The Changing Views of Modern Christians

[Zeke]

AMR posted an interesting link on one of the closed theology threads, and I found myself agreeing with many of the changes that are happening in the views that modern American Christians are expressing about Christian religious dogma.

First, here is the link: The State of Theology

And here are some of the findings presented in it:



I find myself agreeing with a number of these positions, and I feel it's a positive sign that others are considering Christianity in what appears to be a more realistic and functional light, than that of the past.



It's not at all surprising that the ideology of Christianity is changing. Even in spite of the many and ongoing efforts at thwarting change. But I am a little surprised to find these changes reflecting modern perceptions and values to the degree that they are. (Though I don't know why I should be, as I suppose it's only natural.)

Anyway, I see this as a positive sign, and I'm just wondering what others think.

I would agree as well, Its also natural for lamentations to build as the old guard looses its stronghold over Souls it has mentally imprisoned in fear and doubt.

And like any good propagandist the Church and Governing powers have supplied its own enemies and taboos to keep the Duality intact, feeding the negative energy it needs to survive it created various divide and conquer methods based on fear and hate. We all need an Ego/straw-man cleanse to see through our so called differences supplied by the good old time religion of Hegelian Dialectic depravity that keeps the pyramid scheme alive in the mind for the Elitist benefit who cooked up this brew of fraud we all thought was reality.

 

[PureX]

There are good ways to be a real modern progressive Christain. And there are some mind numbingly dumb and shallow ones.

On the Bell Curve of human intelligence, most people are average or below average in intelligence. They neither need nor want a complex, sophisticated theology because it would only serve to become ineffective and confusing for them. You and I can "poo-poo" them all we want, as intelligent and sophisticated fellows, but that isn't going to change the reality of who and what they are, or of what they need and can use in terms of theology, or religious orthodoxy.

The orthodoxy that was handed to these average and less than average intelligent folks in the past was riddled with irrationality and superstition. But it worked for them because it was simple and effective. But now days even the average dolt knows that many of these orthodox propositions are both irrational and unbelievable according to the evidence of their modern reality. So they are seeking; not to drop religion, but to "correct" it's orthodoxy in a way that makes it both simple and effective for them, again.

If the leaders of the church were as clever as they like to imagine themselves to be, they would have seen this coming and reformed their orthodoxy for these folks, preemptively. And in some ways they have been trying. But institutions move at a glacial pace thanks to egotism and politics and the desire to self-protect, and so they have not moved fast enough. And the people are having to take the job of theological reform into their own hands (so to speak). And I suppose, that's probably always been the way changes happened to "orthodoxy", as it's never inclined to change of it's own accord.

So I applaud this effort by 'regular folks' to update religious Christianity to make it more reasonable and effective for their new modern understanding of reality, and modern lifestyles. And I believe Jesus would applaud it as well. Because I really don't see Jesus as a stickler for orthodoxy. And in fact, I see him as being quite radical in terms of religious orthodoxy. So much so that he was killed for it.

 

[Jose Fly]

But don't you think the latter follows the former?

It can, but not necessarily so. It could be that on the societal level, each generation of Christians becomes increasingly "middling", until eventually that society is no longer "Christian" in any recognizable sense of the word. That could theoretically happen without a single person actually changing their beliefs.

 

[PureX]

It can, but not necessarily so. It could be that on the societal level, each generation of Christians becomes increasingly "middling", until eventually that society is no longer "Christian" in any recognizable sense of the word. That could theoretically happen without a single person actually changing their beliefs.

I'm not sure about that last sentence, but it's true that religions (ideologies of any kind) do 'morph', and they can do so to the degree that they become something else, all together.

 

[Selaphiel]

On the Bell Curve of human intelligence, most people are average or below average in intelligence. They neither need nor want a complex, sophisticated theology because it would only serve to become ineffective and confusing for them. You and I can "poo-poo" them all we want, as intelligent and sophisticated fellows, but that isn't going to change the reality of who and what they are, or of what they need and can use in terms of theology, or religious orthodoxy.

The folly is not to be of average intelligence. It is to dismiss and criticize what one hasn't even tried to understand (Creationism and intelligent design people do the same vis a vis science). Criticism assumes understanding of what you criticize. Another part of the folly is the idolization of individual expression. The absolute skepticism of authority to the point where viewing someone as a teacher in things spiritual is looked down upon. Claiming that for example the trinity or the divinity is nonsense is nothing but a hollow statement unless one actually has at least a modicum of insight into what those doctrines actually say.

The orthodoxy that was handed to these average and less than average intelligent folks in the past was riddled with irrationality and superstition. But it worked for them because it was simple and effective

But then you are confounding the orthodoxy with the superstition. If we stick to Christianity here: What doctrine of the seven ecumenical councils are superstition and why? Questioning exorcisms, folk worship of saints, magical views of things like holy water and what not is one thing, but does that have to do with the actual doctrines of faith found in the seven councils? Best case scenario is that they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

If the leaders of the church were as clever as they like to imagine themselves to be, they would have seen this coming and reformed their orthodoxy for these folks, preemptively. And in some ways they have been trying. But institutions move at a glacial pace thanks to egotism and politics and the desire to self-protect, and so they have not moved fast enough

That might be true in some cases. But it is oversimplification to say that it is always the case. It could also be that change actually takes time to consider, that one does not follow every whim and call for change without doing the proper reflective work first. I would say the opposite, much of the good change has actually come from the church, at least in the extended sense, from theologians that has done good and thorough work.

So I applaud this effort by 'regular folks' to update religious Christianity to make it more reasonable and effective for their new modern understanding of reality, and modern lifestyles. And I believe Jesus would applaud it as well. Because I really don't see Jesus as a stickler for orthodoxy. And in fact, I see him as being quite radical in terms of religious orthodoxy. So much so that he was killed for it.

Updating is fine. But as I'm pointing out: Without insight, the criticism often miss the mark, misunderstands the very doctrine it is supposed to criticize and update and valuable religious insight is dismissed in the process.
Jesus stood firmly rooted in prophetic tradition. The kind of reform they stand for is not simply to follow every whim without reflection, it is a careful balance between tradition and creative thinking. That balance is missing in many of these modern revisions. This has more to do with commodification of religion. It is becoming a slogan, an expression of individuality where individual expression in itself is something to be valued.

The same is true with much of western "Buddhism". Mindfulness here is not about clarity, piercing illusions and reaching the truth. It is about optimizing your mind and through it self-realization to become more effective and more productive.

 

[The Berean]

Christianity is progressively becoming unoffensive and watered down- there's a lot of telling people what they want to hear- especially for the purpose of boasting a high flock in church.

This is not something too recent either. JC Ryle, a bishop in the mid 1800's even expressed this:

“There is a common, worldly kind of Christianity in this day, which many have, and think they have enough-a cheap Christianity which offends nobody, and requires no sacrifice-which costs nothing, and is worth nothing.”

It's a quote I've mentioned a couple of times through the several months I've been around, as it empowers the old spirit of Christianity. The way I see it, is that if modern liberals are against the ways of 19th century Christianity- than it is simply dishonest to perpetuate an idea that today's standards are commensurate to Christian ideology.

This world is no longer in an age of Christian expansion and conservation, but has long been transferring to the age of Revelation. Isaac Newton believed that the Apocalypse would occur in 2060, and all the signs, amazingly, seem to be pointing right to that relative point.

There will always be a remnant of believers who follow God and his Word and not the world's evil and darkness. The thing is a lot of so called Christians don't even read the Bible. A nephew is living with us right now. He is about 24 years old. A few days ago my wife was watching a documentary about Islam when he walked in. She mentioned to him that Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. He got upset when she said that. So my wife challenged him and asked him if he has actually read the Koran and Bible. He became quiet and admitted he has read neither. He claims to be a Christian and has never really read the Bible? That is beyond strange to me. He's very liberal in his beliefs but IMO he just believes whatever will not make other people uncomfortable or offended. My wife and I pray for him. I told him if he ever wants to read through the Bible we can do it together. I hope he takes up my offer in the near future.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not sure about that last sentence, but it's true that religions (ideologies of any kind) do 'morph', and they can do so to the degree that they become something else, all together.

Agreed.

 

[Selaphiel]

To be clear: I think there are important revisions being made to Christian theology and in other religions as well. But I do emphasize that careful thinking and respect for those who has come before you is important. If one hasn't done the work, then one should not bombastically dismiss central doctrines of a religion.

 

[journey]

I'm not sure what the point of this comment is. God has given us freedom of thought and action. One must presume that this is because God wants us to use them, as we see fit. We are choosing who we are and who we are becoming through this freedom of will and one must assume that this is God's will for us. How could it be otherwise?

I'll give you an example: you can choose to live in sin without Jesus Christ in your life. This is obviously not what God wants.

 

[PureX]

I'll give you an example: you can choose to live in sin without Jesus Christ in your life. This is obviously not what God wants.

Clearly, God wants us to have that option, even knowing that some of us will take it. Because that's how it is. Presuming to know how God "feels" about that is not within my purview. And I don't think it's within yours, either.

 

[PureX]

To be clear: I think there are important revisions being made to Christian theology and in other religions as well. But I do emphasize that careful thinking and respect for those who has come before you is important. If one hasn't done the work, then one should not bombastically dismiss central doctrines of a religion.

I don't believe that most people are doing that. I do believe that most people are considering it to the best of their ability, which is often quite limited, and therefor shallow in depth and scope. (As you rightly pointed out.) But that's endemic of their nature, and beyond our (and their) control.

 

[PureX]

There will always be a remnant of believers who follow God and his Word and not the world's evil and darkness. The thing is a lot of so called Christians don't even read the Bible. A nephew is living with us right now. He is about 24 years old. A few days ago my wife was watching a documentary about Islam when he walked in. She mentioned to him that Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. He got upset when she said that. So my wife challenged him and asked him if he has actually read the Koran and Bible. He became quiet and admitted he has read neither. He claims to be a Christian and has never really read the Bible? That is beyond strange to me.

Reading the Bible is not a requirement of being "in Christ". It's sad that so many professing Christians do not understand this. Because they end up worshipping their religion (and their Bibles) instead of living "in Christ".

 

[journey]

Clearly, God wants us to have that option, even knowing that some of us will take it. Because that's how it is. Presuming to know how God "feels" about that is not within my purview. And I don't think it's within yours, either.

Regarding God's Will - first, He doesn't force it:

2 Peter 3:9 KJV The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[Selaphiel]

Reading the Bible is not a requirement of being "in Christ". It's sad that so many professing Christians do not understand this. Because they end up worshipping their religion (and their Bibles) instead of living "in Christ".

Fundamentalist forms of Christianity raise the Bible to the level of an idol, in contorting it to a book that contains all that is needed for the religious life. Failing to recognize the variety of traditions and voices within the Bible itself.

But there is an error that goes wrong in the opposite direction as well. A Christ that is separated from the biblical witness and traditions also becomes and idol. Christ becomes a pure Feuerbachian projection of our current ideals and as such has little to do with the actual person Jesus from Nazareth. The mind of Christ is irreducibly connected to that tradition, and the community of his followers must relate to that witness and tradition. The belief that the scriptures can speak new meaning when its word meets our experiences, lives and context is central. That is, Christ is a living personal reality that speaks to the church through those words. Apart from that, there is no Christ or church.

I don't believe that most people are doing that. I do believe that most people are considering it to the best of their ability, which is often quite limited, and therefor shallow in depth and scope. (As you rightly pointed out.) But that's endemic of their nature, and beyond our (and their) control.

But it also testifies to a refusal of all authorities, even when the price of that is more ignorance. The balance between criticism and respecting authority is a fine one.

 

[journey]

What God sets in place remains the same until He changes it, so what people change means nothing.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Good to see. :up:

Yes because atheism is responsible for so many altruistic things throughout history. :chuckle:

 

[The Berean]

Reading the Bible is not a requirement of being "in Christ". It's sad that so many professing Christians do not understand this. Because they end up worshipping their religion (and their Bibles) instead of living "in Christ".

The Bible speaks about the Jesus Christ of history. My point is how can someone call themselves a "Christian" and NEVER read the Bible? They would have no understanding of who God is and the importance of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, let alone what it means to live "in Christ".

 

[journey]

The Bible speaks about the Jesus Christ of history. My point is how can someone call themselves a "Christian" and NEVER read the Bible? They would have no understanding of who God is and the importance of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, let alone what it means to live "in Christ".

You're right - they couldn't. I think that real Christians want to read God's Word.

 

[Lon]

View attachment 23425 :nono:

This article says all the doom-sayers are flat wrong.

 

[Selaphiel]

The Bible speaks about the Jesus Christ of history. My point is how can someone call themselves a "Christian" and NEVER read the Bible? They would have no understanding of who God is and the importance of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, let alone what it means to live "in Christ".

Of course that song is just as correct in describing many conservative forms as liberal forms of Christianity.