Thank God for the Decline of Christendom!

PDN

I mentioned this on another thread and hairy heretic suggested I start a new thread to avoid hijacking the original one.

Christendom is the church/state instituted when Constantine hijacked Christianity for political reasons in the fourth century. It allowed a persecuted counter-culture that refused to serve in the military to become a persecuting majority where prelates controlled private armies. It spawned abominations such as the Crusades, the Inquisition and the burning of witches.

Luther and Calvin's Reformation simply paved the way for Catholic Christendom to be relaced by Protestant Christendom in certain parts of Europe. Luther approved of the persecution of Jews, the drowning of anabaptists who wished to worship God according to their consciences, while Calvin's Geneva burned Michael Sevetus as a heretic.

Today, the implosion of nominal Christianity in the West heralds the collapse of Christendom, although a few archaic remnants still hang on, like Church of England Bishops still being granted seats in Britain's House of Lords.

My point is, as a Christian, I believe that the decline of Christendom is an immensely positive trend for society in general and for the Christian faith. I would be interested in hearing the perspectives of others.

philologos

Christianity should be from the Bible, not from the traditions set by men. Personally I like the choice that denominations offer, as they all have a different way of practising the Christian faith and some may suit other people more than others.
I'm an Anglican, I find that the Church of Ireland suits me a lot. I find people who find Catholicism and perhaps a more traditional way of faith to me more favourable. Messanic Jews tell us that some people would like to follow Jewish practises while continuing to worship in Christ. Evangelicals (please correct me) don't like to be tied down by any given institution and instead want to form a more relaxed way for Christians to come and worship than the structures already existing.
Thank God for the choice we have for our faith.

Sapien

Jakkass wrote:

Thank God for the choice we have for our faith.

Yeeeees. You can believe in God because it says so in a book, or you can believe in God because an old man in a dress tells you to. A world of choice!

Fanny Cradock

Sapien wrote:

Yeeeees. You can believe in God because it says so in a book, or you can believe in God because an old man in a dress tells you to. A world of choice!

A thread a few days back stated that the Bible is not specific enough and it is therefore open to a variety of interpretations - alll of which cannot be correct. Conversely, it constrain you, an atheist, to such a degree that you chose not to believe a word written in it! I believe the whole point of PDN's post was that the decline of Christendom - the man in the dress fronting these organisations - could well be a good thing.

It may have been Robin who earlier mentioned that in Sweden and the Netherlands Christianity had all but died. Initially, after looking through some facts and figures, I was a little saddened to find this statement true. However, upon further thought, it really didn't bother me at all. I've never been a fan of organised religion, and I have long been suspicious of the motives behind some off these institutions. Are they really interested in serving God? I also wonder is it just human nature for a spiritual organisation - when it reaches a critical mass - to become corrupt? The huge Evangelical churches in the US would be a perfect example, I think.

Sapien

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Conversely, it constrain you, an atheist, to such a degree that you chose not to believe a word written in it!

I believe many words in it. Mostly those corroborated by contemporary sources, admittedly. It's really just the magic bits I have trouble with. My analytical standards kind of "restrain" me from believing those.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I believe the whole point of PDN's post was that the decline of Christendom - the man in the dress fronting these organisations - could well be a good thing.

Sure. But it was Jakkass to whom I was replying, and his rejoicing over the divers ways in which one can have faith. When one considers faith itself to be the problem, such rejoicing seems a little perverse.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

A thread a few days back stated that the Bible is not specific enough and it is therefore open to a variety of interpretations - alll of which cannot be correct. Conversely, it constrain you, an atheist, to such a degree that you chose not to believe a word written in it! I believe the whole point of PDN's post was that the decline of Christendom - the man in the dress fronting these organisations - could well be a good thing.

It may have been Robin who earlier mentioned that in Sweden and the Netherlands Christianity had all but died. Initially, after looking through some facts and figures, I was a little saddened to find this statement true. However, upon further thought, it really didn't bother me at all. I've never been a fan of organised religion, and I have long been suspicious of the motives behind some off these institutions. Are they really interested in serving God? I also wonder is it just human nature for a spiritual organisation - when it reaches a critical mass - to become corrupt? The huge Evangelical churches in the US would be a perfect example, I think.

I don't think it's specifically spiritual organisations. There always comes a point where people start thinking about the organisation rather than the reason for the organisation. It's quite easy to start thinking "we do so much good, we must preserve ourselves, even if it involves certain 'compromises'". It's equally easy for certain types of people to think the same, about themselves.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

PDN wrote:

I believe that the decline of Christendom is an immensely positive trend for society in general and for the Christian faith. I would be interested in hearing the perspectives of others.

Well, obviously enough I'm thrilled at the decline of religion and sincerely wish in particular, that christianity had failed to subvert the Roman Empire in the first place. One can only imagine what humanity would have been capable of now, had the Empire continued, rather than descending for 1,300 years into the Dark Ages with nothing but the self-consuming light of organized religion to guide it.

I would expect centralized, organized religion to continue to die out in Europe as it is doing, and has done, in many countries. The decentralized religions (a la the USA) will pick up some of the left-overs, but I don't believe the social conditioning (outside the USA, parts of Africa and possibly the FSU) is right for them to become anything more than a fringe activity.

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

There always comes a point where people start thinking about the organisation rather than the reason for the organisation. It's quite easy to start thinking "we do so much good, we must preserve ourselves, even if it involves certain 'compromises'". It's equally easy for certain types of people to think the same, about themselves.

Good post, much as I see it. We had a serious issue like this in Japan with our Buddhist head temple. It turned very bad and resulted in a mass exodus (millions). It caused me to rethink the role of organizations. I have always believed that any priesthood and its organization of any belief are there to support the members. The reverse appears to be the norm. People and power just do not mix well.

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote:

Good post, much as I see it. We had a serious issue like this in Japan with our Buddhist head temple. It turned very bad and resulted in a mass exodus (millions). It caused me to rethink the role of organizations. I have always believed that any priesthood and its organization of any belief are there to support the members. The reverse appears to be the norm. People and power just do not mix well.

"Power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely". I won't make the obvious cheap shot...

There's a lot to be said for the attitude that a "church" is neither a building nor an organisation, but a community of believers. Nevertheless, I would be sorry to see the loss of the visible outward signs of the sacred, such as church buildings, and even the panoply of hierarchy. Even to an atheist, they serve as satisfying reminders of humanity's search for a meaning beyond the short term of our individual lives.

I could wish the search were better directed, but I would regret the loss of the visible evidence of the search itself - even unto the organisations themselves, imperfect as they are in every sense.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

Sapien wrote:

Yeeeees. You can believe in God because it says so in a book, or you can believe in God because an old man in a dress tells you to. A world of choice!

I was discussing the ways in which people practise, and secondly there's no reason to be so smart about it.

PDN

robindch wrote:

Well, obviously enough I'm thrilled at the decline of religion and sincerely wish in particular, that christianity had failed to subvert the Roman Empire in the first place. One can only imagine what humanity would have been capable of now, had the Empire continued, rather than descending for 1,300 years into the Dark Ages with nothing but the self-consuming light of organized religion to guide it.

I would expect centralized, organized religion to continue to die out in Europe as it is doing, and has done, in many countries. The decentralized religions (a la the USA) will pick up some of the left-overs, but I don't believe the social conditioning (outside the USA, parts of Africa and possibly the FSU) is right for them to become anything more than a fringe activity.

Obviously I read history differently. I believe the Roman Empire subverted the Church.

China is an interesting case of the rise of decentralised religion, where approx 10% of the population now belong to the unregistered house churches, most of which have no centralised structure - hence the government's failure to halt their expansion.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Obviously I read history differently. I believe the Roman Empire subverted the Church.

I think both are probably true. The effects on the Church were longer-lasting by virtue of the longevity of the Church.

The effects on the Church may also have been more profound, but I don't think (pace Gibbon) that the adoption of Christianity was what destroyed the Roman Empire in the first place. Aside from anything else, that thesis entirely fails to account for the continued survival of the very Christian Eastern Roman Empire, which only finally fell 40 years before Columbus sailed to America (on Tuesday, May 29, 1453) - a thousand years after the fall of Rome.

Come to that - for those who reckon that the Empire had a very negative impact on the Church - how does the extra thousand years of such influence show up in the Orthodox Church?

cordially,
Scofflaw

hairyheretic

So do you believe that the optimal form for christian worship would be small house or community sized gatherings? Would you see any kind of structure to link them to other groups, or each one standing alone, to interpret the bible as they see fit?

Fanny Cradock

'To interpret the bible as they see fit' invokes an image of Fred Phelps in my minds eye. If you are interpreting the bible as you see fit than you are not necessarily interpreting it as God intended. There is far more consensus within Christianity than people believe and I'll personally be reading up on the hermeneutics that PDN has been mentioning the last few weeks in hopes it can satisfy me a consensus can be reached logically. Obviously enough, as I know there can only be one true interpretation of Gods words, I already believe it can be reached. But it would be nice to see the methods used to find agreement, i.e. the true meaning, discussed.

As for what size of an organisation should be? Well, 'whatever serves God' would be my answer. Irrespective of size, no church or religious organisation is perfect or infallible. If the leaders or congregation think otherwise that should start alarm bells ringing. I think the problem lies not necessarily in the size (although, I would be of the opinion of smaller = better), but when the the organisation no longer truly serves God.

BrianCalgary

hairyheretic wrote:

So do you believe that the optimal form for christian worship would be small house or community sized gatherings? ?

i think that it is one very good form for worship, I enjoy being involved in one. It opens it up for questions and mutual discovery. As opposed to listening to someone yack on for 20 minutes every Sunday and not get the opportunity to ask questions.

hairyheretic wrote:

Would you see any kind of structure to link them to other groups, or each one standing alone, to interpret the bible as they see fit?

Absolutely, there is also an enjoyment that comes from being with a large group of believers, and hearing a great message from the pulpip. The large group also provides the opportunity to hear what God is up to on their lives as well. There is nothing like gathering with like minded people.

I am curious as to your statement to interpret the bible as they see fit. When I look at statement of faiths from deifferent denominations I see little difference in interpretations. What I do see is a different focus and a different method.

hairyheretic

Possibly a poor phasing on my part then.

Take creation as an example ... literal 6 days, or symbolic?

The importance of particular text over other text.

Sorry if I'm not being particularly clear here .. can't seem to find the right way to phrase it.

BrianCalgary

hairyheretic wrote:

Possibly a poor phasing on my part then.

Take creation as an example ... literal 6 days, or symbolic?

The importance of particular text over other text.

Sorry if I'm not being particularly clear here .. can't seem to find the right way to phrase it.

That's OK HH, we'll work with you.

I wouldn't mind deabting creation from a biblical perspective only. I think it is a literal 6 days. Adam and Eve existed because the NT refers to them as having done so.

In viewing the actual Genesis text I think that it is written as historical narrative and it's histirocity is backed up by NT text.

hairyheretic

You would agree though that both a literal and a symbolic interpretation of biblical creation are accepted by different christian groups, with no overall consensus as to which is 'the right way' of reading it? It would seem to me then that the interpretation of that is down to the individual, or possibly the congregation.

There may well be other elements within the bible that offer similar choice to the reader.

A more extreme example is, unfortunately, the WBC, who seem an awful lot more concerned with the aspects of punishment than forgiveness. Again, an individual interpretation as to what aspects of the bible are more important.

(As an aside, the WBC are saying they're now going to picket the funerals of the students killed in the latest shooting incident. I wish I could say that surprises me, but from them it doesn't.)

Hopefully I'm making things a bit clearer.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote:

A thread a few days back stated that the Bible is not specific enough and it is therefore open to a variety of interpretations - alll of which cannot be correct. Conversely, it constrain you, an atheist, to such a degree that you chose not to believe a word written in it! I believe the whole point of PDN's post was that the decline of Christendom - the man in the dress fronting these organisations - could well be a good thing.

It may have been Robin who earlier mentioned that in Sweden and the Netherlands Christianity had all but died. Initially, after looking through some facts and figures, I was a little saddened to find this statement true. However, upon further thought, it really didn't bother me at all. I've never been a fan of organised religion, and I have long been suspicious of the motives behind some off these institutions. Are they really interested in serving God? I also wonder is it just human nature for a spiritual organisation - when it reaches a critical mass - to become corrupt? The huge Evangelical churches in the US would be a perfect example, I think.

I don't think size is really the problem with corruption in churches. Possibly you just hear about it more when a leader from a megachurch turns out to be a scoundrel, whereas nobody cares if he's the minister of a tiny congregation in Hicksville.

Certainly in the US ministers of evangelical churches are better paid than in Ireland - so that would explain why a corrupt person might be drawn to such a position. I know in my own church every pastor we've ever employed took a pay cut from their previous secular salary, so greedy people just wouldn't even want to go there.

My point was not so much that churches are getting smaller, indeed some churches are growing very big. My point is that even the largest of churches are now part of a minority and a counter-culture in society. And I believe that to be a healthy thing, both for society and for the churches.

I do sometimes fear what will happen in Latin America, where the growth of evangelical Christianity is quite astounding. For example, in Guatemala over 50% of the population claim to be born-again Christians - and other countries such as Brazil and Columbia are not far behind. While I rejoice at such church growth, I hope and pray that no clown gets the 'bright' idea of starting an evangelical political party and trying to set up a theocracy. Thankfully the fact that evangelicals are fragmented into so many denominations and subsections will probably prove a safeguard against any such well-intentioned lunacy.

BrianCalgary

hairyheretic wrote:

You would agree though that both a literal and a symbolic interpretation of biblical creation are accepted by different christian groups, with no overall consensus as to which is 'the right way' of reading it? It would seem to me then that the interpretation of that is down to the individual, or possibly the congregation..

I would agree. For me I test all actions to the greatest commandments of loving God and neighbour. As I think the whole Bible is built on these.

Keeping in mind that parts of the Bible are historical narratives where the two commandments aren't part of the equation, such as the Genesis creation account.

hairyheretic wrote:

There may well be other elements within the bible that offer similar choice to the reader..

That there are. Drinking and gambling as examples.

hairyheretic wrote:

A more extreme example is, unfortunately, the WBC, who seem an awful lot more concerned with the aspects of punishment than forgiveness. Again, an individual interpretation as to what aspects of the bible are more important..

In the case of WBC my take is there recognition of the sin of sexual morality is consistent with Christian orthodoxy. Their method of dealing with it does not fit into the second commandment of 'love your neighbour as yourself', and that is where my criticism of them lies.

hairyheretic wrote:

(As an aside, the WBC are saying they're now going to picket the funerals of the students killed in the latest shooting incident. I wish I could say that surprises me, but from them it doesn't.)

Hopefully I'm making things a bit clearer.

This hurts to hear they are going to do that. The families of the victime are going through enough.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

This hurts to hear they are going to do that. The families of the victime are going through enough.

I hate to ask, but do you consider this very much better?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

I hate to ask, but do you consider this very much better?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Feel free to ask. Which part of the article?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Feel free to ask. Which part of the article?

The article itself - its existence, if you like. If a politician posted such an article pushing their point of view (for example - "...when we accept Genesis as it was meant to be taken—as literal history...") on foot of a tragedy, I would have no hesitation in considering it as the scoring of political points. I have equally little hesitation in this case - this is the scoring of religious points, on the occasion of a tragedy.

Linking in their earlier article on the Columbine massacre (which basically posits that the despair caused by teaching evolution is what allows this to occur) allows them to reference the conclusion that teaching of evolution leads to 'this kind of thing' without being too overt about it close to the tragedy.

There was no particular need for this article. I don't think anyone would have lost their faith because Ken Ham had failed to write an article about the massacre before the dead were even buried.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

The article itself - its existence, if you like. If a politician posted such an article pushing their point of view (for example - "...when we accept Genesis as it was meant to be taken—as literal history...") on foot of a tragedy, I would have no hesitation in considering it as the scoring of political points. I have equally little hesitation in this case - this is the scoring of religious points, on the occasion of a tragedy.

Linking in their earlier article on the Columbine massacre (which basically posits that the despair caused by teaching evolution is what allows this to occur) allows them to reference the conclusion that teaching of evolution leads to 'this kind of thing' without being too overt about it close to the tragedy.

There was no particular need for this article. I don't think anyone would have lost their faith because Ken Ham had failed to write an article about the massacre before the dead were even buried.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ok from that viewpoint I agree with you.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

The article itself - its existence, if you like. If a politician posted such an article pushing their point of view (for example - "...when we accept Genesis as it was meant to be taken—as literal history...") on foot of a tragedy, I would have no hesitation in considering it as the scoring of political points. I have equally little hesitation in this case - this is the scoring of religious points, on the occasion of a tragedy.

Linking in their earlier article on the Columbine massacre (which basically posits that the despair caused by teaching evolution is what allows this to occur) allows them to reference the conclusion that teaching of evolution leads to 'this kind of thing' without being too overt about it close to the tragedy.

There was no particular need for this article. I don't think anyone would have lost their faith because Ken Ham had failed to write an article about the massacre before the dead were even buried.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Politicians are indeed doing just that. They are using the tragic events in Virginia to push for the implementation of tighter gun controls. Is that heartless? Exploiting a situation? Or trying to prevent a similar tragedy occurring.

If Ken Hamm really thinks that teaching evolution is the cause of massacres like Columbine and Virginia Tech, then he may not be heartless - just deluded.

It is natural for religious leaders to respond to the questions raised by a tragedy. For example, the Sunday after 9/11 I preached on what had happened in New York. In fact, since that event raised so many questions for so many people in our congregation, I would have been guilty of poor pastoral care if I had preached on any other subject that weekend.

The problem with someone like Ken Hamm is he spends all his time majoring on one aspect of Christian belief (and one that, in my opinion, is far from being the most important issue facing believers). This causes him to see everything with a very one-eyed perspective. Not a very attractive advertisement for Christianity, I agree, but hardly on a par with the odious publicity-seeking protests that Fred Phelps and his cohorts intend to stage at funerals.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Politicians are indeed doing just that. They are using the tragic events in Virginia to push for the implementation of tighter gun controls. Is that heartless? Exploiting a situation? Or trying to prevent a similar tragedy occurring.

A fair point, except when one attempts to shoehorn the tragedy into a pre-existing viewpoint, without waiting to discover the reasons. Some of those calling for gun control are grandstanding in exactly this way, of course.

PDN wrote:

If Ken Hamm really thinks that teaching evolution is the cause of massacres like Columbine and Virginia Tech, then he may not be heartless - just deluded.

See above, really.

PDN wrote:

It is natural for religious leaders to respond to the questions raised by a tragedy. For example, the Sunday after 9/11 I preached on what had happened in New York. In fact, since that event raised so many questions for so many people in our congregation, I would have been guilty of poor pastoral care if I had preached on any other subject that weekend.

I'd accept that, naturally, but did you try to shoehorn 9/11 into an existing hobbyhorse?

There's also the issue of selectivity. I'm not sure why the deaths of 33 Americans is down to the teaching of evolution, and the deaths of 33+ Iraqis every day is not - so that again looks more to me like point-scoring off a tragedy-become-media-event.

PDN wrote:

The problem with someone like Ken Hamm is he spends all his time majoring on one aspect of Christian belief (and one that, in my opinion, is far from being the most important issue facing believers). This causes him to see everything with a very one-eyed perspective. Not a very attractive advertisement for Christianity, I agree, but hardly on a par with the odious publicity-seeking protests that Fred Phelps and his cohorts intend to stage at funerals.

I would agree with that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Ken Ham gets a kicking over in Respectful Insolence over failing to wait until the dead were buried before grunting about the VT massacre and evolution in the same sentence:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/04/contemptible_ghoul_2.php