I’m very tangled in with the Christian faith due to my upbringing, but part of my deconstruction over the last decade has really driven me to dig into what this faith looks like historically, and especially in the eastern world where it was formed.
I think there’s a major blind spot in the current Christian leader landscape, especially when you apply a historical view of church leaders in Roman times vs. American times.
To be a church leader then, it was required that you’d have at least a basic grasp of current scientific advancements (compared to science-rejecting stereotypes today) + an understanding of world history (compared to a rejection today) + acceptance of astrological findings (“but the earth is flat!!!”) + a commitment to your spouse (how many more spiritual leaders committing affairs types of news can we handle) + common decency and kindness (……..not even touching this one).
I find that the studies that show that Christianity is declining yearly here in the US is fascinating because if, perhaps, the general consensus was to steer back into historical church history, and you filled leadership with kind men & women who loved their communities and didn’t fight science and know history and how to not repeat it then…MAYBE…the church as a whole would be seen as a safe haven once again. Tom Holland (secular historian) wrote a fascinating book called Dominion — his thesis was the the Christian faith was [historically] responsible for a large amount of early social justice reform + funding of communal help systems + supporting the science and arts. That has sadly died today, and we can see how it’s affected everything.
Sorry, just a long rant I needed to get out.