The rise of new Christianity (The Passion annunciates orthodox Christianity's central doctrine)

THE AGE (AUSTRALIAN) ^ | April 12, 2004 | Angela Shanahan

[Liz]

This will come to be seen as the century in which religion replaced ideology, writes Angela Shanahan.

At no other time of the year does the great divide in Australia between the secular majority and diminishing Christian minority seem so apparent as at Easter.

Those who say Christianity is dead or dying might, on the face of it, have a point. There is widespread disillusionment with the established church, and secularism encourages a view of religion that would exculpate its influence from the public domain.

To make matters worse there is a shrinking demographic in Christianity's traditional European strongholds. And a new liberalism has taken hold in Europe and North America that wants to diminish the authority of the hierarchy and erode traditional doctrine on issues such as life, family, and sexuality.

But while this is the case in the old Christian world, think about this. In the Philippines the annual rate of baptisms is higher than the totals for Italy, France, Spain and Poland combined. Of the 18 million Catholic baptisms recorded in 1998, 8 million took place in Central and South America, 3 million in Africa and almost 3 million in Asia.

The coming dominance of new Christianity is the theme of a ground-breaking book by American historian of religion Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity.

Jenkins argues that "the 21st century will almost certainly be regarded by future historians as the century in which religion replaced ideology as the prime animating and destructive force in human affairs".

His argument is not theological. He analyses sociological trends. Within 25 years the population of Christians will be 2.6 billion, making it the world's largest religion, and most of these will be in the developing world. The growing numbers of Christians in Africa, projected at 228 million by 2025, has probably the deepest political significance because it is there that the dividing lines are drawn between Islam and Christianity - both of which seem to be polarising towards fundamentalism.

The perception that Christianity is dead is a peculiarly Western-dominated line of thought.

The liberal Catholic writer James Carroll has complained that world Christianity is falling increasingly under the sway of what he deems "fundamentalism". True, where Christianity is flourishing it is not of the new touchy-feely character that wants to marginalise religion to the outskirts of discussion about society and tolerates a watering down of doctrine to vague do-goodism. No, conservativism flourishes in the Christianity of the developing world - and reformers obviously do not like this fact.

But Jenkins compares the new Christianity with that of the early church - mystical, puritanical and prophetic and with its own martyrs, most recently in Africa. So from a more positive point of view, in the developing world the anti-authoritarian excess in the West that followed Vatican II has been corrected, and ancient elements of Catholic tradition and practice such as the Marian emphasis are revived. There is also a rejection of Western notions of "private" sexual morality, which in the developing world, riddled by AIDS, are seen for what they are.

Already we have seen the fallout from this divide in the Anglican Church over the vexed question of the ordination of practising homosexuals. The Anglican church in Nigeria - the single largest Anglican church - has all but come to schism with Canterbury.

Whether one would use the dreaded F-word - fundamentalism - or the term "new orthodoxy", analogous to a counter-reformation, to describe new-world Christianity depends on which side of the global fence you sit.

The perception that religion in general and Christianity in particular is dead is a peculiarly Western-dominated line of thought. It not only ignores the major demographic trends in Africa and Latin America, it forgets the historical view of the church itself, which has always operated as a world entity, not a European one. Closer to home, this perception also ignores a growing Christian movement in the West among young people who, having been brought up with no faith, are finding it.

When the film The Passion of the Christ was released at the start of Lent this year there was a general perception that a religious film produced by an eccentric and seemingly reactionary Catholic like Mel Gibson was in some ways an exotic curiosity. Many critics, particularly reform-minded Catholics, regarded it as a throwback to a different, pre-Vatican II version of religion.

But contrary to expectations, the film has been hugely popular among the young. This is partly because it vividly dramatises the Passion. But the Jesus of this film is not the fashionable Jesus of my youth, the counter-culturalist, as portrayed in Pasolini's famous film The Gospel According to Matthew. No, it is the suffering Jesus to whose suffering we join our own.

Whatever one's opinion of the artistic merit of the film, it's greatest achievement at Easter 2004 is to bring within the orbit of popular culture an annunciation of the central doctrine of orthodox Christianity: Jesus is the divine redeemer whose suffering and death was the point of his life and the Gospels.

It does that in no uncertain terms - and the young of today want certainty.

Angela Shanahan is a Canberra writer.

[RobbyS]

However you must concede that many people are spirituallly dead and sometimes shock treatment is needed to get their spiriitual hearts beating again. That is the point of the violence, to rub our noses in the literal meaning of the words.

[ahadams2]

please define your sources for your interpretation of John 14:6. Warning in advance: if your only source is yourself (i.e. that's what it means to you) that will not be considered sufficient, since it obviously does NOT mean the same to many of the rest of us.

[reflecting]

But Jenkins compares the new Christianity with that of the early church - mystical, puritanical and prophetic and with its own martyrs, most recently in Africa

As the western church declines the eastern church rises. The church planting movement in Africa and East Asia is nothing short of amazing, some estimates are that with a few decades China will be 30% Christian. China! While there will be some RCC, Anglican, Presbyterian, predominately it is going to be fundamental, signs and wonders, Baptist and Pentecostal. How amazing.

There are people now in china who are helping Chinese Baptist establish a board for missions outside of China. The goal? Evangelize the middle east. B2J - Back to Jeruasalem! Lift up your heads!

[Liz]

The depths of your beliefs are quite inspiring.

However, by not viewing The Passion film, you are cheating yourself out of an unforgettable intellectual and artistic experience. One does not have to be a believer to enjoy the film's acting, authentic production values, including costumes, music and and the film's settings (Italy).

The film is a celluloid masterpiece. Every frame could be mounted and hung in a museum. Mel said he was inspired by Renaissance painter, Carvaggio. Hearing the excellent actors speak the language of Christ is awesome.

Remember, the violence in The Passion film is not the typical gratuitous Hollywarped device to sell tickets.

This is redemptive violence. Much is done with makeup. Mel has said he inserted "escape hatches" so that audiences would not be exposed to the unrelenting brutality to Christ.

I do hope you get to see it. You will exit the theatre thanking yourself that you did.

[Liz]

Thanks for the great post

So glad you all liked the post.

[Liz]

....you must concede that many people are spirituallly dead and sometimes shock treatment is needed to get their spiriitual hearts beating again. That is the point of the violence, to rub our noses in the literal meaning of the words.....

When speaking to the hard of hearing, you have to use a loud megaphone.

[ELS]

Anyone who survived junior high can understand Christ's Passion.

LOL! How true (and I might add high school as well).

[FBDinNJ]

Hosepipe, you're missing the point concerning the meaning of the Gospel of John. Even if you were to look at the Gospel of John from the historical-critical method (which is not something I particularly like to do, but nevertheless) you would realize that the main objective of the Gospel of John is to prop up the Johannine Church community. So rather than trying to destroy the Church, this book was written to bolster a specific Christian community, the Johannine Church, in the late 1st century.

[Aquinasfan]

The film is a celluloid masterpiece. Every frame could be mounted and hung in a museum.

I was at the bookstore today flipping through the coffee table book. So many stills can stand on their own as works of art.

[RobbyS]

Depends on what one means by religion. Religion,in the pejorative sense, we don't need. But you want a faith without cult, which is humanly impossible, and neither you nor I is an unembodied spirit.

[hosepipe]

[ please define your sources for your interpretation of John 14:6. Warning in advance: if your only source is yourself (i.e. that's what it means to you) that will not be considered sufficient, since it obviously does NOT mean the same to many of the rest of us. ]

Really.. arrogant little sucker ain't ya. Sorry I pushed your button.. Nah! I tried to .. easy to do too.. Which school of indoctrination you hail from ?.

[hosepipe]

[ you would realize that the main objective of the Gospel of John is to prop up the Johannine Church community. So rather than trying to destroy the Church, this book was written to bolster a specific Christian community, the Johannine Church, in the late 1st century. ]

WHat do you mean by "church".?.. Jesus said, "I've come to let you out of the sheep pen"..Jn:10

[hosepipe]

[ Depends on what one means by religion. Religion,in the pejorative sense, we don't need. But you want a faith without cult, which is humanly impossible, and neither you nor I is an unembodied spirit. ]

Every "christian" is in a cult of one member. Unless they are indoctrinated to some other human(s) cultic views. Just as Adam was to approach God directly, so is everybody else. All that follow God are one whether they like it or not.

Every human has a human spirit and a body. The body dies the spirit does not. Everybody lives forever somewhere. Either the human spirit is in charge OR the body is. That is the test. You are a spirit riding a donkey(body) on this earth . IS the dirty filthy beast in charge or is the your spirit in charge. Donkey holiness is not good enough.

Assholiness will doom you pulling heavy burdens. The way of the spirit is peace, joy, and freedom in spirit.

[RobbyS]

Our Lord said where two are gathered in my name, I am there also. He founded a commmunity based on the good news. Paul thought that the good news meant that the Lord was coming soon and so he was inmpatient with anything that resembled the"Law". On the other hand, he is the first to tell us about the "breaking of the bread,' and the Lord's Supper.

[Liz]

I bought the book couple weeks ago. It'a like seeing the movie over and over again.

[Liz]

I saw "orthodox" in the title, and scanned the article to find out how "Orthodox Christian" doctrine is any different from "mere Christian" doctrine. Hm. Then I saw that "orthodox" was lowercase, not meant to refer to the branch of Christianity, but to "orthodox" Christianity (as opposed to "heretical" Christianity). Nice article. It is good seeing the key doctrine of our faith vividly portrayed.

Good points. Thanks for posting.

[hosepipe]

[ Our Lord said where two are gathered in my name, I am there also. He founded a commmunity based on the good news. Paul thought that the good news meant that the Lord was coming soon and so he was inmpatient with anything that resembled the"Law". On the other hand, he is the first to tell us about the "breaking of the bread,' and the Lord's Supper.]

I'm haveing a dialog, I thought. You are committing a monologue. That means I'm wasteing my time. You're used to it, evidently. Pity,,, I feel SO USED!..

[ahadams2]

Okay, let's try this again: 1. Please give cites [i.e. author(s), Title, pages, and publication data (when, where, what publisher)] for the source or sources of your interpretation of John 14:6. Now I admit that this presumes you actually have some sort of theological reference works, teaching resources, or at least maybe a website(?) from which you've derived your current understanding of that passage. On the other hand, common courtesy, especially in an ecumenical environment such as this, is generally understood to require that a person provide the theological basis for his statements if asked. That's just common courtesy. Arrogance on the other hand is making an arbitrary statement which is at variance from common understandings of Scripture, and then refusing to provide such reference cites. In other words it would be to your benefit to provide reference cites, since without them, statements such as you've made in this thread seriously damage your credibility. 2. Please provide an explanation of the term 'religion' as you understand it. It appears that part of the problem here is that you are using 'religion' is somewhat confusing. To borrow from the Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary -------------------------- http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion Main Entry: re·li·gion Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY 1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ---------------------------- Now generally, at least from what I've seen around, most folks who are regular posters would define the term 'religion' according to 1(b)1 and 1(b)2 above. On the other hand (and I admit I'm guessing here) you seem to assume that the only meaning of the term 'religion' is reflected in definition 2. If that is in fact the case then a major portion of the disagreement in this thread would appear to be a communications problem. By comparing your definition of 'religion' to the above list, we may be able to clear up at least that much of the conflict in this thread. your move.

[ahadams2]

for reasons unknown the formatting dropped on my response - here it is with the formatting back in

Okay, let's try this again: 1. Please give cites [i.e. author(s), Title, pages, and publication data (when, where, what publisher)] for the source or sources of your interpretation of John 14:6. Now I admit that this presumes you actually have some sort of theological reference works, teaching resources, or at least maybe a website(?) from which you've derived your current understanding of that passage. On the other hand, common courtesy, especially in an ecumenical environment such as this, is generally understood to require that a person provide the theological basis for his statements if asked. That's just common courtesy. Arrogance on the other hand is making an arbitrary statement which is at variance from common understandings of Scripture, and then refusing to provide such reference cites. In other words it would be to your benefit to provide reference cites, since without them, statements such as you've made in this thread seriously damage your credibility.


2. Please provide an explanation of the term 'religion' as you understand it. It appears that part of the problem here is that you are using 'religion' is somewhat confusing. To borrow from the Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary

---

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion

Main Entry: re·li·gion Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n

Function: noun Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY

1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

---

Now generally, at least from what I've seen around, most folks who are regular posters would define the term 'religion' according to 1(b)1 and 1(b)2 above. On the other hand (and I admit I'm guessing here) you seem to assume that the only meaning of the term 'religion' is reflected in definition 2. If that is in fact the case then a major portion of the disagreement in this thread would appear to be a communications problem. By comparing your definition of 'religion' to the above list, we may be able to clear up at least that much of the conflict in this thread.

your move.

[hosepipe]

[ Okay, let's try this again: 1. Please give cites [i.e. author(s), Title, pages, and publication data (when, where, what publisher)] for the source or sources of your interpretation of John 14:6. ]

NO... Where do you think you are Berkley.?.. What I've said is my opinion. And you will be held accountable for KNOWING IT.. be advised.. Am I an Angel.. I'm not tellin..