culture
Tag Archive

By In Scribblings

Pacquiao’s Radical Biblicism

Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather

The most expensive match in boxing history is now behind us. Manny Pacquiao’s under-dog status, his charisma were not enough to defeat the undefeatable Floyd Mayweather. Floyd is now 48-0. One more victory puts him in the same league as the legendary Rocky Marciano.

But the things behind the scene of this magnanimous match is what has caught the attention of many in the media. Mayweather is an extraordinary fighter. He happens to be also an extraordinary domestic abuser. His well and hideously documented record of abuse can be found here. Many were boycotting the fight in protest. The validity of such tactic can be discussed at another time.

What is, however, most disturbing is the media’s reaction to Pacquiao.

News.Mic has made this clear in a recent article referring to Pacquiao as the Bible-Thumping Reactionary. Pacquiao’s sin is that “he does happen to be a Bible-thumping politician who thinks gay marriage will usher in a modern-day “Sodom and Gomorrah” and opposes affordable contraceptives for poor women with little access to modern health care.” Manny Pacquiao is hailed by the liberal media as a paragon of intolerance. In summary, the article concludes:

It’s not an exaggeration to say that as a politician, Pacquiao supported pushing the Bible over the health and well-being of his constituents.

Pacquiao’s clear Christian conscience over issues that are conspicuously orthodox now serves as a rationale to place Manny on the same scale as the despicable Mayweather.

The hero Congressman and boxer from the Philippines should be praised for suffering persecution for defending truth. Flannery O’Connor once wrote that, “truth is truth whether you are able to stomach it or not.” Manny’s platform has provided him with a remarkable opportunity. His victories in the ring may determine his legacy as a great boxer, but his legacy as a Christian activist may speak louder and hurt his opponents even more.

Read more

By In Culture

How the Julie Andrews Oscar Tribute Identified the Biggest Problem with “Christian” Movies

Lady Gaga Tribute to Julie Andrews & “The Sound of Music”

 

In likely one of her most beautiful and memorable performances, pop-star Lady Gaga revisited the 1965 Classic, “The Sound of Music” with an outstanding tribute to Julie Andrews and her musical contributions to the film.

Lady Gaga Tribute to Julie Andrews & “The Sound of Music”

It is worth noting that Gaga is not known for being a ‘lady’ and a great deal of her notoriety is based upon some of the most un-lady-like behavior. Yet here, Lady Gaga offers an elegant and skillful performance that may exceed the artist whom she was paying tribute to. There is nothing in Gaga’s Billboard hit collection that would suggest that she was capable of such a performance and her peculiar stage personality has been eclipsed by the beauty of the original music. Despite a five decade span between the theatrical release and now, this performance refused to enjoin the modern progress of musical artistry.

Can we think of many styles from 1965 that would enjoy such a powerful reception? How is it possible that the “Sound of Music” can remain ‘good art’ even today without adapting to the changing ethos of American artistic expression?

Julie Andrews on Great Music

Following Lady Gaga’s performance she was joined on stage by the original Maria. Julie Andrews thanked Gaga for her beautiful tribute and gave the most eloquent and poignant remarks of the entire night. In her short speech, I believe that Andrews also identified the fundamental problem plaguing a Christian view of the arts.

“Great music does more than enhance a film,” says Andrews “it cements our memories in the film-going experience. I mean, imagine the “Godfather” without its iconic theme… or the wondrous themes in the music of John Williams in “Star Wars.”

The Imagination and Christian Movies

675116-a9f9182e-a8c8-11e4-b4a3-9d4f296075c1I would posit that while classics like the, “Sound of Music” will be respected as time-tested art, much of the Christian material today will be remembered as well as Julie Andrew’s contemporaries like the Brady Bunch. Our dated, irrelevant, and artistically flat modern “chick tract” style Christian movies are destined for the same shelf as the story of a lovely lady and her family in a nine-frame box.

As Christians, we are called to embrace the majesty of God’s creation in its fullness and to use the arts in our attempt to express what is truly great and beautiful. All of art, and especially the cinema for our age, is a call to experience the pleasure of Christ’s goodness and to stretch and renew our mind’s imagination. Art in this sense is not merely an extra, but essential to what it means to give glory to God.

I want to see a generation of filmmakers less concerned about how actors dress, and passionate about how a film’s score is as powerful a testimony of the greatness of God as the script.

As Martin Luther said, “I feel strongly that all the arts, and particularly music, should be placed in the service of Him who has created and given them.”

Read more

By In Culture

Kirk Cameron is saving Christmas with Douglas Wilson

Kirk Cameron Presents “Saving Christmas”

While Kirk Cameron’s “Left Behind” legacy hit the box office just over a month ago, now featuring Nicholas Cage, Cameron has been busy promoting a different kind of Christian movie. Saving Christmas is Cameron’s big screen attempt to restore our faith in the Christmas season. Cameron’s film hopes to provide,”a biblical basis for our time-honored traditions and celebrations, and the inspiration to stand strongly against a culture that wants to trivialize and eliminate the faith elements of this holy season.” Loaded with the tagline, “Put Christ back in Christmas,” I look forward to seeing what this movie has to offer.

Watch the Theatrical Trailer for Saving Christmas on Youtube. 

The Advent of Doug Wilson

Saving Christmas, which is set to debut on Nov. 14, was recently promoted on a video segment of Doug Wilson’s “ask Doug?” where Kirk revealed that it was Wilson’s writing that motivated the project. “One of the books that had a big influence on what’s in the movie was Doug’s God Rest Ye: Why Christmas is the Foundation for Everything,” said Cameron.

Watch God Rest Ye Merry | Kirk Cameron and Doug Wilson on Vimeo

Buy “God Rest Ye Merry” Today

Pastor Doug Wilson’s book is essential reading for anyone hoping to understand the profound symbolism found in the Christmas Holiday or who simply want to read about how Santa Claus once punched a man in the face at a church council. As Advent approaches, Wilson’s short book also features a read-aloud meditation and prayer for each day of our Advent season. (Advent season begins on Sunday, November 30, 2014.)

Click here to buy God Rest Ye Merry: Why Christmas is the Foundation for Everything

<>bonehostсамостоятельная раскрутка а yandex

Read more

By In Worship

A Biblically Sound Worship Ministry

A Biblically Sound Worship Ministry

  1. Will be overseen and preferably led by the qualified, male elders in the church. Three important words: qualified, male, and overseen. These elders should regularly study God’s Word and read articles and books so they can help lead a faithful music ministry.
  2. Will make it a priority to hire a full or part-time music pastor, who could shepherd the church through music and song. This man will be trained theologically, pastorally, and musically. My point is that if a church has the ability to hire more than one pastoral staff member this position should be at the top of the list.
  3. Will seek to be faithful to God’s Word in content and form. One key to this is numbers 1 & 2.
  4. Will sing God’s Word, especially the Psalms. And will constantly be searching for more of God’s Word set to music.  We are grateful for hymns. But hymns are not God’s Word.
  5. Will study at the feet of God’s people from the past, seeking to use tradition wisely.
  6. Will not be afraid of contemporary songs or forms, but will use them wisely to convey God’s Word.
  7. Will highlight the voice of the congregation. This means most songs, after they are learned, will be accessible to most of God’s people. It means there should be regular singing without the aid of instruments.  It means instruments should support the people’s voices not overwhelm them.
  8. Will sing songs that have a variety of tempos, moods, lengths, and themes.
  9. Will express this variety using the God-given resources in the congregation.
  10. Will be grateful for all they have, but will seek to use all they have to push on to greater Biblical maturity.

<>seo википедия

Read more

By In Books, Worship

Book Review: Desiring the Kingdom

James Smith 2 James K. A. Smith’s Desiring the Kingdom is one of the harder books I have reviewed.  The reason is simple: his main thesis is important and needs to be digested by Christians and especially pastors. But some of his details and unanswered questions left me queasy.

His main thesis, in my words, is that rituals or liturgies shape our desires and our desires cause us to do what we do. Therefore rituals, liturgies, and worship have tremendous influence over our lives. But the influence is subtle. He would argue, and I think rightly, that what we learn in the liturgies of our lives can undo what we learn in a classroom setting. This is one of the reasons why a parent can give a child all the correct doctrine and that child still leaves the faith.  Often the parents’ daily liturgies undo their teaching.  He does a great job of showing how the world has competing liturgies. In chapter 3 he lists the mall, entertainment, and the university as secular liturgies that compete with the Church.  He then spends a long chapter discussing what a historical Christian worship service means and how it shapes our lives.  He argues persuasively that the Christian life is more about formation than information.  Here Dr. Smith is at his best. I really enjoyed his discussion of liturgies and desire, as well as how he illustrated his points. As I read, I thought about the liturgy at my church and what we are teaching.  But I also thought about what I do at home. What am I teaching my children through our various family liturgies? I also thought about what I want, my desires and where they come from. Why do I want what I want?  I do fear that many of my desires are shaped by secular liturgies and not by the Scriptures and Christian practice.

I wrote this review in March of 2012. Since that time my thoughts on the interchange between desires and thoughts have continued to grow. So I wanted to add this to the review. Rational, logical, thought has an important part to play in the Christian life. It is just as important as desires. These two play off of each other and feed into each other. My agreement with Dr. Smith’s main thesis should not be read as our desires are superior to rational faculties. Ideas and propositions change us in tremendous and dramatic ways. The value of Dr. Smith’s book is that it emphasizes a point that has been minimized among the reformed men. But the danger of his thesis is that ideas can be put in the back seat. Here are a few other points in the book I liked besides the main thesis mentioned above.

  1. Dr. Smith is a professor at Calvin College, so his burden is for the university. One of the triumphs of the book is his plea for Christian colleges and universities to be rooted in the local church. He describes the Church as the sanctuary with the university being one of the small rooms connected to the sanctuary.  For too long, universities have seen themselves as separate from the church, instead of an extension of it.  Smith says, “The task of Christian education needs to be reconnected to the thick practices of the church.” (p. 220) This needs to be fleshed out some, but overall the concept is a good one.
  2. Dr.  Smith also does a good job of showing that the quantity of our liturgies matter as much as quality.  Thus our liturgies Monday through Saturday must line up with our liturgies on Sunday. For most of the book this is implicit, but in the last chapter he makes the point explicit as he discusses the Christian university. (p. 226-227) I think quantity is also why people can have a wonderful, biblical liturgy on Sunday and yet, that liturgy not impact their lives. They are immersed in a Christian liturgy for 1 to 2 hours on Sunday, but swimming in secular liturgies the rest of the week.  It is not a surprise that the secular liturgies win.
  3. There is one other point, which I do not remember Dr. Smith making, but seems to follow from his thesis. What he describes works best in a local or parish setting. In other words, his thesis wars against impersonal classrooms and churches where the teachers and pastors have only limited interaction with the parishioners and students. I am not saying it can’t work with larger groups, but it would be more difficult.  The formation he is aiming at would be hard without the personal connection between pastor/parishioners and teachers/students.

Here are the things I did not like about the book.

  1. Despite his rhetoric about countering secular liturgies, Dr. Smith often sounds like he is reciting one.  For example in his discussion of the confession of sin in the worship service he says this, “We create institutions and systems that are unjust, not only because of individual bad choices, but also because the very structures and systems of these institutions are wrongly ordered, fostering systematic racism or patriarchy or exploitation of the poor.”  (p. 178) This sounds like a list of talking points from a liberal Hollywood actor. It is hard to see how this is counter acting any secular liturgy.  Also there is no discussion of abortion or sodomy in the book, despite the fact that these two sins are a primary part of the current secular liturgy. I agree that racism and exploitation of the poor are sins. But is racism more rampant than our culture’s hatred of children? Yet abortion goes unmentioned. It seems that Dr. Smith has been selective in which secular liturgies he is willing to call out. Liturgies such as feminism, the pro-choice movement, environmentalism, and sodomy all get a pass. Of course, the church has been influenced by our consumerist, materialistic culture, which Dr. Smith addresses. But he leaves out obvious sins that accompany greed, like abortion and sodomy. His failure to address prominent secular liturgies, left me raising my eyebrows.
  2. There is little emphasis on the Bible as the check on our liturgies and Christian formation. This is why Dr. Smith can say with a straight face, “The minister raises her hands.” (p. 207) He does quote from the Bible from time to time, but it does not seem to guide his thinking. There will not be true Christian formation without a deep love for and obedience to the Scriptures.  His first chapters are filled with philosophers and sociologists, but very little Bible.  It is precisely because liturgy is so powerful that it must be biblical. We cannot merely say that we are doing Christian liturgy. We must prove it biblically. Dr. Smith did not need to do that in his book. But he did need to show more clearly that the Scriptures were guiding this thinking.  If a Martian read his book, he would never know that the  Bible was the compass that guided Dr. Smith’s thinking.
  3. There is little discussion of the role faith in Christ plays in being formed by liturgies. One thought that kept pounding my head was. “Yes, I know liturgies are powerful. But I also know men and women who have sat under biblical liturgies for decades and yet live rotten, evil lives. How do these two truths fit together?”   The deciding factor in our lives is a growing, vibrant faith in Christ that works itself out in obedience to his word.  Christian liturgies can become instruments of death when someone participates apart from faith in Jesus Christ, the only Savior of sinners. On page 208, he briefly addresses the problem of good liturgies not transforming people. He plans on discussing it in volumes 2 and 3.  But even in the footnote there is no mention of faith as a factor.  Maybe he assumed that faith in Christ was an understood prerequisite to a faithful liturgy. However, I did not get that impression.  His failure to speak of  faith in Christ as the key to liturgy transforming us was a glaring omission.
  4. Finally I disagreed with the quote from Stanley Hauerwas, which Dr. Smith approves of.  “Becoming a disciple is not a matter of a new or changed self-understanding but of becoming part of a different community with a different set of practices.” (p. 220) Paul and Jesus are constantly trying to tell Christians how they are to view themselves. You are salt and light. You were dead, but now you alive. You have been raised up with Christ.  Our self understanding shapes our practices. And our practices also shape who we are.  I know Dr. Smith’s focus is on the latter of these two. But the former is true as well. A proper self-understanding is essential to Christian formation. Proper self-understanding is believing what God says about Himself, the world, and us. However, one of the great acts of the Christian imagination is to view ourselves how God views us.  If I  have understood Dr. Smith correctly, then I think he overreaches.  This might seem picky, but it isn’t. Christian formation is not simply about new practices and a new community. To say that is inadequate and can lead to a presumption that taking part in a Christian liturgy automatically forms me into a Christian.

The book was a wonderful, thought provoking read that made me evaluate numerous facets of my life, my family’s life, and the life of my church.  However, there were some noticeable gaps in the book that I hope he addresses in volumes 2 and 3 of this series.<>биржи для копирайтеров отзывысколько стоит контекстная реклама гугл

Read more

By In Culture

Duck Dynasty’s Cultural Christianity

I hesitate to add my two cents about “Duck Dynasty,” at the risk of revealing just how lowbrow I am, and at the risk of commenting on a show that probably has “jumped the shark,” as they say. (I cannot imagine that this season’s premiere will not be the high point of the show’s popularity.) But as recent articles by our friend Sarah Pulliam Bailey at Religion News Service have indicated, the show’s appeal raises questions about the popularity – and value – of its wholesome portrayal of Louisiana good ol’ boys, their follies, and their cultural Christianity.

First, the good things about the show: it is fun, family-friendly, and frequently hilarious. Uncle Si’s philosophical riffs about his time in ‘Nam, his views on food (and anything else) are gut-busting, as are daddy Phil’s ruminations about his ‘preppy’ sons and his suspiciously fancy grandkids. I knew people like the Robertsons growing up in South Carolina and other southern locales. I know some in Waco. They’re real, or at least as real as you can be when your family and business are being filmed.

The Robertsons are also settled on the good things in life: marriage, children, honest work, the pleasures of place and the outdoors. Spouses constantly roll their eyes at one another, but their love and commitment (on-screen, and hopefully off) is never in question. Sure, you could ask a number of questions about the South (race, poverty, etc.) outside the confines of “Robertson Land” – a delightful term used for the home place – but within, all is right with the world.

That sense of settledness is confirmed when daddy Phil prays at the end of each episode, often over meat caught or shot during the show. He thanks the Good Lord for another day on planet earth, reviews a couple details from that show, acknowledging God’s blessings with thanks, and concludes with an “A-men.” The prayer is not directed to anyone more specific than the generic God, and not usually [UPDATE: see Bobby Ross’s helpful piece on this] offered in Jesus’s name. In many other off-screen appearances, including a May 2013 NASCAR race, the Robertsons pray to and even preach about Jesus. The on-screen Jesus-less prayers are apparently a compromise with the show’s producers to reach a broader audience, and father Phil has reportedly insisted that without some kind of prayers, he wouldn’t do the show.

Here’s the dilemma – what the show presents is a good life, but it is not in any specific way the Christian life. It is cultural Christianity of the kind that still characterizes much of the South. As Hank Williams, Jr. once described country boys, “We say grace, we say ma’am, if you ain’t into that we don’t give a damn.” It’s southern culture, and it’s heavily informed by Christian tradition and themes. Many Christians fit into that culture, but the culture does not equate with Christianity per se: being a good ol’ boy who thanks a vague deity at dinner doesn’t get you to heaven. From what I know of the “real life” Robertsons, they also know that generic southern theism is not, in substance, Christianity. And they use “Duck Dynasty” as a means to reveal their (Church of Christ inflected) full gospel off-camera, to very large audiences.

That’s a bargain I won’t question. But I do wonder how many of my fellow southerners figure that they’re Christians because they grew up in the South, their momma took them to church, they try to do right, and God knows there are many people worse than them. The specifics of historic Christian faith don’t enter into their thinking, and neither do they appear on-camera in Duck Dynasty.

Find out more about faith and Duck Dynasty in Joe Carter’s “9 Things You Should Know about Duck Dynasty“ and 9 (More) Things You Should Know About Duck Dynasty

First Published at Patheos<>абонентское обслуживание апосмотреть позиции а в яндексе

Read more

By In Culture, Worship

Should a Pastor Teach Frankly About Sexual Issues?

I often address sexual sin in my writing, preaching, and counseling. When I do this I try to address it in a frank manner. Is this really necessary? As a pastor, do I need to address things like masturbation and dressing up in the bedroom?  I think this is an important question. Our world is drowning in sexual imagery and language. I can go to any “normal” news page, such as Fox News or CNN and find articles about sexual issues that range from the funny to the profane. Shows on television are frankly sexual, often involving sodomy, fornication, etc. Nudity on television has gone up dramatically over the last ten years. Even if I avoid the internet and TV there are the magazines at Wal-Mart and college girls all over town with far too little clothing or clothing that draws attention to their bodies. (One advantage of living in the North is that winter brings a reprieve to this.)  Does a pastor need to add to this? Is it really his job to deal with these types of problems in a forthright, frank manner? Maybe he should just tell his congregation about Christ and let them apply Christ to their sexual lives?

I believe a pastor must address these issues if he is to be faithful to Christ and his blood-bought Church. He must do it correctly, but it must be done. Today, I want to give reasons why a pastor must address these issues. Later in the week, I will talk about how these issues are to be addressed. We must lay a solid foundation of why a pastor can speak on these things before we get to the how he should speak on them. Throughout this paper I use the word “teach” a lot. Do not assume that I mean only public teaching. By teaching I mean a combination of public and private ministry of the Word. Let me state what used to be obvious, Christian fathers have a great obligation in this area as well. One reason there is so much sexual sin and brokenness in the church is because fathers fail to do their job to teach their sons and daughters in both word and deed about these issues. Here are the reasons why a pastor has the authority and the duty to teach on sexual holiness in a frank manner.

Pulpit 2

  1. The Bible addresses almost every conceivable sexual act. Incest, rape, bestiality, lust, prostitution, adultery, fornication, sodomy, etc. are all mentioned in the Bible (See Leviticus 18). On the positive side you have the Song of Solomon, Proverbs 5:15-23, and I Corinthians 7:1-5. Of course, it is not done in a pornographic way, but these issues are addressed. If the teaching is handled correctly, which  is not easy, there is no reason to be squeamish about discussing them.
  2. Sexual sins are a major part of the Biblical teaching on sin. Here is a list of some of those sins: Lamech’s numerous wives in Genesis 4, attempted sodomite rape in Genesis 19, incest in Genesis 19,  the sexual sin of Israel in Numbers 25, Samson and the prostitute in Judges 16, the rape of the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19, David’s sin with Bathsheba in II Samuel 11-12, Jesus’ teaching on lust in Matthew 5:27-30, Paul’s discussion of sleeping with a prostitute in I Corinthians 6:12-20, and the mention of a “Jezebel” who seduces men to sexual immorality in Revelation 2:20. And I could mention dozens of other passages. Sexual sin and sexual righteousness is not a blip on the Bible’s radar. They are a central theme in the Scriptures.
  3. Based on 1 and 2 above I would argue that it is impossible for a pastor to be faithful to the Scriptures if he does not address various sexual practices and how to approach them biblically.  Of course, he does not have to do this in every sermon. But it should be a regular part of his private and public ministry.
  4. Our cultural context demands a frank discussion of sexual issues. This is one shift from previous generations. We must learn to live in the generation that exists, not the one we wish existed. A pastor in previous generations did not have congregants (men and women) who had watched hundreds of hours of pornography prior to marriage. He did not have congregants whose views of sex, marriage, and love had been shaped by romantic comedies. He probably did not have women who had used sex toys during their college years. He probably did not have men who had experimented with homosexuality. Of course, there has always been sexual sin. But sexual sin has grown more prevalent over the last several decades, especially with the internet, where one can view pornography, find willing sexual partners, and read all about the sex lives of celebrities.  Add into this mix sexual education at the public school, the failure of Christian parents to faithfully teach their children about sexual holiness, and the failure of churches to teach on these matters and the pastor will find that most men and women coming into  his church bring a dump truck full of sexual baggage that they do not know what to do with. A pastor cannot just ignore this baggage. His job is to make disciples.  Sexual holiness is a major part of that discipleship process.
  5. But should a pastor discuss sexual practices not explicitly addressed in the Bible? I mentioned two of those earlier in the post, masturbation and dressing up. Masturbation is never mentioned explicitly in the Bible. Women dressing up as cheerleaders to arouse their husbands is not mentioned either. So does a pastor just ignore these practices?  Can he just assume that people will get this right without any explicit teaching on the matter? The answer is no. Basic teaching on sexual matters and the Gospel will cure a lot of ills. But the pastor is there to shepherd the people. This means he needs to have an answer when someone asks, “Can I dress my wife up as a maid and not be sinning?” That means in private he needs to be able to ask questions that are awkward. Or when he finds out that a young man is masturbating he needs to be able to counsel that man biblically.  The Bible touches every area of our lives. We do not have a verse for every area, but the principles laid out in God’s Word can and must be applied to all areas. So yes, if there are common sexual practices that he finds members are engaged in, even if they are not addressed explicitly in the Scriptures, he should address them.
  6. If the pastor does not address this issue, who will? If the pastor is not clear on these issues who will be? If the pastor will not ask the uncomfortable questions who will? Most of us come from homes where sexual holiness was rarely addressed in any detail. How many of us haven’t look at porn? How many of us had sex before we were married? How many were sexually abused? How many women have had abortions?  We could go on and on. Pastors, we must address these things. No one else will. If we do not address them we will be held accountable for letting the wolves eat the sheep (Ezekiel 34).

Wolf 2

In summary, the Bible gives the pastor the authority and duty to address sexual sin and sexual holiness. Issues directly addressed in the Bible should be taught on, but also common sexual issues not directly addressed should be taught on using Biblical principles. In our current cultural climate a pastor should expect that addressing the past and present sexual sins of his congregation will be a regular part of his counseling, teaching, and preaching load. He should be prepared to shepherd men, women, and couples through these problems.

There are a lot of potential dangers when addressing these matters. For example, can I address these matters honestly without being crass or violating Ephesians 5:3-4? When and where should a pastor address sexual issues? How can they be addressed without causing a man struggling with lust to stumble? How should women be counseled on these matters? I will address some of these issues in another post. It is a thorny path one must walk down to disciple the congregation in sexual matters. But a man who is committed to Scripture and loves his flock has no choice.<>сео копирайтинг ценыпоисковая оптимизация а дешево

Read more

By In Culture

The Twitter Pope

popebanner1“The pope is not the head of the Church, but he is that Antichrist.” It is with that flowery language that the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith describes the highest office of the Roman Church. a As a Protestant who cares deeply about preserving some level of catholicity with my Roman Catholic brothers, I take exception to that clause as does the congregation in which I serve. There are theological reasons to believe the early Reformers were a bit too quick on their assumption, however, it is no small thing to consider that were we in their circumstances that proposition would not look as foreign to 21st century Reformed Protestants.

If the papal office were the Antichrist it is safe to assume that the world is still not under his spell. If Twitter is any indication, the pope has a long way before reaching Bieber-esque popularity. b

Indulgences from Twitter

The Guardian summarizes:

In its latest attempt to keep up with the times, the Vatican has married one of its oldest traditions to the world of social media by offering “indulgences” to followers of Pope Francis‘ tweets.

The indulgences are granted to those who cannot attend the Catholic World Youth Day, in Rio de Janeiro, a week-long event starting on the 22nd of  July. But it’s not as easy as you think:

A senior Vatican official warned web-surfing Catholics that indulgences still required a dose of old-fashioned faith, and that paradise was not just a few mouse clicks away. c

It’s not simply about following the pope’s Twitter account, it’s about praying and accompanying the week-long youth event in Rio. So there are a few qualifications that would keep us from overly trivializing the actions from the Vatican.

New Times, New Methods

This social awareness of the Roman church is a result of a global decline in membership. Pope Benedict XVI stepped down in a time of tremendous turmoil as the well-publicized sex-abuse scandal resulted in an increasing distrust of Roman Catholic leadership. Overall, Roman Catholic churches in America have lost 5 percent of their membership during the last decade, and the decline would have been much steeper still if not for the offsetting impact of Roman Catholic immigrants from Latin America. d These drastic measures taken by the Roman church are a sign that new times require new methods, and that entails seeking new followers.

Pope Francis may prove to be the right man for the right time. He has re-energized the Roman Catholic faith in a short period of time more so than did Benedict in his entire papacy. Francis, who has been referred to as an “unconventional pope,” has shown himself to be savvy politician. He shakes hands and kisses babies with tremendous ease. Gone is the day of the inaccessible Holy Father. Francis cracks jokes and delivers unscripted remarks, much to the occasional dismay of staffers scrambling to keep up. e He knows that his church is overwhelmed with bad PR and he appears to have a clear, albeit unconventional plan to rescue her from  herself. His success is likely to turn the negative perception of the papacy.

“Like a spiritual rock star, he routinely packs St. Peter’s Square for his weekly appearance to bless the faithful. Hundreds of thousands of devotees, perhaps millions, are expected to turn out to see Francis, the first Latin American pontiff, during his trip to Brazil, the world’s most populous Roman Catholic nation.” f This is the new face of Roman Catholicism in the world. The pope may be far from dominating the Twittersphere, but for the catholic youth indulging in the pope’s latest tweet may be the quickest way to improving the church’s reputation.<>продвижение ов яндекс и google

  1. WCF, XXV.6  (back)
  2. Justin Bieber has the largest twitter following in the world with over 42 million  (back)
  3. Ibid.  (back)
  4. Pope Bedict and the Decline of American Catholicism  (back)
  5. Pope Francis the Unconventional  (back)
  6. Ibid.  (back)

Read more