Thursday, February 28, 2008

• Demise of "Christianity" part 2

  The Demise of "Christianity"
  part 2 - The rise of non-demoninational churches

  This is another attempt to wake up Christians to the reality of what the church has become.  Mistakes can't be fixed before they're admitted to.  This comes as a reaction to a Feb. 25th AP article that says some things I've been saying for awhile:
  http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/02/25/religion.survey.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

  The points I will focus most are these: 
  1)  "While much of the study confirms earlier findings -- mainline Protestant churches are in decline, non-denominational churches are gaining [...]"

  and

  2)  "The religious demographic benefiting the most from this religious churn is those who claim no religious affiliation. People moving into that category outnumber those moving out of it by a three-to-one margin."

  I believe these two are symptoms of the same overall problem with the church.  As the social pendulum swings back towards the liberal side of the spectrum, the church is faced with how to handle the social trend known as "tolerance."  Though, it is my belief and has been my observation that "tolerance" is in truth hugely intolerant, that's for another discussion.  Be that as it may, church history, being what it is, is an antithesis of the current social model of "tolerance," so the church at large faces a conundrum.  How can it survive and retain relevance?

  To answer this, the church so far has created a covert war on terminology.  As I detailed in my original article, the terms "religion" and even "Christian" have been or are being demonized by the church, rather than taking action to fix the socially constructed connotational problems.  The AP article shows that the terminology war has gotten worse.

  There are three general reactions to realizing one's carrying of a religious terminological stigma:  1) Keep the term anyway; 2) change the term to something less stigmatic; 3) drop the term completely.  The first reaction is found by those who identify themselves the most strongly by their religious affiliations and probably won't even admit that there is a contemporary problem with the term, i.e. the older generations.  The second reaction is VERY common now, and it has given rise to the "non-denominational" churches.  The third reaction lead to the increase of church-bred atheists and agnostics.  As the article demonstrates, few still take the first, many take the second, and even more take the third.  How can the church preach evangelism when it doesn't really edify its own people?

  Non-denominational churches are just a terminological reaction to denominational stigmas.  When in reality, people tend to be ignorant of what denominations are defined by what doctrines anyways (including their own, if applicable), non-denoms offer a more feel-good, anti-doctrine, pop-culture friendly approach.  I call this "disorganized religion."  In a postmodern society that is much more touchy-feely, the non-denom church is the patron savior of church relevance.

  Currently, it is not socially acceptable for young people (who are the future of the church) to stand for anything that might step on the toes of "tolerance."  "If it feels good, do it."  "Carpe diem."  "Live for the moment."  "Believe in what ever you want!"  We have a church for that, and it's on the rise.  Christianity continues its stupefying and oblivious decline into worldly shallowness.

  I am a Christian, and I will not just sit silently and watch this happen.

  "The religious demographic benefiting the most from this religious churn is those who claim no religious affiliation. People moving into that category outnumber those moving out of it by a three-to-one margin."

  Self-righteousness has been the church's answer for centuries.  What does it say now?

  • 4:17 PM
  • 33 views
  • 2 eprops
  • 1 comment