How the American Church has Messed Up
I. The Church has Ignored the Importance of the Mind
This really began, I think, following the Scopes trial on evolution. During this trial, a certain person was manipulated into claiming to be an expert witness on the Bible, and then was torn up on the stand during the examination. Following this, the Church, as a whole, turned its back on public schools and universities. Instead of flocking into the Ivory Tower, believers fled into their own institutions and private schools. These, I am sure, always existed. Yet they became rallying points for Christians who, on the whole, forgot and even demonized the significance of real critical thought and higher learning.
We see the results of this. You see, prayer in schools being forbidden is not the great evil of the public school system. Prayer being tossed out is merely a symptom of a much greater social movement amongst American people, a movement that is a challenge to the Judeo-Christian values which make this country possible, and a movement that has been left unanswered. It is not that Christ has no answers for such people and such movements as these, it is that the Church has been too frightened to hear the questions and has therefore muted itself.
II. The Church has not Prepared its Youth
Some surveys report that about 75% of evangelical Christian youth who attend college lose their faith during the course of their studies. In a way this is very much related to the first point. The problem here is that Christian youth are being given a thin veneer of apologetic and theological education and then being lectured at by atheists with PhDs. What did we expect to happen? We cannot just glibly gloss over serious questions that demand serious answers and expect the Church to be just fine. Critical questions of the Christian faith are a good thing! They provide opportunity to really engage with people who may be curious and they give us a chance for us to learn what it is we really believe. How can we do this if we are not prepared?
III. The Church is Overly Involved with Political Conservatism
Just because something is politically conservative does not mean it is Biblical. Jesus wouldn't necessarily vote republican. The strange thing with this phenomena is that Jesus encountered the same thing in His day! The Pharisees, the conservative religious leaders, were in bed with the Roman Empire in order to preserve their vision of what Israel should be. In fact, they were so deeply involved with preserving their vision of God's Kingdom that they came to have no room for God himself. Let it not be so in our day.
IV. The Church Taught Popular Theology
I put that in the past tense but there are many who still do. "Health and Wealth" Gospel preachers who give us ten steps towards our miracle without ever mentioning the crucifixion. There are no miracles withoutt he crucifixion, and there is no better life without the cross. Mr. Smiling Preacher never mentions the cross in his latest book, and he attempts to avoid it, the defining feature of Christianity, when he preaches!
We sold out to popular theolgoy several decades ago when we affirmed that people are basically good. What happens whe, beleiving this, people see bad things happen to good people? They cry out that God is unfair, that we are being cheated, when the Bible tells us that not one of us is good! If we had taught that all along, then maybe isntead of blaming God when trials come along we would be equipping the world how to deal with them and how to find God in them.
This really began, I think, following the Scopes trial on evolution. During this trial, a certain person was manipulated into claiming to be an expert witness on the Bible, and then was torn up on the stand during the examination. Following this, the Church, as a whole, turned its back on public schools and universities. Instead of flocking into the Ivory Tower, believers fled into their own institutions and private schools. These, I am sure, always existed. Yet they became rallying points for Christians who, on the whole, forgot and even demonized the significance of real critical thought and higher learning.
We see the results of this. You see, prayer in schools being forbidden is not the great evil of the public school system. Prayer being tossed out is merely a symptom of a much greater social movement amongst American people, a movement that is a challenge to the Judeo-Christian values which make this country possible, and a movement that has been left unanswered. It is not that Christ has no answers for such people and such movements as these, it is that the Church has been too frightened to hear the questions and has therefore muted itself.
II. The Church has not Prepared its Youth
Some surveys report that about 75% of evangelical Christian youth who attend college lose their faith during the course of their studies. In a way this is very much related to the first point. The problem here is that Christian youth are being given a thin veneer of apologetic and theological education and then being lectured at by atheists with PhDs. What did we expect to happen? We cannot just glibly gloss over serious questions that demand serious answers and expect the Church to be just fine. Critical questions of the Christian faith are a good thing! They provide opportunity to really engage with people who may be curious and they give us a chance for us to learn what it is we really believe. How can we do this if we are not prepared?
III. The Church is Overly Involved with Political Conservatism
Just because something is politically conservative does not mean it is Biblical. Jesus wouldn't necessarily vote republican. The strange thing with this phenomena is that Jesus encountered the same thing in His day! The Pharisees, the conservative religious leaders, were in bed with the Roman Empire in order to preserve their vision of what Israel should be. In fact, they were so deeply involved with preserving their vision of God's Kingdom that they came to have no room for God himself. Let it not be so in our day.
IV. The Church Taught Popular Theology
I put that in the past tense but there are many who still do. "Health and Wealth" Gospel preachers who give us ten steps towards our miracle without ever mentioning the crucifixion. There are no miracles withoutt he crucifixion, and there is no better life without the cross. Mr. Smiling Preacher never mentions the cross in his latest book, and he attempts to avoid it, the defining feature of Christianity, when he preaches!
We sold out to popular theolgoy several decades ago when we affirmed that people are basically good. What happens whe, beleiving this, people see bad things happen to good people? They cry out that God is unfair, that we are being cheated, when the Bible tells us that not one of us is good! If we had taught that all along, then maybe isntead of blaming God when trials come along we would be equipping the world how to deal with them and how to find God in them.
posted by Brian at 2:39 PM
7 Comments:
Would the result have been any different had the most brilliant theologian defended the Biblical worldview at the Scopes trail? A non-theistic evolution was bound to win eventually as it did in the 2005 Pennsylvania case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in which a public school system was prohibited from introducing Intelligent Design into its biology classes.
In spite of the efforts of Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, and the Discovery Institute, the Creationists lost their side in a case that was decided by a Bush-appointed judge.
Perhaps the reason why Christianity has lost its place in the classroom is that since its early years, it has never been an innovator in science, but a persecutor of it.
It can easily be argued that Judeo-Christian values do not make this country possible, but rather Enlightenment thinking mixed with a godless constitution, under a form of government not mentioned in the Bible - a democratic republic.
Christianity thrived under the Monarchies of the Middle Ages when religious authorities had much more political control. When modern evangelicals lament the loss of a Biblical perspective in the US and seeing their prayers have little effect in holding back the tide of secularism, they find it necessary to revert to the old ways of legislating Christian values into the federal and state constitutions, and by attempting to impose a Creationist perspective into biology classes.
If we could resurrect James Madison from the dead, he may just say, "Be careful what you wish for." Madison was a champion of church/state separation, and it is precisely because of this separation that the Christian faith has thrived as long as it has in the US.
I agree that the church is too much aligned with the Republican party. This had the effect in the last administration of turning otherwise neutral Christian observers of the Iraq war into patriotic supporters of the war.
Jesus would not have voted since he was pretty sure he would be the next president. We are still waiting though. "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." - Matt 16:28
Are theologically conservative preachers really outnumbered in viewership and number by health and wealth gospel preachers? We see the packed stadiums of Osteen and Meyer but John Hagee has a packed house too. The Left Behind phenomena was written by conservative authors. It seems to me that the US is dominated by conservative preachers.
That is an interesting question, to be sure, if the result would have been any different. Perhaps. I am aware that sometimes what takes place in court is not always a sincere, truth-based search but sophistry and posturing. That is hardly unique to the courtroom. Nor is it unique, or evocative of some conspiracy, on the part of evolutionists against proponents of Intelligent Design. The inability of ID proponents to establish it as part of the curriculum tells me that they failed to make a legal case, and the more I read about it the more it sounds like they bungled the case. Their failure isn't necessarily a scientific one. Now, some of these particular ID proponents were evidently Christian, but I don't think that ID necessarily requires a designer. I suppose it is possible that someone could postulate the designer to be some form of alien life, or somesuch.
Do I believe the designer to be an alien? No, but I think the option is there.
Insofar as Christianity having been a persecutor of science since its inception, I think such a statement is historically innacurate. Christians were too busy being persecuted themselves, on and off, for the first few centuries to be in a position to persecute anyone. Apart from that, however, many scientists have also been Christians:
Pasteur, Kepler, Copernicus, James Maxwell, Erwin Schrodinger, Max Planck, Mendel, John Dalton, Pope Sylvester II, even Roger Bacon - one of the earliest proponents of the modern scientific method - was a Franciscan. There are plenty of other Christian thinkers who have advanced the cause of science.
I wouldn't call the USA a Christian nation. I do think, however, that no other worldview has the same values that would have produced a country like it. For instance, you don't get the USA as a result of Hinduistic, Buddhist, Islamic or even naturalist philosophy. A few choice phrases from early US documents and leaders reveal this to be true, things such as:
-all men are created equal.
-that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
These two, from the Declaration of Independence, could not be arrived at from any worldview other than the Judeo-Christian one. There is no essential dignity or equality, that I know of, given by any other worldview other than the Judeo-Christian one.
“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power..." - Thomas Jefferson, 2nd inaugural address.
While I certainly take issue with his theology, even Mr. Jefferson recognized the importance and significance of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition in shaping and supporting the USA.
You said "When modern evangelicals lament the loss of a Biblical perspective in the US and seeing their prayers have little effect in holding back the tide of secularism, they find it necessary to revert to the old ways of legislating Christian values into the federal and state constitutions..."
This is, I think, the danger zone for the church. On the one hand, attempting to divorce the US from its founding Judeo-Christian based principles, which indeed allow for the freedom to choose to believe or not, would be a bad thing. Simply because whatever values take their place will not give one the ability to disagree. Nor will there be a valueless society in its stead, there can exist no such vacuum. Nature abhors it.
On the other hand, attempting to use legislation as some method of conversion is Biblically destestable. Jesus himself said "My kingdom is not of this world, else my servants would fight."
Insofar as seperation of church and state allowing Christianity to "thrive" in the US, I would agree to a certain extent. I think such a law has helped to prevent government from mucking overmuch with the church and drawing it into political struggles it should view Biblically, and not as conservatives or liberals. Such things are, I think, seen in European history what with the Catholic Church declaring wars (the Crusades), etc. Faith, in the past, has been sadly mired down by politics and other agendas.
The Bible passage you mentioned, Matthew 16:28, is often misunderstood to mean just what you said. However, Jesus is referring to John the Apostle, who saw Jesus coming in His glory as recorded in the Book of Revelation.
Concerning the abundance of Conservative Preachers, I think you raise a good point. There are certainly several of them. I'm not so sure I would say they dominate the majority of Christian preachers. Or, if they do, I suspect that they may often be the same types of preachers who would prefer to legislate people into the faith, and whose idea of a Christian America is apple pie, football and Boy Scouts without ever considering the deeper issues at play. Maybe this is just my own bias and/or disgust seeping through at how many people bungle the Biblical message while claiming to speak for God. Perhaps it is also an unfair remark on my part, and judgmental.
Lastly, concerning the "unanswered prayers" you mentioned in regards to rising trends in secularism, this, too, is predicted in the Bible. It can be depressing if I view the issue from a worldly position, in that I need to help the church "win" against the "evil secularists," or whatever. However, from a perspective of genuine faith, it only affirms that what God said is true. It reminds me of the Israelites as they prepared to march on Jericho. They came upon the angel of the Lord, and Joshua asked him whose side he was on. The reply was that he was on neither side, but rather that he served in the armies of the Lord. It is very interesting that God was not taking "sides" like we often think of it, saying this people is morally superior to that people, and therefore justifying all matter of atrocities.
Sadly, I think many in the Church whether they are genuine believers or not, tend to forget that God is not working for Christians to defeat secularism. Rather God is calling all people to Himself to be saved and sanctified.
That should read, "I don't think ID requires a deity" not "I don't think ID requires a designer." Sorry about that.
Check out the NOVA documentary free on PBS.org or hulu.com. The Wedge Document you can read for yourself - the strategy of ID proponents to get a Christian worldview into the classroom.
Once Christians took control of the Roman Empire, they proceeded to attack minority faiths the same way they were when they were in the minority. This occurred again in early US history when Baptists, Jews, and Catholics were given second class status.
It seems to me you only focus on the scientists who were Christians and not on how the church throughout history has muzzled scientists for thwarting God's will. Let's not use anesthesia, let's not find a better way to treat people than bleeding the evil spirits out of them. Galileo, etc.
Is it God's will for people to overthrow their governments? Many forms of gov't can be justified with the Bible. Have you ever heard of the Divine Right of Kings? That theists like John Locke developed theories of political philosophy about the equality of man to establish his own earthly kingdoms says more about the philosopher than the God he worshiped.
Jefferson mentions the Creator in the Declaration of Independence. Neither God nor the 10 Commandments are mentioned in the Constitution. Is it possible for the Constitution to have been created by atheists? It's an interesting question.
Jefferson did not believe Jesus was divine or performed miracles. He did not believe in the virgin birth either.
What does the Judeo-Christian ethic look like and if it was appreciated or implemented or (whatever) today, how would that play out without showing religious favoritism by our government to conservative Protestant Christianity?
Your interpretation of Matthew 16:28 is bogus.
We should be careful quoting the OT books to illustrate how we should act toward God in the present day. The God who commands the slaughter of even the livestock of other human beings who happen to follow a god he detests, and then commands the taking of virgins for booty is not the kind of God who I want to hear my prayers.
There is no doubt that Christians became the persecutors just as you say, whether turning on religious minorities, heretics, or scientists. Then again, this has been done by followers of every religion, and by followers of atheistic doctrines and dogmas. That such things happen throughout history tells us, I should think, that religion isn't a great evil, but that people certainly can be since they are the common denominator of both atheistic and theistic "regimes," or whatever we choose to call them. That's not an excuse, it is a truth of human nature.
"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)."
That sort of thing is just what happens when people politicize their faith in Jesus rather than confess and live it. It is like mistaking the egg yolk for merely an egg shell. I'm not sure why some people feel threatened when others don't agree with them, but insofar as it concerns Christianity, it seems that what has been forgotten is Christ's reminder that His kingdom is not of this world.
Regardless, that many scientists have indeed been Christians disproves the premise that Chrisitanity has always been a persecutor of science rather than an innovator of it. Has it persecuted? Yes. Has it also innovated? Absolutely.
The church may have been too caught up in its own arrogance to risk a second glance at the scriptures, but the reluctance to change outlook and worldview has also been exhibited by scientists. The Big Bang Theory was at first rejected because to many it smacked of Bible-based science. The only difference is that the scientific community wasn't in a position to institute any sort of backlash or pogrom.
Concerning the Founding Fathers, I don't think it is possible for them to have been professing atheists. I don't see how an atheist can hold honor to be *sacred* (since nothing would be sacred), for human beings to be *granted* rights by their creator (since no one created them, and therefore no one was there to provide such rights), or for freedom's light to be referred to as *holy* (again, since there is no such thing as holiness). Do you? From whence comes inalieble rights if were are nothing but time+matter+chance?
Were the Founding Fathers all christians? Absolutely not! Some may have been, some were definately Deists, but Deists were strongly concerned with social justice and often espoused (as much as they can be referred to as a homogenous group) a Judeo-Christian morality (although not a theology). However, I don't see how one arrives at Deism without the historical precedent of Judeo-Christianity.
Apart from which, the Constitution is a secular document and it deals with how the country actually works. It may not affirm the existence of God, but it does not deny that He exists either. He is not mentioned probably because the Founding Fathers were not interested in a Theocracy but a Democracy, and also because the Constitution is more focused on the nuts-and-bolts of who does what and who is accountable to who.
The Judeo-Christian ethic can be readily summarized: your life is sacred, your body is sacred, your time is sacred, sexuality is sacred, God is sacred, what you say is sacred, and such is also true of your neighbor. I imagine this would play out in the ability to maintain morality on a personal level without condemning someone else. It would do away with preying upon the lowest common denominator, prevent politicians from currying conservative votes, but also from anyone rigorously moving to exterminate all traces of Judeo-Christian influence from the public sphere. There would be loving tolerance without compulsion to celebrate differences considered aberrant or undesirable.
I fail to see how the interpretation of Matthew is necessarily wrong.
You said: "That theists like John Locke developed theories of political philosophy about the equality of man to establish his own earthly kingdoms says more about the philosopher than the God he worshiped."
I think you said a lot in that statement and I've trailed on long enough already. Could you unpack this statement for me? You're saying quite a bit in that small amount. For instance, why does it say more about him then about God?
Concerning the Old Testament, I am well aware of its contents. If you'd like to talk about that too, I'd be glad to do it. It could be quite the digression, so perhaps we should save that particular topic for another time? Regardless, I do think that the Bible as a whole works very well within itself to lay out a comprehensive and non-contradictory worldview, which is why I won't shy away from quoting the Old Testament.
That some scientists and political philosophers were Christians does not do much to support the faith since it is a very human desire for truth and knowledge that spurred these people on, and not any sort of Divine command or Religious value of natural scientific inquiry.
Indeed, many innovators in natural science throughout history feared persecution by the religious leaders, and consequently published pseudonymously or posthumously.
After I research more about political philosophy I will address your claims about Judeo-Christian values impacting society. I think Christians have hijacked morality, claiming it as their own when in fact I think it's possible to arrive at similar conclusions about what is right and wrong in a pluralistic society outside of belief in God.
The aspects of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which you describe as a consecration of people and family,etc. would no doubt be useful in society. To view mankind as more than just a temporal earthly being and to view obligations to ones fellow man as more than just a social contract would be beneficial.
But are Christians capable of propagating this value system in contemporary American society without the harmful effects the politicization of Christianity has had?
How do Christians plan on resuscitating this value system if America is trending toward a more nominal, or even godless view of the world?
To my readers - it has been made known to me that rroots2000 and I are actually friends in real life! We will likely be carrying on our conversation via the phone, but in the interest of any readers (however great or, probably, small that number is) I wanted to post my response here.
That the Bible does not advocate that some people should play soccer does not mean that the Bible condemns it. Furthermore, simply because the Bible does not include any explicit calls into the field of politics does not mean that the Bible is anti-democracy. What God does command is that we live in light of who He is, and in light of the cross, in all things that we do. Now with some things this is impossible: one cannot be a prostitute for Christ, for example. But in most fields of vocation and study, this is indeed possible. Furthermore, given that the scriptures address something very fundamental, that is the very nature of humanity, along with good and evil, they have much to say in many fields of human study. The Bible may not explicitly assert democracy over and against monarchy, but politically speaking the Bible universally proclaims one form of government: one with integrity, honesty, and without corruption that honors God and recognizes the essential dignity in all people. Only in the Judeo-Christian worldview are people created equal with certain rights.
Therefore, a good king is better than a corrupt democracy. The problem is not the system. The problem is that we will pervert any system to suit the ends of those in power. Only one worldview addresses this serious failing that is so fundamental to human nature with the gravity it deserves - the Judeo-Christian one. It is that desire, that impulse, that drive we all possess to corrupt which the Bible calls sin, and the cross that deals with it in all its dastardly qualities with the beauty and the love of divine forgiveness.
That some innovators have been persecuted says nothing about the character of Jesus, nor the truth or falseness of His message. For several centuries many innovators, whether political, scientific or anything else, have been Christians. The question of whether more people have been persecuted is not relevent, or even able to be known.
What we must remember is even the scientific revolution is impossible without a Judeo-Christian worldview. If my claim is false, then we would have seen it in the Far East as well, especially since the Chinese have been practicing medecine for far longer than Europeans have.
We cannot just take these good outcomes and remove ourselves from their moorings in the Judeo-Christian framework. Simply because some other view will take its place, and we would be cherry-picking values and putting together a worldview that is logically inconsistant and contradictory.
That some aspects, as you claim, would be beneficial as operating as more than just a social contract is an interesting comment. I agree with you, that they are indeed valuable, and their value is because such virtues are not a mere contract but are rooted in a transcendant, objective ethic. However, what puzzles me is that the language you use in these posts, concerning "usefulness," reduces what is good because it is not a social contract - into a social contract. Such language threatens to reduce a Judeo-Christian morality into mere utilitarianism.
Now, if it is true, then it will also be "useful." But just because it is utilitarian does not mean it is true.
It is an interesting point you raise, concerning Christianity "hijacking" morality and it being possible to arrive at morality apart from God, in a pluralistic framework.
My first question is: stole it from who? The Romans? The Greeks? Prior to Christ there is no morality that is as firm, as strong, as pure, or as biting as that of Jesus Christ's.
My second question is: in a pluralistic society, which by definition is a society with many competing worldviews and therefore different values, how does one arrive at any objective framework since these worldviews are fundamentally contradictory? Also given that some affirm belief in God and some do not, where does one draw the line on this in an objective fashion?
What it is important for Christians to propogate is not the morality. Quite simply, Jesus did not come to make bad people good. He came so that dead people would live. Now, life and goodness are intricately bound together within Christianity but the life/death issue is the core of the problem, with the morality being symptomatic. To put it another way, people are immoral because they are first impious (Ravi Zacharias).
Therefore, the only way to spread the ethic is to spread Christ and Him Crucified. As Peter said, if Christ be not raised from the dead, we are of all men most to be pitied. Christianity, and the life of the Christian, is inextricably bound to the Cross - the vehicle of Christ's death which provides for Christian life. There is, quite simply, no other way.
The things which you claim are useful, the sanctity of sexuality, personal life, your neighbor's life, etc. are sacred if and only if God exists. They cannot be arbitrarily tacked onto a social organism merely because they are useful - as the very act of doing so undermines the values themselves.
Post a Comment
<< Home