Young Evangelicals are Getting 'High' - and are embracing older denominations
- Thread starter Photoss
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Something's wrong, and it's not letting me post correctly, but here's something facing the evengelical movement today:
EDIT Evidently, the forum doesn't like this link. >.< It keeps messing up my message.
Young Evangelicals Are Getting High
EDIT Evidently, the forum doesn't like this link. >.< It keeps messing up my message.
Young Evangelicals Are Getting High
Last edited:
People have an innate and often unnoticed drive for the sublime that must be satisfied. Evangelicalism has gone too far in ridding Christianity of its mysterious and less positive elements.
Furthermore, people need to not only hear history but feel the history. Understand that they are in a covenant with God that includes those not living and those yet to come.
A Christianity that reduces Jesus to only a figure that one can personally relate to is one that misses the point and pays dearly for doing so in the end.
Furthermore, people need to not only hear history but feel the history. Understand that they are in a covenant with God that includes those not living and those yet to come.
A Christianity that reduces Jesus to only a figure that one can personally relate to is one that misses the point and pays dearly for doing so in the end.
T
You're statements are too general, as if what you say is the same for ALL people. You could claim about anything about anyone's feelings, saying they must be 'innate' and 'unnoticed' and no one could deny those claims about themselves. It seems like you're trying to impose YOUR definition of what a christian should be on ALL christians. It's a defintion that centers on human needs, not on what God wants from us. It 'comes' from a psychology book, not from God's good Book.
Fact is the evangelical churches are growing fast in regions where the RCC used to be predominant, like Central and South America. I don't blame the people there, I mean, what has the RCC ever done for THEM? Just look at the visit of the pope to Brazil, evidently they don't want him there.
Fact is the evangelical churches are growing fast in regions where the RCC used to be predominant, like Central and South America. I don't blame the people there, I mean, what has the RCC ever done for THEM? Just look at the visit of the pope to Brazil, evidently they don't want him there.
The Bible is filled with general statements concerning man's condition either explicitly or implicitly. This is one of them.
True. This impulse was not always so unnoticed. What I describe is a post-Enlightenment West phenomena more than anything else.
Allow me to qualify: today the need for the overtly sacred is not often recognized.
I noticed my choice of words was a little off before I posted. You're right on one count: my observation did seem too human needs focused. As if the object of the Church is merely to satisfy temporal hungers.
This was not my intention.
I argue quite the opposite. The Christianity that is popular today (at least in the United States) goes too far in the direction of satisfying temporal needs. If the gospel were preached in its full power. If we recognized Christ's lordship. If more attention was paid to teaching the Bible with an emphasis on Biblical exposition. If we understood our experience not only in the context of daily life but in the grand context of God's plan for the Church. If churches were treated more as houses of God than play houses. If we had a greater appreciation for the sovereign power of God and His great power over us. If we simply oriented our gaze more toward God in every aspect, we would understand the vital component of faith we have been missing.
These high churches provide only what is needed on a surface level as often their faith is dead. The draw to the sacred though is a God-given one, because it brings us closer to Him though with him sits the element of mystery.
I itallicized one particular sentence to show you fell into the same trap I have. Just wanted to point it out for future reference.
Still a good question though.What has the RCC done for them? Well one great thing- it gave them tradition, custom, and stability to draw off of for generations. Brazil is still heavily Catholic. As real believers we know that these reasons are not enough. That there is more to faith than mere church attendance.
In countries like Brazil, the evangelicals in question are often pentecostals. Pentecostalism often gains RCC converts due to the mystical qualities they share. This contributes to my thesis to a certain extent.
R
i have noted before that young christians...that is those of 'generation Y'...were not really all that enamored with contemporaryism...which i believe was really just a stereotype imposed on them by well meaning christians of the baby boomer generation...many of whom found that kind of thing to be a lot more youthful and vibrant than it really is...
generation Y isn't particularly impressed with their parents' church...what interests them is their -grandparents'- and -great grandparents'- churches...we want something with stronger historical roots...
this can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how the evangelical churches respond to this phenomenon...
the unfortunate fact is that certain denominations have much more experience in portraying themselves as 'historic christianity'...young evangelicals are paying attention to these denominations and in some cases being deceived by false claims of historicity...
for example the 'emergent church' movement...as far as doctrine is concerned...consists almost entirely of postmodernist liberal theology...yet they borrow freely from the practices of ancient christianity and especially ancient christian mystics and use that as window dressing... the result is that young evangelicals are flocking to this movement...
what i gather from this is that the evangelical churches need to reconnect with their historical roots...and fast...
generation Y isn't particularly impressed with their parents' church...what interests them is their -grandparents'- and -great grandparents'- churches...we want something with stronger historical roots...
this can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how the evangelical churches respond to this phenomenon...
the unfortunate fact is that certain denominations have much more experience in portraying themselves as 'historic christianity'...young evangelicals are paying attention to these denominations and in some cases being deceived by false claims of historicity...
for example the 'emergent church' movement...as far as doctrine is concerned...consists almost entirely of postmodernist liberal theology...yet they borrow freely from the practices of ancient christianity and especially ancient christian mystics and use that as window dressing... the result is that young evangelicals are flocking to this movement...
what i gather from this is that the evangelical churches need to reconnect with their historical roots...and fast...
T
Thank you for your response. It costs me a lot of time to write these posts, for obvious reasons. I hope I understood you correctly.
The Bible is God’s Word, and don’t you think God is allowed to make general statements concerning the condition of man? What you describe is not a ‘post- Enlightenment Westphenomena’(sic), but a PERCEIVED phenomenon. How can you be so sure that there’s indeed a need for what the high churches have to offer? Fact is they are losing members rapidly all over the place. People who DO need rituals and such usually go for the hollow, meaningless, self-confirming nonsense of new age and worse. I agree more or less on the whole ‘If we etc...’ of what you had to say. Christ should be the focus of our attention, not ourselves.
But what exactly is ‘the sacred’ to you? God’s Word in It’s fulness – so that’s more than just the Bible- should be enough for any man, and He uses THAT to bring us closer to Him, we don’t need ‘works of the law’ –all kinds of sacred rites- to achieve that. (Acts 17:24-28)
What the RCC did in Latin America was to help the conquistadors destroy the indigenous culture, sanction the use of violance to help spread the catholic faith, sanction the suppression of the natives and after that the oppression of the poor. Indeed those are general comments, there were fransicans and others who resisted that use of power and cared for the poor, but I think that was a minority. The RCC doesn’t provide people in the third world with real answers, it isn’t out to help people, it’s just out to force the same old ethics and non biblical traditions on people.
The Bible is God’s Word, and don’t you think God is allowed to make general statements concerning the condition of man? What you describe is not a ‘post- Enlightenment Westphenomena’(sic), but a PERCEIVED phenomenon. How can you be so sure that there’s indeed a need for what the high churches have to offer? Fact is they are losing members rapidly all over the place. People who DO need rituals and such usually go for the hollow, meaningless, self-confirming nonsense of new age and worse. I agree more or less on the whole ‘If we etc...’ of what you had to say. Christ should be the focus of our attention, not ourselves.
But what exactly is ‘the sacred’ to you? God’s Word in It’s fulness – so that’s more than just the Bible- should be enough for any man, and He uses THAT to bring us closer to Him, we don’t need ‘works of the law’ –all kinds of sacred rites- to achieve that. (Acts 17:24-28)
What the RCC did in Latin America was to help the conquistadors destroy the indigenous culture, sanction the use of violance to help spread the catholic faith, sanction the suppression of the natives and after that the oppression of the poor. Indeed those are general comments, there were fransicans and others who resisted that use of power and cared for the poor, but I think that was a minority. The RCC doesn’t provide people in the third world with real answers, it isn’t out to help people, it’s just out to force the same old ethics and non biblical traditions on people.
Last edited:
I think with the transient and fast moving world, younger Christians are looking for something ancient and mysterious, something that has stood the test of time. The more orthodox churches: Lutheran, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox fit this description. These sects have such a great history and have stood, in spite of the whackiness and corruption, and I think younger people see that the Spirit must be keeping these sects alive.
No problem! I appreciate that you take the time to respond.
I said He can. That was foundational to my argument.
No, I would say it is a very real phenomena in thought. The rationalism so popular during the Enlightenment cut away emphasis on the sacred.
I can be sure the high churches have something to offer because they are starting to draw new members from the evangelical pool (the entire point of the OP's article).
I agree with this. What I argue for is not the introduction of ritual, but a general change in attitude and atmosphere.
A more deliberate attitude.
I never said we did need organized rites. Like I said previously, I think the attitude towards God and worshipful living has to be what changes. I do not think there is enough awe of God's power and it shows with how flippantly the modern church typically treats their houses of worship and direct treatment of God. We have largely forgotten the important component of Lordship.
I think you could stand to be a bit more even-handed with the Catholics. I am not a Catholic. I think a very small percentage of Catholics are genuine Christians (smaller in proportion to other denominations). That and there are a great many Catholic sects in existence, some of which preach the truth others of which do not.
Were historical crimes committed in the name of the Church? Of course. Is it largely a political institution? Yes, I would say so. I wouldn't color the totality of their actions though as evil or devoid of good intention.