This was posted on Hot Air…

Church attendance is a start, but it’s certainly not everything. How many believe but don’t necessarily attend a formal church for one reason or another might be a good question. How to bring them to the fold might be another. More important may be how many of those will stand with the rest against the PC and Wahabbist crowds? Then again, I’m a troubleshooter. Not a priest.

I bring that up I guess because of my situation. I attend once in a blue moon. Not because I don’t believe. I simply have responsibilities that usually prevent me from attending. If it’s not the job sending me out, it’s a family thing. One worships where one can. I’ve prayed in some awfully strange places. I guess what I’m trying to say is, the Man Upstairs probably does not care whether you worship from a formal church, your home or from the middle of some nice slice of Hell (which I’ve done). I think he would care more that you do, and that you mean it.

In fairness to see-dubya and the thesis he reported, it seems one could reply that, despite the decline of the “mainline” Protestant sects, Christianity did better in the U.S. than in Europe, partly because in the U.S. those sects weren’t subsidized and authorized by the U.S. Government. On that basis, one may still be able to find a role for something resembling “market conditions” as a condition or cause of the success or failure of a religious sect. Understand, being the devil’s advocate is an important part of my service to the god.

Fair enough. I’m sure involvement with the state played a role. But the watershed issue in both the U.S. and Europe was the issue of the inerrancy of the Bible. Once these churches decided the Bible wasn’t the Word of God, but only contained the Word of God, they declined rapidly. Deciding that the Bible is errant basically means that man is the ultimate determining authority of what is true and what isn’t. This leads to relativism.

Natural events can’t affect the spread of Christianity, but can affect the god, who in turn can affect the spread of Christianity. But natural-seeming events can affect the spread of Christianity, if and only if those events were initiated by the god for that purpose. Is it worthwhile even to ask what the evidence is for such beliefs? Something seems to underlie such beliefs, other than their mere evidence, but what?

We would say that God is sovereign over naturalistic causes. To get into the evidence of my beliefs, we would have to start from first principles: is there even a God? Is atheism logically tenable? From there, why is the Christian God the only true God, and what evidence is there for Him? This can’t be done in this forum because these threads go into the archive too quickly, and usually just when we start making progress. My co-blogger is the best to answer these questions. I’ll see if we can trackback. The short answer is that the evidence for the Christian God is that the claims in his Word are the only ones logically defensible versus those of atheists and other religions. We usually try to prove it by process of elimination vs other religious claims.

As for the reply quoting the Westminster catechism (and setting aside the obvious question of its evidence), does anything somehow unite the listed perfections, while excluding other, candidate perfections? I’m not just joking in pointing out that, in formulas like this one, the god is always said to be, for example, Most Wise, but never Most Quiet, Most Loquacious, or Most Cute. To my knowledge, no one claims the god picked his own perfections from a list. So again, what, if anything, relates all his perfections to each other?

Good question. I don’t quite know, but I’ll take a stab. I would guess that it is his holiness that relates all these together. There is nothing like God, he is separate, holy. But he relates to us in language and attributes that we can understand. You’ve asked a much more insightful question than I feel I can answer, because I haven’t studied Christian ethics well enough. But I would say that all of his attributes, like righteousness, are a subset of his holiness.

An example. We do not have alter calls in the Lutheral church. We don’t believe that fallen man is capable of “making a decision for Christ” and that this is the work of the Holy Spirt through the Word and Sacrements. (How can a totally depraved human make a decision for something totally Holy?) By the time man is receptive to God’s message the Holy Spirit has converted him. When we hear music about Making a Decision for Jesus…it isn’t part of what we believe…

The rejection of Christianity by such groups only reaffirms in me the Truth of Christianity itself. If it were false why are they so afraid of it?

????
Can’t argue with this kind of logic. Especially coming from a church father.

However, it appears that both are right and wrong in a sense. It is my notion that the religious impulse represents two things: One the desire to be ministered to, which is, freely attended to, served, and so forth; and the desire to minister to others. This is also unpaid and free. The rise of volunteers for a ’cause’ is a result of a religious impulse which is unfulfilled, likely because the churches have forgotten how to empower their laymen and women to serve.

On the other hand, the Protestant focus has always been businesslike; thus this WSJ attitude is unsurprising. A saint once said, “Don’t try to change the world, Change worlds.” Many Protestants, because they have no supporting church hierarchy and are reliant on the ‘business’ of a constant influx of willing offerings. Part of this is that the aforementioned church buildings require maintenance, and thus levy a tax on the leadership of the church no matter how small. Megachurches make sense, because they use a charismatic preacher – who hopefully is doctrinally sound – to attract masses of people. In this case, the church may act more closely to the be ministered to/minister model because pressure is off them to meet maintenance and salary costs. This is simply due to the massive growth of the church. The people who pay the offerings do not feel pressured to do so because of the low pressure on the leadership, and thus they satisfy better their impulse to minister. With the mass of resources the church then finds it easier to minister to people. Especially with the proliferation of modern technology and the novelty-focus of modern society make small churches less and less feasible. Those who attend must really understand the idea of ministering.

Many denigrate the Megachurch, but based on society (which we have shaped) the megachurch is a clear solution. I’ll just go with the Catholics and say, “God uses them as an instrument of his grace.” But reserve my judgment on whether they are the true path to salvation.

House churches are the other solution, which is something which requires approximately zero maintenance, but they then bear the problem of doctrine. A megachurch, because of its size, will have difficulty straying too far from accepted doctrine (not that it won’t happen) simply due to market pressure.

But a house church has no such pressures. The only way I can think that you could maintain doctrine in house churches would be through a hierarchy, not unlike the early church or Paul described.

By the by, the decay and death of the heavy mainline protestant churches was inevitable. You can’t be Roman Catholic lite; these churches relied on the strength of society to be strong, and thus as society wanes in this era, they will die.

My belief is that like the hypostases of God, there are three manifestations of his Body. The first is intellectual, which is the Eastern Orthodoxy of the Desert Fathers. It is ritualistic, but the rituals are centered it seems around intellectual, esoteric meanings which appeal to the intellectual man or woman. They don’t ‘miss heaven by 18 inches’ because through the intellect is how God reaches them.

The second is the Roman Catholic church, which is very Jamesian, being focused on displaying faith through works. This appeals to what is sometimes called the ‘Passional Man’ who desires to strive, do, toil and work for God in material ways. Small surprise that Catholic charities are the biggest in the world.

The third was born in Asuza; though the Protest was the ‘John’ preparing the way for its coming. These churches are not Protestant (which are Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian) nor Restoration (Church of Christ, etc) but new-born from the Spirit. If you read on the Asuza revival, this third hypostasis is not unlike the Holy Ghost (the Orthodox being like the Son, appealing to the mind, the R.Catholic being like the Father, with their focus on the Pope and works.) This is the church that appeals to the emotional and devotional man, one that is marked most clearly by its emotional and explosive ‘born again’ experiences and emotional, musical services.

Music, which anyone who hears ‘occupies’ is the vector of the third, the first is vectored by images (ikons) which require the person to actively consider and think about them. The second, its vector is likely men, as it is men we take orders from to go into action.

Don’t take this is an accusatory sense, but in the sense of digging for deeper patterns in the life of the Body of Christ.

1) See-dubya’s thesis is flawed horribly. The mainline denominations in this country, which were never associated with the State declined precipitously starting in the 1930s, when they adopted the higher critical method. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in the US recently voted to begin praying to “mother, daughter, womb” so as not to offend. The Episcopal and Methodist churches are very much in decline as well. Evangelicalism is growing in this country, but it is by using marketing methods to get people into the church. Many children in these evangelical churches grow up and leave the church. If we’re exporting our brand of evangelicalism to Sweden, the same thing will happen there. If man’s methods are used, true conversions will not happen and the church will not grow. In fact, it make’s God angry. He destroyed Aaron’s two sons Nadab and Abihu, for making ‘unauthorized fire’ to Him. Every revival we’ve seen in the United States and elsewhere has been in response to preaching the Law and the Gospel appropriately.

Francis Schaeffer documented the catastrophe in the mainline denominations in ‘The Great Evangelical Disaster’.

2) Naturalistic causes have no effect on the spread of Christianity. God makes the church grow in response to the gospel being preached, though he may use disasters and other things providentially to soften men’s hearts.

3)NOt sure what you mean

4) From Question 7 of the Westminster Larger Catechism:
“God is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.”
There is only one God. He is defined in the Bible. ‘Holy’ primarily means ’separate’ or ’set apart.’ The Hebrew word for ‘holy’ in the Bible gives the image of ‘a cutting’ like someone cutting food and separating it with a knife.

PRCalDude on July 14, 2007 at 6:14 PM

In fairness to see-dubya and the thesis he reported, it seems one could reply that, despite the decline of the “mainline” Protestant sects, Christianity did better in the U.S. than in Europe, partly because in the U.S. those sects weren’t subsidized and authorized by the U.S. Government. On that basis, one may still be able to find a role for something resembling “market conditions” as a condition or cause of the success or failure of a religious sect. Understand, being the devil’s advocate is an important part of my service to the god.

PRCalDude said, “Naturalistic causes have no effect on the spread of Christianity. God makes the church grow in response to the gospel being preached, though he may use disasters and other things providentially to soften men’s hearts.” Natural events can’t affect the spread of Christianity, but can affect the god, who in turn can affect the spread of Christianity. But natural-seeming events can affect the spread of Christianity, if and only if those events were initiated by the god for that purpose. Is it worthwhile even to ask what the evidence is for such beliefs? Something seems to underlie such beliefs, other than their mere evidence, but what?

As for the reply quoting the Westminster catechism (and setting aside the obvious question of its evidence), does anything somehow unite the listed perfections, while excluding other, candidate perfections? I’m not just joking in pointing out that, in formulas like this one, the god is always said to be, for example, Most Wise, but never Most Quiet, Most Loquacious, or Most Cute. To my knowledge, no one claims the god picked his own perfections from a list. So again, what, if anything, relates all his perfections to each other?

I have also read a study that indicated Christianity is the largest and fastest growing religion throughout the world. I had always thought it was Islam. Studies that have stated Islam was the fastest excluded these very same types of evangelical churches.

JellyToast on July 14, 2007 at 6:44 PM

It seems important to learn the status of Christianity and Islam in regions in which believers in the respective doctrines are both numerous. Who is killing, converting, enslaving, or taxing whom? Which faith is growing? If it needs to be said, I’m not posing rhetorical questions.

Thomas the Wraith, we have friends who attend one of those Anglican churches that is overseen by an African archbishop. The priest and part of the congregation left the ECUSA several years ago, not knowing what would happen. Today, that church is young, growing and alive. We went to their confirmation and heard an excellent sermon regarding courage and living in God’s strength given by their US bishop.

This post made me reflect on the fact that as we have moved around the country, we have been a part of several churches that met in various non-traditional places, including such locations as a hotel, school, home, shopping center, and town park.

The vitality of a church does not depend on buildings or tradition, but on the living God. I am grateful to hear He is at work in Europe.

The only things I will take issue doctrinally with are the basic matters of the faith such as Christ’s redeeming work on the cross as the Son of the Godhead, the authority of the Bible, justification by faith – not works, the virgin birth and the second coming of Christ. All other issues can be devisive.

Christ prayed in John 17 that Christians would be one so that world might believe that God the Father sent the Son. This is the real Lord’s prayer. Divided Christianity is deluited and neutered Christianty.

“Praise music” can be fine if it’s doctrinally sound. Much of it today isn’t, and the lyrics are repeated over and over again like a mantra. That’s really the problem: the message, not the instruments. Of course, rocking out before the sermon probably doesn’t comprehend the fact that you are worshiping a holy and righteous God. The music should incline your heart toward worship. Everything must be done “in good order.”

PRCalDude on July 14, 2007 at 6:27 PM

So Rock and Roll is still the devil’s tool? Exactly how much Christian Rock/Metal have you listened to? I have found the message in this type of music to be just as powerful as any other. Rocking out before the sermon might not be appropriate for you, but for some it does incline their hearts towards worship.

No offense, but your post sounds like you believe there’s only one way to worship God. There are many ways, and I’m sure our holy and righteous God approves of them all.

JellyToast on July 14, 2007 at 6:44 PM

Islam will outbreed Christianity.

As far as “praise music” being light and floffy, I must say “not always”. I’ve recently become a fan of Todd Agnew, whose lyrics are genuine and, at times, convicting. I doubt that any true Christian could listen to the lyrics in the song “My Jesus”, and not be at least a little bit convicted.

BigOrangeAxe on July 14, 2007 at 6:21 PM

“Praise music” can be fine if it’s doctrinally sound. Much of it today isn’t, and the lyrics are repeated over and over again like a mantra. That’s really the problem: the message, not the instruments. Of course, rocking out before the sermon probably doesn’t comprehend the fact that you are worshiping a holy and righteous God. The music should incline your heart toward worship. Everything must be done “in good order.”

Here are some questions that come to my mind in connection with see-dubya’s quite interesting post.

(1) It seems plausible that “market conditions” among Christian sects could influence their general success or decline. Is some set of such natural conditions or causes sufficient to account for the course of Christianity in Europe? What, if any, is the role of the Christian god in the course of Christianity in Europe?

(2) Would the widespread publication of plausible naturalistic explanations for a rebound of Christianity in Europe contribute to such a rebound, work against it, or have no effect?

(3) If sponsorship of a sect by the rulers leads to the decline of the sponsored sect, how do we explain Saudi Arabia and Wahhabi Islam? But if sponsorship by the rulers causes a sect to thrive, how do we explain Sweden and Christianity among the Swedes?

(3) Isn’t it presumptuous for a political man to establish any god or gods his people, at the expense of the other gods? But isn’t it impious for a political man to do anything other than establish the true god or gods for his people?

(4) What is god? What is divine? What is holy? Can more than one being correctly be named god? Am I serving the god or gods by thinking about these questions? Am I serving the god or gods by raising them here?

Kralizec on July 14, 2007 at 1:34 PM

1) See-dubya’s thesis is flawed horribly. The mainline denominations in this country, which were never associated with the State declined precipitously starting in the 1930s, when they adopted the higher critical method. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in the US recently voted to begin praying to “mother, daughter, womb” so as not to offend. The Episcopal and Methodist churches are very much in decline as well. Evangelicalism is growing in this country, but it is by using marketing methods to get people into the church. Many children in these evangelical churches grow up and leave the church. If we’re exporting our brand of evangelicalism to Sweden, the same thing will happen there. If man’s methods are used, true conversions will not happen and the church will not grow. In fact, it make’s God angry. He destroyed Aaron’s two sons Nadab and Abihu, for making ‘unauthorized fire’ to Him. Every revival we’ve seen in the United States and elsewhere has been in response to preaching the Law and the Gospel appropriately.

Francis Schaeffer documented the catastrophe in the mainline denominations in ‘The Great Evangelical Disaster’.

2) Naturalistic causes have no effect on the spread of Christianity. God makes the church grow in response to the gospel being preached, though he may use disasters and other things providentially to soften men’s hearts.

3)NOt sure what you mean

4) From Question 7 of the Westminster Larger Catechism:
“God is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.”
There is only one God. He is defined in the Bible. ‘Holy’ primarily means ’separate’ or ’set apart.’ The Hebrew word for ‘holy’ in the Bible gives the image of ‘a cutting’ like someone cutting food and separating it with a knife.