As End Times collide with liberal Christianity and secular humanism, what a defining moment for the church.
The Thesis
This month the
Los Angeles Times features a fascinating
critique of liberal Christianity:
“Embraced by the leadership of all the mainline Protestant denominations, as well as large segments of American Catholicism, liberal Christianity has been hailed by its boosters for 40 years as the future of the Christian church. Instead, as all but a few die-hards now admit, all the mainline churches and movements within churches that have blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts are demographically declining and, in the case of the Episcopal Church, disintegrating.”
The LogicWriter Charlotte Allen continues with a doomsday message for the Episcopal and Presbyterian denominations specifically for failure to maintain enduring doctrines:
“As if to one-up the Presbyterians in jettisoning age-old elements of Christian belief, the Episcopalians at Columbus overwhelmingly refused even to consider a resolution affirming that Jesus Christ is Lord. When a Christian church cannot bring itself to endorse a bedrock Christian theological statement repeatedly found in the New Testament, it is not a serious Christian church. It's a Church of What's Happening Now, conferring a feel-good imprimatur on whatever the liberal elements of secular society deem permissible or politically correct….
“When a church doesn't take itself seriously, neither do its members….
“When your religion says ‘whatever’ on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it's a short step to deciding that one of the things you don't want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church….”
And the Antithesis
And then Allen, a Catholicism editor for the self-proclaimed largest spiritual website (Beliefnet.com), reports:
“Sociologist Rodney Stark ("The Rise of Christianity") and historian Philip Jenkins("The Next Christendom") contend that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents' commitment to that faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, which preach biblical morality, have no trouble saying that Jesus is Lord, and they generally eschew women's ordination. The churches are growing robustly, both in the United States and around the world.”
Biases aside, is this an accurate assertion? And then pick back up your biases, and tell me how the statement makes you feel as an Apostolic?
One Step Further
Maybe this is not an appropriate discussion to have. Maybe this is too sensitive a subject to broach. But… if we accept the aforementioned argument that Pentecostals/Apostolics (A/Ps) are more stable/faithful/committed because they have more beliefs/standards/doctrines, is the following a logical jump?
Are A/P males more prone to struggles/"backsliding” because they have less standards/responsibilities than females? Here’s a “for instance”: An A/P female has to come to terms with dress standards at a young age because she so obviously stands out from her non-A/P peers. An A/P male in the same context may not get that volume of questions/inquiries/interaction from his peers. The female has to internalize her beliefs and make a conscious commitment and then deal with that continually. According to the earlier assertion, does this make her a stronger Christian than the male who does not have to face that same level of choice, questioning, and commitment?
