In the same vein as Mojeaux’s (now not so) recent Christianity 101 article, I bring you a critical look at the modern western (protestant) church from the view of a former Lutheran turned former agnostic turned vaguely Baptist, but more generically Arminian Evangelical. My focus is on what I see in the Evangelical churches, mostly.
If you can’t tell from some of my previous articles here at Glibs, I have an interest in the history of the church. My first major series here was a law review article that I wrote on the early Christian origins of western public schooling. However, as I’ve grown into my adult faith, I’ve found something increasingly troubling about all of the churches I’ve attended, and many that I’m aware of without attending.
Nothing changes from about 8th grade on. That’s right, the theological depth expected of the adults at the church is that of a 13 year old.
About [the holiness of Jesus] we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you [the Jews] have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. – Hebrews 5:11-14
This isn’t necessarily bad for those that are called “seekers”. When you get into the administrative circle of a church, you start hearing a lot about seekers. The mythological person who walks in your door knowing not the first thing about Christianity, but is open to being convinced. Being friendly and welcoming to guests isn’t enough for most churches. The depth of study is limited to the lowest common denominator, because scaring people off with an overwhelming experience is considered worse than starving your regular flock by feeding them platitudes disguised as sermons.
The rot has occurred when this mentality seeped into all aspects of the church. The church members often have the emotional maturity of 13 year olds, the music is written to emotionally fragile 13 year olds, the message is tailored to 13 year olds. I run the video and lights for our Sunday services, and I also run it for our junior high summer camp. You know what the differences are between a Sunday service and junior high summer camp? 1) Interactivity, 2) A bit more crowd management, and 3) I run the chaser lights to make it feel like a rock concert. The message would fit perfectly in the Sunday rotation.
Ever wonder why most people leave the faith in high school? It’s because they outgrow the curriculum.
Not that 13 year olds receive the message particularly well. The church is well behind the times, and can’t hold junior high kids’ attention.
The Eviction of Intellect
Some would claim that the catholic (lowercase “c”… referring to the global church as a whole) church and especially the Catholic (uppercase “C”… referring to the Roman Catholic Church) Church have been stifling intelligent discussion for millennia. However, I vehemently disagree. It’s not worth going point by point down the list, because, frankly, I’m not a medieval historian, and it’s not really the point of this article. I recommend Tom Woods’ book How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization if you’re interested in apology against the presumption that the Catholic Church spent 1500 years handicapping the push to modernity. The book is a bit cloying, but I found it much more effective if viewed as a rebuttal of modern anti-Catholic presumptions as opposed to as a neutral treatment of medieval times.
Fast forwarding to the 19th century, we see Europe subsiding as nexus of the faith, and the United States was showing increasing strain across between the cultural segments that strongly aligned with geographic lines. Tom Sowell’s book Black Rednecks and White Liberals describes in detail the difference in cultural heritage between New England and the South, and how it impacted the culture of the slaves and their descendants.
To oversimplify, New England was flush with “Protestant work ethic” despite becoming more and more Catholic with successive waves of immigration. They were more educated and more pious. The southerners, while also technically Protestant, more resembled modern American Jews. Did they believe in God? Many of them did, sure. They even went to church some of the time. However, church was a social club, and it wasn’t uncommon for service to be shortened to allow for recreation and fun. To call them theologically agnostic is a couple steps too far, but they were certainly not very concerned with their faith, and in many ways were Christian in habit only, if even that.
Glossing over a whole bunch of interesting nuance, the late 19th century ushered in a period of evolution and revival in the church. In quick succession, waves of northern influence infiltrated the south, whether or not the southerners appreciated it. Reform groups, some guy named Sherman and a few thousand of his closest friends, Reconstruction era educators, and the like.
The revivalism that had swept across the north during the early 19th century (The Second Great Awakening), injecting fervor and simplicity into the faith, had seeped into the south with a bit of transformation. The Second Great Awakening is a highly complex topic and one that historians have written reams about. However, I’ll stick my neck out and summarize the impact. The 2GA was very different in the north (it was more doctrinal, more activist) than in the south (it was more moralistic, more individualistic). However, some of the commonalities that distilled out across the nation was that the 2GA was highly emotional, highly energetic, very feminine, and theologically stunted.
So the Southern way of religion that successfully emerged from the maelstrom of the Great Revival was conversion-centered, more concerned to convert individuals than the society, oriented around individual congregations and hence localistic in focus, and practically devoid of complex theological doctrines—their theology consisted of a series of vivid tropes describing the path leading from sinful life through conviction to conversion with the promise of heaven after death. Old Testament images of divine wrath and punishment were blended with New Testament homilies about the friendly Jesus dying a substitutionary death to purchase their salvation. All the theology one needed could be summed up in a paragraph. Here was an easily learned, quickly described, and immensely effective religious message, a sure-fire strategy that made possible the almost complete domination of the South by the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists. Even the Episcopalians borrowed the strategy, the planter elite (many of whom began their lives as plain folk) soon followed the evangelical pattern, and by the middle of the second quarter of the 19th century the Old South had become the most emphatically Protestant section of the nation. . . .
The Southern way of religion was decidedly moralistic, with ministers more apt to attack individual moral failings than social evils. One of the real attractions of evangelicalism to Southern women was the extent to which it sought to rein in the behavioral excesses of Southern men—notoriously individualistic, hedonistic, and prone to violence. But Southern revivalism, unlike that, for example, of Charles G. Finney in the North, did not lead to a wave of reform activity. Later Southern ministers joined the temperance movement and thundered against alcoholics, but the late-19th-century Social Gospel was anemic in the Southern states.
Coming back to the modern day, what’s the impact? The cultural differences are still apparent, even though there has been some geographic mixing and some borrowing across the battle lines. Evangelical denominations are generally highly individualistic, moralistic, and emotionally driven. They appeal most to the uneducated and, frankly, to those who don’t care about the difference between the eucharist and eschatology. Mainline denominations are more corporate and doctrinal, but have become susceptible to the emotional lucre, too. Some of that is seen in their relativism, which results in an over-deference to cultural norms and mores. Some is seen in an over-reliance in creedism to transmit doctrine, rather than on fostering deep understanding of the faith. Both sides seemed to come away from the 2GA with an understanding that the laity expects spiritual milk, and those ready for spiritual meat will find it on their own.
Forgetting History
Sola scriptura: one of the foundational principles of the Protestant Reformation. In a reaction to the legalism and outsized importance placed on modern interpretation and doctrine by the contemporary Catholic church, the Protestant denominations declared the Bible to reign supreme. However, the increasing anti-Catholic and anti-intellectual fervor undergirding the revivalism of the 19th century in the US resulted in the baby being tossed out with the bathwater. Aquinas’ writings may not be on par with Paul’s, but they’re damn helpful in figuring out what Paul meant. Sadly, today, your average Evangelical thinks that Aquinas is a megachurch pastor in Houston.
Whether primarily driven by the intentional rejection of tradition or the lack of curiosity fostered by the anti-intellectual foundation of the 2GA, the modern church is untethered when interpreting, preaching, and enacting the Bible. The prototypical example is the Social Gospel (precursor to the Progressive movement) that came out of the postmillenial eschatology. Postmillennialism is the belief that man will improve the world to a point where there are a thousand years of utopia, which then harkens the second coming of Jesus Christ.
As libertarians, we can probably recognize the same technocratic pablum that infects much of the modern Progressive left in that interpretation. However, theologically it’s also a problematic interpretation, bordering on heresy. Of course, if you haven’t read the church fathers, you probably aren’t being exposed to interpretations of scripture that undercut postmillennialism, and the post-Enlightenment cultural blind spots may bias you towards a technocratic armageddon. What’s that saying about new ideas being old heresies? Yeah…
Downstream Cultural Implications
Until recently (1960s?), Protestants enjoyed a hegemonic domination of western culture. However, cracks were showing as early as the mid 19th century, primarily in what is now Germany. As much as the shift to the current culture of pseudo-moralistic hedonism was a philosophical one, it was also a shift that was championed, at first, by the church. As the Iron Law dictates: me today, you tomorrow. For the Social Gospellers and first generation Progressives, that law bit them in the ass in no time flat. It took less than a single generation for the power of the Progressive movement to be wrenched from the hands of the Protestant church and planted firmly in the hands of the secular humanists. As with any movement, the Progressive Protestants got bit by their own hubris. All of the “well maybe we can bend the rules here in pursuit of Heaven on Earth” turned into the foundation of the technocratic dystopia we live in today. Overzealous, understudied Christians birthed the modern nanny state because they couldn’t be arsed to actually RTFM.
Fast forward 100 years, and the church became a waning influence in culture, which, in combination with a sickly relationship with book learnin’, led to a stylistic split in three directions. Direction 1, followed by mainstream denominations, was toward liberalism (of interpretation of the Bible) and conciliation to the less-than-Christian dominant culture. Direction 2, followed by conservative evangelical denominations, was toward radical legalism, skepticism toward outsiders, and a canonization of 1950 cultural norms as akin to Gospel. Direction 3, followed by more contemporary evangelical denominations, was toward candy coated emotional fluff.
While each direction is unique, a few common themes emerged.
First, the focus was on entertaining the lowest common denominator. To an extent, this was always the case. However, with the growth of bedroom suburbs, long commutes, increasing traffic, and other social changes, the community dissolved, and church became a social club. Sure, some were sitting at their spot in the proverbial moose lodge every night, but the bulk of the church was a rotating cast of characters coming in to do their hour’s penance on Sunday morning so they could go back to their largely secular lives on Monday.
Second, with the Great Society in the 60s, the last nail was plunged into the coffin of the church as community leader and caretaker. Rather than caring for the community being a primary focus, many churches have moved such ministries behind the curtain, using scant volunteer effort and a whole lot of tithe money to “check the box” on community outreach.
Speaking of checking boxes, the focus on entertainment and reaching the seeker has led to a check the box mentality in many churches, especially the contemporary evangelical churches. I have to chuckle when church staff talk about “X saved at Jr. High retreat this weekend” or “Y new guests visited this week”. They’re chasing numbers rather than chasing Truth.
Where did all this come from? The downstream came back upstream. Culturally, churches have absorbed an obsession with metrics from the corporate boardroom, a focus on butts in seats from marketing firms, and a dumbing down to the lowest common denominator from the mass media. The same church that was driving western culture for 500 years has been neutered by it’s own progeny.
The Result
What does the modern church look like today, what does membership consist of? There are five main archetypes that I see.
Rollin’ up in my Mercedes, #praiseJesus
The first one is the Instagram Christian soccer mom. She wouldn’t know hardship if it smacked her in the face. Poverty? Oh, you mean they can’t afford Starbucks every day?
While I described this in female terms, the male equivalent exists, as well.
You said ‘crap’? I’ll pray for your family
Often, staff fall into this archetype, but sometimes you’d be surprised. It’s that person who is constantly using Christian codewords and cringes when you say “darn it”. It’s Ned Flanders and Dana Carvey’s church lady. These days they’re on the retreat, but you still get that scolding side-eye when your tone gets too confrontational or you don’t pause to pray enough during hard conversations. Often these people are very generous, nice people, but they’re so disconnected from the real world that it’s hard to relate to them. Some can be more than a bit judgy, too.
My priorities are ‘murica, guns, and God, in that order
This archetype is more expansive than just Republicans who worship God because it’s culturally expected, but that’s the best example that came to me. These are the people who may or may not actually believe all this shit, but they’re here for other reasons, whether that be because the spouse is dragging them here, some other social pressure is bringing them to church, or even simple habit.
Broken people
This is probably my favorite group. They’re certainly the most interesting. People who have gone through some wild shit and found Jesus in the midst of it.
“Normal” people
This could probably be somewhat merged with the first archetype, but there are some distinctions. These are the people you meet and you wouldn’t know that they were Christian at first glance. For some, that’s because they’re not living out the faith in their daily life. For others, they’re very generous, devout people, but they are plugged into mainstream culture enough to avoid sticking out like a sore thumb.
The Resolution
What’s the point of bitching if there isn’t an attempt at resolution at the end? I don’t want to spend too much time on this because I don’t know that I have good answers. As much as the modern church has problems, there aren’t always easy, readily apparent solutions.
- The default activity should be an active, communal one. Rather than sit and listen being the default, shared meals, shared outreach, and community should be the default.
- Churches should be mindful of their size. It’s said that once a group grows beyond 150 people, it loses its sense of community very quickly. Efforts should be taken to encourage the sense of community, whether that be shrinking the size of the church, offering activities that tighten the bonds of subgroups, etc.
- Ditch the rock band and the knock-off pop music. It reeks of desperation, the music is generic and awful, and it tears apart the sense of community when half of the church service is performative rather than participatory.
- Dive in deeper. Don’t be afraid to lose some people. Making them think is a GOOD THING. Rather than keeping sermons superficial, spend some time breaking things down and promoting true understanding.
- Don’t ignore the 2000 years of knowledge that we have available to us from church history. People should be familiar with names like Zwingli and Chesterton and Aquinas and Augustine and Athanasius.
- Preach the church doctrines. Nothing’s more sad than when a whole bunch of church members have no idea why they’re [insert denomination here].
To conclude, as the church’s influence wanes, and Christianity is set on a course to become a minority religion within most of our lifetimes, the absolute worst thing that the church can do is play hanger on with the modern secular culture. Now is the time for them to distinguish themselves from modern culture, in style, in members’ behavior, in generosity, and in tone.
Read the first paragraph and all I can think is. …
SPLITTERS! !!
I’ll expand on this thought since it actually comes up in your conclusion.
It really is like that Monty python scene, where at the end one guy realizes he’s hanging out with the wrong set of Judean people’s front. I’ve often experienced that protestants, at least those I’ve asked (who happened to be the northern variety, and probably not that religious), don’t know the difference being their particular sect makes. I’ll admit I can’t keep you all straight. In some ways that’s probably good if you believe in individual interpretation of the scripture, but it really seems to have gone too far.
A key problem of intellectualism, secular and otherwise, is the tendency to crawl up one’s own asshole. The more independent your thinking, the more opportunity there is for unique genius on the one hand and batshit insanity on the other, with a lot of room in between.
This is a particularly astute observation.
Organized religion can be difficult…
Like porcupines having sex?
Am out. Will read carefully later. Been looking forward to it.
So you REALLY like the actor that played Quark?
Nae, he introduced Shimmerman to Neon Genesis.
Churches should be mindful of their size. It’s said that once a group grows beyond 150 people, it loses its sense of community very quickly. Efforts should be taken to encourage the sense of community, whether that be shrinking the size of the church, offering activities that tighten the bonds of subgroups, etc.
I am attending a mega-church (at least for now) and they strongly stress their small groups. They flat out say without them you get lost in a church this large. My boss used to attend it, but he decided that no one would miss him if they stopped coming, so he switched to a smaller church.
It’s said that once a group grows beyond 150 people, it loses its sense of community very quickly.
I might put the number a little higher, but this is very true. The “monkeysphere”. It came through to me when I went from a company smaller than that, where everybody knew everybody else’s name, to a larger company where that was not true. The difference is very real.
it tears apart the sense of community when half of the church service is performative rather than participatory.
When done well, it is both. But I think this works better in a smaller church.
Depends on the participation. Vatican II shit like sharing your germs by offering each other some sign of Christ’s peace, or holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer, can go right out the window.
Good article. It seems like your main criticism is that there is not enough intellectual heft in modern Christianity and I tell you that is a by-product of Protestantism and I don’t intend that as a dig.
Luther simplified the faith and made it more accessible. His seven ‘solas’ and the emphasis on the Bible made Christianity grounded in something beyond bureaucracy, legalism, and reflexive and mindless tradition. It is fair to say that Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodox, for that matter) is a religion of laws, not men, whereas Protestantism is a religion of men, not laws. So the strength of Luther’s reforms was that it was easier for someone to explain what he believed and to point to what was the basis for his beliefs (the Bible). Further, Protestantism’s general aversion to hierarchical religious authority allowed it to avoid all the corruption and criminality that is rampant in all bureaucracy, no matter their mission.
However, the lack of hierarchy and the sole reliance on the Bible also allowed Protestantism to diverge into a thousand different denominations that are so far apart theologically that it’s bizarre to view them all as within the tradition of Protestantism. And they continue to splinter and disagree with one another, while they all claim to be basing all their beliefs on the same central text of the Bible. Additionally, because the Bible is the basis for Protestantism they never had any need for Thomism or philosophical discussions about moral questions, as the Bible alone was the only basis for “truth”. However, the Bible is not a seamless book that is precise and does not contradict itself at times (the transition from Old Testament to New Testament, alone, is quite a culture shock).
In contrast, because Catholics and the Orthodox remained hierarchical and derived their faith from multiple sources (early Church councils, early apologias, tradition, etc.) that was all streamlined into a set of beliefs and orthodoxy was enforced through higher authorities everyone was on the same page, but also the fact that multiple sources were the basis for the faith rather than the Bible alone, more allowance was given to ponder and philosophize (Thomism is a legitimate philosophy with multiple branches that is still debated and discussed even on secular college campuses).Also, when Chesterton, Waugh, Merton, Belloc, Percy or O’Connor (all celebrated Catholic writers in their time) wrote about faith there wasn’t disagreement among Catholics. Further, because the Church is a massive bureaucracy, the Church’s schools were able to make their students read these writers. Catholics willed these writers into the literary mainstream.
No such philosophical argumentation had ever really existed within Protestantism since its foundation and further Protestant churches intentionally never built the infrastructure necessary to promulgate in-depth ideas. ‘Sola Scriptura’ has been both a blessing and a curse for the Protestant churches, in my opinion.
Some weighty ideas here. Without inveighing on the nature and consequences of Protestantism-qua-Protestantism per se, why do you think the Church (especially the Roman Catholic Church, although there is some disunity in the East as well) seems less united and effective than ever (or, at least, since its medieval corrupt apex, when Protestantism came into existence)? (If you don’t agree with the premise of the question, you can also attack it directly: it’d be nice to hear some reasons why you think I’m off base, if so)
For some elaboration on why I think this way, look at the list of Catholic apologists you’ve given. Is there anyone in the present day offering as strong a defense and analysis of Catholicism as they did?
Vatican II changed a lot of things and suggested that some things may be possible that had never been thought possible before. In my opinion the biggest disunity within the Catholic Church today is between parishioners and their bishops, which, as I noted, is a cancerous byproduct of hierarchy. So much like I say “Sola Scriptura” is a double edged sword, so is the Catholic and Orthodox hierarchy.
Even still, though, despite the hope of the secularist that Pope Francis would be able to dilute the faith to accommodate modernity, Pope Francis hasn’t been able to accomplish much of anything beyond words.
Why are there no Catholic writers today of any significance? I think that’s just a function of the wider West becoming less tolerant of religious people of all stripes. At the same time, though, observant Catholics still dominate the pages of the Wall Street Journal and always play the foil on the NYT editorial pages. So, they are still overly represented within writing.
I won’t speak for the heretics that believe in the primacy of Rome, but the orthodox church was never as unified; indeed, that was the root cause of the schism in the first place. In the very early church and continuing in the orthodox church all bishops are equal, relying in a much flatter hierarchy with little shared infrastructure and accompanying bureaucracy, while the Roman Catholic church saw the Pope as above the other patriarchs and set about creating a unified hierarchy as Just Sayin’ pointed out above.
The orthodox church is less united because it simply was never very united to begin with, combined with the majority of their original territory being in land that are now majority Muslim or until very recently communist. Though more unified than the protestants, without the central mechanisms of the Roman Catholic church the individual autocephalic churches of the Eastern Orthodox haven’t been able to come together to weather storms of actively hostile populations and governments.
Fair points.
The Council of Constantinople, I believe, first established the Bishop of Rome as “First Among Equals”. The Eastern Orthodox Church does not even disagree with this. What they disagree with is what authority this grants the Bishop of Rome. The Great Schism had multiple contributing factors (the fact that The Crusades were first launched at the behest of the Bishop of Constantinople and then ended up sacking Constantinople was a significant faux pa at a time when Rome and Constantinople were still debating what “First Among Equals” actually meant).
You’re right that the Orthodox Church has never enjoyed as much unity as the Roman Catholic Church once did, however, the Bishop of Constantinople still holds a good deal of authority. In fact, the current Bishop of Constantinople granting the Ukrainians their own authority outside of the Russian Orthodox Church was a leading cause behind the rift between Constantinople and Moscow.
I’d also add that what really makes this a divide between Catholics and Orthodox on one side and Protestants on the other is that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are familial focused, whereas, Protestantism is more individual focused.
Which relates to some of what Trashy said about the lack of community within churches.
The orthodox currently recognize the bishop of constantinople as the first among equals, but that was a more recent change. The schism was obviously more complex than a single paragraph could do justice, but I’m at work and therefore on my phone and so I’m going to be a bit on the brief side. An adequate explanation would take multiple articles, a proper one a series of books. In any case the larger point was that the orthodox church is in a middle ground between the centralization of the Roman catholic church and the complete decentralization of the various protestant churches.
Agreed
And CS Lewis. Though not a Catholic, he was friends with and influenced by Catholic apologists, as well as perhaps the high church aspects of the Anglican Church (even the low church is much more high church compared to American Protestantism) and religious current of 19th and early 20th century English academic life.
…shared meals, shared outreach, and community should be the default.
Aaaaand I’m out 😉
Good article. I have just never found that place that drives me to get more involved in either church or faith.
Thanks, trashy.
^This^
It is also probably why it took Mike coming to visit that made us finally meet up in real life. When I got out of the Marines, one of the things I decided is that I would never join any group again. In concept I have nothing against formal associations. In practice, I can’t stand them. I can’t stand having other people tell me what to do. My wife gets away with that because she is willing to have sex with me.
Are you me?
We were at Tractor Supply and there was a “recruiter” for the VFW and my wife said I should join, but I told the guy “I won’t join any club that would have me as a member. My wife would have died from embarrassment if it were possible.
Preach the church doctrines. Nothing’s more sad than when a whole bunch of church members have no idea why they’re [insert denomination here].
This is super important. Both for Keeping, and gaining new members/adherents. Too often i’ve seen classes/sermons go into topics that aren’t necessarily doctrine. I get the desire to not dumb things down, but i think having a good knowledge and foundation of the basics of the doctrine is required.
“conciliation to the less-than-Christian dominant culture”
Like the current pope.
I think this started happening in 1487 when Edmund Blackadder was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. “Hell isn’t as bad as it’s cracked up to be.”
Great Article, I am not a believer, but my wife is.
We used to go to a great non denominational church when I lived in KC, that really followed all the principles you have listed except the music, but they had a really talented band.
We were in a small study group that met weekly and also doing charity work(fixing poor peoples porches, building a new children’s center for the church,doing minor auto repairs). I even was going to a men’s reading group and had good friends there.
After we moved from there we tried a few churches and just couldn’t find the same kind of thing. I would be falling asleep and so would the kids, or one time we were at a church for the first time and the preacher called on us and asked in front of everybody if we were baptized and if we were coming back next week. (Spoiler Alert, we didn’t)
Now my wife is in a bible study group and is always telling me that God loves me and things like an attack of dizziness going away is something to thank God for. We have given up on churches because of the things you talk about and not sure we will ever start looking.
Neither my wife or I are believers. My wife though will occasionally get sucked into a Bible study group (or worse agree to attend a service with us). Mostly though the Bible study is a bunch of Korean women getting together and spending 30 minutes on Bible stuff and then 2 hours gossiping and eating Korean food.
She denies it is a glorified hen party, but when I asked her how many amendments there were in the Bible she guessed 14, so she’ll probably fail Trashy’s theological literacy test.
OK, that’s an actual LOL!
She’s awesome.
My wife is Okinawan and they can talk for hours, but she does seem to be actually studying the bible .
My only gripe with her is she watches the 700 Club religiously. When the main guy is talking foreign policy it hurts my brain.
One example, when there were tensions with Venezuela he recommended sending our troops to the border and that would guarantee they would put the other guy in power with no issues.
“Mostly though the Bible study is a bunch of Korean women getting together and spending 30 minutes on Bible stuff and then 2 hours gossiping and eating Korean food.”
I consider this a gift from God. “Wednesday night all to myself!!”
Oh, I’m not complaining.
When we were younger she actually thought that Thursday should involve a recap of who said what on Wednesday night. She caught on pretty quickly that I didn’t give a shit and the recaps stopped.
Sadly, my wife goes Tuesday afternoons while I’m at work. HI RUFUS!
Tall cans?
Meh bunch of heresy who cares
We’re in the midst of a Third Great Awakening, however it’s “secular”. I appreciate your connecting the modern Prog movement to the roots of millenarian thought, it’s dead on. However, as progressivism attempted to secularize utopian ideals, they were never able to purge the religious instinct intrinsic to humanity. IOW, the tail started wagging the dog and they returned to their religious roots; just as a religion built on a foundation made of secular sand.
Look at the intersection of environmentalism, woke identitarianism, rehashed post-Marxist economics and PoMo social engineering and you’ll find a “Turing complete” religion. It reminds me why one of the strongest possible prohibitions in the Old Testament was against idol worship, because that’s exactly what it is. Every time Man tries to create Heaven on Earth and/or transport the Divine into Earthly form, he creates Hell instead.
nonsense. a new golden age of libertarianism is right around the corner.
Ok boomer…
But yes the more they protest against religion (except islam off course don’t be phobic or nothin) and praise atheism the more religious-like is their thought.
Further, while Progressivism reveres atheism, Reform Judaism might be the perfect example of this phenomenon among so-called “religious” people.
They may go to Temple and even take a cafeteria approach to the faith, Progressivism is the true religion. Judaism is a lifestyle affectation overlaid on top of Progressivism. Much the same could be said of Episcopalians.
Damn. Interesting take on all of this, Q.
I know some devout Jews and – surprise, surprise – the devout ones are finding out that their prior political alliances aren’t… serving them very well. Suddenly they find themselves fans – of all people! – of the Big Cheeto in the White House.
If War and Politics make for strange bedfellows, Religion should probably be added to that mix.
In that sense, UK Jews are ahead of the US in that they are abandoning Labour en masse. Labour finally got far enough down the rabbit hole to start being explicit in its anti-Semitism. UK Reform Jews discovered that their enemies didn’t much care how devout they were; Jooz are Jooz after all and they should all go into the oven.
That may or may not happen in the US. There are signs already of US Jews choosing to shed their Jewish identity rather than confront the incompatibility of Progressivism with their continued survival. That’s the only way I can square the circle of Reform Rabbis (!) comparing Israel to Nazi Germany.
My girlfriend was hired as an English teacher at a private (((girls school))), and there has been a growing political dissonance between the largely more secular parents of the students and the very orthodox rabbis that run the school. I only have a very small window into the Philadelphian Jewish community, but it seems that the more religious Jews, and more specifically the ones that want to preserve the traditions, culture, and community of Jews are slowly breaking away from the progressives.
I’m no expert, though, and who knows what the future holds.
You’re 100% right; that’s why I specify Reform Jews as the JINOs. Ortho/Hasidics are basically a different religion entirely at this point.
Anyone who doesn’t accept the 4 Mongol gods of Earth, Wind, Rain, and Fire is a heathen who must be cleansed.
LOL do you even know the riddle of steal read a sword educate yourself
I thought you were Romanian, not Romani, Pie.
well i can either own to the typo or pretend i meant it that way
He’s assimilating.
I am still pondering the riddle of steel.
Those aren’t their names
Rain quit.
OT
The Supreme Court does not appear to have redistributed the petition in Worman v. Healey, the challenge to the Massachusetts ban on possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The justices considered the case for the first time at their conference last week; if the petition is not redistributed for this week’s conference, it could signal that the justices are holding the case until they rule on another gun-rights case that was argued in December, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York.
I’m going to sacrifice a goat to appease the pagan gun gods (old and new) so SCOTUS grants cert in Worman v. Healey. And if they refuse to help, then to hell with them.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-404/126279/20191220102210778_19-404%20Reply%20Brief.pdf
Hey, speaking of the Supreme Court and religion has already been done (multiple times ad nausea).
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/10/politics/catholic-justices/
“Why do Catholics hold a strong majority on the Supreme Court?”
This one is personally my favorite:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secrets-of-leonard-leo-the-man-behind-trumps-supreme-court-pick
“The Secrets of Leonard Leo, the Man Behind Trump’s Supreme Court Pick”
THE KNIGHTS MALTA RUN THE WORLD!
“THE KNIGHTS MALTA RUN THE WORLD!”
Deus vult.
My father is a Knight of Malta and numerous of our family friends. They’ve been trying to recruit me for years.
They are 100% about caring for the sick.
They used to run a free clinic here in North Texas for people who couldn’t easily get health care (almost exclusively illegal immigrants). Until Obamacare killed it.
That’s a big alt-right thing I know. Caring for sick immigrants. Pretty sure Hitler was all about that.
It’s the same thing with the Knights of Columbus. The new mantra is that they are misogynistic evil extremists, when in actuality they are a bunch of guys that like to drink beer and feed the poor and support services for the mentally handicapped.
The attacks on the Knights of Columbus are even more bizarre, because at least the Knights Malta have a long history stretching back to the Crusades, but the Knights of Columbus were doing battle with the KKK in the early 20th Century. It’s pretty blatant bigotry masquerading as honest commentary.
Yeah. Although the Knights of Malta had a two branches: the military one and the caring for the sick one. The military one doesn’t actually even exist anymore and is not a thing.
For me, KofC were those guys running the pancake breakfast every other month or so and serving as ushers & greeters or passing the collection basket. As some sort of sinister secret society, it’s ridiculous.
Bernie Sanders staffer on Soviet gulags: “There’s a reason Joseph Stalin had gulags, right? And actually, gulags were a lot better than what the CIA has told us that they were. Like, people were actually paid a living wage in gulags, they had conjugal visits in gulags, gulags were actually meant for like re-education.”
…
We’re so fucked.
This is what he said of the people who opposed Sanders when Sanders gets power:
“Well, I’ll tell you what, in Cuba, what did they do to reactionaries? … Do you wants to fight against the revolution? You’re gonna die for it motherf***er.””
not a joke m
He sounded like he was kinda drunk.
Who doesn’t become a little genocidal when they’re drunk?
It explains Stalin….
Channeling Suthen:
Leftists are always and forever the same. No matter the time or place, they never change.
And that’s why they’re so gung-ho on gun confiscation.
I went to Church last Sunday . . .
I read your article and enjoyed it. I’m one of those who left religion in my teens never to return. I was a member of a religious teen group. We did community service and helped people, but mostly it was a religious elks club.
I will not be returning to an organized religion any time soon, but have no issues with others doing so.
I’ve experienced and was recruited by the Baptist’s, the Mormons, the church of ACTS, and some Pentecostal craziness. The last was by far the strangest of them.
Wish I had more time to finish this, but this is getting bookmarked for later. I’ve already had to have conversations with my 2nd grader about why church is so simple and boring. She now, like me, spends most of the service reading the bible instead of paying attention.
Xenu comin’. All will be nothingness.
Mmmm… dem titties…?
https://www.manteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/34-16.jpg
Fake as hell, but she’s cute.
OT alert:
leon – I posted in the dead thread but wanted to bring it forward to answer your question – and maybe questions of where we draw the line on personal responsibility aren’t completely OT, but here is my response. Given how long it is and the thought involved, I think I sense another article coming as a result of this. So… thanks?
Tort law comes from the french word for “wrong” – to be wrong in French is “avoir tort.” By definition it is nothing more (nor less) than “a civil wrong for which the law recognizes a remedy.” The really interesting part of it is the underlying “why” – why should the law recognize a remedy for X, whatever that may be? Carroll Towing involved a tug that broke its moorings and fucked up some other boats and the question as to “should the owner have to pay” and the related “for exactly what” involve the kinds of questions we’re engaging in WRT the Iranians shooting down the airliner. How far does the causal chain of responsibility extend? What about supervening and intervening causes?
I’m not even sure I agree with the final outcome in Carroll – it’s been decades since I read it – but I think what struck me about Hand is that he’s asking the right questions, at least. I seem to recall him spending some time on those kinds of questions and they helped me in my own thinking about the related issues of responsibility and when we – as in, “society” can and should assign responsibility for consequences of individual actions. Because at some level, just by virtue of all living on the same round planet, you can find “causality” everywhere and impute it to everyone. (See, e.g. Climate Change and/or all of the bullshit ‘environmental regulations’ from banning straws to single use plastics and on and on.) The modern Progs have learned how to turn this completely to their advantage and its why WE ALL HAVE TO SUCK SHIT because they say so; they do this by using a complete horseshit extension of “responsibility” out to everyone and now that’s why we have to have the Green New Deal (as one example).
Having some sense of where the line of causation/responsibility must be cut off in order for us to live a sane existence is a big part of tort law, when you get right down to it.
Interesting. I’m not a lawyer, but i will get arround to reading about Carroll as it seems interesting and hopefully will help me pick up some more ideas on where to draw lines.
I mostly posed the questions to see where everyone else landed and what they thought. Some of them i thought were fairly straightforward and others not as much. Particularly with Libya and the Cartels. Libertarians will often argue against interventions (foreign and in the market) by pointing out the results of these policies (Slave Markets in Libya, rise of Cartels due to the drug war), but it seems that if we cannot actually assign blame to the government for these…. There is a disconnect in the rhetoric and I’m trying to teas it out.
Its not that we cant assign blame, its that the primary assignation is to the people running the cartels or the slave markets.
:SIGH:
That is my point. If the blame for this is the cartel runners and the slave markets then why are you saying that intervention is bad? Everyone here thinks I’m mixing up two forms of “responsibility” but it seems like to me that its all of you who are switching between “Legal Responsibility” and a general responsibility. If your view of responsibility is going to be talking about only “legal responsibility” then be consistent with it. Don’t point to the Slave Markets or cartels as outcomes of an intervening policy, because there is not legal responsibility linking the two.
Maybe the question is “for what purpose are we assigning responsibility”?
Legal consequence?
Political or other accountability?
Moral condemnation/approbation?
Fair questions to ask. I’m kinda tired of the discussion but it has been good and fun to have though.
Because at some level, just by virtue of all living on the same round planet, you can find “causality” everywhere and impute it to everyone. (See, e.g. Climate Change and/or all of the bullshit ‘environmental regulations’ from banning straws to single use plastics and on and on.)
Yeah. I certainly agree with the idea of trying to limit blame, and in particular to immediate (proximate in lawyer speak?) causes. And even in situations created by government policy, people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. I still think however that when a politician argues for or implements certain policy that creates a context or environment that incentivizes bad outcomes, then it seems like they bear some responsibility for the fact that bad outcomes are occurring.
Yeah, this is some difficult stuff – no right answer kind of stuff.
Keep in mind, also, that in legal circles we are looking for responsibility sufficient to impose a penalty at the point of a gun. “Legal” responsibility, if you will, rather than moral responsibility. And legal responsibility tends to be pretty binary – you either is or you ain’t. That colors my thinking.
30 odd years later, I can see my torts professor clear as day – Morton Horowitz, pretty much your straight-from-central-casting leftist/Jewish law professor. He made our brains hurt, no question. That was back in the day when the politics and personal views only indirectly informed their questions. Great guys, all my 1L profs. Incredibly, I can still remember their names.
leon – I think you’re really hanging up on the word “responsibility.” RC covers this by noting the distinction surrounding ‘legal’ responsibility. I’m happy to impute “responsibility” for obvious outcomes on whoever takes the action that begins the chain of causation that leads to it. But even that is laden with possibilities. For example, are the voters of NY responsible for all of the stupid that comes from AOC? If AOC the Fuckwit sponsors legislation that limits our freedoms and it passes, do we put that on the NY voters? So, I’m not sure the distinction on ‘legal’ responsibility gives a complete, but I use it as a place to begin reading because it is the one area where there has been significant discussion and it is a place where philosophy (i.e. theory) has to meet reality (courts rendering decisions on people paying real money for their actions).
I don’t think hanging up on it as much as we are just talking about two things then. I get the “legal responsibility” point, and think RC makes a good point when he says:
And i get the reason for using it as a stepping off point, as it is what is used in lots of concrete examples, argued by many many people on both sides. And i would agree that it is not complete, when we start talking about broader forms of responsibility.
Here’s a question to consider, Leon.
The Nazis and Communists were fond of reprisals (i.e. attacking civilian populations on purpose). Now, this is far more predictable than an enemy mistakenly killing civilians as occurred in Tehran. Thus, if one feels that the U.S. has some measure of responsibility for the deaths of those airline passengers, did the U.S. similarly have an even greater responsibility for the Nazi and Communist atrocities?
If yes, then what is the point of saying someone is “responsible”? Should they have behaved differently? Doesn’t that trap one in the situation where one crazy man with a gun can take a whole town hostage?
To me responsibility has to have a material component, that the actions you took should have had the consequences you are responsible for be reasonably foreseeable.
The Vincennes shoot-down, being well documented makes a great case for responsibility.
A U.S. Navy cruiser was in a surface skirmish with some small boats and was worried that the boats would be reinforced by aircraft. SO when a passenger plane took off from a combined civilian/military airfield, and a crew-member accidentally flagged the aircraft as squawking a military transponed (Mode II) rather than the civilian Mode III code, and started flying straight at the cruiser, the cruiser’s air defense officer reasonably concluded that it was an inbound air attack and destroyed the aircraft killing 290 innocent people.
Was the pilot responsible? After all, if he had changed course by 30 degrees, he probably wouldn’t have been shot at. Except, of course, it’s pretty clear he had no idea that the course he was on was hazarding his aircraft?
What about the Iranian ATC operator who put him on that course? And authorized him to fly over a naval battle? Ditto. It’s almost certain that the ATC operators had no idea that there was a naval skirmish going on. They were just routing aircraft.
What about the Iranian naval commander? I doubt he was thinking about civilian aircraft being targeted. After all, the IRCG didn’t have fighter jets at the time. Basically, he was trying to harass an intruding force to keep it out of his county’s territorial waters.
What about the user interface designer who made the Aegis radar system readouts far more confusing than they needed to be? (for example, in the middle of the engagement, the computer decided to reindex all the aircraft it was tracking, and it reassigned the track number for the civilan aircraft to a fighter 100 miles away that was landing – which is why the CO was told that the airliner was descending just before he gave the order to fire; he called for the altitude information on the old track number). That person bears far more responsibility for the shoot-down than many of the direct participants, because the impact of those decisions was entirely foreseeable and should have become apparent during testing.
What about the guys deciding to send a valuable cruiser into the narrow waters of the gulf and have it tangle with speedboats? A cruiser is a very valuable asset and far less expendable than a frigate designed for picket duty. It’s also designed to sweep the sky above an ocean clear of aircraft, and not to be used in areas with civilian aircraft in the air.
Did the U.S. government’s decision to kill Solemani contribute to the shootdown? Indubitably. But, the U.S. didn’t make decisions that made the shoot-down a foreseable event. They had no control over how Iran handled civilian air traffic. They had no influence over the decisions to put a high value military target underneath the takeoff corridor for a major airport. They had no say in the procedures put in place to avoid the shooting down of a civilian aircraft by the air defenses of that base. They put out a notice closing the air-space to U.S. flagged aircraft – which is the maximum they are allowed to do. The Iranians decided to conduct military operations while permitting the continuation of civil aviation.
It would be one thing if the U.S. was firing cruise missiles into Iran that morning. But that wasn’t what was happening. The U.S. didn’t actually shoot anything that night.
I don’t want you to think i’m ignoring you. So i think i conceded most of this this morning. I never claimed that the US Government bears full or most or even a large part of the responsibility. I also agree that the direct or legal responsibility would lie with the Iranians.
The comment Ozy was replying to was one where i questioned where we draw the line of “responsibilty” for policy makers. Perhaps responsibility isn’t a good word, but it is one that seems to come naturally and as i pointed out seems to be one that everyone uses even when not talking strictly about legal liabilities. When talking about someone who get’s shot in Chicago and the rampant violence, do we say that it’s the fault of the people shooting? Of course. But we also use it to then say It wouldn’t be that way if gun control wasn’t so strict. In that way we are saying that the Gun Control laws are somewhat to blame for the high rates of gun violence in Chicago.
I take your point. I think you are using it as a synonym for contributing.
And you do have a point. If the U.S. followed Tarran’s Foreign Policy Prescriptions™ it’s completely unlikely that that aircraft would have been shot down. In a sense the U.S. strategic doctrine vis a vis the middle east has done wonders to escalate the various conflicts in the region and is certainly partially responsible for the fact that Iranian air defense crews thought it reasonable that a cruise missile could be inbound when they saw the aircraft on their scopes.
And getting out of this current conflict and establishing peace between the U.S. and Iran is going to be a very tall order, sadly, requiring both states’ governments to make very painful concessions to each other.
OT: My wife and I went out to see The Dead South in Virginia Beach Sunday.
If you like their music a little bit and you have the chance you need to go see them.
One of the most entertaining shows I’ve seen. They started with Boots, and finished almost two hours later with a kick ass version of Banjo Odyssey.
OT: I made some comments in the last thread tjat could be taken as referencing myself. I was not referencing myself.
Allow me to hijack your thoughts:
“If you get in an argument with a man who believes only men can teach or have authority in a church, he will first try to convince you you’re wrong, then ignore you on the basis that it is not a ‘salvation issue so we can agree to disagree’ where disagree = you’re disenfranchised as a woman.”
I have seen that happen, although IF it has happened to me, I don’t remember it.
Generally speaking, I’ve had the privilege of a hefty grounding in Mormon theology mostly by way of my private-school Southern Baptist theology and anti-Mormonism.
But first:
1. Mormons born in the church are generally baptized at 8, being the age of accountability. ? Yeah, okay. But also, I was given a thorough education in the atonement that I immediately thought was unfair, but said nothing about it and very dutifully kept my questions and doubts tamped down and hidden from myself. But I stewed.
2. The Baptists made me defend my church and theology more than several times. I wasn’t comfortable defending what I didn’t know, so I educated myself. This first happened in 5th grade and it did not stop until I graduated from high school. I didn’t resent it. It was a quasi-adversarial relationship I enjoyed. If it hadn’t been for them, I’d have left the church long ago.
3. The Baptists taught me a doctrine I found utterly distasteful and occasionally silly. But hey, boy, did I love singing “When the Roll is Called Up Yonder”. That is a rollicking good tune. “The Old Rugged Cross”, not so much.
4. I had/have no problem with the history of my church. My innate pragmatism and some of my cold-heartedness allowed me to say, “Yeah, and…?” There is no way to rebut “Yeah, and…?” When your supplemental holy book starts out with God telling Nephi to fetch gold plates from a dude who doesn’t know why he should give them over, and God tells Nephi to get them by any means necessary, which include murder, there’s not much you can defend. Best to embrace and flaunt it.
5. At church, as an adult, and because I have been thinking about this for a few years, I can express my opinion or viewpoint with authority. I can tell when a man hasn’t thought about it enough to argue (most of the time) (because he’s never had to), so the “We’ll have to agree to disagree” is the white flag of submission. He will go away wondering WTF is wrong with Sister Mojeaux and never revisit the topic in my hearing.
6. I have nothing to lose. Bishop (Catholic priest): Don’t want to allow me to get married in the temple because you’re trying to protect me from some dude I met on the internet? Fine. I’ll go see a judge. Stake president (Catholic bishop): Don’t want to allow me into the temple because you think I’m not adhering to the letter of the law and you want to know why? Fine. I will tell you in humiliating detail and humiliate you all the way out of my house. I do not bow to “priesthood authority” and fuck you if you try to browbeat me into it. A priesthood holder will back down faster than a gazelle runs away from a cheetah.
I do not listen to men who hold the priesthood. I listen to God, because I’m pretty sure God’s not going to do what men tell him to do. I will take my chances with God, thanks.
7. Somehow, some way, when I speak up in Sunday school, SOMEBODY a) needs to hear it for validation or b) wanted to say it but didn’t have the courage.
I’m not saying I’m always RIGHT, but I say what I think, I say it authoritatively, and I CAN be persuaded through intellectually honest discourse instead of meaningless Sunday school platitudes.
Oh, that didn’t look that long in Notepad.
NARRATOR: “She was referencing herself.”
/kidding
Nah, I can admit my mistakes and my part in stupid-ass decisions.
My God is a God of vengeance and anger and could kick your god’s ass.
Old Testament?
Was Wotan in the old testament?
Cuck god.
Allah?
On topic – Trashy, thanks for writing this. I had a work colleague who is a big evangelical. Brilliant guy, former tabbed Ranger and trained interrogator, he’s fun to debate. I probably should invite him here, but he’s busy with his podcast – which is an explicitly evangelical one. He’s a Calvinist and really, really deep reader of the Bible. Kinda interesting, but one of the points he’s made repeatedly is that evangelical churches – the hardcore ones – are growing, while the milquetoast ones are losing members. I think he sees this as akin to your point that most mainline churches are doctrinally devoid of anything beyond a surface understanding of the Bible and just spouting pablum while they cater to the winds of popular opinion and society.
I was raised Catholic, although I doubt commie Pope (or Eddie) would approve of me. OTOH, I see no reason to disavow my faith, but I’m 100% certain it doesn’t matter to the outcomes I’m concerned about – with the Almighty. I’m currently reading ancient Indian spiritual texts and I expect to spend much of the rest of my life working through other sacred writings, as well, regardless of the sect. My preference is “the older, the better.” Wouldn’t you know that I find this exploration of other faiths to be amazingly illuminating and reaffirming of my own Christian faith? But I suppose I’m in a small minority who find no contradictions in any of it: it is, truly, like the blind men each touching a portion of the elephant. The varied descriptions are kind of humorous, while the resulting clash and desire to excoriate those who don’t share our particular piece of the elephant rather unsurprising, all things considered.
It’s amazing how easy it can all be if you truly lead with Love.
Thanks for writing.
I’m a nonbeliever and this still sounds like a very interesting undertaking. I’ve particularly wanted to read some overviews of Catholicism and Islam, just because of how influential they were in creating this world as it is here in 2020.
OT: Nancy Pelosi gambled and lost on the impeachment delay
What Pelosi seemed to, uh, underestimate is the extent to which the Senate, by its very nature, resists being told what to do in any way, shape or form. While it is easy to lay all of that on McConnell, the truth of the matter is that the Senate has never liked being told what to do by the House. And the House has never liked being told what to do by the Senate. Each body views itself as an independent fiefdom, governed by its own rules and codes of conduct. The idea of one chamber telling the other what to do is simply anathema — no matter which party is in charge of each.
That, plus McConnell’s remarkable ability to keep his 53 Republican senators in line, led to Pelosi being left holding not much of a hand. The move she announced Tuesday is the equivalent of throwing her hand in, understanding that what she was holding was, in a word, dreck.
What Pelosi seemed to, uh, underestimate is the extent to which the Senate, by its very nature, resists being told what to do in any way, shape or form.
Hmmm Underestimate? I doubt it. Maybe I’m holding her in too high regard, but i don’t think she thought this would go over very well. It seemed like a least bad option. She wanted to try to play like she had leverage. If anything her failing was in misreading how McConnell would handle it. She was banking on him wanting to get the trial on and being willing to negotiate to get that.
Also, I think she was counting on rolling a couple of the Repub squishes. McConnell just flat out maneuvered her on that by putting up the Clinton procedure.
The fact impeaching and removing Trump polls like shit in all the demographics the Repubs care about didn’t help, either.
Interesting piece, thanks!
I believe there is a missing archetype – social-signalling, progressive, churchgoers. Belief not a prerequisite, generally attend established institutions (various denominations, easily identified by the rainbow flags, but typically NOT Catholic) that have adapted their doctrines over the years.
Yeah, they’re the flipside of the GOP, guns, and God archetype. I don’t encounter them as much because of the circles I run in, but I know the type.
I’m legit curious as to how some branches of Christianity put out a “tolerant” stance towards gays and lesbians. I’m no expert Biblical scholar, but isn’t the text pretty clear that homosexuality is a big no-no?
A lot of it depends on how you view the New Covenant. Do you think it wipes away old laws, or adds onto to them.
I thought it was additive – “old wine in new bottles” and all that.
Note: my ignorance of Christian theology is almost total.
Think more legalese. There was a old, very complicated contract (ie the old laws). Does the New Covenant staple a new page onto the end, or does it tear the whole thing up and start fresh (2 simple laws and please think of me at dinner)?
There are three views, additive, old covenant plus new; supplantative, newe covenant renders old null and void; and syncretic, new covenant modifies the old so some is in force but not all. Different denominations of christianity have different views, though the latter two are more prevalent thus why most Christians have no issues eating bacon.
If the Babylon Bee is supposed to be Christian, why are they so merciless?
https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-reporter-informs-iranian-protesters-theyre-supposed-to-be-shouting-death-to-america
https://babylonbee.com/news/reminder-you-no-longer-need-a-color-tv-to-watch-the-democratic-debate
Reminder: You No Longer Need A Color TV To Watch The Democratic Debates
https://babylonbee.com/news/church-that-believes-exactly-what-the-world-believes-unsure-why-everyone-leaving-the-church
Church That Believes Exactly What The World Believes Not Sure Why No One Bothers Coming To Church Anymore
https://babylonbee.com/news/reformed-church-offer-artisan-beard-sculpting-ministry-homeless
I like the fact that the Babylon Bee mocks Christians from a position of knowledge. The criticism is often no less biting, but they’re speaking on their level.
Like this:
https://babylonbee.com/news/authorities-urge-worshipers-to-evacuate-catholic-church-while-theres-still-time
Prolonged exposure to the corruption of the Catholic Church may cause theological confusion and disillusionment with God and the Bible, according to multiple peer-reviewed studies.
“Don’t try to tough it out, please,” said one disaster relief official. “Take your valuables and your loved ones and get out of there as soon as possible.”
Experts claim every time they issue an evacuation warning for Catholic worshipers, millions refuse to leave, staying behind rather than heeding the warning. “Don’t try to be a hero, don’t try to be brave, don’t try to reform things from the inside out—just exit in a calm, orderly fashion.”
In a rare moment of candor, Pope Francis addressed the authorities’ evacuation warning, claiming that he’s “hard at work” on important issues like overuse of plastic straws, climate change, and social justice. “There is nothing to fear. Please stay calm and do not evacuate while we work on these environmental problems.”
His efforts weren’t having any effect, so the reporter began trying to start up the chants himself. “Come on, people! Death to America! Death to America! When I say ‘Death to,’ you say, ‘America!’ Death to!” A shoe was thrown in his direction, though, and he scattered, fearing for his life.
Lol
Smiting the heathen has an honorable Biblical history.
Nice segue.
As nice as this?
You are formally invited to join Raph and I in our minimalist Catholic splinter church. We will meet in a cave, break bread, perform the ceremony and then discuss the philosophy. No singing, no pageantry.
So, the Society of St. Pius X?
Rebelling against Vatican II isn’t going far enough. We’re going back to the rules before Nicea.
Thomas Aquinas is CANCELLED
We’re going back to the rules before Nicea.
Thomas Aquinas is CANCELLED,
The Trinity too…
And St. Augustine.
Arianism wins.
I found you a shirt.
Too late. The pagans are reclaiming Christian traditions.
The tradition of no sugar?
https://bunnyears.com/return-pagan-roots-easter-shooting-vag-eggs-jessica-ellis/
By the way, I bought one of the 9 mm Satin Nickel Jerichos.
I’ll probably take it shooting this weekend, I have a steel .45 one and it dampens the recoil quite well so this might be like shooting a .22.
I really want one. But I’m refraining, choosing to instead save up for a new SP-01 + CGW mods.
People
Against
Goodness
And
Html?
Now I want a tall glass of milk.
My minimalist Orthodox group meets in a brothel and we drink scotch, have aone fun, then we pray for our sins and discuss philosophy
I’m sticking with my roots:
notoriously individualistic, hedonistic, and prone to violence.
“Perform the ceremony”?
That sounds like a euphemism… Does it involve a cracker?
Soggy Body of Christ?
As a “cultural Catholic” who supports organized religion, yet doesn’t believe in the central tenets, I found the article interesting. I will say that I was pretty lucky, growing up, to have screwed up enough that I was sent to a Catholic school with some serious scholars teaching. One was a mean son of a gun who had to leave Hungary in a hurry after charging at a tank. Brilliant man, and helped me to understand that the intellectual underpinnings of faith is more important than what one “feels” about religion.
Of course, one shouldn’t dismiss the importance of faith in regards to the well being of the individual. Although my only experience with the “divine” was in the form of communicating with a 5th dimensional space/time traveler who showed me creation (why, yes. Yes, I was taking massive amounts of hallucinogens in those days.) I find a degree of peace and comfort when I pray to god. It may be no more than a form of meditation, but praying the rosary, or direct prayer, has centered me during some difficult times.
Hell, end of the day it’s above my paygrade. I do, however, hope to get some answers in the end, and with any luck, get a chance to punch god in the snout for killing baby girls. If your ineffable plan involves that sort of shit, it’s not a very good plan.
My experience with hallucinogenics was equally revelatory, but I didn’t get any 5D beings. I did come away w/ the biggest question of all answered, however, and that’s all I needed. I think anyone with any intellectual ‘heft’ – and a lot of people without – has to go through a period of serious consideration of atheism, of the possibility this physical world is “it.” I have gone VERY far down that road and so I’m cool with atheists as a general matter. I “get” the inclination. That said, the ardent atheism that outright attacks people of faith from a place of arrogance feels like something else entirely, to me. Like, just maybe, Hitchens and “the lady doth protest too much.”
In any event, I think religious freedom, being able to believe whatever you want about how the universe is constituted and how and why life has meaning are the ultimate form of freedom. It is, literally, the freedom of the conscience. Speaking it out loud – free speech – is right behind that. The US was essentially founded as a colony of people fleeing religious persecution to pursue these ideas; that this essential component has been lost to our current culture is a huge loss, indeed. I suspect, but can’t prove, that the inclination of evangelicals to support those who talk about the country as being “founded upon Christian ideals” is really just a shorthand for understanding that we were founded upon the idea of being able to pursue God w/o any interference from the King, or any govt at all. But it would be better if someone would articulate that, rather than relying upon the lazy alternative.
Can’t stand those characters. It’s the reason I don’t even describe myself as “atheist” anymore even though it’s technically what I am.
I used to read Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, but it occurred to me at some point that sitting around reading about what I don’t believe in is kind of a waste of time, and I should instead direct myself to something positive that I do engage in. I just came to realize over time that making your atheism a key component of your life is kind of like calling yourself a non-skateboarder and wasting time on forums where you talk all about this thing that you don’t do.
I don’t think humans will ever truly find out how the universe came to be. The only thing science has given us so far is some “best guesses”, so I certainly don’t fault someone if they believe it was created (although I think deism is the closest I could get to religious belief).
The early chapters of Herbert Spencer’s book First Principles have some really interesting ideas about the limits of both science and religion on ascertaining “the beginning” and whether or not humans will ever truly know how all this stuff came into existence.
People do that all the time. Tony. Palin’s Buttplug.
Ideas matter. Wittingly or unwittingly Christianity adopted and spread ideas that became western civilization. For the oikophobes that is reason enough to hate the religion. For people who enjoy and appreciate the Civil Society it is a big plus. I am as solid an atheist as they come but I am no evangelical and I am a fan of Christianity. I am not going to debate the finer details of the religion because like all religions they are largely nonsensical and unfalsifiable.
The history of the church and the details of ‘God’s plan’ look an awful lot like human politics to me, yet without it we would not have rule of law, or the veneer of it, nor would we have the incredible prosperity and marvels of technology we have today.
Exactly. Sometimes my wife will try to discuss it with me and I listen, no skin off of my hide, and it makes her happy talking about God.
It helps that she is the nicest person I know.(not sure how she ended up with a cranky bastard)
I’m not a believer either, but I play guitar in a church praise band, and actually sit through the service rather than hang in the green room. I’m also doing the daily bible reading with my gf, though I’m not sure how my scholarly approach to it (simultaneously reading other translations and books that provide historical context) is going over with her – I think she’d prefer to accept the bible as-is rather than analyze it.
Religion fascinates me.
“Religion fascinates me.”
Spend your time instead studying the human mind. Most of the questions that puzzle people or that are thought of as unanswerable will blow away like a puff of smoke.
I do that as well. Everything about life and nature fascinates me. Being self-aware is the greatest mystery of all… to me.
The Upanishads are a great place to begin.
Maybe more churches should employ the services of I See Jesus .com?
Sadly, they seem to have been raptured and are no longer available.
Many times God will not allow such holy men to remain in our fallen world.
BTW, for any of you adventurous entrepreneurs out there, ISeeAllah.com is available as a domain. I’m sure you could make some real money there.
Why, another crazy conspiracy theory may not be so crazy after all.
TW: Glenn Beck. Would want to see some validation of this, but its a hell of a lot more plausible in light of what we have learned about the FBI since she was driven from polite society.
Look bro. They did a review and they are totally going to fix the FISA system. I mean they even have a panel with Sanchez and Andrew McCabe talking about it.
That definitely would have sounded crazy just 3 years ago.
Now? Sounds entirely plausible.
All I know is that if the snake bites me, somebody in the pews didn’t pray hard enough.
But if Suzy Rottencrotch in the back pew makes your snake spit, that means you prayed hard enough?
Some days I’m ” ‘murica, guns, and God”, most I’m “Normal”, and when being honest, I’m Broken.
Everyone’s broken. That’s how the light gets in.
Including links?
Apparently I need to lay off the rye until my pancreas recovers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX2xIW7Oa9c
Pancreases are overrated.
Well, the wild and awful shit in my life is fairly recent.
I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition.
Asking questions and pointing out contradictions was not well received, so I left it behind. I regret I was not able to get a more rigorous philosophical education as a result, but even if I had stayed in that church, I would not have.
You’re correct that most churchgoers are simply looking for comfort. The bigger questions are an anathema to them.
You forgot the subset of modern Protestantism that is obsessed with prophecy. They’re typically very evangelical and hellbent on saving you.
And praise bands suck.
Did I mention they suck?
When I was a kid, I got dumped off at Sunday School every week, even though neither of my parents were/are churchgoers. “Just in case” I guess. My memories of those sessions are nothing but a fog of tedium, bizarre analogies, and furtive disrespectful wise-cracking in the back row. Pretty much the same as Monday-through-Friday school.
Ok Trashy, I’ve read it. Very good.
Now, put together a reading for those of us needing a deeper understanding of Christianity.
Nice update on the Clinton Foundation. The chart alone is worth the click
As the late great columnist Charles Krauthammer put it, the foundation was “a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity” that was intended to help restore the Clintons to power.
Krauthammer died? I guess that’s good or he would be cancelled cause his name is RACCCIST!
Looks like well over a billion funneled through there. Wonder what it was spent on.
That’s why this “campaign finance reform” that the Left talks about is so fucking stupid. Every politician can just set up a money laundering “charity” as a front and continue raking in the big bucks just as before.
In fact, I’m pretty sure that any limits on political donations would just push the money into less transparent channels like fake charities, book sales, speaking fees, absurdly lucrative jobs for family members, etc.
Why, its almost like there is a black market for influence peddling.
I wonder why no one donates money to the Clinton charity anymore…
Read it. Absolutely brilliant.
*wild applause*
/nosarc
I can rebut nothing, as the same things are happening in my church (with theological/cultural twists, but not so much as to make any point).
My question: Say an evangelical church starts serving the meat along with the milk. How does the church, that pays its clergy and especially ones living on the edge of poverty with pastors who have day jobs, keep a congregation afloat after the exodus of those who don’t want that, and before attracting more who DO want that?
I know there has to be a population of unchurched out there who don’t go to church because of all milk, no meat, and weekly appearances by Stryper. They are left wanting but they are NOT seeking.
They’re dealing with that in my (soon to be former) church. The decline is for different reasons, but the solution is the same.
The answer is do less. It’s not an easy pill to swallow, but it’s the only viable solution.
There are more than a few one-room churches in my neck of the woods. If they can keep their doors open, a church of 500 can.
What if I told you that the leader of a church is permitted to… and maybe even should… have a day job?
Seriously, I can’t find anything in the bible suggesting that leading a church should be a vocation instead of an avocation. I also think that the preparation of a church service is the cooking of the meal that should be the center of the service. So my interpretation of what a church should look like is pretty out of step with, you know, the rest of the world.
I like it!
I mean, I know the modern christian bible is a morass of inconsistency, oblique lessons, and weird stories, but it says it right there in black and white!
14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Get ya boys. Get ya bread and drank on. And stay strapped or get clapped (Luke 22:36-38).
Modern Christians would be quite taken aback and probably offended if they attended an ancient gathering of Christians.
When is this much heralded era of the early Church? During the time of Roman persecution the Christian church already had bishops and apostates, so earlier than that?
I do believe he is referring to the time period documented in books containing the words “to” and “letter”.
What I’m saying is that there is only a very brief and very chaotic period of time in which Christianity had no form and was a series of semi-autonomous groupings.
In Paul’s time, Christianity was sort of a Jewish sect and not everyone even agreed that Jesus was the son of God. Which would suggest that they weren’t even Christian, since the divinity of Christ is central to Christianity. They all recognized Jesus as “Messiah”, but not everyone exalted him as divine within the early Christian Church.
So when was the “correct” Christianity?
When I’m doing it. Duh.
Dammit Leap, stealing my pithy answer before I could hit the submit button!
Then why pine for an era that never existed?
You mistake my pithy answer for agreeing that the 1st century in Jerusalem (and related locals) wasn’t a thing.
A chaotic sea of unaffiliated churches with doctrinal differences is exactly what I understand the Bible to be commanding us to go be.
A church is defined, in this understanding, as a community. Not a hierarchy or a building. It should have no form and be a series of semi-autonomous groupings.
So gnosticism?
The early church tries to come to an accord about certain things as documented in Acts when the apostles in Jerusalem make decisions about circumcision and eating meat offered to idols.
Though definitely less formal that current denominations.
Let’s get rid of the central tenant of Christianity (the divinity of Jesus) so that we can go back to a time where there is no clergy only because Christianity is a subset of Judaism that believes Jesus was the Messiah and therefore the Jewish clergy views us as apostates?
Eliminating Christianity to save Christianity
More like Anarcho-Christianity + the academic academy, but yea, not too far off. The authority on what is right is already off the planet, we need to figure it out for ourselves. See Moj’s comments elsewhere about here spiritual leaders fucking up the basics. Why would I cede authority to those who demonstrate they don’t deserve it?
I have never and would never doubt the divinity of Christ. That’s something you are putting in other people’s mouths. You are usually better than that.
“See Moj’s comments elsewhere about here spiritual leaders fucking up the basics. Why would I cede authority to those who demonstrate they don’t deserve it?”
That’s fine if that’s what your qualm is, but let’s not pretend like this hearkens back to some mythical era of Christianity that literally never existed.
Pulling out the early ‘church’ in Jerusalem does not support the argument as that early ‘church’ was not, by definition, ‘Christian’. Believing that Jesus was the messiah is not the central teaching of Christianity. Muslims accept Jesus as the messiah, as well.
Paul was very specifically anti-gnostic, so, no. There was no hidden knowledge in 1st century Christianity, they even had access to direct witnesses.
“That’s something you are putting in other people’s mouths.”
You misunderstand. I’m not saying you or anyone else is saying that. I’m saying that’s what the ‘church’ in Jerusalem believed.
The push for Jesus’ divinity as a central tenant of the faith begins when Christianity breaks from Judaism. The ‘church’ in Jerusalem was not Christian, by definition.
I don’t think there is any date after pentecost in which the early church can be called non-christian.
What you might think about it between the ascension and pentecost is one thing, but once the holy spirit came into the believers at pentecost, the church was the christian church.
This is descending into sophistry.
Jerusalem in the first century AD.
Then you’re not pining for Christianity, you’re pining for Jewish Christianity in which Jesus is not the son of god and there is no trinity.
So then why not just say you want to go back to the old Jewish form and practice Judaism, but with Jesus as the Messiah?
See @Caput Lupinum’s comment above:
“So gnosticism?”
St. Paul’s existence, for one.
Then the apostles, particularly the martyrs.
They did not have day jobs. In fact, the believer Lydia, seller of purple, who was a very savvy and rich businesswoman in her own right, financially supported Paul’s ministry quite a bit.
There is a pervasive myth that took hold during the late Medieval Age that there was some heralded era of Christianity in which there was no clergy, but the theology of Christianity was exactly the same.
That was literally never existed, but the myth persists.
Its pretty clear that Paul fucked up Jesus’ teaching faster than the US founding fathers fucked up the 1st amendment. He was also telling people not to get married and have kids.
Agree completely.
Then St. Augustine came along and mutilated whatever scraps may have been left.
I forget, does my sarcometer detect sarcasm or sarcomas?
I wasn’t being sarcastic, so…Yes?
I go and muddle through an incredibly boring 1 hour of boredom every week because there are no alternatives, and because my wife (bless her heart) is not exactly a meat eater. She listens to the milk and its the deepest thing she’ll engage with all week.
If it wasn’t for her, I would be part of that population.
I would prefer more meat, but honestly, I need the milk at times too.
I think we are all in group 4. Which doesnt mean we arent in other groups too.
Maybe living in poverty – and not on the edge of it – is part of what it really takes to be a “real” church? That’s not sarc because a friend has asked me for some legal help in establishing a church and this is a subject we’ve touched upon. Maybe a church shouldn’t have a business model? Maybe it should. I’m not 100% sure, but I know the early Christian church didn’t – they got used as human torches by Nero and most wound up dead. Brings us back to the verse about the rich and getting into heaven, I guess.
It’s as if organized faith is either subject to the market or to coercion.
But the idea that the “virtue signaling” market is bigger than the “spiritual” market is nothing new. The Pharisees were the virtue signalers and Jesus was the spiritual guide and, well, we know how that turned out.
Jesus got whipped and crucified?
My God is a God of vengeance and anger and could kick your god’s ass.
Now we’re getting somewhere.
Let the smiting commence
Teachers, parents and their supporters brought the Florida state capital’s downtown to a standstill Monday as they protested what they said has been a systematic attack on public education dating to the 1990s.
Thousands of protesters in red T-shirts, some carrying signs that said “I shouldn’t have to marry a sugar daddy to teach,” marched from the campus of Florida State University to the state Capitol, blocking traffic in the heart of downtown.
Some boarded buses in South Florida at 3 a.m. to be in Tallahassee for the 1:30 p.m. demonstration organized by the Florida Education Association teachers’ union.
The march and rally, featuring national labor unions, was designed to focus public attention on what teachers claim is the Legislature’s failure to adequately provide money for public schools.
Indeed. Why, just the other day, I saw barefoot children huddled together for warmth learning arithmetic by manipulating groups of pebbles by the light of a whale oil lamp. It brought a tear to my eye.
Fire them all. Public employees should not be allowed to strike.
Or collectively bargain. No union contracts.
Oh, they must be talking about the funding going nowhere but up.
Well why not get a job during that 3 months of paid vacation that you get every year?
This seems a bit on the nose…
Undercover footage released by Project Veritas on Tuesday shows a field organizer for Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) 2020 campaign warning that liberals will “get the fucking wall first” in a socialist revolution.
The remark, uttered by an individual identified as Kyle Jurek, was prompted by a Project Veritas journalist, who asked: “Guys like that (liberals), what are we going to do with them?”
“Gulag,” Jurek quipped with a laugh, before adding: “Liberals get the fucking wall first.”
Then again, these commies/fascists are true bleevers that have a history of projecting their desired violence on to others.
“In Nazi Germany, after the fall of the Nazi Party, there was a shit-ton of the populace that was fucking Nazified,” said the Sanders campaigner.
“Germany had to spend billions of dollars re-educating their fucking people to not be Nazis,” he continues. “We’re probably going to have to do the same fucking thing here. That’s kind of what all Bernie’s whole fucking like, ‘hey, free education for everybody’ because we’re going to have to teach you to not be a fucking Nazi.”
“[The] greatest way to break a fucking billionaire of their privilege and their idea that their superior, go and break rocks for 12 hours a day. You’re now a working class person and you’re going to fucking learn what the means, right?” he adds.
Who are the fascists again?
This is who they have always been, they just don’t admit it much and most people cant face the truth of it. These types are the same ones that got power in all of the greatest totalitarian regimes in the 20th century. We have ’em too but the system here doesn’t allow them to act out their agenda. That is why they are trying so hard to tear our system down and they have no shortage of useful idiots helping them.
Interesting that he openly admits those useful idiots ‘get the wall first’. Same ‘ol shit and the useful idiots cant see it coming.
That’s kind of what all Bernie’s whole fucking like, ‘hey, free education for everybody’ because we’re going to have to teach you to not be a fucking Nazi.”
Sounds familiar
( from Theodore and Woodrow by Judge Nap)
The progressives were completely open about what they were doing and nothing was done. ugh.
Who does he mean exactly by ‘liberals’?
People on the left side of the isle who are not on board with Revolutionary Whatever. You might know them as “useful idiots”.
Point of agreement between the Right and the Revolutionary Whatevers – we both agree that the Revolutionary Whatevers will put the liberals up against the wall first. We say it as a warning, they say it with glee.
Think George Orwell post Spain, MLK, or the Kennedy brother.
“[The] greatest way to break a fucking billionaire of their privilege and their idea that their superior, go and break rocks for 12 hours a day. You’re now a working class person and you’re going to fucking learn what the means, right?” he adds.
“It breaks the rocks, or it gets the bullet.”
“It breaks the rocks, then it gets the bullet.”
Fixed it for you.
It tickles me to no end that the guy saying this is a volunteer for a millionaire who was so fucking lazy that he was kicked out of a hippie commune. WORKING CLASS SOLIDARITY!!!!!!
Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.
Everyone is equal except the leaders. That’s why they’re leaders.
Very interesting article and I very much want to join the discussion, but alas mammon intervened and I must draft a Letter of Intent that I may continue to eat.
Then you enter orders, Limey!
I was raised in a fairly typical (read: observant but not devout) Catholic family, what with the Irish and Italian background and all. I was a nominal Catholic until college, when I went first through a militant atheist phase and then a shrugging agnostic phase. Didn’t think much about religion for a long time until, a few years after I got married, my wife started to become a regular churchgoer. My wife is Lutheran, and as she is the more devout one, I went along with that. Despite having fallen away from Catholicism, culturally I always felt queasy around the sing-songy kind of Protestant services, the kind with all the clapping. Fortunately, Missouri Synod services are generally very similar to Catholic Mass. I like solemnity.
It sounds corny, but my kids being born did bring about at least a bit of a spiritual awakening in me. I’m not a very good Christian – I’m too much of a natural misanthrope for that – but I do try.
Regarding legalism:
It is my observation that people want rules. There are the ones who want to know what they are so they will not stray out of bounds. There are the ones who want to know what they are so they will know when they’ve broken them (willfully or not). There are the ones who want to know so they can narrow the field and keep everyone in line. But most people like rules and they like them to be pretty specific.
Regarding bureaucracy (which probably ties into the maximum number of people for an effective group effort):
As any community grows, it must have leadership. A bureaucracy is a naturally occurring phenomenon in reaction to growth. Happens in the PTA. happens in the Junior League. Happens at Goodwill. It’s just gonna happen.
Regarding legalism as it relates to bureaucracy:
And when the bureaucracy starts growing, homogenization and dumbing-down will occur. There’s no way around it.
Dangit. Entered the discussion too late. Stupid Walmart.
Nice article trshy.