|
Post by millring on Apr 29, 2024 18:03:53 GMT -5
We've had multiple churches close in our community. And we're about as churchy as a community gets. Our local college is a Christian college and at one point we had churches everywhere. Some of the ones that survive are selling off properties and scaling back. Those of a more orthodox theology appear to be doing well-to-okay, The mainline denominations are closed or skeletal.
There's better entertainment than church. There's WAY better music than church. Frankly, there's access to better theological teaching than church (and people are accessing it in large part because the churches abandoned it anyway, assuming that nobody wanted it anyway. That they wanted, instead, stuff to do and pep talks to make them feel good).
If the church isn't anything but a service organization, there's really not much need for it. We're even glutted with ways to give charitably with your time and money.
After the Super Bowl, social media was dotted with comments on the mostly fizzled "He Gets Us" campaign. It appears to have satisfied nobody and pissed off more than it attracted. My anti-Christian friends (of whom I seem to have several who regularly -- and I mean daily -- post anti-Christian screeds and memes mocking everything they think Christianity is) hated it. But to a person, their gripe with the "He Gets Us" campaign was that the millions spent on it could have been spent on the poor. Ironically (or interestingly) that was Judas Iscariot's complaint. When Mary anointed Jesus feet with expensive oil, Judas complained that it could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus didn't agree. Jesus was pleased that Mary acknowledged that Jesus primary mission was not social -- not caring for the poor -- but rather, to die. That was the very significance of her act of anointing.
We think that the church's central mission is social. Because of that, we're not only failing at it (and we will always "fail" at it because the world will always judge the church on its results, while judging its own institutions on their good intentions), we're emptying our churches. If the goal is to simply be good people and care for the poor and the downtrodden, we don't need the church for that. If there's not truth to the Gospel -- no redemption for the human soul, then the church really doesn't have anything special to offer. No wonder everyone's leaving.
Last one out, turn out the lights.
|
|
|
Post by John B on Apr 29, 2024 21:25:48 GMT -5
We've had multiple churches close in our community. And we're about as churchy as a community gets. Our local college is a Christian college and at one point we had churches everywhere. Some of the ones that survive are selling off properties and scaling back. Those of a more orthodox theology appear to be doing well-to-okay, The mainline denominations are closed or skeletal. There's better entertainment than church. There's WAY better music than church. Frankly, there's access to better theological teaching than church (and people are accessing it in large part because the churches abandoned it anyway, assuming that nobody wanted it anyway. That they wanted, instead, stuff to do and pep talks to make them feel good). If the church isn't anything but a service organization, there's really not much need for it. We're even glutted with ways to give charitably with your time and money. After the Super Bowl, social media was dotted with comments on the mostly fizzled "He Gets Us" campaign. It appears to have satisfied nobody and pissed off more than it attracted. My anti-Christian friends (of whom I seem to have several who regularly -- and I mean daily -- post anti-Christian screeds and memes mocking everything they think Christianity is) hated it. But to a person, their gripe with the "He Gets Us" campaign was that the millions spent on it could have been spent on the poor. Ironically (or interestingly) that was Judas Iscariot's complaint. When Mary anointed Jesus feet with expensive oil, Judas complained that it could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus didn't agree. Jesus was pleased that Mary acknowledged that Jesus primary mission was not social -- not caring for the poor -- but rather, to die. That was the very significance of her act of anointing. We think that the church's central mission is social. Because of that, we're not only failing at it (and we will always "fail" at it because the world will always judge the church on its results, while judging its own institutions on their good intentions), we're emptying our churches. If the goal is to simply be good people and care for the poor and the downtrodden, we don't need the church for that. If there's not truth to the Gospel -- no redemption for the human soul, then the church really doesn't have anything special to offer. No wonder everyone's leaving. Last one out, turn out the lights. We have at least one of those friends in common! And yet.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Apr 29, 2024 21:32:22 GMT -5
Well maybe it’s time for some religious themed levity -
I was at a retired doctor’s dinner Sunday. We started telling funny war stories at our end of the table. The hands down winner was from an OB/Gyn doc.
It seems she had a mid sixties widow of a minister and she herself was one as well. She presented with a massively expanded abdomen and announced she was pregnant. Studies revealed a huge uterine fibroid of state fair winning size.
When told of the diagnosis she didn’t believe it. She admitted to being years into menopause and not having had sex for even longer. When asked where the baby could have come from she said “God put it there”.
Even after surgery she apparently still remained skeptical of the diagnosis.
On a more serious note I think the social aspect of going to church and being an active part of a community with similar beliefs is huge as one ages, develops various maladies, is possibly widowed, and slowly becomes more socially isolated. It definitely helped keep my mother in law, a devout Catholic alive, happy, and positive for 99 years.
|
|
|
Post by james on Apr 29, 2024 21:44:36 GMT -5
A critical look/analysis by Dan Mcclellan* at some strands of Conservative Christian displeasure with the "He gets us" ad was interesting to me. Bit of a rabbit hole though. *A scholar of The Bible and religion whose YouTube films and discussions I sometimes watch.
youtu.be/i9oD6jIe03o?si=I6kexqIiNvcmjZfc
ETA - apologies for the detour Terry. A little lacking in levity.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 30, 2024 4:47:51 GMT -5
youtu.be/i9oD6jIe03o?si=I6kexqIiNvcmjZfc If you're not paying attention, you won't notice that he's doing exactly what he is criticizing the (admittedly -- probably intentionally -- poor example of a) critic of the ad of doing. In short, he's begging the question. He says that Jesus' mission was to woke the world, not to die for its sin -- the very question (he's begging) And he carefully culled the verses he wants to use to prove his point from the whole of the message -- exactly what he claims she is doing. And his assertion that there is no unified narrative to the entirety of the canon of scripture is also begging the question. Orthodox Christianity has claimed otherwise since believers started believing in the redemption narrative. If you want to criticize the canon, criticize it on the basis that throughout history people have been collecting a library of books -- the Bible -- on the basis that they confirm that redemption narrative (the bullets were shot into the side of the barn and then the target was painted over the bullet holes, thereby creating a bullseye.). Of course there is a unified narrative to the Bible. That's the reason for its existence. And that narrative contains lots of stories, allegories, symbolism, fiction, fables, history, declarations, inquiries. It isn't even always prescriptive. It is often simply descriptive. (it's even a little humorous that by picking on a hyper-feminine woman to pick apart, he's utilizing the very power structure he claims to be condemning. What a misogynist.)
|
|
|
Post by james on Apr 30, 2024 8:12:14 GMT -5
While an interesting thinker and commentator, there is only so much Mcclellan can elaborate in one brief clip. Easier to digest than three or four hour Bart Ehrman clips!
Disagreement with a woman is not misogyny.
Mcclellan wears fun T-shirts if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 30, 2024 9:04:43 GMT -5
Disagreement with a woman is not misogyny. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 30, 2024 9:23:25 GMT -5
...on the other hand, don't ignore that by his very standard he is dominating a marginalized victim. By his standard.
It's not like he couldn't have found an articulate male to argue with.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Apr 30, 2024 10:32:44 GMT -5
Love God I said Love your neighbor too All of the commandments Rest on these
Love each other As I love you I said The world will know My followers by their love
I told them about The Good Samaritan And the priest Busily serving God Who hurried past The body in the road
They asked me How to find eternal life Love God and love your neighbor I replied
Then I died It wasn't long until Some began interring me again With hyperbole and myth They followed the man They wished that I had been
I wasn't surprised I loved them Flaws and all
And there were some Who heard me very well They followed with their lives Not just their lips They didn't ignore The bodies in the road
|
|
|
Post by james on Apr 30, 2024 10:47:55 GMT -5
The majority of people whose religious viewpoints McClellan finds himself addressing are men. He has done so a lot. Male voices tend to be the more common ones in the world of religious and biblical analysis and debate, online and elsewhere.
|
|