Meanwhile, in France

[Ernie]

It isn't. It is some of the most barren ground you can find anywhere. My denomination has repeatedly tried to evangelise this area with no success.

We do now have 1 missionary couple in France, but that is mostly because there are so man non-French people there who are more open to hearing the gospel. (By "non-French", I mean people who aren't, well, French, that is, their ancestors come from a different people and land.) The same story is true in the Great Britain, where the only success from tract work and missionary activity has been non-British people. (And by "non-British", I mean people who aren't, well, Welsh, Scottish, or English.)

Western Europeans, simply put, seem to have inoculated themselves against Christ's gospel of peace. But don't take my word for it - go and spend a weekend passing out tracts and see who accepts them and who doesn't.

If your conclusions about a region are based on whether or not they are receptive to tract ministry, then I suppose you could call the area "barren when it comes to receiving tracts."
But I don't think of tract ministry as being an effective way to reach Westerners. I tried that for a number of years and basically had no results. I'm finding that evangelism via Bible studies and Christian hospitality are much more effective methods.

[Josh]

If your conclusions about a region are based on whether or not they are receptive to tract ministry, then I suppose you could call the area "barren when it comes to receiving tracts."

I haven't distributed tracts outside of the U.S. and America. However, a certain sector of people (basically white middle class and upper middle class people) are simply not receptive to tracts, or to visiting, or to really much at all. Their mind is already made up and they are not interested in hearing the good news.

But I don't think of tract ministry as being an effective way to reach Westerners. I tried that for a number of years and basically had no results. I'm finding that evangelism via Bible studies and Christian hospitality are much more effective methods.

Our overseas missions (which include Europe) don't primarily rely on tracts, although France has a great deal of demand for tracts - there are a few dozen random people who ask for our tracts and distribute them there. We barely even know who they are. Eventually, it was decided to send a tract worker couple there.

Other missions rely on more of the methods as you describe above. However, reception from actual Western Europeans (as opposed to recent migrants, or descendants from various migrant groups) is very poor. They simply are not interested, as a people group.

[Ken]

Just a few observations.
1. French culture has been intentionally mocking Christianity since the French revolution when the masses reacted against an oppressive crown propped up by a complicit church. This should sound warning bells for Christian nationalists, Christian integrationist/integralists in this country, be careful of siding with powerful movements because the pendulum may swing back much harder and much sooner than you think. The revolutionaries threw the church officials out of the building and dressed a young girl in a crown and flowing robes, calling her the goddess of reason and set her on the alter in front. There is nothing new under the sun

2. Secularists and Neo pagans will be more reluctant to mock Islam. This is a good thing. It acknowledges at the root Christianity is fundamentally different than Islam which cannot bear mockery and easily supports holy war. Whereas the root of Christianity is a king who was willing to bear any amount of mockery while eschewing power and revenge. We should be honored they acknowledge the distinction.

3. We need to think of secular Europe as fertile ground for evangelism by the meek and humble. The fields are ready for harvest...

Regarding number 2 - This is a good thing? I don’t think that the take away will be what you posit at all.

France is probably officially the most anti-Muslim country in Europe. With its bans on things like headscarves in schools, government, and even in some public places like beaches. Mockery is something you engage in when you don't have power. When you have actual power you do things like implement repressive laws as the French have done.

As for neo-pagans. They are what? A whopping 1% of European populations? And the majority are probably just doing it for cultural reasons, not out of some deeply held belief in pagan gods. Going to pagan festivals seems like the 2020s version of going go Renaissance Fairs. Something people do more for fun rather than deeply held religious beliefs. Kind of like the Germans who are obsessive about American Indian culture and do "cowboys and Indians" dress up.

In any event, if you are going to engage in historical re-enactments of pagan culture in Europe then it is Christianity that you will tilt against since it was Christianity that came into conflict with European paganism and wiped it out. Not Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or any other foreign religion. The history of paganism is a history of conflict with Christianity not some other faith. Kind of like how even today, Christianity references Rome as the proxy for government power, not China or the Mongols or the British Empire or some other powerful empire. Even though the Roman Empire disappeared over 1500 years ago.

[ken_sylvania]

In any event, if you are going to engage in historical re-enactments of pagan culture in Europe then it is Christianity that you will tilt against since it was Christianity that came into conflict with European paganism and wiped it out. Not Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or any other foreign religion. The history of paganism is a history of conflict with Christianity not some other faith. Kind of like how even today, Christianity references Rome as the proxy for government power, not China or the Mongols or the British Empire or some other powerful empire. Even though the Roman Empire disappeared over 1500 years ago.

So maybe this supposed pagan tableau actually was an attack against Christianity?

[RZehr]

Let me put more effort into what I was saying:

Secularists and Neo pagans will be more reluctant to mock Islam.

Probably so. Islam isn’t known for its tolerance.

This is a good thing. It acknowledges at the root Christianity is fundamentally different than Islam which cannot bear mockery and easily supports holy war. Whereas the root of Christianity is a king who was willing to bear any amount of mockery while eschewing power and revenge. We should be honored they acknowledge the distinction.

In a Europe, which has Crusades in its history, I wouldn’t hold my breath while waiting on people in the European public square to acquiesce that Christianity can bear mockery and doesn’t support Holy Wars. See Olympics and Last Supper. See Crusades.
The Crusades will forever be stains on the faith, pointed out with regularity by everyone. It’s been 1,000 years ago and not forgotten. Probably won’t in the next few hundred years either.

End of the day, I just don’t see a secular Europe saying that the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is that one can take mockery and doesn’t wage holy war, while the other does. And then on that basis concluding Christianity must be true. I find premise that unpersuasive.

[barnhart]

Regarding number 2 - This is a good thing? I don’t think that the take away will be what you posit at all.

It is good when Christianity is perceived as something close to Jesus, not something close to Caesar, something that follows the ethic of Jesus and puts a check on the ethic of Caesar.

[Ken]

In any event, if you are going to engage in historical re-enactments of pagan culture in Europe then it is Christianity that you will tilt against since it was Christianity that came into conflict with European paganism and wiped it out. Not Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or any other foreign religion. The history of paganism is a history of conflict with Christianity not some other faith. Kind of like how even today, Christianity references Rome as the proxy for government power, not China or the Mongols or the British Empire or some other powerful empire. Even though the Roman Empire disappeared over 1500 years ago.

So maybe this supposed pagan tableau actually was an attack against Christianity?

It looked to me to be a pretty amateurish attempt to re-create an ancient Greek Olympian homage to Dionysus that was done poorly. I think your average HS drama class could have done a better job of making a homage to ancient Greek mythology.

European neo-paganism and classical Greek mythology are two completely separate things. And they are actually in some ways opposed.

The neo-pagan movement in Europe as I understand it is more about recovering ancient northern European folk traditions like Norse and Celtic gods and folklore like druids, wicca, and so forth. It is not about returning to classical Greek mythology worship of Greek gods like Apollo, Aphrodite, Dionysus, etc. Which are not the same thing at all. Neo-pagans are not studying Homer and the ancient Greeks. That is actually part of the "western world" and western culture that wiped out European folk traditions at the hands of conquerors like Julius Caesar and the Romans.

Put another way. It was the Romans with their Greek gods who first conquered and stamped out local folk religions across northern Europe and British Isles. The Romans were merciless about stamping out any religious traditions like the Celtic druids that threatened their power. Julius Caesar and later Roman rulers were merciless and engaged in literal genocide to stamp out Celtic druids and other local beliefs that threatened Roman rule. Christianity (also at the hands of the Romans) only came later to finish the job.

As I understand it. The Neo-pagan movement in Europe is more the revival of the ancient northern European folk beliefs and traditions that were stamped out by the Romans. And not the revival of the classical Greek and Roman pagan pantheism of Homer and classical Greek literature.

[Outsider]

In any event, if you are going to engage in historical re-enactments of pagan culture in Europe then it is Christianity that you will tilt against since it was Christianity that came into conflict with European paganism and wiped it out. Not Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or any other foreign religion. The history of paganism is a history of conflict with Christianity not some other faith. Kind of like how even today, Christianity references Rome as the proxy for government power, not China or the Mongols or the British Empire or some other powerful empire. Even though the Roman Empire disappeared over 1500 years ago.

So maybe this supposed pagan tableau actually was an attack against Christianity?

It looked to me to be a pretty amateurish attempt to re-create an ancient Greek Olympian homage to Dionysus that was done poorly. I think your average HS drama class could have done a better job of making a homage to ancient Greek mythology.

As the facts have accrued, I have reached the conclusion that you might be right on the notion that it was supposed to be an Olympian bacchanal. However, it remains in poor taste- and it remains a hypocritical injection of a political position into an event that is supposed to be apolitical. Particularly when you consider that a Brazilian surfer had to remove images of Christ from his boards or face being disqualified, the ban on hijabs, and other things that seek to suppress opinions that might disagree with the message being sent by the opening ceremony.

[Ken]

So maybe this supposed pagan tableau actually was an attack against Christianity?

It looked to me to be a pretty amateurish attempt to re-create an ancient Greek Olympian homage to Dionysus that was done poorly. I think your average HS drama class could have done a better job of making a homage to ancient Greek mythology.

As the facts have accrued, I have reached the conclusion that you might be right on the notion that it was supposed to be an Olympian bacchanal. However, it remains in poor taste- and it remains a hypocritical injection of a political position into an event that is supposed to be apolitical. Particularly when you consider that a Brazilian surfer had to remove images of Christ from his boards or face being disqualified, the ban on hijabs, and other things that seek to suppress opinions that might disagree with the message being sent by the opening ceremony.

I think you also have to understand that the Olympics is not one unified entity.

The Paris organizing committee that put together the opening ceremonies is not at all the same thing as the various governing bodies of each individual sport that make most of the rules for competition and display of religious symbolism during competition. And the ban on hijabs you refer to is not an Olympic ban at all. It is a ban by the French national team not the international Olympic committee. And so only applies to French athletes.

For example, the Brazilian surfboard thing you are referring to happened 2 weeks before the games even started. Reportedly it was the International Surfing Association which is the governing body of Olympic Surfing that told him his boards violated their rules against religious display and it all happened well before the competition even started.

Are those rules appropriate? I tend to think so. Otherwise the Olympic stage just becomes an endless parade of increasingly extreme displays of political, commercial, and religious messaging.

[Josh]

Otherwise the Olympic stage just becomes an endless parade of increasingly extreme displays of political, commercial, and religious messaging.

endless parade of commercial messaging?

Ken, have you seen any of the Olympics in the past 40 years?