It started with Jesus. After his death, his inner circle of followers called the disciples, along with other followers, continued his extensive call to care for and love others. They were called to a ministry of service. Over the years, this generation of workers died and, in turn, was replaced by others. Eventually this fellowship grew in such large numbers it was clear that a structure was needed to deal with uniformity, leadership, theological thinking, liturgy, and various policies. The structure became known as the church.

As the centuries passed, the church grew and grew. Alas, the vast, diverse cultures within this immense church inevitably clashed. Social morés, languages, geography, politics, and other factors led to a division. Common ground in Christ became insignificant compared to immense differences. Perhaps this was a direct consequence of the natural growth of the church.

The church structure found it impossible to uphold uniformity, etc., “Under one roof.”  The result was that the social morés, etc., led to a division where those in the East became known as Orthodox Christians, and the West remained as Roman Catholics.

As the centuries passed, the church in the West grew and grew. In many ways, we might say that the Roman Catholic Church was the first, and perhaps still the dominant, “Multinational corporation” in Europe. In time, history was repeated. The vast, diverse cultures within Europe clashed. Social morés, languages, geography, politics, and other factors led to a new division. The singular, vertical structure of the Roman Church again found it difficult to hold everything “Under one roof,” though it thought it could. This tends to be a common historical mistake.

For some time, the immense Roman Catholic Church was able to suppress those not in conformity. However, it failed to realize and lived in denial of the growth of intense underground discontent. Rather than address the issues, it maintained business as usual until Martin Luther was the pinprick that burst the balloon – so to speak.

Institutions, including various churches throughout history, are more prone to be gatekeepers of the past than risk agents for the future. With the floodgate’s opening, Europe was covered with many innovative ideas about Christianity and how to follow Jesus. At this time, some of the new Reformational thinking, liturgy, and church structures were broadminded. Today, we might think some of these adjustments were conservative adjustments, but at that point in history, they were quite evolutionary.

The staid Roman Catholic Church later made some modifications; however, the damage was done. Protestantism overran and consumed Europe. Some emerging groups became conservative, narrow-thinking denominations like the Roman Catholic Church of that time. They simply replaced traditionalist Catholic realities by aligning with the other end of the spectrum in theological thinking, liturgy, etc. In other words, they had plain churches and very little, if any, Communion. However, they, like the Roman, demanded strict adherence and obedience to “rules.” In some ways they were more like Rome than they realized.

With the rise of the Enlightenment of the Renaissance, and the intensity of the Reformation, slowly led Europe to expansionism. Europe was too small! Nations and religious denominations sought “To boldly go where no man has gone before.” While not space travel, as voiced in Star Trek, the sailing ships of the day traveled the globe looking for trade, people to conquer, and folks to convert to Christianity.

Protestants and some Roman Catholics arrived in the “new world” of North America and began looking for trade, people to conquer, and folks to convert – peacefully or otherwise to their brands of Christianity. The arrogance and self-righteousness of the landed immigrants killed the residents or drove them to reservations; This was so the upright (marginal?) Christians could take the land and resources as their own. While treaties were signed, they only benefitted one signer!

Through time, people have felt oppressed by controlling European governments and religious institutions. They began flocking in large numbers to this new land. They heard the cry of, “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!’’  Those with varying social morés, languages, politics, and other issues entered the new world with dreams of a new beginning.

During this onset of massive immigration, the traditional and historic protestant churches and the Roman Catholics were cordial or tolerant to each other. Some of the Protestant churches, while bearing some resemblance to their foundational mother church, took on new identities in the new land. Eventually we saw new grassroots Protestant churches emerging.

Time moved forward, and across the new land, social morés, languages brought by immigrants, politics, and other factors led to conflicts between traditional Protestant churches, the Roman Catholics, and the newly created Protestant churches.  In part, the newly forming Protestant churches saw themselves as an alternative to the entrenched churches. In part, some saw themselves as the only true church.  These new evangelical churches covered a broad spectrum of thinking and theology.

As time moved further forward, the traditional established Protestant churches, the Roman Catholics, and the new Evangelicals faced the issue of marriage and divorce. Some lived in denial and did not acknowledge the reality of divorce. Others acknowledge divorce but view divorced folks as sinful and second-class. Others were more progressive and slowly began to debate the issue of divorce, remarriage, and church membership.

Divorce and remarriage were a major challenge for Western Christianity long before issues of abortion and gay rights became points of conflict. Society, as so often the case, “evolved” ahead of the churches. Divorce became more an acceptable and commonplace reality. Some churches, however, still refused to marry divorced people. Perhaps at best, some churches may invoke official or unofficial shunning or remove divorced people from leadership positions.

The issue of divorce, however,  is long over. Cohabitation “Without the benefit of clergy” is normal. Some broadminded churches even marry non-heterosexuals. Both these and conservative churches have wrestled with LBGT rights, and now LGBTQIP2SA rights, and abortion. In some churches, these matters were a small ripple, while in others, it created hurricanes of internal conflict. As in the past, some churches lived in denial. All these conflicts between and within denominations can be well described by G.K. Chesterton’s 1924 explanation that “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.”

As time moved forward, Europe and North America experienced a great decline in the historic mainline churches. Today, many are, at best, called the sideline churches. Some are on lifelines, others are on the breadline, while others have flatlined or gone offline! Churches that used to have three Sunday morning services now struggle to have one. I wonder how many churches have a prayer list longer that is longer than the number of folks in the church? The world changed. As Omar Khayyám wrote in the late 10th century, “As the moving finger written and having writ The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.” The influence of the historical mainline churches “moved on,” to the evangelicals. In time, the evangelicals will also experience decline! The evangelicals that usurped the mainline churches are finding themselves usurped by more right-wing conservative evangelicals.

But first, in our postmodern society, we must acknowledge that in recent decades that many mainline and evangelical churches made significant changes to leadership models, theological thinking, liturgy, and various policies. Alas, while struggling with these “insider issues,” they did not want to see or did not want to hear that the outside society was making greater changes. In other words, the gap between Western Society and the Christian faith continues to grow wider and wider. Is there a deadline approaching Western Christianity as we know it?

The newer, more right-wing conservative evangelical churches are nimble and adapt to the influences of our consumer consumption, individualist, emotionally led society. Whereas the churches sought to make the secular world sacred, to what degree are the far-right churches making the sacred reflect secularism?  This is a profound question.  They seem to respond to what people want rather than providing what the church historically offered. “Jesus is my personal savior,” reflecting individualism is their mantra. The shift from seeing how one could serve Jesus in the world to seeing how Jesus could serve one individually is monumental.

Furthermore, as the very right-wing conservative evangelical churches witnessed the rise of social issues such as violence, their natural reaction was to “Restore society to the good old days of biblical values.” While these values tend to be selective, the dream is to return to the days when “men were men, and women were women,” – such as male authoritarian-led homes and white men like “John Wayne” riding into messes and saving the day.

In part, this rise of Christian fundamentalism is a natural reaction to the rise of secularism. It is a push-and-pull situation. It seems that the more society drifted from “historic Christian values, as defined by today’s interpretations,” the greater the power is needed to pull society back. Additionally, the ultra-right-wing conservatives are now the “church militant,” opposing the non-Christian and the non-religious society. For example, did you know that the largest group in North America is the SBNRs – or the Spiritual But Not Religious people?

We might say that the institutional historic and evangelical churches fell into the same trap as the Roman Catholic Church of the Reformation – they did not see the shifting tides in society. Ironically, the often-used reality of making people adapt to the dominant Christian denomination or group prevails. Instead of an agenda of loving, caring, and supporting others, the leading focus is gaining political and religious power and asserting models of conformity.

The church militant has capitalized on postmodern social morés. For example, in our vastly evolving society, making sense of experiences leads people to develop what is perceived as correct thinking. Unfortunately, this sometimes translates into the only way of thinking! The centuries-old model of right thinking leading to spiritual experiences is perhaps over. In other words, church teachings of the past were head-directed and led the faithful to proper religious and spiritual experiences. Sometimes, the teachings were progressive, and sometimes, the teachings served to reinforce the church’s position on issues. The church militant today also seeks to reinforce their position on issues. However, they tend to be aggressive and want to renew past glories, which are found in catchphrases like, “Give me that old-time religion.” Since they are on a path of becoming the “State church,” immigrants are not of their ilk. They do not like the blight of the homeless around their manicured lawns. Instead of looking to help, “Your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” the plan seems to be – send those not like them elsewhere to be another’s problem – the Good Samaritan story was perhaps deleted from their bibles.

It appears that through legal court cases and with domineering political and religious figures, extreme Christians do not want to share ministry or cohabit as churches did in the past. While Baptists, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, and others were theologically and liturgical quite diverse, they lived in harmony with their communities. The church militant, however, projects the message, “We have the only way to Jesus, so conform. Don’t be gay. Pray like us, or we will prey and crush.”

Until the Reformation, the Roman Catholics dominated religious life in Europe. Then, both the Roman Catholics and Protestants dominated Europe because being religious was everything. Today, secularism dominates Western Society, and being religious is very optional. As noted, in our consumer consumption, self-absorbed, narcissistic society, the quiet, humble, serving others ministry of Jesus is often censured or demeaned. Instead, we seem to see models where Jesus is riding a white stallion with a sword, followed by millions of angry, self-centered people who want it and demand it their way. (I made this bit up.)  Where and how can we turn from building temples of worship that feed our personal self-defined needs to the sacrificial mission of building hospitals and shelters and feeding others? How can we return to the reality that Jesus began?

The Rev. Canon Dr. David John Robson holds graduate degrees in theology and education from several institutions and is the author of Postmodern  Spirituality in the Age of Entitlement. He spent his ordained Anglican/Episcopalian ministry equally in eastern Ontario and central Pennsylvania. Beyond parish work, he served as a volunteer hospital, police, and fire department chaplain.