The Coming Evangelical Collapse


Just_A_Guy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I thought this article was interesting, though I'm not sure the extent to which I agree with it. The following, in particular, was provocative:

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

Opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If this is true- and sadly, I don't doubt that these things could happen- I feel absolutely horrible for my evangelical friends. If this does happen, then their faith will be shaken to its very core. I could see cultural evangelicals evaporating from the churches overnight, and those who truly are converted to Christ will need safe havens to go without changing theology.

That's why I think, as the world gets worse, we'll see a growing, albeit small, counter-culture movement of true godliness. I've always thought that there will start to be a larger niche for family-oriented and Christ-oriented entertainment among Christians- the real ones, not the cultural ones. I'm not surprised the author of this article thinks the same thing. It's the principle of the wheat and the tares: as the tares grow up, so must the wheat.

I see the heart of Evangelical Christianity as a bastion of morality in society. It will be a sad day when it falls, if it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the evangelicals need to get back to basics like condemn divorce as strongly as Christ condemned it, unify their families as a safe haven, and get back to the idea that God did, after all, make it quite clear that the Godly are to multiply and replenish the earth (and that means reproduction, not some humanistically inspired mush about God actually meaning to do nice things).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the evangelicals need to get back to basics like condemn divorce as strongly as Christ condemned it, unify their families as a safe haven, and get back to the idea that God did, after all, make it quite clear that the Godly are to multiply and replenish the earth (and that means reproduction, not some humanistically inspired mush about God actually meaning to do nice things).

I think part of the problem is that such a wide variety of religious views and practices fall under the umbrella-term of 'Evangelical'. I've known some Evangelical Christians who do all these things you've mentioned and are great examples to their communities. However, when you get Christianity-with-water (C.S. Lewis term) mega-churches with hyper-hypocritical pastors like Teg Haggard thrown into the same mix... Not good. I think the popular idea of 'Evangelical Christianity' suffers from a lack of unifying practice and doctrine (besides the Creeds, which aren't really that unifying anyway...).

I think the evangelical Christians who are focused on those basics you talked about, Fiannan, will come out just fine. Don't know what will happen if the 'whole system' fails, but I know Christ takes care of His own, no matter their religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is happening in Scandinavia that is sure. Soon we have more muslims than evangelical! It is funny that many gaynsayers cant see it that muslims are winning. Well I suppose it is better for them that it is Muslims and not us.

People are resighning church more than ever. One rason is the decitions that ahve been made by Lutherand leaders in Finland. Allowing a man bishop becoming a woman bishop, an other bishop caught in cheatring his wife, homomarriages by the door... many are resighning as they lost their belief in Lutherans church and even more who do not care.

Churches are sold to houses or offices....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the evangelicals need to get back to basics like condemn divorce as strongly as Christ condemned it, unify their families as a safe haven, and get back to the idea that God did, after all, make it quite clear that the Godly are to multiply and replenish the earth (and that means reproduction, not some humanistically inspired mush about God actually meaning to do nice things).

I think evangelicals tend to be pretty direct about those things you mention. Perhaps it's just that your interpretations are extreme enough that no one manages to meet standards of your interpretation.

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand evangelicals...but let's at least treat them fairly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO the author of this gloom and doom is myopic, inexperienced, and wrong. He's myopic to focus upon the Religious Right social movement and insist that it is the death nail of the faith. We are called to be salt and light, and speak the truth to power. I will never believe that the Christian movement will be harmed long-term by proclaiming to a morally blind world that it is ungodly to kill unborn children. Beyond the righteousness of evangelicalism's political activity, such is almost purely an American phenonenon. My church (Assemblies of God) happens to be the largest member organization within the National Association of Evangelicals. We have 3 million adherents in the U.S., and 52 million worldwide. So, to suggest that the political activities of a certain percentage of the 3 million means the decimation of the worldwide movement is just silly.

Second, the writer is clearly young and inexperienced. Martin Luther King did not destroy the African American church, despite many "failures" early on. Additionally, it is so very common throughout church history that people become disgruntled with the established church, so they start a fresh new movement, which, over time, becomes yet another denominational church organization.

Finally, the author is wrong because historically political and cultural opposition has strengthened the church. During the Communist Revolution in China, during which all the foreign missionaries were deported, the Christian movement there grew from perhaps a few million, to now, between 40 and 150 million (hard to get an accurate count). I don't look for trouble, but if the predicted spiritual warfare comes, me thinks God will equip and strengthen his church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kind of shocked, and more than 'kind of' saddened, by some of the Mormons who have posted talking about how great this would be or that Evangelicals had it coming to them. To me, that's like having no sympathy for any of the Native Americans who were pushed from their homes because they 'had it coming' (it was prophesied, even). I will never forget when my sister pulled me aside and reprimanded me, when I was younger, for saying that the Indians got what they deserved. It's a lesson that has not been lost on me.

There are many, many good people in the Evangelical movement. If this collapse should occur, it will lead to the religious homelessness of many good people who are following Christ and His Light to the best of their ability. I do not see that as a happy occurrence- even if somehow it were for the greater good of Christianity. Nor do I think these poor Evangelicals should suffer for the wrongs their religious forefathers may have done to us Mormons. Nor do I think these poor Evangelicals should suffer for any misguided direction their leaders may take. Whatever happens, the Evangelical movement is in for a tough battle and, as Christians, we should be strengthening our brother. If the movement falls, it will be according to Christ's plan and because of the sins of the world. I, for one, will not contribute to the widespread hatred of Evangelical Christianity based on the acts of the very, very small minority.

Also, I think we would ALL do well to remember that in Mormon history, we have needed help from outside the faith from time to time (Colonel Kane, for example). I remember reading a talk by Neil A. Maxwell in which he states that those of other faiths, seeing the works of the Church, will rally to its cause and be a great help. The Church does not hold a monopoly on goodness, truth, or Christianity.

I don't look for trouble, but if the predicted spiritual warfare comes, me thinks God will equip and strengthen his church.

Hand me a spiritual 'weapon' and I'll fight by your side, PC. Edited by Maxel
Clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, the reason I posted this was because I think there's a tide of secularization coming (though I share PC's skepticism of the author's view that the secularization is first-and-foremost a backlash against the activities of the Religious Right). The author focuses on evangelical Christianity, but I think that as Mormons we're going to feel the fallout as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree we must not be prideful about the conditions in the coming tulmultious times.

Gerald Lund's book The Coming of the Lord. has a chapter about The Church being a refuge in the midst of terror.

He quotes LDS Leaders referencing times when Many will flock to the Church for safety.

Pge 97 (President George Q. Cannon in His journal of Discourses Vol. 18 Page 10 Given April 8, 1875)

We are not alone in the thought that the republic is drifting steadily in that direction, that we are leaving the old constitutional landmarks, and that the time is not far distant when there will be trouble in consequence of it, when there will be civil broils and strife; and, to escape them, we believe men will be compelled to flee to the "Mormons," despised as they are now.

Edited by darrel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Orson Pratt also spoke about these future times on several different occasions. For example, in 1855 he spoke of the time when the Gentiles would come to the Church as a flowing stream, not because they will want to join the Church but simply to escape the disasterous conditions that will prevail in the world.

Now how do we know, but when the gates of Zion shall be open to the nations, that the Gentiles will come flocking in, like a flowing stream? A flowing stream is one that runs continually: and the Gentiles will, in that day, come to us as a flowing stream, and we shall have to set our gates open continually, they will come as clouds and as doves in large flocks.

Those nations are trembling and tottering and will eventually crumble to ruin, and those men of wealth will come here, not to be baptized, but many of them will come that have never heard the servants of God; but they will hear that peace and health dwell among us, and that our officers, and our tax gatherers men of righteousness. Orson Pratt Journal of Discourses Vol. 3, p.16 May 20 1855

Edited by darrel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just heard taht 80% of finnish are stil Lutherans. Of this only 10% (20% at most) go to church, believe actively. Rest are there so they can get a Church wedding. Now they are talking about, that leagal marriage probably will be for the state to do as homos are coming too... and Churches can bless the marriages for those who wish for that.

Anyway there are a lot of people with a lot of questions right now. I just hope we get some of them and not all go to muslims:p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what I think, for whatever that's worth:

When I read the caption (Not the whole article), I got the feeling that it was ALL of Christianity, not just the Evangelicals, that this was going to happen to. You can see it starting already with the protests against the Prop 8 protests, the decline of clean TV and the mocking of those that want it. Just recently in the city where I work (Calgary), there are bus signs and billboards saying "There probably isn't a God so stop worrying and get on with your lives". I think we can expect to see more of this as time goes by. People will be mocked for their belief in God (whatever that belief may be).

PC ~ I'll also be right there with you defending whatever attack may come, as I hope would anyone who is religeous, no matter the faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

I think a restructuring of the religious paradigm in this country could be a good thing. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to see a rise in secularism and a decline in evangelism over the next decade or so. This may be hard for many Christians to cope with due to the fact that they're used to their current status as the "moral majority". However, I don't think religious freedom is going anywhere. What some may perceive as persecution will more than likely consist of nothing more than a more aggressive movement towards a true separation of church and state, as well as a society that has a more accepting attitude towards atheists, non-theists, and non-Christian theists. From where I'm sitting, the US is not a Christian nation, and that's the way it should be. I have no quarrel with Christianity (to include Mormonism), but I think it's absurd to think that a rise in secularism will result in anti-Christian persecution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be hard for many Christians to cope with due to the fact that they're used to their current status as the "moral

majority".

As FYI, the Moral Majority, even in the haydays of the early 80s, claimed to have 20% of voters behind them.

However, I don't think religious freedom is going anywhere. What some may perceive as persecution will more than likely consist of nothing more than a more aggressive movement towards a true separation of church and state,

But what does this mean? What does separation of church and state mean in a country with a history of religious involvement in the public square? Do we do away with publically supported chaplaincy, for example? We've had them since the Revolutionary War. Would Dr. King have lost his church's tax exempt status because of his "political involvement?" Will a Christian's opinion be dismissed before it's been heard, simply because it is a religious opinion? I oppose both "aggressive separation of church and state" (Marxism being the ultimate aggression, btw), and theocracy. Power corrupts, but I should not have to turn in my citizenship rights because I carry a cross (or a crescent for that matter).

as well as a society that has a more accepting attitude towards atheists, non-theists, and non-Christian theists.

I do prefer honest non-religious folk to "christian" hypocrites. :cool:

From where I'm sitting, the US is not a Christian nation, and that's the way it should be. I have no quarrel with Christianity (to include Mormonism), but I think it's absurd to think that a rise in secularism will result in anti-Christian persecution.

It need not, but historically, it often has. If secularism is to come, I hope it is more the Scandanavian model, than that of China, Cambodia or Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

As FYI, the Moral Majority, even in the haydays of the early 80s, claimed to have 20% of voters behind them.

Thanks for the correction. That was probably a bad choice of words on my part since I wasn't literally referring to the Moral Majority. What I meant is that Christians in the US have dominated nearly every demographic in our society since the Nation's conception, and I think some Christians are experiencing a premature persecution complex in the face of rising secularism. Where some people may see oppression and persecution, I see balance. And it is my sincere hope that neither the religious nor the secularists turn this transition into a culture war.

But what does this mean? What does separation of church and state mean in a country with a history of religious involvement in the public square?

Separation of church and state means keeping religious interests out of politics, especially in a society where religious interests usually translate into Christian interests, which is a blatant violation of the Constitutional mandate barring government support for one religion over another. Just to clarify, public squares are perfectly acceptable venues for religious activity. Houses of legislature are not.

Do we do away with publically supported chaplaincy, for example?

I see no problem with chaplaincies receiving public funding, so long as all faiths that desire representation and funding are able to obtain it.

Would Dr. King have lost his church's tax exempt status because of his "political involvement?"

Ideally, yes.

Will a Christian's opinion be dismissed before it's been heard, simply because it is a religious opinion?

No, for two reasons. First, the average Christian holds many opinions which are not influenced at all by his/her religious beliefs. Second, religious and secular codes of morality have plenty of common ground. For example, a Christian may be opposed to the death penalty because it goes against the biblical commandment "Thou shalt not kill". I am opposed to it because I believe that it is a form of murder, and I believe that murder is morally wrong. Should my opinion be considered valid, but not the Christian's? No, but the Christian should be prepared to provide some non-biblical justification for his position.

It need not, but historically, it often has. If secularism is to come, I hope it is more the Scandanavian model, than that of China, Cambodia or Russia.

In addition to Scandinavia, many of the European nations have seen a dramatic rise in secularism over the past few decades, and religious freedom seems to be alive and well in those nations. This secular movement is driven by cultural attitudes, not political ideals like Communism. The latter driving force is the reason why China and Russia have historically suppressed religious freedom. I don't think we need to worry about that here in the US.

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Separation of church and state means keeping religious interests out of politics, especially in a society where religious interests usually translate into Christian interests, which is a blatant violation of the Constitutional mandate barring government support for one religion over another. Just to clarify, public squares are perfectly acceptable venues for religious activity. Houses of legislature are not.

I think it's a little dangerous for us to begin acting like we understand the Constitution better than the guys who actually wrote the thing.

To be perfectly blunt, an awful lot of the framers were involved in the early sessions of Congress; and they didn't apply the First Amendment the way a lot of people today think it should be applied.

The policy you propose makes a lot of sense, but let's not pretend it's rooted in "constitutional" concerns. It isn't. It's simply a newly ascendant interest group advocating a new policy beneficial to it; and the promulgation of its message is being assisted by generational shifts in American culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

I think it's a little dangerous for us to begin acting like we understand the Constitution better than the guys who actually wrote the thing.

To be perfectly blunt, an awful lot of the framers were involved in the early sessions of Congress; and they didn't apply the First Amendment the way a lot of people today think it should be applied.

The policy you propose makes a lot of sense, but let's not pretend it's rooted in "constitutional" concerns. It isn't. It's simply a newly ascendant interest group advocating a new policy beneficial to it; and the promulgation of its message is being assisted by generational shifts in American culture.

I am aware of the fact that "separation of church and state" is a concept that is largely absent in the Constitution. However, that doesn't mean that it's an unconstitutional concept. Personally, I believe that its a necessary measure to protect the rights and laws that are addressed in the Constitution. And if you think about it, no one has anything to lose from it. Both the government and religious groups stand to benefit from not having to worry about the other poking around in their affairs. Meanwhile, we just need to make sure we're promoting equality in areas where church and state are still forced to co-exist, such as in chaplaincies, as PC mentioned.

You're right about the application of the First Amendment. To be honest, there are many aspects of the Constitution that are applied differently today than they were most likely intended to be by the framers. That's why we have the Supreme Court. Their job is to apply Constitutional law to modern scenarios and legislature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am aware of the fact that "separation of church and state" is a concept that is largely absent in the Constitution. However, that doesn't mean that it's an unconstitutional concept.

Point taken. My thought is just that it's kinda hard to say "the Constitution requires that we do X" when we've spent the last two hundred-odd years . . . not doing X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I am most aware of, is that often a Christian's views on morality are not viewed as viable simply because they are derived from an organized religion. I see the same pundits most vociferously arguing for the 'separation of church and state'- as if any organized religion actually holds serious political influence- as the ones who believe non theistic morality is the pinnacle of ethical philosophy.

The separation of church and state was largely established to prevent an organized religion from overtaking the government (as the Catholic and Anglican churches had done in the Old World), but that never meant separating the morals and values perpetuated by organized religion (especially Christianity) from the government. I think Bill Maher's wariness of Mitt Romney- solely because of his comments about faith- is a measure of the general disillusionment with organized religion and the false notion that non-religion is the better choice, and what the founding fathers wanted. I think this same disillusionment is a symptom of the deeper problem that is also responsible for this so-called 'Evangelical collapse'- the secularization of society, and the abandonment of the values of our forefathers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share