tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34915849.post3906078392801204812..comments2021-02-18T20:18:41.070-05:00Comments on hillschurch: Wondering About the Churchhillschurchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11580362077503241952noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34915849.post-53845662503234007982009-01-04T09:20:00.000-05:002009-01-04T09:20:00.000-05:00Maybe that inflexability is/has been the seedbed f...Maybe that inflexability is/has been the seedbed for some of the emmerging groups? <BR/><BR/>We know a couple in their 30's who came out of an extremely legalistic cult (is that a tautology?), found their way into an attractional "Bible fellowship" style church, then began looking and recently were baptized EO. Knowing them, I saw that they needed a system with well defined boundries...fence post well sunk and tamped. (The Int. Church of Christ didn't even meet their "needs".)<BR/><BR/>And yes, I think there is a lot of consumerism going on. Did you notice the main article in Christianity Today?<BR/><BR/>http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/january/10.20.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>TAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34915849.post-13846809599079127392009-01-03T22:32:00.000-05:002009-01-03T22:32:00.000-05:00I guess the other consideration might be that the ...I guess the other consideration might be that the hierarchies remain inflexible not allowing new people the freedom of expression that they are accustomed to - trying to squeeze them into the liturgical box. I think of Madonna and her pursuit of Judaism through Kaballah - searching for traditional roots but without the burden of strict observance.<BR/><BR/>But then that may be why RC and EO traditions are more attractive. Those who I know are EO especially are serious about their religion only at special events - baptisms, marriages, etc and go infrequently other times. The low demand, high touchy feely quotient may be the attraction. But then isn't that just more consumerist religion?hillschurchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580362077503241952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34915849.post-6360279583171158722009-01-03T22:15:00.000-05:002009-01-03T22:15:00.000-05:00I would also have some question as to whether the ...I would also have some question as to whether the present RC or EO structures (priest and associated ministrants) in N. America would be adequate to handle a flood of catechumens, however, given their organizational abilities and their top-down structure, they might just be more capable than we imagine. And, factor in the reality that Catholicism is more alive in the developing world, perhaps their pool of clerical staff would come from outside the N. Amer. continent, which in reality is the new mission field.<BR/><BR/>We began noticing about 10 years ago that younger folk (late teens to 20something) seemed to be drawn to the more liturgical, smells and bells styles of ecclesiolgy...and a lot of those young people were coming out of conservative Protestant (Baptist especially) and backgrounds where their Boomer parents had been dedicated to the middle of the road "attractional" church styles. <BR/><BR/>Like you, I don't really have a good feel as to how "industrialized" the ecclesiological landscape will (or will not) get...though I have a sneaking suspicion that further atomization will continue, and that is not necessarily a bad thing imo. I do know that in the spread of Spainish RC in the SW U.S. during the 1500-1600's was the reality that the technology and stability for life that the Missions brought was a big sell to the native American population. So, loss of affluence may be a factor today. And yes, sociological and institutional stability does mean a lot in our day and age. It was hard to get Egypt out of that first generation of Exodus-ers.<BR/><BR/>Good questions.<BR/><BR/><BR/>TomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com