I want to say just a few more things about change in the twentieth century. Please understand that what I am addressing here are the ways that the church accommodated herself to the culture in ways that she did not know while she was doing it. That ought to concern all of us because the church in each and every age has done more or less accommodation to the culture. We are in our day and it is harder to recognize than we know.

But I digress. Regenerate church membership was a primary priority for churches until the middle of the twentieth century. It was a fundamental foundation of all Baptist churches until the middle part of the twentieth century when the growth in churches mitigated against giving serious attention to the Christian commitment or character of those who were “joining the church.” Church discipline was practiced both biblically and vigorously until the middle part of the twentieth century when it was dropped completely primarily because the physical growth of churches in the building if buildings necessitated as much financial support as possible. Who would dare discipline some dude who had departed from the faith while he was depositing large sums in the collection plate? By the middle of the 1950′s in our country, most churches were busting out the walls with people but the reality of radically changed lives in the church was absent. In fact, it was during this time that many denominations began pushing for revivals of real religion since so much that was in the church had been reduced to the routine of ritual that was simply repeated Sunday after Sunday. The church had become like a soap opera: don’t watch it for a few weeks and come back to it, and nothing has changed!!

What came to the church instead of a real revival (there has not been one of these in this country since the nineteenth century) was the sixties and the revolution that it brought among young people against anything and everything insitituional, including the church. One of the ironies of history is that many who led the march against the institution of religion are now in their fifties and are protecting the very institution that they fought against in the 1960′s against the likes of the emerging church folks who are no different in their philosophy from the 1960′s flower children who want it a “God who was groovy.”

One of my concerns that I contemplate from time to time is what is it in our time that we do not see. The church in the 1950′s lost its emphasis on regenegrate church membership and church discipline among other things; but what have we lost that we do not see? Here is the irony:  if you think you see it, then you probably don’t because most of what we see that we missed, we see through the lens of the passing of time. Think about it.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed