Felt like blabbing a bit today…. So while reading this, keep in mind that I am not making any theological points here whatsoever, and the apologetics of all this will have to wait. This does not consider at all what many may regard as the essentials of the faith, so I’m sure I’ll piss someone off. Oh well.

Peering into my cracked crystal ball

Here’s what I think the Christianity of the not-so-distant future will look like: Catholimainlinevangelical (I’ll call it “CME”) on one side and Post-whatever (PW) on the other; of course, somewhere in the background we’ll always have the Orthodox. (I’m not being scientific with all this here, so humor me.)

So in addition to the few past schisms (about every 500 years or so), we are having a new one now, and I imagine when the waters subside, a quadrant of volcanic islands will be left: CME, PW, and Orthodox, then a fourth one I’ll call “other,” for lack of time in thinking up a more clever label. That fourth one will sloppily lump in those others like Quakers, etc., etc, that have contributed greatly to our faith but might not neatly fit into the PW category and certainly don’t fit in the other two… Although the PWs just might even more closely resemble this “other” than anything else.

(Now, to really screw with this line of thinking, I’ll also pose here this thought: Beyond all this, I can imagine a day when most other religions will complete their own cycle of turmoil (which is also happening right now) and we’ll end up with a really confusing thing…one island, and it’s not called Universalism. It’s much bigger than that. I really think this could happen, although to be sure, it most definitely will be a “volcanic” island and will be in development for centuries and will be in near-constant flux.)

Anyway, the first thing that may perk up people’s ears is the seeming improbability of the merging of Catholicism, Mainline Protestantism and Evangelicalism, which in the 20th century (at least) apparently swore to leave each other on their own. But the inescapable fact remains that all three of these grand traditions are in dramatic flux, or at least in a period of significant reevaluation and adjustment, and I think they are increasingly becoming more dependent on each other for survival in our postmodern era. I won’t even go into the lessons the leadership of both the Catholic and Anglican churches learned in centuries past in confronting major global philosophical shifts. And this goes well beyond the ecumenical movement. That effort to bring all churches together was just the first overt manifestation of what must inevitably happen if “traditional” Christianity is to survive at all beyond the 21st century.

Although historically speaking Evangelicalism’s departure from Mainline was quite recent, I think both of these parties are realizing that the need for each other goes beyond just tolerance for the other. And while each still occasionally berates the other, signs are showing that the twain shall eventually meet again, for more than just an ecumenical council. I think a blog from iMonk hints at both the struggles and the requirements associated with what I think will eventually result in a merger, although at first glance of his blog one might be tempted to think otherwise.

10 Facts

(Again, not scientific, but I’m sure most may identify with this list. They get more abstract/futuristic as you go down the list, so I won’t bet on anything, but they are my prediction…)

1. Mainline churches are still suffering from mass aging/die-off, literally, as is traditional Catholicism.

2. While mainline churches have been in decline for many years, they are showing signs of new growth (see Bass interview, part 1).

3. Some of the new growth is from post-evangelical attendance.

4. Other post-evangelicals are heading elsewhere.

5. Some of those have gone back to Rome (Catholicism).

6. Others of those have gone (way) back to Constantinople (Orthodox).

7. Still other post-whatevers (including post evangelicals, post-catholics  and post-mainliners) have given up on traditional church altogether, but not on God/Jesus, and have found PW homes, such as house churches, “emergent” churches, New Monastic communities, etc. Note that I’m only including those post-whatevers who would maintain that faith/God/jesus, etc., are still big parts of their daily life; this does not include those who have rejected all forms of faith, etc.

8. The PW faith (many currently refer to it as “emerging/emergent” or even postmodern spirituality, but I think it will go beyond that) is not just an obscure new theory. It is not merely a mood, as Ravi Z. has described it. It is a fact of life that reflects a thoroughly recognized, fundamental shift (see Bass interview, part 6) in the global philosophical mindset. In fact, signs of this “post-ness” can be seen in almost all of the other major religions of the world.

9. Traditional churches, including the massive Roman church, will become increasingly niched while the PW faith develops and dominates the landscape (even if that landscape does not include church buildings).

10. PWs will grow tired of having to call themselves “post-”  and will seek a more positive orientation that illustrates what they are “for” instead of what they are against. This will eventually result in a more “organized” (even if it is anti-organized) model to reflect their values. It is human nature to organize, even for nonconformists. This is why I think the movement will eventually have to be named something other than by its “post” moniker, because it will become “post-post” because of the need for futher development.

Why?

I’ll leave the answer to that for another time. I’ve already blabbed on enough, so maybe others can take it from here. In addition to the several links I’ve provided above, I will say much of my (flawed?) thinking was inspired by The Great Emergence, by Phyllis Tickle and A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity, by Spencer Burke, among several others.