Non-Catholic Christians seem to always find the Catholic claim about being the Church and not just a part of the Church a very contentious and arrogant statement. I wish to explain this for the benefit of my non-Catholic Christian friends.

First and foremost, what does the Catholic Church believe about herself?

The Catholic Church sees herself as the perennial Church, having valid Apostolic Succession. This means she believes her historical continuity extends directly back to Jesus through the Apostles who are the “foundation of the Church, of which Jesus is the Cornerstone.” (Eph. 2:19-20) Accept or deny it (I obviously believe that the claim is historical, but this isn’t the place to prove that), that is what the Catholic Church views about herself.

From there, it should be easy to see that the Catholic Church sees herself as having been established by Jesus Christ, started on the day of Pentecost. And, if it is the Catholic Church that was established by Christ, then the Catholic Church would be lying about her beliefs about herself to grant the title of Church to any non-Catholic sect, save Orthodoxy. Is this hubris? I don’t believe so. In fact, I think the hubris comes from the other side. Allow me to explain with an analogy.

Let us suppose you and I are brothers, and we have several other siblings under the same father. The father gives me the command to continue the family traditions, and no one else. Later when the father is gone, I established myself as the new ‘patriarch’ of the family based on his command. Other siblings (including you) make the claim that we were all equally established patriarchs/matriarchy (for we have sisters), and that I would be arrogant to deny them this patriarchy. Not only does it not make sense for there to be more than one patriarch (for obviously that destroys the unitive purpose of a patriarch in the first place), but it doesn’t make sense that because you claim to be a patriarch I must grant you the claim of patriarchy, especially since the father granted me the patriarchy which I know must be singular.

Either you will have to grant you have no valid claim to the patriarchy and that I do, or you’ll have to separate yourself from the family to start your own patriarchy, having invalid claims of being tied to the father when the father gave only me the patriarchate.

Those familiar with the idea of Apostolic Succession should be able to see what I mean in the analogy. The Catholic Church remaining intransigent on denying that any ecclesial body but she is the Church is merely her remaining obedient to the law laid down by the Father. A body doesn’t get the “right of extortion” of being a part of the Church just because they say so or disagree. While it might be their honest belief that they are a part of the Church, it couldn’t be the honest belief of a Catholic to believe that they are a part of the Church so long as they are separated from the Catholic Church.

What does this mean for non-Catholic Christians?

Non-Catholic Christians are not validly in the Church. Catholicism knows that “our way” works, based on the infallibility of the Church and the promises of Christ. To deny Catholicism ultimately would be tantamount to denying God, since to deny what God established (much like Lucifer denied man in some takes on the Fall of the Angels) is to deny God. Ignorance of Truth makes it hard to be opposed to the Truth, but to deny the Truth in the end is obviously to deny God in the end.

However, the Catholic Church does recognize that Protestants are our brothers and sisters in Christ, though we wish for common communion.

Is there hope for non-Catholic Christians? Yes. While Catholics know that Catholicism works, we can’t know whether or not someone is going to Hell; that’s ultimately between the person in question and God. However, don’t take this as approval of Protestantism, but only obedience to my conscience; since I know that Catholicism works, I can’t guarantee anything for Protestantism just as I can’t guarantee someone is going to Hell.

Claims made in this post to be proved later.

Профессор Московской духовной академии: С фото антихриста будет течь миро

С изображений антихриста и с экранов телевизоров, показывающих его, будет течь исцеляющее от болезней миро, говорит профессор Московской духовной академии Алексей Осипов в книге «Чудеса истинные и ложные», которую издал Данилов монастырь.

«Уже сейчас идет активная подготовка сознания народа, в том числе и вполне православных («избранных») людей к исканию чудес, погоне за ними, – говорит Осипов. – Посмотрите, сколько литературы посвящено им. И, увы, многие православные уже хорошо знают, в каких нуждах каким иконам молиться, к каким святым обращаться, и к каким мощам прикладываться. Мысль о спасении от страстей и греха, от зла, неприязни, зависти, блуда, воровства постепенно отходит на второй план».

По словам Осипова, «через искание земных благ, чудес, прозорливцев» люди придут к тому, что примут антихриста, который будет совершать поражающие воображения чудеса.

Осипов цитирует святителя Игнатия Брянчанинова, который в XIX веке писал: «С течением времени, с постепенным ослаблением христианства, и повреждением нравственности знаменосные мужи умалялись. Наконец, они иссякли окончательно. Между тем человеки, потеряв благоговение и уважение ко всему священному, потеряв смирение, признающее себя недостойным не только совершать знамения, но и видеть их, жаждут чудес более, нежели когда-либо… Мы приближаемся постепенно к тому времени, в которое должно открыться обширное зрелище многочисленных и поразительных ложных чудес, увлечь в погибель тех несчастных питомцев плотского мудрствования, которые будут обольщены и обмануты этими чудесами».

Алексей Осипов говорит, что истинные чудеса, совершаемые силой Божией, происходят редко. Но многие чудеса совершаются благодаря демоническому воздействию, в том числе через колдунов и экстрасенсов. По словам Осипова, мироточение не всегда производится Божией силой. Известно множество случаев, когда мироточили не только православные иконы, но и статуи католических святых, которые, находясь в прелести, принимали бесов за ангелов, а также статуи языческих богов.

По мнению Алексея Осипова, легковерие и заблуждения по поводу чудес «при полном сохранении внешнего православия грозит сползанием нашей веры к прямому язычеству».
Книга «Чудеса истинные и ложные» является сборником статей, в которых объясняется, о чем говорит увеличившееся в последнее время число чудес и знамений, всегда ли полезной бывает встреча с таинственным явлением, и как отличить истинное чудо от ложного.

Источник:

http://xsense.ru/news-00059750/

МОСКВА, 30 декабря (Корр. АНН Алла Тучкова).

For long enough we all have known that Americans aren’t the smartest people in the world… I mean, it’s amazing the percentage of them who still deny evolution as a fact… but this issue is part of a different post.  Stupid people is everywhere and they seem to reproduce a lot faster than smart people… lol

However, here’s what I have to say about a specific case for American Stupidity:

Today, randomly, I ended up watching a video interview of Adam Lambert, a singer from a reality show called American Idol.  Adam was a runner up of this singing contest and was best known because he was gay.  Yes, he liked kissing and having sex with guys.  Are you scared? Good, I’ll continue…

It seems that Adam kissed a guy in a presentation in the American Music Awards (which I’ve never seen since I don’t watch TV).  Anyways, it seems Adam had a kissed a guy and did a short dramatization of an oral sex scene in front of the cameras of America.

Take a look at the interview:

It is really sad to listen to the reaction of the “average” American TV fan… it seems this song caused a very interesting reaction among the audience.  First, the TV network ABC had to “blur” the image of the kiss before showing it on TV around 11pm… Their excuse? Because children could see it and freak out by the images!

And I mean, what parent would allow their children to watch TV at 11pm? And if so, why would a kiss be something bad?

Men and women have kissed for centuries and even longer… that’s what humans do to show how much they care for the people they are with.  I can assure you that men & men – and women & women, have done the same thing to tell how they feel to those they love for the very same time.  I can’t think of all the times I’ve wanted to do a “blur” effect on the heterosexual UGLY couples I’ve had to watch kissing in front of me…

I do have problem with ignorant, selfish, idiotic, religious, hypocrites and cynics… I really hate this people and consider them as stupid as a jelly fish.

However, at the end I was somehow happy to listen to this video.  This guy, Adam, is a Pop star and I was astonished by his answers to the interview.  Congrats to him for everything he said!  I hope one day people will be smart enough to understand what morality really is; as well as to understand all the hurt that Religion & the idea of a God has had in our not so civilized “Civilization”.

If you’ve read this far I’m sure you won’t have a problem with this pic, take a look.  To me he’s a normal guy.  Isn’t he?

Albert Mohler responded to concerns about his compromise in signing the Manhattan Declaration in a recent article found at Al Mohler’s blog spot. He also speaks about it on his radio program.

Al Mohler’s usual wisdom goes out the window on this one. He does not get it. The document declares not just the common ground of social concerns and the ethical life that is shared among the qualifying participants. It declares that groups and persons who are heretical or at minimum unorthodox are Christian by granting them equality in the evangelical camp. When Mohler signed the document he legitimated those who claim The Faith but deny it and in doing so lent credibility to their errors.

We appreciate Dr. Mohler’s concerns for the social collapse we are experiencing in the West. However, we must never compromise the Gospel in any social or civil agreement that we make. Dr. James White speaks to this point at A&O Ministries. He makes the point well by bringing into the foreground the anti-Christian positions of Martin Luther King. MLK is given wide acclaim in the evangelical landscape without qualification. While we do appreciate the concern MLK showed for equal rights, we must at the same time not sequester that from his ideological or theological corruptions and so falsly ascribe to him legitimacy in those things, also.

We are in a time of taking sides (as if we in the Christian community have ever been out of it). Jesus’ called clearly to make his Gospel known and laid the challenge before all that if they were for him they were not against him but also that those who were not, were against him and divide and scatter of the flock. What Mohler has done is to blur that line of demarcation. There is one Gospel and to call those who are not Christian, Christian, is to deny that.

A good word on this can be found at Camponthis.

Also if you’re interested.

Pic by Englishhistory.net

Queen Elizabeth I, before becoming queen, was subject to intense scrutiny and threats due to her predisposition for Protestantism. Poised with the possibility of becoming queen, the prospect of her rule threatened to eradicate Catholicism from presiding over the affairs of England. Moved from the Tower of London (where her mother was executed) to Woodstock where she was housed for nearly a year as a virtual prisoner, she once carved grafitti into a window with a diamond:

Much suspected by me,
Nothing proved can be.

Quod Elizabeth the prisoner

1554-55

Saint Augustine, whose genius helped rid the Church of the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian heresies, would not be welcomed …as a faculty member at virtually any evangelical seminary, because the Bishop of Hippo accepted the deuterocanonical books as part of the Old Testament canon, the deposit of Sacred Tradition, apostolic succession, the gracious efficacy of the Sacraments, the Real Presence of the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, and the infusion of God’s grace for justification.

Dr. Francis Beckwith

There’s not going to be an LIGFY next week, so you better make this one last.

New blood first:

Chic Noir gives surprising accurate dating rules for men.

Michael Wears a Hat states the benefits men get from cradle robbing.

Thras critiques Half Sigma’s opinion on abortion.

Also check out J R’s and DaveinHackensack’s blogs.

And the rest of you grinders:

Prime analyzes It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia from the viewpoint of game.

Chuck reports on a beta supreme who’s wife is obsessed with Twilight.

Dave from Hawaii analyzes the wretched wrongness of the American diet.

Roissy takes on a story about cuckolded men.

Obsidian reveals why most women are incapable of addressing the realities of the sexual marketplace.

Zdeno writes at 2 Blowhards on the nature of nightclubs.

Bhanu Prasad writes on the women who have lost out in the sexual revolution.

Al Fin states that Obama is bringing slavery back to the world and reports on a new aphrodisiac for women.

11minutes gives the reason why women believe in the myth of inner beauty.

Master Dogen mocks the androgyny of today’s youngsters.

Alex Birch remarks on the paradox of liberalism.

Martin Regnen reminds us why nerds and smart people deserve to be picked on.

Max critiques hard determinism.

From Girl Game: LILGRL has two great potato recipes, and Aoefe debunks the “soulmate” myth.

Hunter is annoyed by his beta friends.

The Kap’n explains why he hates the homeless.

Kamal S writes a two-part essay on truth, privilege, and oppression.

MarkyMark notes that Western women have difficulty dating overseas.

691 writes on the value of mentors for a young man.

OneSTDV states that the Internet has ended the concept of the sweetheart.

Professor Hale outlines a plan to reform how graves work.

Roosh goes on a dune buggy adventure.

Talleyrand demolishes the notion that women select the “best” men.

Sofia thinks people over 30 are BO-RING.

Sparks123 takes a balanced look at evolutionary psychology.

Mark Baachman offers a New Deal for women.

Ben Leonard reports on the addictiveness of junk food.

Genius says why it’s not easy being hung like a horse.

J reports on the reasons for CUNY’s decline.

Robert Stacy McCain has fun with a troll.

Gerard O’Neill blames feminism for the debt epidemic among the Irish.

T. aka Ricky Raw posts Part 2 of his review of Precious.

Guy White develops a method for distinguishing race.

Jeff Riggenbach claims there never was an Old Right.

Agnostic writes on when it’s a good idea to fight for a good-looking older woman.

William Lind states that political correctness is cultural Marxism.

Daniel Larison explains how, despite the fantasies of conservatives, Sarah Palin is almost identical to John McCain.

Srdja Trifkovic analyzes the self-destruction of Catholicism and Protestantism.

John Robb writes on how to smash an insurgency.

Joe Bageant states that there’s no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

Mike Payne reports on the fall of Playboy.

Mencius Moldbug lays out his plan to conquer America.

Razib Khan writes on the silent secularization of the U.S.

[This post should be backdated to about 11/6/2009 FYI.]

So here’s what’s had a chokehold on my goat lately.
Three little letters: P, D & A. Separately, I don’t mind them, but together they make me want to hurl. Before you dismiss this as yet another anti-love tirade from a lonely, frigid twenty-something single, let me first state that I am a happily partnered woman, who loves to cuddle and has a healthy sexual appetite. So there goes your main point of counterattack haters!
In all seriousness, I love love; I appreciate the significance of two well-matched people finding one another and starting an important journey together. It’s a beautiful thing. However, watching two teenagers dry hump outside of the grocery store is not. I think it’s disrespectful to put certain behaviors (dry humping, ass grabbing) on display for all to see and it sets a bad example for other youth who may observe the behavior.

OK, I think I’ve gotten a little ahead of myself. Let me take a step back and outline my definition of PDA and the reasons behind my aggravation, like a good little scholar, and then provide you with a few cases in point to see what your thoughts are on the subject.
For the purposes of this rant, PDA is defined as any overt display of affection that one would typically not want their parent, pastor, rabbi, spiritual leader, coworkers or some equivalent person or being to observe. My general definition would include anything beyond handholding or a peck on the lips, most often an act with highly sexual under/overtones.

Now, as for my reasons for disliking such behavior, they are few and finite:
1)    Overtly displaying sexualized behaviors gives children and other impressionable people to form the belief that the hyper sexualization of our culture is an acceptable inevitability.

2)   Adult-oriented Public Display of Affection have the potential to diminish the meaning of romantic acts by taking them out of our private lives and throwing them in the mainstream, thereby lessening their value or “specialness” if you will.

3)   It’s gross.

Now here are two examples that I’d like to through out there for some feedback.

Example 1)

You’re perusing through albums for your slowly growing collection and the local hipster record store. Out of the corner of your eye, you spot two young, good-looking, virile employees going at it like rabbits in the Latin/Jazz section. Tongues intertwined, hands rounding second and fast approaching third, and participants oblivious and uncaring to the on looking eyes of a few voyeuristic customers (and some who just looked at the wrong place at the wrong time…). How does this make you feel?

Example 2)

It’s Friday night. You and your sig-o (significant other) are leaving a restaurant, nothing to fancy, just the Greek bistro by the local university, say, and as you walk out the door you spot an older couple making out, next to a family of four. Hands are in respectable (ish) places, hips and waists. Mouths stay together so there’s not too much visible tongue. However there is a six-year old and a tweenager with parents waiting about 2.75 feet from them. How might you assess those proverbial apples?

Hit reply and tell me what you think. Maybe I’m stuck in a century I wasn’t even born into due to the protestant undertones of the dominant culture in which I was bred. Maybe I’m right on the money. Who knows? To be frank, my opinion probably won’t be changing any time soon, but I still welcome yours. I’m always game for some fair debate or shows of solidarity.

Until next time, keep it real and, preferably, in your pants.

Lustfully yours,

TPG

Cette année la conférence annuelle des aumôniers d’aéroports s’est déroulée en Afrique à Lusaka, Zambie, du 6 au 11 septembre 2009. Chaque année nous nous réunissons dans un continent différent et après la conférence européenne de Nice l’an dernier en 2008, c’était au tour de l’Afrique de nous recevoir.

Une soixantaine d’aumôniers venus des quatre coins du monde étaient présents. La Zambie est un pays d’Afrique australe de douze millions d’habitants, un peu plus grand que la France d’environ un millier de kilomètres carrés. Au Nord elle est bordée par la République Démocratique du Congo, à l’est par le Malawi et la Tanzanie, au sud par la Mozambique, le Botswana et la Namibie, et à l’ouest par l’Angola. C’est un pays pacifique qui recherche vraiment à sortir de la corruption, ce fléau qui règne sur la plupart des pays d’Afrique. La Zambie est fière de son passé et de son premier président, Kenneth Kaunda, élu au moment de l’indépendance en 1964. Nous avons visité sa maison natale, qui se trouve dans un quartier pauvre de la ville, face à l’un des quartiers résidentiels les plus huppés de la ville. Kaunda dirigea le pays jusqu’en 1991. Le pays devint alors une démocratie multipartite.

C’est vrai que l’extrême pauvreté nous frappe d’abord, nous les européens, qui vivons dans l’abondance sans même le savoir. Mais malgré cette pauvreté, c’est la joie qui domine. Les gens dans la rue sont souriants, aimables et prêts à rendre service. La population est laborieuse et le long des rues il y a partout des étalages de meubles à vendre, construits par des menuisiers locaux, des armoires, étagères et fauteuils et des objets en fer forgé, portes d’entrée et clôtures de maison. Il y a aussi des femmes qui vendent fruits et légumes.

La Zambie (dont le nom vient du fleuve qui traverse le pays, le Zambèze) est un pays chrétiens où toutes les dénominations protestantes sont présentes ainsi que le catholicisme. Les aumôneries d’aéroport sont essentiellement œcuméniques et des aumôniers de toutes confessions étaient présents. Cette année, les catholiques nous ont invité à recevoir l’hospitalité eucharistique, qui fut un moment très fort, ainsi qu’à une messe dans l’Église St Irénée de Lusaka, présidée par l’Archevêque Mazombwe, accompagnée d’une chorale magnifique, que l’on aurait écouté toute la nuit tant les cantiques étaient sincères et rythmés.

Nous avons eu des conférences très intéressantes sur les façons d’éradiquer le sida en Zambie par l’éducation des foules. Nous étions contents d’apprendre qu’après des années d’effort pour instruire la population, la maladie régresse enfin. Aussi on nous informa sur les dispositifs de sécurité et les procédures en cas d’accident à l’aéroport, que nous avons visité ensuite. La chapelle y est très bien placée et une brève méditation y fut conduite par la Sœur Bernard Nkandu, principale instigatrice de la conférence à Lusaka. Le Dr Francis Mutach Kapend nous fit un exposé très émouvant et révélateur de la situation dans son pays, la République Démocratique du Congo, en guerre depuis plus de quarante ans.

Enfin une journée fut consacrée à notre association (IACAC), son historique, son développement, certains présentèrent leurs aéroports notamment celui de Phoenix, Arizona où aura lieu la conférence en 2010 L’après-midi nous nous sommes réunis pour discuter des difficultés rencontrées par les uns et les autres, les points forts et les points faibles.

Malgré l’emploi du temps intense cette conférence fut d’un intérêt extrême tout d’abord pour renforcer l’unité qui nous anime sous la bannière du Père et du Fils Jésus- Christ qui sont nos raisons d’exister dans ce ministère, au travers des prières dites et des cantiques chantés ensemble, ensuite pour nous apercevoir que les mêmes difficultés étaient partagées par chacun et que finalement ce qui comptait le plus c’était de prier les uns pour les autres et d’agir selon nos possibilités dans la Volonté du Père.

Je remercie donc le Seigneur de m’avoir permis d’être sa représentante dans ce pays si attachant qu’est la Zambie et d’avoir permis que tant de liens enrichissants soient tissés au travers de toutes ces rencontres.

Christiane Fisher,
chargée de mission en tant qu’aumônier protestant à l’aéroport de Nice

ALANDADO (Association culturelle de l’Église réformée à Antibes) reçoit…

Administration : Alain Rosier – tél. 04 93 24 12 06 – rosiera@wanadoo.fr
Site : http://www.poussieresdexil.com

*

]]> http://freemarketmojo.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/religious-identity-and-economic-behavior/ Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:02:08 +0000 Ariel Goldring http://freemarketmojo.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/religious-identity-and-economic-behavior/

Chris Blattman has linked to an interesting paper on religious identity and economic behavior published a few months ago:

We find that Protestantism increases contributions to public goods, and there is suggestive evidence that it increases employee reciprocity in a labor market with incomplete contracts. Catholicism decreases contributions to public goods, increases employee reciprocity, and decreases risk aversion. Judaism increases labor market reciprocity. There is some evidence that Christianity and Judaism increase employer wage offers. However, we find no evidence that religious identity affects discount rates or purely altruistic generosity.

While perusing through a podcast, I found a few verses and the underlining Greek and I thought I’d record what I found. I titled this post “why do the nations rage?” in reference to the Romaphobia of the Protestant churches and the faulty translations that follow from it. In Luke 11:27, 28 a woman says to Jesus, “blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts that nursed You!” Protestant translators normally translate Jesus’ response as, “blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” But the word ‘rather’ is the Greek word menounge which is translated later in Romans 10:18 as “yes, indeed”. For what reason would Protestant translators have to make such a decision in translation other than what I like to call ‘Romaphobia’?  The proper rendering of Jesus’ statement should be “Yes, indeed and blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it”. The wonderful thing about that statement by Christ is that the blessed Virgin not only bore and nursed the Son of God but also hears the word of God and keeps it. That, certainly, is a double blessing upon her for her role in salvation and her obedience to the Lord.

Note: So why do I call this post “Why do the nations rage”? I call it thus because Protestant theology is predominantly a knee-jerk reaction against Roman Catholicism. And many of them, although not all, most certainly do rage against such things.

JOhn

Being a Protestant and a Particular Baptist, I don’t go much for the building as far as it being essential for worship. Don’t get me wrong, having a dedicated building to meet in is very helpful and useful, but if you are to have a building it needs to lend itself for the purpose, being completely functional as such and efficient in terms of the funding for it (it is far more profitable to use what money you have in carrying out the mission, than building a facade of religion).

Having said all that, the building in this picture is certainly an impressive one. It is a grand old building (as far as ‘old’ goes in relatively young Australia), rich in history, as it contains many historical items of interest.

The building pictured is that of the Newcastle Cathedral (Church of England). As grand as it looks, it is hardly the bastion of Evangelical Protestantism that one would have hoped for. Any true semblance of Evangelical Christianity that it may have borne witness to has long gone from its walls.

Thanks to Jeff Volkmer for pointing me to an article in The Christian Science Monitor from March this year titled  The coming evangelical collapse. The article gets close to going apocalyptic and rehearsing favoured conspiracy theories, but manages to get in enough social and theological reflection on the state of US evangelicalism to give food for thought.

I am not an American, so I am a little wary about discussing the socio-political context of religion in the US, especially when I was the first to shout ‘anti-American’ when I perceived Bishop Alan Wilson’s description of freedom of religion in the US as caricature.

There are two related things that the article does not touch on: the place of race in US evangelicalism and a change in the country’s First Believer. I have this nagging suspicion that when the article talks about evangelicals that it really means white evangelicals. After all, evangelicalism in the United States has been segregated along racial lines since the abolition of slavery. Even though segregationist attitudes have mostly disappeared, the conservative nature of church institutions continues to separate US evangelicalism into two racially distinct cultures. Even the signifier ‘evangelical’ is often only used in the US context to stand for ‘white evangelical’ (this is not the case elsewhere), whereas the ‘black evangelical movement’ is called ‘Black Church’; that is the white half is designated by religion, while the black half designated by race. Perhaps it is no wonder that a white American evangelical might see only half of the picture.

The second thing here is the election of Barack Obama. His election was widely seen as a defeat for the so-called ‘religious right’ (who are, no doubt, a more complex grouping than many consider them to be). However, Obama is a committed Christian and member of the Methodist Church (which is usually seen as evangelical, but is perhaps more mainstream Protestant in the modern US context). Obama is often described as ‘liberal’ by those on the political right, but his ‘liberalism’ is widely supported in the Black Church: just mention Civil Rights Movement. Of course, seeing as African Americans are more likely than their faded compatriots to be poor, imprisoned or the victim of crime, it is little surprise that the Black Church has deeper feeling for ’social gospel’ in place of the tendency to the ‘prosperity gospel’ that often seems a heartbeat away from the religious lifestyle advocated in the White Church.

Both black and white evangelicals in the US have equal passion for Christ and his Gospel, but social context has shaped how that Gospel is know in both communities, often to the extent that it is not recognised in the other. The unbalanced application of signifiers also makes it possible to see the election of Barack Obama as a defeat for evangelicalism and a victory for liberalism, which reduces the complex interaction of ideas in US politics and religion to a single, insufficient dichotomy.

And this is something I think the article gets right: that evangelicals (that is, white evangelicals) “have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism”. By denying any chance for adaptation and progress, the movement has consigned itself to decline. It means that evangelicalism has defined itself more as anti-abortion and anti-gay than by its doctrinal basis. Once you turn a religion into a pressure group, you loose much of value to hand on to future generations. Alongside the socio-political agenda is the evangelical culture that promotes Christian music, Christian clothes, Christian holidays, to the extent that evangelicalism has become somewhat like a gated community in society, cosy in its ignorance of the world. Again, once the religion is just a lifestyle choice there’s little of value to pass on. The isolationist and anti-progressive turn taken by US evangelicalism has led to an inability for evangelicals to ‘do good’ in society. As the article points out, outreach ministries will be increasingly forced to cover over their evangelical connections to be able to operate in a world that increasingly considers evangelical social input to be damaging.

And “the money will dry up”. And the question will be asked, can the evangelical churches do poor, can the megachurches eat humble pie? The extent to which prosperity gospel underpins evangelical righteousness will be tested.

“Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success.” Big churches that meet social and psychological needs will survive, but fail to have meaningful theological and prophetic interactions with the wider world. Conversions to traditional, liturgical churches, like Catholicism or Orthodoxy increase to fill the void in theological meaning when evangelicals become a socio-political clique. Likewise, the ‘emergent’ church (new church projects relying on innovative patterns of being a Christian community) will likely blend into the Protestant ‘liberal’ mainstream for a variety of reasons, not least their needs to become established, stable communities and develop a doctrinal stance that can fit with real-world engagement.

“Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism. Can this community withstand heresy, relativism, and confusion? To do so, it must make a priority of biblical authority, responsible leadership, and a reemergence of orthodoxy.” Although, perhaps it will end up realising that the thriving movement in the Black Church would be its rightful home.

The article hopes for a ‘rescue mission’ for the US church from Asia and Africa. I’ve always been somewhat sceptical about this so-called ‘reverse’ missionary work. My sociological understanding of what went by the name of ‘mission’ is that it was the religious arm of imperialism. Is it any wonder that a rescue mission from African-American evangelicals is not countenanced?

I made a brief comment to Jeff about the change in evangelicalism in Britain at the end of empire, as I thought it might be comparable. The guiding spirit of Victorian evangelicalism was Muscular Christianity, facing death and dysentery to spread the Word to the ignorant subjects of the Queen Empress. Evangelicals tailored their religion perfectly to imperial politics, and has had much difficulty moving on from that. What an American might describe as ‘mainstream Protestant’ is the rump of the post-imperial decline in Muscular Christianity. Evangelical leadership became entrenched in the wealthy upper-middle class, and has remained there (Holy Trinity Brompton and the Alpha Course are shining examples of where the evangelical leadership in Britain are). Cultural influence from US white evangelicalism have been increasing since the seventies, especially in new evangelical, charismatic and house churches. This means that British evangelicalism could well feel a knock on from any decline in its transatlantic sister. British evangelicalism remains a most wealthy portion of British Christianity and has integrated well with mainstream Protestant churches, but has remained largely disengaged from society since the fall of empire and generally ignored.

If you’re American, if you’re an evangelical, what are your thoughts on the challenges facing evangelicalism?