Archive for the ‘post-modernism’ Tag

Many Voices   Leave a comment

The spirit of the world today calls in many voices.

Philosophy sings that we should give up hope of absolutes and universals and place our trust in synthesis or else live our lives in cognitive dissonance segregating reason from faith, value and true meaning.

Art — mostly — reflects this. From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, art was Duchamp - Nude Descending a Staircase.jpghumanistic. Consider Michelangelo’s statues boldly placing the human form on display (and, yes, the full frontal was a deliberate choice on my part).

Today, however, man is diminished in art, fragmented, distorted. Reality itself is rarely represented. The message is that everything is in flux. There is no truth or objective reality.

Francis Schaeffer decried the music of the modern era — using John Cage as an example, but Schaeffer never knew Hearts of Space and ambient electronica. I once was writing while the radio was on. When the sound became distorted and incomprehensible, I was so into my writing that I left it on for two hours, using it as white noise. Imagine my surprise when Steven Hill informed me that I’d been listen to actual “atmospheric music” with a composer’s name attached. It had sounded like an air conditioning unit to me.

Sadly, theology has joined the zeitgeist. Scripture is up for interpretation and it can mean anything — or nothing. As long as you feel good about the message you’ve assembled from the scraps you accept, it doesn’t really matter.

So we are told ….

Of course, the real battle is for our minds — our thought lives. Whether we listen to the music or enjoy the art is not where we rise or fall, but whether we are resisting the world-spirit in our thought lives.

“Be transformed by the renewing of your mind,” the apostle Paul wrote.

If we’re not going to get the world’s muck on us, the first order of business is to resist the world’s way of thinking in our own minds.

Anti Law   Leave a comment

The zeitgeist of ani-law always exists, but it manifests itself in different ways for different generations. For three hundred years in the Christian era, the world-spirit persecuted Christians. In the Roman Catholic era, the world-spirit actually worked through the ecclesiastical structure to put clergy in the seat of God, separating believers from a personal relationship. In the Protestant era, the rise of the state church sought to maintain that status quo. More recently, humanism and post-modern anti-belief-in-anything has been the flavor of zeitgeist for our society. The tone changes, but the goal is always the same — distract believers from God’s purpose and conform us to the world rather than to God.

If Christians are not to get the muck of the world on us, we must resist the general spirit of lawlessness, but we must also recognize and resist this generation’s flavor of rebellion.

That’s easier said than done.

Christians are naive if we think we are not surrounded by the world-spirit which claws at us from birth to death. A thousand voices obvious and subtle express its mentality every waking moment of our days. We try to shut our doors against it, but like the smoke of a forest fire, it works its way in and seeps into our subconscious. Worse — it infects our children and because everybody is doing it, it seems normal to them.

The solution is not to ignore the zeitgeist. We’ve been doing that for a long time. How’s that working out?

Instead, we should turn it up like we’re sitting in front of the speakers at Lollapalooza, so that we hear every word and can analyze what is being said. We know that the message is the same whether we’re standing in Renaissance Italy or Fairbanks Alaska in 2014. It’s all one message — the spirit of the world and the particular flavor it takes in our generation — is all an attempt to silence, mischaracterize, and marginalize the God of the Bible so that that the god of this world has no socially-acceptable rivals.

And, who is the god of this world?

Tyranny of Relativism   1 comment

Have you ever wondered why words such as “conversion”, “proselytize” or “born again” are now swear and smear words?

At their base, they are words used by members of various religions to describe their religious experience. In that sense, they are no different than the terms I use to describe any other activity I might engage in. You may not use firewood to heat your home, but I think you probably don’t see red when I mention “splitting”, “stacking” and “storing” it.

So why are words like “conversion”, “proselytize” and “born again” so offensive to some people?

One answer would be that they have been so trivialized by those who use them most that they now have a bad smell! I recall scoffing at the word “born again” when I first heard it in the 1970s. I scoffed because my friends scoffed and because the man talking about being born again was ridiculous — a hypocrite in bold neon colors who button-holed me at the State Fair and generally made me feel like I would not want to be part of his “club”. Fortunately, God had other plans and a few years later, I got an opportunity to tell the hypocrite what I thought of him, as a sister in the Lord, rather than as an outsider who didn’t understand the terms he was using. I don’t generally use the term “born again” unless I’m among other “born agains” because I don’t like being trivialized.

So, the charge that these terms are overused and trite, even largely content-less, is definitely partially true, but there is a deeper reason for the enmity toward these words, and it is not because of our society’s profound commitment to pluralism.In fact, it is just the opposite.

People are afraid to deal with pluralism’s implications, which makes the idea of conversion a threat. Honest recognition of pluralism admits that there are religious differences and that they run deep. Belief in serious differences between religions provides a logic to the idea of conversion, and drops hard choices into our laps. Jesus told His disciples that the truth of who He is (God incarnate) would either be a rock for them to stand on or it would fall on them and crush them.

Ouch! It is far more comforting to believe the relativist who assures us that all roads lead to the same place.This means that there is no need to be anxious about real commitment to any one God or ultimate truth.

C.S. Lewis described his relief at abandoning the Christian faith in his early years:

“I was soon (in the famous words) altering ‘I believe’ to ‘one does feel’. And oh the relief of Pluralism, Relativism and Tolerance! … From the tyrannous noon of revelation I passed into the cool evening twilight of Higher Thought, where there was nothing to be obeyed, and nothing to be believed except what was either comforting or exciting.”

There is a certain comfort in believing that the highest authority to which we might ever be answerable is our own subjective moral consciousness. Relativism is the real opiate of the people. It discourages serious discussion of the most important issues, and dampens the challenges of pluralism, enabling people to sleepwalk through the most important choices of their lives. The questions having to do with God’s existence and character are no longer urgent, since they are matters not of truth, but only of private opinion and preference, and have no final consequence.

If, however, pluralism really does exist at the level of ultimate truth, then honesty demands we take that plurality seriously. In fact, there are differences in ultimate outlook that are difficult to deny. There is a difference between a God who is personal, a god that is impersonal and the absence of god altogether. There is a difference between a final judgement after death, a series of many reincarnations, and simple cessation of consciousness. Mutual understanding is not served by pretending that these are superficial or negligible differences.

If there are real and important differences between religious positions, then why should talk of “conversion” and associated words be such contemporary heresy? In fact, if religious pluralism is real, why is the idea of conversion or even proselytizing strange at all? It makes sense in a world in which religious differences are real and important. Why wouldn’t they be important enough for me to change basic commitments in my life? The differences might even be important enough for me to try to persuade someone else of the truth that I believe in.

If we really believe in pluralism, why should this be considered barbaric or even odd? If we believe that there is a genuine plurality of religious beliefs, it opens up all sorts of hard discussions.

  • Which one is true?
  • Are there elements of several that are true?
  • How do we know?
  • Does being wrong make any difference?

Because these questions are difficult, can be divisive, and do force us to reflect on the scope and consequence of our lives, we tend to hide from them. The alternative to engaging in them is to ban the categories of truth and falsehood from religious discussion altogether which seems arbitrary, high-handed and dishonest. Relativism is more a source of confusion than a necessary platform for honest dialogue. If we truly respect honest pluralism we should strive to build an atmosphere of civility as we openly, courageously and humbly speak about our deepest differences.

Whoa, Tolerance!

Tolerance is living side by side with others who have real and deep differences with us, coexisting with respect and civility in our personal attitude, and as much as is possible, in public policy (public policy for murderers and thieves will show limited tolerance). Tolerance is not relativism and has no necessary relationship to relativism. Popular opinion today is that if you question relativism, you must be intolerant and anti-democratic, but relativism itself is less inclusive than it claims. We will find both tolerant and intolerant people holding to all religious and philosophical persuasions. It’s not the philosophy or faith that is at fault. It’s the people!

 

Why Morality Matters   2 comments

American psychotherapist Perry London (author of Behavior Control) admitted that, if man is a machine (and he believed we are), it is meaningless to speak of good and evil or moral responsibility. We are no more than computers on legs that procreate and we don’t accuse computers of criminal behavior. If man is no more than a complex physical organism, a relative of the rat and whale, why do we hold men responsible for their actions as if any of us were moral agents? London argued that good, evil and moral responsibility are imaginary, but he also recognized that we seem to need those concepts to live meaningfully. He then went on to suggest ways of programming people to create a better society.

Yeah, by his own admission,  better is a meaningless term in his philosophy, but let’s think about his theory for a moment. All human societies have a common factor in seeing good and evil as distinct and people as moral agents. Yet, in the western world today, we see the terrible fruit of a philosophy that denies a distinction between good and evil. In our society it’s deemed okay to slaughter unborn babies. While we recognize the horror of, say, the Cambodian killing fields, we don’t recognize that we are not far off from them.

“Where the insane reversal of value lies is in the belief that notions like “purity” or “corruption” can have any meaning outside an absolute system of values: one that is resistant to the tinkering at will by governments or revolutionary groups.  The Cambodian revolution in its own degraded “purity,” has demonstrated what happens when the Marxian denial of moral absolutes is taken with total seriousness by its adherents. Pol Pot and his friends decide what good is, what  bad is, and how many corpses must pile up before this rapacious demon of  “purity” is appeased.

 

In the West today, there is a pervasive consent to the notion of moral relativism, a reluctance to admit that absolute evil can and does exit. This makes it especially difficult for some to accept the fact that the Cambodian experience is something far worse than a revolutionary aberration. Rather, it is the deadly logical consequence of an atheistic, man-centred system of values, enforced by fallible human beings with total power, who believe, with Marx, that morality is whatever the powerful define it to be and, with Mao, that power grows from gun barrels. By no coincidence the most humane Marxist societies in Europe today are those that, like Poland and Hungary, permit the dilution of their doctrine by what Solzhenitsyn has called “the great reserves of mercy and sacrifice” from a Christian tradition. (D. Aikman “Cambodia: An experiment in Genocide” TIME, July 31, 1978, pp 39-40)”

That passage was written only 35 years ago, yet we in the West now regularly denigrate the sentiment that Christianity might prevent genocide while increasingly in America, thinkers pretend to have forgotten the fairly recent fruit of atheistic Marxism. Christians are told we should be embarrassed by the doctrine of judgment, that our acceptance of the notion of good and evil is naïve or foolish.

On the contrary, Christianity should rejoice in the doctrine of judgment as one of the glories of the faith. All people feel in their hearts that some things are right and some are wrong, even though we may be unable to explain why we feel that way. The Christian can say with confidence that there is a difference and we can identify it.

We should not be reluctant to admit that real evil exists. God’s character is one of perfect goodness, justice and holiness and defines for us what is good and right. All behavior must be measured against His character. The law of God is written on the heart, but the heart can become confused or hardened, either by cultural traditions or an individual’s sinful choices. All men’s ideas can be checked against God’s character and law. The Christian stands on firm ground when confronted with the immorality of those in power … whether they be elected in a democracy, wielding authority in a dictatorship or expressing their will as the 51% majority of a western society where morality changes with the consensus of the day.

Posted July 9, 2014 by aurorawatcherak in Christianity

Tagged with , , ,

Uniqueness of Man   2 comments

“Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; … his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs,  are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms …. No fire, no heroism,  no intensity of thought and feeling can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; … all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins.” (Bertrand Russell)

Man is different. We’re unique in this world. Our moral character, creativity, love, heroism, intellect and devotion to other people set us apart from every other living organism. Bertrand Russell acknowledged that, but could not explain it. Other thinkers of his ilk try to deny the uniqueness of mankind and insist that our only difference is in our complexity. For them, we are only a piece of complicated chemistry, not really different from a mouse or mosquito, but so complex we can be compared to a super-computer.

American psychotherapist Perry London appeals to this model for man. Man is as completely insignificant as the computer, for mechanical apparatus have no responsibility for what they do. In the end, man’s difference is illusion. Love, commitment, choice, creativity, rationality … none of it has any meaning in the end because they are merely tricks of the complicated human brain.

Are you depressed?

I would be depressed if I fell for the existentialist crap.

The Christian faith gives us an explanation for our uniqueness. Humans – believer and non-believer — are made in the image of God. We are reflections of God’s nature.

  • “God is love,” the apostle John wrote. God made us in love to love Him and to love one another.
  • God is righteous. We were made to distinguish between good and evil, to judge what is right and to choose the good and live it.
  • God is Creator. We are made to create life, beauty, order.
  • God is a communicator. Scripture speaks of communication between the Father, Son and Spirit both in this age and before the world was made. We are made to communicate in language with one another and God.
  • God is a God of order and not chaos, sense rather than nonsense, reason instead of absurdity. We are made as rational people, called to reflect on our lives and the world in which we live.

All of the aspects of our experience that set us apart are the characteristics of personality. Instead of being depressed that our experiences are merely illusions in an impersonal universe, Christians can rejoice that we are at home in a universe made by the personal God.

Unreasonable Reason   Leave a comment

  • What is knowledge?
  • How do we know?
  • How can we be sure that what we think we know is accurate?

Throughout the Modern Age, our society’s pervading philosophy has been humanism, which answers the questions about knowledge by appealing to human reason. Man starts from himself and works outward for all answers.

“Reason appears in possession of the throne, prescribing laws and imposing maxims, with an absolute sway and authority.” (David Hume)

This belief in the power of reason is the foundation of modern western society.  Post-modernism acknowledges that the value of reason can never be demonstrated because it starts with man alone, relying on the accuracy of our sense perceptions. We can never have certain knowledge of even our physical existence, let alone the objective existence of the material world around us. Hume acknowledged the potential pitfall of relying on something that is not wholly adequate, but he refused to despair or abandon his reliance on humanism.

Should it be asked me whether I sincerely assent to this argument which I have been to such pains to inculcate, whether I be really one of those skeptics who hold that all is uncertain, I should reply…that neither I nor any other person was ever sincerely and constantly of that opinion …I dine, I play backgammon, I converse and am merry with my friends, and when, after three or four hours’ amusement. I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold and strained and ridiculous that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any further. Thus, the skeptic still continues to reason and believe, though he asserts that he cannot defend his reason by reason, and by the same rule, he must assent to the principle concerning the existence of body, though he cannot pretend by any argument of philosophy to maintain its veracity.

 

In the 20th century, many thinkers began to despair from trying to ignore the contradictions. Reason had become modern man’s god, but it was becoming a rotting corpse reminding him of the decay of meaning and the death of value in human existence.

The problem was simple enough. Man is finite. Our grasp of reality is limited — too limited to generate sufficient knowledge to answer all the questions or to understand the whole of reality. Reality is huge, but we (even collectively) are small; how can we ever be sure that our knowledge is accurate? Might it not all be a projection of our innermost hopes and fears and not anything real at all?

Christians don’t concern themselves much with our finiteness. We freely acknowledge that our understanding is limited. No problem! God exists and His knowledge is complete. He knows the universe in a way we cannot. God has revealed Himself to us in His word, the Bible, and though this word does not tell us everything, it tells us truly. Our foundation of knowledge is secure in God’s word. We have been created in God’s image to understand the world in which we live, so our perception is accurate. When reason is made the master, it is a tyrant that leads us into the blackest night of ignorance and confusion, but when reason stands under God’s revelation, it becomes a servant of great value, to explore and reflect upon the world in which we live.

The Christian need not fear anything we may learn about the universe.

The God Who is There (Introduction)   Leave a comment

My hope is not built on Francis Schaeffer’s writings, but The God Who Is There was my signpost to God. So I thought I’d take a bit looking at what this book means.

Schaeffer was all about the presuppositions, which is probably why he appealed to me in the first place. Growing up in an issues-oriented state, raised by parents who were political opposites, I had been trained early to question my political presuppositions. That I hadn’t questioned my spiritual presuppositions was probably because my parents largely agreed with the Alaskan culture that spiritual things weren’t all that important.

Schaeffer primarily wrote in the period of upheaval during the 1960s and 70s when Christians were coming to L’Abri in Switzerland to sort out their confusion. He was not writing in a vacuum. He was dealing every day with the confusion Christians were experiencing as we entered the post-modern age.

“The present chasm between the generations has been brought about almost entirely by a change in the concept of truth. … The consensus about us is almost monolithic, whether you review the arts, literature or simply read the newspapers and magazines…. On every side you can feel the stranglehold of this new methodology … the way we approach truth and knowing. … And just as fog cannot be kept out by walls or doors, so this consensus comes in around us, til the room we live in is no longer distinct, and yet we hardly realize what has happened ….

Schaeffer recognized way back in the 1950s that modernism was taking a dark turn. He never used the term “post-modernism” but he understood that modernism was headed that way. To him what we term “post-modernism” was really just the logical continuation of modernism’s failure to fulfill its promises.

“If you lived in … the United States before about 1935, you would not have had to spend much time, in practice, in thinking about your presuppositions. … What were these presuppositions? The basic one was that there really are such things as absolutes. They accepted the possibility of an absolute in the area of Being (or knowledge), and in the area of morals. Therefore, because they accepted the possibility of absolutes, though men might disagree as to what these were, nevertheless they could reason together…. “

That was lost and Schaeffer recognized that. Modernism had promised to answer all the questions of man through the sciences and to find agreement in all spheres. It had failed in doing that because science is the study of the material world and there is more to the human experience than the material world. When modernism failed to deliver on that promise, philosophers (who tend to speak for society) despaired and began to find other ways to answer those great questions.

Human societies have a tendency to seek a uniform culture where people can agree on the major issues, but Christians must always stand for God because God is truth. Martin Luther wrote”

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefields besides, is mere fight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

Schaeffer did not flinch from the battlefield and he sought to explain to 20th century Christians how their culture had drifted so far from Christianity, but also why their children were and remain at risk of being sucked down with it.

Although I grew up in a non-believing home, I was one of those youth that Schaeffer hoped to wake up to the reality around them, so that they would be free to follow God with their eyes wide open.

That Schaeffer’s The God Who Is There would be in an Alaskan cabin in the middle of nowhere so that I would have reading materials when I (a non-Christian) was bored enough to read a book on Christian apologetics could be deemed a statistical improbability, but I choose to see it as a miracle. God wanted me to read the book. He made sure we were both in the right place at the right time under the right conditions.

Coincidence?

Narratives   2 comments

Postmodernism has changed American politics and not for the better. The United States was founded by early-modernists. They believed that there was truth and that truth could be discovered, examined and embraced. “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is a modernist statement.

The Founders (by and large) believed in God as a part of reality. They thought faith had a place in the world. Congress held prayer meetings, a church met in the Capitol for many years, our public buildings are inscribed with Bible verses.

Under no circumstances will I ever argue that Christianity is not the best worldview that any human can have. If God exists and if He created you to have fellowship with Him, you are out of sync with reality if you do not have fellowship with Him and believe that He doesn’t exist. That’s a truth claim that is as certain as the 20-story fall because the Bible doesn’t give you a no-fault opt-out if you don’t want to believe. You come to God on His terms or you perish … eventually. No compromise. Your choice.

On the other hand, the Bible is also pretty clear that Christians can’t force others to believe as we do. Dead men cannot become believers and becoming a Christian believer is not about saying some rote prayer or standing/sitting/floating in some special building while some guy or gal in ecclesiastical robes splashes special water on you. Salvation is a change of heart and mind that comes only when we admit to intimacy with God. We were created to have intimacy with God. Since we, as a species screwed that up, we’ve been out of sync with Him by our own choice. Since we were created with free will, the choice is ours whether we will allow Him to touch us and draw us near to Him once more. He will leave us with the dignity of our choices if we wish to choose wrongly.

My parents’ generation grew up with a national narrative that embraced manifest destiny – bringing Christianity and western civilization to the Indians and then onto the Pacific and Africa. These endeavors were seen as good and approved by God. I’m not going to argue that there were no genuine conversions through these efforts. I know there were because my great-great-grandparents left diaries that show them as people who were honestly in love with the Lord Jesus Christ and happy to assimilate (for the most part) into American society. THEY didn’t see it as being forced to give up something. THEY saw it as a net improvement with some complications. I base that evaluation on the 30 years of diaries both of them kept, detailing their ordinary lives.

The Postmodern narrative is that white man came and oppressed the brown man, took away his glorious culture and gave him this god that wasn’t his and doesn’t serve his needs. That comes down to our political discussions and educational system as America, the imperialist power and rapist of the world. “We”, they say, “enslave the world and use up all the resources while not doing anything worthwhile.”

Yes, I’m painting with that broad brush again, but there’s truth in what I’m saying. I’m told, as an American Indian, that I’m a victim of white imperialism and I’m owed something – a whole lot of something – for the loss of that superior culture at the hands of the useless white race that has contributed nothing worthwhile to history.

I call “BUNK!” Neither narrative is completely true. America was not true to our ideals when our forebears steamrolled the Indians in their march westward. Our societal ancestors were not true to our ideals when they enslaved the blacks or when they treated free blacks as second-class citizens, when we interred the Japanese-Americans or fought in Vietnam. We were true to our ideals, as much as possible in war, when we fought to end Hitler’s concentration camps or when we brought the gospel to Pacific Islanders … and American Indians. The excessive use of our power in some instances did not negate the rightful advancement of principles where they occurred.

History is often written by the winners, but the history my children are learning in public school was written by folks who want to believe that if you’re brown, you’re a victim and if you’re white, you’re an oppressor. That narrative leaves us with no option for compromise and no options for societal healing until a generation is born in America that is more brown than white and then — well, who becomes the oppressor then?

I was raised by a mixed-race couple. I loved both of my parents and I’m proud of both of their cultures. I don’t see my dad as an oppressor and my mom as a victim, probably because my mom never saw herself as a victim of racism. It wasn’t that she never experienced it. It was that she didn’t pass it on to us kids … maybe because her mom didn’t pass it on to her kids and her mom’s mom didn’t pass it to her. The first convert to Christianity in our Indian family (Joseph) eventually led his father to Jesus and heard his father’s confession – of scalping white settlers, raping the women, carrying the children off into slavery. Barazai was clear to Joseph that these were acts of deep and shameful sin in his own eyes. Who were the victims in those attacks? White men were the ones dying, white women were the ones raped and white children were the ones enslaved. That doesn’t mean that in other places and times it wasn’t white men killing, raping, or enslaving Indians. Neither side of my DNA is pure as the fresh-driven snow.

Is it possible that both sides were wrong?

For me it is! It’s the only intellectually honest stance to take, really – for me – because the other way, I have to hate some portion of my DNA and that sounds too schizophrenic for me. If my ancestors were all humans and prone to the human condition, then I’m free to admire that which is admirable and regret that which is regrettable.

I’m told this might make me a post-postmodernist. I think that makes me sane and a potential reconciler.

Reality in a Post-Christian Nation   2 comments

About 35 years ago, Christians I knew began talking about Christian-based political action beyond just the ballot box. After an entire generation of Evangelical political involvement, with a high level of visibility and influence, there has been little or no improvement in the ethical quality of American political discourse and practice.

There’s no use arguing against that statement. It’s true.  You know it. I know it. The world knows it. The Moral Majority failed. The consequences are seen in less than 5% of the population now being able to change the ancient definition of marriage in the country and pushing for churches to lose their tax-exempt status if pastors even preach those portions of the gospel that pertain to the subject.

What happened?

I don’t think it was a failure of politics! It’s a failure of modern evangelicals to understand what being “in the world, but not of it” means.

Let’s start with a basic understanding here. We do not live in a Christian nation. Our grandparents and those before them lived in a Christian-influenced nation. Increasingly, our generation does not. The sooner we accept that, the better off we’ll be because reality doesn’t change just because we wish to believe otherwise. So repeat after me –

                “America is a post-Christian nation and it does not matter.”

That’s right. It doesn’t matter. Evangelical Christianity no longer has a substantive role in our government and in many if not most cultural circles we are seen as a negative force in society. And, it doesn’t matter because if God finds it necessary, the rocks and trees will testify of Him in our stead.

God is not diminished because we are.

In fact, historically speaking, God’s people seem much better at the task He has given us when we have little power or official influence in our society. Consider the first three centuries of the Christian churches, the overwhelming opposition the nascent movement operated under and the phenomenal spread of the gospel. Have we experienced anything similar since people stopped trying to kill us for our beliefs? No! I’m not saying I want persecution to rain down on the churches. God forbid! What I am saying is that being the officially sanctioned and government supported religion historically has not made us better Christians.

Although it’s a scary feeling to think your ideas – God’s ideas – are so much sound in a cultural high wind, the fact is this may well be exactly where God wants the Christian churches in America to be in the early 21st century.

The questions we might want to ask ourselves are …

  • why are churches in other countries thriving under persecution while American (and more so, European) churches are shrinking?
  • is our problem a cultural-political one or a spiritual one?
  • is it the message or the methods that’s getting in our way?
  • what can we do to reach our society in an Antioch way in the 21st century?

Posted September 18, 2013 by aurorawatcherak in Christianity

Tagged with , , ,

WordDreams...

Jacqui Murray's

Steven Smith

The website of an aspiring author

thebibliophagist

a voracious reader. | a book blogger.

cupidcupid999

adventure, art, nature, travel, photography, wildlife - animals, and funny stuff

Republic-MainStreet

The Peaceful Revolution Liberate Main Street

atleastihaveafrigginglass

What could possibly go wrong?

Who the Hell Knows?

The name says it all.

Rebellious Hazelnuts

Surreal Stories, Very Tall Tales

Adjusting My Sails

When the wind doesn't blow the way you want, adjust your sails

%d bloggers like this: