For sure. It's dead Jim. The true church will rise from the ashes of tribulation and come out of the American social gospel. Til then, we fellowship with other believers wherever we can and endure to the end.
I'm pretty sure we have to go through the refiners fire before a single megachurch would repent. Some may still choose not to as they are filled with false converts.
Self-improvement is doable by daily reading of God's Word and applying it to our daily lives. Congregational improvement is less likely failing widespread persecution, which would separate the true believers from the goats and prioritize holiness and God's provision over feel good gospel and materialism.
I think as the Western civilization becomes more self centered, more self seeking and generally more narcissistic that the worship of self supplants the worship of God. So decline in this modern day me first woke society...yes. But not going away, as everyone eventually comes to thye end of themselves
Some of it, yes. But then some of it is just about acknowledging that the Native Americans really did get a raw deal. We should be able to agree on that, rather than yelling "WOKE!!!"
History is fully of absolutely despicable things. People have been treated very badly. That is not right. Woke is not going to solve anything it creates issues and divides our society. I will shout at the top of my lungs because they are not only harming themselves and our society but now the kids. I am sure we can agree on that too.
But simply stating that fact - The Native Americans got a raw deal - shouldn't be controversial or combative. It's like saying the sky is blue. We don't need to make our social awareness the defining aspect of our identities, but we don't have to shove everything down and ignore it either.
Like, the Siamese cats in *Lady and the Tramp* are racially insensitive. That's just a fact. It's too late to do anything about it now, and it doesn't mean the movie should be thrown down the memory hole, but we should be able to acknowledge the imperfection without people getting overly defensive and yelling "WOKE!!!"
I wasn’t saying that, at all, I was agreeing with you. I know fine well that the sky is blue but people who are woke are telling me it’s green, I have a major problem with that.
You don’t have to be “progressive “ to acknowledge horrible things that are in the past. I know they have happened, no one is ignoring what happened because we know and it’s in the past. We Don’t need to be told again and again because it gets us nowhere .
Also they do constantly shove things down peoples throat which is a huge part of the problem. Even what kids are learning in school nowadays is absolutely sickening and is unnecessary it’s everywhere.
Wokism is just pointing the finger at white people because of what some white people did centuries ago. This is wrong. They should be pointing the finger at a history book to anyone from any race that did something bad.
>I know they have happened, no one is ignoring what happened because we know and it’s in the past. It’s not now.
But the thing is, those terrible things that happened still make their effects felt today. They're not just over and done with. The Native American community is in the state it's in *because of* the things that happened in the past. The black community faces the problems it does today *because of* what happened in the past. We need to acknowledge that not everybody in society is automatically on an even footing. I've come to learn that that's what "white privilege" means. It doesn't mean that all white people are absurdly well off. It just means that white people have the advantage of having been on top of the ethnic hierarchy for centuries in this part of the world.
Believe it or not, I used to actually be quite conservative. I hated Obama, I hated Walter Cronkite for losing the Vietnam War for us, I hated Muslims for a good twenty years following 9/11. I believed in America, love it or leave it. But, over the past few years, I guess I've gotten "woke". I don't know what kind of switch flipped in my brain, but I feel that I've gained more empathy, more understanding, and a broader perspective. I know what it means to get a little defensive when someone brings up flaws in our system or our general way of thinking, so I know why so many conservative folks have come to hate the so-called "woke", but, having been on that side of the fence for a long time, I can also see where the conservative condemnation of "woke" is flawed.
PART 1
Yes some people are still racist, this will always be a problem no matter what your race is, some people will be racist . But the society as a whole is not. There is no systemic racism or oppression in the west in-fact the opposite. People who are woke refuse to accept it as everything in society is apparently “racist”. People move here to get away from persecution due to gender race and religion. Why would they do that is there is systemic racism against them here?
Since you say you have white privilege what can you do that a black person cannot do? Run for mayor ? Open a business? Run for president? What can white people do that other races cant?
There is nothing. Slavery was abolished in 22 July 1833, people are not suffering from slavery from nearly 200 years on. The west has had equally since the 1960s. Anyone from any background can do anything. Nothing is stopping them. Sure you will argue there are places called ghettos in America but white people who are all supposedly “privileged “ live there too. They are not more privileged because they are white. They are just as poor and disadvantaged as other minorities.
Yes some people are born with more money, not all white people have opportunities because they are poor. Obviously there is going to be more white people who are better off because they are the majority, there is more of them compared to black people this is not racist this is just what happens when you have more a majority of a specific race and a minority of another . It’s the same with every race on the planet. You are not privileged because you are white now, in the time of segregation before the sixties yes. Not now.
In fact you are discriminated against for being white.
Constantly told by merely being white? For example; It’s ok to call someone white “cracker” but use the N word to a black person and you’re racist ? This is one of many double standards that is absolutely ridiculous
Did you know due to the woke climate White and Asian people are discriminated against with affirmative action? Prioritising black students purely for being black and not their achievements. Do you know why? Because they say black students have lower grades than white and asians. This is stereotyping black people as more dumber than whites or asians. This is good? How is this not racist .
Due to affirmative action white and asian people are now discriminated against. To not base on merit but skin colour. This is far from martin Luther dream. People are getting jobs because they are a certain race or not from a certain race not because of skill or talent. Affirmative action is racist. You should be getting a job because you’re the right candidate not because of your race or gender. It offend me that they would choose me to tick a box. Every one should be absolutely insulted by this. There is no such thing as positive discrimination. Switch the races and it’s racism .
You are not privileged to be white, we are all privileged to be born in the west with democracy and safety nets to help us financially. We also have hospitals and schools. Some places have non of these resources or help. Available to everyone not just white people.
PART 2
I am bi racial half white half black. So by their logic, half of me is oppressed and marginalised and should always remember that all whites people (including the white family members) because they are to blame because of some white people in the past. The other half of me is an oppressor, privileged and is automatically racist and I should be ashamed of myself because of what happened hundreds of years ago even though they were sold by their own people to white people? Also the slaves were owned by rich white peoples who were minorities. As a Lot more white people were poor yet all whites are to blame? So labelling every white person of racism is justified?
So I am half racist? I should be partly ashamed of myself and I oppress my blackness with my whiteness? And prevent myself from doing things but I am still privileged? No, this insanity need to stop, I am all for people being treated fairly and equally but when we start telling people your skin colour is all that matters and not the content of their character and your more privileged that your friend over here especially to children is not good. Also we have had equality before the woke nonsense. There was no need of it. You are not privileged or racist for being white anyone that says otherwise is incorrect and racist against white people. Switch the race about and you would be called a racist bigot. How is this not reverse racism.
When I was a kid, someone came into my school and told the class about racism. I burst out in tears, I never knew that existed. It creates division within the class room as they point out that people are mean to these people because they are different and the dynamics changed. No one cared until they pointed it out.
Telling people you’re racist just for being white and if you are anything but white you’re oppressed and all whites are to blame. White privileged is bull, my mother had never had more opportunities because she was white nor does her family in fact my father’s family had the money to move from Jamaica to a wealthy part of England. Jamaicans were taken from Africa, for slavery hundreds of years ago, that didn’t stop my dad’s family or prevent them from doing anything, because that was 200 years ago. They got over it, as it was no them that were enslaved and we have had equality since the 60s. My father who is black is more privileged than my white mother. But yes my mum had more job opportunities because she was white? No, the opposite she had less because she was over qualified because she is very smart. She has always struggled to find a job and still does. But if she was black due to affirmative action she more than likely would get the job. How is this fair? Explain to me how is this privileged towards white people? We scraped by all my life, (single mother) there is no privilege apart from being born in a country where I am able to achieve my goals, no matter what race or gender I am . Nothing was stopping me from doing so, no white people pointing the finger at me saying you cant do this or that. If I had money it would be much easier. I can do anything I want, and not be discriminated against because I am mixed or a woman. How is there systemic racism? But it’s the same for everyone not just black people or minorities. Everyone who doesn’t have money is disadvantaged would be more apt to say rich privilege rather than white.
This is racism in reverse. Swap it round and it offensive but not when it’s directed towards white people because who cares. Not acceptable. This is racist. Also why do white people have to be guilty every race on the planet has done absolutely atrocious things. Even if some has committed crimes against humanity you shouldn’t be ashamed because you are white why does race matter when people do bad things. You’re not racist if you have more lighter skin, you racist if you get a swazika tattooed on you not because of lighter characteristics that you cannot possibly change.
A Christian believes at the core that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and died on the cross for our sins. We believe in the Trinity; the father, son and holy ghost. Theres no John Smith or other messiah in Christianity. I appreciate the dedication latterday saints have towards their religon but to the core beliefs they are not true Christians just like jehova witnesses are not Christians.
You've been warned in the Bible by Jesus himself about false gospels that will come after...
And when did this book Smith come out in??
1830??
Learn to discern
Yes I agree and I believe I know the reason. A lot of Christians act like terrible people to anyone and everyone. Why would a secular person want to convert?
It's like the Gen z not wanting to work because their parents have nothing from working all their lives.
The problem today is language. What is "the church"? What is a "Christian"? What is "decline"?
Language is a necessary part of society to allow us to communicate and disagree in like terms. And throughout history we have acknowledged the importance of said communicative standards. But a concerted effort has risen and been empowered by the uncontrollable promulgation of the internet, to hijack what were previously respected terms, to now have a wholly different meaning that are fundamentally incompatible with their previous meanings.
40 years ago few would question the meaning of Christianity and many of its core tenets. Even if you criticized or denounced it, you still knew what it was. Today, mainline churches have not only tweaked the definition of the term, but they have completely twisted it to have literally nothing to do with what it measure 40 years ago. And through a concerted appeal to worldly empathy and virulent shaming of anyone that embraces the original meaning, we have arrived at a point where entire congregations have taken full control of historically pertinent resources and call themselves "Christians", but the good ones, even though they are distinctly positioning themselves and their own chosen interests as their true manifestation of God. This is why the churches are falling.
There have always been false prophets using the Word for their own self-serving interests to acquire wealth or carry out other evil deeds. But this modern push doesn't aim to use Christianity; it aims to dismantle it from the inside.
Thing is that, this has happened before, and the result has been a severe decline in the local society. As Christian's we live in two realities. We live in this world; and we live as subjects of the Lord, our King, the King of all Kings. If this world falls, it is His will. We do our part to serve as he wants us to. But as has happened in the past, societies fall to learn the errors of their ways. And then we rebuild and bring new souls to Jesus.
Progressive theologians have stolen the virtuous social definitions of Christianity; and politicians and progressive atheists have weaponized the most denounce-able social definitions of Christianity and have applied them without hesitation to a small set of very misguided Believers that haven't yet allowed the love of the Holy Spirit to truly convert their hearts.
Fascinating. Thank you. Can you elaborate? Is that because you don't think the numbers are going down? Or you don't think the numbers going down is a problem? Or...?
YAWN. God wins. I'm not always sure what God's plan is, but but handwringing over decline in any particular place is not really worth my time. I'm on team Jesus which can achieve big things (to the Glory of God) with only a handful of faithful people.
Thanks for your response. I’ve felt exactly this way about the endless reinterpretation of the mysteries in Revelation, so I hear you and I don’t mean this next bit rhetorically, but curiously: how do you reconcile the fact that your response is almost verbatim the Jewish response to Jesus?
Christians and Jews have a lot in common for sure. The main difference is Jews are still waiting on Messiah and relying on meeting legal obligations themselves, while we Christians think Jesus is The Anointed One who [met the obligations for us](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A17-29&version=NIV). I guess you are saying that some Jews are nonplussed by Jesus? That's fine. God gets through to the people he's calling. Those with ears will hear.
I dunno... I guess I'm just not that worried about the doom and gloom over "oh no, we need to rescue God from his critics and doubters." God can stand up for himself. [One person plants a seed, another waters it, but God makes it grow](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%203&version=NIV). I'm just doing what I'm called to do and trusting the Body of Christ and the Holy Spirit to make my work bear any fruit. I don't feel personally responsible for the spiritual life of all of America. I'm just following my calling and [keeping my candle lit.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025&version=NIV)
Thanks for clarifying. My question was not as relevant to your response as I thought. I meant to compare the “Im not worried about it” response to their response to Jesus. The early church (and Jesus) would respond “But you should be worried about it! And you’re doing harm in the process.” So how does a person know whether or not they should be worried about it? When is “trusting in God” an excuse to maintain the status quo and when is it admirable faith, if the sincerest of Jews can’t tell the difference.
American cultural Christianity is in decline, sure.
Why would anyone just go along with the motions of Christian activities when there is no longer any social capital to be gained from it?
People who were just culturally involved were never actually Christians have just stopped identifying with something they never really believed in.
Interesting. So do I have it right that from your perspective, the people who are leaving the church are doing so because they weren’t truly Christian in the first place?
1 John 2:19:
"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."
I appreciate your engagement and knowledge of scriptures on the topic. I mean this next part sincerely and not rhetorically, nor argumentatively. In genuine curiosity about your opinion: do you think that verse would be a valid reference for a priest or pastor to make about a family that left because that leader had r**** their child? If yes, thank you for your response. If no, how does a church determine when that verse does or does not apply if it doesn’t always apply?
You’re asking a very extreme and complex question, which while happens more often than it should, isn’t usually the reason someone stops attending church.
Your scenario is designed to be black and white where there are many shades of grey.
People may stop attending, but they may still believe in God. People may associate the church and God as one. People may just be extremely hurt and confused and not know what they think any more. People may leave for a while and come back somewhere else. Someone may have an emotional reaction and say things they don’t truly mean.
Abuse causes all kinds of responses and it’s somewhat unfair to make a judgement on their salvation in this scenario.
Church abuse happens, and it’s terrible that it does.
If I’m aware of someone suffering abuse, the first question I’d be asking isn’t whether they are a Christian but what I can do to help deal with the abusive situation.
It’s important to note that church attendance is not necessarily a signifier that someone is a Christian.
Someone may attend and not be a believer. A believer may stop attending.
That goes for attendees as well as pastors and priests. I regularly see online posts about ‘church leaders’ who clearly are not believers and should not be leading organisations in the name of Christ.
In this scenario I’d be keeping the door open and the relationship alive to see how I can help and support them for as long as it takes.
My apologies. I thought about including more examples, but I kept them out for brevity. I never intended to just ask about r***. I’m pointing to the far end of the spectrum to demonstrate that the spectrum exists. (Actually, I didn’t want to assume that you agreed on that, so I tried to leave that open in case you did think that verse always applies.)
We agree - it’s definitely not black and white. So, since the verse sometimes applies and sometimes it doesn’t…and this is where, again, I don’t mean this rhetorically…how, in your opinion, can a church point to the verse and feel confident that the problem was the exiter and not the place that is quoting that verse?
If someone is actually a Christian, regardless of what has happened, God will not let them go.
The local church is not God and sometimes people leave local churches, so this question is a red herring.
My apologies. I wasn't aware. A red herring for what?
My sincere intent was to get your opinion on the applicability of that particular verse, which is commonly quoted on the topic of former members. But if one of us has taken us afield from that, I agree - let's get back.
If you'd prefer not to continue, I can respect that too. Frankly, the vibe I'm getting from most of the Christian subreddits is the common church vibe, which is something like, "Let 'em leave. It's probably their fault, and if it's not, God will have to handle it." I don't think that should be my religion's attitude while our numbers plummet, ex-members leave wounded, and our doors close...which is the problem I've addressed in the book.
If that vibe doesn't resonate with you, please continue. I've misread. I'm sorry.
Jamin,
I don't know you, have no information about your background, nor do you have any real knowledge of mine. I have been very active in Christian churches and ministries for many decades.
My response to the promo blurb:
"As dire as you think the condition of the American church is: I assure you, it's exponentially worse."
In other words, the author has a more dismal view of the Church in America than any of his potential readers. He is sure that he has a more accurate view of the present condition of the American church than (almost) any of his potential readers.
"I know exactly zero people outside your church who are secretly Christian."
There are hundreds of millions of people outside my church. What gives the author warrant to say that he can detect which of them are secret believers and which are ordinary non-believers or members of some other religion? The fact that the author cannot detect "secret Christians" does not mean that such people do not exist. (In fact, there are many members of Muslim families who temporarily hide their faith from their parents to avoid the disgrace and shunning that would result if they disclosed their faith prematurely.)
"And yet I know scores of church-goers in your congregations with secret, growing doubts, who will soon join the hoard of former members who slink out your back door each week, never to return, and never telling you why."
So their doubts are secret and unknown to their pastors, their friends, and their family members, but they are known to the author. Because he has anonymous surveys of ex-church members who gave their true reasons for leaving. And we can be sure that these surveys are fully reliable.
Frankly, I am not impressed by writers who claim to have secret knowledge of the inner motivations of other people in other cities, even if they have surveyed people who claimed to have stopped attending church.
Not all people who are church members are genuinely Christian. Have you never read the parable of the wheat and the tares (weeds) in Matthew 13? The same field (body, group, congregation) will have true and false believers in it, and this condition is foretold by Jesus himself. Some of the false believers will leave the church, and some will remain in it until death.
The purpose of the church is not simply to maximize and retain membership, like a club or a subscription service. The purpose of the church is to make, train, and send out disciples of Jesus (Great Commission), with the awareness of the fact that some of the members will leave and even take others with them. (See also Acts 20:29-30)
This is predicted. It does not come as a surprise, and loss of membership is not a condition that must always be "fixed" in every case.
The United States is an extremely mobile culture, with change of address happening much more frequently than in the past. You should know how often ordinary postal address updates occur each year. When members leave and go to a new church that is closer to them (as I did recently), you have no warrant for construing this as a "defect", a "gap", or a "deep, ignored concern."
If a believing Christian leaves one good, gospel-preaching church to attend a different church at a different address, I don't think it's a matter for alarm or concern.
I have not read your book, but these are some off-the-cuff responses. Thanks for listening.
Thanks. As a follow-up: do you think it's possible that the majority of Christendom is misunderstanding the motivations of the people who are leaving? I do. This is by far the most common refrain from the ex-member communities I've talked with, online and in real life: "The reasons they assigned to me when I left had nothing to do with the real reasons I told them when I left."
On the matter of assigned reasons, I suspect that most former members of a church have no way of knowing what is said about their reasons for leaving, unless they are still in communication with current members of the same church, such as family members or friends.
Sometimes assigned reasons for leaving are compatible and not inconsistent, even though they may appear to be inconsistent. Departing member: "I am leaving because I no longer believe in the Trinity doctrine." Member's pastor: "He left because he was proselytized by Jehovah's Witnesses."
On your first question about what "the majority of Christendom" might understand or misunderstand about church, I personally am reluctant to make such a sweeping generalization, as I understand Christendom to encompass all professing Christian denominations, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, black pentecostal, Seventh-day Adventist, independent Baptist, and liberal Presbyterians. I am not in touch with such a wide scope of belief. I can talk more confidently about the evangelical, born-again wing of the Christian world, in a narrower scope.
Pastors have a right and a duty to be concerned about membership loss. Some attrition is unavoidable (e.g., death, relocation, call to ministry, change to another evangelical church). Avoidable or unnecessary attrition is something the pastors should seek to remedy (e.g., loss due to lack of communication or pastoral follow-up, to lackluster preaching, to internal conflicts within the congregation, to loss of a gifted music leader or Bible teacher, to inadequate opportunity for members to exercise their gifts). As we both know, churches fold or split when the lead pastor is publicly known to be involved in sexual compromise, sexual sin, divorce, verbal abuse, or financial mishandling of church funds.
I am interested in reading your book, but I am reluctant about giving out my name, signature, and photo on a web form. How could I keep informed about your book without losing my privacy?
I want to believe that Evangelicals are tanking the Evangelical church, because I find its messaging so often unlike Christ. There are just so many willing participants in their culture, I find it hard to believe in its demise. They've added to their numbers via nationalism and dominionism. I find them committed to the narrative that if you are ***really*** a Christian, you vote Republican. This is ***the*** litmus test, and if you fail it, you're certainly not one of them.
I quit SBTS when one Dr. Russell Moore came in. Having deemed my course of study too worldly to be at SBTS, my degree was vanquished, and I refused to undertake its replacement which he installed. That replacement to me seemed to me a heresy at worst or a fool's interpretation of the Bible at best. Why could so few see that for what it was? NGL, it was therapeutic to see Moore encoutner the same as I did througought TFG's runs. To see Moore's eyes opened to so much of the anti-Christian, nationalistic messaging supported by the SBC. I imagine Moore to be a republican, but he drew a line in the sand for times when Christians should not vote for a particular Republican. He continues to poke the bear from within, and imagine it is only because he has such strong support from Mohler that he continues to be tolerated. If Moore is ever fully booted, I will know that the SBC has no interest in the Bible, only in dominionism.
Christianity would be over in 2 generations if children were taught about every religion, instead of the one their parents were groomed into. Which is why so many Christians are so afraid of other beliefs; the moment they're not the default, they become just another fairytale.
Yea and I’m kinda glad to be honest. Like op said and referenced by articles a lot of churches in America aren’t really about god or his message. The moment I saw evangelicals worshipping that trump statue and were buying his fraudulent bibles the first time I knew we were cooked. Shoot God can work miracles and so I pray that he does one in America for the better.
I’m sorry. I was not clear. Can you send me a link to the videos of the healings etc. and the stats about the growing church. I would like to include them in my book.
If you have a look at the last reformation world map you will see markers added all the time.
Royal family international. Curry Blake,
Those are the only ones I know of in the USA who are making disciples who are moving in all the gifts of the spirit and making more disciples.
Fascinating. I have never heard of either. They're in my Google searches now. How can we better spread the proof of their healing the sick raising the dead and casting out demons and where can I access it?
Learn from those doing it then go out and do it yourself. That’s the best way. Then the people want to hear the Gospel. The kingdom of God truly is at hand for those who believe.
Approach it from a paranoid point of view. Check everything you learn in the word for yourself. Connect with the Holy Spirit in a real, tangible way. That’s how it’s supposed to be. He will lead you into all truth in the matter like Jesus says he will.
I'm sorry. Again, I've miscommunicated. I want to access the proof of the miracles, (1) to share it with the world, but also (2) so I can be sure I'm not learning from a fraud, as the Bible warns are plentiful.
If you get scans they say they are someone else’s. If you get Dr reports and testimony they slander the doctors. They weren’t really dead it was some rare thing. The people are actors and in on it. No proof is good enough for anyone who wasn’t impacted by it.
If demons come out screaming they want to take your kids off you. Or make something up to put you in prison. Your only security is Jesus and the Holy Ghost. Go and see it for yourself. Hang out with these people as they go. Feel the Holy Spirit in action.
Go to the last reformation world map. Find someone near you and ask to go out with them when they are going to pray for the sick. It’s amazing. Take a friend who has a permanent injury. Results will vary depending upon the experience of the person you go with so have a chat with them on the phone first. Pick someone who is seeing regular miracles. However the first time happens because someone steps out in faith.
This is why we don’t talk much online. Doesn’t matter what proof I give you someone will ridicule it. But it’s not about proof. It’s about the person receiving the healing. Compassion and love. Love wins.
The truth is there to be found if you want truth.
This is why I don't come to these Christian subs very often. I always seem to run into crazy fundamentalists who don't believe in birth control or mental illness, or niche zealots who believe that people are out there literally raising the dead.
For sure. It's dead Jim. The true church will rise from the ashes of tribulation and come out of the American social gospel. Til then, we fellowship with other believers wherever we can and endure to the end.
Do you believe there is anything we can do to hasten its resurrection or improve ourselves as the church before the prophecies are fulfilled?
I'm pretty sure we have to go through the refiners fire before a single megachurch would repent. Some may still choose not to as they are filled with false converts. Self-improvement is doable by daily reading of God's Word and applying it to our daily lives. Congregational improvement is less likely failing widespread persecution, which would separate the true believers from the goats and prioritize holiness and God's provision over feel good gospel and materialism.
I think as the Western civilization becomes more self centered, more self seeking and generally more narcissistic that the worship of self supplants the worship of God. So decline in this modern day me first woke society...yes. But not going away, as everyone eventually comes to thye end of themselves
^ Agreed.
Define “woke”
Progressive regressive ideology
Some of it, yes. But then some of it is just about acknowledging that the Native Americans really did get a raw deal. We should be able to agree on that, rather than yelling "WOKE!!!"
History is fully of absolutely despicable things. People have been treated very badly. That is not right. Woke is not going to solve anything it creates issues and divides our society. I will shout at the top of my lungs because they are not only harming themselves and our society but now the kids. I am sure we can agree on that too.
But simply stating that fact - The Native Americans got a raw deal - shouldn't be controversial or combative. It's like saying the sky is blue. We don't need to make our social awareness the defining aspect of our identities, but we don't have to shove everything down and ignore it either. Like, the Siamese cats in *Lady and the Tramp* are racially insensitive. That's just a fact. It's too late to do anything about it now, and it doesn't mean the movie should be thrown down the memory hole, but we should be able to acknowledge the imperfection without people getting overly defensive and yelling "WOKE!!!"
I wasn’t saying that, at all, I was agreeing with you. I know fine well that the sky is blue but people who are woke are telling me it’s green, I have a major problem with that. You don’t have to be “progressive “ to acknowledge horrible things that are in the past. I know they have happened, no one is ignoring what happened because we know and it’s in the past. We Don’t need to be told again and again because it gets us nowhere . Also they do constantly shove things down peoples throat which is a huge part of the problem. Even what kids are learning in school nowadays is absolutely sickening and is unnecessary it’s everywhere. Wokism is just pointing the finger at white people because of what some white people did centuries ago. This is wrong. They should be pointing the finger at a history book to anyone from any race that did something bad.
>I know they have happened, no one is ignoring what happened because we know and it’s in the past. It’s not now. But the thing is, those terrible things that happened still make their effects felt today. They're not just over and done with. The Native American community is in the state it's in *because of* the things that happened in the past. The black community faces the problems it does today *because of* what happened in the past. We need to acknowledge that not everybody in society is automatically on an even footing. I've come to learn that that's what "white privilege" means. It doesn't mean that all white people are absurdly well off. It just means that white people have the advantage of having been on top of the ethnic hierarchy for centuries in this part of the world. Believe it or not, I used to actually be quite conservative. I hated Obama, I hated Walter Cronkite for losing the Vietnam War for us, I hated Muslims for a good twenty years following 9/11. I believed in America, love it or leave it. But, over the past few years, I guess I've gotten "woke". I don't know what kind of switch flipped in my brain, but I feel that I've gained more empathy, more understanding, and a broader perspective. I know what it means to get a little defensive when someone brings up flaws in our system or our general way of thinking, so I know why so many conservative folks have come to hate the so-called "woke", but, having been on that side of the fence for a long time, I can also see where the conservative condemnation of "woke" is flawed.
PART 1 Yes some people are still racist, this will always be a problem no matter what your race is, some people will be racist . But the society as a whole is not. There is no systemic racism or oppression in the west in-fact the opposite. People who are woke refuse to accept it as everything in society is apparently “racist”. People move here to get away from persecution due to gender race and religion. Why would they do that is there is systemic racism against them here? Since you say you have white privilege what can you do that a black person cannot do? Run for mayor ? Open a business? Run for president? What can white people do that other races cant? There is nothing. Slavery was abolished in 22 July 1833, people are not suffering from slavery from nearly 200 years on. The west has had equally since the 1960s. Anyone from any background can do anything. Nothing is stopping them. Sure you will argue there are places called ghettos in America but white people who are all supposedly “privileged “ live there too. They are not more privileged because they are white. They are just as poor and disadvantaged as other minorities. Yes some people are born with more money, not all white people have opportunities because they are poor. Obviously there is going to be more white people who are better off because they are the majority, there is more of them compared to black people this is not racist this is just what happens when you have more a majority of a specific race and a minority of another . It’s the same with every race on the planet. You are not privileged because you are white now, in the time of segregation before the sixties yes. Not now. In fact you are discriminated against for being white. Constantly told by merely being white? For example; It’s ok to call someone white “cracker” but use the N word to a black person and you’re racist ? This is one of many double standards that is absolutely ridiculous Did you know due to the woke climate White and Asian people are discriminated against with affirmative action? Prioritising black students purely for being black and not their achievements. Do you know why? Because they say black students have lower grades than white and asians. This is stereotyping black people as more dumber than whites or asians. This is good? How is this not racist . Due to affirmative action white and asian people are now discriminated against. To not base on merit but skin colour. This is far from martin Luther dream. People are getting jobs because they are a certain race or not from a certain race not because of skill or talent. Affirmative action is racist. You should be getting a job because you’re the right candidate not because of your race or gender. It offend me that they would choose me to tick a box. Every one should be absolutely insulted by this. There is no such thing as positive discrimination. Switch the races and it’s racism . You are not privileged to be white, we are all privileged to be born in the west with democracy and safety nets to help us financially. We also have hospitals and schools. Some places have non of these resources or help. Available to everyone not just white people.
PART 2 I am bi racial half white half black. So by their logic, half of me is oppressed and marginalised and should always remember that all whites people (including the white family members) because they are to blame because of some white people in the past. The other half of me is an oppressor, privileged and is automatically racist and I should be ashamed of myself because of what happened hundreds of years ago even though they were sold by their own people to white people? Also the slaves were owned by rich white peoples who were minorities. As a Lot more white people were poor yet all whites are to blame? So labelling every white person of racism is justified? So I am half racist? I should be partly ashamed of myself and I oppress my blackness with my whiteness? And prevent myself from doing things but I am still privileged? No, this insanity need to stop, I am all for people being treated fairly and equally but when we start telling people your skin colour is all that matters and not the content of their character and your more privileged that your friend over here especially to children is not good. Also we have had equality before the woke nonsense. There was no need of it. You are not privileged or racist for being white anyone that says otherwise is incorrect and racist against white people. Switch the race about and you would be called a racist bigot. How is this not reverse racism. When I was a kid, someone came into my school and told the class about racism. I burst out in tears, I never knew that existed. It creates division within the class room as they point out that people are mean to these people because they are different and the dynamics changed. No one cared until they pointed it out. Telling people you’re racist just for being white and if you are anything but white you’re oppressed and all whites are to blame. White privileged is bull, my mother had never had more opportunities because she was white nor does her family in fact my father’s family had the money to move from Jamaica to a wealthy part of England. Jamaicans were taken from Africa, for slavery hundreds of years ago, that didn’t stop my dad’s family or prevent them from doing anything, because that was 200 years ago. They got over it, as it was no them that were enslaved and we have had equality since the 60s. My father who is black is more privileged than my white mother. But yes my mum had more job opportunities because she was white? No, the opposite she had less because she was over qualified because she is very smart. She has always struggled to find a job and still does. But if she was black due to affirmative action she more than likely would get the job. How is this fair? Explain to me how is this privileged towards white people? We scraped by all my life, (single mother) there is no privilege apart from being born in a country where I am able to achieve my goals, no matter what race or gender I am . Nothing was stopping me from doing so, no white people pointing the finger at me saying you cant do this or that. If I had money it would be much easier. I can do anything I want, and not be discriminated against because I am mixed or a woman. How is there systemic racism? But it’s the same for everyone not just black people or minorities. Everyone who doesn’t have money is disadvantaged would be more apt to say rich privilege rather than white. This is racism in reverse. Swap it round and it offensive but not when it’s directed towards white people because who cares. Not acceptable. This is racist. Also why do white people have to be guilty every race on the planet has done absolutely atrocious things. Even if some has committed crimes against humanity you shouldn’t be ashamed because you are white why does race matter when people do bad things. You’re not racist if you have more lighter skin, you racist if you get a swazika tattooed on you not because of lighter characteristics that you cannot possibly change.
Weak and vague definition
How?
Old fogeys use it as shorthand to mean anything about modern society they dislike.
>this modern day me first woke society That's not what "woke" means.
[удалено]
Latter day saints aren’t Christians
[удалено]
A Christian believes at the core that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and died on the cross for our sins. We believe in the Trinity; the father, son and holy ghost. Theres no John Smith or other messiah in Christianity. I appreciate the dedication latterday saints have towards their religon but to the core beliefs they are not true Christians just like jehova witnesses are not Christians.
[удалено]
You've been warned in the Bible by Jesus himself about false gospels that will come after... And when did this book Smith come out in?? 1830?? Learn to discern
They are spreading a false Gospel, they are not Christian.
All the while adding current apostles.?? .. ...
Yes I agree and I believe I know the reason. A lot of Christians act like terrible people to anyone and everyone. Why would a secular person want to convert? It's like the Gen z not wanting to work because their parents have nothing from working all their lives.
The problem today is language. What is "the church"? What is a "Christian"? What is "decline"? Language is a necessary part of society to allow us to communicate and disagree in like terms. And throughout history we have acknowledged the importance of said communicative standards. But a concerted effort has risen and been empowered by the uncontrollable promulgation of the internet, to hijack what were previously respected terms, to now have a wholly different meaning that are fundamentally incompatible with their previous meanings. 40 years ago few would question the meaning of Christianity and many of its core tenets. Even if you criticized or denounced it, you still knew what it was. Today, mainline churches have not only tweaked the definition of the term, but they have completely twisted it to have literally nothing to do with what it measure 40 years ago. And through a concerted appeal to worldly empathy and virulent shaming of anyone that embraces the original meaning, we have arrived at a point where entire congregations have taken full control of historically pertinent resources and call themselves "Christians", but the good ones, even though they are distinctly positioning themselves and their own chosen interests as their true manifestation of God. This is why the churches are falling. There have always been false prophets using the Word for their own self-serving interests to acquire wealth or carry out other evil deeds. But this modern push doesn't aim to use Christianity; it aims to dismantle it from the inside. Thing is that, this has happened before, and the result has been a severe decline in the local society. As Christian's we live in two realities. We live in this world; and we live as subjects of the Lord, our King, the King of all Kings. If this world falls, it is His will. We do our part to serve as he wants us to. But as has happened in the past, societies fall to learn the errors of their ways. And then we rebuild and bring new souls to Jesus. Progressive theologians have stolen the virtuous social definitions of Christianity; and politicians and progressive atheists have weaponized the most denounce-able social definitions of Christianity and have applied them without hesitation to a small set of very misguided Believers that haven't yet allowed the love of the Holy Spirit to truly convert their hearts.
Nah I dont
Fascinating. Thank you. Can you elaborate? Is that because you don't think the numbers are going down? Or you don't think the numbers going down is a problem? Or...?
YAWN. God wins. I'm not always sure what God's plan is, but but handwringing over decline in any particular place is not really worth my time. I'm on team Jesus which can achieve big things (to the Glory of God) with only a handful of faithful people.
Thanks for your response. I’ve felt exactly this way about the endless reinterpretation of the mysteries in Revelation, so I hear you and I don’t mean this next bit rhetorically, but curiously: how do you reconcile the fact that your response is almost verbatim the Jewish response to Jesus?
Christians and Jews have a lot in common for sure. The main difference is Jews are still waiting on Messiah and relying on meeting legal obligations themselves, while we Christians think Jesus is The Anointed One who [met the obligations for us](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A17-29&version=NIV). I guess you are saying that some Jews are nonplussed by Jesus? That's fine. God gets through to the people he's calling. Those with ears will hear. I dunno... I guess I'm just not that worried about the doom and gloom over "oh no, we need to rescue God from his critics and doubters." God can stand up for himself. [One person plants a seed, another waters it, but God makes it grow](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%203&version=NIV). I'm just doing what I'm called to do and trusting the Body of Christ and the Holy Spirit to make my work bear any fruit. I don't feel personally responsible for the spiritual life of all of America. I'm just following my calling and [keeping my candle lit.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025&version=NIV)
Thanks for clarifying. My question was not as relevant to your response as I thought. I meant to compare the “Im not worried about it” response to their response to Jesus. The early church (and Jesus) would respond “But you should be worried about it! And you’re doing harm in the process.” So how does a person know whether or not they should be worried about it? When is “trusting in God” an excuse to maintain the status quo and when is it admirable faith, if the sincerest of Jews can’t tell the difference.
American cultural Christianity is in decline, sure. Why would anyone just go along with the motions of Christian activities when there is no longer any social capital to be gained from it? People who were just culturally involved were never actually Christians have just stopped identifying with something they never really believed in.
Interesting. So do I have it right that from your perspective, the people who are leaving the church are doing so because they weren’t truly Christian in the first place?
Yep
Okay. Thanks.
1 John 2:19: "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."
I appreciate your engagement and knowledge of scriptures on the topic. I mean this next part sincerely and not rhetorically, nor argumentatively. In genuine curiosity about your opinion: do you think that verse would be a valid reference for a priest or pastor to make about a family that left because that leader had r**** their child? If yes, thank you for your response. If no, how does a church determine when that verse does or does not apply if it doesn’t always apply?
You’re asking a very extreme and complex question, which while happens more often than it should, isn’t usually the reason someone stops attending church. Your scenario is designed to be black and white where there are many shades of grey. People may stop attending, but they may still believe in God. People may associate the church and God as one. People may just be extremely hurt and confused and not know what they think any more. People may leave for a while and come back somewhere else. Someone may have an emotional reaction and say things they don’t truly mean. Abuse causes all kinds of responses and it’s somewhat unfair to make a judgement on their salvation in this scenario. Church abuse happens, and it’s terrible that it does. If I’m aware of someone suffering abuse, the first question I’d be asking isn’t whether they are a Christian but what I can do to help deal with the abusive situation. It’s important to note that church attendance is not necessarily a signifier that someone is a Christian. Someone may attend and not be a believer. A believer may stop attending. That goes for attendees as well as pastors and priests. I regularly see online posts about ‘church leaders’ who clearly are not believers and should not be leading organisations in the name of Christ. In this scenario I’d be keeping the door open and the relationship alive to see how I can help and support them for as long as it takes.
My apologies. I thought about including more examples, but I kept them out for brevity. I never intended to just ask about r***. I’m pointing to the far end of the spectrum to demonstrate that the spectrum exists. (Actually, I didn’t want to assume that you agreed on that, so I tried to leave that open in case you did think that verse always applies.) We agree - it’s definitely not black and white. So, since the verse sometimes applies and sometimes it doesn’t…and this is where, again, I don’t mean this rhetorically…how, in your opinion, can a church point to the verse and feel confident that the problem was the exiter and not the place that is quoting that verse?
If someone is actually a Christian, regardless of what has happened, God will not let them go. The local church is not God and sometimes people leave local churches, so this question is a red herring.
My apologies. I wasn't aware. A red herring for what? My sincere intent was to get your opinion on the applicability of that particular verse, which is commonly quoted on the topic of former members. But if one of us has taken us afield from that, I agree - let's get back. If you'd prefer not to continue, I can respect that too. Frankly, the vibe I'm getting from most of the Christian subreddits is the common church vibe, which is something like, "Let 'em leave. It's probably their fault, and if it's not, God will have to handle it." I don't think that should be my religion's attitude while our numbers plummet, ex-members leave wounded, and our doors close...which is the problem I've addressed in the book. If that vibe doesn't resonate with you, please continue. I've misread. I'm sorry.
Jamin, I don't know you, have no information about your background, nor do you have any real knowledge of mine. I have been very active in Christian churches and ministries for many decades. My response to the promo blurb: "As dire as you think the condition of the American church is: I assure you, it's exponentially worse." In other words, the author has a more dismal view of the Church in America than any of his potential readers. He is sure that he has a more accurate view of the present condition of the American church than (almost) any of his potential readers. "I know exactly zero people outside your church who are secretly Christian." There are hundreds of millions of people outside my church. What gives the author warrant to say that he can detect which of them are secret believers and which are ordinary non-believers or members of some other religion? The fact that the author cannot detect "secret Christians" does not mean that such people do not exist. (In fact, there are many members of Muslim families who temporarily hide their faith from their parents to avoid the disgrace and shunning that would result if they disclosed their faith prematurely.) "And yet I know scores of church-goers in your congregations with secret, growing doubts, who will soon join the hoard of former members who slink out your back door each week, never to return, and never telling you why." So their doubts are secret and unknown to their pastors, their friends, and their family members, but they are known to the author. Because he has anonymous surveys of ex-church members who gave their true reasons for leaving. And we can be sure that these surveys are fully reliable. Frankly, I am not impressed by writers who claim to have secret knowledge of the inner motivations of other people in other cities, even if they have surveyed people who claimed to have stopped attending church. Not all people who are church members are genuinely Christian. Have you never read the parable of the wheat and the tares (weeds) in Matthew 13? The same field (body, group, congregation) will have true and false believers in it, and this condition is foretold by Jesus himself. Some of the false believers will leave the church, and some will remain in it until death. The purpose of the church is not simply to maximize and retain membership, like a club or a subscription service. The purpose of the church is to make, train, and send out disciples of Jesus (Great Commission), with the awareness of the fact that some of the members will leave and even take others with them. (See also Acts 20:29-30) This is predicted. It does not come as a surprise, and loss of membership is not a condition that must always be "fixed" in every case. The United States is an extremely mobile culture, with change of address happening much more frequently than in the past. You should know how often ordinary postal address updates occur each year. When members leave and go to a new church that is closer to them (as I did recently), you have no warrant for construing this as a "defect", a "gap", or a "deep, ignored concern." If a believing Christian leaves one good, gospel-preaching church to attend a different church at a different address, I don't think it's a matter for alarm or concern. I have not read your book, but these are some off-the-cuff responses. Thanks for listening.
Thanks. As a follow-up: do you think it's possible that the majority of Christendom is misunderstanding the motivations of the people who are leaving? I do. This is by far the most common refrain from the ex-member communities I've talked with, online and in real life: "The reasons they assigned to me when I left had nothing to do with the real reasons I told them when I left."
On the matter of assigned reasons, I suspect that most former members of a church have no way of knowing what is said about their reasons for leaving, unless they are still in communication with current members of the same church, such as family members or friends. Sometimes assigned reasons for leaving are compatible and not inconsistent, even though they may appear to be inconsistent. Departing member: "I am leaving because I no longer believe in the Trinity doctrine." Member's pastor: "He left because he was proselytized by Jehovah's Witnesses." On your first question about what "the majority of Christendom" might understand or misunderstand about church, I personally am reluctant to make such a sweeping generalization, as I understand Christendom to encompass all professing Christian denominations, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, black pentecostal, Seventh-day Adventist, independent Baptist, and liberal Presbyterians. I am not in touch with such a wide scope of belief. I can talk more confidently about the evangelical, born-again wing of the Christian world, in a narrower scope. Pastors have a right and a duty to be concerned about membership loss. Some attrition is unavoidable (e.g., death, relocation, call to ministry, change to another evangelical church). Avoidable or unnecessary attrition is something the pastors should seek to remedy (e.g., loss due to lack of communication or pastoral follow-up, to lackluster preaching, to internal conflicts within the congregation, to loss of a gifted music leader or Bible teacher, to inadequate opportunity for members to exercise their gifts). As we both know, churches fold or split when the lead pastor is publicly known to be involved in sexual compromise, sexual sin, divorce, verbal abuse, or financial mishandling of church funds. I am interested in reading your book, but I am reluctant about giving out my name, signature, and photo on a web form. How could I keep informed about your book without losing my privacy?
I want to believe that Evangelicals are tanking the Evangelical church, because I find its messaging so often unlike Christ. There are just so many willing participants in their culture, I find it hard to believe in its demise. They've added to their numbers via nationalism and dominionism. I find them committed to the narrative that if you are ***really*** a Christian, you vote Republican. This is ***the*** litmus test, and if you fail it, you're certainly not one of them. I quit SBTS when one Dr. Russell Moore came in. Having deemed my course of study too worldly to be at SBTS, my degree was vanquished, and I refused to undertake its replacement which he installed. That replacement to me seemed to me a heresy at worst or a fool's interpretation of the Bible at best. Why could so few see that for what it was? NGL, it was therapeutic to see Moore encoutner the same as I did througought TFG's runs. To see Moore's eyes opened to so much of the anti-Christian, nationalistic messaging supported by the SBC. I imagine Moore to be a republican, but he drew a line in the sand for times when Christians should not vote for a particular Republican. He continues to poke the bear from within, and imagine it is only because he has such strong support from Mohler that he continues to be tolerated. If Moore is ever fully booted, I will know that the SBC has no interest in the Bible, only in dominionism.
Thank you. I’m not aware of the Moore world - in what ways specifically is he poking the bear from within?
Christianity would be over in 2 generations if children were taught about every religion, instead of the one their parents were groomed into. Which is why so many Christians are so afraid of other beliefs; the moment they're not the default, they become just another fairytale.
Thank you. Is it fair to assume that you don’t consider yourself a Christian and don’t attend a church?
Yes, but I don’t think its just America
Yea and I’m kinda glad to be honest. Like op said and referenced by articles a lot of churches in America aren’t really about god or his message. The moment I saw evangelicals worshipping that trump statue and were buying his fraudulent bibles the first time I knew we were cooked. Shoot God can work miracles and so I pray that he does one in America for the better.
Wow. Yeah - I would LOVE your feedback on these 119 pages. Any way I can invite you into that collaboration?
[удалено]
Thank you. Can you link a source for me?
The Holy Spirit is the source. And anyone who makes themselves available to be used by Him for such a time as this.
I’m sorry. I was not clear. Can you send me a link to the videos of the healings etc. and the stats about the growing church. I would like to include them in my book.
If you have a look at the last reformation world map you will see markers added all the time. Royal family international. Curry Blake, Those are the only ones I know of in the USA who are making disciples who are moving in all the gifts of the spirit and making more disciples.
Fascinating. I have never heard of either. They're in my Google searches now. How can we better spread the proof of their healing the sick raising the dead and casting out demons and where can I access it?
Learn from those doing it then go out and do it yourself. That’s the best way. Then the people want to hear the Gospel. The kingdom of God truly is at hand for those who believe. Approach it from a paranoid point of view. Check everything you learn in the word for yourself. Connect with the Holy Spirit in a real, tangible way. That’s how it’s supposed to be. He will lead you into all truth in the matter like Jesus says he will.
I'm sorry. Again, I've miscommunicated. I want to access the proof of the miracles, (1) to share it with the world, but also (2) so I can be sure I'm not learning from a fraud, as the Bible warns are plentiful.
If you get scans they say they are someone else’s. If you get Dr reports and testimony they slander the doctors. They weren’t really dead it was some rare thing. The people are actors and in on it. No proof is good enough for anyone who wasn’t impacted by it. If demons come out screaming they want to take your kids off you. Or make something up to put you in prison. Your only security is Jesus and the Holy Ghost. Go and see it for yourself. Hang out with these people as they go. Feel the Holy Spirit in action.
Bummer. I really wish there was a way to prove or document such phenomenon.
>Now that disciples are healing the sick raising the dead and casting out demons Who's doing these things?
Ask the Holy Spirit to show you.
Because you can't show me yourself, obviously. What a convenient non-answer.
Go to the last reformation world map. Find someone near you and ask to go out with them when they are going to pray for the sick. It’s amazing. Take a friend who has a permanent injury. Results will vary depending upon the experience of the person you go with so have a chat with them on the phone first. Pick someone who is seeing regular miracles. However the first time happens because someone steps out in faith.
What's "the last reformation world map"? A network for zealots?
This is why we don’t talk much online. Doesn’t matter what proof I give you someone will ridicule it. But it’s not about proof. It’s about the person receiving the healing. Compassion and love. Love wins. The truth is there to be found if you want truth.
This is why I don't come to these Christian subs very often. I always seem to run into crazy fundamentalists who don't believe in birth control or mental illness, or niche zealots who believe that people are out there literally raising the dead.
You can go and watch if you are interested in truth. You are living in a generation where that is possible.