What’s Wrong with the World

Evangelical Christianity does not have staying power, and does not have the internal unity, structure, and doctrinal integrity to defend itself against modernity. It is, however, a good preparatory initiation to Roman Catholicism. In fact, I predict that the Evangelical movement in South America--to which the Catholic Church has lost many of its members--will ultimately inspire a massive movement back to the Church of Rome, once the latter renews itself and sheds its current lax and accommodationist approach. (After all, it was only the nonsense pedaled in the wake of the Second Vatican Council that allowed the mass defection to Evangelical Protestantism in South America.)

I think it's amusing that anyone thinks the secular Western world at large has an opinion on the authorship of the Pentateuch, much less a definite opinion that it was *not* written by Moses. I wonder how many people in Silicon Valley have any notion one way or another on the subject! But I guess he wanted as many allegedly "weird" items in his list as possible.

Lydia, I would wager that fewer than 1 in 5 contemporary urbanites could offer you anything beyond a blank stare in response to a question eliciting their opinions on the subject.

After all, it was only the nonsense pedaled in the wake of the Second Vatican Council that allowed the mass defection to Evangelical Protestantism in South America.

Keep telling yourself that. The main reason why so many Irish Catholics abandoned the RCC was due to the RCC's response to the sex scandals. One reason I cannot bring myself to convert to Catholicism is precisely the fact that I see so few signs of God's hand backing the Catholic leadership. This is a church that will forthrightly excommunicate a 9 year old girl who is pregnant from an act of rape and seeks an abortion, but won't excommunicate Joe Biden who worked tirelessly to ensure that Roe v. Wade would never get reviewed by Robert Bork.

I have a lot of respect for Catholicism as a religion, but not much for the Roman Catholic Church's leadership.

once the latter renews itself and sheds its current lax and accommodationist approach

Which, among many things, would necessarily have to include the removal of all priests with homosexual inclinations and the defrocking of all bishops who ever proclaimed that men with unnatural sexual attractions are fit for the priesthood. It would also require the establishment of procedures for the excommunication of all Catholic politicians who take any action that makes abortion permissible within their jurisdiction.

Sage,

I suspect that most urbanites would not even find it controversial that Moses wrote the Pentateuch for the same reason they wouldn't find it controversial to claim that the Greek philosophers wrote their works. Attacking the authorship is akin to an ad hominem attack and most people are more concerned with whether the writing is true or not and don't need to get there by trying to disqualify the author.

Mike T., on the Pentateuch, exactly. The whole idea of denying traditional authorship is a pretty esoteric thing, very academic. If someone has even heard of the Pentateuch and he isn't an OT scholar, and if he has an opinion on authorship, odds are good that he'll think it was Moses just as he thinks Shakespeare wrote Hamlet. It's only people with a distinctively academic bent of mind and an interest in OT studies who start fretting about whether the traditional ascription of authorship is correct. And unless I'm just out of touch, I don't think our public schools hammer on the proposition, "Moses didn't write the Pentateuch" they way they hammer on Darwinian evolution or the age of the earth.

John, I wonder how this idea that evangelicalism succeeds because of its individualism (Berger's) goes with the idea supported by some other research that churches that demand more of their people--more commitment, etc.--are growing more than those that don't make demands. Those would seem to clash.

Of course, I have no reason to try to argue that Berger is right. I think he may just be wrong. Perhaps a better way to think of it would be that western people like the idea of individual salvation and individual commitment to Christ but that they then want to be asked to make and show that commitment. They want it to mean something.

Lydia, maybe it's as simple as separating out the two halves of the phrase, "Western people." As Westerners we are attracted to the phenomenology of individual experience. But being people like anybody else, we need for our religion to ask something of us that is distinct from what the secular world asks, else why bother with religion at all? That attachment to two social goods that are seemingly opposed would appear to be a defining feature of Christianity and, by extension, of the West.

Mike T, you write:

I have a lot of respect for Catholicism as a religion, but not much for the Roman Catholic Church's leadership.

Be careful with that. You're starting to sound a lot like a Catholic. :)

Lydia,

I wonder how this idea that evangelicalism succeeds because of its individualism (Berger's) goes with the idea supported by some other research that churches that demand more of their people--more commitment, etc.--are growing more than those that don't make demands. Those would seem to clash.

I definitely agree that expecting more commitment results in more growth (characteristic of conservative evangelicals), as opposed the liberal view that lowering the bar will make the church more appealing and thus make people want to join.

Perhaps a better way to think of it would be that western people like the idea of individual salvation and individual commitment to Christ but that they then want to be asked to make and show that commitment. They want it to mean something.

I think that's right. I'm not sure Berger would disagree, but I'm not necessarily defending his hypothesis, either. I do like the idea that Christianity is the most modern of the major religions. Actually, I think a case could be made that modernity is itself a product of Christianity, so this would stand to reason even if Berger's explanation is mistaken. I'm also heartened that Christianity is growing in most of the world while progressives keep flattering themselves that it's on the way out.

Lydia and Sage,

It occurs to me also that Berger's affirmation of the theory that the Protestant work ethic has something to do with the modern growth of Christianity might be relevant to the discussion, in tying together the ideas of personal decision as well as a commitment that is demanding. Of course, I don't know how you would go about proving such a hypothesis.

Mike T,

The main reason why many Irish Catholics abandoned the RCC was due to social liberalism, a desire to live a more libertine lifestyle, and simple moral laziness. It wasn't because of the 'Church's response to the sex scandals,' which is a non-reason. The Church has never claimed impeccability in its practical actions and judgments; its doctrinal infallibility extends only to its teachings on faith and morals.

You also wrote, "This is a church that will forthrightly excommunicate a 9 year old girl who is pregnant from an act of rape and seeks an abortion, but won't excommunicate Joe Biden who worked tirelessly to ensure that Roe v. Wade would never get reviewed by Robert Bork."

Again, these are practical failings, and so have no bearing whatsoever on whether the RCC is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

You say, "I have a lot of respect for Catholicism as a religion, but not much for the Roman Catholic Church's leadership."

That makes two of us. You think I'm a fan of the way Pope Francis is going about things? These are sorry excuses for not being a Catholic, Mike.

Finally, you demand the removal of all priests with homosexual tendencies and the mass excommunication of pro-abortion politicians, and in doing so confirm my assessment that you are separating yourself from the fullness of communion with the Catholic Church for entirely the wrong reasons, since your criticisms again fall completely within the realm of the Church's practical shortcomings, failings, etc.

"By their fruit you will know them."

In Nigeria and Souther Sudan conservative orthodox Anglicanism is growing.
In Nepal I have personally witnessed the tremendous growth of Evangelicalism. Just a few years ago less then one half of one percent of the population of Nepal identified itself as Christian. Now Christians compose approximately three percent of the population. The revival in Nepal is spilling over into the Nepali and Bhojpuri speaking areas of India.
Their is also remarkable Church growth among the Nepalese and Burmese diaspora elsewhere in South-East Asia.
I am reliably told that the rate of Church growth in China is even greater then it is in Nepal.
The great resurgence of canonical Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe is also note worthy.

"By their fruit you will know them."

Indeed. See a good illustration:

http://swordofpeter.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-flowering-church.html

Martel predicts that the explosion of evangelicalism in Latin America will be short lived, and will ultimately inspired a huge movement of believers back into the Church of Rome. Let me add, that the same could be said of evangelicalism in East Africa.
I disagree with Martel on the reason this might well occur. Martel suggests that:

"Evangelical Christianity does not have the staying power; and does not have the internal unity, structure, and doctrinal integrity to defend itself against modernity."

The fault is not with the doctrinal integrity of Evangelical Christianity. The fault is that many in Latin America and East Africa who are identified as Evangelicals have no clue what the Evangelical faith is and how it differs from what is taught by the Church of Rome. Many of those Evangelicals have no understanding of what 'Imputed Righteousness' and 'Justification by Faith alone' means. They are called Evangelicals but are really doctrinally more Pentecostal then Evangelical.

From what I understand, the Evangelical/Pentecostal explosion in Latin America has three major causes:

1. Divorce and remarriage. Nothing gives you a greater imperative to change religions like making your mistress an "honest woman". Since your ex-wife is still Catholic, you can just say that you just now discovered the true worship of Christ, thus declaring a pseudo-Pauline Privilege. Hooray!

2. Health and Wealth Gospel. Name it and claim it, because Jesus wants YOU to drive a Cadillac! Not rich yet? Just pray harder and give more tithes! If you are still frustratingly poor, the other Pentecostal Church down the road will certainly make you rich next time.

3. Failure on the part of the clergy. The list is long, but suffice to say that lukewarm leadership is more poisonous than outright apostasy.

To whatever extent the appeal of Christianity has supposedly diminished it has been replaced by many with another faith, government, and no religious zealot could surpass in commitment and zeal the lust of the statist and the passion to control.

"From what I understand, the Evangelical/Pentecostal explosion in Latin America has three major causes:"

1. The percentage of divorce among Pentecostal/Evangelicals is, actually, highest when compared to Catholics and the common Protestant denominations, according to a BARNA survey.

2. Interestingly, this is a common assumption - that Pentecostalism appeals to the very poor, but sociological studies have shown that this is not the case. Pentecostalism often starts among the poor, but it very quickly moves into a middle-class, upper middle class population. The Health and Wealth Gospel is not part of traditional Pentecostalism, but was added as an accretion by people like Oral Roberts (although he did not originate the idea).

3. Failure on the part of the clergy has never been cited, to my knowledge, as a reason for the growth of Pentecostalism.

The main reasons that Pentecostalism is making such strides, sad to say, are the same old fleshly desires that people have without religion. Pentecostalism promises immediate access to God, in a personal manner, complete with conversations (words of knowledge, etc.). It promises power, if only spiritual power. It promises knowledge, quick and easy, of the right thing to do because one is, "led by the spirit." It provides an in-group of people having the same experiences. It eschews rigorism or structure - i.e., it is antinominous. It is not a quiet, contemplative, rational approach to a relationship with God. It is a type of distorted mysticism, but it is not a type of mysticism that struggles, as in any ordinary love relationship, to relate to the beloved, to purify oneself, to be a good example for the sake of the beloved. It promises a quick and easy relationship, no muss, no fuss. In a few words, it is a type of approach to Christianity that understands the Resurrection, but not the Cross. For Pentecostals, suffering is an enemy, not a means to relate to the Suffering Christ.

It would take me too long to go into the background of the modern Pentecostal movements (there have been four "waves" since the 1830's), but there are reasons why it is growing at this point in history. One of the primary reasons, I must say, is that no one really knows what the phenomenon is and only a few have an idea that is close to correct. I don't want to argue about Pentecostalism in the combox. I have spent about 20 years studying charismatic phenomena throughout history, including and most specifically, the modern Pentecostal phenomena, historically, sociologically, anthropologically, theologically, neurolinguistically, and neurologically. I know the state-of-the-art in research. I have access to a bibliography of 30,000 articles.

To say that this is the next thing is ludicrous. It is growing in places that have not really had a historic connection with science. Once modern life moves into those areas, Pentecostalism will fizzle out, just as most modern religions. The real reason behind the decline in Christianity is because it has not found a way to deal with the allure of modern science. Vatican II was supposed to deal with this issue (see, the Church is aware of the problem), but it got hi-jacked by other concerns. Once the limitations of science are understood by the general population, religion will make a comeback - if we haven't destroyed ourselves, first.

The Chicken

Outstanding post, MC.