White Christianity is in big trouble. And it’s its own biggest threat.

[Belsnickel]

A very interesting article that one of my former pastors shared, yesterday. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/19/white-christianity-is-in-big-trouble-and-its-its-own-biggest-threat/?utm_term=.f719bd7b4964

Here's the article itself:

Quote:It’s that time of year again, when we hear about the profanity of “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas,” and about Starbucks’ covert “war on Christmas,” run through their seasonal coffee cups. Inevitably, President Trump has intervened, insisting that stores everywhere “don’t have Merry Christmas. They don’t have Merry Christmas. I want them to say, ‘Merry Christmas, everybody.'” Once again, we are awakened to the terrible assaults on the Christian heritage of our nation.

This year, however, it’s increasingly difficult not to notice that the main threat to Christianity in America comes from American Christians themselves.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard a case from a baker who argued his Christian convictions led him to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Last week, we witnessed the spectacle of white Christians in Alabama who convinced themselves either that the man they hoped to elect as their senator was not so creepy around young girls as to get himself banned from a mall (fact check: he was), or that the behavior that got him banned is actually biblical in character, and therefore okay (exegesis check: it isn’t). In the end, 80 percent of white evangelicals voted for Moore.

When we’ve reached a place where good Christian folk think it’s a matter of major theological principle not to sell pastries to gay people but are willing to give pedophiles a pass, I think it’s safe to say that American Christianity today — white American Christianity in particular — is in a pretty sorry state.

It’s not just that a vocal segment of white Christians can’t tell righteous leaders from sexual predators and overestimate the power of baked goods to communicate spiritual messages; our failures are wider and deeper and more foundational than that. We’re remarkably ignorant of the history and the current state of the world we inhabit, and no better with scientific knowledge either. We don’t believe the media, but we’ll believe the most incredible Twitter rumor or Facebook post, curated for us by Vladimir Putin. We are surprisingly ignorant about religion, not only other people’s, but even our own.

But perhaps most importantly, white Christians seem unwilling to be guided by the plain truth of our shared faith. Instead of forming judgments about how to live our lives based on how our religious convictions interact with real-life circumstances, we pass off irascible reactions as theological principles. White evangelical Christians like guns, for example, and do not especially like immigrants. Compared to other demographics, we’re excited about the death penalty, indifferent to those who are impoverished or infirm, and blind to racial and gender inequalities. We claim to read the Bible and hear Jesus’ teachings, but we think poor people deserve what they (don’t) get, and the inmates of our prisons deserve, if anything, worse than the horrors they already receive. For believers in a religion whose Scriptures teach compassion, we’re a breathtakingly cruel bunch.

Indeed it’s hard to know who we do feel pity toward, except ourselves — for we believe that we are the real victims in today’s world. Those among us who are evangelical Christians are especially paranoid: While Americans overall are twice as likely to say there is more discrimination against Muslims than against Christians, the numbers are almost reversed for white evangelical Protestants. And apparently things are getting worse: the percentage of evangelicals who said that religious freedom in the U.S. declined over the past decade rose from 60 percent in 2012 to 77 percent in 2015.

There are many factors — historical, social and political — that have helped shape white American Christianity into what it is today. But when it comes to keeping us away from the core truths of our faith, I suspect this one error is key: Christians today seem governed by fear. Theologians as well as psychologists will tell you that there is a spiritual peril in acting out of fear and a sense of danger. Fear drives us into patterns of “reasoning” that are far from reasonable, but more akin to reactionary patterns of cause-and-effect. And fear moves us away from the core of Christianity — love. “There is no fear in love; but perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love,” says the first epistle of John.

The tyranny of fear in white Christian life is especially visible among white evangelicals, who stand out in their opposition to pluralism in America. While all other religious groups, like Americans overall, oppose letting small business owners refuse to serve gay and lesbian people — by margins of roughly two to one — white evangelicals, by 56 percent to 39 percent, say shopkeepers should be allowed to so discriminate. And Christians’ defensiveness is increasing: in 2012, 54 percent of white evangelicals supported giving preference to “traditional Judeo-Christian values”; that number rose to 76 percent in 2015. What’s true of white evangelicals is a leading indicator for white Christians as a whole. The fear of the future makes us, in Jesus’ words, strain at gnats while we swallow camels (Mt 23:24).

This is disastrous because, from the perspective of hope, in many ways our age represents an unprecedented opportunity for Christians. The collapse of Christendom over the past few centuries has created a potentially more egalitarian, authentic and pluralistic religious world. Serious relationships with members of other religious traditions, as well as atheists, teaches believers more about their faith than we would ever have otherwise known. Religious and secular human rights activists uncover the depths of our world’s suffering and pain and display more of God’s care for the oppressed, the marginalized, and the abused. The incredible tumult among ordinary churchgoers increases theological literacy in the pews, so that 500 years after the Reformation, Luther’s dream of a “Priesthood of all believers” is potentially closer than ever.

Ironically, it may well be that it is Christians’ fears about losing control of the culture that have accelerated the rise of secularism itself. (This has been an open secret in the sociology of religion for almost two decades.) Consider the rise of the “Nones” in American public life — those adults, especially younger adults, who when asked about their religious affiliation, say “none.” For decades that number was very low, but then it began to increase rapidly in the 1980s. Why was that? It seems to be caused by the tight alliance of Christianity, especially conservative white Christianity, with conservative politics over the past several decades — an association itself driven by prophesies of a rising tide of godlessness in America after the 1960s. Those prophesies about the 1960s were wrong; but they fueled the alliance of white Christians with right-wing politics from the 1980s forward, and that alliance has repelled many younger people from religion out of a distaste at seeing religion so eagerly bend the knee to short-term political gain. That is to say, Christians’ response to a misperceived crisis have become, in fact, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Pope John Paul II, who most American Christians (even Protestants like me) would allow was a pretty good Christian, said in his first homily as pope, “Do not be afraid!” This remains useful theological advice. If we are Christians, we must believe that we are safer in God’s hands than in our own. We should take no care for the morrow, but preach compassion and mercy to all, without distinction. If we do that, they’ll know we are Christians by our love — rather than our fear.

I will share her remarks on the article (she is currently the pastor at an ELCA church in Washington, D.C.):

Quote:Joining others in posting this article...

The end is the kicker - "If we are Christians, we must believe that we are safer in God’s hands than in our own. We should take no care for the morrow, but preach compassion and mercy to all, without distinction. If we do that, they’ll know we are Christians by our love — rather than our fear." I personally think that the collapse of cultural Christendom and the factors named here in the article is birthing a more authentic and incarnated Christianity. We are having to grapple with what this all really means. So I think we should be ok with some ways that the church is being torn down, in order to build up the body of Christ. It will not be easy (think about how we have and need to talk about ways the church has been corrupt, racist, sexist, and the like) but it may be right. Christianity's central messages will always push at the margins and challenge the status quo - I don't think it can be the status quo.

It also makes me think of Brian McLaren's words in Charlottesville to us clergy gathered - that Christianity has forgotten to teach people how to love - worth viewing his remarks, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wjQwwIAa4s&t=96s

I tend to agree. Not just because I am of a similar theological mindset, but because of something we touched on in another thread elsewhere on the message board. Christianity got away from its roots when it spread to the gentiles in Europe. I often feel like the message preached by Jesus in the Gospels does not reconcile with the Christianity we see in the western world and that collapse of cultural Christendom that my former pastor mentions allows for us to get back to those roots that Jesus preaches.

[GMDino]

(12-21-2017, 09:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: A very interesting article that one of my former pastors shared, yesterday. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/19/white-christianity-is-in-big-trouble-and-its-its-own-biggest-threat/?utm_term=.f719bd7b4964

Here's the article itself:

I will share her remarks on the article (she is currently the pastor at an ELCA church in Washington, D.C.):

I tend to agree. Not just because I am of a similar theological mindset, but because of something we touched on in another thread elsewhere on the message board. Christianity got away from its roots when it spread to the gentiles in Europe. I often feel like the message preached by Jesus in the Gospels does not reconcile with the Christianity we see in the western world and that collapse of cultural Christendom that my former pastor mentions allows for us to get back to those roots that Jesus preaches.

 "I love your Christ, but I dislike your Christianity."




I've always seen it attributed to Gandhi, but no matter what that is what I have learned after 12 years of Catholic school, four years of Benedictine college and now 27 years of real-world education outside of the church.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 09:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: A very interesting article that one of my former pastors shared, yesterday. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/19/white-christianity-is-in-big-trouble-and-its-its-own-biggest-threat/?utm_term=.f719bd7b4964

Here's the article itself:

I will share her remarks on the article (she is currently the pastor at an ELCA church in Washington, D.C.):

I tend to agree. Not just because I am of a similar theological mindset, but because of something we touched on in another thread elsewhere on the message board. Christianity got away from its roots when it spread to the gentiles in Europe. I often feel like the message preached by Jesus in the Gospels does not reconcile with the Christianity we see in the western world and that collapse of cultural Christendom that my former pastor mentions allows for us to get back to those roots that Jesus preaches.

I would question any person of faith that considers a Wedding Cake simply a "pastry". Does she also consider a wedding band simply "jewelry"?

Any religious scholar that would try to draw correlation to a shop owners convictions of the sanctity of marriage to a pedophile; would further earn doubt from me.

As to Jesus' views on the matter the scholar in question might want to read Mark 10: 2-12.

Unlike this scholar it is not my place to judge; however, I can appreciate the convictions that a person of faith may have toward supporting a SSM and this person that tried to use it in correlation with acts of pedophilia should be ashamed of him or herself.

[Belsnickel]

(12-21-2017, 09:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I would question any person of faith that considers a Wedding Cake simply a "pastry". Does she also consider a wedding band simply "jewelry"?

Any clergy that would try to draw correlation to a shop owners convictions of the sanctity of marriage to a pedophile; would further earn doubt from me.

As to Jesus' views on the matter the clergy in question might want to read Mark 10: 2-12.

Unlike this clergy it is not my place to judge; however, I can appreciate the convictions that a person of faith may have toward supporting a SSM and this person that tried to use it in correlation with acts of pedophilia should be ashamed of him or herself.

Yuo seem to be conflating the word of the religious scholar that wrote the article with the clergy. In sharing the article, the clergy is intending to provoke thought. She may or may not disagree with all of the article, which is why I shared her specific comments on it.

[Au165]

(12-21-2017, 09:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I would question any person of faith that considers a Wedding Cake simply a "pastry". Does she also consider a wedding band simply "jewelry"?

Do you say "With this cake, that I'm about to smash in your face, I promise to always be faithful"? I think the difference is normally you are making a promise in front of god and family that you will uphold certain values and the ring is representative of that. The cake is simply desert that costs way too much money and often tastes pretty average. If we pretend everything from a wedding is some sort of commitment token then my basement would be even more crammed full of crap my wife won't get rid of.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 09:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yuo seem to be conflating the word of the religious scholar that wrote the article with the clergy. In sharing the article, the clergy is intending to provoke thought. She may or may not disagree with all of the article, which is why I shared her specific comments on it.

I will change every reference of clergy in my response to read religious scholar and have shared my thoughts.


You really have no idea if she agreed with the article or not?

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 09:51 AM)Au165 Wrote: Do you say "With this cake, that I'm about to smash in your face, I promise to always be faithful"? I think the difference is normally you are making a promise in front of god and family that you will uphold certain values and the ring is representative of that. The cake is simply desert that costs way too much money and often tastes pretty average. If we pretend everything from a wedding is some sort of commitment token then my basement would be even more crammed full of crap my wife won't get rid of.

The cake is a continuation of the celebration of the union. It's not simply a "pastry" to many. If it's simply a pastry then why not just serve cupcakes?

[Belsnickel]

(12-21-2017, 09:57 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The cake is a continuation of the celebration of the union. It's not simply a "pastry" to many. If it's simply a pastry then why not just serve cupcakes?

Many people do. Myself included when I got married.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 09:59 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Many people do. Myself included when I got married.

Well there you have it: problem solved.

I wonder why some would sue because they couldn't get a cake.

[Belsnickel]

(12-21-2017, 10:02 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well there you have it: problem solved.

I wonder why some would sue because they couldn't get a cake.

Could be because a business serving the public is subject to civil rights laws that disallow discrimination based on certain things, and so the suit is based on the baker violating those state and/or federal laws prohibiting such discrimination. Since it is a violation of civil law and not criminal, it is a lawsuit to be brought.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 10:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Could be because a business serving the public is subject to civil rights laws that disallow discrimination based on certain things, and so the suit is based on the baker violating those state and/or federal laws prohibiting such discrimination. Since it is a violation of civil law and not criminal, it is a lawsuit to be brought.

Meh, we have to see what SCOTUS has to say on the matter; I do believe they have already chimed in.


But, I apologize as I obviously didn't make the intent of the question clear. I was looking for something a little more qualatative than "it's the law". WTS, that most likely could be the answer, the cake meant nothing more to them than a lawsuit.

[BmorePat87]

(12-21-2017, 09:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I would question any person of faith that considers a Wedding Cake simply a "pastry". Does she also consider a wedding band simply "jewelry"?

Any religious scholar that would try to draw correlation to a shop owners convictions of the sanctity of marriage to a pedophile; would further earn doubt from me.

As to Jesus' views on the matter the scholar in question might want to read Mark 10: 2-12.

Unlike this scholar it is not my place to judge; however, I can appreciate the convictions that a person of faith may have toward supporting a SSM and this person that tried to use it in correlation with acts of pedophilia should be ashamed of him or herself.

I think you missed the author's point with regards to Roy Moore. They don't compare the two as similarly bad, if anything they suggest what Roy Moore did was much worse and ask why evangelicals are seemingly more concerned with the lesser issue (a cake for a gay wedding) than the more serious affront on morality. 

I don't think that's anything to be ashamed of. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 10:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think you missed the author's point with regards to Roy Moore. They don't compare the two as similarly bad, if anything they suggest what Roy Moore did was much worse and ask why evangelicals are seemingly more concerned with the lesser issue (a cake for a gay wedding) than the more serious affront on morality. 

I don't think that's anything to be ashamed of. 

A correlation between the two was definitely made. Whether the author thinks one is worse than the other is up to the reader. The author uses both to demonstrate the "sorry state" of: Christianity today — white American Christianity in particular — is in a pretty sorry state.

[Au165]

(12-21-2017, 10:02 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well there you have it: problem solved.

I wonder why some would sue because they couldn't get a cake.

So if the baker refused them cupcakes it is different?

[BmorePat87]

(12-21-2017, 10:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: A correlation between the two was definitely made. Whether the author thinks one is worse than the other is up to the reader. The author uses both to demonstrate the "sorry state" of: Christianity today — white American Christianity in particular — is in a pretty sorry state.

So what exactly is shameful about that?

[GMDino]

An attempt at a deeper discussion about Christians and their personal interpretations of how to live their faith is back to discussing one baker and a cake...lol.

Amazing how fast it can get off track.

[Belsnickel]

(12-21-2017, 09:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I will change every reference of clergy in my response to read religious scholar and have shared my thoughts.


You really have no idea if she agreed with the article or not?

Sorry, didn't see the question part of this post.

No, I don't know if she agreed with every part of the article. Especially when it comes to the minutiae that you latched on to. I know she agreed with the overall point of the article, but focusing on those details is a prime example of missing the forest for the trees.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 10:27 AM)Au165 Wrote: So if the baker refused them cupcakes it is different?

If he knew it was to be used as the centerpiece of the celebration of their union then I would still appreciate the baker's conviction; although, I must say my convictions may not be the same. But short answer to your question is YES. If a gay couple walked in and asked for some cupcakes and a baker refused then I feel it is grounds for discrimination.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 10:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sorry, didn't see the question part of this post.

No, I don't know if she agreed with every part of the article. Especially when it comes to the minutiae that you latched on to. I know she agreed with the overall point of the article, but focusing on those details is a prime example of missing the forest for the trees.

I had no idea that the "thesis statement" of the article was a minute detail. To me it was the genesis of the article. It used both to show the hypocrisy of the white Christian and belittled the conviction that anyone may have about the sanctity of marriage and put them in the same basket of deplorables as those in AL who would overlook pedophilia.

[*bfine32*]

(12-21-2017, 10:28 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So what exactly is shameful about that?

The shame is in the generalization.