Error that Refuses to Die

[PAC-fit]

I did not take the part you quoted as a theological statement, but a statement of facts on the ground.

Then anyone's like-participation and commentary to continue here is to be expected and serves the thread. For no question, a sordid collection of thorns and briars needs to be (with prayer and the Father's help), gathered and thrown into the fire. But, that's not the strength of the thread (as many consider multivalent views as the final strength). As you may recall, in an earlier submission,

The Body still wishes to bask in Paul's alarm without hesitation.

"I hear there are divisions among you"

Straightened solitarily in one's own stripe? No problem. Being "of the same mind" (Apostles' precept), the Body deems, 'impossible'.

'Impossible' as a fact on the ground? But, the Spirit through God's servant just said it is! My invitation is to start somewhere, agree, now, for it is not designated for some other season of the Church, we are called to exert today that expectation of mind as we draw near to God by the Spirit. The popular multivalent mindset of God's will is a recipe for disaster, just as it surfaced, unchecked for the Church at Corinth;

"The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already." (1Cor 6:7)

So, while the 'gates of hell shall not prevail', doesn't mean we are free of the Father's pruning.

 

[biblestudent78]

True indeed. The man-made, pastoral system couched within the institutional model is not only a waste of resources, but keep the so-called "laity" in bondage to the pews or stadium chairs or whatever the seating style may be. The institutionalist always has the same narrative about there being fellowship time in their "cell" or home groups, never minding that the cell group model of the institutions still tend toward sanitized meeting formulas given that the institutional model is populated with people who know nothing about what true fellowship entails and how dangerous it is to microcosmic autonomy, self-reliance and enveloped secrecy as opposed to each one being an open book.

MM

Musicmaster, you have taken, IMHO, excessively wide steps that unnecessarily confuse the matter. First, from the very beginning of Christianity there has been an internal structure within the Christian community. Paul and others recognize functional positions and their attendant functions and authority. These at a minimum include Elders, Deacons and Evangelists. One can make the observation this just a small modernization other Synagoge system Paul knew so well.

There are very little "wasted resources" when it comes to a pastor. Our non-denominal Church has an annual operating budget of about $10 million. That covers 3 campuses an about 15,000 families. The budget for the pastors is one of the smallest line items. We have large congregation wide participation in the feeding over 450,000 children in the last 3 yrs. Thousands of volunteers are involved. We support missionaries in places like Cuba and other deprived nations. We run addiction, divorce and financial recovery programs for our congregations leveraging skilled qualified professionals who just happen to be part of our Christian community. We support a local outreach to the poor of our community that in the past 5 years has had a huge impact on our poorest via mentoring, education, food assistance, shelter repair etc. . Some of our most noted local doctors and nurses volunteer their time to attend to those who are ill but lack insurance. These are the work of the entire body of Christ. Bonds are built in the common commitment to surviving others. Our bonds of love and fellowship are from the bottom up not the top down.

We have a vital and vibrant childhood and Teenage ministry. Via bible study groups, home teams and evangelism we baptise thousands every year. I report this to illustrate that your model of some Pastor-centric constraint of real Christian fellowship/doctrine/expense is probably less universal than you may assume. The working model in our congregation is that everyone works. Everyone must find a place to participate in the service of others as is Jesus model for the Christian community.

 

[Musicmaster]

Musicmaster, you have taken, IMHO, excessively wide steps that unnecessarily confuse the matter. First, from the very beginning of Christianity there has been an internal structure within the Christian community. Paul and others recognize functional positions and their attendant functions and authority. These at a minimum include Elders, Deacons and Evangelists. One can make the observation this just a small modernization other Synagoge system Paul knew so well.

I wasn't arguing against structures, per se. That's the difference. What I stand opposed against is the perpetual sheepdom tendencies within modern churchianity. I don't necessarily blame the system and its hirelings themselves, but rather the "laity" that continues to support such systems that keep them in that place. It's us, who consider ourselves the "church" who are to blame moreso than the hirelings.

There are very little "wasted resources" when it comes to a pastor.

I was addressing the pastoral system, not necessarily the man. Hey, I'm all for people having the freedom to hire and relegate to that man, or group of men, their own personal responsibilities for ministry and mutual edification, but that doesn't make it right nor does it make it biblical. I say that because many try to build the modern model of churchianity upon scripture as its foundation, which it is not.

Our non-denominal Church has an annual operating budget of about $10 million. That covers 3 campuses an about 15,000 families. The budget for the pastors is one of the smallest line items. We have large congregation wide participation in the feeding over 450,000 children in the last 3 yrs. Thousands of volunteers are involved. We support missionaries in places like Cuba and other deprived nations. We run addiction, divorce and financial recovery programs for our congregations leveraging skilled qualified professionals who just happen to be part of our Christian community. We support a local outreach to the poor of our community that in the past 5 years has had a huge impact on our poorest via mentoring, education, food assistance, shelter repair etc. . Some of our most noted local doctors and nurses volunteer their time to attend to those who are ill but lack insurance. These are the work of the entire body of Christ. Bonds are built in the common commitment to surviving others. Our bonds of love and fellowship are from the bottom up not the top down.

We have a vital and vibrant childhood and Teenage ministry. Via bible study groups, home teams and evangelism we baptise thousands every year. I report this to illustrate that your model of some Pastor-centric constraint of real Christian fellowship/doctrine/expense is probably less universal than you may assume. The working model in our congregation is that everyone works. Everyone must find a place to participate in the service of others as is Jesus model for the Christian community.

No doubt that larger organizational structures can do more with more, but that doesn't place a large enough band aid on the core problems with the autonomous nature fostered by the programmatic approach to the gathering, with the "laity" being no more than an audience.

I'm not bitter toward the freedoms we all have in forming and supporting such things. What's sad is that the masses don't realize the difference with most having never experience true, biblical fellowship.

MM

 

[biblestudent78]

I wasn't arguing against structures, per se. That's the difference. What I stand opposed against is the perpetual sheepdom tendencies within modern churchianity. I don't necessarily blame the system and its hirelings themselves, but rather the "laity" that continues to support such systems that keep them in that place. It's us, who consider ourselves the "church" who are to blame moreso than the hirelings.



I was addressing the pastoral system, not necessarily the man. Hey, I'm all for people having the freedom to hire and relegate to that man, or group of men, their own personal responsibilities for ministry and mutual edification, but that doesn't make it right nor does it make it biblical. I say that because many try to build the modern model of churchianity upon scripture as its foundation, which it is not.



No doubt that larger organizational structures can do more with more, but that doesn't place a large enough band aid on the core problems with the autonomous nature fostered by the programmatic approach to the gathering, with the "laity" being no more than an audience.

I'm not bitter toward the freedoms we all have in forming and supporting such things. What's sad is that the masses don't realize the difference with most having never experience true, biblical fellowship.

MM

MM
I share your concern for a Christianity that is nothing more than a worship society and keeper of ancient dogmas they know very little about. The statistics about the rapid decline of North American Christianity is evidence that somthing significant is happening within the broader Christian community. In the last survey that covered North America for those ages of 18-28 the number of those reporting to having attended a church infrequently or never is 86%. The average age across all denominations that do attend church regularly was 56. When people leaving the church are surveyed here is what they ascribe their exit to.
Corruption of Church leaders and the associated coverups
The homogenizing of conservative politics into the Gospel
The rise of Prosperity Gospel churhes
The invisibility of a Christian witness in the lives of Christians
The conflicts over women's roles
The rupture of fellowship and civility as churches divide
The battle against LGBTQ2+ rights and acceptance
The accumulation of vast wealth accumulated by Pastors

People are not leaving Christianity because they don't believe it, but because they don't see it.

 

[Aaron56]

MM
I share your concern for a Christianity that is nothing more than a worship society and keeper of ancient dogmas they know very little about. The statistics about the rapid decline of North American Christianity is evidence that somthing significant is happening within the broader Christian community. In the last survey that covered North America for those ages of 18-28 the number of those reporting to having attended a church infrequently or never is 86%. The average age across all denominations that do attend church regularly was 56. When people leaving the church are surveyed here is what they ascribe their exit to.
Corruption of Church leaders and the associated coverups
The homogenizing of conservative politics into the Gospel
The rise of Prosperity Gospel churhes
The invisibility of a Christian witness in the lives of Christians
The conflicts over women's roles
The rupture of fellowship and civility as churches divide
The battle against LGBTQ2+ rights and acceptance
The accumulation of vast wealth accumulated by Pastors

People are not leaving Christianity because they don't believe it, but because they don't see it.

Yeah, the amalgamation of politics and religion never goes well for #checks notes# anyone, really.

 

[Musicmaster]

MM
I share your concern for a Christianity that is nothing more than a worship society and keeper of ancient dogmas they know very little about. The statistics about the rapid decline of North American Christianity is evidence that somthing significant is happening within the broader Christian community. In the last survey that covered North America for those ages of 18-28 the number of those reporting to having attended a church infrequently or never is 86%. The average age across all denominations that do attend church regularly was 56. When people leaving the church are surveyed here is what they ascribe their exit to.
Corruption of Church leaders and the associated coverups
The homogenizing of conservative politics into the Gospel
The rise of Prosperity Gospel churhes
The invisibility of a Christian witness in the lives of Christians
The conflicts over women's roles
The rupture of fellowship and civility as churches divide
The battle against LGBTQ2+ rights and acceptance
The accumulation of vast wealth accumulated by Pastors

People are not leaving Christianity because they don't believe it, but because they don't see it.

Good points. It's sad that so many are programmed to look at those silly organizations with real estate, spires, stained glass windows, parking lots, some buildings with chandeliers, most with carpeting, plush offices, air conditioning, office equipment, fancy cars to drive...wealth beyond measure overall, and yet inefficient in economic terms, vacant most of the time, and blinders to most seeing the Church for what it really is...which is people, not those things that exude an image of what the Church is not.

Some tout their community outreaches without admitting how little of the intake is actually turned outward as compared to the massive expenses of the facility upkeep. One organization I was invited to speak at had two lock boxes in the front hallway, one marked facility and staffing upkeep and the other outreaches. The box for outreaches was always filled with more funds than the one for the facility and staff, and yet all was maintainable by way of the givers themselves making the choice of priorities than the staff making that choice for them. Many a pastor has told me that simply wouldn't work out well in their congregational mixes, which speaks to their mistrust of the very people who pay their salaries.

That showed much to me this modernized system of religious leadership turned out by our Bible Cemeteries and such.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

What I've learned through the years of studying my students and people in general concerning churchianity, among other topics, is how brutal the operational truth really is in the scheme of things: When a counterpart refuses to listen, continued explanation is a misread of the terrain, not a communication gap.

A hard diagnostic: Persistent non-listening signals that the communicator has misidentified both the audience and the context (“you are talking to someone other than the person who is there”). The proof is embedded in the mechanism—if input isn’t received, the channel isn’t open, so more input is waste. The leverage to move upon is to stop talking and switch to reconnaissance; silence converts a losing persuasion loop into an intelligence operation where the other party’s words and actions expose identity and intent.

The stakes are behavioral and strategic: Refusing to pivot from "talking to observing" reveals attachment to being heard over solving the conflict, while "adopting the pause" disciplines perception, prevents value leakage (“casting pearls before swine”), and positions future action on accurate, not imagined, models of the other party.

We are accountable for one thing here: We will not confuse forgiveness or resolution with repeated broadcasting into a dead channel.

Conflict Mechanics: From Persuasion to Reconnaissance​

• The Phenomenon (Non-Listening as Signal)
  
  • Repeated attempts to communicate are ignored or rejected.
  • The breakdown is not mutual misunderstanding; it's asymmetry of engagement: one side transmits, the other does not receive.
• The Mechanism (Misread Audience/Context)
  
  • Continued talking presumes a willing interlocutor; absence of receptivity means the assumed counterpart does not exist in practice.
  • “Casting pearls before swine” frames the resource misallocation: high-value inputs deployed where they cannot be valued.
• The Root Cause (Cognitive/Strategic Miscalibration)
  
  • The communicator’s mental model is wrong—about the person, incentives, or the situation’s ripeness for dialogue.
  • Emotional investment in being understood keeps the loop alive, masking the data that the channel is closed.

The Pivot: Silence as Strategy, Listening as Intelligence

• Stop Transmission to Cut Losses
  
  • Halting speech prevents further resource waste and de-escalates performative conflict.
• Switch to High-Resolution Observation
  
  • Silence enables pattern detection: watch language, posture, responses to limits—these reveal the other party’s operating system (intent, boundaries, tactics).
• Update the Model, Then Decide
  
  • Use observed behavior to re-segment the counterpart (unable, unwilling, or opportunistic).
  • Only re-engage when the channel is likely to be open or when leverage changes (new incentives, third-party facilitation, or boundary enforcement).

MM

 

[Aaron56]

What I've learned through the years of studying my students and people in general concerning churchianity, among other topics, is how brutal the operational truth really is in the scheme of things: When a counterpart refuses to listen, continued explanation is a misread of the terrain, not a communication gap.

A hard diagnostic: Persistent non-listening signals that the communicator has misidentified both the audience and the context (“you are talking to someone other than the person who is there”). The proof is embedded in the mechanism—if input isn’t received, the channel isn’t open, so more input is waste. The leverage to move upon is to stop talking and switch to reconnaissance; silence converts a losing persuasion loop into an intelligence operation where the other party’s words and actions expose identity and intent.

The stakes are behavioral and strategic: Refusing to pivot from "talking to observing" reveals attachment to being heard over solving the conflict, while "adopting the pause" disciplines perception, prevents value leakage (“casting pearls before swine”), and positions future action on accurate, not imagined, models of the other party.

We are accountable for one thing here: We will not confuse forgiveness or resolution with repeated broadcasting into a dead channel.

Conflict Mechanics: From Persuasion to Reconnaissance​

• The Phenomenon (Non-Listening as Signal)
  • Repeated attempts to communicate are ignored or rejected.
  • The breakdown is not mutual misunderstanding; it's asymmetry of engagement: one side transmits, the other does not receive.
• The Mechanism (Misread Audience/Context)
  • Continued talking presumes a willing interlocutor; absence of receptivity means the assumed counterpart does not exist in practice.
  • “Casting pearls before swine” frames the resource misallocation: high-value inputs deployed where they cannot be valued.
• The Root Cause (Cognitive/Strategic Miscalibration)
  • The communicator’s mental model is wrong—about the person, incentives, or the situation’s ripeness for dialogue.
  • Emotional investment in being understood keeps the loop alive, masking the data that the channel is closed.

The Pivot: Silence as Strategy, Listening as Intelligence

• Stop Transmission to Cut Losses
  • Halting speech prevents further resource waste and de-escalates performative conflict.
• Switch to High-Resolution Observation
  • Silence enables pattern detection: watch language, posture, responses to limits—these reveal the other party’s operating system (intent, boundaries, tactics).
• Update the Model, Then Decide
  • Use observed behavior to re-segment the counterpart (unable, unwilling, or opportunistic).
  • Only re-engage when the channel is likely to be open or when leverage changes (new incentives, third-party facilitation, or boundary enforcement).

MM

Yeah, more information is not what is needed. Elders who exemplify their message are what’s missing: people who are personifications of the Word, in whatever measure they’ve been given.
Such is the model shown to us my Christ and the disciples. It ended when Rome made Christianity the state religion because relationships are diverse and cannot be held to account by the state and, also, the throne of men cannot be dwelled by the Holy Spirit.
Expediency to institutionalize became the goal and “father” became a title of an office when it was always supposed to be a relational connection.

 

[legion]

Have you ever considered in John chapter 1 that speaks about the WORD and a few verses later explained the WORD was made flesh?

What do you think the WORD was before integrating into flesh?

He is God so He is also Spirit because God is Spirit.

One thing's for sure is the word was not a reference to the Mosaic law Jesus I can't stand people to say that

 

[Musicmaster]

Yeah, more information is not what is needed. Elders who exemplify their message are what’s missing: people who are personifications of the Word, in whatever measure they’ve been given.
Such is the model shown to us my Christ and the disciples. It ended when Rome made Christianity the state religion because relationships are diverse and cannot be held to account by the state and, also, the throne of men cannot be dwelled by the Holy Spirit.
Expediency to institutionalize became the goal and “father” became a title of an office when it was always supposed to be a relational connection.

Not many within the community of churchianity even know the history behind the institutional model as to why it is the way it is. They have no clue how Roman Catholic they are in some practices, if not entirely by doctrine.

MM

 

[biblestudent78]

Good points. It's sad that so many are programmed to look at those silly organizations with real estate, spires, stained glass windows, parking lots, some buildings with chandeliers, most with carpeting, plush offices, air conditioning, office equipment, fancy cars to drive...wealth beyond measure overall, and yet inefficient in economic terms, vacant most of the time, and blinders to most seeing the Church for what it really is...which is people, not those things that exude an image of what the Church is not.

Some tout their community outreaches without admitting how little of the intake is actually turned outward as compared to the massive expenses of the facility upkeep. One organization I was invited to speak at had two lock boxes in the front hallway, one marked facility and staffing upkeep and the other outreaches. The box for outreaches was always filled with more funds than the one for the facility and staff, and yet all was maintainable by way of the givers themselves making the choice of priorities than the staff making that choice for them. Many a pastor has told me that simply wouldn't work out well in their congregational mixes, which speaks to their mistrust of the very people who pay their salaries.

That showed much to me this modernized system of religious leadership turned out by our Bible Cemeteries and such.

MM

I might call it the cemetery of Christian whitness.

 

[Aaron56]

Not many within the community of churchianity even know the history behind the institutional model as to why it is the way it is. They have no clue how Roman Catholic they are in some practices, if not entirely by doctrine.

MM

Right?! I think many just don’t care about the roots of their liturgy. Everything from membership, organization of the seating, leadership structure, programs, decorations, ministries… many have their roots in a religious structure created for the purpose of efficiently holding a populous to account by the state.

 

[biblestudent78]

What I've learned through the years of studying my students and people in general concerning churchianity, among other topics, is how brutal the operational truth really is in the scheme of things: When a counterpart refuses to listen, continued explanation is a misread of the terrain, not a communication gap.

A hard diagnostic: Persistent non-listening signals that the communicator has misidentified both the audience and the context (“you are talking to someone other than the person who is there”). The proof is embedded in the mechanism—if input isn’t received, the channel isn’t open, so more input is waste. The leverage to move upon is to stop talking and switch to reconnaissance; silence converts a losing persuasion loop into an intelligence operation where the other party’s words and actions expose identity and intent.

The stakes are behavioral and strategic: Refusing to pivot from "talking to observing" reveals attachment to being heard over solving the conflict, while "adopting the pause" disciplines perception, prevents value leakage (“casting pearls before swine”), and positions future action on accurate, not imagined, models of the other party.

We are accountable for one thing here: We will not confuse forgiveness or resolution with repeated broadcasting into a dead channel.

Conflict Mechanics: From Persuasion to Reconnaissance​

• The Phenomenon (Non-Listening as Signal)
  • Repeated attempts to communicate are ignored or rejected.
  • The breakdown is not mutual misunderstanding; it's asymmetry of engagement: one side transmits, the other does not receive.
• The Mechanism (Misread Audience/Context)
  • Continued talking presumes a willing interlocutor; absence of receptivity means the assumed counterpart does not exist in practice.
  • “Casting pearls before swine” frames the resource misallocation: high-value inputs deployed where they cannot be valued.
• The Root Cause (Cognitive/Strategic Miscalibration)
  • The communicator’s mental model is wrong—about the person, incentives, or the situation’s ripeness for dialogue.
  • Emotional investment in being understood keeps the loop alive, masking the data that the channel is closed.

The Pivot: Silence as Strategy, Listening as Intelligence

• Stop Transmission to Cut Losses
  • Halting speech prevents further resource waste and de-escalates performative conflict.
• Switch to High-Resolution Observation
  • Silence enables pattern detection: watch language, posture, responses to limits—these reveal the other party’s operating system (intent, boundaries, tactics).
• Update the Model, Then Decide
  • Use observed behavior to re-segment the counterpart (unable, unwilling, or opportunistic).
  • Only re-engage when the channel is likely to be open or when leverage changes (new incentives, third-party facilitation, or boundary enforcement).

MM

Certainly a well educated perspective. I am more interested in root causes than symptoms. IMHO dogma defense is both the objective and the seeds of its own destruction. For hundreds of years (Protestantism) and thousands of years for Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy we have trained their people from their youth up that "we are right and everyone else is wrong." We attempt to pound into their young heads catechisms, statements of Faith, Creeds, biblical truths, Apostolic Traditions, Church Authority. You will go to hell unless you totally agree with every jot an diddle. To stay out of hell they are given the defenses they need against the devil who is trying to steal them to hell. Someone with conflicting biblical concepts is "of the devil."

The seeds of their destruction is the introduction to science, math, history and intellectual rigor. It leads to questions dogmas cannot answer. Once the concept of a 6000 yr old earth dies, fissures form because when those restricting dogmas were formed the ancients did not know much of the real world only the world they imagine from "the bible." Once they read a modern translation more cracks form from the the verses left out and the restructuring of the bible that is more in line with the original content and meaning. Once the learn that to vote wrong is a sin and that to love the wrong kind of someone wrong is a sin or to ask questions that take more than a proof text can provide, cracks form. Once they see their parents investing in a prosperity gospel with no R.O.I cracks form.

IMHO the single greatest threat to Christianity is that is about what you come to believe instead of what you become to be. All real sermons of value are the lives of committed loving, serving, reconciling and humble servants of Jesus devoted to His call....daily

 

[Musicmaster]

Certainly a well educated perspective. I am more interested in root causes than symptoms. IMHO dogma defense is both the objective and the seeds of its own destruction. For hundreds of years (Protestantism) and thousands of years for Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy we have trained their people from their youth up that "we are right and everyone else is wrong." We attempt to pound into their young heads catechisms, statements of Faith, Creeds, biblical truths, Apostolic Traditions, Church Authority. You will go to hell unless you totally agree with every jot an diddle. To stay out of hell they are given the defenses they need against the devil who is trying to steal them to hell. Someone with conflicting biblical concepts is "of the devil."

The seeds of their destruction is the introduction to science, math, history and intellectual rigor. It leads to questions dogmas cannot answer. Once the concept of a 6000 yr old earth dies, fissures form because when those restricting dogmas were formed the ancients did not know much of the real world only the world they imagine from "the bible." Once they read a modern translation more cracks form from the the verses left out and the restructuring of the bible that is more in line with the original content and meaning. Once the learn that to vote wrong is a sin and that to love the wrong kind of someone wrong is a sin or to ask questions that take more than a proof text can provide, cracks form. Once they see their parents investing in a prosperity gospel with no R.O.I cracks form.

IMHO the single greatest threat to Christianity is that is about what you come to believe instead of what you become to be. All real sermons of value are the lives of committed loving, serving, reconciling and humble servants of Jesus devoted to His call....daily

If I may, it appears to me, given my limited understanding of the inner depths of your experience and studies of history and groupings in relation to modern phenomenon, that you've oversimplified causation, supported by sweeping generalizations and false dilemma framing. Having said that, others out there might claim you've perpetrated slanted/biased characterization, while saying “ancients did not know much… only the world they imagine from ‘the bible’” and “prosperity gospel with no R.O.I” caricature the target groups’ beliefs and motives, making the opponent easier to dismiss. These seeming weaknesses give to the other camps the ammo they need for counter.

They might also say that you've perpetrated appeal to motive/guilt by association when stating “your parents investing in prosperity gospel” is used as a mechanism for “cracks,” which shifts from arguing the theological claims to attacking the setup/motives of those groupings of professing believers.

Just my attempt at 'devil's advocate' counters to hopefully help you frame this better.

MM

 

[Anchorite]

Just my attempt at 'devil's advocate' counters to hopefully help you frame this better.

No Christian should ever be a devil’s advocate.

 

[PAC-fit]

No Christian should ever be a devil’s advocate.

Fear of the simple, 'opponent's advocate'

 

[PAC-fit]

Thanks to all for your participation and words of encouragement.

 

[Musicmaster]

Fear of the simple, 'opponent's advocate'

Fear? Naw. Just adopted a vernacular that most understand, not intended to be taken that I'm adopting the devil's ways or mannerisms. However, some out there are in the habit of assuming the worst about others, and so I leave them to their pathetic devices...

MM

 

[biblestudent78]

If I may, it appears to me, given my limited understanding of the inner depths of your experience and studies of history and groupings in relation to modern phenomenon, that you've oversimplified causation, supported by sweeping generalizations and false dilemma framing. Having said that, others out there might claim you've perpetrated slanted/biased characterization, while saying “ancients did not know much… only the world they imagine from ‘the bible’” and “prosperity gospel with no R.O.I” caricature the target groups’ beliefs and motives, making the opponent easier to dismiss. These seeming weaknesses give to the other camps the ammo they need for counter.

They might also say that you've perpetrated appeal to motive/guilt by association when stating “your parents investing in prosperity gospel” is used as a mechanism for “cracks,” which shifts from arguing the theological claims to attacking the setup/motives of those groupings of professing believers.

Just my attempt at 'devil's advocate' counters to hopefully help you frame this better.

MM

Reasonable criticisms.
Oversimplified causation. Perhaps, but it is based on the best available data. There are both national and include Major organizations that generate data about American religion include the Pew Research Center, the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA), and PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute). These groups track shifting demographics, beliefs, and congregational statistics across the United States. These surveys do attempt to capture causation. They then summarize the aggregation of those responses, so I am more comfortable with my sources for causation. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/

My concern remains focused on trends. Median in-person worship attendance across standard congregations dropped by more than half from 2000 to 2025, falling from a national median of 137 down to a low of 45. Mainline Protestant traditions (such as United Methodist, ELCA Lutheran, and Presbyterian USA) experienced severe contraction, dropping roughly 20% over just the final five years of this period alone, and over 40% in some denominations since 2000. Some or many may move to non-denominal Churches but these churches in many areas are seeing losses as well. White Evangelical Protestants: Median age is roughly 56 years old, with a majority (54% or more) aged 50 and older. White Mainline Protestants: Median age is roughly 50 to 56 years old, with over 64% aged 50 and older. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), the largest Baptist body in the U.S., has lost roughly 3.6 to 4 million members since its peak in 2006, dropping from about 16.3 million to 12.3 million members. https://prri.org/research/census-2023-american-religion/

Sweeping generalizations - I am not sure how one can look at Christianity writ large both in its myriad and ever changing current forms and its connections to ancient history without a fair amount of generalizations. It has been my experience that the scientific method in all its many splendored permutations begins initially with thesis which is often just a summary of generalizations visible. Any evaluation of 21st century Christianity must connect the current to the past to, at a minimum, get a sense of change velocity and direction.

You will have to help me with what you are describing as "false dilemma framing."

I do not remember saying the "ancients did not know much, or only the world they imagined from the bible." I have been clear that the scholarship of ancient history indicates that there were a broad array of beliefs, practices and organizational structures that spontaneously arose in the pre-Roman State capture of Christianity which led to it's "standardization." I do not think anyone educated about this time period will fail to understand the geographically individualistic practice or Christianity including what scriptures both of the Hebrew Bible where read and the available New Testament writing and the other associated "inspired" books

I have no dog in the dogma wars that Christian sects are waging, thus I am uninterested in mixing swords with them. Your criticism of my comments:
“prosperity gospel with no R.O.I” caricature the target groups’ beliefs and motives, making the opponent easier to dismiss. These seeming weaknesses give to the other camps the ammo they need for counter." I am not stoking any ecliastical fires because I have no agenda other than to honestly report what available data indicates about the trends up and down in the Christian community. However, I have constrained my comments to address what is happening in North American Christianity. Whether they preach a prosperity gospel, in this list most do, the top 10 Pastors by income in America have an accumulated wealth of over $1 billion. When they are excluded, the average Protestant pastor makes $60,000 a year.

 

[Musicmaster]

Reasonable criticisms.
Oversimplified causation. Perhaps, but it is based on the best available data. There are both national and include Major organizations that generate data about American religion include the Pew Research Center, the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA), and PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute). These groups track shifting demographics, beliefs, and congregational statistics across the United States. These surveys do attempt to capture causation. They then summarize the aggregation of those responses, so I am more comfortable with my sources for causation. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/

I will agree that those polling organizations, although flawed to varying degrees, do give to us indications of potential trends.

My concern remains focused on trends. Median in-person worship attendance across standard congregations dropped by more than half from 2000 to 2025, falling from a national median of 137 down to a low of 45.

From my experiences, much of the institutional model has brought that upon themselves. As a mitigation, there are people like me out there planting home fellowships, as I've been doing for more than 30 years now, across America.

Mainline Protestant traditions (such as United Methodist, ELCA Lutheran, and Presbyterian USA) experienced severe contraction, dropping roughly 20% over just the final five years of this period alone, and over 40% in some denominations since 2000.

And for good reason too. The oil-n-water mix of liberal theology, and the deadness it contributes to the scriptures, it's no surprise at all that their numbers have shrunk while movements like the "seeker sensitive" model has had its hay day that is now somewhat in decline as well. The failure to deal with sin and provide Bible-based guidance and life-relatable teaching, that system has brought upon its own head what it deserves.

Sweeping generalizations - I am not sure how one can look at Christianity writ large both in its myriad and ever changing current forms and its connections to ancient history without a fair amount of generalizations.

Generally speaking, the institutional model has encouraged the lone star Christian model I see more of out there. Most of whom I encounter who want someone to help them start and maintain healthy home fellowships, they arise from having spent years without being a part of any gathering model because of the burnout from being a mere audience member for so much of their lives, always wanting something more meaningful and relevant to become a part. There are more like me out there than most realize, but we work underground mostly, not flashing credentials and titles as is the custom of historic churchianity and the parachurch organizations.

You will have to help me with what you are describing as "false dilemma framing."

Forgive me for going strictly off memory concerning the context of that comment, but if recollection serves, you seem to have assumed that it's the people themselves shoulder the sole blame for their reactions to the many, many problems within the institutional model and its many dynamics in its programmatic approach to what it sees as being the "Christian life," which I consider to be fundamentally flawed. Now, I fully understand that tendency to lay it squarely on the shoulders of the laity, but not everyone shares that sentiment, which is why I dredged up that "false dilemma framing" as being something others out there may apply to your overall premise and conclusion on some things.

I do not remember saying the "ancients did not know much, or only the world they imagined from the bible."

Sorry, but I thought for sure that was a direct quote from your statements, OR it was the logical conclusion to your prior statements that seemed to point in one or both of those direction. I believe it was rooted more in the logical conclusion to your statements likely to motivate said conclusion.

I have been clear that the scholarship of ancient history indicates that there were a broad array of beliefs, practices and organizational structures that spontaneously arose in the pre-Roman State capture of Christianity which led to it's "standardization."

There were indeed a small hand full of them, yes, but nowhere near as numerous as what we see since or even today, as I'm sure we can both agree.

I have no dog in the dogma wars that Christian sects are waging, thus I am uninterested in mixing swords with them.

Understood. Those debates will never be resolved in this world until the Millennial Kingdom, after having been grealty .

Your criticism of my comments:
“prosperity gospel with no R.O.I” caricature the target groups’ beliefs and motives, making the opponent easier to dismiss. These seeming weaknesses give to the other camps the ammo they need for counter." I am not stoking any ecliastical fires because I have no agenda other than to honestly report what available data indicates about the trends up and down in the Christian community. However, I have constrained my comments to address what is happening in North American Christianity. Whether they preach a prosperity gospel, in this list most do, the top 10 Pastors by income in America have an accumulated wealth of over $1 billion. When they are excluded, the average Protestant pastor makes $60,000 a year.

Yes, when also excluding the other perks that go with the job, but that's another topic entirely.

MM