past-13-years) (directly from them). "Biblical Worldview" means:
- absolute moral truth exists
- the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches
- Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic
- a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works
- Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth
- God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today
I'm actually surprised that 9% believe a couple of those themselves, much less all of them. Sure doesn't seem like it at times...
What about everyone else here? how many beleive in a real literal Satan Figure? and How many do not? or should this be started in a different thread?
-
I fully agree with everything listed under Barna's "Biblical worldview".
However, I know there are many people who post on these boards who do not.
-
Here's Barna's complete analysis (http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/252-barna-survey-examines-changes-in-worldview-among-christians-over-the-past-13-years) (directly from them). "Biblical Worldview" means:
- absolute moral truth exists
- the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches
- Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic
- a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works
- Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth
- God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today
I'm actually surprised that 9% believe a couple of those themselves, much less all of them. Sure doesn't seem like it at times...
What about everyone else here? how many beleive in a real literal Satan Figure? and How many do not? or should this be started in a different thread?
I believe a being by the name Satan exists; however, I probably differ from everyone else on several points.
1) His name was not Lucifer.
2) There are two "satan figures".
3) The first was the leader of the spirits of the Nephalim that were drowned in the flood (known sometimes as Baalzebub in Jewish literature).
4) The second was the leader of the second angelic rebellion (which Pol and I think happened at Babel).
5) The first is a demon, not a fallen angel.
6) The second is a fallen angel, not a demon.
7) The first has no real "power" and is under the direct command of God himself (most likely the same Satan as we see in Job).
8) The second has no real "power" over people except the power of fear and illusion.
9) Neither Satan was the serpent in the garden.
-
Barna claims that 45% of Americans self-label themselves as "Born-Again." Which are you surprised about for that 45%? The only ones I can see are the second (the Bible is totally accurate) and the third (Satan is real), but both of those have huge wiggle room as people are free to define "principles it teaches" and "force" as it pleases them.
- I'm surprised 9% believe in absolutes
- Even a few Christians I know don't consider the Bible to be totally accurate
- Many people I've talked to think they are getting to heaven because they are a "good person" (which they are obviously not -- thus the reasoning of Law & Grace preaching), even some self-proclaimed Christians
For the record, I agree with all 6 points.
-
Barna claims that 45% of Americans self-label themselves as "Born-Again." Which are you surprised about for that 45%? The only ones I can see are the second (the Bible is totally accurate) and the third (Satan is real), but both of those have huge wiggle room as people are free to define "principles it teaches" and "force" as it pleases them.
- I'm surprised 9% believe in absolutes
- Even a few Christians I know don't consider the Bible to be totally accurate
- Many people I've talked to think they are getting to heaven because they are a "good person" (which they are obviously not -- thus the reasoning of Law & Grace preaching), even some self-proclaimed Christians
For the record, I agree with all 6 points.
I doesn't say that they believe the Bible totally accurate, it says that they believe the principles of the Bible are totally accurate. The former isn't even believed by most denominations.
-
I doesn't say that they believe the Bible totally accurate, it says that they believe the principles of the Bible are totally accurate. The former isn't even believed by most denominations.
True true. My sister and I argue this on occasion. For her the bible is literal and accurate in everything it says. ON top of that, the bible is an athourity in every subject (economics, psychology, medicine, biology, geography, ... ... ... etc.) even if the bible never talks about that subject, she believes it is an athourity.
I believe the bible to be the inspired word of God but I believe that inspiration is for the purpose of salvation and communicating Gods message to his people, it is not always accurate in everything it says when it comes to other subjects. Matthew and Luke cant even agree when Jesus was born so it has some problems from a historical perspective alone.
-
My thoughts on the rest of the article (I'll try not to be so long winded this time):
1. I agree but I don't think that it is anything new that we are seen as a threat to cultural progress...for afterall our struggle is not against flesh and blood...
2. I'm not sure what his definition of "orthodox form of the faith" is. Is he speaking about rituals and traditions? If so, even those can come across as empty and...well....ritualistic. Something to make people feel better. I don't agree that those kinds of things are essential to pass along. However, if he is talking about a Biblical worldview as outlined earlier in this thread and by Barna, then I think that is absolutely necessary to pass along. I stated some of my reasons why that's not happening earlier in this thread. However, I forgot to mention a fourth and important ingredient: a person's selfish will. We may have poor examples as parents, been spoiled, and have been bombarded with all kinds of wrong messages, but we still have a choice to make. I was talking with a former teen, and he made an interesting comment: "[People] are still going to try things. They want to figure out what's right for them." I don't think that's changed a whole lot since the Garden of Eden. I just think there is a whole lot more and variety of fruit being offered.
3. I think his views of churches is too narrow. There are churches that fall under those categories, but I find it hard to believe that all of the thousands of churches in America fall under 1 of THREE categories. I think he is being over-simplistic to drive a point home.
4. I think this is a broad brush stroke of an assumption that has enough truth to make him look right. Then again, he admitted that there is some success out there. So in a lot of ways he came off as contradictory to me with this statement.
5. I disagree with this sentiment out right. There are a lot of people and religions that try to do good works. Many believe they will get to Heaven on good works. I knew a girl who did good things and charity just because she was kind and yet she was an atheist. If anything, then they will continue to do good just for the tax breaks.
6. This is similar to number 2 and probably has similar contributions to the problem that number 2 has.
7. Everybody is running out of money, not just the church. However, I do know this. God promises in multiple passages (both OT & NT) that God takes care of His children. Not promising to make them rich but he will take care of the needs of those who love and trust Him. I will hold on to that promise until the day I die.
He admits that some of his own predictions will probably not come true, but I find a lot of this as no surprise because there is an enemy battling against God and His Children (the Church) for every soul. I am trying to instill Biblical principles into the teenagers under my tutelage as the best I can so that all of them can stand firm against the evil one. Some of my methods may seem gimmicky, but it gets the teens to invite friends, read books of the Bible, and memorize Scripture all in addition to attending youth group. I will be thankful for the work God does in their lives, not because of anything that I have done but because He is faithful.
-
I tend to like the rituals, actually.
They want to figure out what's right for them.
Don't we all?
-
They want to figure out what's right for them.
Don't we all?
In the context he was using, No, not everyone does. I, for one, strive to lay aside what I deem as right for the Lord's leading. So, no, not everyone is like that.
As for rituals, I kind of assumed that when you decided to be Catholic.
-
They want to figure out what's right for them.
Don't we all?
I, for one, strive to lay aside what I deem as right for the Lord's leading.
So doing that is what is right for you?