The problem with these analyses, of course, is that they more often reflect the bias of the individuals that create them than perhaps the actual reality of the situation - or what the Bible has to say about such matters. It makes the Church one more mechanism to enforce one's political, psychological, and social leanings than what the Church was actually meant to be.
I think, in this case, I can speak a bit from experience.
Sometime in the mid to late 20th Century, the Church began to make a hard turn from the concept of everyone is a sinner consigned to Hell except by the grace of God. That concept was wrong, it was said - people were flawed perhaps, even fatally so - but after all, that was unacceptable and mean spirited and did not represent what has become the passionately held belief that people are inherent good, not evil.
If people are not sinners and Hell is not a reality, then a tension comes to exist between what I am told - that I am inherently good - and what the Church and Bible teaches - that I am inherently a sinner. People, given human nature, are more often than not going to move towards the path that makes them feel the best and of less resistance.
Suddenly, the salvation that Christ offers is no longer the critical need of the human heart.
Without that as a critical need, Church becomes another activity. And the teachings of the Church, be they moral or social, begin to have no basis for practice or reason to exist after a time. Because if sin is not real and I do not require forgiveness from that sin, the formally clear commands of Scripture are really just more "suggestions" rather than rules, subject to the decisions of the time and culture I live in or, frankly, what is convenient for me. And if this is so, "Church" is just another club I belong to or thing I have to endure, and why would I do that if I have five other interests that cover the same thing?
I wrote above I can speak from experience. Over my years in the Church as we have moved around, I have found that the word "sin" has become a word which is almost never mentioned now. The idea of redemption may be, but redemption from what? It is never clearly defined. Certainly never an idea of redemption from my inherent sinfulness, which I have to not only confess, but then repent from daily. The phrase more and more, it seems, is that I need Christ to be my Saviour for an indeterminate set of issues that are really more bad habits than critical failures.
The Church has definitively moved away from the need for salvation and thus the Church has definitively moved away from its primary purpose.
I understand that some of those that occasionally stop here are not Christian and to them this will largely seem like an in-house argument. Which it is, I suppose - were I atheistic or Muslim or Buddhist why people are leaving the Church has no more relevance to me than the fact my coffee is less warm than I like it in my cup.
What I do find somewhat disingenuous - at least for the in-house debate - is that personal beliefs are being substituted for reasons - or in some cases I suspect, justifications - for why the Church is losing people.
It is odd - I wrote the phrase above "everyone is a sinner consigned to Hell except by the grace of God." It strikes me that in today's charged environment, that is a statement which by some would be considered some sort of unacceptable speech. It is clearly in the Bible, multiple times of course. Now, that verges on a controversial and potentially odious statement, one that (I submit) those that find justification in their reasoning for why the Church is failing would point to as indicative of the hide bound thinking that has caused the failure.
The fact that large portions of the Church have walked away from it really, I suggest, tells the critical observer all they need to know. When any organization rejects its most basic tenet and function, the reason for its existence eventually disappears as well.
Things are so divisive out there now, TB. If you and I started talking about the specifics of sin, and the wrong person overheard us, we'd get accused of hatred and intolerance and we would get cancelled. Even my church tip toes on eggshells around the subject.
ReplyDeleteI think you may be looking at this from the wrong side too. You are looking at the church as if it were the party at fault. I don't think that it is. This devolves into politics so - delete it if you want and I'll say nothing about it! But... the political Left has done a superb job of undermining the church. I was raised in a very liberal family, and for over 50 years, my image of the Christian was that of a sanctimonious hypocrite, a superstitious, science denying buffoon, or brainless zombies believing whatever their grifting clerics told them. My parents believe all that to this day, as do my in laws and my daughter. I was stunned and deeply ashamed when I met real Christians. The media couldn't care less about the charity, the community work, the good deeds - but they are all over the child molesters, frauds and the nutters that crop up in any organization. For close to three generations the church has not been able to properly market itself.
I could go on but that would take a deep dive into politics and you probably know where that goes anyways. Suffice it to say I believe a show down is coming between the church and state... and that the church will ultimately win... but the cost will be severe.
Glen - Fair enough point that for a generation at least, maybe two, the Church has not had particularly good press. And also to be fair, the Church has done a pretty lousy job of cleaning out its own issues - we tolerated sin in own ranks for far too long (myself included here).
DeleteThe showdown has already started - look up John MacArthur's church and the recent letter from the State of California with their demands about what his church has to do to reopen. I expect it will just accelerate. I also expect that many that call themselves churches now will fall away.