What are the problems with American Christianity

[phoenixfire]

I would like to hear what people think are the major deficiencies of American Christianity. In what ways are we not adhering to the Bible?

I think that:

1. For some reason there is too much emphasis on personal holiness and not enough on good works

2. We seem to de-emphasize or forget God's holiness and glory and spend too much time talking about his love.

3. There are too many churches and Christians that hold non-biblical world views.

4. There are too many 'Sunday Christians'. They go to church but don't really have much conviction and they don't make an effort to live Biblically. The result is that a lot of people know a lot of jerks who are 'christians' and get turned off from the faith.

[phoenixfire]

I would agree with 1 and for the most part 4. My own personal view would be to replace 'Biblically' with 'in a Christ-like manner.' This is perhaps just a difference in emphasis more than anything, but I prefer it because of the great variety in interpretations of various parts of scripture among CHristians.

I'm not sure what to think about 2.

With regards to 3, this seems to me to beg the question 'what is biblical' again getting back to the interpretation question. What is biblical to me may not be biblical to another Christian and vice versa.

To throw out a currently controversial issue, I don't see the idea of biological evolution as un-biblical, but obviously a lot of Christians disagree, some quite vehemently. I don't want to divert the thread into a discussion of this particular issue, but just bring it up as an example. There are certainly other disagreements one could cite that most would find less controversial (baptism or no, what is a just war, divorce allowed or not, etc.)

I would argue that what is most Biblical is also what is most Christ-like as the Bible is the 'Word' of God as is Jesus (In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God). Anything Jesus said or did was and is wholly consistent with entirety of scripture.

There definitely are a lot of problems due to various interpretations of the Bible, but I think this shows a defect on our part as we are unwilling to accept certain doctrines, are lazy in our study of scripture, like tradition more than the truth, etc. In systematic theology there is the doctrine of the 'clarity of scripture' which states that the Bible is written such that its teachings are understandable by everyone who reads it seeking God's help and is willing to follow what it says.

[MagusYanam]

I would like to hear what people think are the major deficiencies of American Christianity. In what ways are we not adhering to the Bible?

I think that:

1. For some reason there is too much emphasis on personal holiness and not enough on good works

2. We seem to de-emphasize or forget God's holiness and glory and spend too much time talking about his love.

3. There are too many churches and Christians that hold non-biblical world views.

4. There are too many 'Sunday Christians'. They go to church but don't really have much conviction and they don't make an effort to live Biblically. The result is that a lot of people know a lot of jerks who are 'christians' and get turned off from the faith.

Hmmm... Number 1 I agree with entirely. It's a shame really, that American Christians have by-and-large rejected the Social Gospel because of the First World War (seeing the Victorian-Era Christian optimism as quaint naivete and inapplicable to the present time). Even today it is a little hard to think humanity capable of building a just society, but I think we should be trying our hardest.

Number 2 is a little trickier. God's love, to many believers, is his holiness and justifies his glory. How many Psalms are there that extol God for being slow to anger and quick to forgiveness? I think of God as having all of the qualities that I value in myself in perfection and none of the qualities that I want to rid myself of, and two of those that I want to rid myself of most are my anger and my hubris.

Not qualities I see too often in Jesus. Yes, Jesus got mad, but never in a prideful or resentful way. I think when he was calling the Pharisees hypocrites and turned over the tables in the temple he was using his anger as a wake-up call more than an outright condemnation.

Number 3 is a weird one. I've heard 'non-Biblical' used too many times to poison the well on modernist Christian beliefs which see no contradiction between Genesis and biological evolution, and that's wrong. We do read and value the creation story - what we get out of it is just different. I read the creation story and I see an explanation of the nature of man, not a literal history. (There are literal histories later in the Old Testament and there is a definite difference in tone.)

On the other hand, people trying to justify ethical egoism and Reaganomics using the Gospel are in for a rough time, because they really have to do some contortionist proof-textings to get there (especially since there were many passages indicating that Jesus by modern standards would have been considered an economic socialist).

Number 4 I think is the most pertinent point. Though, to be honest, I'm as much a culprit of this as anyone (going to college and the demands of studying on weekends being what they are), I have noticed that many churches don't really ask of their congregations an active, dynamic faith.

Although, if I may, a good number 5 might be a noticed apathy or hostility in a lot of American churches to local and global ecumenical projects. This includes interfaith dialogue but also inside the Church as a whole. A lot of Protestants wouldn't be caught dead working with Catholics or attending Catholic mass, even for a good cause (like feeding the hungry through ecumenical missions). A lot of right-wing congregations refuse to join the National Council of Churches, for example, in spite of all the good work we've done in Christ's name. This sort of thing.

[Rob]

It's a shame really, that American Christians have by-and-large rejected the Social Gospel because of the First World War (seeing the Victorian-Era Christian optimism as quaint naivete and inapplicable to the present time). Even today it is a little hard to think humanity capable of building a just society, but I think we should be trying our hardest.

I could not help but agree with everything you said Magus. There are two books I have in my library that you might find interesting:

Walter E. Bundy, The Religion of Jesus, Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1928.

George Walter Fiske, A Study of Jesus' Own Religion, MacMillan Company, 1932.

I am very interested in the history of the Social Gospel, so if you would be so kind as to share any information you have, references, etc., it would be greatly apprecaited.

Thanks,

Rob

[MagusYanam]

I am very interested in the history of the Social Gospel, so if you would be so kind as to share any information you have, references, etc., it would be greatly apprecaited.

Certainly. For the class I took in 'Christianity and Modern Culture' last year, Professor Dorrien used his own books:

Dorrien, Gary J., The making of American liberal theology: imagining progressive religion 1805-1900, John Knox Press, 2001 and

The making of American liberal theology: idealism, realism and modernity 1900-1950, John Knox Press, 2003.

They're long books (being both historical and theological) and they're tough reads, since Dorrien uses some really long sentences and will sometimes go on theological tangents during a biography section. For a good summary of Social Gospel thought, though, these are probably my best recommendations.

Others would be books written during the Social Gospel. Anything by Walter Rauschenbusch or William Adams Brown is probably good reading (some, like Brown's The essence of Christianity, will be available on Amazon.com in re-issue, but a lot of them will be out-of-print). One of which I've read some excerpts (but never the whole thing, though I plan on getting a copy soon) is:

Maurice, Frederick Denison, The kingdom of Christ, Lutterworth Press, 1838 (reissue 2002).

Anyway, I hope this helps, and thanks for the references you gave me. I'll check out Bundy and Fiske when next I'm able.

[Rob]

I am very interested in the history of the Social Gospel, so if you would be so kind as to share any information you have, references, etc., it would be greatly apprecaited.

Certainly. For the class I took in 'Christianity and Modern Culture' last year, Professor Dorrien used his own books:

Dorrien, Gary J., The making of American liberal theology: imagining progressive religion 1805-1900, John Knox Press, 2001 and

The making of American liberal theology: idealism, realism and modernity 1900-1950, John Knox Press, 2003.

They're long books (being both historical and theological) and they're tough reads, since Dorrien uses some really long sentences and will sometimes go on theological tangents during a biography section. For a good summary of Social Gospel thought, though, these are probably my best recommendations.

(....) Anyway, I hope this helps.

I just received my copies of the two books you suggested above. They are great! Just what I needed. I chuckled when I read them and thought of your statement "They're long books (being both historical and theological) and they're tough reads, since Dorrien uses some really long sentences ...," because I noticed that right away. It is a classical case of someone with so much to say and only so much space to put it in. Alas, I am well trained in reading this form of writing, as I have read Wilfred Cantwell Smith's works, and he writes the same way, but then, what he has to say is of such importance. You might enjoy his works "Faith and Belief," and "Towards a World Theology." And oh gosh, if you have read Whitehead's "Process and Reality" you can read anything! Ha, ha ...

Anyway, thanks so much, they are important books for me, I can tell already.

[Columbus]

If you lump the denominations together that follow Jesus Christ, you have a majority that are Christians. What you really have, though, is a majority comprised of a bunch of minority groups that all believe in differnet things, and some actually have a profound hatred for each other. They are "Christians" when they want as a group to jam their shared views down the throat of non-Christians, but they are Baptists and Catholics and Jews when they are argueing amongst themselves about the nuts and bolts of religion.

I didn't write this, I am quoting it from another forum. Obviously the author is a skeptic. The context is a thread about whether or not christians are really a majority in the US. The author is not even able to distinguish between christians and jews. But I think he has some excellent points to make. Most specifically that Christianity is not a religion per se, but a collection of different belief systems that all consider themselves to be the true followers of Jesus. As a theological skeptic I find it hilarious that most christians seem to believe that christianity is a huge religion, while also believing that most self-described christians are not True Christians.

Tom

[Noachian]

This doesnt aply to all American Christians they certainly do distribute Christianity the most, which is good. But there is one tiny but noticable aspect with a lot of American Churchs, one word-------extremism------they need to calm down. But however this doesnt aply to all American Christians (as mentioned) just a small minority of evangelicals.

[Burbot]

I think the majority of what people see as "wrong" with American Christianity comes from the fact that many of the denominations were created in the New World and specifically ahered to the notion that the church can protect you in this new and scary place. They provide absolutes, but leave out the mysteries.

They say "do this, this, this, and not this and you will live forever".

Just on a side note because it was brought up: I can't stand it when people ask things like "are you Catholic or Christian?" et cetera...

[Chancellor]

I would like to hear what people think are the major deficiencies of American Christianity. In what ways are we not adhering to the Bible?

One could probably write a book answering that one.

I think that:

1. For some reason there is too much emphasis on personal holiness and not enough on good works

I disagree: holy is the attribute that God most emphasizes about Himself and He commanded us to be holy like He is holy. I really don't think we've come anywhere close to being holy like God is holy, do you? It seems to me there isn't enough emphasis on personal holiness. As for good works, I suspect the vast majority of so-called "Christians" in America are inclined to think that their good works are going to save them and, so, they try to live a "good life," help their neighbors, give to charity, etc. According to the only valid definition of religion, which is found in the New Testament book of James, true religion involves both visiting the widow and the orphan in their affliction (good works) and keeping oneself unspotted from the world (personal holiness). Thus, there needs to be a balance, though both are supposed to result from our becoming Christians and not be the basis for our salvation.

2. We seem to de-emphasize or forget God's holiness and glory and spend too much time talking about his love.

See above.

3. There are too many churches and Christians that hold non-biblical world views.

This is true.

4. There are too many 'Sunday Christians'. They go to church but don't really have much conviction and they don't make an effort to live Biblically. The result is that a lot of people know a lot of jerks who are 'christians' and get turned off from the faith.

This is also true but go back to my statement about true religion.