As America is following Europe down the gradual path of secularization, Christianity is not slowing down but merely shifting where it is centered. The next great “Christian nation” will be China.
From the Asia Times:
…Christianity will have become a Sino-centric religion two generations from now. China may be for the 21st century what Europe was during the 8th-11th centuries, and America has been during the past 200 years: the natural ground for mass evangelization. If this occurs, the world will change beyond our capacity to recognize it. Islam might defeat the western Europeans, simply by replacing their diminishing numbers with immigrants, but it will crumble beneath the challenge from the East.
When you consider the fact that South Korea already sends out the second most missionaries in the world (behind the US), it should come as no surprise that Asia is fertile ground for an explosive growth in Christianity.
While evangelistic atheism may be on the move in Western Civilization, Christ is on the march even more so in the East. I don’t think Hitchen’s “rationalism” will mean too much to Chinese Christians who have lived up atheism for generations. They have seen the failure of the philosophy and are spiritually hungry for something more.
I for one welcome the change and pray that God moves in tremendous ways in places like Asia, Africa and South America. Christianity needs to be removed from many of the cultural confines placed on it here in America. Jesus is much bigger than the Bible belt.
What will be really interesting about such a shift is how Christianity may have to shed some of it's westernized cultural baggage like "rugged individualism" – but not only may it start freeing itself of the unbalanced and unbiblical influence of some western values, it may take on some of the unbalanced and unbiblical emphases of Asian culture. We'll see.
Poor China! First Communism, then unchecked State run capitalism, and then Christianity?
You have no idea what you are talking about. While humanism definitely offers benefits over such cruel systems as communism or Islam, because it lacks a spiritual component, and fails to address man's fallenness, it is only a half solution. It ignores the truth of such common sense idioms as 'ultimate power corrupts ultimately.'
Biblical Christianity liberates every country it touches. It rid the west of slavery. It has already eased the torture of (atheist) communism in China. Christian missionary work has already delivered China of some of it's cruel culture, like the binding of women's feet.
In India, it is currently dismantling the caste system by showing that all are to be accepted as equals.
If you look at a world map, every country that has ever experienced a Protestant revival is today free and prosperous, relative to other countries.
I will post more on this, since I think many who have been brainwashed by anti-religionists assume that Christianity has been bad for humanity, when actually, it's been just the opposite.
I think many who have been brainwashed by religionists assume that Christianity has been good for humanity, when actually, it's been just the opposite.
OMG, you have got to be kidding.
Some people like to post unattributed, provocative statements and then not offer any evidence to back up their claims.
So many of my ancestors served and many gave their lives to bring the Gospel to India and China; I pray their martyrdom is fruitful after so many years.
This is a great blog!!
Biblical Christianity liberates every country it touches. It rid the west of slavery.
Is this the same bible that has entire sections devoted to how you should treat your slaves?
Yes, but that can be explained, as you might imagine Christians would want to do.
First, we must distinguish between indentured and penal servitude, and kidnapping and human chattel (which are condemned in such passages as 1 Timothy 1:10).
I don't want to rehash this entire discussion, but needless to say, the fact that the bible discusses kind treatment of slaves does not mean that it condones it. Does such a statement hurt your brain? :D
It's interesting how Christians try to explain away uncomfortable bits of the Bible while demanding other bits be read literally? Why didn't it condemn slavery as evil?
I don't think you can handle the answer. I bet you can't even guess at what the defense might be.
Hi Skeptic:
Even a literal reading of the Bible does not say that general slavery is acceptable. The Bible presupposes slavery and essentially sets limits on how slaves are to be treated. This doesn't mean the Bible approves of slavery, no more than a parent approves of teenage drinking when she tells her child to call home for a ride instead of driving drunk. Why didn't the Bible condemn slavery as evil? God only knows, but it might have been that sinful humanity wouldn't have reacted optmally to such a condemnation at the time.
your friend
Keith
More evidence that the Bible merely reflects the values of its time and should, therefore, be approached only in the light of modern knowledge (in other words, not literally nor inerrant).
Hi Skeptic:
You wrote:
More evidence that the Bible merely reflects the values of its time and should, therefore, be approached only in the light of modern knowledge (in other words, not literally nor inerrant).
I don' think that follows. The Bible was challenging the standards of the time with respect to slavery because it demanded relatively kind treatment of those slaves. It was pushing against the cruelty of the world. But a literalist could draw an analogy between the slavery thing and physical therapy after shoulder surgery (since I went under the knife everything seems related to shoulder surgery:-). Eventually the goal is for things to be perfectly right, but the therapist only pushes so far at first so as not to reinjure things. We Christians would say goal of Bible is to eventually bring people to Christ; if that requires NOT saying that slavery is wrong, if it requires letting the people of Christ figure out on their own that owning people is inconsistent with loving them, then that's what the Bible ought to do.
your friend
keith
skeptic, your comment about the Bible merely reflecting the values of the period shows a good bit of ignorance of both Biblical commands/teachings and of the cultures in which the Bible was written.
Monotheism is itself a countercultural thought for early Judaism. Much of the rules and regulations in the Mosaic law were instituted to keep Israel separate from the surrounding cultures. Then Jesus' teachings were radically different from both the Jewish and Roman cultures in which He taught. Paul's writings challenged both his Jewish and Gentile readers to do things contrary to the ways they were used to. I get into specifics, but suffice it to say if the Bible is anything it is not merely a reflection of current cultural values.
I guess I was sloppy about my diction. Perhaps a better word than "values" would be "knowledge."
Nevertheless, I feel that some of the Bible's values do reflect its times. Note that reflect doesn't denote an equivalence but merely an influence. For instance, the toleration of slavery surely reflects surrounding culture's acceptance. Likewise, the monotheist idea also seems to reflect surrounding cultures' god-king ruler (eg, Persia's "Lord of Lords and King of Kings").
For instance, the toleration of slavery surely reflects surrounding culture's acceptance.
Perhaps, but how would you prove such a thing? Perhaps the bible's toleration of slavery is one that reflects objective ethical truth.
If the Bible toleration of slavery reflects an "objective truth" then it is an instrument of evil, and your so-called "objective truth" is also evil.
skeptic, what do you think of when you think of a slave? If you are like me, you probably think of black people abused and mistreated by white Southerners who thought of the slaves as property.
When the Bible speaks of slavery, particularly in the OT, it is not speaking of that type of a system. It draws from the Jewish tradition of indentured servants who served for a certain period of time to pay back a debt. The servants were to be kept for a maximum of 7 years and then released. You also see that slaves owned slaves themselves in the OT. The relationship their is much different from the one in the American South.
Also, the Bible is extremely progressive in the way it speaks of slaves and masters. Paul says that in Christ, "There is no slave or free, male or female, Jew or Greek." He wants them to know that everyone is equal in God's family. The passages addressing slaves and masters in Ephesians and Colossians show how they are to treat one another, which is completely contrary to much of the culture in that day.
Pardon me, but my Bible is a bit rusty: did Paul command masters to free their slaves?
It seems odd that a people who were themselves slaves could condone any kind of involuntary servitude.
No, Paul did not give the Biblical instruction of a master to free the slave. Although, again it was Jewish custom (and OT command) to free slaves/indentured servants after 7 years of service.
The fact that the Jewish people had experienced slavery themselves should indicate that their system of "slavery" would not be comparable to what they endured in Egypt or what Africans endured in the American South.
I'm not sure if you took the time to read those short passages from Ephesians and Colossians, but they really speak to the issues you are addressing and the points I am trying to make. Especially in the Ephesians passage which instructs slaves work "as if you were serving the Lord, not men." It then goes on to command masters to "treat your slaves in the same way." How poorly do you think a Christian master who is following Scripture is going to treat his slave when the Bible tells him to treat that slave like "the Lord"? There should be no mistreatment of slaves ever under that system and eventually, it would stand to reason, that the master would free the slave under that same thought process.
Slavery is inherently unjust. Being nice to your slave doesn't wipe away the evil of the situation.
btw: The quotes you cite above were used against blacks in the South to keep them quiet. Yet another example of Christianity's corruption.
It may not "wipe away the evil of the situation" but it certainly clarifies the circumstance. To argue that the slavery in the NT is equal to that of the American South in the 1800's is based on either ignorance or bias.
I will not argue with you that people misuse scripture to justify their sin. Unfortunately many Southerners did that in regards to slavery, but in trying to pull quotes out to justify their wretched behavior they ignored countless other passages include verses inside the ones they claimed supported their sin. How could someone who is following scripture beat their slave and treat them as property, unless they believe that is the way a Christian should treat Jesus? The answer is that most slave holders were living in sin by the way they treated their slaves and by fighting for an evil institution.
Lest you forget but it was Christians following the Bible that fought the hardest to overturn slavery in the West. Unfortunately, it is still common in other parts of the world.
The quotes you cite above were used against blacks in the South to keep them quiet. Yet another example of Christianity's corruption.
This is a plain logical fallacy. What if I quote something you say to support slavery? Does that prove your corruption? Of course not. Get real.
Slavery is inherently unjust.
Well, I am glad to see that you don't believe that morals are subjective – you are right that some things are objectively wrong, regardless of time, culture, or context.
But what you are missing in Aaron's replies is that the bible's definition of slavery is not the same as the type of kidnapping and human trafficking we know from recent history. As I remarked previously, the NT prohibits kidnapping, which is part of the slave trade you are referring to.
Penal servitude of limited duration is more what the bible talks of, and servitude of those from conquered nations may be seen as penal servitude also, although their only crime may have been opposing Israel ;)
On this issue, I think you are missing the forest for the trees. Christianity, and the bible, are primarily about Christ dying for us, not about changing the social order. It's about individuals getting right with God, doing right, and serving God's purposes.
In fact, people wanted to make Jesus a King, but he refused, saying that his kingdom was not of this world. This view of God caused the Jews to miss their Messiah, because they thought he was going to bring a political change.
And while many of us believe that xianity SHOULD be applied to all of life, including public policy and human rights, we understand that this world is not the coming Kingdom. Our emphasis is on the life to come. This is why Paul was not interested in an anti-slavery campaign.
And again, despite the people who used the bible to justify slavery, Christianity is the ONLY ideology in HISTORY that has had the moral strength and vision to eliminate slavery. It was Christianity that gave rise to and championed abolitionism in the west. Humanism didn't do it. Greek and Roman cultures didn't do it. Buddhism didn't do it. Confucianism didn't do it.
So despite what your opinions are about the bible, the proof is in the pudding. Your superficial objections to your understanding of scripture and history do not, imo, stand up to scrutiny.
Our emphasis is on the life to come.
Well, good for you! I fully support your quest. Now, how about living up to your words and leaving the rest of us alone – especially stop trying to enact your superstitions and prejudices into law. We don't need your cult to live ethical and meaningful lives.
Now, how about living up to your words and leaving the rest of us alone
We absolutely are making that effort to live Christ's teachings. But leave you alone? That would violate one of the greatest commands of Jesus, which is to preach the gospel (which includes the idea that mankind is sinful and needs a redeemer).
Left to our own, without God, we end up with things like Communist and Socialist "utopias." That's what you will have if you want to reject God and biblical morality.
stop trying to enact your superstitions and prejudices into law.
Sorry, but the Christian valuation of the sanctity of life, the purity of sexuality within hetero marriage, and the establishment of justice are not just religious ideas, they are timeless and obvious principles supported by the sciences of biology, sociology, psychology, not to mention ethics.
In fact, I am trying to keep your unnatural and immoral justifications (*your* prejudices) of homosexuality and infanticide OUT of law for the protection of society and the innocent. That has nothing to do with superstition, and all to do with the real consquences of such mistaken practices and ideas.
Your claim that we are trying to implement superstition and prejudice is really just the same old tired atheist ruse – but not fact. Even worse, you FAIL to recognize your own mythology and unprovable assumptions, thinking somehow that you are immune from prejudices. This is the real danger of extremism – the abandonment of logic while all the time repeating to one's self the self-reinforcing logical arguments divorced from reality.
The fool says in his heart, "there is no God."
Left to our own, without God, we end up with things like Communist and Socialist “utopias.” That’s what you will have if you want to reject God and biblical morality.
This is just plain stupid. The choice isn’t between a Christian and Communist/Socialist “utopias” as you would have it. Classically liberal and humanistic secular society’s needn’t go to either extreme.
I’ll take reason and secular humanism to the superstitions you espouse any day. Your intent is to establish a fundamentalist theocracy, no matter what you claim otherwise. Western civilization left this barbarism behind long ago. The ugly and irrational opinions you drool above merely prove my point.
Were you to succeed in establishing the Christian “utopia” you so desire in this country, I would immediately seek asylum abroad.
Classically liberal and humanistic secular society’s needn’t go to either extreme.
So perhaps you could inform me about a historically humanistic society, not influenced by Christianity, that was successfully not cruel. Admittedly, my knowledge of history is lacking. Examples?
Your intent is to establish a fundamentalist theocracy, no matter what you claim otherwise.
Anti-intellectual fear-mongering. I’m sorry you have abandoned reason and intellect for such childish talk.
Were you to succeed in establishing the Christian “utopia” you so desire in this country, I would immediately seek asylum abroad.
Evangelicals have no such illusions. We know there is no utopia here, but we also know that we can’t just let society dive into the darkness of secularism, atheism, sexual immorality and abuses such as prostitution, porn, child sex-trades, and homosexuality, abortion, and other social evils.
You see, no one is forcing you to become Christian, as a theocracy might. However, we are pushing for social norms that reflect health and respect for human life. Such things have naught to do with superstition, and all to do with what is good for society.
In opposing such things with your often bogus accusations, you prove yourself to be an enemy of what is good. Such enemies, when unarmed (thankfully) are called fools. When they are armed, they are called fascists and terrorists. Face it. You oppose what is right and true.
And you accuse those who preach righteousness of cruelty.
Your accusations are beneath contempt. Actually, I revel in being falsely accused from such as you. I would be personally insulted if you were to agree with or praise me. Trying to reason with you is like playing the violin for a pig.
And arguing with a man quick to childish insults is to argue with a fool.
childish
That's your favorite jibe, isn't it? As if you rise to the level of any sort of maturity. Your threats and imprecations are merely the by-product of your mindless pursuit of the mirage which is fundamentalist religion.