Which direction is Christianity going? (2 Viewers)

[Bob Sacamano]

I think the bulk of the problem GM references is that a great number of people who profess to be Christian are failing to put their Christianity first, where it is supposed to be. They're Britons/Germans/Americans first. Or they're Republicans/Democrats first. Or they're socialists/capitalists first. Or consumers or Millennials or content creators or NASCAR fans or Marvel groupies or fantasy football dorks or BlueSky users or Target protestors or mafioso or pick your identity of the moment.

If you're living your life with Christ at the center of it, the thought process should be, "What did Jesus believe about this? OK. That's my guidepost. Now, how does that impact my decision making in all aspects of life, regardless of my other identities?"

But in practice, it becomes, "What decision do I want to make as a result of my being a British-Republican-Socialist-Millennial-Comic-Con attending influencer on X who only uses an iPhone? Well, that must be what Jesus would want because I'm Christian."

That contradiction or hypocrisy or whatever term you want to put on it is as hard to overcome for some people as a belief in resurrection.

ETA: But that direction seems to be increasingly what I see from the Christians with whom I regularly interact.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't want to derail this thread because it's a good one, so feel free to delete this (or I'm happy to do so) but saw this today and it just made me think about your thread.

This is the sort of thing that irritates me to no end. The true teachings of Jesus Christ are far more aligned with Pope Francis than the people shouting loudly that they want a 'different' sort of Pope this time around. It's often the vocal minority that screams the loudest and gets the attention - amplified by social media - but it really irks me that a group of people who claim to be Christian say and do things that are incongruous to the true teachings of Jesus.

Agree 1000% So many churches these days preach their version of the bible or simply don't crack the book open at all. There is a megachurch in Charlotte, Elevation, who's pastor Steven Furtick is simply a motivational speaker that infuses Christianity when it suits but boy does he put on a good show. It's a concert level presentation with a message sandwiched in there somewhere. I understand it appeals to an audience and with attendance well over 10,000 on various campuses around the city, it obviously appeals to a lot of folks. It's not what I look for from church and if I'm being honest, I don't really consider it a church.

Which circles back to a theme in this thread, Christians being judgmental so I should probably just shut up.

Well, to be fair, there's a non-Christian in here being judgmental too, so I should probably do the same. Thanks for the reply, GB.

Maybe we should just go have a beer?

I think there's a ton of truth in that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think the bulk of the problem GM references is that a great number of people who profess to be Christian are failing to put their Christianity first, where it is supposed to be. They're Britons/Germans/Americans first. Or they're Republicans/Democrats first. Or they're socialists/capitalists first. Or consumers or Millennials or content creators or NASCAR fans or Marvel groupies or fantasy football dorks or BlueSky users or Target protestors or mafioso or pick your identity of the moment.

If you're living your life with Christ at the center of it, the thought process should be, "What did Jesus believe about this? OK. That's my guidepost. Now, how does that impact my decision making in all aspects of life, regardless of my other identities?"

But in practice, it becomes, "What decision do I want to make as a result of my being a British-Republican-Socialist-Millennial-Comic-Con attending influencer on X who only uses an iPhone? Well, that must be what Jesus would want because I'm Christian."

That contradiction or hypocrisy or whatever term you want to put on it is as hard to overcome for some people as a belief in resurrection.

ETA: But that direction seems to be increasingly what I see from the Christians with whom I regularly interact.

Thanks. Failing to walk the walk is a challenge for Christians. I regularly fail there. And here I fail as well if I write something that is seen as unkind or condescending.

What specific things do you see Christians failing with that you interact with?

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Sinned on Saturday, saved on Sunday is a notion i see often. Seems to be an issue imo when taken so literally. It's a loophole that seems to get abused. I hear all about the Christian way, but actually witness it very little outside of occasional community outreach. Just an observation and why I take words with a grain of salt and rely on the actions i see from those of faith around me. This isn't to say i have anything against people of faith, quite the opposite. Those that walk the walk have my highest respect. I just happen to see a lot of Christian in name, but not in action. Being saved is an awesome reward, but going through the motions 1hr a week and then feeling there's license to forget the other 167hrs is what passes in my circle, both family and otherwise. Is that good enough, maybe it is, not for me to judge, but i do notice.

 

[pecorino]

I think Christianity began leaning to the left in the 60s and kept moving further and further in that direction into 2000. From 2000 until about now, it's either kept going left or folks just abandoned Christianity altogether to seek spirituality how they saw fit, apart from dogma.

I think the pendulum now is shifting and we will see a rise in more old-school, traditional Christianity. Since I doubt that'll be Catholicism, I envision more growth in the Orthodox church as well as other more established Christian denominations that provide more structure and stability.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I think the bulk of the problem GM references is that a great number of people who profess to be Christian are failing to put their Christianity first, where it is supposed to be. They're Britons/Germans/Americans first. Or they're Republicans/Democrats first. Or they're socialists/capitalists first. Or consumers or Millennials or content creators or NASCAR fans or Marvel groupies or fantasy football dorks or BlueSky users or Target protestors or mafioso or pick your identity of the moment.

If you're living your life with Christ at the center of it, the thought process should be, "What did Jesus believe about this? OK. That's my guidepost. Now, how does that impact my decision making in all aspects of life, regardless of my other identities?"

But in practice, it becomes, "What decision do I want to make as a result of my being a British-Republican-Socialist-Millennial-Comic-Con attending influencer on X who only uses an iPhone? Well, that must be what Jesus would want because I'm Christian."

That contradiction or hypocrisy or whatever term you want to put on it is as hard to overcome for some people as a belief in resurrection.

ETA: But that direction seems to be increasingly what I see from the Christians with whom I regularly interact.

Thanks. Failing to walk the walk is a challenge for Christians. I regularly fail there. And here I fail as well if I write something that is seen as unkind or condescending.

What specific things do you see Christians failing that you interact with?

I think we're talking about two different things. Failing because you're human is a natural condition. It's going to happen no matter what you do or how hard you try. I'm talking more using religion to justify the things you want to justify because you've grown to believe them for reasons other than your belief in Christ. Or misbelieve they're consistent with your belief in Christ.

I'm going to post the most honest response I can give to that question since you're here and you're the one asking. You can decide if you want to leave it here or not. Because I'm firmly aware that if you were not here, it would be well over the line. I'll try to keep the potential offense limited to the next paragraph, between the asterisks. NOBODY SHOULD READ BETWEEN THE ASTERISKS. IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO OFFEND YOU. If you want/are able to delete just that paragraph as a result, go for it. I think the rest of this will fall in line and be survivable without it. But it's context that will help you understand the generic terms of the rest of my answer, I think.

***

(blewsout)
Many of my friends attend the same church I attend. Political differences are across the spectrum. A number of conservatives, as you'd expect, many of whom are Trump voters. Contrary to popular belief, a number of heathen liberals as well. When we talk politics, they all hate me, because like Slumpbusters upthread, I would describe myself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. And while I can already hear bigbottom and fatguy saying I'm full of it, as those two things are incompatible, it's the best descriptor I can give. I don't care who you sleep with or if you want to be a woman instead of a man. I think we need to provide outlets for helping people who can't help themselves. I believe in efforts to bridge different starting points in life, but that different ending points are acceptable and don't need to be legislated. I also believe government is generally too large, inefficient, and wasteful, but I've also evolved my thinking over the years as to the utility of some of the things that exist that I used to object to as wasteful and inefficient. I also believe we tax the wealthy too little and the middle class too much, but I don't believe billionaires shouldn't exist or that there's a point where something approaching a 100% tax rate is acceptable. And other than maybe not caring who you sleep with, I think most of those positions are pretty consistent with what Jesus would believe. So my Trump voting friends struggle with the fact that, for example, I support cuts to government while believing Trump's wildly misguided (because "how", "who", and "why" matter). And my ultra-liberal friends struggle with the fact that, for example, I'm not for taxing billionaires in any and every way possible (because "how" matters and also has consequences). I have a business degree, and the concept of wherewithal to pay still carries weight to me. And no, the fact that you're a billionaire doesn't inherently mean you're able to easily pay. Again, just examples. God created woman from man, yes? There's no room for confusion there, Charlie Kirk? Maybe we're full circle. Maybe you care a little too much about other people's business. I digress.

***

That's for context. I'll try to rein it in now and be more generic. So, when one member of my friend group says, "I vote my values," my response to that is, "Do you? Are you sure? Have you thought through what that means?" Because I don't know how you listen to the same sermon I listened to and draw the conclusion that the way we're treating people at the moment matches the message delivered by our pastor. I think you've determined based on your other chosen identities (referenced above) that you support a certain group of positions and that those match your values because you're a Christian with wholesome values. If what you mean is, "I see more on the other side that contradicts my values than things that contradict my values on this side," then maybe you're closer to the mark. But I'd expect less fervent support for your current position and a recognition that the people who disagree with you might have valid viewpoints. Those things are generally lacking. How can you say, "You agree with me or you hate America" from either side while recognizing your side has many flaws that conflict with your ideology?

I also find the frequent response, "That's not what god intended" to be incredibly arrogant. Unless you can point me to an excerpt of scripture that overtly says what you're espousing, don't tell me you KNOW what god intended. What I think people generally mean is, "That's not what my chosen identity believes based on my experiences and the things I've come to believe about scripture, without having something specific to point to my belief". And those are really two different things. And I know those are going to sound like conservative bashing statements. That's not intended. Expand beyond stereotypes of religion (e.g., I'm sure Jesus would be OK with eating the rich. Right? Or destroying someone else's property in the name of protest. This cuts both ways, as intended. I hate both your parties for very different reasons.)

Yes, I attend church. Almost weekly. I tithe as well. Those things will be shocking to even some of the people who know me best here and from beyond here. If my religious experience had a Facebook page, its relationship status would definitely be, "It's complicated."

Anyway, I'm around these people all the time. I know them well. I have for 16+ years. They're good people, left and right alike. And if I know those things and struggle with the seeming inconsistency of their placing their other beliefs ahead of the belief that's supposed to be primary to them, how is that going to impact someone who sees it without knowing them at all? And it's certainly an easy target for people who are looking to make it so.

 

[AAABatteries]

Anyway, I'm around these people all the time. I know them well. I have for 16+ years. They're good people, left and right alike. And if I know those things and struggle with the seeming inconsistency of their placing their other beliefs ahead of the belief that's supposed to be primary to them, how is that going to impact someone who sees it without knowing them at all? And it's certainly an easy target for people who are looking to make it so.

Really

It’s hard enough for me to reconcile what people I know do (and sometimes directly in the name of Christianity) - I can only imagine what others think

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think the bulk of the problem GM references is that a great number of people who profess to be Christian are failing to put their Christianity first, where it is supposed to be. They're Britons/Germans/Americans first. Or they're Republicans/Democrats first. Or they're socialists/capitalists first. Or consumers or Millennials or content creators or NASCAR fans or Marvel groupies or fantasy football dorks or BlueSky users or Target protestors or mafioso or pick your identity of the moment.

If you're living your life with Christ at the center of it, the thought process should be, "What did Jesus believe about this? OK. That's my guidepost. Now, how does that impact my decision making in all aspects of life, regardless of my other identities?"

But in practice, it becomes, "What decision do I want to make as a result of my being a British-Republican-Socialist-Millennial-Comic-Con attending influencer on X who only uses an iPhone? Well, that must be what Jesus would want because I'm Christian."

That contradiction or hypocrisy or whatever term you want to put on it is as hard to overcome for some people as a belief in resurrection.

ETA: But that direction seems to be increasingly what I see from the Christians with whom I regularly interact.

Thanks. Failing to walk the walk is a challenge for Christians. I regularly fail there. And here I fail as well if I write something that is seen as unkind or condescending.

What specific things do you see Christians failing that you interact with?

I think we're talking about two different things. Failing because you're human is a natural condition. It's going to happen no matter what you do or how hard you try. I'm talking more using religion to justify the things you want to justify because you've grown to believe them for reasons other than your belief in Christ. Or misbelieve they're consistent with your belief in Christ.

I'm going to post the most honest response I can give to that question since you're here and you're the one asking. You can decide if you want to leave it here or not. Because I'm firmly aware that if you were not here, it would be well over the line. I'll try to keep the potential offense limited to the next paragraph, between the asterisks. NOBODY SHOULD READ BETWEEN THE ASTERISKS. IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO OFFEND YOU. If you want/are able to delete just that paragraph as a result, go for it. I think the rest of this will fall in line and be survivable without it. But it's context that will help you understand the generic terms of the rest of my answer, I think.

***

(blewsout)
Many of my friends attend the same church I attend. Political differences are across the spectrum. A number of conservatives, as you'd expect, many of whom are Trump voters. Contrary to popular belief, a number of heathen liberals as well. When we talk politics, they all hate me, because like Slumpbusters upthread, I would describe myself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. And while I can already hear bigbottom and fatguy saying I'm full of it, as those two things are incompatible, it's the best descriptor I can give. I don't care who you sleep with or if you want to be a woman instead of a man. I think we need to provide outlets for helping people who can't help themselves. I believe in efforts to bridge different starting points in life, but that different ending points are acceptable and don't need to be legislated. I also believe government is generally too large, inefficient, and wasteful, but I've also evolved my thinking over the years as to the utility of some of the things that exist that I used to object to as wasteful and inefficient. I also believe we tax the wealthy too little and the middle class too much, but I don't believe billionaires shouldn't exist or that there's a point where something approaching a 100% tax rate is acceptable. And other than maybe not caring who you sleep with, I think most of those positions are pretty consistent with what Jesus would believe. So my Trump voting friends struggle with the fact that, for example, I support cuts to government while believing Trump's wildly misguided (because "how", "who", and "why" matter). And my ultra-liberal friends struggle with the fact that, for example, I'm not for taxing billionaires in any and every way possible (because "how" matters and also has consequences). I have a business degree, and the concept of wherewithal to pay still carries weight to me. And no, the fact that you're a billionaire doesn't inherently mean you're able to easily pay. Again, just examples. God created woman from man, yes? There's no room for confusion there, Charlie Kirk? Maybe we're full circle. Maybe you care a little too much about other people's business. I digress.

***

That's for context. I'll try to rein it in now and be more generic. So, when one member of my friend group says, "I vote my values," my response to that is, "Do you? Are you sure? Have you thought through what that means?" Because I don't know how you listen to the same sermon I listened to and draw the conclusion that the way we're treating people at the moment matches the message delivered by our pastor. I think you've determined based on your other chosen identities (referenced above) that you support a certain group of positions and that those match your values because you're a Christian with wholesome values. If what you mean is, "I see more on the other side that contradicts my values than things that contradict my values on this side," then maybe you're closer to the mark. But I'd expect less fervent support for your current position and a recognition that the people who disagree with you might have valid viewpoints. Those things are generally lacking. How can you say, "You agree with me or you hate America" from either side while recognizing your side has many flaws that conflict with your ideology?

I also find the frequent response, "That's not what god intended" to be incredibly arrogant. Unless you can point me to an excerpt of scripture that overtly says what you're espousing, don't tell me you KNOW what god intended. What I think people generally mean is, "That's not what my chosen identity believes based on my experiences and the things I've come to believe about scripture, without having something specific to point to my belief". And those are really two different things. And I know those are going to sound like conservative bashing statements. That's not intended. Expand beyond stereotypes of religion (e.g., I'm sure Jesus would be OK with eating the rich. Right? Or destroying someone else's property in the name of protest. This cuts both ways, as intended. I hate both your parties for very different reasons.)

Yes, I attend church. Almost weekly. I tithe as well. Those things will be shocking to even some of the people who know me best here and from beyond here. If my religious experience had a Facebook page, its relationship status would definitely be, "It's complicated."

Anyway, I'm around these people all the time. I know them well. I have for 16+ years. They're good people, left and right alike. And if I know those things and struggle with the seeming inconsistency of their placing their other beliefs ahead of the belief that's supposed to be primary to them, how is that going to impact someone who sees it without knowing them at all? And it's certainly an easy target for people who are looking to make it so.

Thanks for the honest sharing. It's only "over the line" as it veers deeper into politics and we don't do that here anymore.

But I didn't read a single line here that was remotely offensive. Not in the least.

It used to be a punchline in the PSF, but lots of my friends, many of whom are Christian, are also Conservative. And very quietly voted for Trump. I personally find that difficult to reconcile.

But I'll also say, I think my faith and politics can be separate. And I think Christians can easily take issue with both parties for planks in the platform.

I personally don't think there was an obvious political choice for Christians. Maybe I'm in the minority there. But my Conservative Christian friends had zero issue with me not voting for Trump. And maybe I'm being naive, but I don't have an issue with who they vote for. As you said about your Facebook profile and your faith, it's complicated.

And more to the point, people are complicated.

I find I do way better trying to focus on how my faith impacts my daily life and the things I can control. How I treat people and how I interact with others. From my wife to my family to our Footballguys Staff to my friends to the forum and to anyone I come into contact with. That's where I think my focus is most useful.

As I said, I fail there plenty. So it feels like I have lots to be concerned with there first.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sinned on Saturday, saved on Sunday is a notion i see often. Seems to be an issue imo when taken so literally. It's a loophole that seems to get abused. I hear all about the Christian way, but actually witness it very little outside of occasional community outreach. Just an observation and why I take words with a grain of salt and rely on the actions i see from those of faith around me. This isn't to say i have anything against people of faith, quite the opposite. Those that walk the walk have my highest respect. I just happen to see a lot of Christian in name, but not in action. Being saved is an awesome reward, but going through the motions 1hr a week and then feeling there's license to forget the other 167hrs is what passes in my circle, both family and otherwise. Is that good enough, maybe it is, not for me to judge, but i do notice.

Our former pastor used an example on that I thought was good.

A lamb and a pig will both get muddy.

But the lamb tries to clean itself up. And the pig seems to be fine with wallowing in it.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I think the bulk of the problem GM references is that a great number of people who profess to be Christian are failing to put their Christianity first, where it is supposed to be. They're Britons/Germans/Americans first. Or they're Republicans/Democrats first. Or they're socialists/capitalists first. Or consumers or Millennials or content creators or NASCAR fans or Marvel groupies or fantasy football dorks or BlueSky users or Target protestors or mafioso or pick your identity of the moment.

If you're living your life with Christ at the center of it, the thought process should be, "What did Jesus believe about this? OK. That's my guidepost. Now, how does that impact my decision making in all aspects of life, regardless of my other identities?"

But in practice, it becomes, "What decision do I want to make as a result of my being a British-Republican-Socialist-Millennial-Comic-Con attending influencer on X who only uses an iPhone? Well, that must be what Jesus would want because I'm Christian."

That contradiction or hypocrisy or whatever term you want to put on it is as hard to overcome for some people as a belief in resurrection.

ETA: But that direction seems to be increasingly what I see from the Christians with whom I regularly interact.

Thanks. Failing to walk the walk is a challenge for Christians. I regularly fail there. And here I fail as well if I write something that is seen as unkind or condescending.

What specific things do you see Christians failing that you interact with?

I think we're talking about two different things. Failing because you're human is a natural condition. It's going to happen no matter what you do or how hard you try. I'm talking more using religion to justify the things you want to justify because you've grown to believe them for reasons other than your belief in Christ. Or misbelieve they're consistent with your belief in Christ.

I'm going to post the most honest response I can give to that question since you're here and you're the one asking. You can decide if you want to leave it here or not. Because I'm firmly aware that if you were not here, it would be well over the line. I'll try to keep the potential offense limited to the next paragraph, between the asterisks. NOBODY SHOULD READ BETWEEN THE ASTERISKS. IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO OFFEND YOU. If you want/are able to delete just that paragraph as a result, go for it. I think the rest of this will fall in line and be survivable without it. But it's context that will help you understand the generic terms of the rest of my answer, I think.

***

(blewsout)
Many of my friends attend the same church I attend. Political differences are across the spectrum. A number of conservatives, as you'd expect, many of whom are Trump voters. Contrary to popular belief, a number of heathen liberals as well. When we talk politics, they all hate me, because like Slumpbusters upthread, I would describe myself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. And while I can already hear bigbottom and fatguy saying I'm full of it, as those two things are incompatible, it's the best descriptor I can give. I don't care who you sleep with or if you want to be a woman instead of a man. I think we need to provide outlets for helping people who can't help themselves. I believe in efforts to bridge different starting points in life, but that different ending points are acceptable and don't need to be legislated. I also believe government is generally too large, inefficient, and wasteful, but I've also evolved my thinking over the years as to the utility of some of the things that exist that I used to object to as wasteful and inefficient. I also believe we tax the wealthy too little and the middle class too much, but I don't believe billionaires shouldn't exist or that there's a point where something approaching a 100% tax rate is acceptable. And other than maybe not caring who you sleep with, I think most of those positions are pretty consistent with what Jesus would believe. So my Trump voting friends struggle with the fact that, for example, I support cuts to government while believing Trump's wildly misguided (because "how", "who", and "why" matter). And my ultra-liberal friends struggle with the fact that, for example, I'm not for taxing billionaires in any and every way possible (because "how" matters and also has consequences). I have a business degree, and the concept of wherewithal to pay still carries weight to me. And no, the fact that you're a billionaire doesn't inherently mean you're able to easily pay. Again, just examples. God created woman from man, yes? There's no room for confusion there, Charlie Kirk? Maybe we're full circle. Maybe you care a little too much about other people's business. I digress.

***

That's for context. I'll try to rein it in now and be more generic. So, when one member of my friend group says, "I vote my values," my response to that is, "Do you? Are you sure? Have you thought through what that means?" Because I don't know how you listen to the same sermon I listened to and draw the conclusion that the way we're treating people at the moment matches the message delivered by our pastor. I think you've determined based on your other chosen identities (referenced above) that you support a certain group of positions and that those match your values because you're a Christian with wholesome values. If what you mean is, "I see more on the other side that contradicts my values than things that contradict my values on this side," then maybe you're closer to the mark. But I'd expect less fervent support for your current position and a recognition that the people who disagree with you might have valid viewpoints. Those things are generally lacking. How can you say, "You agree with me or you hate America" from either side while recognizing your side has many flaws that conflict with your ideology?

I also find the frequent response, "That's not what god intended" to be incredibly arrogant. Unless you can point me to an excerpt of scripture that overtly says what you're espousing, don't tell me you KNOW what god intended. What I think people generally mean is, "That's not what my chosen identity believes based on my experiences and the things I've come to believe about scripture, without having something specific to point to my belief". And those are really two different things. And I know those are going to sound like conservative bashing statements. That's not intended. Expand beyond stereotypes of religion (e.g., I'm sure Jesus would be OK with eating the rich. Right? Or destroying someone else's property in the name of protest. This cuts both ways, as intended. I hate both your parties for very different reasons.)

Yes, I attend church. Almost weekly. I tithe as well. Those things will be shocking to even some of the people who know me best here and from beyond here. If my religious experience had a Facebook page, its relationship status would definitely be, "It's complicated."

Anyway, I'm around these people all the time. I know them well. I have for 16+ years. They're good people, left and right alike. And if I know those things and struggle with the seeming inconsistency of their placing their other beliefs ahead of the belief that's supposed to be primary to them, how is that going to impact someone who sees it without knowing them at all? And it's certainly an easy target for people who are looking to make it so.

Thanks for the honest sharing. It's only "over the line" as it veers deeper into politics and we don't do that here anymore.

But I didn't read a single line here that was remotely offensive. Not in the least.

It used to be a punchline in the PSF, but lots of my friends, many of whom are Christian, are also Conservative. And very quietly voted for Trump. I personally find that difficult to reconcile.

But I'll also say, I think my faith and politics can be separate. And I think Christians can easily take issue with both parties for planks in the platform.

I personally don't think there was an obvious political choice for Christians. Maybe I'm in the minority there. But my Conservative Christian friends had zero issue with me not voting for Trump. And maybe I'm being naive, but I don't have an issue with who they vote for. As you said about your Facebook profile and your faith, it's complicated.

And more to the point, people are complicated.

I find I do way better trying to focus on how my faith impacts my daily life and the things I can control. How I treat people and how I interact with others. From my wife to my family to our Footballguys Staff to my friends to the forum and to anyone I come into contact with. That's where I think my focus is most useful.

As I said, I fail there plenty. So it feels like I have lots to be concerned with there first.

On the contrary, I find the people who very quietly voted for Trump easier to reconcile. As I said above, if someone wants to say to me, "I actually think Kamala's positions are more counter- to Christ's teachings because of X. Y, and Z, so while I find Trump abhorrent as a person and some of his policies are contrary to my beliefs, I think most of his actions are Christ-centered because A, B, and C," I can at least follow. But those people aren't fanatical. They're weighing the good and bad and drawing what they think is the best conclusion. OK. I may disagree. Vehemently. But OK.

The sign planting, rally attending, with us or against us, 'Murica, RINO branding, anti-DEI, anti-woke candidate idolizing Christian? That person has chosen Party-Country-Faith, in that order. But they wouldn't tell you that if you asked. And that's irreconcilable to me.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And, fwiw, someone can make similar statements about people on the other side. I own a Tesla. I have friends who are OK with what's being done to Teslas and Tesla dealerships. Because it's in the name of the greater good. No, it's not. And I'd like to think I'd feel that way even if I didn't own a Tesla. There's no way you're telling me your faith supports this. It's inexcusable. Vincent Vega is in the right here. Not you.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I don't want to derail this thread because it's a good one, so feel free to delete this (or I'm happy to do so) but saw this today and it just made me think about your thread.

This is the sort of thing that irritates me to no end. The true teachings of Jesus Christ are far more aligned with Pope Francis than the people shouting loudly that they want a 'different' sort of Pope this time around. It's often the vocal minority that screams the loudest and gets the attention - amplified by social media - but it really irks me that a group of people who claim to be Christian say and do things that are incongruous to the true teachings of Jesus.

Agree 1000% So many churches these days preach their version of the bible or simply don't crack the book open at all. There is a megachurch in Charlotte, Elevation, who's pastor Steven Furtick is simply a motivational speaker that infuses Christianity when it suits but boy does he put on a good show. It's a concert level presentation with a message sandwiched in there somewhere. I understand it appeals to an audience and with attendance well over 10,000 on various campuses around the city, it obviously appeals to a lot of folks. It's not what I look for from church and if I'm being honest, I don't really consider it a church.

Which circles back to a theme in this thread, Christians being judgmental so I should probably just shut up.

My parents went here for a bit. Left when they heard members talking about how lucky they were to have Furtick to follow. Pops said the dude had a good academic basis in the Bible for teaching, but the group worship of him before God turned him off.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Done ranting.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Done ranting.

Thanks for sharing. I think you are seeing it reasonably.

If I'm understanding, I think where we differ is, at least with the people and situations I encounter, I'm able to separate politics from faith.

I'm sorry you're in a different spot it sounds with the people you're dealing with.

I tire of seeing Mel Robbins everywhere I look with her repackaged Stoic stuff, but there is some deeper truth in the "Let them" thought. At some point, I can't control what they're doing. And I don't know all that goes into their likely complicated lives. So I tend to be ok with detaching and letting folks do what they do. Where that falls apart is when them doing what they're doing makes it more difficult for me to do what I am trying to do. But that's part of it.

 

[belljr]

I know there's examples for everything out there, but when you have a supposed strong Christian posting, I hope the next pope isn't a woke Pope that's where people get aggravated

Fox News Priest Wastes No Time Trashing ‘Woke’ Pope Francis

A conservative priest harshly criticized Pope Francis’ “woke” ideology hours after the pontiff’s death. Father Gerald Murray, a regular commentator on Fox News, told the news network Monday that Francis steered the church towards a leftist and woke direction during his papacy, and mused on...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Sparky Polastri]

If your identity is honestly and genuinely in Christ as much as possible, his fingerprints and example will show in all aspects of your life.

 

[General Malaise]

Done ranting.

Some of your finest work, GB.

I don't own a Tesla. I call its CEO Ketamine Rasputin. You know my politics.

I think vandalizing Tesla cars and dealerships is abhorrent and I want no part of it on "my side". For fence sitters on the political spectrum, this is a fabulous way to lose them forever.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Thanks @dgreen for the thread.

Semi Related, I thought this was super interesting with Bill Maher talking to Charlie Kirk. There's a small bit of politics I hope we can avoid. Most of the conversation is about their views on religion. And both guys have strong opinions there. Thought it was interesting.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

I'm curious what you liked about their conversation.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks @dgreen for the thread.

Semi Related, I thought this was super interesting with Bill Maher talking to Charlie Kirk. There's a small bit of politics I hope we can avoid. Most of the conversation is about their views on religion. And both guys have strong opinions there. Thought it was interesting.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

I'm curious what you liked about their conversation.

I liked that they could have a conversation with very different opinions yet still discuss the topic and explain their perspectives.

I also liked how both refused to be offended. That seems like an increasingly rare thing.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I liked that they could have a conversation with very different opinions yet still discuss the topic and explain their perspectives.

I also liked how both refused to be offended. That seems like an increasingly rare thing.

If you haven't seen them, you'll probably like the Jordan Peterson vs. Sam Harris debates. This interview by Brandon McGuire (Christian) with Alex O'Connor (atheist) is good too.

Far more sophisticated discussions than the Maher/Kirk exchange, where both let some easy pitches go by.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I liked that they could have a conversation with very different opinions yet still discuss the topic and explain their perspectives.

I also liked how both refused to be offended. That seems like an increasingly rare thing.

If you haven't seen them, you'll probably like the Jordan Peterson vs. Sam Harris debates. This interview by Brandon McGuire (Christian) with Alex O'Connor (atheist) is good too.

Far more sophisticated discussions than the Maher/Kirk exchange, where both let some easy pitches go by.

Thank you. I'd heard they did those but haven't seen. I'll check them out. Thank you.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

The sign planting, rally attending, with us or against us, 'Murica, RINO branding, anti-DEI, anti-woke candidate idolizing Christian? That person has chosen
MONEY,
Party-Country-Faith, in that order. But they wouldn't tell you that if you asked. And that's irreconcilable to me.

FYP.

I agree with nearly everything you’re posting. I’ll add that money drives most people’s decisions.

The hypocrisy of the proselytizers is probably my biggest pet peeve. And the willingness to just straight overlook things that are utterly unacceptable as long as it fits their narrative and makes their own failings OK by association.

 

[Psychopav]

How has Christianity changed in our lifetimes and where do you see it going?

I'm curious how/where you see it going. Hopefully more optimistic than the responses so far.

I think if you polled GenX and asked their experience with Christianity, the majority would respond with "it's how I was raised. I had no choice, it's just what we did." That's my personal experience. Sunday school, church, Bible study, church retreats, summer camps at church, etc, etc. I wonder how many of us have the same experience?

Fast forward to now. How many of us force the same on our kids? I'm guessing the number is much smaller. And I'm not talking about the casual church attendee, the "Chreasters" if you will. How many of us in GenX force Christianity on our kids the way it was forced upon us?

To me, it's becoming a math problem for the Christian faith. Where is the recruitment for the people dying off? Who picks up the 10% tithe of Gladys who died last week and paid her dues religiously? The light bills aren't decreasing. Heating churches are expensive. Where's the future revenue coming from?

Pops is firmly GenX. He was raised in a home where he went to church on Sundays, was active in his youth group and participated in summer camps, VBS and mission trips. He wasn't required to do all of that, but he did have to go to church on Sundays. While he is technically my foster father, I joined his house at age 9. I think he was around 30 at that point and he hadn't had any kids of his own yet (now has 3). He raised me the same way. He has never required that I engage. He only required that I go to church and sunday school. If I wanted to draw on my pad and not really pay attention, that was my choice. As I've gotten older and watched the "grown ups" around me, I have come to realize that this is likely the best (only?) way for people to "get it". I can't count how many disgruntled Christians I've crossed paths with. I see it here all the time in the religious threads. They almost all have one thing in common. They are, for the most part, Catholic or been in the Catholic system of religion at some point. This isn't to dump on Catholicism. Its just an observation I have seen play out time and time again. I've only ever been to a couple different Catholic services and in both I left wondering why they do the things they do.

Pops and I have discussions about that kind of stuff all the time and I've come to realize there is a significant difference between "religion" and following Christ and more often times than not, those approaching their beliefs through religion become pretty disgruntled pretty quick. All the stuff that man tends to add to Biblical teachings in their "interpretations" gets in the way of relationship with God. The more of that stuff there is, the more the focus shifts to that "stuff" than the Bible itself and people begin to wander. So when I see threads like this, the first question I ask myself is "are we talking about the religion or all the core principles the religion is built on?"

One point: we are still very much in a post-conciliar period that ushered in many many changes to the liturgy and the way the Church engages with the times. It takes time for these things to work themselves out, and Vatican II in particular brought about a sea change in the way the laity is to engage with the faith. From catechesis to the role of the family to the liturgies themselves, the bolded is certain to change in the next 50 years as much as it has changed in the last 50, and I hope for the better.

This is our hope, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the progress of the Church.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

How has Christianity changed in our lifetimes and where do you see it going?

I'm curious how/where you see it going. Hopefully more optimistic than the responses so far.

I think if you polled GenX and asked their experience with Christianity, the majority would respond with "it's how I was raised. I had no choice, it's just what we did." That's my personal experience. Sunday school, church, Bible study, church retreats, summer camps at church, etc, etc. I wonder how many of us have the same experience?

Fast forward to now. How many of us force the same on our kids? I'm guessing the number is much smaller. And I'm not talking about the casual church attendee, the "Chreasters" if you will. How many of us in GenX force Christianity on our kids the way it was forced upon us?

To me, it's becoming a math problem for the Christian faith. Where is the recruitment for the people dying off? Who picks up the 10% tithe of Gladys who died last week and paid her dues religiously? The light bills aren't decreasing. Heating churches are expensive. Where's the future revenue coming from?

Pops is firmly GenX. He was raised in a home where he went to church on Sundays, was active in his youth group and participated in summer camps, VBS and mission trips. He wasn't required to do all of that, but he did have to go to church on Sundays. While he is technically my foster father, I joined his house at age 9. I think he was around 30 at that point and he hadn't had any kids of his own yet (now has 3). He raised me the same way. He has never required that I engage. He only required that I go to church and sunday school. If I wanted to draw on my pad and not really pay attention, that was my choice. As I've gotten older and watched the "grown ups" around me, I have come to realize that this is likely the best (only?) way for people to "get it". I can't count how many disgruntled Christians I've crossed paths with. I see it here all the time in the religious threads. They almost all have one thing in common. They are, for the most part, Catholic or been in the Catholic system of religion at some point. This isn't to dump on Catholicism. Its just an observation I have seen play out time and time again. I've only ever been to a couple different Catholic services and in both I left wondering why they do the things they do.

Pops and I have discussions about that kind of stuff all the time and I've come to realize there is a significant difference between "religion" and following Christ and more often times than not, those approaching their beliefs through religion become pretty disgruntled pretty quick. All the stuff that man tends to add to Biblical teachings in their "interpretations" gets in the way of relationship with God. The more of that stuff there is, the more the focus shifts to that "stuff" than the Bible itself and people begin to wander. So when I see threads like this, the first question I ask myself is "are we talking about the religion or all the core principles the religion is built on?"

One point: we are still very much in a post-conciliar period that ushered in many many changes to the liturgy and the way the Church engages with the times. It takes time for these things to work themselves out, and Vatican II in particular brought about a sea change in the way the laity is to engage with the faith. From catechesis to the role of the family to the liturgies themselves, the bolded is certain to change in the next 50 years as much as it has changed in the last 50, and I hope for the better.

This is our hope, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the progress of the Church.

What do you mean by "the faith"? I think you're making my point, but I want to be sure.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

I was raised baptist but wife is Catholic. I guess my thing is I don't really care either way. I stay with the religion because I identify with its general morals. I guess as I've aged I see religion as 1) established in the past because people wanted to believe in the unexplained, 2) a way to believe in life after death or some reward in death so there's no finality to ones life, and 3) a way for those in charge to control those not in charge. And I see this for every single religion. For sure the fact that I go to church yet believe this makes me 100% a hypocrite. But some things aren't worth the fight, and I'm not breaking up 30+ years of marriage over it.

I will say in regards to the question ... Christianity has started to "give in" more than other religions and my sense is there will be backlash to that. Allowing a more liberal doctrine is done for a lot of reasons ... to get more parishioners, avoid the media fallout, expand to new corners of the globe, keep the coffers flowing, etc. IMO the next few generations are going to revert back to historical dogma. Which I think is good. A religion should not give up it's beliefs for a better marketing strategy. And if certain segments of the world population decide it's not for them, then so be it.

it's interesting that protestants came about mainly because they got tired of the Roman Catholic church trying to appeal to everyone through saints, trinkets, expanded rituals with Mary, Papal in-fallacy ... plus an ill timed dosage of nationalism and the ideology of predestination. The RC church went away from it's ideological roots, and from it came numerous doctrine focused protestant religions. Christians need to stick with what they believe and stop trying to appeal to a broader audience.

All opinion. TIA.

 

[Psychopav]

How has Christianity changed in our lifetimes and where do you see it going?

I'm curious how/where you see it going. Hopefully more optimistic than the responses so far.

I think if you polled GenX and asked their experience with Christianity, the majority would respond with "it's how I was raised. I had no choice, it's just what we did." That's my personal experience. Sunday school, church, Bible study, church retreats, summer camps at church, etc, etc. I wonder how many of us have the same experience?

Fast forward to now. How many of us force the same on our kids? I'm guessing the number is much smaller. And I'm not talking about the casual church attendee, the "Chreasters" if you will. How many of us in GenX force Christianity on our kids the way it was forced upon us?

To me, it's becoming a math problem for the Christian faith. Where is the recruitment for the people dying off? Who picks up the 10% tithe of Gladys who died last week and paid her dues religiously? The light bills aren't decreasing. Heating churches are expensive. Where's the future revenue coming from?

Pops is firmly GenX. He was raised in a home where he went to church on Sundays, was active in his youth group and participated in summer camps, VBS and mission trips. He wasn't required to do all of that, but he did have to go to church on Sundays. While he is technically my foster father, I joined his house at age 9. I think he was around 30 at that point and he hadn't had any kids of his own yet (now has 3). He raised me the same way. He has never required that I engage. He only required that I go to church and sunday school. If I wanted to draw on my pad and not really pay attention, that was my choice. As I've gotten older and watched the "grown ups" around me, I have come to realize that this is likely the best (only?) way for people to "get it". I can't count how many disgruntled Christians I've crossed paths with. I see it here all the time in the religious threads. They almost all have one thing in common. They are, for the most part, Catholic or been in the Catholic system of religion at some point. This isn't to dump on Catholicism. Its just an observation I have seen play out time and time again. I've only ever been to a couple different Catholic services and in both I left wondering why they do the things they do.

Pops and I have discussions about that kind of stuff all the time and I've come to realize there is a significant difference between "religion" and following Christ and more often times than not, those approaching their beliefs through religion become pretty disgruntled pretty quick. All the stuff that man tends to add to Biblical teachings in their "interpretations" gets in the way of relationship with God. The more of that stuff there is, the more the focus shifts to that "stuff" than the Bible itself and people begin to wander. So when I see threads like this, the first question I ask myself is "are we talking about the religion or all the core principles the religion is built on?"

One point: we are still very much in a post-conciliar period that ushered in many many changes to the liturgy and the way the Church engages with the times. It takes time for these things to work themselves out, and Vatican II in particular brought about a sea change in the way the laity is to engage with the faith. From catechesis to the role of the family to the liturgies themselves, the bolded is certain to change in the next 50 years as much as it has changed in the last 50, and I hope for the better.

This is our hope, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the progress of the Church.

What do you mean by "the faith"? I think you're making my point, but I want to be sure.

Warning: this is not a theologically precise answer.

By "the faith", I mean the a personal relationship with God in the person of Christ Jesus, and by engaging with it I mean the active pursuit of that reconciliation with God and not just mindless wrote practice.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Anyway...

The most positive aspect of the church we attend, to me, is that the message is generally geared towards something topical (e.g., the growth of anxiety in the modern world), and they use verses to support the guidance they provide on that particular topic. It's like a spiritual TED talk. It's a stark contrast to the Catholic churches I mostly attended in my youth (Yes, I somehow survived the Christian Terminex treatment), and if more churches are headed in this direction, I think they'd find more receptive people.

 

[AAABatteries]

One thing the churches around me have gotten better about over the last 20 years is in the youth programs. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your perspective) it has also meant the demise of smaller churches and the expansion of the mega churches.

 

[General Malaise]

Anyway...

The most positive aspect of the church we attend, to me, is that the message is generally geared towards something topical (e.g., the growth of anxiety in the modern world), and they use verses to support the guidance they provide on that particular topic. It's like a spiritual TED talk. It's a stark contrast to the Catholic churches I mostly attended in my youth (Yes, I somehow survived the Christian Terminex treatment), and if more churches are headed in this direction, I think they'd find more receptive people.

Maybe they should hold church when the NFL isn't on.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Anyway...

The most positive aspect of the church we attend, to me, is that the message is generally geared towards something topical (e.g., the growth of anxiety in the modern world), and they use verses to support the guidance they provide on that particular topic. It's like a spiritual TED talk. It's a stark contrast to the Catholic churches I mostly attended in my youth (Yes, I somehow survived the Christian Terminex treatment), and if more churches are headed in this direction, I think they'd find more receptive people.

Maybe they should hold church when the NFL isn't on.

2 services Sat, 3 Sun, 1 Mon pm

Pick your preferred football conflict.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I was raised baptist but wife is Catholic. I guess my thing is I don't really care either way. I stay with the religion because I identify with its general morals. I guess as I've aged I see religion as 1) established in the past because people wanted to believe in the unexplained, 2) a way to believe in life after death or some reward in death so there's no finality to ones life, and 3) a way for those in charge to control those not in charge. And I see this for every single religion. For sure the fact that I go to church yet believe this makes me 100% a hypocrite. But some things aren't worth the fight, and I'm not breaking up 30+ years of marriage over it.

I will say in regards to the question ... Christianity has started to "give in" more than other religions and my sense is there will be backlash to that. Allowing a more liberal doctrine is done for a lot of reasons ... to get more parishioners, avoid the media fallout, expand to new corners of the globe, keep the coffers flowing, etc. IMO the next few generations are going to revert back to historical dogma. Which I think is good. A religion should not give up it's beliefs for a better marketing strategy. And if certain segments of the world population decide it's not for them, then so be it.

it's interesting that protestants came about mainly because they got tired of the Roman Catholic church trying to appeal to everyone through saints, trinkets, expanded rituals with Mary, Papal in-fallacy ... plus an ill timed dosage of nationalism and the ideology of predestination. The RC church went away from it's ideological roots, and from it came numerous doctrine focused protestant religions. Christians need to stick with what they believe and stop trying to appeal to a broader audience.

All opinion. TIA.

Is your wife aware of your hypocrisy (just using your word)?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

How has Christianity changed in our lifetimes and where do you see it going?

I'm curious how/where you see it going. Hopefully more optimistic than the responses so far.

I think if you polled GenX and asked their experience with Christianity, the majority would respond with "it's how I was raised. I had no choice, it's just what we did." That's my personal experience. Sunday school, church, Bible study, church retreats, summer camps at church, etc, etc. I wonder how many of us have the same experience?

Fast forward to now. How many of us force the same on our kids? I'm guessing the number is much smaller. And I'm not talking about the casual church attendee, the "Chreasters" if you will. How many of us in GenX force Christianity on our kids the way it was forced upon us?

To me, it's becoming a math problem for the Christian faith. Where is the recruitment for the people dying off? Who picks up the 10% tithe of Gladys who died last week and paid her dues religiously? The light bills aren't decreasing. Heating churches are expensive. Where's the future revenue coming from?

Pops is firmly GenX. He was raised in a home where he went to church on Sundays, was active in his youth group and participated in summer camps, VBS and mission trips. He wasn't required to do all of that, but he did have to go to church on Sundays. While he is technically my foster father, I joined his house at age 9. I think he was around 30 at that point and he hadn't had any kids of his own yet (now has 3). He raised me the same way. He has never required that I engage. He only required that I go to church and sunday school. If I wanted to draw on my pad and not really pay attention, that was my choice. As I've gotten older and watched the "grown ups" around me, I have come to realize that this is likely the best (only?) way for people to "get it". I can't count how many disgruntled Christians I've crossed paths with. I see it here all the time in the religious threads. They almost all have one thing in common. They are, for the most part, Catholic or been in the Catholic system of religion at some point. This isn't to dump on Catholicism. Its just an observation I have seen play out time and time again. I've only ever been to a couple different Catholic services and in both I left wondering why they do the things they do.

Pops and I have discussions about that kind of stuff all the time and I've come to realize there is a significant difference between "religion" and following Christ and more often times than not, those approaching their beliefs through religion become pretty disgruntled pretty quick. All the stuff that man tends to add to Biblical teachings in their "interpretations" gets in the way of relationship with God. The more of that stuff there is, the more the focus shifts to that "stuff" than the Bible itself and people begin to wander. So when I see threads like this, the first question I ask myself is "are we talking about the religion or all the core principles the religion is built on?"

One point: we are still very much in a post-conciliar period that ushered in many many changes to the liturgy and the way the Church engages with the times. It takes time for these things to work themselves out, and Vatican II in particular brought about a sea change in the way the laity is to engage with the faith. From catechesis to the role of the family to the liturgies themselves, the bolded is certain to change in the next 50 years as much as it has changed in the last 50, and I hope for the better.

This is our hope, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the progress of the Church.

What do you mean by "the faith"? I think you're making my point, but I want to be sure.

Warning: this is not a theologically precise answer.

By "the faith", I mean the a personal relationship with God in the person of Christ Jesus, and by engaging with it I mean the active pursuit of that reconciliation with God and not just mindless wrote practice.

Thanks. What does the Catholic church think its place is in the individual relationship one has with God in this situation that changes in the liturgy would have an impact?

That is poorly worded so if I need to rephrase I will.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Anyway...

The most positive aspect of the church we attend, to me, is that the message is generally geared towards something topical (e.g., the growth of anxiety in the modern world), and they use verses to support the guidance they provide on that particular topic. It's like a spiritual TED talk. It's a stark contrast to the Catholic churches I mostly attended in my youth (Yes, I somehow survived the Christian Terminex treatment), and if more churches are headed in this direction, I think they'd find more receptive people.

Yes. The church word we use for those types "Spirtual TED talks" is "Topical Sermons".

Per ChatGPT:

1. Topical Sermons - These focus on a theme, issue, or area of life, and then bring in Scripture to speak into that topic. ​

Think:​

• “How to Handle Anxiety Biblically”
• “God’s Design for Relationships”
• “Biblical Wisdom for Finances”

Purpose: To apply biblical truth to everyday life.
Common Traits: Relatable stories, modern analogies, practical steps, and life application.
Popular in: Seeker-sensitive churches, non-denominational, contemporary services.

Another common type of sermons are what we call Expository Sermons.

2. Expository Sermons (aka Studying the Bible)​

These focus on explaining the meaning of a biblical text, often verse-by-verse or passage-by-passage.

• “A Study Through the Gospel of John”
• “Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians: Chapter 2 Deep Dive”

Purpose: To let the text drive the sermon, revealing its original meaning and context, and then applying it.
Common Traits: More theological depth, historical context, Greek/Hebrew explanations, systematic approach.
Popular in: Reformed, traditional, or Bible church settings.

I find both to be useful.

I probably lean more toward the Topical as it seems I like I lean more to the "how does this practically apply?"

Although I do get the value for taking a whole chapter or book of the bible and going through it.

For you old heads, sort of like listening to the whole album. Not just picking a track. For some things, context is helpful.

 

[Psychopav]

How has Christianity changed in our lifetimes and where do you see it going?

I'm curious how/where you see it going. Hopefully more optimistic than the responses so far.

I think if you polled GenX and asked their experience with Christianity, the majority would respond with "it's how I was raised. I had no choice, it's just what we did." That's my personal experience. Sunday school, church, Bible study, church retreats, summer camps at church, etc, etc. I wonder how many of us have the same experience?

Fast forward to now. How many of us force the same on our kids? I'm guessing the number is much smaller. And I'm not talking about the casual church attendee, the "Chreasters" if you will. How many of us in GenX force Christianity on our kids the way it was forced upon us?

To me, it's becoming a math problem for the Christian faith. Where is the recruitment for the people dying off? Who picks up the 10% tithe of Gladys who died last week and paid her dues religiously? The light bills aren't decreasing. Heating churches are expensive. Where's the future revenue coming from?

Pops is firmly GenX. He was raised in a home where he went to church on Sundays, was active in his youth group and participated in summer camps, VBS and mission trips. He wasn't required to do all of that, but he did have to go to church on Sundays. While he is technically my foster father, I joined his house at age 9. I think he was around 30 at that point and he hadn't had any kids of his own yet (now has 3). He raised me the same way. He has never required that I engage. He only required that I go to church and sunday school. If I wanted to draw on my pad and not really pay attention, that was my choice. As I've gotten older and watched the "grown ups" around me, I have come to realize that this is likely the best (only?) way for people to "get it". I can't count how many disgruntled Christians I've crossed paths with. I see it here all the time in the religious threads. They almost all have one thing in common. They are, for the most part, Catholic or been in the Catholic system of religion at some point. This isn't to dump on Catholicism. Its just an observation I have seen play out time and time again. I've only ever been to a couple different Catholic services and in both I left wondering why they do the things they do.

Pops and I have discussions about that kind of stuff all the time and I've come to realize there is a significant difference between "religion" and following Christ and more often times than not, those approaching their beliefs through religion become pretty disgruntled pretty quick. All the stuff that man tends to add to Biblical teachings in their "interpretations" gets in the way of relationship with God. The more of that stuff there is, the more the focus shifts to that "stuff" than the Bible itself and people begin to wander. So when I see threads like this, the first question I ask myself is "are we talking about the religion or all the core principles the religion is built on?"

One point: we are still very much in a post-conciliar period that ushered in many many changes to the liturgy and the way the Church engages with the times. It takes time for these things to work themselves out, and Vatican II in particular brought about a sea change in the way the laity is to engage with the faith. From catechesis to the role of the family to the liturgies themselves, the bolded is certain to change in the next 50 years as much as it has changed in the last 50, and I hope for the better.

This is our hope, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the progress of the Church.

What do you mean by "the faith"? I think you're making my point, but I want to be sure.

Warning: this is not a theologically precise answer.

By "the faith", I mean the a personal relationship with God in the person of Christ Jesus, and by engaging with it I mean the active pursuit of that reconciliation with God and not just mindless wrote practice.

Thanks. What does the Catholic church think its place is in the individual relationship one has with God in this situation that changes in the liturgy would have an impact?

That is poorly worded so if I need to rephrase I will.

I'm not sure I follow your question.

 

[General Malaise]

Anyway...

The most positive aspect of the church we attend, to me, is that the message is generally geared towards something topical (e.g., the growth of anxiety in the modern world), and they use verses to support the guidance they provide on that particular topic. It's like a spiritual TED talk. It's a stark contrast to the Catholic churches I mostly attended in my youth (Yes, I somehow survived the Christian Terminex treatment), and if more churches are headed in this direction, I think they'd find more receptive people.

Maybe they should hold church when the NFL isn't on.

2 services Sat, 3 Sun, 1 Mon pm

Pick your preferred football conflict.

Eh, I was attempting levity after the troll went to work with his screed.

I'm out on church and religion for life, but agree that your church has the right approach it wants to attract membership.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Anyway...

The most positive aspect of the church we attend, to me, is that the message is generally geared towards something topical (e.g., the growth of anxiety in the modern world), and they use verses to support the guidance they provide on that particular topic. It's like a spiritual TED talk. It's a stark contrast to the Catholic churches I mostly attended in my youth (Yes, I somehow survived the Christian Terminex treatment), and if more churches are headed in this direction, I think they'd find more receptive people.

Maybe they should hold church when the NFL isn't on.

2 services Sat, 3 Sun, 1 Mon pm

Pick your preferred football conflict.

Eh, I was attempting levity after the troll went to work with his screed.

I'm out on church and religion for life,

I'm aware

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I deleted a (imo) very funny post in response to him in the name of keeping this thread alive. I'm choosing to call that personal growth.

 

[New Binky the Doormat]

I deleted a (imo) very funny post in response to him in the name of keeping this thread alive. I'm choosing to call that personal growth.

pretty sure that was the one I tried to respond to but it was gone by the time I typed it in ...

I enjoyed it.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

How has Christianity changed in our lifetimes and where do you see it going?

I'm curious how/where you see it going. Hopefully more optimistic than the responses so far.

I think if you polled GenX and asked their experience with Christianity, the majority would respond with "it's how I was raised. I had no choice, it's just what we did." That's my personal experience. Sunday school, church, Bible study, church retreats, summer camps at church, etc, etc. I wonder how many of us have the same experience?

Fast forward to now. How many of us force the same on our kids? I'm guessing the number is much smaller. And I'm not talking about the casual church attendee, the "Chreasters" if you will. How many of us in GenX force Christianity on our kids the way it was forced upon us?

To me, it's becoming a math problem for the Christian faith. Where is the recruitment for the people dying off? Who picks up the 10% tithe of Gladys who died last week and paid her dues religiously? The light bills aren't decreasing. Heating churches are expensive. Where's the future revenue coming from?

Pops is firmly GenX. He was raised in a home where he went to church on Sundays, was active in his youth group and participated in summer camps, VBS and mission trips. He wasn't required to do all of that, but he did have to go to church on Sundays. While he is technically my foster father, I joined his house at age 9. I think he was around 30 at that point and he hadn't had any kids of his own yet (now has 3). He raised me the same way. He has never required that I engage. He only required that I go to church and sunday school. If I wanted to draw on my pad and not really pay attention, that was my choice. As I've gotten older and watched the "grown ups" around me, I have come to realize that this is likely the best (only?) way for people to "get it". I can't count how many disgruntled Christians I've crossed paths with. I see it here all the time in the religious threads. They almost all have one thing in common. They are, for the most part, Catholic or been in the Catholic system of religion at some point. This isn't to dump on Catholicism. Its just an observation I have seen play out time and time again. I've only ever been to a couple different Catholic services and in both I left wondering why they do the things they do.

Pops and I have discussions about that kind of stuff all the time and I've come to realize there is a significant difference between "religion" and following Christ and more often times than not, those approaching their beliefs through religion become pretty disgruntled pretty quick. All the stuff that man tends to add to Biblical teachings in their "interpretations" gets in the way of relationship with God. The more of that stuff there is, the more the focus shifts to that "stuff" than the Bible itself and people begin to wander. So when I see threads like this, the first question I ask myself is "are we talking about the religion or all the core principles the religion is built on?"

One point: we are still very much in a post-conciliar period that ushered in many many changes to the liturgy and the way the Church engages with the times. It takes time for these things to work themselves out, and Vatican II in particular brought about a sea change in the way the laity is to engage with the faith. From catechesis to the role of the family to the liturgies themselves, the bolded is certain to change in the next 50 years as much as it has changed in the last 50, and I hope for the better.

This is our hope, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the progress of the Church.

What do you mean by "the faith"? I think you're making my point, but I want to be sure.

Warning: this is not a theologically precise answer.

By "the faith", I mean the a personal relationship with God in the person of Christ Jesus, and by engaging with it I mean the active pursuit of that reconciliation with God and not just mindless wrote practice.

Thanks. What does the Catholic church think its place is in the individual relationship one has with God in this situation that changes in the liturgy would have an impact?

That is poorly worded so if I need to rephrase I will.

I'm not sure I follow your question.

Sorry. I admitted it poorly worded
Let me try again. Your comment above seemed to be saying that the Church was in a bit of transformation and that would impact how the faith was practiced. Hope this is correct.

Continuing on. If the relationship between God and a follower is personal, how does the Church (or yourself) think those changes play a role in those personal relationships?

 

[Psychopav]

How has Christianity changed in our lifetimes and where do you see it going?

I'm curious how/where you see it going. Hopefully more optimistic than the responses so far.

I think if you polled GenX and asked their experience with Christianity, the majority would respond with "it's how I was raised. I had no choice, it's just what we did." That's my personal experience. Sunday school, church, Bible study, church retreats, summer camps at church, etc, etc. I wonder how many of us have the same experience?

Fast forward to now. How many of us force the same on our kids? I'm guessing the number is much smaller. And I'm not talking about the casual church attendee, the "Chreasters" if you will. How many of us in GenX force Christianity on our kids the way it was forced upon us?

To me, it's becoming a math problem for the Christian faith. Where is the recruitment for the people dying off? Who picks up the 10% tithe of Gladys who died last week and paid her dues religiously? The light bills aren't decreasing. Heating churches are expensive. Where's the future revenue coming from?

Pops is firmly GenX. He was raised in a home where he went to church on Sundays, was active in his youth group and participated in summer camps, VBS and mission trips. He wasn't required to do all of that, but he did have to go to church on Sundays. While he is technically my foster father, I joined his house at age 9. I think he was around 30 at that point and he hadn't had any kids of his own yet (now has 3). He raised me the same way. He has never required that I engage. He only required that I go to church and sunday school. If I wanted to draw on my pad and not really pay attention, that was my choice. As I've gotten older and watched the "grown ups" around me, I have come to realize that this is likely the best (only?) way for people to "get it". I can't count how many disgruntled Christians I've crossed paths with. I see it here all the time in the religious threads. They almost all have one thing in common. They are, for the most part, Catholic or been in the Catholic system of religion at some point. This isn't to dump on Catholicism. Its just an observation I have seen play out time and time again. I've only ever been to a couple different Catholic services and in both I left wondering why they do the things they do.

Pops and I have discussions about that kind of stuff all the time and I've come to realize there is a significant difference between "religion" and following Christ and more often times than not, those approaching their beliefs through religion become pretty disgruntled pretty quick. All the stuff that man tends to add to Biblical teachings in their "interpretations" gets in the way of relationship with God. The more of that stuff there is, the more the focus shifts to that "stuff" than the Bible itself and people begin to wander. So when I see threads like this, the first question I ask myself is "are we talking about the religion or all the core principles the religion is built on?"

One point: we are still very much in a post-conciliar period that ushered in many many changes to the liturgy and the way the Church engages with the times. It takes time for these things to work themselves out, and Vatican II in particular brought about a sea change in the way the laity is to engage with the faith. From catechesis to the role of the family to the liturgies themselves, the bolded is certain to change in the next 50 years as much as it has changed in the last 50, and I hope for the better.

This is our hope, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the progress of the Church.

What do you mean by "the faith"? I think you're making my point, but I want to be sure.

Warning: this is not a theologically precise answer.

By "the faith", I mean the a personal relationship with God in the person of Christ Jesus, and by engaging with it I mean the active pursuit of that reconciliation with God and not just mindless wrote practice.

Thanks. What does the Catholic church think its place is in the individual relationship one has with God in this situation that changes in the liturgy would have an impact?

That is poorly worded so if I need to rephrase I will.

I'm not sure I follow your question.

Sorry. I admitted it poorly worded
Let me try again. Your comment above seemed to be saying that the Church was in a bit of transformation and that would impact how the faith was practiced. Hope this is correct.

Continuing on. If the relationship between God and a follower is personal, how does the Church (or yourself) think those changes play a role in those personal relationships?

The practice of the Church is in a transformation, yes.

It's a good question, and I plan to answer it somewhat obliquely to get the point across. Hope that's ok, and please understand I'm not trying to limit the meaning of the following but using the scripture to illustrate my meaning.

While fhe relationship between God and a follower is personal, is not an exclusive relationship. That's clear from the doctrine of the Trinity itself - God Himself is a relational being. And He made us that way too. To reference just a couple touchpoints from scripture:

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Mat 18:20 is one verse that makes it clear that the relationship is bigger than just Believer-God, it is Believer-God-Other Believers, in community. There are many others of course.

And Paul expresses this in First Corinthians 12:12-27:
"12 As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ.
13
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.
14
Now the body is not a single part, but many.
15
If a foot should say, “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
16
Or if an ear should say, “Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
17
If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?
18
But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended.
19
If they were all one part, where would the body be?
20
But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.”
22
Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary,
23
and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety,
24
whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it,
25
so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.
26
If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.
27
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it."

So using this analogy, if Christ is the mind, and we believers are all parts of the body, then maybe one way to think about it is that the liturgical practice is the clothing. They say the clothes make the man, and that is true, to an extent. In this way, the changes instituted by the Church in Vatican II may be thought of as a change of clothing. My neck does not change in relation to my mind, but when I wear a T-shirt the neck-mind interaction is different from when I wear a turtleneck and different still from when I wear a button down shirt with a necktie.

This is an imperfect analogy but I hope illustrates the point that changing external forms of worship may impact the experience of the practice of the faith.

Of course there was much more to Vatican II than a change of clothing. Vatican II challenges the faithful in a different way than they had in the past. Maybe a better analogy would be the difference between wearing a hat to protect one's head from the rain and replacing the hat with a hand-held umbrella. Hm. Interesting thought...

 

[beer 30]

Maybe they should hold church when the NFL isn't on.

From your lips to God's ears

 

[Brunell4MVP]

I was raised baptist but wife is Catholic. I guess my thing is I don't really care either way. I stay with the religion because I identify with its general morals. I guess as I've aged I see religion as 1) established in the past because people wanted to believe in the unexplained, 2) a way to believe in life after death or some reward in death so there's no finality to ones life, and 3) a way for those in charge to control those not in charge. And I see this for every single religion. For sure the fact that I go to church yet believe this makes me 100% a hypocrite. But some things aren't worth the fight, and I'm not breaking up 30+ years of marriage over it.

I will say in regards to the question ... Christianity has started to "give in" more than other religions and my sense is there will be backlash to that. Allowing a more liberal doctrine is done for a lot of reasons ... to get more parishioners, avoid the media fallout, expand to new corners of the globe, keep the coffers flowing, etc. IMO the next few generations are going to revert back to historical dogma. Which I think is good. A religion should not give up it's beliefs for a better marketing strategy. And if certain segments of the world population decide it's not for them, then so be it.

it's interesting that protestants came about mainly because they got tired of the Roman Catholic church trying to appeal to everyone through saints, trinkets, expanded rituals with Mary, Papal in-fallacy ... plus an ill timed dosage of nationalism and the ideology of predestination. The RC church went away from it's ideological roots, and from it came numerous doctrine focused protestant religions. Christians need to stick with what they believe and stop trying to appeal to a broader audience.

All opinion. TIA.

Is your wife aware of your hypocrisy (just using your word)?

Pretty sure she does. By definition I am agnostic. God may exist or may not. And whether he/she/it does exist it doesn't really effect me in this world. So she probably thinks there's still a chance I go back to believing 100%. People tend to gravitate back as they get older.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Christianity has ebbs and flows....whatever trends there are now will subside and or go the other way eventually. How and why is anybody's guess.

I’m curious about the locations and time frames for this. Over recent decades in America, the “nones” seem to be just growing and growing.

Pew data

 

[Sparky Polastri]

How has Christianity changed in our lifetimes and where do you see it going?

I'm curious how/where you see it going. Hopefully more optimistic than the responses so far.

I think if you polled GenX and asked their experience with Christianity, the majority would respond with "it's how I was raised. I had no choice, it's just what we did." That's my personal experience. Sunday school, church, Bible study, church retreats, summer camps at church, etc, etc. I wonder how many of us have the same experience?

Fast forward to now. How many of us force the same on our kids? I'm guessing the number is much smaller. And I'm not talking about the casual church attendee, the "Chreasters" if you will. How many of us in GenX force Christianity on our kids the way it was forced upon us?

To me, it's becoming a math problem for the Christian faith. Where is the recruitment for the people dying off? Who picks up the 10% tithe of Gladys who died last week and paid her dues religiously? The light bills aren't decreasing. Heating churches are expensive. Where's the future revenue coming from?

Pops is firmly GenX. He was raised in a home where he went to church on Sundays, was active in his youth group and participated in summer camps, VBS and mission trips. He wasn't required to do all of that, but he did have to go to church on Sundays. While he is technically my foster father, I joined his house at age 9. I think he was around 30 at that point and he hadn't had any kids of his own yet (now has 3). He raised me the same way. He has never required that I engage. He only required that I go to church and sunday school. If I wanted to draw on my pad and not really pay attention, that was my choice. As I've gotten older and watched the "grown ups" around me, I have come to realize that this is likely the best (only?) way for people to "get it". I can't count how many disgruntled Christians I've crossed paths with. I see it here all the time in the religious threads. They almost all have one thing in common. They are, for the most part, Catholic or been in the Catholic system of religion at some point. This isn't to dump on Catholicism. Its just an observation I have seen play out time and time again. I've only ever been to a couple different Catholic services and in both I left wondering why they do the things they do.

Pops and I have discussions about that kind of stuff all the time and I've come to realize there is a significant difference between "religion" and following Christ and more often times than not, those approaching their beliefs through religion become pretty disgruntled pretty quick. All the stuff that man tends to add to Biblical teachings in their "interpretations" gets in the way of relationship with God. The more of that stuff there is, the more the focus shifts to that "stuff" than the Bible itself and people begin to wander. So when I see threads like this, the first question I ask myself is "are we talking about the religion or all the core principles the religion is built on?"

One point: we are still very much in a post-conciliar period that ushered in many many changes to the liturgy and the way the Church engages with the times. It takes time for these things to work themselves out, and Vatican II in particular brought about a sea change in the way the laity is to engage with the faith. From catechesis to the role of the family to the liturgies themselves, the bolded is certain to change in the next 50 years as much as it has changed in the last 50, and I hope for the better.

This is our hope, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the progress of the Church.

What do you mean by "the faith"? I think you're making my point, but I want to be sure.

Warning: this is not a theologically precise answer.

By "the faith", I mean the a personal relationship with God in the person of Christ Jesus, and by engaging with it I mean the active pursuit of that reconciliation with God and not just mindless wrote practice.

Thanks. What does the Catholic church think its place is in the individual relationship one has with God in this situation that changes in the liturgy would have an impact?

That is poorly worded so if I need to rephrase I will.

I'm not sure I follow your question.

Sorry. I admitted it poorly worded
Let me try again. Your comment above seemed to be saying that the Church was in a bit of transformation and that would impact how the faith was practiced. Hope this is correct.

Continuing on. If the relationship between God and a follower is personal, how does the Church (or yourself) think those changes play a role in those personal relationships?

The practice of the Church is in a transformation, yes.

It's a good question, and I plan to answer it somewhat obliquely to get the point across. Hope that's ok, and please understand I'm not trying to limit the meaning of the following but using the scripture to illustrate my meaning.

While fhe relationship between God and a follower is personal, is not an exclusive relationship. That's clear from the doctrine of the Trinity itself - God Himself is a relational being. And He made us that way too. To reference just a couple touchpoints from scripture:

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Mat 18:20 is one verse that makes it clear that the relationship is bigger than just Believer-God, it is Believer-God-Other Believers, in community. There are many others of course.

And Paul expresses this in First Corinthians 12:12-27:
"12 As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ.
13
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.
14
Now the body is not a single part, but many.
15
If a foot should say, “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
16
Or if an ear should say, “Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
17
If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?
18
But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended.
19
If they were all one part, where would the body be?
20
But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.”
22
Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary,
23
and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety,
24
whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it,
25
so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.
26
If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.
27
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it."

So using this analogy, if Christ is the mind, and we believers are all parts of the body, then maybe one way to think about it is that the liturgical practice is the clothing. They say the clothes make the man, and that is true, to an extent. In this way, the changes instituted by the Church in Vatican II may be thought of as a change of clothing. My neck does not change in relation to my mind, but when I wear a T-shirt the neck-mind interaction is different from when I wear a turtleneck and different still from when I wear a button down shirt with a necktie.

This is an imperfect analogy but I hope illustrates the point that changing external forms of worship may impact the experience of the practice of the faith.

Of course there was much more to Vatican II than a change of clothing. Vatican II challenges the faithful in a different way than they had in the past. Maybe a better analogy would be the difference between wearing a hat to protect one's head from the rain and replacing the hat with a hand-held umbrella. Hm. Interesting thought...

Three tent poles as I understand it. Prayer, fellowship and service/bi kical study. I get all that. Is it fair to say this shift of the Catholic church could be characterized derived as a shift from having inserted itself between the I divide all and God to an organization that helps facilitate the fellowship part? That would be a huge shift as I understand it. A definite good thing.

 

[TripItUp]

I’m curious about the locations and time frames for this. Over recent decades in America, the “nones” seem to be just growing and growing.

Pew data

The "Great Awakenings" are probably the most obvious American events that saw a spike in Christianity. I distinctly remember these history lessons in my undergraduate courses and always found it fascinating.

From Google AI

The Great Awakening refers to a period of significant religious revival in the American colonies and later in the United States, primarily in the 18th and 19th centuries. It involved emotional preaching, revivals, and a renewed emphasis on personal religious experience. The First Great Awakening (1730s-1770s) was a major influence on American society and culture, impacting everything from education and missions to humanitarianism and equality. The Second Great Awakening (1790s-1840s) further fueled social reform movements and the rise of new religious denominations.

 

[Psychopav]

One point: we are still very much in a post-conciliar period that ushered in many many changes to the liturgy and the way the Church engages with the times. It takes time for these things to work themselves out, and Vatican II in particular brought about a sea change in the way the laity is to engage with the faith. From catechesis to the role of the family to the liturgies themselves, the bolded is certain to change in the next 50 years as much as it has changed in the last 50, and I hope for the better.

This is our hope, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the progress of the Church.

What do you mean by "the faith"? I think you're making my point, but I want to be sure.

Warning: this is not a theologically precise answer.

By "the faith", I mean the a personal relationship with God in the person of Christ Jesus, and by engaging with it I mean the active pursuit of that reconciliation with God and not just mindless wrote practice.

Thanks. What does the Catholic church think its place is in the individual relationship one has with God in this situation that changes in the liturgy would have an impact?

That is poorly worded so if I need to rephrase I will.

I'm not sure I follow your question.

Sorry. I admitted it poorly worded
Let me try again. Your comment above seemed to be saying that the Church was in a bit of transformation and that would impact how the faith was practiced. Hope this is correct.

Continuing on. If the relationship between God and a follower is personal, how does the Church (or yourself) think those changes play a role in those personal relationships?

The practice of the Church is in a transformation, yes.

It's a good question, and I plan to answer it somewhat obliquely to get the point across. Hope that's ok, and please understand I'm not trying to limit the meaning of the following but using the scripture to illustrate my meaning.

While fhe relationship between God and a follower is personal, is not an exclusive relationship. That's clear from the doctrine of the Trinity itself - God Himself is a relational being. And He made us that way too. To reference just a couple touchpoints from scripture:

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Mat 18:20 is one verse that makes it clear that the relationship is bigger than just Believer-God, it is Believer-God-Other Believers, in community. There are many others of course.

And Paul expresses this in First Corinthians 12:12-27:
"12 As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ.
13
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.
14
Now the body is not a single part, but many.
15
If a foot should say, “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
16
Or if an ear should say, “Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
17
If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?
18
But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended.
19
If they were all one part, where would the body be?
20
But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.”
22
Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary,
23
and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety,
24
whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it,
25
so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.
26
If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.
27
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it."

So using this analogy, if Christ is the mind, and we believers are all parts of the body, then maybe one way to think about it is that the liturgical practice is the clothing. They say the clothes make the man, and that is true, to an extent. In this way, the changes instituted by the Church in Vatican II may be thought of as a change of clothing. My neck does not change in relation to my mind, but when I wear a T-shirt the neck-mind interaction is different from when I wear a turtleneck and different still from when I wear a button down shirt with a necktie.

This is an imperfect analogy but I hope illustrates the point that changing external forms of worship may impact the experience of the practice of the faith.

Of course there was much more to Vatican II than a change of clothing. Vatican II challenges the faithful in a different way than they had in the past. Maybe a better analogy would be the difference between wearing a hat to protect one's head from the rain and replacing the hat with a hand-held umbrella. Hm. Interesting thought...

Three tent poles as I understand it. Prayer, fellowship and service/bi kical study. I get all that. Is it fair to say this shift of the Catholic church could be characterized derived as a shift from having inserted itself between the I divide all and God to an organization that helps facilitate the fellowship part? That would be a huge shift as I understand it. A definite good thing.

I think an outsider might characterize it that way. From my perspective, it's more that the life of the Church is just as vital as it ever was, but the laity have a more active part in that expression, not just liturgically but in catechesis, social justice, and evangelism. It is probably similar to the effect of the shift from the Latin scriptures to the vernacular. Actually now that I think about it, that's probably a very apt analogy and quite literal considering the changes in the liturgy itself.

The Church's role has not changed, the relative importance of it' constituent parts has. The deposit of the faith is still found in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as safeguarded and passed down by the Church which is (1 Tim 3:15) "the pillar and foundation of truth." But the expression of the faith and it's communal action has, to coin a phrase, become more democratized. The clergy has expanded to include deacons, lay people can distribute communion, proclaim the first and second readings, and lead the psalm and other songs at mass, girls can be altar servers, etc. Most parishes established parish councils and finance councils to advise the pastors and guide the various ministries (including liturgical, catechetical, bible studies, prayer groups as well as the traditional social service ministries).

I realize that's not exactly what you're asking about the but practical impact of these changes has been that a laity that is now much more engaged in the various functions of the Church has necessarily become a laity which is much more engaged in the individual maturation of its own spirituality. Hope that makes sense.

 

[drummer]

Christianity is a meme stock now. It's worth is based. "Christianity" is a nationalized product, like Bud Light in America. It's just a matter of time when Franklin Graham has his own meme coin.

 

[Slumpbusters]

I don't care who you sleep with or if you want to be a woman instead of a man. I think we need to provide outlets for helping people who can't help themselves. I believe in efforts to bridge different starting points in life, but that different ending points are acceptable and don't need to be legislated. I also believe government is generally too large, inefficient, and wasteful, but I've also evolved my thinking over the years as to the utility of some of the things that exist that I used to object to as wasteful and inefficient. I also believe we tax the wealthy too little and the middle class too much, but I don't believe billionaires shouldn't exist or that there's a point where something approaching a 100% tax rate is acceptable. And other than maybe not caring who you sleep with, I think most of those positions are pretty consistent with what Jesus would believe. So my Trump voting friends struggle with the fact that, for example, I support cuts to government while believing Trump's wildly misguided (because "how", "who", and "why" matter). And my ultra-liberal friends struggle with the fact that, for example, I'm not for taxing billionaires in any and every way possible (because "how" matters and also has consequences). I have a business degree, and the concept of wherewithal to pay still carries weight to me. And no, the fact that you're a billionaire doesn't inherently mean you're able to easily pay.

@Bob Sacamano good summary - we could probably be good friends

 

[Slumpbusters]

@dgreen I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is an education problem.

I used to not really understand the importance and relevance of history. Ignorant worldview at best. Now that I'm a little older and daresay a touch wiser (50), I totally get it. My son is working through AP European history and starting American history next year, and now more than ever it seems those who don't study the past are doomed to repeat it. I think this can be translated to many different things, especially Christianity (see my aforementioned lack of emphasis on the apologetics).

People are smarter and have more access to information (both good and bad) than ever. The "stuff it down your throat because this is what we do" approach is doomed to fail.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

One point: we are still very much in a post-conciliar period that ushered in many many changes to the liturgy and the way the Church engages with the times. It takes time for these things to work themselves out, and Vatican II in particular brought about a sea change in the way the laity is to engage with the faith. From catechesis to the role of the family to the liturgies themselves, the bolded is certain to change in the next 50 years as much as it has changed in the last 50, and I hope for the better.

This is our hope, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the progress of the Church.

What do you mean by "the faith"? I think you're making my point, but I want to be sure.

Warning: this is not a theologically precise answer.

By "the faith", I mean the a personal relationship with God in the person of Christ Jesus, and by engaging with it I mean the active pursuit of that reconciliation with God and not just mindless wrote practice.

Thanks. What does the Catholic church think its place is in the individual relationship one has with God in this situation that changes in the liturgy would have an impact?

That is poorly worded so if I need to rephrase I will.

I'm not sure I follow your question.

Sorry. I admitted it poorly worded
Let me try again. Your comment above seemed to be saying that the Church was in a bit of transformation and that would impact how the faith was practiced. Hope this is correct.

Continuing on. If the relationship between God and a follower is personal, how does the Church (or yourself) think those changes play a role in those personal relationships?

The practice of the Church is in a transformation, yes.

It's a good question, and I plan to answer it somewhat obliquely to get the point across. Hope that's ok, and please understand I'm not trying to limit the meaning of the following but using the scripture to illustrate my meaning.

While fhe relationship between God and a follower is personal, is not an exclusive relationship. That's clear from the doctrine of the Trinity itself - God Himself is a relational being. And He made us that way too. To reference just a couple touchpoints from scripture:

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Mat 18:20 is one verse that makes it clear that the relationship is bigger than just Believer-God, it is Believer-God-Other Believers, in community. There are many others of course.

And Paul expresses this in First Corinthians 12:12-27:
"12 As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ.
13
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.
14
Now the body is not a single part, but many.
15
If a foot should say, “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
16
Or if an ear should say, “Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
17
If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?
18
But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended.
19
If they were all one part, where would the body be?
20
But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.”
22
Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary,
23
and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety,
24
whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it,
25
so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.
26
If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.
27
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it."

So using this analogy, if Christ is the mind, and we believers are all parts of the body, then maybe one way to think about it is that the liturgical practice is the clothing. They say the clothes make the man, and that is true, to an extent. In this way, the changes instituted by the Church in Vatican II may be thought of as a change of clothing. My neck does not change in relation to my mind, but when I wear a T-shirt the neck-mind interaction is different from when I wear a turtleneck and different still from when I wear a button down shirt with a necktie.

This is an imperfect analogy but I hope illustrates the point that changing external forms of worship may impact the experience of the practice of the faith.

Of course there was much more to Vatican II than a change of clothing. Vatican II challenges the faithful in a different way than they had in the past. Maybe a better analogy would be the difference between wearing a hat to protect one's head from the rain and replacing the hat with a hand-held umbrella. Hm. Interesting thought...

Three tent poles as I understand it. Prayer, fellowship and service/bi kical study. I get all that. Is it fair to say this shift of the Catholic church could be characterized derived as a shift from having inserted itself between the I divide all and God to an organization that helps facilitate the fellowship part? That would be a huge shift as I understand it. A definite good thing.

I think an outsider might characterize it that way. From my perspective, it's more that the life of the Church is just as vital as it ever was, but the laity have a more active part in that expression, not just liturgically but in catechesis, social justice, and evangelism. It is probably similar to the effect of the shift from the Latin scriptures to the vernacular. Actually now that I think about it, that's probably a very apt analogy and quite literal considering the changes in the liturgy itself.

The Church's role has not changed, the relative importance of it' constituent parts has. The deposit of the faith is still found in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as safeguarded and passed down by the Church which is (1 Tim 3:15) "the pillar and foundation of truth." But the expression of the faith and it's communal action has, to coin a phrase, become more democratized. The clergy has expanded to include deacons, lay people can distribute communion, proclaim the first and second readings, and lead the psalm and other songs at mass, girls can be altar servers, etc. Most parishes established parish councils and finance councils to advise the pastors and guide the various ministries (including liturgical, catechetical, bible studies, prayer groups as well as the traditional social service ministries).

I realize that's not exactly what you're asking about the but practical impact of these changes has been that a laity that is now much more engaged in the various functions of the Church has necessarily become a laity which is much more engaged in the individual maturation of its own spirituality. Hope that makes sense.

Thanks. Based on the comments I've read from others here and my personal anecdotes of those that have left Catholicism, the church organization stepping back seems like a good step. After those conversations I am always left with the same complaint which is some variation of "it feels like it's more about the religion and ceremony than the relationship with God." Appreciate the perspective