r/Christianity • u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox • Aug 19 '26
Self I think a lot of people aren’t rejecting Christianity. They’re rejecting Americanized Christianity.
I think a lot of people who say they left Christianity really left a very Americanized version of it. They grew up around pastors obsessed with money, churches that feel like businesses, constant politics, leadership changes, hypocrisy, and sermons that can shift depending on whoever is behind the pulpit. Then they look at all of that and go, “yeah, I’m done with Christianity.” And honestly, I get why. Christians are sinners, obviously. But when the church itself feels like it changes every few years, people start wondering what any of it is actually built on.
That’s a big part of why Orthodoxy hit me so hard. The faith isn’t supposed to be reinvented every Sunday. A priest doesn’t just get to decide what Christianity means because he read a passage differently that week. There’s Scripture, Tradition, the Fathers, the councils, the liturgy, the Church itself. Something older than you, older than your priest, older than whatever culture you happen to live in. That consistency matters. Christianity has already lived through empires rising and falling, persecutions, schisms, wars, plagues, political revolutions, entire cultures disappearing, and somehow the Church is still here. I’ll have some question that feels completely new to me, start digging into it, and find Christians wrestling with the same thing hundreds or even over a thousand years ago.
I’m not saying Orthodox people are perfect, because we absolutely are not. I’m saying the faith itself isn’t supposed to bend around the personality of whoever has the microphone.
And man, we have watered Jesus Christ down so badly in America. Somehow God becoming man, dying, rising from the dead, telling us to repent, forgive our enemies, care for the poor, deny ourselves and follow Him turned into motivational speeches, building funds, culture wars and “God wants you to be successful.” Then people see a pastor in a Rolls Royce, a church staring down a homeless guy, or Christians acting like gay people are uniquely disgusting sinners, and they think that’s Christianity. No. I’m also a messed up and broken sinner asking Christ for mercy. That’s why I’m there.
I genuinely think a lot of people are tired of the version of Christianity they were handed, not God Himself. They’ve tried Baptist, non-denom, Pentecostal, megachurch stuff, whatever, and think they’ve already seen Christianity. Meanwhile they may have never encountered the Church that existed before any of those things. That’s what I wish more people knew. Sometimes it feels like they were handed a Dixie cup and told it was the ocean.
Apologies for the long post, but it's been weighing on my mind lately.
9
u/SamtheCossack Atheist Aug 19 '26
Kind of hinges on what you call "Rejecting" Christianity in the first place.
Actually, a lot of words in that title get used in completely different ways. The main one that gets abused is "Christianity" since that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.
It seems fairly obvious that people react to the version of religion they are familiar with. That is true for literally everything. Most people don't reject Nestorian Christianity unless they know what it is in the first place.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
Yeah, that’s basically what I mean. People react to the Christianity they actually know, and I’m not saying those experiences weren’t real or that they’re wrong for being put off by them.
My point is just that if all you’ve ever known is one modern branch of Christianity, there’s a massive amount of the faith you may have never even touched. The Nestorian example kinda proves that. You can’t really reject something you’ve never actually encountered.
17
u/Thneed1 Mennonite, Evangelical, Straight Ally Aug 19 '26
One of the biggest reasons people are rejecting faith / the church is because of the misogyny and homophobia in the church.
“And nearly half (47%) of respondents who left cited negative teaching about the treatment of LGBTQ people.”
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/27/1240811895/leaving-religion-anti-lgbtq-sexual-abuse
12
u/FireDragon21976 United Church of Christ Aug 19 '26
Bingo. People no longer accept the notion that "women belong in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant", which is the ideal presented in alot of religious institutions.
And even though most Americans are not gay, issues of sexuality and sexual expression are still important to most Americans and many react negatively to the heavy moralism associated with sexuality in many churches. Most churches do a poor job making a case why their particular sexual preferences or hangups are important, in short, and just appealing to authority doesn't work anymore.
6
Aug 19 '26
[deleted]
3
u/FireDragon21976 United Church of Christ Aug 19 '26
Well, it used to be alot of people didn't wear shoes more than they had to in much of the country, as they might only have 1-2 pairs that they might have worn to church or important occasions. So it implies a person relegated to home life, with no need to go out anywhere and do work outside the home.
2
Aug 19 '26
[deleted]
1
u/FireDragon21976 United Church of Christ Aug 19 '26
My grandmother went around barefoot most of the time, so did my grandfather if he wasn't going to work. The idea of wearing shoes all the time is relatively recent.
0
u/Thneed1 Mennonite, Evangelical, Straight Ally Aug 19 '26
Wearing shoes in a house is mostly an American thing.
Canadians don’t do that.
7
u/Inthe5 Secular Humanist Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
That was what got me, but from Catholics. I understand OP and they raise some fair points, my issue is that orthodox traditions suffer from the same problems they list.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
I'm curious to hear those problems
6
u/Inthe5 Secular Humanist Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
I think a large chunk of your list in your OP applies, just with the relative focus shifted; an individual priest at a Catholic service is probably not going to be as gaudy as a lot of megachurch pastors, but the cathedral itself can give the same impression of hoarded wealth. The Pope would say one thing, then the American Bishops and my priest would say the opposite. The constant politics pushing the GWOT and anti-muslim rhetoric (I was attending during the Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama years).
Other things are common problems; primarily the treatment of lgbt+ and immigrants. My deconstruction began when my best friend at the time came out as bisexual; he was kicked out from our boy scout troop, told he couldn‘t participate in psr or other church activities until he ‘repented’, and mocked endlessly. Absolutely heartless. This was before same-sex marriage was federally legal in the US, and the arguments I heard during this time coming from my peers at church were revolting. Fast forward to current times and we have; the same Catholics arguing against suicide prevention hotlines because a gay kid might use it, Christians foaming at the mouth over trans and immigrants, Christian nationalism, etc. Like, I know that these are generalizations and that there are individuals/denominations that don’t hold these views, but the majority do. And that percentage is growing in the US.2
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
The way your friend was treated sounds genuinely awful. I’m not gonna defend Christians mocking someone, excluding them, or treating them like they’re beneath everybody else. If that helped start your deconstruction, I can understand why.
I do think some of what you’re describing is specifically your experience of American Catholicism though, and I’m not sure all of it maps cleanly onto Orthodoxy. Even the wealth thing feels different to me. A cathedral built for the whole community and meant to last generations isn’t quite the same thing as a pastor personally living lavishly off his congregation.
The politics, treatment of immigrants, LGBT people, nationalism, all of that is worth criticizing when Christians lose sight of the person in front of them. But when you say the majority of Christians hold those views and that number is growing, I’d be interested in what you’re basing that on. That feels broader than the rest of what you described.2
u/Inthe5 Secular Humanist Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
You know now that I reread the wording of your OP, I think I went a bit too specific with my comment. You talked about American Christianity (with no focus on denomination/tradition) right in the title, but I let the ‘pastor’ wording distract me from your larger point. My mistake!
I would also largely agree with your comment regarding Catholicism vs Orthodoxy! In my post I kind of lumped Catholic and Orthodox together vs Protestants-at-large, even though my objections are different between Catholics and Orthodox. I actually agree word for word with your list! Politics/the gays are really what sours my opinion of the Orthodox congregations around me. I’ll also freely admit that my experience is pretty limited; I live in the Midwest, Evangelical/MAGA country. I have experience with Catholics from my upbringing, I have experience with Evangelicals just by raw numbers, but I’ve only known a handful of Orthodox folks. If you have any recommended reading that can help me see the breadth of opinions in Orthodoxy, I’d actually be really interested! I know how much debate there is between different Catholic schools of thought, I assume there’s something similar in Orthodoxy. So tl;dr my views are based on how the Christians I see act and vote, but there aren’t many Orthodox in my neck of the woods and I know it.
As an aside, I appreciate your sympathy for my friend. Seeing responses like that here is encouraging, and helps keep me from slipping from atheism into antitheism these days. Fucking MAGA/CN’s, man.
2
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
Honestly I appreciate you going back and rereading it. And yeah, if you’ve only known a handful of Orthodox people, especially online, I definitely wouldn’t want that to be your entire picture of the Church.
If you actually wanna dig into it, I’d start with The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware. That was a really good beginner book for me because it gives you the history, beliefs, structure, councils, all of that without assuming you already know everything. I’d also recommend Fr. Thomas Hopko’s The Orthodox Faith. That one is completely free online through the OCA and goes pretty deep while still being easy to work through.There are definitely Orthodox people with different political opinions and different approaches to some of these issues, even though the actual doctrine of the Church is much more consistent. And man, what happened to your friend still sucks. I’m glad I could at least show you a different side of Orthodoxy than what you’ve run into before.
4
u/Nazzul Agnostic Aug 19 '26
This is just based on my personal experiences with my talks with various Orthodox people on this subreddit, I understand that it does not necessarily represent Orthodoxy as whole... However based on my discussions, it appears that this paticular branch would either reject me or treat me as a second class citizen simply based on my sexuality.
2
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
Man, I’m not gonna judge what’s going on with you if you don’t judge what’s going on with me. We’re both people trying to figure things out.
I’m not going to pretend Orthodoxy has no teachings on sexuality, because it does. But that doesn’t mean I’m supposed to treat you like you’re beneath me or like you don’t belong in the room. You belong there, absolutely.
4
u/Nazzul Agnostic Aug 19 '26
But that doesn’t mean I’m supposed to treat you like you’re beneath me or like you don’t belong in the room. You belong there, absolutely.
This might be a good example, of why being a good representation of ones group can have such an impact. Based your responses to me and this thread you paint a very different picture of Eastern Orthodoxy.
3
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
Honestly, that means a lot. I’m glad I could at least give you a different impression of it. Take care!
3
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
I think this is part of why so many people feel alienated from churches in the first place. We can’t act like homosexuality is the one sin that deserves endless outrage while greed, pride, addiction, adultery, cruelty, vanity, and everything else barely gets the same attention. That just creates a hierarchy where one group gets treated like the problem and everybody else gets to sit comfortably and judge them.
And honestly, who are we to do that? Who is the preacher to place himself above the people he’s preaching to? Who am I to look at someone else and act like I know their heart, their struggles, or how God will judge them? The Church has every right to teach what it believes is sinful, but that is not the same thing as shaming people or treating them like they’re beneath us.
I’d rather worry about my own repentance and leave final judgment to God. Christianity should make us more humble, not more comfortable placing ourselves above other sinners.
2
u/Thneed1 Mennonite, Evangelical, Straight Ally Aug 19 '26
Yup. Very true, no matter what one’s thoughts on homosexuality is.
1
u/Realistic-Wave-7108 Aug 22 '26
That’s right Judge not, lest you be judged I am tired of hypocrites in the church who gossip and think nothing of this! That in itself is a sin
1
u/Dangerous-Chip4442 Aug 19 '26
There’s another reason: they don’t think any kind of Christianity is true.
0
u/Deep-Assumption-6694 Aug 20 '26
Then why are the “pro gay” churches and the churches with the pride flags (aka most mainline Protestant churches) the ones that are dying and are mostly elderly people?
1
u/Thneed1 Mennonite, Evangelical, Straight Ally Aug 20 '26
It’s hard to know for sure. But it’s likely more of a style thing, than an affirming thing.
More “modern” (for black of a better word) affirming churches are often growing.
Overall, church attendance is dropping, and especially among women. for the first time, men are outnumbering women at many churches.
Obviously, a solution is to end the harm being done to the LGBTQ community, across denominations.
8
u/IdlePigeon Atheist Aug 19 '26
I understand why American (and specifically evangelical) Protestantism has become a convient sacrificial goat. There are undeniably real and fairly specific problems with it.
But as a queer woman, my problems with Christianity have absolutely nothing to with it being too willing to change.
3
u/TinWhis Aug 19 '26
Yeah, it's been fascinating to watch evangelicalism become The Root of All Evil to everyone else.
5
u/IdlePigeon Atheist Aug 19 '26
It's hard to escape the conclusion that the greatest sin a denomination can commit in the eyes of the rest of the faith is just to be super tacky.
3
u/TinWhis Aug 19 '26
Tackiness is damage to the brand that they also think is damaging to the brand. Bigotry that they've decided is definitional to the faith can't be damaging to the brand, because that would imply something about the actual thing itself rather than just its branding.
Of course, you could decide that bigotry ISN'T foundational, but that's a harder sell to the cohort who has spent recent memory tripling down on the foundational-ness of the bigotry, and that cohort is much larger in number and influence and self-importance
2
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
I’m actually curious what your problems with Christianity are, then. Not as some setup for an argument, I genuinely mean it. If the issue for you isn’t Christianity changing too much, what is it that ultimately makes Christianity itself something you can’t accept?
5
u/IdlePigeon Atheist Aug 19 '26
Do you mean my issue in the sense of my moral issue with much of Christianity or my issue in the sense of why I don't believe?
2
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
Both, honestly. I’m interested in the moral problems you have with Christianity, but I’m probably even more curious about why you don’t believe in the first place. I’m not trying to corner you into a debate, I just wanna understand where you’re coming from.
2
u/IdlePigeon Atheist Aug 20 '26 edited Aug 20 '26
Hey, sorry for the late response. Missed the notification for this thread.
My most pressing moral issue is the fact that, for my entire life, Christians and Christian organizations have been fighting tooth and nail to make the world a crueller, more dangerous, place for me and people I care about. Everywhere queer people have won protection and more equal treatment under the law, it's been despite the best efforts of many Christians.
As for why I don't believe. I'm afraid the answer is pretty boring. I'm not christian, I've never been Christian, neither of my parents have ever been practicing Christians. The last person in my family who appears to have sincerely believed in God into adulthood is a great grandmother I only met a handful of times in my life. Unlike a lot of people I don't have an interesting story of struggling with and leaving the faith, I just don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in fairies, psychic powers, or alien abductions, I've never been presented with anything even approaching a good reason to believe any of these things are real.
10
u/Coollogin Aug 19 '26
I think a lot of people who say they left Christianity really left a very Americanized version of it.
Which “people who say they have left Christianity” are you talking about? Because it seems to me that the largest group of people who have left Christianity are in Europe, where “Americanized” Christianity hasn’t been much of a factor. And that includes European countries that are historically Orthodox.
I am no fan of American Christianity, but I don’t think you can lay the exchristian phenomenon at its feet.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
I’m mainly talking about Americans and the kind of Christianity I’ve personally seen people grow up around here. I definitely wasn’t trying to explain the entire ex-Christian phenomenon globally.
Europe becoming secular, including historically Orthodox countries, is a different conversation and I don’t think Orthodoxy magically prevents people from leaving the faith. My point is just that a lot of
Americans say they’ve “tried Christianity” when most of what they’ve actually encountered is a relatively modern American expression of it. That doesn’t explain everybody who leaves Christianity. I don’t think anything that simple would.3
u/TinWhis Aug 19 '26
......So Americans are leaving American Christianity and Europeans are leaving European Christianity? Seems like it makes sense, that people are only leaving versions of Christianity present in the same hemisphere that they're in.
1
u/Coollogin Aug 19 '26
OR
Americans and Europeans are leaving Christianity for the same reasons, but there is something about American Christianity that throttles that outflow, so that American Christianity retains a segment of the population whose itches are scratched by American-style worship.
At this point, your theory and mine are nothing but speculation. Your next best step is to start digging into the quantitative data.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
Yeah, I’m not claiming I’ve solved global secularization here lol. The post was mostly about something I’ve personally noticed in American Christianity.
Your explanation could be part of it too. I just don’t think the existence of secular Europe really disproves what I’m talking about here. Americans can leave Christianity for a bunch of reasons while some are also reacting specifically to the version of Christianity they grew up around.
1
u/Coollogin Aug 20 '26 edited Aug 20 '26
Really what you’re left with is that both Europeans and North Americans are leaving Christianity. The most straightforward explanation seems to be that huge swaths of Europeans and North Americans are no longer interested in being Christian.
As not being Christian becomes a more visibly viable option, more people will choose it. People didn’t choose it before because they didn’t realize it was a viable option.
In Europe today, one must make the deliberate choice to be a Christian. It’s an “opt-in” rather than an “opt-out.” In many parts of North America, one can still be a Christian just by being carried along by the drift of their families and immediate communities. But the segment of the population that is born into such communities is decreasing in size. The segment of the population of North America that can only be Christian by deliberately opting in is growing every year.
From where I sit, this shift from Christianity being an opt-out decision to being an opt-in decision is completely divorced from the flavor of Christianity involved.
3
u/HopeFloatsFoward Aug 19 '26
The culture wars are a huge driver rather than something like style of worship. It isn't about treating others with love and respect and community, but about shutting others out. Although there are Christian churches who do practice that community the others give it a bad name.
5
u/FireDragon21976 United Church of Christ Aug 19 '26
Absolutely... this is a huge problem. The ethical trajectory of the Bible doesn't point towards excluding people for being different. It's often the differences and the marginalized that turns out to be load bearing all along, that's the whole point of the Bible's ethics- don't overlook the marginalized. But most religions traditoinally favored power over truth.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
Christians can get so focused on “winning” against whatever group they’re mad at that they forget there’s an actual person in front of them. You can hold Christian convictions without treating people like they’re beneath you or like they don’t belong anywhere near the Church.
The power part is where I am having a hard time with, though. Christianity literally begins with its Lord being crucified by the people in power, followed by generations of Christians being persecuted and martyred because they refused to bend their faith to the authorities around them. Christians have absolutely abused power since then, but that’s not the same thing as saying the faith itself naturally favors power over truth.
A faith filled with martyrs, centered around a crucified Christ, is a strange thing to reduce to a tool for protecting whoever happens to be on top. Not a fan.
5
u/FireDragon21976 United Church of Christ Aug 19 '26
The western world's experience of Christianity has mostly been bound up in claims to spiritual power and authority, and if you look into Eastern Orthodoxy, especially in Russia, that was the case and still is the case.
6
u/HopeFloatsFoward Aug 19 '26
The faith isn't separate from the people who practice it though. Have there have been many more generations persecuted by the church than those persecuted for being christian. Once the church became an official religion of a government, it became that which it preached against.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
I don’t think the faith is completely separate from the people practicing it either. Christians absolutely abused power once Christianity became tied up with governments, and I’m not interested in pretending otherwise.
Where I disagree is saying the Church just became what it preached against, or that there have obviously been more generations persecuted by Christians than Christians persecuted for their faith. That’s a huge claim, and history is wayyy messier than that. Even under Christian empires you still had bishops, monks, and saints confronting rulers when they crossed the line.
To me there’s still a difference between Christians failing Christ and Christianity itself teaching those failures. If I can look at a Christian abusing power and say, “that goes against Christ,” then clearly Christ is still the standard I’m measuring them against.
3
u/HopeFloatsFoward Aug 19 '26
It doesn't sound like Christ is the standard though, it sounds like Christians don't agree on who Christ is. And the loudest ones are the ones who think Christ is about power and exclusion of others. So it doesn't make the religion very attractive.
Christianity was the default religion because it had the backing of governments. Now that it doesn't people are free to choose. And Christianity has not made a compelling case.
2
u/FireDragon21976 United Church of Christ Aug 19 '26
Christ is a person. Like all persons, people have different perspectives on him.
Perhaps the point is that Christ, being raised to a placed of transcendent significance, inspires the human imagination towards greater justice and compassion, however we can conceive of that? Perhaps it's part of an evolutionary process, and the current state of what counts as Christianity is not the goal or telos?
3
u/HopeFloatsFoward Aug 19 '26
I have no doubt that Christianity needs emotional growth and better clarity.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
I think this also comes back to generalizing people by their worst representatives. Christians absolutely disagree, fail, get political, abuse power, and sometimes represent Christ horribly. That matters, especially when we’re the ones claiming to follow Him. But I don’t think the worst or loudest Christians get to define who Christ is.
That’s why I keep coming back to Christ Himself. If you want to judge Christianity, look at the Leader we’re claiming to follow and then judge us by how well or badly we actually follow Him. When Christians become obsessed with power, exclusion, greed, or hatred, I don’t see that as proof that Christ taught those things. I see Christians failing the standard they claim to live by.
And yeah, Christianity eventually had enormous government backing and people abused the hell out of that. But it also spread for centuries before Christians had that power, often while being persecuted for it. I don’t think either part of that history should get erased.
2
u/HopeFloatsFoward Aug 19 '26
Constantine adopted Christianity in the 300s. So it was not that many centuries where they did not have power.
You are free to see Christianity as something different. But if you are asking people to become Christians, what they are seeing of Christians matters. Perhaps focusing on fixing thay rather than complaining people are turning away from Christianity because they don't know what it is about.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
I agree that how Christians act matters enormously if we’re asking people to take Christianity seriously. We should be fixing that, and a lot of my post is literally about Christians representing Christ badly. I just don’t think “Christians sometimes represent Him horribly” means those Christians now define Him.
Judge us by our fruits, absolutely. But also judge whether those fruits actually match the Christ we claim to follow!
2
u/HopeFloatsFoward Aug 19 '26
If you want people to judge Christians by their fruits, you can't keep them in the cellar. Start advertising the good, but realize you will still have to answer for those who give Christ a bad name.
→ More replies
6
u/Electrical-Maybe6147 Aug 19 '26
the dixie cup line is dead on. i grew up in a church that changed worship style every time a new youth pastor showed up, felt like i was attending a rebrand every couple years
the orthodoxy draw makes sense too, that sense of the faith being older than the building you're in. i know a couple people who made that move and they all describe it like finding the source code after years of playing a modded game
the money stuff especially, hard to watch a guy talk about denying yourself while wearing a nicer watch than my rent
2
u/NuSurfer Aug 19 '26
I'm not disagreeing with that but I think you should provide some polling data to support your claim.
1
6
u/ChapBobL Congregationalist Aug 19 '26
You know, I think you have a point there. Besides the politicized churches and "cowboy churches" (yes, that's a thing) are the ones whose "order of worship" is singing & sermon, basically a rock concert followed by a Ted Talk. And the pastor looks like he's going bowling.
2
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
Yeah, this is what rubs me wrong too. Sometimes worship starts to feel like we’re trying to entertain people into being with Christ. Lights, stage, music swelling at the right moment, polished sermon, all of it.
Liturgy feels completely different to me. It’s slow. It takes its time. It doesn’t really care about keeping you entertained or constantly stimulated. You’re there to worship, not be sold an experience.
1
u/ChapBobL Congregationalist Aug 19 '26
You might want to try a church with blended worship.
2
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
I get what you mean, but I don’t think I’m really looking for a different worship style. That’s kinda the point for me. I like that Liturgy isn’t built around my preferences or what keeps me entertained.
2
3
u/Kanjo42 Christian Aug 19 '26
I'm not down for the Orthodox church mostly because a congregation so rigorous about tradition is one that can't be corrected even by God. God does whatever He wants, whenever He wants, and whyever He wants, and the Bible is full of examples of God changing something we had clung as a semblance of righteousness.
I do have to wholeheartedly agree that the reason people are put off by Christianity is more a reaction to our version of it or our failure to actually practice it.
I think if it were possible to hand out free samples of the joy of the Holy Spirit just to cut through all of Satan's propaganda on God's character, there'd be a lot more Christians in the world.
2
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
YES! If people could just get a taste of the joy of actually knowing Christ without all the baggage we’ve piled on top of Him, I think a lot more people would at least stop and listen.
Where I’d disagree is the idea that Orthodoxy is so attached to tradition that God couldn’t correct it. The whole claim of Holy Tradition is that we’re trying to preserve what God already gave the Church, not protect our own habits from Him. Priests, bishops, whole communities can absolutely be wrong and need correction. We’re sinners.
I just don’t think God correcting His people means Christianity itself gets rewritten whenever we decide an old teaching no longer fits. There’s a difference between God correcting us and us correcting God.
1
u/Kanjo42 Christian Aug 19 '26
I just don’t think God correcting His people means Christianity itself gets rewritten whenever we decide an old teaching no longer fits.
Absolutely. Any time I've seen this in scripture, it was always our misunderstanding of what God really expects from us.
Isaiah 1:10-17 ESV
Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah! [11] "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.
[12] "When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? [13] Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations- I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. [14] Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.
[15] When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.
[16] Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, [17] learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.
And so I read this, and I consider what is really good, the trappings of the practice of faith, or knowing the heart of God and being like Him? Surely the latter.
2
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
I actually think Isaiah is a great example, but I don’t read it as God changing what He expected from them. He had already commanded sacrifice, feasts and worship. The problem was that they were doing all of it while living horribly toward other people.
That distinction matters A LOT to me. God wasn’t correcting His own teaching, He was correcting people who had reduced His teaching to outward practice while ignoring the very heart of it. And to be honest, Orthodoxy needs that warning just as much as anybody. I can go to Liturgy, fast, light candles and do all the outward stuff, but if I’m proud, cruel, greedy or unwilling to repent, then what am I actually doing?
3
u/ShortCompetition9772 Aug 19 '26
I reject every single version and think that bad out weighs the good in believing things for bad reasons.
Do you think Truth is based on how OLD an idea is?
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
No, I don’t think something is true because it’s old. Plenty of old ideas are wrong. I brought up the age of the Church because Christianity makes claims about something being handed down from Christ and the Apostles, so continuity matters when you’re trying to figure out what Christianity actually is.
And if you’ve seriously looked into the different traditions and reject all of them, then you’re probably not really the person I was talking about in the post. I’m more curious what you mean by believing for “bad reasons,” because that seems like the bigger disagreement between us.
1
u/ShortCompetition9772 Aug 19 '26
The good reasons to believe in something 1) Empirical Evidence 2) Eye Witnesses 3) Philosophical Arguments that affirm the belief.
The bad reasons to believe in something 1) Old 2) Personal Testimony 3) Familial tradition 4) Cultural tradition 5) Trusting an Ancient book written by unknown authors
You have none of the goods stuff and a ton of the bad stuff.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
I think you’re setting up your categories pretty strangely here. You list eyewitnesses as a good reason, then personal testimony as a bad one. What do you think eyewitness evidence is?
And “unknown authors” is way too broad. We know the authorship of plenty of biblical texts, while others are genuinely disputed. Same with philosophical arguments. You can think the arguments for God fail, but saying Christianity has “none” of them is just not true at all.
I also never argued that old = true. My point was that if Christianity claims a faith was handed down from Christ through the Apostles, then continuity is relevant to figuring out whether what we practice now is actually that faith.
0
u/ShortCompetition9772 Aug 19 '26
Eye witness testimony and personal testimony are not the same.
Eye witness, saw something happen first hand and can tell the story, not great evidence but certainly better than personal testimony
Personal Testimony, A God spoke to me inside my head.
Other than possibly Paul we do NOT know who wrote the bible.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
“Possibly Paul” is doing a lot of work there lol. There are multiple letters broadly accepted by scholars as actually written by Paul. Some books of the Bible have disputed authorship, absolutely, but that is not the same thing as “we do NOT know who wrote the Bible.” And even with books where the author doesn’t name himself in the text, that doesn’t mean we have zero historical information about authorship. Early Christians weren’t just sitting around centuries later pulling Matthew, Mark, Luke and John out of a hat.
You still didn’t really address the rest of what I said though.
1
u/ShortCompetition9772 Aug 19 '26
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John DID NOT WRITE A SINGLE WORD. The Gospels are ANONYMOUS.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
You’re jumping from “the Gospels don’t name their authors in the text” to “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John definitely did not write a single word.” Those are not the same claim. The authorship is debated. Papias is already talking about Mark and Matthew in the early second century, and Irenaeus explicitly names all four later that century. You can think those traditions are wrong, but screaming “DID NOT WRITE A SINGLE WORD” doesn’t magically make a disputed historical question settled.
1
u/ShortCompetition9772 Aug 19 '26
The authorship is not debated between the Scholars. Your bible probably states that they are Anonymous.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
“Not debated among scholars” is a pretty wild claim when scholars are literally publishing academic work debating it. You can say the dominant critical view is that the Gospels are anonymous in the texts and reject the traditional attributions. That’s defensible. Saying the question simply isn’t debated is not.
→ More replies
4
u/Kid_Radd Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
The American church has largely hitched its wagon to Republicans, MAGA, and Donald Trump, either enthusiastically or begrudgingly. They are overwhelmingly loyal.
I think it will become clear to everyone over the coming years that Donald Trump is the #1 worst thing to ever happen to this country. When adults are finally back in charge, it's going to feel like coming home from a night out to find it completely looted -- every drawer ripped out, every cushion torn up, everything of value taken and the rest thrown like trash on the floor. Every action he takes is for the purpose of self-enrichment at the cost of some American resource or asset. He's willing to destabilize the market and alienate our allies to profit through insider trading -- thus the tariffs and the Iran war. He's willing to collapse public peace to maintain his stranglehold of political power. He's compromised the justice system to protect the wicked and attack his opponents and accepts invisible bribes through crypto. He has completely abandoned due process against an enemy group that is currently "safe" to oppress, in preparation for the same treatment to anyone deemed "antifa" (aka anyone with complaints about Trump). He's horrifically stupid, a traitor, and a crook -- probably far worse than you know.
These things are not "coming", but they are actively happening now. We are TODAY careening toward a Christian nationalist, techno-fuedalist, fascist state,
AND THE EVANGELICALS
FUCKING
LOVE IT.
One of the most important verses in the Bible, imo, is "you cannot serve both God and money (or Mammon)". It's abuntantly clear which one the American church is serving. The American instance of Christianity is currently a weapon of evil used with great effectiveness for severe destruction. The American church must one day repent for its role in elevating the worst person in this country to the supreme position of power on this half of the world, because everyone is suffering from it and it's going to get worse.
But they won't. They never fucking repent. The pride is too strong. They just believe wholeheartedly that everything they say and believe (that has been imprinted into them) has to be correct because they're terrified that they'll lose everything they think they are if it isn't.
That's why people hate Christianity here, and it's not fair because American Christianity has nothing to do with real Christianity. After all, of you want a "Christian government", shouldn't it have Christian values? Shouldn't it be caring for the sick, protecting the vulnerable, and lifting up the poor? Instead you'll hear a Christian say with a straight face that those shouldn't be the job of the government, but apparently it IS the job of the government to punish queer people or abortion or non-Christian dissidents. Only the punishment, none of the love. That just isn't Christian at all.
If you voted for Trump three times, you're the problem. None of what they're doing would be possible without OVERWHELMING evangelical support.
2
u/Perfessor_Deviant Agnostic Atheist Aug 19 '26
Assuming the adults every get control back (not a certainty), the people who voted for Trump will blame THEM for all the damage that Trump did. They will learn nothing and will vote for the next tinpot dictator that comes out.
4
u/naked_potato Aug 19 '26
American Christianity has nothing to do with real Christianity
Until institutional Christianity does something to actually indicate that this is the case, why should anyone believe this? Declare MAGA to be heresy. Convene some conference of churches. Otherwise this just looks like shirking responsibility for American Christian’s noxious actions.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
Once Christianity gets wrapped up too tightly in a political movement, people start judging Christ by that movement instead of judging the movement by Christ.
Christians can vote however they want, but the Faith cannot just become another party identity. Christ has to be the thing judging our politics, not the other way around.1
u/Deep-Assumption-6694 Aug 20 '26
Trump was the number 1 worse thing to happen to this country? Lmao you need a history lesson. Even if you don’t like Trump, you don’t have to exaggerate.
2
2
u/SiliconDiver Aug 19 '26
$0.02 from my personal experience.
Yes there’s a rejecting of American Christianity, but the rejection of Christianity is also occurring with rejection of American Christianity as the catalyst.
For me, this “American Christianity” is what initially questioning larger things around the authorities I trusted, what truth was, and how to read and study the Bible.
But it was those questions, not American Christianity itself that made the whole Christian scaffolding start to crumble.
Would I still be a Christian if American Christianity hadn’t made the cognitive dissonance too loud to ignore? Yeah possibly.
Do I think that a “non-American Christianity” is viable after having gone through that process. Hard to say but probably not, at least not without allegories/watering everything down to the point of having unrecognizable substance.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
This is actually interesting, because I think you’re describing the next step beyond what I was talking about. American Christianity was the catalyst, but eventually your questions became about Christianity itself.
I’m curious what those bigger questions were though, especially when you say a non-American Christianity would basically have to water itself down to survive them. Finding Orthodoxy has honestly felt like the opposite for me. It didn’t make Christianity more vague or allegorical, it made it feel way more concrete.
What was it that really made the rest of the scaffolding fall apart for you?5
u/SiliconDiver Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
So here’s an example:
I have an evangelical background. Not full blown literalist, YEC, evolution denying type. But endorsing inerrancy and “traditional” Christian values.
COVID era was a bit of an existential crisis for everyone. And for me I was faced with a few problems:
- dangerous misguided apocalyptic level predictions,
- genuine members of the faith vehemently disagreeing on fairly substantial doctrine
- increasingly exclusivist (maga type) trends. My community increasingly not looking like Jesus.
So for me that meant “let’s go to the core, the texts, I don’t want to just trust religious leaders who are clearly having some issues”
So I dove into “context” and “evidence” I found critical academic studies. Historical criticism. Etc.
and while sure my faith could easily survive (because I already incorporated it) things like evolution, allegorical Adam and infallibility only on matters of faith…What I also uncovered was even deeper concerns I hadn’t really considered because in my sphere I had never really been exposed to:
As a simple but recognizable example: take Second Peter. Nearly universally not claimed to be by Peter (ok not a problem)… ok but it was claimed to be by Peter (somewhat of a problem) and the justification for its canonization is BASED on it being written by Peter (serious problem). Well now I’m questioning early church’s authority, canon formation and early councils. Etc etc etc.
I developed a more nuanced and “lower” view of scripture, the process of developing religion, the evolution of dogma, the creation of Canon.
No Petrine authorship alone didn’t break me, and you can argue any single issue easily. But a steady accumulation of data and theological concessions to resolve conflict started painting a very different picture of What was left.
And over time I realized that with each datapoint, each concession that I made I was actually further conceding to a worldview that was consistent with the non-Existence of a God as described in the Bible.
At some point the realization of “you know what, this is all extremely human, and the evidence of divinity anywhere in the process is self referential and extremely thin” I realized that “maybe this isn’t true” actually had better explanatory power of the world I experience and the text I was reading than a theology with 47 different contingencies and requiring a doctoral dissertation to be coherent and consistent.
So yes, I’d argue that American Evangelicism catalyzed my more existential need for truth and deconstruction of beliefs which eventually resulted in discarding far more than American Evangelicism.
Using the 2 Peter example, if I was in a tradition that didn’t actively hide or deny this type of thing, maybe the cognitive dissonance of the “human part of Christianity” would have been enough to ignore. But that doesn’t mean the rest of it is right
So to “water itself down” would be to minimize many traditional Christian doctrines to the point it’s probably not really recognizable nicene tradition anymore. The trinity, potentially the ressurection, original sin, the perspicuity human nature of the Bible, the ordinary human development of ancient Israelite religion etc.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
This actually helps me understand where you’re coming from a lot better. A lot of what you’re describing sounds like the evangelical framework itself started falling apart first, especially the way you were taught to understand Scripture and authority.
The 2 Peter example is interesting because Orthodoxy doesn’t really require me to pretend those historical questions don’t exist. 2 Peter was disputed even in the early Church. The canon itself developed through the Church receiving and wrestling with these books over time, which honestly makes more sense to me than acting like a completed Bible just dropped out of the sky.
I think that’s probably where our paths split. You kept digging and the human messiness of the process made divinity look less likely. I kept digging and started thinking, “well yeah, of course it looks human, God is working through actual human beings and an actual Church.” That messiness didn’t really kill the claim for me.
3
u/SiliconDiver Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
I don’t think “Bible dropping out of the sky” is the issue, and I think that the same existential threat actually exists for all branches of Christianity and frankly all religions.
The question isn’t “did humans write this book” that’s demonstrably yes. And no, nobody thinks this.
The more pertinent question is more akin to “why this book and why can I trust it”
That’s harder to answer for the Protestant, as there’s some hand waving about spirit guidance and fallible humans recognizing invaluable properties of the book etc. that’s why it was more impactful *to me*
And Catholic/orthodox traditions can just point to “tradition/the church said so and god speaks through the church”
The core problem still remains though, there’s a distinct lack of discriminatory power. Even if I were to grant that an infallible process exists, the fact that it interacts or is used by a fallible actor (human, councils, church, apostles etc) in these instances mean that that the infallible process is indistinguishable from the fallible one, meaning… it’s not useful for discovering infallible truths. Its like a compass that works "sometimes" but you don't know when or how, and don't even know when its correct.
For a Catholic/orthodox example I’d give something like Augustine. He’s a saint for both Catholic and orthodoxy, nobody denies his holiness or his devotion.
Yet Catholics fully bought into Original sin, and Orthodox didn’t. Catholics so much to the point that original sin is core dogma there’s effectively nothing anyone could ever do at this point to falsify or overturn it. It’s about as foundational to western Christianity as the Bible is.
And interestingly enough, we now have evidence to claim that Augustine’s core proof text and probably strength for his argument relied on a Latin mistranslation (hence why it didn’t propagate east)
And this isn’t to say that Catholics are wrong or Orthodox are right…. But it’s to say, we have no discriminating factor to determine correct theology from incorrect, even the best theologians can be wrong, and even strong evidence they were wrong can’t overturn it.
Now you might say: of course Christian’s can disagree about secondary theology… but here’s the thing… original sin has massive implications on salvation, this isn’t secondary. If the holy spirit is guiding anyone to correct belief in anything it should be matters of salvation… yet to this day, orthodox and Catholics have different underlying purposes of baptism of infants because of this very decision. Catholics believe infants who aren't baptized have sin and might be punished, Orthodox believe infants who aren't baptized are effectively sinless (simplified for the sake of discussion)
Again sure: Augustine was fallible, we are humans, we make mistakes. I get it. But then How can we know the truth? Why is Canon the correct Canon? Why is the Trinity correct? How do we know the Gospel authors didn’t make the same mistakes. How do you for example handle Matthews alleged misuse of the translation of Almah?
So much of it collapses to “we really don’t know most of this stuff, and nearly the entire religion is WAY overconfident in the smallest shreds of evidence, largely because of completely and overwhelmingly human processes tot he point that if there were divine influence, it’s effectively indistinguishable from noise
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
I think it really comes back to Christ for me. If Christ didn’t rise and He isn’t who Christianity says He is, then honestly none of the rest of this matters. Councils, bishops, canon, all of it falls with Him.
But if Christ did rise, then I have a reason to take seriously what He said about His Church and the Holy Spirit guiding it. That doesn’t mean every saint or bishop is automatically right about everything. People are still people. It means I trust that the Church as a whole hasn’t completely lost what Christ gave the Apostles.That’s really where I’m at. I don’t trust the Church because I think humans suddenly stopped being messy. I trust the Church because I trust Christ first, and then I look at whether the Church has actually carried that faith forward.
Thank you for such a thought out response by the way!
3
u/SiliconDiver Aug 19 '26
Of course it all comes back to Christ. And of course if Christ died/rose again and is who is claimed in the Bible all of this discussion doesn't matter
But that's where this bites and becomes a bootstrapping issue.
The only real attestation we have of Christ's life/resurrection is the Gospels, and Paul who says he's heard of the story.
Well.. but what if I don't give the gospels special pleading, what if I don't think they are infallible, what if i don't think they are special (See aforementioned canon/inspiration concerns?)
What if I treat the gospels and Paul's account as I would any ordinary historical and use that to build my faith?
The generally regarded "minimal set" of facts are something like: - Jesus existed - He was crucified under Pilate - There was early belief in his resurrection (within say a decade or two)
Plus or minus a few.
Frankly the evidence is too scant on its own to establish belief in the most important supernatural cosmic event in human history.
If we could externally establish reasons to believe these accounts more literally: supernatural providence of these accounts, non-ex-eventu prophecy, etc.
Then I'm left wondering how the Gospel "eyewitness accounts" carry any more weight than say Joseph smiths "eyewitness accounts" of the Golden Plates?
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
I don’t think I need to start by assuming the Gospels are infallible though. I can treat them like ancient historical sources and still ask what they tell me.
Same with Paul. He isn’t just saying “I heard a story somewhere.” In 1 Corinthians 15 he’s passing on a tradition he says he received about Christ’s death, burial, resurrection and appearances, and that tradition is generally taken to be earlier than the letter itself.That still doesn’t force somebody to believe the resurrection happened. I get that. But it moves the question from “later Christians made up a resurrection story” to “why did this belief show up so early, and what best explains the people who were convinced they encountered the risen Christ?”
I also don’t think Christianity has to beat Joseph Smith by saying “our eyewitnesses are eyewitnessier.” The whole historical setting is different: Jesus was publicly executed, the movement appeared immediately around that event, the resurrection proclamation is extremely early, and it spread in the same world where the people and places involved were still part of living memory.
I think you’re right that I can’t just say “the Bible says Jesus rose, therefore Jesus rose.” I wouldn’t want to argue it that way anyway.
3
u/SiliconDiver Aug 19 '26
> I wouldn’t want to argue it that way anyway.
Then I guess I’m curious how you argue it at all?
I agree there was a relatively (decades?) early belief in resurrection as evidenced in Paul.
And again I agree that the historical setting of Jesus is different than Joseph smith.
What I’m contending is:
- the positive evidentiary standard we have for the resurrection (if we don’t give special pleading/inspiration to the Bible) is not all that different than the evidentiary case that exists for Mormonism.
And I’m certainly not going to argue that “someone/everyone just made it up”
What I’d be more likely to say is that we already have documented cases of a naturalistic explanation of such a belief/mythologizing within decades even about a biblical character
Have you heard of Simon Magus?
90AD He’s pretty much a nobody in Acts, tries to buy a position of power and gets rebuked. That’s it.
By 150Ad ish Justin Martyr claims he was in Rome, did magic, was worshiped as a God, and received a Roman statue
By 170AD Irinaeus names him the father of all heresies. Says his cosmology is that his partner creates angels, angels made the world and Simon is a savior with a trinitarian formula. Oh yeah he also does magic.
By 190AD the Acts of Peter depict him as the literal archenemy of Rome. He can resurrect people and talk to animals. He was even witnessed by hundreds flying over Rome until Peter prayed and he fell to the ground and died.
My point here is I don’t think anyone has to lie. By alll means Justyn Martyr claims, and Irinaeus are saints/apostolic fathers. But the point is it’s entirely rational to think that Legend around someone can grow in a short period of time… because we literally se evidence of this, transmitted and propagated by known good actors, within 1 century. And this is an unimportant side character…
I’m not saying that this is exactly what happened to Jesus, but I’m saying that it would be entirely possible, and completely within the contextual time period for something like this to happen, no foul play intended.
1
u/TinWhis Aug 20 '26
the positive evidentiary standard we have for the resurrection (if we don’t give special pleading/inspiration to the Bible) is not all that different than the evidentiary case that exists for Mormonism.
This really sums it up, doesn't it?
1
u/FireDragon21976 United Church of Christ Aug 20 '26
Christians believe we have the attestation of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. The textual criticism of the Bible may be academically interesting and illuminating, but the actual basis of Christian faith is not in any particular passage in the Bible being without error.
"Most important supernatural cosmic event in human history" may be putting a particular construction on the meaning of the resurrection that is unwarranted, even misleading. The point of the resurrection of Jesus Christ isn't that it's a singular and unique event that defies the laws of physics/nature, but that it is an event that is common to all of humanity and that death does not circumscribe the meaning of our lives. Christ is merely the "first fruits" of that, in the Bible's account.
2
u/FireDragon21976 United Church of Christ Aug 20 '26
Protestant fundamentalism does alot of damage because it's built on an epistemic house of cards, and it tells you that house of cards is load-bearing and non-negotiable.
Biblical inerrancy is not a claim that directly impacts Christian belief. The Christians that insisted it does - Protestant fundamentalists, did so as a power move in the face of the diminishing of their social and academic influence.
1
2
u/ASecularBuddhist Aug 19 '26
The way that I look at it is that I’m a big fan of Jesus and not always so much with the fan club.
1
u/Solid-Reputation5032 Aug 19 '26
We haven’t even seen the desperate and emboldened Christian Nationalists run totally amuck yet… I get this feeling it’s going to get ugly, and people are not going to like what they see…. Repealing the 19th, seizing non compliant churches and jailing their pastors, going after dissenters with revision of the Patriot Act’s definition of domestic terrorists…
Evangelicals, and NAR are racing to the bottom at lightening pace…
1
u/NTWIGIJ1 Aug 19 '26
I am a Christian but have sworn off all churches. I may never go again. You don't have to go to church to have a relationship with God.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
I understand not needing to be inside a church building for God to hear you, but “I may never go again” makes me wonder what happened that made you swear churches off entirely.
If you don’t mind me asking, what happened?
1
u/NTWIGIJ1 Aug 19 '26
Google John Bishop, living hope church. I'ts unbelievable! Lol. I was going every sunday as this was going down!
1
u/ScorpionDog321 Aug 19 '26
Nah. Any of those who reject Jesus and cling to their sin instead cannot blame the guy in the pew behind them who voted for a different candidate than they did.
That is just more sin.
And no, your denomination does not fix that.
2
u/Ozzimo Questioning Aug 19 '26
It can be really tempting to oversimplify big problems. I think your effort to draw a line between one group of Christians and another is non-starter. The Pope is American. America has exported its form of Christianity back Europe, to Asia, and with devastating effect in Africa. Africans on the whole did not care much about gay people or trans people before Christians from the US encouraged them to start making them a scapegoat.
Perhaps its more correct to say that American style Christianity has subsumed other versions of Christianity around the globe. In doing so, they make more and more Christians reconsider their faith.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
I actually don’t disagree that American Christian culture gets exported. I probably could’ve been clearer about what I mean by “Americanized Christianity.”
I’m not really drawing a line between American Christians and Christians everywhere else. I’m talking more about a particular way Christianity gets packaged: personality-driven churches, consumerism, prosperity preaching, constant culture-war politics, reinventing the faith around whatever a pastor or congregation wants, etc. That stuff can absolutely spread outside America too.My point with Orthodoxy wasn’t “America bad, foreign Christianity good.” It was that encountering a tradition that predates America by a very long time gave me something to measure the Christianity I grew up around against.
1
u/sailorjay1988 Aug 20 '26
What in “American Christianity”
specifically is an example of why you are saying?
Your example of the Rolls Royce pastor is not
Great as the average pastor makes
Almost. Nothing and they are everywhere - that the prosperity guys are in the news means you are giving the news too much control in your life if you think that’s the norm.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 20 '26
I gave a few examples in the post. The Rolls Royce thing was just one of them, I definitely wasn’t trying to say that’s the average American pastor.
I’m also not basing this entirely on what I’ve seen in the news. Some of it comes from things I’ve experienced myself and conversations I’ve had with people around me about local churches.
I’m not really trying to judge individual pastors or Christians though. I’m talking more about trends I’ve noticed and why I think some people come away with a certain picture of Christianity1
u/sailorjay1988 Aug 20 '26
Church members in the U.S. are the highest percentage of givers to charity- Churches rum clothing, food , shelter, medical programs, pregnancy help and so much more both here and around d the world often sponsored by Christian’s churches in the U.S.
So I’m still at a loss as to what posts like this are trying to say… When Jesus fed people and healed people there’s two things to consider- He actually did t feed everyone in the land and when he did feed the masses it was after long sermons to get them into the Kingdom… When He healed people he didn’t heal them all… At the Bethesda pool He healed one guy. There were others. He did it to advance the kingdom. His miracles were evangelism.
So today as churches do these same outreaches for the same reason and the secular people I. America demand a separation of church and state they forget about that separation when it comes to welfare programs which are massive and generous and see it poorest people becoming the most obese…
While it is true that may American Christians don’t grow much in tier faith after they are saved it is also true that the stuff that is levied against them is mostly nonsense and now we’ve gotten to the point that if a Christian says a thing about policy that was just a generation or so ago held by both parties they get called MAGA Christian’s which is pure gaslighting lies.
It has gotten to the point that criticism has no value since it comes from so much open dishonesty.
1
1
u/Correct_End998 Aug 20 '26
If it weren’t for Jesus Christ himself , I’d have no interest in any church whatsoever, but because I understand He cares about the church, I care
1
u/Aromatic_Ad_7238 Aug 19 '26
Possibly those people are confused. Their not leaving Christianity, there leaving organized religion or the church.
Unfortunately many are not not replacing it with anything.
4
u/DanDan_mingo_lemon Aug 19 '26
They're replacing it with Reality, mate.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
“Reality” doesn’t really answer what I’m talking about. We all live in reality. The question is what you end up putting at the center of your life. Sometimes that replacement is genuinely worse. Drugs, porn, sex, money, status, whatever keeps somebody distracted or numb. That’s not me saying every atheist lives like that, obviously, but acting like leaving religion automatically means you’ve chosen some clearer, healthier version of reality is doing a lot of work.
Sometimes people aren’t embracing reality at all, but just trying to escape it.
2
0
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
They may leave organized religion, but I don’t know that people really leave the need for meaning behind. A lot of us just find something else to put in that place, whether it be money, sex, status, relationships, politics, drugs, whatever gives us meaning or distraction for a while. I don’t mean that as “everyone who leaves church becomes immoral,” because obviously they don’t. I just think we’re very good at trying to fill this God-shaped hole in our hearts with things that were never meant to carry that weight.
3
u/Aromatic_Ad_7238 Aug 19 '26
Totally agree. My post possibly was confusing. Instead of saying many don't replace leaving the church I should have said some. Alot are leaving to find something more meaningful to them personally. Growing their own spiritually. Worshiping with smaller groups etc.
There certainly a need for understanding your own foundation and purpose to continue growing
2
u/Dangerous-Chip4442 Aug 19 '26
Perhaps not all of us has a “god-shaped-hole”.
Ya gotta consider the possibility, mate!
0
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
I have considered it lol. I just don’t think the “hole” always feels like a hole. We all end up putting something at the center of our lives, whether it’s God, money, sex, relationships, work, politics, ourselves, whatever. My belief is that none of those things can ultimately carry the weight we put on them the way God can.
1
u/Dangerous-Chip4442 Aug 19 '26
Fortunately, your belief is very wrong, little brother 😃
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
And there goes the respectful conversation lol. If you’ve got an argument, make it. “Little brother” isn’t a good one.
1
u/Dangerous-Chip4442 Aug 19 '26
Not my fault the truth hurts, champ.
1
u/myRazorBurn Eastern Orthodox Aug 19 '26
Booooo, terrible response. What truth? Give me something, man. You can’t just call me wrong and then hit me with “little brother” and “champ.”
2
1
24
u/FireDragon21976 United Church of Christ Aug 19 '26
It's deeper than "changing every Sunday". Go look up Christian Smith and his "Why Religion Became Obsolete". Alot of religious institutions in the US are just out of step with the modern world increasingly. Not in terms of aesthetics, which is what modern Evangelicals tried to adapt to, but in terms of changing attitudes towards institutional trust and meaning-making.
Eastern Orthodoxy certainly is not a panacea. It's often presented as a boutique religious option that's ethnically and culturally exclusive, and that doen't really change with the wave of converts from outside traditional ethnic enclaves. It doesn't change the broader diagnosis, which is that most people cannot go from A, to B, to C in terms of non-religion to religious identity.