01-21-2023, 02:28 PM
That the "lay minister" movement started in the 1960s, sometime near the hippie movement (and Jesus Movement) started, might be coincidental, maybe not. Calvary Chapels began around that time, too. I went to a few of those, depending on where I was living at the time. They drew me in because the atmosphere was low pressure and casual, my peers endorsed them, and they weren't antagonizing to the types of things I was into (metal). I know a few pastors who actively supported stuff like that within the church. They were mostly apolitical, not liturgical, and evangelical-lite: you could get involved however you wanted. Definitely not perfect, but they were what I needed at the time. I might still go to one...there's three in the area but they're are all a bit of a drive.
I took an intro to sociology class one summer near home, when I was behind on college credits. The professor himself was fine, but I found sociology unappealing. I don't know if it was a particular kind he taught or something more mainstream. I didn't take any more sociology classes after that. His main point was that people are a culmination of all the influences upon them, and that a person's decisions aren't really theirs but a result of a battle of all their influences. I might agree with something like that, with some details and caveats, but the professor used that axiom to justify all sorts of grossly crazy government programs and overreach. He said, nearly in so many words, that a singular, global government is the only way humans can rid themselves of crime and psychological problems. That pretty much turned me off from learning more.
I took an intro to sociology class one summer near home, when I was behind on college credits. The professor himself was fine, but I found sociology unappealing. I don't know if it was a particular kind he taught or something more mainstream. I didn't take any more sociology classes after that. His main point was that people are a culmination of all the influences upon them, and that a person's decisions aren't really theirs but a result of a battle of all their influences. I might agree with something like that, with some details and caveats, but the professor used that axiom to justify all sorts of grossly crazy government programs and overreach. He said, nearly in so many words, that a singular, global government is the only way humans can rid themselves of crime and psychological problems. That pretty much turned me off from learning more.