Posted on 05/23/2006 6:34:22 PM PDT by sionnsar
A lot of people I run into seem to be angsting these days about the imminent failure of what used to be called “Christendom.” On the one hand, the repaganization of Western Civilization seems to be progressing steadily. (On CSI: Miami the other day, some character told another that “That’s between you and your own personal god.” I found that to be a rather telling statement. It can only be between “you and your own personal god” if your own personal god really exists! Otherwise it’s the same as saying “it’s between you and your imaginary friend Skippy.” The concept of “my personal god” lies at the heart of classical paganism, not at the heart of “religious tolerance.”)
Anyway, you have homegrown paganism on the one hand and you have the pressure of militant Islam on the other, taking down a former Christendom that, in the case of Europe, is no longer even capable of rustling up either the virility or the maternal instinct to replace itself.
Is Christendom disappearing? Well, that may depend on what we mean. Are the Dark Forces of Satan about to throw us all to the lions? That particular fear would seem to be a bit paranoid at the moment. Atheist bumper stickers and The DaVinci Code do not a persecution make. In terms of having a Christian-based civilization that is an effective presence in the world, however, I’d have to say yes – Christendom has pretty much vanished before our eyes. We can argue about that until the cows come home, but I think most readers here would buy the claim. The fact itself is not what I find interesting. We can also ask whether the process is irreversible. (My response: theoretically, no; practically, probably yes.) But that’s not what interests me either.
The question I do find interesting is, why is Christendom disappearing? Not “why” in the political or sociological – or even theological – sense, but “why” in the teleological sense. We claim to believe in the God of Providence, the one who works through history to establish His Kingdom and Whose purposes cannot be thwarted. If we actually mean what we say, then Christendom can’t be disappearing because God’s suddenly losing the war with Satan – its failure must have been calculated into the grand scheme of things just as much as Adam munching the apple and Jerusalem falling to Nebuchadnezzar the Great.
If Christian Western civilization really is going the way of the dodo bird, then it must have served out its purpose, at least for the present time. Which then leads to the question, why did it come into existence in the first place? There may be an analogy with the history of Israel, the nation state. Israel was the place where monotheistic faith could be developed and preserved until the coming of the Messiah. Once Jesus had come and the gospel was being preached throughout the Empire, Israel (as a national culture) didn’t last very long. The Second Temple was destroyed in the Jewish War in A.D. 70, and the city of Jerusalem was plowed with oxen after the Bar Kochba revolt in A.D. 136.
“Christendom” really came into existence with the Emperor (St.) Constantine. Through the Romans, Europe was Christianized and remained a sanctuary for believers during the Muslim conquests of the seventh through the seventeenth centuries. It was through the rise of imperial Europe that the church was able to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” There are still a few unreached people groups in the world, but the likelihood is that within a few years there will be no races, tribes, or nations where the gospel hasn’t been heard. I suspect we’ve served our purpose. The rest of the world can take it from here, and it’s time for us to pay our bill.
Israel presumed that their chosen status would protect them from destruction no matter what they did. Haven’t we pretty much presumed the same thing? Spreading the gospel was certainly a Very Good Thing, but a lot of really bad stuff went along with it. I don’t think there’s any shortage of unrepented sin in the Western world; there sure isn’t in my house.
Jesus promised to be with us to the end of the age – pretty much the same thing that’s been promised to the Jews. The promise made to the Jews was made to those who chose to follow Yahweh, not to the nation-state. The promise of Christ wasn’t made to us as a “Christian culture;” it was made to us as a church. It’s the remnant against whom the gates of hell will not prevail – sometimes that remnant is 95% of the population, and sometimes its 1%. We’ve gotten used to the idea that we’re the majority; like the Jews, we may have to get used to minority status. The Promise never changes, but the comfort level that goes with establishment status may be in for some pretty rude revisions.
That was a lot more long winded than I intended when I started out, but hey – I am a professor, at least part-time. Long-winded is my business. Wind me up and I automatically go on for at least an hour, and I don’t have a reset button.
Something like the grace period running out on your insurance policy.
“It is precisely when every earthy hope has been explored and found wanting, when every possibility of help from earthy sources has been sought and is not forthcoming, when every recourse this world offers, moral as well as material, has been drawn on and expended with no effect, when in the shivering cold every faggot has been thrown on the fire, and in the gathering darkness every glimmer of light has finally flickered out – it is then that Christ’s hand reaches out, sure and firm, that Christ’s words bring their inexhaustible comfort, that His light shines brightest, abolishing the darkness for ever”
Malcolm Muggeridge, from his book
The End of Christendom
Herewith a warning to all. Any person using ANY neologism or any neologistic verb or noun in the very first sentence of a written piece, and with NO subsequent definition of said neologistic usage, is to be dismissed from consideration outright.
The English language is THE most inventive and creative in the world, and that's fine -- a HUGE economic and societal advantage. However, when Joe Blow creates some term or usage out of thin air, w/o any reasonable denotation (and never mind how bastardised the construct might be), THIS is nothing other than another step (on Joe Blow's part, never mind what might happen when the LBM get hold of it) toward chaos.
I know, I know, it's really (sadly) trite, but, ''Words Mean Something'', they are NOT infinitely parsable, nor infinitely flexible, as this clown and the Left in general would have it be.
Well-said and true.
Hey Robby. Want to ask you a question. I'm just curious
and my motives are fine. What offends you more as a Catholic? Jack Chick's website or the Foxes Book of Martyrs?
Well, I have actually read Foxe. Like most literature on both sides during that time, it is not trustworthy.
thanx. Never read any Chick (Jack) stuff, eh?
I've seen the comic books. Not even well-drawn.
Well, yes, I'll have to agree. Particularly, as you suggest, the LIB/LEFT which is prone to slaughter a perfectly good word when no other word can be found to describe a situation, or just too lazy to use the dictionary.
Take the word, 'marriage,' for example. More pointedly, same-sex marriage, which, of course, is an oxymoron.
I've taken the (...ahem...) liberty to create a brand-new word to describe whatever the same-sex folks want the courts to do for them and have offered it for consideration here several times in the past few years, but alas, no takers.
For the record, here it is again -- "SMURGE." And of course, "SMURGED" and "SMURRIAGE." Sort of self-explanatory, I would think, so without objection, I won't attempt to define the words.
But just think how simple it would have been for the Mass. Supreme Court to use its arbitrary and assumed power over word definitions if it would have opted for a brand-new word, similar to what I have suggested for same-sex relationships rather than calling down the wrath of God and mankind both by stealing and corrupting (by re-definition) the word, 'marriage.'
And yes, chaos has already ensued, so you are right on target.
But apart from that and getting back to the topic, do you think there is still time to take out a 50-year mortgage and buy a Lexis and a nice Harley or should I just start wrapping things up here? ;>
Just one hint. NEVER buy a depreciating asset for the long haul with borrowed money, bar the single exception of A car to drive; the American lifestyle is rather stuck with that notion, although I see more and more people either leasing or paying cash. Don't have a dog in this particular fight (shrug).
Assumption of large amounts of debt WITH the intention of declaring bankruptcy at some point if life doesn't work out perfectly? Seems to me that, notwithstanding the recent bankruptcy law change, that's the way we're headed.
Sorry to say it, too.
As regards the MA 'Supreme' Court: I think I should recommend to them the history of Humpty-Dumpty, as narrated in 'Alice Through The Looking-Glass'.
Agreed. I sentence this fellow to be whomped upside the head with the Unabridged Dictionary until he confesses and repents.
its failure must have been calculated into the grand scheme of things just as much as Adam munching the apple
Excuse me? The Fall was not part of the "grand scheme of things," but humans rebelling against said scheme.
Ummm....excuse me, but "angsting" is a word I have heard any number of times in conversation, and have seen in print somewhere or another. I think I have been malintentionally miscriticized for neologicating here!
Humans indeed rebelled; the Fall was indeed our fault. However, to conclude from that fact that God was somehow "surprised" by the event - that God in Eternity could not see the whole of time and the ends from the beginnings - is to deny Divine omniscience. Similarly, it turns the redemption into an "emergency plan two" status, rather than an act of love built into creation before (if that word is applicable) time began. Clearly God "knew" we would screw up and considered it to be worth it anyway.
Of course the gospel needs to be shared - "God has no grandchildren." I'm just not at all convinced that the Christian West is still needed for that sharing to take place. As another example, the Roman Empire was "necessary" for the gospel to spread through Europe and create what came to be known as Christendom. Once Christian Europe existed, the Romans went the way of all flesh. There are many military, social, and political reasons for the fall of Rome, but from a why-did-God-let-the-Romans-come-to-power perspective, I suspect the Empire had served its purpose.
I think you're confusing individual evangelism (every generation) with the historical and political structures (easy come, easy go) within which that evangelism occurs.
Yes, I agree, I'm confusing the two (individual and national). Perhaps you (and the author) are right, as we fade into secularism (not exactly kicking and screaming, BTW), we lose our efficacy.
Ah! You are correct, and it seems I misconstrued your original claim. My apologies.
;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.