Friday, May 15, 2009
A Lesson For The Ages
Justin Taylor recently cited an amazing study - here's the abstract:
From my perspective the key issue in that conclusion is what came first? Did the church fail so the government had to step in or did the government simply usurp the provision of "welfare goods?" But, of course, in the end, what difference does it make. Regardless of which came first, the church failed. It either failed causing the government to step in, or it failed to fight the government - either way, the church is failing and has failed.
Several things are mandatory:
One, the church must fight back in the political arena. At risk of parishioners, churches too often sit on the political sidelines. This makes it clear that to do so, at least on some issues, is institutional suicide.
Two, quit preaching, start doing. The church is not an academic institution, it is not continuing education - it is far more than theology. It is God's living, breathing Body here on earth. Bodies DO THINGS. Salvation produces sanctification which changes lives, actively and observably.
Three, the church must take specific action with regards to "welfare goods." Damn the "faith-based initiative." We don't need government money to do these things. God will provide if we but get busy.
We have wasted several decades worried too much about personal salvation and not enough worried about the ramifications thereof to any but ourselves.
Sounding more and more like a big "OOPS!" to me.
What accounts for cross-national variation in religiosity as measured by church attendance and non-religious rates? Examining answers from both secularization theory and the religious economy perspective, we assert that cross-national variation in religious participation is a function of government welfare spending and provide a theory that links macro-sociological outcomes with individual rationality. Churches historically have provided social welfare. As governments gradually assume many of these welfare functions, individuals with elastic preferences for spiritual goods will reduce their level of participation since the desired welfare goods can be obtained from secular sources. Cross-national data on welfare spending and religious participation show a strong negative relationship between these two variables after controlling for other aspects of modernization.In other words, more government, less church.
From my perspective the key issue in that conclusion is what came first? Did the church fail so the government had to step in or did the government simply usurp the provision of "welfare goods?" But, of course, in the end, what difference does it make. Regardless of which came first, the church failed. It either failed causing the government to step in, or it failed to fight the government - either way, the church is failing and has failed.
Several things are mandatory:
One, the church must fight back in the political arena. At risk of parishioners, churches too often sit on the political sidelines. This makes it clear that to do so, at least on some issues, is institutional suicide.
Two, quit preaching, start doing. The church is not an academic institution, it is not continuing education - it is far more than theology. It is God's living, breathing Body here on earth. Bodies DO THINGS. Salvation produces sanctification which changes lives, actively and observably.
Three, the church must take specific action with regards to "welfare goods." Damn the "faith-based initiative." We don't need government money to do these things. God will provide if we but get busy.
We have wasted several decades worried too much about personal salvation and not enough worried about the ramifications thereof to any but ourselves.
Sounding more and more like a big "OOPS!" to me.
Technorati Tags:faith, action
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
