4 ms·

> just because they've been "making things happen". Actually, my biggest fear about Christianity in the USA today is that it's NOT "making things happen" Or, p

> just because they've been "making things happen". Actually, my biggest fear about Christianity in the USA today is that it's NOT "making things happen" Or, perhaps more accurately, the things that it's making happen are businesses. The mainline congregations and Catholics of the 19th and early-mid 20th centuries made serious contributions to: 1. Education. In addition to the obvious middle and high schools, they started colleges and universities. There are literally hundreds of catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, etc. colleges dotting rural America. There are also many more that have since shaken the affiliation but were originally started as schools for pastors and teachers. These christian educational institutions touched more than just the churches; e.g., Fred Rogers was educated at a college founded by Congregationalists and a seminary founded by Presbyterians. 2. Pastoral training/care. Aside from the above-mentioned colleges and universities, these congregations also started/supported seminaries and -- perhaps more importantly -- insisted on well-trained pastoral leadership that understood the church's teachings. 3. Congregational care. This included everything from helping out a sick congregant, to gardening, to helping keep the church building in working condition. 4. Community care. Everything from running food pantries to setting up and staffing health clinics, and sometimes even entire hospitals. Many modern christian churches aren't much more than tax-free concert venues with a self-help workshop on the side run by charismatic communications majors. They'll take the parsonage exemption, but don't seriously engage in any of the traditional Christian charity work: education, healthcare, caring for the homeless and elderly, or even teaching the gospel. Even the congregation's own members seem to have become not much more than leads for related businesses; e.g., the charismatic church a family friend attends runs a (very profitable) counseling center and refers its members there for basically every problem mentioned to a pastor or other staff member. Not a casserole in sight when she threw out her back, though. Which I suppose is reasonable. After all, running a lead-generating combination concert/lecture venue is already a full-time job.

mysterydip 8y ago
Agreed. When I moved into a new area and was "church hunting", one of my stops was the largest church in the area, with multiple satellite campuses. I realized why it was so popular: every Sunday was a big production. People were going to be entertained, not engaged. There's definitely a continuum, though. There are small churches doing the traditional thing just as there's megachurches doing God, Inc. The church I attend now has a definite focus on the fundamentals you listed above.
- Balgair 8y ago
  Semi-related: How are the scout troops out of those two types of churches? Is there a big difference between the mega and the regular church sponsored scout troops? We're starting to look for a good one and would love to know what to look out for, if anything.
  - mysterydip 8y ago
    With the larger churches you can get more people showing up so that can be good, but it depends how it's run. There are some that break down every non-Sunday-sermon level thing into a "small group" level of organization, and the quality varies by who leads. They also could have more budget to do better trips or activities. Smaller venues trade population for intimacy. More one on one time to invest. When you get down to it, my (albeit limited) experience has been the size doesn't matter as much as the people involved. Hopefully that helps!
    - Balgair 8y ago
      It does! Thank you!
- gscott 8y ago
  Big churches that are charismatic and feel like concert venues (The Rock Church here in San Diego for instance) I don't feel are necessarily bad. If that is the door into religion then one could find their way to another congregation like the Methodists who truly focus on good works (help for those recently out of prisons, etc).
  - specialist 8y ago
    Audiences vs congregations. I've been attending a Rock & Roll Jesus church. Partially out of curiousity. It's been weird.
netcan 8y ago
I am looking at this as an outsider. I'm European, and even though charismatic churches are global, their history is american. Anyway... I see your point. It's true. But, you need to remember that american catholic and "mainline protestant" churches mostly descend from a state religion origin. The american revolution's secularism totally changed the role of the church. The church-state seperation (which is still very partial in most of europe) basically took away their roles in these capacities. In europe, these churches were (and still are) recipients of tax/public funds (whether direct, formal or indirect) and providers of public services. Churches often ran the health systems, school systems, orphanages, mother-infant homes, poorhouses and such. They also had/have much more formal, power wielding roles as community leaders, representatives.
- thrmsforbfast 8y ago
  This is a good point when comparing USA churches with their European counter-parts. However, the comparison I was making was specifically about the USA. Even without tax/public funds (or preferential tax treatment), American christian churches did engage in all of the things you list. There are hundreds of private, non-tax-funded middle schools, high schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries in the USA. Many of our hospital systems (that have long sense become beasts unto themselves) were started as religious charities without state funding. Almost all non-state-owned orphanages and homeless shelters were religiously affiliated charities that did not receive state funds. And many of these things were done by home-grown congregations. In an American context, the fact that the church did fill these roles even without preferential state support -- in fact, in a country where preferential state support was explicitly forbidden -- just makes the "then vs. now" comparison that much more concerning.
  - netcan 8y ago
    I agree. I was suggesting that cultural origins play a role. The catholic church's culture in the US is heavily influenced by the catholic church globally and its history globally. So, they see those schools & hospitals as a part of what the church is, what it does and its role in society. Anyway... personally, I'm more worried about secular/non-religious bodies inability to perform functions historically provided by churches. For-profit, non-profit & public bodies can do hospitals & schools, and do. They don't do pastoral care very well. They don't build communities very well. .. That, IMO is where the crack is, that separation of church and state has left.
bmm6o 8y ago
I think it's also a result in a shift of the faith traditions. I'm not very religious, so I'm going to get some of this wrong but: there's been a shift in theological thinking in the US, where in the past good deeds were required as a demonstration of faith. With a lot of the mainstream evangelical churches, the belief is that accepting Jesus is the only requirement for salvation. I think that's why so much of #1 and #4 don't happen as much anymore. (corrections welcome, and I know there's a succinct summary for this contrast that I'm blanking on)
- jki275 8y ago
  In the Christian tradition, good deeds should result from one's faith, not be the foundation or requirement for it. There has been great controversy over this between varying denominations, both in terminology and in belief -- it's not a universal belief among the varying faith traditions and hasn't been universal at any time in the past to now.
Danielalonso91 8y ago
As a Christian, I can honestly say your comment is the cold hard truth; unfortunate, but true. Many churches today have gone from preaching the unadulterated truth to being nothing more than motivational speakers and social clubs. There's also many who haven't compromised and continue down the straight and narrow, but the trend has certainly been in the opposite direction. Thank you for posting your insight - very helpful.
packetslave 8y ago
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you". If you're going to reach the kids and young adults of the 21st century, your church can't act like it's still the 19th. If all you care about is your existing congregation of late-stage adults and senior citizens, then perhaps organ music and "the unadulterated truth" are just fine. But it means your church has an expiration date.
- thrmsforbfast 8y ago
  Where does my comment mention anything about worship style? I find debates about worship style mostly uninteresting and irrelevant. My comment focuses on a general disinterest in caring for the congregation and its surrounding community. In other words, churches that "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" but which do NOT "teach them to observe all that I have commanded you". I think scripture makes it abundantly clear which of those is the more important commandment. In fact, on multiple occasions, Jesus and his apostles specifically call out churches that do the former without doing the latter. Christianity can thrive with contemporary worship styles, and arguments to the contrary are silly. That's why I didn't make a single comment about worship style. However, if the kids and young adults of the 21st century are disinterested in obeying commandments to care for their follow congregants, to care for the downtrodden in their communities, to care for their clergy, etc., then the Christian church is atrophied. Regardless of how many people show up to Sunday worship or how many counseling sessions/MP3 downloads/lattes are sold. In other words, the "thing" that churches should be "making happen" is the following of God's teachings. Success in more secular terms is irrelevant to the measure of a church, even if it is interesting to aspiring entrepreneurs.
reaperducer 8y ago
Actually, my biggest fear about Christianity in the USA today is that it's NOT "making things happen" Or, perhaps more accurately, the things that it's making happen are businesses. I think it depends on which branches of Christianity you care about. I'm not Mormon, but I get Salt Lake City television where I live, and have some Mormon neighbors, and the things that the LDS does to change lives around the world are incredible. It is truly a world-changing organization. But unless you're in or adjacent to that sphere, most people don't know about it. Similarly, the Roman Catholic church is almost exclusively known by the general public in recent years for scandal. But I saw a report a few years ago that the Church had already spent a trillion (yes, with a T) dollars fighting human trafficking and helping the victims of human trafficking around the world. Again, if you're not tuned in to Catholic media, or only consume media from the usual North America and European sources, you wouldn't know about these sorts of things.

mysterydip 8y ago

Agreed. When I moved into a new area and was "church hunting", one of my stops was the largest church in the area, with multiple satellite campuses. I realized why it was so popular: every Sunday was a big production. People were going to be entertained, not engaged. There's definitely a continuum, though. There are small churches doing the traditional thing just as there's megachurches doing God, Inc. The church I attend now has a definite focus on the fundamentals you listed above.

Balgair 8y ago
Semi-related: How are the scout troops out of those two types of churches? Is there a big difference between the mega and the regular church sponsored scout troops? We're starting to look for a good one and would love to know what to look out for, if anything.
- mysterydip 8y ago
  With the larger churches you can get more people showing up so that can be good, but it depends how it's run. There are some that break down every non-Sunday-sermon level thing into a "small group" level of organization, and the quality varies by who leads. They also could have more budget to do better trips or activities. Smaller venues trade population for intimacy. More one on one time to invest. When you get down to it, my (albeit limited) experience has been the size doesn't matter as much as the people involved. Hopefully that helps!
  - Balgair 8y ago
    It does! Thank you!
gscott 8y ago
Big churches that are charismatic and feel like concert venues (The Rock Church here in San Diego for instance) I don't feel are necessarily bad. If that is the door into religion then one could find their way to another congregation like the Methodists who truly focus on good works (help for those recently out of prisons, etc).
- specialist 8y ago
  Audiences vs congregations. I've been attending a Rock & Roll Jesus church. Partially out of curiousity. It's been weird.

netcan 8y ago

I am looking at this as an outsider. I'm European, and even though charismatic churches are global, their history is american. Anyway... I see your point. It's true. But, you need to remember that american catholic and "mainline protestant" churches mostly descend from a state religion origin. The american revolution's secularism totally changed the role of the church. The church-state seperation (which is still very partial in most of europe) basically took away their roles in these capacities. In europe, these churches were (and still are) recipients of tax/public funds (whether direct, formal or indirect) and providers of public services. Churches often ran the health systems, school systems, orphanages, mother-infant homes, poorhouses and such. They also had/have much more formal, power wielding roles as community leaders, representatives.

thrmsforbfast 8y ago
This is a good point when comparing USA churches with their European counter-parts. However, the comparison I was making was specifically about the USA. Even without tax/public funds (or preferential tax treatment), American christian churches did engage in all of the things you list. There are hundreds of private, non-tax-funded middle schools, high schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries in the USA. Many of our hospital systems (that have long sense become beasts unto themselves) were started as religious charities without state funding. Almost all non-state-owned orphanages and homeless shelters were religiously affiliated charities that did not receive state funds. And many of these things were done by home-grown congregations. In an American context, the fact that the church did fill these roles even without preferential state support -- in fact, in a country where preferential state support was explicitly forbidden -- just makes the "then vs. now" comparison that much more concerning.
- netcan 8y ago
  I agree. I was suggesting that cultural origins play a role. The catholic church's culture in the US is heavily influenced by the catholic church globally and its history globally. So, they see those schools & hospitals as a part of what the church is, what it does and its role in society. Anyway... personally, I'm more worried about secular/non-religious bodies inability to perform functions historically provided by churches. For-profit, non-profit & public bodies can do hospitals & schools, and do. They don't do pastoral care very well. They don't build communities very well. .. That, IMO is where the crack is, that separation of church and state has left.

bmm6o 8y ago

I think it's also a result in a shift of the faith traditions. I'm not very religious, so I'm going to get some of this wrong but: there's been a shift in theological thinking in the US, where in the past good deeds were required as a demonstration of faith. With a lot of the mainstream evangelical churches, the belief is that accepting Jesus is the only requirement for salvation. I think that's why so much of #1 and #4 don't happen as much anymore. (corrections welcome, and I know there's a succinct summary for this contrast that I'm blanking on)

jki275 8y ago
In the Christian tradition, good deeds should result from one's faith, not be the foundation or requirement for it. There has been great controversy over this between varying denominations, both in terminology and in belief -- it's not a universal belief among the varying faith traditions and hasn't been universal at any time in the past to now.

Danielalonso91 8y ago

As a Christian, I can honestly say your comment is the cold hard truth; unfortunate, but true. Many churches today have gone from preaching the unadulterated truth to being nothing more than motivational speakers and social clubs. There's also many who haven't compromised and continue down the straight and narrow, but the trend has certainly been in the opposite direction. Thank you for posting your insight - very helpful.

packetslave 8y ago

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you". If you're going to reach the kids and young adults of the 21st century, your church can't act like it's still the 19th. If all you care about is your existing congregation of late-stage adults and senior citizens, then perhaps organ music and "the unadulterated truth" are just fine. But it means your church has an expiration date.

thrmsforbfast 8y ago
Where does my comment mention anything about worship style? I find debates about worship style mostly uninteresting and irrelevant. My comment focuses on a general disinterest in caring for the congregation and its surrounding community. In other words, churches that "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" but which do NOT "teach them to observe all that I have commanded you". I think scripture makes it abundantly clear which of those is the more important commandment. In fact, on multiple occasions, Jesus and his apostles specifically call out churches that do the former without doing the latter. Christianity can thrive with contemporary worship styles, and arguments to the contrary are silly. That's why I didn't make a single comment about worship style. However, if the kids and young adults of the 21st century are disinterested in obeying commandments to care for their follow congregants, to care for the downtrodden in their communities, to care for their clergy, etc., then the Christian church is atrophied. Regardless of how many people show up to Sunday worship or how many counseling sessions/MP3 downloads/lattes are sold. In other words, the "thing" that churches should be "making happen" is the following of God's teachings. Success in more secular terms is irrelevant to the measure of a church, even if it is interesting to aspiring entrepreneurs.

reaperducer 8y ago

Actually, my biggest fear about Christianity in the USA today is that it's NOT "making things happen" Or, perhaps more accurately, the things that it's making happen are businesses. I think it depends on which branches of Christianity you care about. I'm not Mormon, but I get Salt Lake City television where I live, and have some Mormon neighbors, and the things that the LDS does to change lives around the world are incredible. It is truly a world-changing organization. But unless you're in or adjacent to that sphere, most people don't know about it. Similarly, the Roman Catholic church is almost exclusively known by the general public in recent years for scandal. But I saw a report a few years ago that the Church had already spent a trillion (yes, with a T) dollars fighting human trafficking and helping the victims of human trafficking around the world. Again, if you're not tuned in to Catholic media, or only consume media from the usual North America and European sources, you wouldn't know about these sorts of things.