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.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Luke 3:11

"Whoever has two shirts should share with the person who doesen't have any. Whoever has food should share it too."

The average American Christian has well more than is needed to sustain life. Meanwhile, millions globally lack even the most basic of human needs. Somehow, wealthy Christians disregard verses such as the aformentioned, even when the Bible makes it PERFECTLY clear that we are not to hoard unnecissary riches.

Personally, I think any Christian well above the poverty line is obligated in his faith to contribute to the needs of others. In America however, we seem so stuck in our Capitalistic system that basic Christian duties such as this are neglected. Honestly, what do people think when they read verses such as the one in Luke 3? Does it not apply to them for the mere fact that they are American, and therefore above common decency?

That is my main quirk. I see billionaires even (our darling president comes to mind) that call themselves Christian, yet spend the amount of money that would sustain a less privilidged person for a year on private trout streams.

I am also bothered by the role religion takes in politics. What right do we have to force our beliefs on others?

[Chimp]

Good post...

It's seems to me points one and two are related...

If you focus too much on your personal walk with God and not enough
on doing things to glorify God, you end up with modern Christian movements.

I am concerned with the attempts to intergrate policitcs and Christianity
simply because I think they are incompatible. As I have stated in another
post ... politicians are scum ( insert your slam here ). Their involvement
in religious matters has only served to create division where there was none.
If ever there was a creature that spoke with a forked tongue it's the homo
politicius ( okay I made that up but you get the point ).

[MJB05]

I think one of the main problems is that we spend too much time attacking each other on the things we disagree about and not doing as God commanded and love one another.

I have seen "discussions" between two Christians over such topics as belief in the Rapture or which Bible you should use turn into a verbal war which leads to them to saying insane things that would make a sailor cover his/her ears.

Another problem I see is that we tend to get too caught up in the word "Christian". I see too much of this "true Christians" stuff and it boggles my mind seeing people tell other Christians that they aren't saved. The word "Christian" is just a word to describe people that follow Christ. Jesus did not say that you must be a Christian in order to be saved He said we must put our faith in Him. Confess that we are sinners and accept Gods gift of salvation through Christ's death on the cross.

I see too many people judging the hearts of other men in which Jesus warns us that if we judge the method by which we judge we ourselves will be judged and that nobody but God knows the hearts of man.

We need to start loving each other more and helping each other more!

[Piper Plexed]

Another problem I see is that we tend to get too caught up in the word "Christian". I see too much of this "true Christians" stuff and it boggles my mind seeing people tell other Christians that they aren't saved. The word "Christian" is just a word to describe people that follow Christ. Jesus did not say that you must be a Christian in order to be saved He said we must put our faith in Him. Confess that we are sinners and accept Gods gift of salvation through Christ's death on the cross.

I see too many people judging the hearts of other men in which Jesus warns us that if we judge the method by which we judge we ourselves will be judged and that nobody but God knows the hearts of man.

We need to start loving each other more and helping each other more!

I am in complete agreement though I would like to expound on this thought. I have always felt that vanity and insecurity might lend itself to such attitudes.

I suspect when one commits him/herself to a particular denomination of Christianity then he/she must feel that they have found the truth. They are then faced with the realization that if they have found the truth then the many other denominations of Christianity must be wrong. Then of course the process that brought him or her to the denomination that he/she has committed must have lead them to dabble in other denominations. He/she is bound to ponder...WHAT IF another sects beliefs turn out to be the truth? What happens then. His/her semblance of order or quite possibly his/her salvation may be jeopardy. Ones beliefs or moral code are so integrated in ones personal identity that if that system is threatened well....... :nervious:

All I can say is that I trust in Gods Plan, I love thy neighbor (of all faiths and sects) or try to...... and am very saddened by Christian interdenominational Bickering.

[kens91765]

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 there has been a subtle encroachment of the materialistic business model upon the American church. I cannot say that I have attended every church in the USA. But every one I have been apart of was really more interested in making payroll than in making disciples. I think that the government's requirements for "non-profit" status actually forces a church to organize like a "for-profit" institution.

This results in divided loyalty and compromise. Church leaders are not really free to follow the road less traveled because of they fear that they will lose their paycheck. This is because they fear that the "customers" will shop somewhere more pleasant. As a result, more emphasis is placed upon people having a good time in church than teaching and applying the Word of God. This results in weak willed Christians that are more interested in what they can get from God than in how they might serve Him. I am no exception. Obviously, there are wonderful exceptions. But, for the most part, I believe this to be true. And, I believe, the larger and the more materially "successful" a church is, the more likely that this is true.

As I read the words of Jesus, he did not promise us that following him would be easy and that we would be fat and happy. It was the exact opposite. Jesus warned us that if we follow him, we should expect to be hated in the same way as Jesus was hated.

Historically and in scripture, the way God has always corrected lukewarmness was by allowing persecution -- real and deadly persecution -- to occur. Why would we expect anything different?

[phoenixfire]

Luke 3:11

"Whoever has two shirts should share with the person who doesen't have any. Whoever has food should share it too."

The average American Christian has well more than is needed to sustain life. Meanwhile, millions globally lack even the most basic of human needs. Somehow, wealthy Christians disregard verses such as the aformentioned, even when the Bible makes it PERFECTLY clear that we are not to hoard unnecissary riches.

Personally, I think any Christian well above the poverty line is obligated in his faith to contribute to the needs of others. In America however, we seem so stuck in our Capitalistic system that basic Christian duties such as this are neglected. Honestly, what do people think when they read verses such as the one in Luke 3? Does it not apply to them for the mere fact that they are American, and therefore above common decency?

I agree with this

I am also bothered by the role religion takes in politics. What right do we have to force our beliefs on others?

But this doesn't make sense. For more detail, please see this thread: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=2055.

First, there is no such thing as value-neutral laws. Every law is an expression of someone's determination of what is 'good' or bad'.
And whenever you say something is 'good' you are making a value judgment. We think it is good to be able live in a more advanced society, it is good for people to be free, to gain knowledge, to raise your own children, to give everyone a chance to live where they want and puruse they occupation they want, to give everyone an equal chance to be rich, etc. Not every society has held those values, though in our culture those are pretty much unanimously accepted.

Second, pluralistic societies will always have conflict since it is not theoretically possible to have a set of laws that every group believes is fair and doesn't favor one group's views over others.

Therefore, all statements such as 'What right do you have to force your views on me' are rather silly because our laws have to reflect someone's[\i] values. Instead, the question is what values should our laws reflect? What is 'good' and what is 'bad'.

Politics is just a game of power between various groups who are trying to make the law reflect their view of what is 'good' and 'bad'. When we live in a democracy we agree that whoever is in the majority has a 'right' to have the laws reflect their values, but only to the extent that the laws do not infringe upon the set of 'rights' that the society has agreed to respect.

As American Christians, the only choice we have is whether we are going to try to make the law reflect what we believe to be God's values, or we're going to be passive and let the laws reflect another set of values (which would by definition be false as would anything that does not align with the order established by God.)

[micatala]

Quote:
I am also bothered by the role religion takes in politics. What right do we have to force our beliefs on others?

But this doesn't make sense. For more detail, please see this thread: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=2055

.

We did kind of leave the other thread hanging, didn't we. For my part, I will plead business and throw in that it is a good thread, but one that does require (for me anyway) a little more time and thought to respond than some of the others. Maybe we'll get back there.

But for now. . . .

First, there is no such thing as value-neutral laws. Every law is an expression of someone's determination of what is 'good' or bad'.
And whenever you say something is 'good' you are making a value judgment. We think it is good to be able live in a more advanced society, it is good for people to be free, to gain knowledge, to raise your own children, to give everyone a chance to live where they want and puruse they occupation they want, to give everyone an equal chance to be rich, etc. Not every society has held those values, though in our culture those are pretty much unanimously accepted.

Second, pluralistic societies will always have conflict since it is not theoretically possible to have a set of laws that every group believes is fair and doesn't favor one group's views over others.

I would mostly agree with this. Some laws seem to me not to have much 'values relevance' to me, but you can probably make a case that even pragmatic things like parking regulations, traffic laws, etc. are supporting larger values like "protecting life and property", providing "equal access" etc.

Therefore, all statements such as 'What right do you have to force your views on me' are rather silly because our laws have to reflect someone's values. Instead, the question is what values should our laws reflect? What is 'good' and what is 'bad'.

Here, I start to diverge from your thinking. It is anything but a silly arguement for a number of reasons. The statement you are making, without a lot more qualification, seems to ignore the difference in the severity of the effects of a law that might be favored by a majority, but is based on values not at all accepted by a minority.

For example, a law that prohibited any sexual acts between people of the same sex, even in the privacy of their own homes, would have a huge impact on those who identify themselves as homosexuals, but no real effect on those that are not. If those who felt such a law were 'good' imposed this on society, it is quite possible there would be no effect at all on anyone but homosexuals, as others would not even be aware of what homosexuals were doing in the privacy of their own homes.

Your statement also seems to ignore that some laws might be consistent with only a very narrow value system (eg. you must worship at a Muslim Mosque on a regular basis), while some laws might be consistent with a number of different value systems which are widely divergent (eg. citizens may worship wherever and whenever they wish, or choose not to worship at all).

I would suggest that one measure of the 'goodness' of a law is the extent to which it is consistent with the widest possible set of varying values.

Politics is just a game of power between various groups who are trying to make the law reflect their view of what is 'good' and 'bad'. When we live in a democracy we agree that whoever is in the majority has a 'right' to have the laws reflect their values, but only to the extent that the laws do not infringe upon the set of 'rights' that the society has agreed to respect.

Yes, politics is at least partly a game of power, and the majority is given great weight to make the rules. I bolded the last part of your statement, because this is really the crux of the matter. Which things are we going to agree on as basic rights, and moreover, how are we going to decide on what these rights are? If we are not able to agree as a society, does this mean the bare majority gets to decide what these rights are? If that is the case, then there really are no basic rights. Under this scenario, racial and gender discrimination would be just fine, as long as the majority felt that such laws were 'good.'

It seems to me what we need is a process by which we decide what the 'basic rights' are, and this is a very tricky thing. The process certainly cannot be 'majority rule.'

One possibility would be to create criteria that could be used to decide on what is a basic right and what is not. I would suggest these should be as general as possible, so as to be applicable to the widest number of possible enumerated rights. It would also help to remove the discussion from particular potential rights that some believe should be basic and others believe should not be granted at all.

I haven't really thought too deeply about how this might be done, but I'll make a couple of suggestions.

1. As noted above, laws or rights that are consistent with a wide variety of value systems are better than those that are consistent with fewer values systems.
2. If granting a basic right has very minimial or no impact on those who do not wish to exercise the right, that greatly diminishes the rationale for not granting the right.
3. We might try to learn from history. If a particular right has a history whereby societies that have granted it are deemed to have functioned well, while societies that have not granted it are deemed to have functioned less well, this is support for granting the right.
4. In any division of the society into disjoint groups A and B, if a proposed law effects A and B differently, then it is better if the law be perceived as equally fair if the roles of A and B are reversed, than if this is not the case.

What do you think? Do these criteria make some sense? Can we make them better? What other ones could we add?

As American Christians, the only choice we have is whether we are going to try to make the law reflect what we believe to be God's values, or we're going to be passive and let the laws reflect another set of values (which would by definition be false as would anything that does not align with the order established by God.)

Certainly I agree that it is appropriate for Christians to express themselves with regards to what are good and bad laws. However, we must accept that, even though the U.S. (if we want to specifically talk U.S., or we could simply think in terms of any country) is predominantly Christian, there are millions of U.S. citizens that are not. I will point out that, at least in the New Testament, I don't think you will find much if any support for the notion that CHristians should feel free to impose Christian doctrine on those that are not Christian as a matter of civil law.

Even in the Old Testament, non-Israelites were not expected to abide by all of the laws that applied to the Israelites. THe values and doctrines of Christianity apply to those who have agreed of their own free will to follow Christ.

In my view, we should advocate for laws that we think are conducive to the society we wish to live in, and we are fortunately very free to do so here in the U.S., but we should keep in mind that these laws will apply to both CHristians and non-CHristians. A law that has as its sole reason for being that it is consistent with CHristian doctrine should not be enacted, unless it can also be shown that it is necessary and or conducive to assisting in the smooth functioning of a society that includes a very wide variety of other belief systems.

[micatala]

Having posted the above, it occured to me I didn't really directly respond to the OP.

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.

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.)

[Snoozey`]

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

I completely agree with you on this one. I'm Korean and at my church, my pastor seems to be always focusing on his love and not on God's wrath/anger/jealousy and etc.

I think that the pastors are trying to be in favor with the congregation, to speak the words that THEY want to hear...