Here's a rather heavy item for you to ponder on a Monday morning: there's a long and fascinating post at On the Square tracing the decline and fall of Protestant America—that is, the vanishing influence of mainstream Protestant denominations (Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran) on American society. The article is far too in-depth to summarize here, but the gist of it is something like this: throughout the first two centuries of American history, mainstream Protestant denominations were an important force in both supporting and criticizing American society, but since the 1970s have essentially fallen completely out of those roles. Mainstream Protestant denominations have gone from actively shaping American society (leading the abolition movement, spearheading Prohibition, etc.) to... not having much relevant to say at all.
As for why this is the case, the post mentions several different factors. Any thoughts or reactions? Many evangelicals would dismiss America's mainline Protestant denominations as overly liberal—but theologically liberal or not, has their loss of social influence hurt American society? Do you see other Christian movements rising to take their place, or does their waning reflect a broader loss of Christian influence on American culture?
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (27)
Our church for quite some number of years has been "deathy" and ineffective... so regardless of some think of the word... "revival" needs to come. Church and Christ aren't games to play... Jesus is life so it's so far bigger than our little denomination structures anyway
one would have to think faith in Jesus as their savior from sin is dead in their members
and then they would have to persume those with no faith in Jesus who are dead in sin would want to go to a revival .
how can a dead person want to go to any thing . And if the dead in sin death and the devil would they realy want to go to a revival to give them faith again in Jesus.
what about a recommitment service?
since only God knows the heart and who does not have faith in his Son
Unfortunately for these certain "mainline" denominations, in choosing to chase the wind by letting Biblical moorings go, people began staying away. Self-worship will always have its congregation conclude that, if there is no real difference in the church s/he attends vs. the world, then wasting a couple of precious "spare" hours at a mere building for Jesus is pointless. But their social influence is still felt as they live worldly, materialistic lives, and they will occasionally show up for quick religious fixes, or on the “big” holidays like Easter & Christmas…probably the most revealing part of this article was when the writer noted that, after Fosdick's removal from his pastorate due to his unBiblical views, a new church was built for him by a multimillionare.
The Bible says that as the return of the Lord nears, people will become more and more lovers of their own selves. Man's elevation above the Lord Jesus Christ happened in Catholicism when the pope was elevated above Scripture with the "ex cathedra" proclamation; it began in Protestantism with "higher criticism" of the Scriptures.
So many of the bloggers here are contemptuous of the church. They of course have a better idea for serving Christ. The non-traditional has come and gone countless times in the last 2000 years and the church is still here.
By the way, I do attend a Sunday meeting from time to time, as I feel led by God to go, in a building with "church" over the door. The pastor there does a fairly good job of preaching the Word of God, I frequently feel the presence of God in the singing and I have meet some dedicated believers that I call my friends. But my relationship with Jesus is much more personal than what I experience there.
Mainline Protestant denominations may be partially empty shells, but God blesses and uses individuals, wherever they are found, not organizations.
and So God doesnt bless the church he orgagnized out of individuals He himself called to be the body of Christ?
As to your comment about "...the casual way that other Christians are saying good riddance..." I'm not too sure about that word, "casual" before "way." Baiting, yes; eager, obviously; angry, no doubt about it; unforgiving, sure; bitter, yep. But, "casual"?
Amen!
Before TV, radio, internet for many people church served an entertainment and social function as well as a religious. People also attended long non-religious lectures in the 19th century. Today they are at concerts, movies or on the internet.
Some mainstream Protestants...and Catholics and Pentecostals for that matter...are too concerned with ceremony, tradition and symbolism that arose from needs of a culture that changed long ago. Our primary responsibility as a church is to engage unchurched people who live in a 21st century culture with the truth about Christ and to show them who He is in our present context.
Our primary citizenship is in heaven (we hold dual passports). If we see ourselves primarly as citizens of the world, or of America, we will devolve into a social advocacy group that is fundamentally anti-faith, anti-supernatural.
The body of Christ has always existed as a subset of the earthly church. The great field of the church has always had wheat sown among the tares, living side by side. The rise of evangelicalism and pentecostalism is unlike the rise of Methodist, Presbyterian or Baptist organizations. Denominational labels become mostly meaningless when you find yourself lost in direct corporate worship of the living God who speaks today through His word and through His Spirit. If I get to be a part of leading someone to Christ or witness a healing miracle, suddenly my priorities change, my world view is altered.
Perhaps we are approaching a day when no single Christian organization or movement rises to take the place of mainline Protestant denominations. Instead, the nation may feel the influence of the body of Christ, no matter the denominational affiliation or lack of such. How many people can identify the denomination of Billy Graham, James Dobson, Rick Warren, TD Jakes, George Bush, Lou Engle or Luis Palau. They are simply thought of as Christians. Perhaps the world will finally see the Body of Christ.
I disagree with Lindy’s comment that so many of these bloggers are contemptuous of the church. We (including Lindy) are the church.
Biblical errancy, -- the more I learn about the original Hebrew, the more I realize that every translation we have available contains error, because the translators were human. The original divine revelation is divine, but the words on the page in front of me are not. Incidentally, while Jewish teaching is that the Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy) were "words and music by the Creator of the Universe," and the Nevi'im (Prophets) were inspired by direct revelation (to a chosen human who wrote down as much as he could remember or make sense of), the "writings" (e.g. Chronicles) are NOT "The Word of God" but human writings. If you read these books, such distinctions make sense.
the non-virginity of Mary, John Calvin said Mary has no special role as intercessor, I see no need to question her virginity, but does it really matter if some do?
evolution, one of God's greatest miracles, described in loving detail in the first two chapters of Genesis. Now what was that about Biblical errancy?
the “goodness but not god-ness” of Jesus, - I understand why one might object to that, but Jesus said "Why do you call me good? There is none good but one, that is, God." That sort of throws all sides of the "goodness vs. godness" debate for a loop.
the abolition of the death penalty, - a good part of the Roman Catholic church advocates that, and if you remember what happened to Jesus, I'm not sure how a Christian could be any too committed to executions by the state. I don't recall that Rick Warren is too hot on the death penalty either.
the denial of the resurrection (and other miracles), - I haven't been to any Protestant church which does either. My brother-in-law recently joined a Presbyterian Church, and while the minister made allowances for various wording in old creeds to be questioned, the key point was accepting Jesus Christ as his lord and savior. That's right, a Presbyterian Church, in NYC no less (the Bronx actually).
open homosexuality, -some do, some don't. I hear homosexuality denounced at Lutheran and other mainline Protestant churches quite often, as well as the Methodist church I belong to (remember there are at least five kinds of Methodists).
and other worldly practices - eating and sleeping are worldly practices, which I engage in every day. Sex within marriage, or outside of it, are both worldly, although of different propriety. Getting up and going to work is worldly. The work ethic is worldly. So the point here is what?
And to get back to the subject of this post, the Lutheran and Anglican churches arose in response to decay in the Roman church, which was never catholic, the Methodist and Presbyterian and Congregational churches arose in response to deficiencies in both, as did the Baptists, and it is only natural that as these "new" denominations age, they don't serve the needs of everyone so well. But the Roman church is still very much with us, as are the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, and I see a lot of people going in and out of Baptist churches every Sunday, so I'm not too worried. Most of the "new" churches rely heavily on the "old" theologies, particularly John Wesley, without whom there could have been no Pentecostal movement.
I love your comment "If we weep to see denomination X decline our loyalties become plain." My pastor says over and over again, "God does not draw a line between people and say, 'I prefer your denomination to that one.' Instead He does is draws a line far above all of us, and says 'We all fall short - place your trust in My Beloved Son."
Siarlys, thanx for your comments. God Himself instituted the death penalty before the Law, right after the flood, and in doing so, He established the pre-eminent value of life by letting human beings know that any lesser punishment given to one who has taken another's life is too little a retribution. I care what the Bible says, not what Catholics teach or what Rick Warren's opinion of a certain social issue is (although I very much admire Rick & Kay for many things they have accomplished). In bringing up Jesus' death by execution, yes, the mockery of "justice" the Lord endured was evil to its rotten core. But what did God the Father really do, when He sent His Son to die on the cross for man? He established once more that life must be given for life. I deserved the death penalty for my vile actions, and God sent His Son to die in my place - but the penalty, death - was still paid.
While I am decidedly opinionated, I do not, under any circumstances, correct my Bible. I let it correct me. I do believe in the death penalty, so do you if you have ever heard of lethal injection.
Thanx again for your comments.
However, the entire Old Testament was first written in Hebrew, except for certain parts of Daniel, which were written in Royal Aramaic. They were not written by the prophets in English, Spanish, Latin, or Greek. If the direct revelations from God were spoken in words, they were spoken in Hebrew. Their original meaning applied to, and shaped, Jewish life and culture. So a well-trained rabbi is the expert on what the words mean. To the extent that Jesus personally commented on the meaning of any Old Testament passage, that is Gospel, and it is no pun to say so. But there are very few verses which give us such direct exegesis from Jesus. Incidentally, none that we have advocate the authority of human governments to inflict the penalty of death, and in one instance, he intervened to prevent the infliction of a death penalty superficially mandated in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
This is probably why many of the early Protestants had a warmer attitude toward Jews than the Roman hierarchy. (Not modern day liberals, the saints of old.) Oliver Cromwell asked parliament to allow Jews back into England, for the first time since Edward I had evicted them. Many of the Puritans gave their children Old Testament names. Those who adhere to the covenant delivered to Moses on Mt. Sinai, and do not accept Jesus as the Christ, are not Christians, but did not Jesus himself say, do what the rabbis tell you, for they sit in Moses's seat?
P.S. I would like to correct a typo: I meant to say that God did not punish Cain with death, not that God did not punish Cain.
One of Messiah Jesus' most heinous crimes in the eyes of the Jewish religious leaders of His time, was that He actually got back to the the Tanakh purely, ignoring the esteemed rabbis accumulated "wisdom" in favor of what the Tanakh actually said. One example: rabbis had figured out exactly what work could and could not be done on the Sabbath. When Messiah Jesus healed a bent over, hurting woman, He enraged these wise sages, who had in their wisdom figured out that God had no business healing on the Sabbath. For this rank action of disregarding their decrees, as well as numerous others which upset the rabbis' spiritual apple cart, Messiah Jesus was despised, afflicted, rejected and led by these same leaders to a certain death by the Romans.
Now, I do not point this out to put down Jewish people; Gentiles, too, were wickedly eager to see Messiah upon the cross, and did their evil best to ensure He was mocked, tortured, crucified. That wonderful Jewish rabbi, Paul, put it this way, "We [Jew & Gentile] were His enemies, yet He died for us!" That Gentiles should love Jewish people, those from whom the Messiah came physically & who kept His Tanakh through the long, dark centuries although vilified for their precious watchcare, is only in the Gentiles' best interest; that Jewish people should love Messiah, and the Gentiles He has seen fit to call into oneness with Him with them, in theirs.
As to your dear friend the rabbi, I am very glad for your discussions with him, and I pray his eyes will be opened to His wonderful Messiah's love and forgiveness. But surely you must know, that many have diligently studied the Scriptures, even in the original languages, and come up with conclusions opposite to your friend's. Therefore, I will stand by the Holy Bible's teaching; not because of learned men, Jewish or Gentile, but because my Bible will not err. The instance you point out (the adulterous woman) was a prime example of the Lord teaching hypocrites not to cast stones, but to instead search their hearts and discover something: they are sinners, too, in need of a Savior. The death penalty was not rescinded in this case; these men still had the option of casting their stones, but they knew (as did their Messiah) that they were guilty of the very thing they were going to stone the adulterous woman for (after all, adultery takes at least two, doesn't it?)
As to Cain, in His mercy God allowed time for repentance not only for him, but for all his progeny, but when their violence & wickedness finally covered the world, God brought a death sentence (the flood) upon mankind, destroying all (not some, but all) of Cain's descendants. And Cain's eternal destiny is told forth in the New Testament: while his brother Abel is lifted up as a hero of the faith, Cain is portrayed as he really is, a wicked murderer who killed his very own brother. As Jude puts it, "Woe to those who go Cain's way!"
I do not think the death penalty should be used lightly, and I do realize it has been inconsistently used. But this does not negate the fact that "whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" is a penalty instituted by God Himself as an important component of human justice, perhaps giving men who are thinking about going down Cain's road, pause, and definitely stopping those who carelessly take that road in their tracks, thus protecting innocent human beings.
Thank you once more for sharing your thoughts with me.
I dont think so.
Luther was right and he refused to even shake the hand of zwingli . because luther would not compromise his faith in agreeing to disagree just so they could have religious fellowship.
at the expence of what He believed holy scripture taught.
He disagreed with zwingli period .
Luther was uncompromising in his christian faith he wsnt a smoozer
agreeing to disagree is just
a warm stance its neither hot nor cold.
its not a zealous uncompromising position.
Luthers refusal to even shake zwinglis hand after he rejected What christ said about his body being in the sacramenmt .left zwingli with no doubts on what luther believed and stood up for.
of why some people see the death of Protestant America, and some don't.
Personally, I believe all I need to know about communion is "this do in
remembrance of me." I am open to fellowship with anyone who agrees on
that, whatever else they believe. I respect the right of anyone who finds
that insufficient to exclude me from whatever fellowship they hold. I
don't consider that much of a loss to me. I could care less what Luther
or Zwingli fought about, or whether they shook each other's hands. Luther
made an important contribution to the Reformation, but he could be a real
donkey sometimes. Certain of his statements were used to justify
persecution of Jews under Nazi rule, a regime many conservative German
Lutherans enthusiastically voted for, which doesn't at all mean that
Luther was a Nazi. But he was an imperfect human being, who was sometimes
very very wrong. I find my Protestant roots more in the work of John
Wycliffe than of Martin Luther, although Wycliffe did not lead open
revolt against the Bishops of Rome. That Luther precipitated a break with
Roman rule was more important than any particular thing that he
pronounced about his faith.
It is my position that no human being is entitled to a zealous,
uncompromising position as to the word or intent of God. For example,
John Calvin not only refused to shake the hand of Michael Servitius, he
had him burned at the stake, just as the Spanish Inquisition would have
done. Calvin was wrong. The Lord our God is a zealous God, but he is also
omniscient, and we are not. Agreeing to disagree is merely recognizing
that while we are called to "be perfect, as your father in heaven is
perfect," nevertheless, "all fall short of the glory of God." So, as H.L.
Mencken used to write, in response to every critical letter he ever
received, "Dear Sir, You may be right."
____________________________________________________________
Click now for great vacation packages to beautiful Ireland!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.c...
You are of a different spirit than us in so many of the bibles doctrines .
it would be wrong and unloving of me of me to even concider looking for common ground with you .When i believe even one error in doctrines is dangerious to your saving faith in Jesus . but you maintain many at the same time .
God help you.
and good bye
where did these lutherans come from certainly not Germany .And Luther certainly would wonder about them to since he believed the holy scriptures and good beer was a wonderful gift from God .