True; except the article notes that "Many pastors ... hide their own mental illness because they fear their congregations won’t listen to someone who is struggling" and "Too many Christians ... believe that mental illness can be cured by prayer and Bible study alone". Which suggests, at the very least, that Evangelical pastors can face particular pressures which are due to dissonance, i.e. the claim that "everything in life is fine once you've accepted Jesus into your heart" and the reality of mental illness. This isn't knew: I read the same thing about Pentecostal pastors (always having to show an upbeat and confident public persona while inside they may be feeling wretched) as long ago as the mid-70s.
I have a charismatic evangelical friend who is seemingly dying in hospital after a liver transplant. His wife recently listed to me how she has variously been told by her entourage that he has not been healed a) because he doesn't want to be b) because there were problems in their marriage c) because she is not praying in tongues for several bouts of three hours a day (have these people never read the book of Job??).
The church she attends recently buried a young man who died of a brain tumour. The pastor explained to me how they were making preparations for the funeral even as they were organising prayer sessions for his resurrection. If that's not cognitive dissonance I don't know what is.
Hume is proved right again: this is the down side of reason being subordinate to the passions, for the sake of individual identity subsumed in group. Evolution strikes again. Reason must come first. Which isn't me backsliding E! 3) comes primus inter pares!
As someone who speaks to a congregation, I feel I have a responsibility to speak with intellectual integrity, and a responsibility to get people to "examine themselves" rather than just jot down "right answers"... and a responsiblity not to vandalise their faith. Jesus has some harsh words for those who cause "any of these little ones to stumble".
I'd agree with that - though I think that equally if a leader feels they can't continue to speak with integrity in representing the faith position of their particular part of the church, then they should step down - but I suspect most in this position simply continue.
This is my story too. Rejecting consrvative evangelicalism, and eventually found I was pushed out of the church.
And there are hundreds and thousands of others. I keep hearing about them - but it has been going on for a long time (A Churchless Faith - very good, interesting and seminal book on the subject).
And (critially) these are pastors, church leaders, people in the heart of the church. I left the PCC (the second PCC resignation in the year. Of course, there was nothing wrong in the church).
The problem is the conservative evangelicalism (which includes fundamentalism, but is also wider than that) is the black and white nature. This is true:This is not.
What I see again and again is that people who are deeply invested in this who reject it often react strongly because:
1. Their religious leadership has lied to them, deceived them, abused them. They have no desire to rethink, they have to get out.
2. They have learned over years - decades - that the literalist interpretation of the bible is true, and anything else is wrong. If you reject this you are going to hell. It takes years to start to question this (rather than totally reject).
I know that I have only survived with my faith because my upbringing was liberal, and because I have been in churches where I was accepted and exploration was encouraged (Current Bishop of Durham was my vicar for many years, and I thank him for some of this).
There was one person who had left such a church I encountered on social media. I offered a virtual hug, which was rejected (nicely) because "even a virtual hug from someone who defines as a Christian triggers me". It is easy to ignore the incredible damage spiritual abuse causes to people.
In the Mystery Worshipper comments on a visit to a Quaker Meeting for Worship, someone wrote that it was a pity that Quakers were no longer claiming to be Christian. At my Meeting there were people whom such a claim would have sent away, because they had the sort of feelings SC's contact had.
I have no special knowledge of any recent tragic incidents - so please don't take the following as a commentary on any specific person's struggle except mine..
But I'd say that there was something about the energy of charismatic religion that I found exciting and which swept me along for so long.
Maybe it is too obvious to say here in as many words - but compared to living within that bubble, reverting to a contemplative or celebral faith tradition wouldn't really cut mustard for anyone I knew.
That would feel like going from being an astronaut one day to being a school bus driver the next.
Yes, it's not impossible. But it is such a shock stepping off the conveyor belt that is zipping along at a fast speed that these other options don't even register as possibilities.
It's such a waste. In many ways it would have been better for me never to have been involved in the first place.
To be fair, although not involved with what's taught in evangelical training colleges and seminaries, at various times I've become aware that the diet has broadened ... (or perhaps it already had been without my noticing?) plenty of Patristics, The Cappadocian Fathers, debates on the 'new perspective' on Paul and so on and so forth ...
And yet a lot of those institutions seem to be obvious grifts, petty dictatorships, or both, as detailed in this Politico exposé on Jerry Falwell, Jr.'s hilariously misnamed Liberty University.
News outlets have reported on business deals by Liberty University benefiting Falwell’s friends. Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen claimed that he had helped Falwell clean up racy “personal” photographs.
Based on scores of new interviews and documents obtained for this article, concerns about Falwell’s behavior go well beyond that — and it’s causing longtime, loyal Liberty University officials to rapidly lose faith in him.
<snip>
In interviews over the past eight months, they depicted how Falwell and his wife, Becki, consolidated power at Liberty University and how Falwell presides over a culture of self-dealing, directing university resources into projects and real estate deals in which his friends and family have stood to make personal financial gains. Among the previously unreported revelations are Falwell’s decision to hire his son Trey’s company to manage a shopping center owned by the university, Falwell’s advocacy for loans given by the university to his friends, and Falwell’s awarding university contracts to businesses owned by his friends.
“We’re not a school; we’re a real estate hedge fund,” said a senior university official with inside knowledge of Liberty’s finances. “We’re not educating; we’re buying real estate every year and taking students’ money to do it.”
It's a long article but well worth the read, if you're interested in the subject.
But I'd say that there was something about the energy of charismatic religion that I found exciting and which swept me along for so long.
Absolutely - it has been a long journey from a Spring Harvest evening worship to a quaker meeting.
But also there is something massively comforting in the certainty. If there is a question, to know that there is an answer and then that is it. It makes for a comfortable time.
Moving from "I believe A, B and C" to "I believe D, E and F" is much easier than moving to "I believe G, probably, am broadly convinced by H and am working on how to combine I and J". That is not a criticism as such, just an observation that working at your faith, seeking the truth, searching out truth is hard work. And most people - including me - are lazy.
I tell people that the word I have difficulty with in 'I believe in God' is not 'God' but 'believe'. There is a well explored sleight of hand played by the verb 'to believe' which means it is often used to mislead a hearer. It is difficult to tell the difference between a performance of loyalty and a presumption of facticity.
I tell people that the word I have difficulty with in 'I believe in God' is not 'God' but 'believe'. There is a well explored sleight of hand played by the verb 'to believe' which means it is often used to mislead a hearer. It is difficult to tell the difference between a performance of loyalty and a presumption of facticity.
We used to call that the difference between belief IN (a person or institution) and belief THAT (a proposition).
I tell people that the word I have difficulty with in 'I believe in God' is not 'God' but 'believe'. There is a well explored sleight of hand played by the verb 'to believe' which means it is often used to mislead a hearer. It is difficult to tell the difference between a performance of loyalty and a presumption of facticity.
We used to call that the difference between belief IN (a person or institution) and belief THAT (a proposition).
That's one formulation but it is really more complicated than that. You can use a 'believe that' statement to perform an act of loyalty. Indeed when we are young we often state things as true 'because my Mum/Dad says so'.
I tell people that the word I have difficulty with in 'I believe in God' is not 'God' but 'believe'. There is a well explored sleight of hand played by the verb 'to believe' which means it is often used to mislead a hearer. It is difficult to tell the difference between a performance of loyalty and a presumption of facticity.
In a sense, I have the problem with both, for the same reason. What I mean by "believe" and "God" is probably different to what you mean by these words.
So yes, totally. But it applies to the object too. The God I believe in is not therefore defined by your understanding. I have taken to using "The Divine" instead - I mean the same thing, but I don't want to mislead others into assuming my meaning is the same as yours.
(I know - Divine has the same issues, but maybe less so than God.)
In the Mystery Worshipper comments on a visit to a Quaker Meeting for Worship, someone wrote that it was a pity that Quakers were no longer claiming to be Christian. At my Meeting there were people whom such a claim would have sent away, because they had the sort of feelings SC's contact had.
It's a tragedy when anyone leaves a church for whatever reason. Evangelical churches do I admit, often speak as if they know what "truth" is: other churches make a real point of not wanting any defined truth at any cost - anything goes.
Is it possible that we are looking for meaning where there is simply mystery and imposing mystery when meaning is clear?
That's not restricted to any theological tribe or interest group.
I think a particular problem in this respect when it comes to evangelicals is that their faith tends to be very propositionally based. So as soon as there's a difference of opinion about one of the propositions, there's a big problem.
As someone raised as an evangelical, it's taken me years to even begin to understand the Catholic mindset. A key moment was reading Graham Greene's Travels with my aunt in which the aunt says something along the lines of "of course I'm a Catholic, dear, I simply don't believe everything the Catholics do". It took me a very long time to understand how that sort of headspace was even possible in matters of faith, let alone how it might be positively desirable.
[ETA i.e. in Catholicism, that somehow doesn't count as cognitive dissonance, or cognitive dissonance is nowhere near as important]
I knew Catholic priests, who if you said, I find X and Y doctrines difficult, would say, manage what you can. In fact, I was amazed when I started to read evangelical stuff. It felt like the difference between the Word and the word, not trying to be polemical here.
I think a particular problem in this respect when it comes to evangelicals is that their faith tends to be very propositionally based. So as soon as there's a difference of opinion about one of the propositions, there's a big problem.
Is this because the Protestant/Evangelical way of thinking derives from the Enlightenment, especially its belief in Science and Rationality?
For science - at least, when thought of in a simple way - tends to say, "If A is true, then B is not true" (or vice-versa). So the earth cannot be both a flat plate and a sphere; the physical centre of the solar system cannot be both the earth and the sun - and so on.
Of course we are now learning that things are not so cut and dried: for a century we have accepted that light comes in both waves and discrete quanta, for instance. But the idea of "If A, then not B" has seeped into our theology, when in fact we need to hold both A and B (and all the other letters of the alphabet!) in dynamic tension and profound mystery.
(Question to Eutychus: are French Evangelicals particularly prone to either/or ways of thinking, seeing that rationalism has been such a key feature of national thinking for such a long time?)
I found my RC upbringing to be more dogmatic than my evo adulthood. Christianity as a whole does not fit with the culture. So any branch has social dissonance.
@Baptist Trainfan I’m not Euty, but in my experience French evangelicalism is highly informed by the North American variety. I think this comes from the fact that evangelicals are in a distinct minority here, something like 2% of the population, so identifying with the USA (and to a lesser extent, Canada – less influential, but with a region that speaks French) makes them feel more mainstream and less alone. Consequently there is a bit of groupthink about, because people want to identify with a tribe.
This is my experience of living in a big city. I think small towns in the provinces are rather different.
A strong emotional current also comes from the Pentecostal revival that happened in France among les gens du voyage (sometimes known as tziganes/gypsies, i.e. traditional traveller communities who are not Roma). Relative to the total numbers of evangelicals in France, they make up quite an important constituency and they tend to have quite an emotional, rather than a rational Cartesian approach.
@Baptist Trainfan I’m not Euty, but in my experience French evangelicalism is highly informed by the North American variety. I think this comes from the fact that evangelicals are in a distinct minority here, something like 2% of the population, so identifying with the USA (and to a lesser extent, Canada – less influential, but with a region that speaks French) makes them feel more mainstream and less alone. Consequently there is a bit of groupthink about, because people want to identify with a tribe.
This is my experience of living in a big city. I think small towns in the provinces are rather different.
A strong emotional current also comes from the Pentecostal revival that happened in France among les gens du voyage (sometimes known as tziganes/gypsies, i.e. traditional traveller communities who are not Roma). Relative to the total numbers of evangelicals in France, they make up quite an important constituency and they tend to have quite an emotional, rather than a rational Cartesian approach.
Same in Spain right down to the Gitanos. And sunny Leicestershire too in that regard.
I was going to say something very complementary to what @la vie en rouge says at first.
Historically, I think French evangelicalism has been less fundamentalist and more Cartesian in the sense of allowing doubt and thus wiggle room. In the 80s you'd be hard pushed to find six-day creationists among university-educated evangelicals, for instance.
In recent years, though, the Americanisation of French evangelicalism has led to the importing of a quite unFrench mindset. (I disagree with LVER's explanation about identification, though. I think the Americanisation is fuelled by American dollars).
I would however see the doctrinal niceties as largely pretexts for exercising top-down power - if you want to get rid of somebody, catch them out on a doctrinal detail.
The gens du voyage are very numerous but a case apart in terms of mindset. Many I frequent are closer to an Orthodox or liberal way of thinking in that they simultaneously read the text very closely but intuitively accept it as being imagery, perhaps because they have an oral, story-telling culture. They don't trip over quite the same hurdles (although they can be extremely legalistic).
I found my RC upbringing to be more dogmatic than my evo adulthood. Christianity as a whole does not fit with the culture. So any branch has social dissonance.
I have to agree with the above statement. While the culture has Christian roots, Christianity does not fit in with culture. And the point of social dissonance rings very true. It is my theory that a large part of why Trump was elected was because there were a lot of social changes most of his supporters were not ready for. While the pro lifers say it was about abortion--and some of it is--I think the straw that broke the camel's back was dealing with equal marriage and gender identity issues.
Look at the MAGA motto. It was hearkening back to a earlier era. People (of color, in particular) knew their places. Other people were at least in the closet. Steve was not able to marry Mike. Abortions were in back rooms. etc.
The Fundamentalists really jumped on this. Focus on the Family wants things to return to the 50's as it were.
And yet the young people were not there.
On the other hand mainline churches have problems breaking out of the shell they have gotten themselves into. For instance, my denomination decided against the recommendation of the establishment to become a Sanctuary Church. However, they did not define what they meant by it, saying they will come up with a definition in three years. While this was supported by a number of the more liberal synods (the coastal synods), it has caused a lot of heartache in a number of the conservative (hinterland) synods. Even in my synod, where we say we are open and affirming, people are threatening to leave because they "hear" we are going to shelter undocumented immigrants. This is not the case. It is still up to the local synod and the local congregation to decide for themselves just how they are going to work with undocumented immigrants.
I think a particular problem in this respect when it comes to evangelicals is that their faith tends to be very propositionally based. So as soon as there's a difference of opinion about one of the propositions, there's a big problem.
These are both right, I think - I would probably put it that some approaches to faith see it as a destination, not a journey (and that can apply to catholic or liberal traditions as much as evangelical).
The purpose of the church is (IMHO) to support, help and encourage people in their own spiritual journey. That means taking people wherever they are, and leaving them (whenever and however - both permanantly and each week) further on, wherever that may be.
Sometimes that might be huge strides in a short time, sometimes that might be a single step in a decade. But it is the journey that is important.
The purpose of the church is (IMHO) to support, help and encourage people in their own spiritual journey.
IMHO, I disagree with you
I've been thinking a lot about the individual vs. the communal aspect of religion. I definitely haven't reached definitive conclusions on that, but your definition of what the purpose of the church is (or should be) seems too much focussed on the individual to me.
Sure, the church is a communal thing. But in your view, it is focused on helping people in their individual (as emphasised by your use of the word 'own') spiritual journey. Whatever the term 'individual journey' means, I have the feeling that the way we interact which each other is part of it. I don't think your definition captures that.
Aye, the church doesn't help me at all in that except here. It very much prevents me interacting with others except here and in serving the marginal. We'll see how the new one helps beyond being a placeholder.
@LeRoc - Yes, I get your point. But in my case, I joined a community for the people there, because being with others was - is - part of the journey. Yes, mys simplistic comment did miss that.
But a spiritual journey needs to include being with and engaging with other. Somewhere along the way. I guess.
There was a report in The Times the other day that the Pastor of a 'free church' somewhere in the Bible Belt has managed to get the 'Harry Potter' books banned from the local school on the grounds that the spells in the books are 'real spells'. Is this a lingering or a resurgence of the mediaeval reluctance to accept that anything in a book might be non-factual? That, of course, goes for the Bible as well.
When the Harry Potter books were first released there was a backlash from some churches which saw them as promoting an interest in witchcraft. But then that view changed to see them as encouraging Christian values of self sacrifice, perseverance, community and friendship.
There was a report in The Times the other day that the Pastor of a 'free church' somewhere in the Bible Belt has managed to get the 'Harry Potter' books banned from the local school on the grounds that the spells in the books are 'real spells'. Is this a lingering or a resurgence of the mediaeval reluctance to accept that anything in a book might be non-factual? That, of course, goes for the Bible as well.
Can't find that. Can find this. A private RC school that hasn't got to the C18th Inquisition's understanding.
The purpose of the church is (IMHO) to support, help and encourage people in their own spiritual journey.
IMHO, I disagree with you
I've been thinking a lot about the individual vs. the communal aspect of religion. I definitely haven't reached definitive conclusions on that, but your definition of what the purpose of the church is (or should be) seems too much focussed on the individual to me.
Sure, the church is a communal thing. But in your view, it is focused on helping people in their individual (as emphasised by your use of the word 'own') spiritual journey. Whatever the term 'individual journey' means, I have the feeling that the way we interact which each other is part of it. I don't think your definition captures that.
I've been to churches where I did not find any Christians. They said they believed some things, which doesn't make for a Christian. Watering your rose of reverence once a week hardly makes someone Christian.
The purpose of the church is (IMHO) to support, help and encourage people in their own spiritual journey.
IMHO, I disagree with you
I've been thinking a lot about the individual vs. the communal aspect of religion. I definitely haven't reached definitive conclusions on that, but your definition of what the purpose of the church is (or should be) seems too much focussed on the individual to me.
Sure, the church is a communal thing. But in your view, it is focused on helping people in their individual (as emphasised by your use of the word 'own') spiritual journey. Whatever the term 'individual journey' means, I have the feeling that the way we interact which each other is part of it. I don't think your definition captures that.
I've been to churches where I did not find any Christians. They said they believed some things, which doesn't make for a Christian. Watering your rose of reverence once a week hardly makes someone Christian.
That is awfully close to No True Christian.
It is perfectly possible to believe something and still fail to act on those beliefs because that is a perfectly human thing to do. Whether that is a valid excuse is another matter.
The purpose of the church is (IMHO) to support, help and encourage people in their own spiritual journey.
IMHO, I disagree with you
I've been thinking a lot about the individual vs. the communal aspect of religion. I definitely haven't reached definitive conclusions on that, but your definition of what the purpose of the church is (or should be) seems too much focussed on the individual to me.
Sure, the church is a communal thing. But in your view, it is focused on helping people in their individual (as emphasised by your use of the word 'own') spiritual journey. Whatever the term 'individual journey' means, I have the feeling that the way we interact which each other is part of it. I don't think your definition captures that.
I've been to churches where I did not find any Christians. They said they believed some things, which doesn't make for a Christian. Watering your rose of reverence once a week hardly makes someone Christian.
That is awfully close to No True Christian.
It is perfectly possible to believe something and still fail to act on those beliefs because that is a perfectly human thing to do. Whether that is a valid excuse is another matter.
I have been to churches where their definition of faith is not something that I can appreciate. I would agree with Lilbuddha about not dismissing them as Not Real Christians.
However, I also understand the criticism. I know some people who are Churchians - whose belief seems to be in the redemptive power of church. Which is fine, as long as they don;t try converting me. I am quite happy not being in church.
Jesus would agree with that too. And this is why He says to them, 'Away with you, I never knew you' (Matt 7: 23). Jesus was never upset with sinners in the gospels. He was only upset with the people who thought that they weren't.
When the Harry Potter books were first released there was a backlash from some churches which saw them as promoting an interest in witchcraft. But then that view changed to see them as encouraging Christian values of self sacrifice, perseverance, community and friendship.
Then the critics might as well challenge the Chronicles of Narnia for promoting an interest in warfare. They are both outstanding imaginative stories with a strong Christian ethos. I will always remember on the day of a new Harry Potter release seeing a small boy sit down on the pavement to read a book the size of a brick. J K Rowling inspired a generation of children to become avid readers.
Then the critics might as well challenge the Chronicles of Narnia for promoting an interest in warfare.
As noted, some critics challenge the Chronicles of Narnia for a variety of reasons. Reasonableness of the criticism isn't a requirement.
They are both outstanding imaginative stories with a strong Christian ethos. I will always remember on the day of a new Harry Potter release seeing a small boy sit down on the pavement to read a book the size of a brick. J K Rowling inspired a generation of children to become avid readers.
Sure. That doesn't mean they didn't also prompt some crazies to flaunt their crazy.
As noted upthread by @Arethosemyfeet, some fundies have challenged them, or are suspicious of them. I mean after all, the last one suggests that non-Christians can be saved. And they have pagan things in them. We can't have any of that!
Seriously, these are the same people who think any translation of the Bible other than the KJV is suspect—meaning they are not mainstream.
Lewis and Tolkien thought that the pagan myths were types of the archetypal true Christian myth. Lewis may be signalling this in his Narnia books. Or he may have just thought that the Greek myths were good imaginative material for presenting Christian theology in a creative new way. But the OT does say that God is a lion (Jer 25: 38; Hos 11: 10).
Comments
The church she attends recently buried a young man who died of a brain tumour. The pastor explained to me how they were making preparations for the funeral even as they were organising prayer sessions for his resurrection. If that's not cognitive dissonance I don't know what is.
I'd agree with that - though I think that equally if a leader feels they can't continue to speak with integrity in representing the faith position of their particular part of the church, then they should step down - but I suspect most in this position simply continue.
And there are hundreds and thousands of others. I keep hearing about them - but it has been going on for a long time (A Churchless Faith - very good, interesting and seminal book on the subject).
And (critially) these are pastors, church leaders, people in the heart of the church. I left the PCC (the second PCC resignation in the year. Of course, there was nothing wrong in the church).
The problem is the conservative evangelicalism (which includes fundamentalism, but is also wider than that) is the black and white nature. This is true:This is not.
What I see again and again is that people who are deeply invested in this who reject it often react strongly because:
1. Their religious leadership has lied to them, deceived them, abused them. They have no desire to rethink, they have to get out.
2. They have learned over years - decades - that the literalist interpretation of the bible is true, and anything else is wrong. If you reject this you are going to hell. It takes years to start to question this (rather than totally reject).
I know that I have only survived with my faith because my upbringing was liberal, and because I have been in churches where I was accepted and exploration was encouraged (Current Bishop of Durham was my vicar for many years, and I thank him for some of this).
There was one person who had left such a church I encountered on social media. I offered a virtual hug, which was rejected (nicely) because "even a virtual hug from someone who defines as a Christian triggers me". It is easy to ignore the incredible damage spiritual abuse causes to people.
But I'd say that there was something about the energy of charismatic religion that I found exciting and which swept me along for so long.
Maybe it is too obvious to say here in as many words - but compared to living within that bubble, reverting to a contemplative or celebral faith tradition wouldn't really cut mustard for anyone I knew.
That would feel like going from being an astronaut one day to being a school bus driver the next.
Yes, it's not impossible. But it is such a shock stepping off the conveyor belt that is zipping along at a fast speed that these other options don't even register as possibilities.
It's such a waste. In many ways it would have been better for me never to have been involved in the first place.
And yet a lot of those institutions seem to be obvious grifts, petty dictatorships, or both, as detailed in this Politico exposé on Jerry Falwell, Jr.'s hilariously misnamed Liberty University.
It's a long article but well worth the read, if you're interested in the subject.
Everything is redeemed.
Absolutely - it has been a long journey from a Spring Harvest evening worship to a quaker meeting.
But also there is something massively comforting in the certainty. If there is a question, to know that there is an answer and then that is it. It makes for a comfortable time.
Moving from "I believe A, B and C" to "I believe D, E and F" is much easier than moving to "I believe G, probably, am broadly convinced by H and am working on how to combine I and J". That is not a criticism as such, just an observation that working at your faith, seeking the truth, searching out truth is hard work. And most people - including me - are lazy.
That's one formulation but it is really more complicated than that. You can use a 'believe that' statement to perform an act of loyalty. Indeed when we are young we often state things as true 'because my Mum/Dad says so'.
In a sense, I have the problem with both, for the same reason. What I mean by "believe" and "God" is probably different to what you mean by these words.
So yes, totally. But it applies to the object too. The God I believe in is not therefore defined by your understanding. I have taken to using "The Divine" instead - I mean the same thing, but I don't want to mislead others into assuming my meaning is the same as yours.
(I know - Divine has the same issues, but maybe less so than God.)
Is it possible that we are looking for meaning where there is simply mystery and imposing mystery when meaning is clear?
That's not restricted to any theological tribe or interest group.
As someone raised as an evangelical, it's taken me years to even begin to understand the Catholic mindset. A key moment was reading Graham Greene's Travels with my aunt in which the aunt says something along the lines of "of course I'm a Catholic, dear, I simply don't believe everything the Catholics do". It took me a very long time to understand how that sort of headspace was even possible in matters of faith, let alone how it might be positively desirable.
[ETA i.e. in Catholicism, that somehow doesn't count as cognitive dissonance, or cognitive dissonance is nowhere near as important]
Despite John 5:39-40, one of my most-quoted texts in the pulpit. (Well, if I had a pulpit).
For science - at least, when thought of in a simple way - tends to say, "If A is true, then B is not true" (or vice-versa). So the earth cannot be both a flat plate and a sphere; the physical centre of the solar system cannot be both the earth and the sun - and so on.
Of course we are now learning that things are not so cut and dried: for a century we have accepted that light comes in both waves and discrete quanta, for instance. But the idea of "If A, then not B" has seeped into our theology, when in fact we need to hold both A and B (and all the other letters of the alphabet!) in dynamic tension and profound mystery.
(Question to Eutychus: are French Evangelicals particularly prone to either/or ways of thinking, seeing that rationalism has been such a key feature of national thinking for such a long time?)
This is my experience of living in a big city. I think small towns in the provinces are rather different.
A strong emotional current also comes from the Pentecostal revival that happened in France among les gens du voyage (sometimes known as tziganes/gypsies, i.e. traditional traveller communities who are not Roma). Relative to the total numbers of evangelicals in France, they make up quite an important constituency and they tend to have quite an emotional, rather than a rational Cartesian approach.
I think the whole idea of cognitive dissonance is an Enlightenment thing.
I can't remember the word for it, but I think the Orthodox have a term for paradox that's actually a feature, not a bug in their spirituality...
More later.
Same in Spain right down to the Gitanos. And sunny Leicestershire too in that regard.
Historically, I think French evangelicalism has been less fundamentalist and more Cartesian in the sense of allowing doubt and thus wiggle room. In the 80s you'd be hard pushed to find six-day creationists among university-educated evangelicals, for instance.
In recent years, though, the Americanisation of French evangelicalism has led to the importing of a quite unFrench mindset. (I disagree with LVER's explanation about identification, though. I think the Americanisation is fuelled by American dollars).
I would however see the doctrinal niceties as largely pretexts for exercising top-down power - if you want to get rid of somebody, catch them out on a doctrinal detail.
The gens du voyage are very numerous but a case apart in terms of mindset. Many I frequent are closer to an Orthodox or liberal way of thinking in that they simultaneously read the text very closely but intuitively accept it as being imagery, perhaps because they have an oral, story-telling culture. They don't trip over quite the same hurdles (although they can be extremely legalistic).
I have to agree with the above statement. While the culture has Christian roots, Christianity does not fit in with culture. And the point of social dissonance rings very true. It is my theory that a large part of why Trump was elected was because there were a lot of social changes most of his supporters were not ready for. While the pro lifers say it was about abortion--and some of it is--I think the straw that broke the camel's back was dealing with equal marriage and gender identity issues.
Look at the MAGA motto. It was hearkening back to a earlier era. People (of color, in particular) knew their places. Other people were at least in the closet. Steve was not able to marry Mike. Abortions were in back rooms. etc.
The Fundamentalists really jumped on this. Focus on the Family wants things to return to the 50's as it were.
And yet the young people were not there.
On the other hand mainline churches have problems breaking out of the shell they have gotten themselves into. For instance, my denomination decided against the recommendation of the establishment to become a Sanctuary Church. However, they did not define what they meant by it, saying they will come up with a definition in three years. While this was supported by a number of the more liberal synods (the coastal synods), it has caused a lot of heartache in a number of the conservative (hinterland) synods. Even in my synod, where we say we are open and affirming, people are threatening to leave because they "hear" we are going to shelter undocumented immigrants. This is not the case. It is still up to the local synod and the local congregation to decide for themselves just how they are going to work with undocumented immigrants.
These are both right, I think - I would probably put it that some approaches to faith see it as a destination, not a journey (and that can apply to catholic or liberal traditions as much as evangelical).
The purpose of the church is (IMHO) to support, help and encourage people in their own spiritual journey. That means taking people wherever they are, and leaving them (whenever and however - both permanantly and each week) further on, wherever that may be.
Sometimes that might be huge strides in a short time, sometimes that might be a single step in a decade. But it is the journey that is important.
I've been thinking a lot about the individual vs. the communal aspect of religion. I definitely haven't reached definitive conclusions on that, but your definition of what the purpose of the church is (or should be) seems too much focussed on the individual to me.
Sure, the church is a communal thing. But in your view, it is focused on helping people in their individual (as emphasised by your use of the word 'own') spiritual journey. Whatever the term 'individual journey' means, I have the feeling that the way we interact which each other is part of it. I don't think your definition captures that.
But a spiritual journey needs to include being with and engaging with other. Somewhere along the way. I guess.
Can't find that. Can find this. A private RC school that hasn't got to the C18th Inquisition's understanding.
Ticket to Heaven (Dire Straits).
Words to it
It is perfectly possible to believe something and still fail to act on those beliefs because that is a perfectly human thing to do. Whether that is a valid excuse is another matter.
I have been to churches where their definition of faith is not something that I can appreciate. I would agree with Lilbuddha about not dismissing them as Not Real Christians.
However, I also understand the criticism. I know some people who are Churchians - whose belief seems to be in the redemptive power of church. Which is fine, as long as they don;t try converting me. I am quite happy not being in church.
Sure. That doesn't mean they didn't also prompt some crazies to flaunt their crazy.
Seriously, these are the same people who think any translation of the Bible other than the KJV is suspect—meaning they are not mainstream.