Why I'm Glad the Church Is Shrinking

 

I had not actually planned to write a post on this.  I assumed that someone, or rather plenty of someones, would be offering up their thoughts on the silver lining of this statistical cloud.  I was surprised to find that in most of the commentaries and articles I read no one was doing this, but that most of what I was hearing was lamenting or coping strategies.  In case you missed the report, the official number of Protestant Christians in America has dipped below 50% of the population for the first time "ever" (by which I take it to mean since the European settlers ran all the Native American pagans out. ;)  The general reaction to this news from most Christians seems to be a mix of despair, self-castigation for not doing a better job, warnings of impending doom, and calls to redouble our efforts at discipleship.  Though this loss of majority privilege might certainly provoke some Christians to examine ourselves and how we are answering the call of the Great Commission to make disciples (something we should've been doing without statistical provocation), I believe it is no reason to despair, but, if anything, to be glad.

First we need to understand what this statistical shift signifies.  Is what we are seeing a mass exodus of true believers from the church?  A large-scale apostasy?  I'd wager not.  The fact is, the statistics show that 48% of America still self-identifies as Protestant.  If that number doesn't seem outright laughable, you have a poor definition of what Protestant means.  Nowhere near even that many are.  It used to be (and for quite a few Americans still is) that to be born in the USA is to be a Protestant.   There was a time when you couldn't get a bank loan without membership at a church, or at the very least a synagogue.  (Did we really think that policy was bound to make sincere and deep Christians?)  Wikipedia defines a Protestant as a member in "any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth."  Do we really think that even close to 48% of the population of the country believe these things (with exception to the point about the pope ;)?  It would be wonderful, but such is not the case.

So what's happening is NOT a decline of real, Protestant believers, but a purging of nominal Christians.  This statistical decline depicts not the death of the church, but rather of Christendom: a society-wide structure based on some generic Christian values in which everyone considers themselves Christian by default, simply because they were born into the system.  But the reality is there are no default Christians!  You don't get to call yourself a Protestant just because you were born in America and hold some vaguely Christians understandings, the same way you don't get to call yourself a fish just because you were born in the bathtub and like to swim on vacation.  The issue is that in America, the default religion is Protestantism, the same way that in Italy it's Catholicism (88%) or in Ukraine it's Eastern Orthodoxy (around 70%).  But the truth is that in none of these countries does even a fraction of the population actually and sincerely believe in the teachings of its particular default religion.  That is, they are nominal - believers in name only.  So what is responsible for this trend in America?

One commentary on the new statistics from the linked article lays it out this way:

"'Part of what's going on here is that the stigma associated with not being part of any religious community has declined,' said John Green, a specialist in religion and politics at the University of Akron, who advised Pew on the survey. 'In some parts of the country, there is still a stigma. But overall, it's not the way it used to be.'"  

In other words, now that you don't need to be a member of a church to get a bank loan, the people who were in the church only for superficial reasons linked with Christendom are leaving.  Nominal Christians no longer have to keep up the pretense because the belief that to be a decent American means you must go to church on Sunday has all but disappeared.  What that inevitably means is that, while the numbers of people who call themselves Protestant may be declining, the number of real believers is not.  In fact, there are at least two reasons why this trend is positive.

First, this presents an exciting opportunity to share the Gospel.  There is practically no one harder to share the Gospel with than someone who thinks they already know it but doesn't; with someone who thinks they are already a Christian but they aren't.  At least when someone says they are not a Christian or believe in "nothing in particular", there is a possibility of an honest dialogue.  But it is often much harder to tell someone who thinks he's a Christian that he needs to become a Christian.  I would personally much rather have a conversation with someone who recognizes Christianity and the Gospel as something they don't currently believe and is willing to debate it with me than try to convince someone who is simply putting on the Christian show that they are not actually a Christian.  History bears out this sharp and honest distinction as beneficial.  It was the prostitutes and thieving tax collectors who came to Jesus, not the Pharisees who thought they were already good to go.  It was, ultimately and generally speaking, the Gentiles of places like Corinth that were more open to Paul's message than the population of Jerusalem (though there were certainly not a few of the Jewish people who came to faith as well.)  Even in our own days, the growth rate of the Evangelical church is highest in countries that are NOT part of the Christendom structure.  Of course, the residual problem in America is that many of even those who no longer affiliate with the Protestant church think they know what the Gospel is.  Therefore, the exodus of nominal Christians from the church is not a panacea to this problem, but at least they aren't lying to themselves anymore about believing it, and that's a step in the right direction. 

The second reason we should be glad for this change is that, ultimately, this trend will beautify the church.  If those who are not serious about faith in Christ, those who were Protestant in name only or were so out of a vague sense of patriotic affiliation leave the church, that means that the people who stay will be more and more those who truly love Jesus and want to worship Him with their lives.  Granted, there will still be plenty of nominal Christians in the church unless some kind of serious persecution begins, but nevertheless, the trend of the church being pruned of dead branches will ultimately lead to a greater vibrancy, attractiveness to those outside, and therefore fruitfulness.  Pruning might be painful, but it is a reason for hope, not for despair.  It is a condition of life, not a mark of death.  It seems to me the reason that many Christians begin to panic over these statistics is that we, in a stereotypical super-size mentality, often confuse quantity with quality and think that bigger numbers must necessarily mean the church is better off when this is very contradictory to the biblical picture.  In fact, the stated preference of God in Scripture is that people who come in vain would do better to stop pretending and just not come (Mal. 1:10 and Rev. 3:15-16 come to mind.) 

So though the pruning process might not be fun, might entail some real pain for churches and truly require us to adapt in order to be witnesses in a "post-Christian" society, the truth is that society was never "Christian" in the first place, only "Christianized" and that this change is ultimately not something to fear or cause despair, but to applaud, because ultimately it just means that people are finally getting honest with themselves and others and that's something we should all be able to agree is a good thing.

Ukraine: A Democracy at Risk

i just read this article from the widow of murdered ukrainian journalist, gregory gongadze. it pretty well sums up the steep, downhill ride that ukrainian democracy has taken since the orange revolution in late 2004/early 2005 and the resulting mindset of many ukrainians as they head to the polls this january. very sad, but unfortunately true. if you're interested in where ukraine is at or is heading as a country, i'd recommend it:

Ukraine: A Democracy at Risk

why ukraine's problems cannot be solved by any amount of money

so, i was reading the headlines and stumbled across the latest reason why ukraine's problems will not be solved by any amount of imf loans. as it turns out, yuri lutsenko, ukraine's internal affairs minister (over all the police and generally charged with "maintaining social order and safety"... incidentally probably one of the better ministers in the cabinet) got into a drunken brawl with some german police officers in the frankfurt airport and has officially offered his resignation from the cabinet of ministers. he is rejecting the claims of the german officers, but for some reason resigned anyway.

this reminded me of one time last year when my wife and i happend to be visiting her mother and she had the news on. and much to our amusement and simultaneous discouragement, we saw video coverage of the Verkhovna Rada (ukraine's parliament). took me a while to find it on youtube (archive of everything embarrassing that people wish could be erased), but here it is:



but maybe that is a faster way to decide politics: throw two senators in a UFC cage and whoever remains alive gets their legislation passed. :) of course, the sad part is THESE are the people ruling the country. no wonder we are in such a mess (despite any global crises). at least we know the only way anything positive is gonna happen is by praying for them. ;)

an interesting debate on torture

just watched this on the daily show and thought it was well done on both sides. thoughts? (preferably AFTER watching the debate :)

disclaimer: the interview contains some uncensored language, so if you don't want to hear it, don't listen.

(the embed tags were broken, so you can see the debate by clicking on the links below)

part 1

part 2

part 3

some good news for crisis-wracked ukraine?

i found this article the other day to be very interesting. it is probably the first article on the economic crisis in ukraine that i've read that is optimistic. though the assessments on the political part may not be entirely accurate, it is interesting to get an overview of the situation here. here are some highlights.

Together with the international financial institutions, the Central Bank has examined all of Ukraine's banks and quantified their bad debt. Compared to the West, Ukraine's share of toxic debt is small.

Seventeen Western banks have committed themselves to recapitalizing their subsidiaries in Ukraine with $2 billion this year. In addition, it is estimated that two-thirds of the country's refinancing needs this year will be met.

Thanks to early and resolute anti-crisis actions, international reserves remain reassuring at $25 billion, or eight months of imports. Industrial production increased in both February and March over the preceding month, suggesting that Ukraine might already have turned the corner (although GDP will probably still decrease by 8 percent to 10 percent this year). Even the bond and stock markets have soared in the last month.

desperation and fascism in ukraine

(the above poster is from soviet days and translates: "beat the fascist scum!")

this article published by the Telegraph just a couple days ago tells a horrifying tale, especially in light of the destruction caused by nazi fascism in ukraine not all that long ago:

On March 15, voters in the Ternopil region of western Ukraine elected a new regional assembly. This was an Orange Revolution bastion, a region that has long sought to embrace the West and shun Russia.

But it is also has Ukraine's highest unemployment. In a crowded field, the previously little-known Freedom Party won 50 of the regional assembly's 120 seats as voters embraced its hard Right leader, Oleg Tyagnibok, who has urged the expulsion of all Jews and Russians from Ukraine. (emphasis mine)

"The problem is less the popularity of the nationalists than the universal disappointment with mainstream parties," said Viktor Chumak, a political scientist in Ukraine's capital, Kiev. "Voters are sympathising with radicals more and more as a result of the crisis."

it's pretty sad when political infighting among the powers that be is so bad that people are ready to vote in a little hitler. there might be many underlying problems causing the friction between the president and prime minister now, but the main one seems to be this: there is absolutely no concept that the goverment is enstated to serve the people. it still seems very much to be a left over sentiment of soviet times that the people exist for the state and not the state for the people. or as good old william wallace put it, "You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom."

this result is unlikely to repeat itself in the eastern and southern parts of the country where there are many ethnic russians and the majority of the jewish population reside, but still, its shameful that people anywhere would be driven to such desperate choices by the indifference of their leaders. then again, it often seems that in desperate times people are willing to accept solutions that normally they would be appalled at. perhaps pragmatism is the ultimate moral vacuum.

should the right to life lead to death?

you may have seen the tragic headlines this week about a 9-year-old girl in brazil who was given an abortion because she was raped by her step-father and became pregnant with twins. weighing in at only 80 lbs., the doctors concluded that to continue the pregnancy would've put the life of this young girl at serious risk and hence performed the abortion. the article explains that:

Abortion is illegal in Brazil, which has more Catholics than any other nation, but exceptions are allowed in cases of rape and when the mother's life would be endangered by giving birth....

The Catholic Church's archbishop for the area criticized the decision as against "the law of God" and excommunicated her mother, the doctors and other people involved in the abortion...

"The law of God is above any human law," Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the archbishop of Olinda and Recife, said...

"I believe the position of the church is extreme, radical and inadequate," Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao said on a government radio program.

"I am shocked by the radical position of this religion which, wrongly saying it is defending a life, puts another life in danger that is as important as any other."

later reports have confirmed that the vatican has upheld and defended the bishop's ruling of excommunication for those involved. now, i give serious props to the brazilian public for their strict abortion laws. also, kudos is in order for the catholic church which has held an unequivocal stance against abortion and homosexuality as sin, despite the ever-increasing unpopularity of those positions, even when many protestant denominations are willing to pander to popular opinion. however, this case certainly begs the question: "should the right to life lead to death?"

now, i'm not a brazilian doctor and i was not part of the medical conclusions, but assuming the facts are accurate, the point of the health minster is valid: are we willing to protect one innocent life at the cost of another? no matter what way you look at it, the whole situation is a sickening tragedy. but though the refusal of the catholic church to kowtow to moral relativism and the preeminence given to God's law over man's is commendable, one gets the feeling that they may be applying the letter of the law but missing the spirit thereof: namely, to protect innocent life. thoughts? comments? (and since this topic is a "flash-point", remember to keep the comments respectful... inappropriate comments will be deleted. ;)

when innovation goes overboard

okay, so its not real, but its still pretty funny....


Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

the new car

here are some shots of our new car. no, it doesn't exist in america. its called a dacia logan mcv. put out by renault (french company). its a 7-seater which comes in very handy for all kinds of church stuff.

for the love of gays

perhaps you caught the latest public plea for the legalization of gay marriage in the united states. if not, you can read the full text/watch the video of MSNBC news anchor keith olbermann here. these are some highlights from his impassioned plea for gay marriage and mourning the passing of proposition 8 in california:

"If you voted for this Proposition [against gay marriage] ... Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? ... these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world... What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough. It is stacked against love... tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

his plea certainly asks a number of good questions. i really only began thinking about them because my friend josh posted this video on his blog with some comment. the following are excerpts from my comment on his post and on this video/transcript:

now, as for olbermann’s commentary ... i don’t live in america, so i’ve not been subjected to whatever prop 8 adds were run, picket lines, etc. i hope this allows me to look at it with less of the possible cultural bias that i might have living in the states (or ca particularly). i’d also like to think that as someone who used to BE bi-sexual (before i met Jesus), i could be less biased than maybe someone who’s been straight from day one.

my first question is, on what ideological basis is the whole idea of gay marriage being put forward?

olbermann goes off about how this issue is all about giving love a chance, etc. without questioning his definition of love (yet), how does not allowing people to marry hinder love? throughout much of history there have been situations where certain classes or races were disallowed to marry by the ruling class, or only with some heinous condition (anybody remember braveheart? :). in such cases, those people have always simply been content to be married in the eyes of God, ignoring the state because it was unjust. and i guarantee you that the slaves who were only married in God’s eyes never loved each other less than the white couples who were married legally. this is not a question of love. sorry, olbermann. (btw, that is NOT to compare the situation with slaves being disallowed marriage and gays not being granted “marriage”. the two are entirely different for reasons i’ll get to.) and we must be able to see that it is NOT even about legal rights (as olbermann highlights), since many states and politicians have offered “civil unions” which give the same legal rights without the title of marriage. what then is this ideological hurdle of “marriage” that many in the gay community are so intent on jumping? here is where we get back to the root: we cannot talk of marriage without talking of God. as olbermann himself brings “the creator” into his reasoning, i’ll assume its fair game in the discussion. but just for a moment, let take the atheist/darwinist approach:

is there a basis for homosexual marriage on a purely humanist/evolutionist level? certainly not. richard dawkins once said that the purpose of life, if there is a purpose, is to pass on one’s genes. the homosexual automatically by his choice rules himself out of the “survival of the fittest” by his behavior which, if observed by a darwinist in an animal, might simply be described as an anomaly, mutation, self-destroying defect, etc. that sounds really harsh, i know. fortunately i’m not an atheist and my worldview doesn’t constrain me to view homosexuals as any less “worthy” of survival than i am. but it should be clear that there is NO ground in any purely humanistic, sociological approach that would justify gay marriage. it is darwinistically irresponsible, socialogically self-destructive.

so, we HAVE to return to the idea of God. the declaration of independence states: “all men are created equal”. but we sometimes forget the context of the following words, “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” ANY appeal to ANY human rights must be an appeal TO God and not in spite of Him or against Him. without God there are no “rights”, only brute force (aka, survival of the fittest). but it is then a false dichotomy to appeal to God for the rights of men and then ignore or slander God for the other moral standards He gives. (not to get into the whole “were the founding fathers deists?” discussion, but no matter what, we could at LEAST without even studying the question confine their concept of the divine to the monotheistic religions, as there is not One Creator in the eastern religions, etc. all of said monotheistic religions which mark homosexuality as sin.) so, if for any rights is it necessary to appeal to God, how then shall we define the application of those rights by turning away from Him?

on the idea of "if marriage is essentially religious, why should the gov’t have a say at all?" because marriage is a covenant which was established by God for ALL humanity. it is not that the government is to dictate to the people what marriage is, it is that God is to dictate to the government (and hence, the people) what marriage is. this is (as i think you all know) defined in the Genesis account (which again, all 3 major monotheistic religions accept) as “a man… shall cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” that simple phrase really defines the terms of marriage: monogamous (sorry mormons ;), heterosexual, adults (the word for wife is woman in hebrew, not girl), permanent (becoming one).

again, it is impossible and dishonest to try to extract rights from the Creator while ignoring His definition of marriage. here’s the thing: if we deem it acceptable to ignore God’s definition of marriage in legalizing “gay marriage”, why stop there? why not legalize polygamy? i mean, why limit their freedom? they’re consenting adults after all! why not legalize incestual marriage for consenting adults? why not polygamous, gay, incestual marriages? the problem is, if we deny God the right to draw the line, NO ONE can. God has given us rights, but they are derivative to the rights He has as Creator (one of which is to dictate to us what is good and right…. including the definition of a right marriage).

what is the driving force for “gay marriage” then, if not for legal privileges? are they happy to just “be married in God’s eyes?” no. then is the accusation true that there is an attempt to “re-define marriage”? i don’t think that’s the ultimate goal. any re-definition of marriage (not of unjust laws of men, but of the definition from God who established marriage) is an attempt to re-define God Himself. it is to make God in our own image. to make Him subservient to our decisions. to make ourselves the Lord. THAT is why this issue is such a big deal to people who are NOT gay and don't have close gay friends. THAT is why olbermann is practically in tears, because if he can persuade people to push through gay marriage, he will have (in his mind) re-defined God.

back to olbermann’s idea of “why do we have to stamp out love?” this is how i define love: love is seeking what is best for the other, not for myself. one of the most unloving things one can do is allow a person to continue unchallenged in sin. worse than that is justifying another person’s sin. proverbs says, “faithful are wounds from a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” true love will not justify sin in a friend’s life. hence, olbermann is not actually talking about loving homosexuals and allowing them to love. he is talking about being a coward and “kissing deceitfully”, that is, doing what’s pleasant and nicest, not what’s best for a person (anyone with kids ought to know what i’m talking about.) allowing someone to think that their sin is right is NOT love, it is hate, no matter how nice it might look. therefore, what he is promoting in the long run is that we hate gays. personally, it is because i love those who are in homosexual life styles (and have empathy towards them) that i oppose “gay marriage”, a step which would only be a lie to them that their sin is acceptable to God. i’d much rather have them and keith olbermann think i’m “stamping out love” and actually love our gay friends, than lie to them in the name of nicety and actually be hating them. because i would want others to speak to me honestly about some sin that i held and thought was acceptable. that is what i would have "others do to me." THAT is what it is TO me. it is because of my love for the gay community that i oppose gay marriage.

“how can you talk so categorically about homosexual marriage being sin?” easy, because its a discussion about marriage in the first place, which is necessarily a discussion about God. its like if someone said, “let’s make easter the optional celebration of the resurrection of Christ or the founding of Playboy”. or “let’s make Ramadan the celebration of the people vs. larry flint trial.” again, one can’t talk about marriage without talking about something that is God’s ground. if you don’t like easter, don’t celebrate. if you don’t wanna be muslim, don’t fast on ramadan. congratulate heffner and flint all you want, but don’t call it easter. if you don’t want to be in an adult, monogamous, heterosexual, permanent union, the laws of america grant you that right, but don’t try to call it marriage.

as a final note, i will say (even NOT having seen the adds for prop 8) that i’m sure some of them were very condescending and bitter, etc. sadly, i've met too many christians with really angry attitudes towards homosexuals. THAT is not love, and hence not something Jesus would approve of. i am convinced that as Christians, we ought to love and pray for and practically serve and do good to homosexuals who are in our families, among our friends, at work, etc. JUST as zealously as we oppose gay marriage. again, we MUST remember that opposing gay marriage is actually being FOR people who are gay, seeking their good (not to oppress them), in turning them from sin to the Creator who made them and made marriage. it is for the love of gays.

can the TV get you pregnant?

apparently, the answer is yes. recently a study was done of teens and their TV watching habits which stated:

"In the final analysis, teens who had watched the most sexual content on television during the three-year study period were twice as likely to have been involved in a pregnancy as teens with the lowest levels of exposure...TV-watching was strongly connected with teen pregnancy"

the article quoted the study's lead author, giving the only humorous part of the results: “We were surprised to find this link.” really? Jesus said:

"The lamp of the body is the eye. Therefore, when your eye is good, your whole body also is full of light. But when your eye is bad, your body also is full of darkness."

surprising... Jesus knew what He was talking about! we think that we can watch whatever we want and it doesn't affect us. even as believers, we justify it thinking we are "just enjoying our Christian freedom" and "its not like i'm gonna do that". not so. Jesus stated the tie between what we take in our eyes (and ears) and what comes out of our lives a long time ago and now modern sociologists have vindicated His truth with statistical studies (why is it that statistics often convince us better than God's Word?) so, next time you get ready to flip on "friends" or "sex in the city" (two shows specifically listed by the study), make sure you've got your chastity belt strapped on tight... or, better yet, consider what effect your eye will have on your body and use that remote.

making the switch

yes, that's right, i'm finally bidding a fond farewell to xanga and switching to blogger. it just seems that the large majority of friends and bloggers i know are here, so it's just the logical thing to do. plus blogger gives you more format options. (the only down side is no audio uploads on blogger as far as i know. anybody?) i'll keep the xanga site going for a while with notices when i've posted here for those who are slow to change, but eventually it will be dropped. hope to see you on the new blog!

also, here's a link to a news story about finding some ancient hebrew writing on a pottery shard near jerusalem dated to 1000 bc, about the time king david was reigning. imagine that, history verifies God's Word. ;)