Is the modern church in danger?
- Thread starter CBradSmith
- Start date
A lot of truth to this. I spent part of my childhood in the town I currently live in. I found it odd that all the country clubbers, and upper class attended the Presbyterian Church in the 70's and 80's and now the same type of people are at another.
I don't think churches can survive the cultural shift of our shorter attention spans and the way we connect. Church, Lion's, Rotary, Elks, my impression is they've all dwindled as post-baby boomers connect via social media and texting instead of physically meeting at pre-set times. I would like to see an overlay with misc. social clubs' attendance over the last few decades, too.
Goodness,
Just now revisiting this. Been a busy week or so.
First off, I greatly appreciate the pretty-much civil dialogue. That, alone, makes this thread worth reading.
I'll need to digest some of this over the long holiday.
Some of my main concern is that as belief becomes less mainstream, how marginalized and even persecuted will genuine people of faith become?
Said another way, how will the growing mainstream treat those of genuine, yet unassuming, faith?
Just now revisiting this. Been a busy week or so.
First off, I greatly appreciate the pretty-much civil dialogue. That, alone, makes this thread worth reading.
I'll need to digest some of this over the long holiday.
Some of my main concern is that as belief becomes less mainstream, how marginalized and even persecuted will genuine people of faith become?
Said another way, how will the growing mainstream treat those of genuine, yet unassuming, faith?
A lot of traditional churches are filled with people 60 years and up. People 50 on down aren't attending in droves.
I suppose they're attending those McDonald's type of religious places. Not sure on the demographics on those places.
I suppose they're attending those McDonald's type of religious places. Not sure on the demographics on those places.
Pokewithnoname - you mean the entertainment venues that sometimes double (dabble) as a church?
I've often wondered, if you are truly a knowledgeable and believing Christian - isn't the very fact that your God could simply breathe the entire universe, and everything in it, into existence good enough for you? Do you really need a dog and pony show to get you to get your ass off the couch and into church to worship God as the Bible instructs?
And no, I'm not suggesting that a church has to put on a service void of joy or celebration and/or the pastor has to act like their performing a funeral. What I am suggesting is that some of these churches are beginning to put Vegas performing acts to shame, with the actual "message" taking a back burner.
Does this seeming necessity to entertain people (to get them to attend church) come back to Syskatine's observation about the lack of attention spans among the populace these days?
I've often wondered, if you are truly a knowledgeable and believing Christian - isn't the very fact that your God could simply breathe the entire universe, and everything in it, into existence good enough for you? Do you really need a dog and pony show to get you to get your ass off the couch and into church to worship God as the Bible instructs?
And no, I'm not suggesting that a church has to put on a service void of joy or celebration and/or the pastor has to act like their performing a funeral. What I am suggesting is that some of these churches are beginning to put Vegas performing acts to shame, with the actual "message" taking a back burner.
Does this seeming necessity to entertain people (to get them to attend church) come back to Syskatine's observation about the lack of attention spans among the populace these days?
You have very good points hollywood.
I think historically there have always been changes in church liturgy to suit the times.
Martin Luther was criticized for converting well known bar tunes into hymns we consider sacred today. Ira Sankey's hymns were thought to be too bawdy a century ago. Bill Gaither believe it or not was said to be too worldly by older seasoned saints. Now Gaither music fests bring in retired folks by the thousands.
I think some things being done are in the same vein, though I wonder how some places would survive if the power went out.
I could write fifty pages on this as I have always found shifts in culture and its effect on churches fascinating.
Dude I don't even know if I answered anything you asked. If not, sorry, blame it on my lack of patience internetting on my stupid phone.
I think historically there have always been changes in church liturgy to suit the times.
Martin Luther was criticized for converting well known bar tunes into hymns we consider sacred today. Ira Sankey's hymns were thought to be too bawdy a century ago. Bill Gaither believe it or not was said to be too worldly by older seasoned saints. Now Gaither music fests bring in retired folks by the thousands.
I think some things being done are in the same vein, though I wonder how some places would survive if the power went out.
I could write fifty pages on this as I have always found shifts in culture and its effect on churches fascinating.
Dude I don't even know if I answered anything you asked. If not, sorry, blame it on my lack of patience internetting on my stupid phone.
But yes I wonder if in some places, if the main thing (the message) is no longer the main thing.
CBS, I don't think those of "genuine, yet unassuming faith" have any need to fear persecution. We see and hear the phrase, persecution of the Church or Christians, but I don't see it going on. No one is trying to interfere with anything done by Christians except when they feel it necessary to go outside their church building and judge and condemn those whom they "believe" to be evil or ungodly.
If Christians feel persecuted by gay marriage today, they should have tried walking in the shoes of gays who wanted to get married the past several decades (centuries?). That was some serious persecution.
People do feel persecuted by the church when the church points out what it believes are sins and short-comings. Ah, but there's the rub, isn't it? Most Christian denominations try to obey Christ's admonition to "go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."
The problem is, a lot of creatures have been preached to for so long, they're really tired of hearing it. Many feel that a few years of hearing it and responding, "No," ought to be enough and wish to be left alone now. If "those of genuine, yet unassuming faith" could just leave everyone else alone and especially not try to sway the government into 'preaching the gospel to every creature,' the Christians and the creatures might get along just fine.
Christians -- a little too eager to see the whole world be Christian.
Islam -- a little too eager to see the whole world be Muslim.
The world has apparently become too small for the two of them.
ThePoke... (I liked it better in the old days when I could address you with two keystrokes, ha!) Doesn't the message necessarily change with a change in liturgy? If the songs were too bawdy or too worldly in times past, wouldn't the message have to have mellowed a bit for them to be crowd-pleasers now? The songs didn't change.
I'll have to watch for some of Sankey's bawdy hymns. I know he collaborated often with a hymn writer I grew up on, Fanny Crosby.
Last edited:
I don't think it was the case in Sankey's day, other than Christianity may have gotten a little more bombastic with preachers like Billy Sunday and DL Moody.
Today in some cases in some of the churches hollywood cites, I think there might be some shallowness in both the songs and the sermons. I've heard some people attend some of these places for months and still not know what they actually believe.
Ha! My wifi kept saying it hadn't gone thru. I came to the PC to get it posted. That's my story...
Now poor CBS has a two-page thread to read through. Maybe not, after I delete all these. I'd leave 'em on here, but multiple posts no longer increase your post total.
Now poor CBS has a two-page thread to read through. Maybe not, after I delete all these. I'd leave 'em on here, but multiple posts no longer increase your post total.
AB,
Excellent stuff. Have some things to run by you.
At the lake and am about to go out on the boat. Will pull out the laptop this evening and dive back into this.
Excellent stuff. Have some things to run by you.
At the lake and am about to go out on the boat. Will pull out the laptop this evening and dive back into this.
AB,
I had a long, thought out response in the tube but have elected to go another route…succinctly.
My concern drills itself down into 2 distinct buckets:
· Where the state and church are ultimately going to collide and the consequences for the church
· The possible cultural unfolding of what is now a government sanctioned change in dynamic.
On the former, I can see judicial challenges ultimately forcing religious institutions to acquiesce on some positions they adhere to out of Biblical principle with tax exempt status as the leverage. The church and most institutions will survive, some of those in weaker financial positions will not.
The latter point bullet is more nebulous, so it’s more difficult to speak to. One can correctly point out that some in the church may deserve some come-uppance for excessive damning from their “position” aligned with God.
But the nugget of my concern is those “forces” that were never in this for the specific issue of the right for gays to marry, but instead saw it as societal leverage against the church or the idea of right and wrong or a God.
I take issue with your presentation on some of what you wrote, and I hope that you are correct for the rest. You cite a lot of creatures having been preached at for a long time and they’re simply tired of it. What does that mean in real world specifics? Surely creatures aren’t standing on a corner being preached at without moving on, or putting themselves in a church they fundamentally disagree with, or stop on the on the religious channels forcing themselves to absorb everything the old Father is preaching? Your statement reads as impatience and seems to imply that people are without choice.
Every day, I’d LOVE for the drivers on my way to work to simply merge and exit correctly and drive the speed limit. But I’m forced to have the patience to put up with all manner of driver. I get frustrated at some, but I also believe they are generally doing the best they can in their knowledge and skill of how to drive from point A to point B. Same for the slower people in the self checkout line at WalMart. Etc, Etc, Etc. You can say “well the slow checker or bad driver don’t make me feel bad about my lifestyle” or whatever. I don’t guess that’s the point, though. While, yes, they do severely annoy me, I simply accept their right to exist, and can (largely) honor their perspective, limitations, etc. If blowing a slow or aggressive driver off the road were allowable with a pickup mounted turret, I still wouldn’t act against them. Either people can exist as they are, or they can’t….and my position is, yes, they can, even if, at times, it comes at a cost to my time, blood pressure or whatever. That’s just the natural friction in society. If the friction were too much for me to bear, I have the choice to move closer to work, to a less populated community, change jobs, shop at different places or at different times… My apology to you if this comes across as dismissive due to me missing a much larger problem you are alluding to.
With the government’s involvement in this, pressure has moved from peer to coercive. Those whose concern was never specific to gay marriage, but instead a larger issue against the church, right and wrong, God, etc….those are the ones whom I believe will attempt to leverage such a decision to dig into the side of these institutions, and they are much more enabled, now, to castigate those who espouse faith and conviction. In the mind of those forces, does the church, the concept of right and wrong, or God, have a right to exist?
The last paragraph of yours that I quoted above COULD be read to say: Christians are okay to exist, but not as they are, not as they feel called to be. I don't believe you're in the camp that wants to squash Christianity, and I do understand you're broader point, but your position, placed in (what appears to be) a benign creature (you), taken out, and placed into someone much more agitated, what does that individual do? How does that agitated individual live? We’ll see.
To circle back to what you said, yes, you are correct that statistically there is a population that agrees with you and can find peace in a less preachy church. But where’s the line in what is an acceptable amount of preachy? And what of the other secularist population whose long game was never this issue? And how much more enabled is it to do notable damage to the church or professors of faith and conviction?
Thanks for your contribution to the thread.
CBradSmith,
To me, the issue of gay marriage has NEVER involved the Church. It's always been about the notion that there are certain fundamental liberties (and nothing gets much more fundamental than marrying the person of your choice as is outlined in Loving v. Virginia) that once the government offers to one group, must likewise provide to all, as per the 14th Amendment. But that is the CIVIL marriage, there is no applicability (IMHO) of such a rule as to what constitutes a religious marriage by any church, temple, synagogue, etc.
Were nearly some 50 yrs past Loving v Virginia, the Civil Rights Act, Brown v. Board, etc. and the government has never used the tax situation of non-profit churches (as either the carrot or the stick) to force integration or to adopt policies of inter-racial marriage. And yes, in case you're wondering there's a number of churches out there that will not perform inter-racial marriages and those who won't accept members of whatever race they find objectionable.
Under the 1st Amendment, I have little doubt that the Govt could NOT use tax policies or other govt resources to force Churches to accept gay marriage, for virtually the same reasons why the Court accepted Gay Marriage. It would interfere with the fundamental religious liberties of a church and its members. The Courts have been fairly consistent over 200+ yrs by taking a "hands off" approach, and forcing other Govt Bodies to do so as well, when it comes to matters that are pretty much solely within the purview of the church (religious organization), especially on matters of doctrine, beliefs, etc.
I have said since the beginning of this debate, and nothing has changed my mind, that I believe that church members who had an objection to gay marriage are WAY, WAY overestimating the impact on their ability to make their own decisions about such matters. The ruling ONLY impacts how Civil Authorities must act and is in no way binding on any church or faith.
To me, the issue of gay marriage has NEVER involved the Church. It's always been about the notion that there are certain fundamental liberties (and nothing gets much more fundamental than marrying the person of your choice as is outlined in Loving v. Virginia) that once the government offers to one group, must likewise provide to all, as per the 14th Amendment. But that is the CIVIL marriage, there is no applicability (IMHO) of such a rule as to what constitutes a religious marriage by any church, temple, synagogue, etc.
Were nearly some 50 yrs past Loving v Virginia, the Civil Rights Act, Brown v. Board, etc. and the government has never used the tax situation of non-profit churches (as either the carrot or the stick) to force integration or to adopt policies of inter-racial marriage. And yes, in case you're wondering there's a number of churches out there that will not perform inter-racial marriages and those who won't accept members of whatever race they find objectionable.
Under the 1st Amendment, I have little doubt that the Govt could NOT use tax policies or other govt resources to force Churches to accept gay marriage, for virtually the same reasons why the Court accepted Gay Marriage. It would interfere with the fundamental religious liberties of a church and its members. The Courts have been fairly consistent over 200+ yrs by taking a "hands off" approach, and forcing other Govt Bodies to do so as well, when it comes to matters that are pretty much solely within the purview of the church (religious organization), especially on matters of doctrine, beliefs, etc.
I have said since the beginning of this debate, and nothing has changed my mind, that I believe that church members who had an objection to gay marriage are WAY, WAY overestimating the impact on their ability to make their own decisions about such matters. The ruling ONLY impacts how Civil Authorities must act and is in no way binding on any church or faith.
True reverence and worship are often replaced by sports-level arena style entertainment under the guise of bringing in more worshippers
Similar threads
