The Next Christendom 1

I am reading Philip Jenkins' The Next Christendom, so I expect to share some of it on this blog from time to time. Jenkin's basic thesis is that "Christianity was as authentically African or Asian as European" and that "far from being an export of the capitalist West, a vestige of European-American imperialism, Christianity is now rooted in the Third World, and the religion's future lies in the global South."(1)

He offers a couple of interesting tidbits in support of his thesis early in the book.

Of the five ancient patriarchates of the chruch, only one, Rome, clearly stood in the West. The others were at Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria--three on the Asian continent, one in Africa. If we can imagine a Christian center of gravity by 500, we should stil be thinking of Syria rather than Italy...(2)

When we refer to Christianity forming a relation with the secular state, Western historians think first of Constantine, who granted toleration within the Roman Empire in 313. Far less celebrated are the other early states that established Christianity as their own official religion in the fourth century, namely Ethiopia and Armenia. Almost certainly, Armenia was the first state anywhere to establish Christianity as an official faith, which it did around the year 300. (3) [bold mine]

For good measure, Jenkins plainly states that "monasticism is an Egyptian invention." I expect to gain a more balanced view of the history and direction of Christianity through Jenkins' work and I will try to pass along any jawdroppers that I encounter. I am about 50 pages deep, and I can already highly recommend this book.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Jenkins, xi.
2. Ibid, 21.
3. Ibid, 22-3.

Adventures in Automated Software

When is "Gay" not "homosexual?"

Only your computer knows for certain.

New U.S. Religion Data

I love maps. My office walls are covered in them. And, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has a whole mess o' new maps, charts, and graphs related to American religion. For a quick taste, here is a portrait of American Evangelical churches.

There is more here that you probably ever wanted to know about religious demographics in America. You can sort by tradition, gender, income, race, region, and on and on starting on the main page.

My early favorite for weirdest question in the survey: "How often do you receive a definite answer to a specific prayer request -- would you say at least once a week, once or twice a month, several times a year, seldom, or never?"

And, Jehovah's Witness members took home the Golden Clasped Hands Award for praying the most. A whopping 89% said that they "pray daily." Mormons and historically black churches took silver and bronze. Evangelicals finished a disappointing fourth.

Seriously, this is really interesting data full of thought-provoking pieces, cultural insight, and humor. Give it a look.

Sued in the Spirit

The next time you plan to have the Holy Spirit knock you down, make sure you have a couple of big, strong, burly "catchers" nearby lest you crack your head on the floor. Otherwise, a mess of stitches, head trauma, and litigation, may occur.

From the plaintiffs complaint:

Mr. Lincoln received the spirit and fell backwards striking the carpet-covered cement floor with the back of his head and back, causing him to sustain severe and permanent injuries ...
[Mr. Lincoln accuses the church of being] negligent in not supervising the catchers to be sure that they stood behind the person being prayed for and in front of the visiting minister to assure that they could catch someone should they have a dizzying, fainting or falling in the spirit as had occurred on many occasions before.


Be careful out there, people.

Wrath of God

Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

People often think of "the wrath of God" in this Ghostbuster-ish way. Our church is currently working through Romans on Wednesday night, and I talked about Romans 1.18-32 gives us a slightly different perspective on God's wrath last Wednesday night.

Saint Paul tells us that the "wrath of God" is the other edge of God's two-edged sword: Righteousness and Wrath. So, in a sense, it is merely another way of "putting the world to rights," as N.T. Wright would put it. Saint Paul was writing primarily against idolatry in this section. People were fashioning gods from clay, wood, or metal and worshiping them. Absurd! Not only did they make the mistake of not worshiping God the Creator, but they even one-upped the common pantheistic mistake of worshiping His creation. They took that falsehood a step further by worshiping their OWN creations (images of humans, animals, birds, reptiles) that mimicked the Creation of God. This is TWO (three?) steps removed from the only source worthy of worship.

Romans 1 reminds us to acknowledge God in all things. "The righteous will live by faith." Those who abandon this are given over to their desires to be "free" of God or to be God (not that they will actually BE free or BE God, mind you). This results not in an elevation of their own status, but a degradation of their lives. Instead of pursuing the immortal God, they tout their own ways, human ways, of thinking. This leads to a false sense of intelligence and knowledge which leads away from God even as they believe that they are being enlightened.

Thus, the wrath of God is the other edge of that sword of righteousness. Both edges ensure that we understand who is the Creator and ruler of all. Wrath can be viewed as punishment, but it seems to be more of a way of setting things right.

Simply Christian

Last night, our church finished a study of N.T. Wright's Simply Christian. We took it chapter by chapter for 16 weeks and each chapter was led by one of our Session members. I am somewhat saddened that it is over because it was such a great study. However, this book is one that not only informed me, but changed the way I see everything, so it's not really "over" in that sense. I will try to be brief in my attempt to communicate Wright's fundamental message.

There are three basic ways that people seek God:

Option 1. God is everywhere and in everything including me, you, the trees, and your pet rabbit. This is the pantheistic view.

Option 2. God and His heaven exists in some faraway place unreachable by humans. This earth is vile and corrupt and will be destroyed and replaced at some point by this faraway God and His heaven. Thus, earthly things and physical things do not matter much in eternity. This is sort of a Deist view.

Option 3. Heaven and earth interlock and overlap. The Christian life is primarily focused on doing God's will in this world and bringing it closer to the ideal--the way God intended it to be. God is not a tree or a pet rabbit, but those are part of His creation. God is also close and visible at times in this present world, but his full renewal is not complete.

Wright goes with Option 3. My tradition growing up and most Christians that I know/knew lean more toward Option 2. Seeing the world as an "Option 3 person" changes everything. This view seems much more consistent with the story of the Bible (Israel being constantly renewed and called to reconciliation with God). The redemption of the world is not only future, but also past and present. As instruments in this world, we get to participate in its restoration now and in the future.

That's my feeble attempt at a short summary. I am really making an effort to value brevity in my speaking and writing these days. For more, please do read Simply Christian. I am confident that it will challenge you.

Hey Kids: GO TO CHURCH

Does going to church help offset being born into disadvantaged life circumstances?

Journalist Melissa Lafsky reports that the answer appears to be: YES.

Overall, we find strong evidence that youth with religiously active parents are less affected later in life by childhood disadvantage than youth whose parents did not frequently attend religious services.

Muslims and Evangelical Christians

I have been teaching a summer class that ended today! I hope to resume regular posting next week after one more round of intense grading this weekend.

In the meantime, here is a fairly interesting piece on how Muslims and Evanglicals are similar.

Four More Years?

Whether you are Republican, Democrat, Independent, or other, this latest survey from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life illustrates the voting power of religious Republicans (RR's). Among registered voters who self-identified as Republican or "leans Republican" and attended worship services at least once per week, 71% still approve of the job President Bush is doing. Nationally, the number is 29%. A startling 80% of RR's believe that using force in Iraq was the right decision. Nationally, it's 40%.











The results of the Pew Center's survey raised my eyebrows. Although President Bush's approval rating has plummeted, he has maintained healthy support among religious Rep's. This is not terribly surprising, I guess, but the strength of the support is eye-popping when compared to the national numbers. I wonder what the numbers look like if the RR's are pulled from those statistics. The gap is likely even greater.

The real message here is what RR's are saying to their '08 candidates...and it's not "don't be like Bush." In fact, the message may be "four more years," at least in policy matters.

So, which is more important for Republican presidential hopefuls? To be like Bush, or to NOT be like Bush? Within their party, it may be the former if they want to win the nomination. Nationally, it may be the latter if they want to be President. At the very least, trying to be both should prove to be entertaining.