An Ideal Evangelicalism?
December 14, 2008 by iMonk
Somewhere in the previous orgy of comments I’ve had this week, someone asked me to write about “What do you see as the ideal evangelicalism?”
There is no ideal evangelicalism and there’s not going to be. It’s certainly not going to be ideal if I am the architect. So let’s not get out of hand here. I’m a blogger, which tells you about all you need to know on the subject of my credibility.
But that won’t stop me from answering the question in a slightly different form: “What would make for a much better evangelicalism?”
I promise the answers are going to be short.
1) Evangelicalism would be much better if it would admit that the Reformation and all subsequent divisions divided the one true church of Christ. None of those divisions created a new church or recreated the one, true church. All of Christianity today is the broken parts of what should be whole and entire.
2) Evangelicalism would be much better if it learned to see its own destructive, polluting entanglement in culture instead of trying to justify that entanglement as evangelism. Evangelicals have to live in culture, and I believe we should influence it, discern it and build admirable contributions to it, but the most essential attitude we should have toward it is to avoid the destructive, parasitic entanglements with culture that have sucked the life, power and distinctiveness from evangelicalism, especially in North America.
3) Evangelicalism would be better if it would admit and address its authority issue. Evangelicalism consists, to a large extent, of groups and individuals waving Bibles and shouting verses at one another. Evangelicals use terms like “Biblical Christianity” as if they could actually produce such a thing if asked. The assumption that our views are “based on the Bible” has produced a cacophony of contradictory, divisive and endless claims, counter-claims and wars. The evolution of evangelicalism seems destined to be toward the opposite poles of abandoning the concept of authority completely to the individual (usually the charismatic pastor) or creating an authoritarian hothouse where complete submission is obligatory to avoid exile or worse. Evangelicals have an authority problem. They will quite possibly never solve it as evangelicals, but they can make the situation considerably better by directly addressing the problems created in Protestantism and evangelicalism by our various approaches to authority and implementing serious measures to bring some coherence to the situation.
4) Evangelicalism would be better if it rid itself of every form of the prosperity Gospel and pursued spiritual formation and an imitation of Jesus that was consistent with what Jesus and the New Testament teach about money.
5) Evangelicalism would be better if it learned to see, in the various divisions of Christianity, the remaining diversity that once adorned the united church: liturgy, missions, evangelism, spiritual formation, theology, Biblical study, the work of the Holy Spirit, the power of the sacraments. Even if these divisions cannot be overcome, the visible remains of the once glorious body of Christ can still be seen and experienced, even in our broken condition. Evangelicalism should determine, like Merton said, to bring together in itself as many different aspects of the holistic church of Jesus as possible. As someone recently said, we are in a time when the basis of Christianity is being eroded in masse, yet we are still debating the issues of the 16th century divisions and ignoring how irrelevant these are to the world at large. I affirm with my own denomination the need for a Great Commission Resurgence, and it must encompass all Christian traditions, but especially evangelicalism.
6) Evangelicalism would be better if thousands of churches die and many thousands more are born via healthy church planting relationships.
7) Evangelicalism would be better if it brought out all of its riches of corporate worship and put them on display, rather than throwing out what seems old, selling out what seems out of fashion and denouncing what isn’t popular. Evangelicals have in the more ancient, broader, deeper, wider Christian tradition all those aspects and elements of worship that can not only end the worship wars, but bring the focus of worship clearly onto Christ being exalted in all things. Evangelicals are starving by the millions for Christ focused worship and gospel dominated spirituality, but at this crucial hour, we are determined to be trendy, innovative and to get more cars in the parking lot. A sad betrayal of all we know for the wisdom of the world. We’ll be very sorry in 20 years.
8. Evangelicals would be much better off if, as a movement, they had a common set of confessional/creedal/catechetical documents. Further, evangelicalism would be much better if it recognized a shared ordained ministry.
9) Evangelicals would be be much better off it they were poor and had to proceed, in every way, without the assumption that they can easily generate millions of dollars to do whatever they want to do. We need to embrace poverty for the sake of Christ, and repent of our idolatry of all things big, successful, wealthy and powerful. In the midst of this, we should repent of and renounce our dreams of political influence.
10) Evangelicals would be much better off if the Charismatic movement were to become a manistream part of every church, renewing and being renewed; giving and being nurtured itself. Christianity is not the dead, dry, dusty movement most of us see. It is alive with power and emotion; with human and divine energy. We should desire the full manifestation of the Holy Spirit and the continual empowering, freeing, healing, humbling work of the Spirit. Charismatic Christianity needs a Biblical/theological rescue, but mainstream evangelicalism desperately needs the spiritual movement that is at the heart of healthy third-wave and charismatic movements.
I still think that a new council in which Protestants are given a seat at the table as was the intent of the council of Trent should be rejoined.
I know a lot are going to say that Vatican II tried that, well no it didn’t. Protestants were invited as observers but that was it.
A new council and let them have voices and see what happens.
DaveD,
Regarding Calvin and Servetus: Calvin actually tried to save him, it was the civil authority in Geneva that condemned him. And he was only in Geneva in the first place because it had a reputation of being one of the most welcoming places in Europe. Far from telling against Calvin, that story tells of his generosity. A arch-heretic would say “though all Europe thinks I should be executed for my belief, yet perhaps in Geneva they will not.” And even in Geneva Calvin tried to protect him.
Regarding St. Thomas More: He did not turn on the king. The kangaroo court, of course, said he had, but he said that he would do everything he could to support the king, even retiring in silience, but he could not openly support the king. He had divided loyaltied: “Do I say ‘the king has authority over the Church’, thus rejecting the Church or my conscience; or do I tell the king he has not authority to get Parliment to declare himself the head of the English Church, and thus risk standing against my friend.
Martha:
Tsk, tsk. You know you are supposed to go to your local parish.
My sister-in-law is still a practicing RC and she has begun to follow one particular priest. She travels a great distance in order to follow him to every parish they move him to.
A couple of historical notes:
1. The original fundamentals were a joint effort that included Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. They were not meant to express the whole faith, but that part of the faith on which conservatives in various denominations could agree. Only later did this degenerate into fundamentalism in its worst expressions.
2. The Nicene Creed was meant to be such a compendium of what is the Rule of Faith, that is, the guide against which we measure other doctrines. Though not recited in all Christian bodies, it is essentially believed by over 90% of the people who call themselves Christian.
3. H.U.G., I would not take Michener as, in any sense, a reliable historical guide. The argument to which he refers was resolved. It is called the monothelite controversy, and, in fact, to this day Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox all confess the same on that issue: One Person, Two Natures, Two Wills. Michener did not only get the issue wrong, he wrote an anachronism in that they were not going around killing each other. That had more to do with that horrendous set of aberrations during the Middle Ages in which just about every denomination participated (except maybe the Menonites, the Amish, and the Moravians).
4. Alan – Point #1 did not bother me because there were talks between Orthodox and Roman Catholic as late as the 1400’s. Note that the Orthodox have never appointed a Western Patriarch to replace the Roman one. Part of it was certainly that they were historically unable to–until nearly the 20th Century–, but part of it certainly was that there was a subconscious feeling on both sides that the other side still had validity. But the explosion that ripped the West apart led to a set of definitions in Trent that shut the door to us as well. The repercussions of Trent continue to be felt to this day as we talk with Rome.
5. Uhm, have any of you looked at the statistics for Christendom lately? They are quite interesting, and you had better have a very strong belief in remnant theology. The largest group of Christians, bar none, is the Roman Catholic Church. They are so large that every other Christian group could be added together and not surpass them. In 2001, there were about 2 billion Christians on earth (2,000 million for you European types). About 1 billion (1,000 million) claimed to be Roman Catholic. We are the second largest coherent group. This means that either God has been quite content to allow most people who call themselves Christian to live in a massive heresy with a high probability of going to hell or that God may not consider Catholic Christianity, whether RC or EO to be as large a heresy as some would claim. Meantime, it is not that hard for us to make the historical argument that while God used and uses the Reformation to bring about transformation in us, yet He has no intention of those groups being the main representatives of Christianity. GRIN.
6. Final note – iMonk has a point. The largest trans-denominational group are the Pentecostal/Charismatics. One fourth of all people naming themselves as Christians fall into that grouping, whether within Roman Catholicism or Assemblies of God. And probably close to have of all who name themselves as Christians are either Pentecostal/Charismatics or influenced by their viewpoint of God.
The last line was meant to say, “close to half of all who name themselves as Christians are either Pentecostal/Charismatics or . . .”
People who have nasty things to say about the RCC or don’t believe they are Christians: Stop posting here. Go elsewhere. I’ve made it clear in the past that we aren’t having that discussion.
People psychoanalyzing me: Your posts will be edited/deleted. Have a nice Christmas.
Orthodox friends: Sorry to omit the Great Schism. I was doing shorthand church history from the Protestant pov.
It’s also interesting to listen to us evangelicals pontificate about Christianity as if we invented it.
Incredible.
I don’t believe the RCC is infallible, but I understand the history of Christianity. It’s actually pretty simple. You have a church, then two divisions, then three. And a few years into the third division, people start talking like there was no Christianity until their sect.
I was brought up in Landmarkist Baptist fundamentalism, and its view of history is lunacy.
Wonderful post!
Now now to start nailing imonk’s 10 theses to church doors.
Very good on all points.
You wrote ” 3) Evangelicalism would be better if it would admit and address its authority issue.”
Hoo boy!
EVERYWHERE I go there is somebody climbing to the top of the heap. Workplace, government office,every subdivision, you name it.
Remember the parable that said when you go to a feast choose the lowest spot?
Everybody wants to boss somebody around or get open credit for having done something.
You wrote:
“ Evangelicals would be be much better off it they were poor …..”
May I offer a practical suggestion?
If possible, whenever possible, do your own building or maintenance, sort of like Habitat For Humanity. I was part of a party that put a new roof on the parsonage. This was a great experience.
It means more when you do the sweating rather than hring out expensive contractors with little regard for the funds that provided them.
Martha,
As a former evangelical (and one who wishes to import some of the good stuff to Catholicism), let me try to explain.
I was a Southern Baptist, and each church is, in theory, independent and just co-operating with other like-minded churches.
There is NO recognition of other similar churches in the area. If you didn’t go to the one where you had your membership, then you didn’t go to church. (and you really needed to go Sunday morning, Sunday evening and Wednesday evening to be considered a good member)
I never really consider the why’s of that, because that is how I was raised. You went to YOUR church.
To Bothius, yes you should go to your parish church, but I have gotten permission (while living in NJ) to register at a different one. Now, I’m registered at one, but frequently go to others. I enjoy the different flavors and differnet styles.
I don’t believe the RCC is infallible, but I understand the history of Christianity. It’s actually pretty simple. You have a church, then two divisions, then three. And a few years into the third division, people start talking like there was no Christianity until their sect. — IMonk
What really gets me in “alternate church history” is when the “Bible-Believing (TM)” types rag on us Catholics. The only reason they have a Bible to Believe is because our bishops kept it from being rewritten according to the latest Gnostic fads back when years were in the low three digits!
I was brought up in Landmarkist Baptist fundamentalism, and its view of history is lunacy. — IMonk
Is that the “view of history” that says “The Original New Testament Church was Just Like Us, but went off the rails into Apostasy and Popery early on; everyone was Apostate until Our Little Clique Restored the Original Christianity, and We Are The One True Church”?
If so, they share that view of history with the Mormons, the Branch Davidians, the Salafi Muslims, and a lot of small flake groups.
H.U.G., I would not take Michener as, in any sense, a reliable historical guide. The argument to which he refers was resolved. It is called the monothelite controversy, and, in fact, to this day Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox all confess the same on that issue: One Person, Two Natures, Two Wills. Michener did not only get the issue wrong, he wrote an anachronism in that they were not going around killing each other. — Fr Ernesto
I meant the Michener chapter not as accurate history, but as parable. Keep infighting over minor matters, and your REAL enemies are liable to roll right over you.
Boethius: luckily for me, three of the four churches were within our parish so technically – or should I say Jesuitically? – we did attend a parish church
And now we’re living close to our parish church, so that’s okay.
Regarding the following one particular priest – yes, we do have those over here who do that, and some clergy who do trend towards a ‘cult of personality’. But since the bishop is the boss when it comes to appointing priests, and since
the priest is supposed to move wherever he’s told, like it or lump it, and since priests do get moved around about every five years or so, there is not that same thing of a church standing or falling by one particular pastor. That’s part of what boggles my mind in some of the very poignant posts: Pastor Smith leaves, and the whole place goes ka-blooey, and the Jones family is left wandering like the Israelites in the desert looking for somewhere, anywhere, they can go to church.
Fr. Ernesto, I had no idea about the Charismatics/Pentecostals being so big. That’s seriously blowing my mind right now. I don’t even know any Charismatic Catholics.
…my church is struggling and my pastor is mystified because “we are following the Fellowship Church model exactly.” Fellowship Church is Ed “Seven Days of Sex” Young’s church. — Blue Moon
No wonder your church is struggling. Young made a laughingstock of himself and his church with that flake sermon. (As well as kicking in the nuts all of us virgins who remain single.)
Here’s Rabbi Boteach’s comment on Ed “Seven Days of Sex” Young. Something I noticed was that the Rabbi’s alternative emphasizes what I call “Cuddly Companionship”, the “short-of-sex” bonding behavior that is now relegated to “foreplay” and rushed through to get to the Main Event. (And what I was born too late to experience, only long for.)
With entire churches embracing AIG and even iMonk said (Am I right here?) that he thought the SBC would soon come out with a statement about the age of the earth, I don’t think so. AIG followers are fanatics. No quarter allowed. If you don’t agree, you are likely a heretic. End of discussion. — Ky boy but not now
AIG? Is that another acronym for Young Earth Creationism Uber Alles?
Martha and others,
I don’t understand the church hopping in evangelicalism either…and I encourage it in a way. I see and hear folks who sit under a ministry and just whine, complain and lambast the preacher for some really bad doctrine. Prosperity gospel stuff at the good end, oppressive, the Pastor says who you marry sort of stuff at the other. They just sit there and take it. But if the new Pastor changes the worship music they’re out the door.
Simply, if the doctrine is bad enough at a church that you feel the need to publicly criticize the pastor, you need to leave. Protestantism is the land of 1000 churches, if you can’t find one you like, it ain’t the churches. So, my question to the proverbial Jones is, why were you at the church you left and why can’t you find another one?
DD
I’m not eloquent enough to respond except to say “Amen”.
But in my experience the “my way or the highway” attitude is more prevalent among the charismatics.
I think this is at least partly a function of the charismatic renewal not being woven enough into the churches.
I live, work and pray with charismatic Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and low church Protestants and it’s very different than a more schismatic Charismatic paradigm.
>…..“my way or the highway” attitude is more prevalent among the charismatics.
Among what group of evangelicals is that not the basic attitude? Baptists now have a pastoral tenure of about 3.9 years.
Man. This is not a good time to be a Baptist pastor, I guess! That’s raw.
I agree with #10. I put it in context with
“A Growing and Awkward Silence” from the archives.
http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/P/pentecostal.html
Chaplain Mike made a significant point:
“Entrepreneurial pastors running their churches according to business models and principles,” It is not in any pastor’s best interest to find agreement with another church and merge. It is like stores in a small town merging – someone will be out of a job. This is the business of religion, and it results in innovation and advertising and everything else – some good and some bad. In modern terms this is deregulation, and just like Ronald Reagan said, people are trying to “get the (whatever Church) off the backs of the people” and get to the real gospel.
Division is part of the Church – all of Paul’s letters speak of other teachers. Those so-called “judaizers” and “super apostles” were preachers and pastors too. And after Paul got them booted out those church members eventually came together in the same church under one of his appointees. That would never happen today.
Can I add a #11…Abolish the practice of self-service communion.
Joe M, I don’t think the problem is pluralism per se, but the fact that since we have so many different churches and so many people standing up to declare themselves “called” to lead them, that rather than increased discipleship we’ve ended up with a lot of little fiefdoms – with corrupted pastor-personalities and warlike dogmatists randomly taking power in churches all over and preaching exclusivity and suspicion.
Introspection seems to not be a value in many parts of Evangelicalism, and in a church environment noxious with competition for numbers, it has no place. It’s sort of gross to watch; I try to pay attention to as much Protestant media as I can, and the way I often ‘encounter’ Jesus feels hypnotizing and empty.
Michael or anybody, have you ever encountered any data on just how much time Evangelicals devote to “self-feeding” on average? How about a breakdown of what that consists of?
It’s not a subject I am an expert on, and my mail tells me that we don’t agree on what self-feeding is. Jared Wilson is talking about the work of the pastor, and I am talking more about the entire shape of evangelical spirituality, including how you listen to your pastor.
BTW- I’ll stir it up by saying that I think evangelicals, for all their flaws, do a much better job of discipling every age group than Catholics or Orthodox. And I include all evangelicals in that. Evangelism, missions and discipleship are our strong suits, even if they contain our weaknesses.
What? Something evangelicals do well? And better than Catholics?
I’m sure this was just a momentary lapse in judgment
You’re right John. What came over me?
Having just read Michael’s old post on Pentecostals/ Charismatics I am struck by one thing…How grateful I am that I have somehow (read: God’s Grace) avoided most if not all of those downfalls. More than that, I was taught by other P/C’s to avoid those things like the plague. I was also taught that any one who called themselves a prophet had some pretty clear requirements they had to live up to from the Bible and if they said anything that contradicted the Bible what they said, and they, were to be ignored.
The Toronto thing is the major exception. It hit nearly every church I know of. I was never comfortable with it. I suggested that when “God” starts moving in ways that historically have been associated with demon possession (barking like dogs, clucking like chickens) we should be REALLY careful to try the spirits. I’ll be frank, since the Toronto thing swept through, I have seen much less moving in actual gifts of the spirit. The churches just don’t seem to have recovered at all.
DD
“I think evangelicals, for all their flaws, do a much better job of discipling every age group than Catholics or Orthodox. ”
IMonk, I absolutely agree with this. I believe that this is one of the good aspects of a free market model of church. The results are higher biblical literacy (on some level, ownership and involvement. On the other hand, just like fast food, the faithful are getting what they want, not necessarily what they need.
Headless Unicorn Guy
…my church is struggling and my pastor is mystified because “we are following the Fellowship Church model exactly.” Fellowship Church is Ed “Seven Days of Sex” Young’s church. — Blue Moon
“No wonder your church is struggling. Young made a laughingstock of himself and his church with that flake sermon.”
He was a laughing stock long before that sermon. Most of us just didn’t notice. Some friends of ours went there for a while back about 18 years ago. It was physically close to their home and that was a requirement for them for a while. They ran away as soon as they got more mobile.
They have several stories. One about driving a tank or APC up on the stage.
I’ve come to this table late. Entering from an 18-hour day doesn’t help nor being on the West Coast (we always get hand-me-down days from you guys out east). But this is such an important topic I wish I had more time to write and to more functioning brain cells available so I could write with more elegance.
I do want to make one point, which has been made by others, but from different perspectives. I will take my lead from IM’s point # 2, although I could have launched from many points.
The Church has indeed been intertwined in extra-Biblical cultures from the beginning. Some of them were benign . . . some of them not so.
Although the great church fathers did strive to guard against the more toxic forms of them, some of the pegan cultural ornaments were recycled as Christian mores—if not—dogma by the subsequent generation.
I really think, as I believe IM was saying in #2 the “Dream Evangelical Church” would intelligently, and humbling recognize this . . . and from it, repent.
One of the greatest of these extra-Biblical mores/dogmas, in my humble opinion, is Gnostic (or you could call it Platonic) Dualism. The Church has been caught in a state of suspended Gnostic animation, seeing the world as the inferior physical against the superior unseen. While this flirtation or full-frontal affair as been on again, off again over the centuries (on during the first century Gnostics and then on again during the mystics of the dark ages) it has reared its head again within the fundamentalistic movement and transmitted in vitro on into its offspring, Evangelicalism.
A more perfect Evangelicalism would bridge this chasm and once again see this created physical world, including not only the universe, but things like human art, all music, intelligence, human endeavors and science as God-breathed and beautiful (but fallen). Faith would not have to be juxtaposed against Reason, nor a “God thing” from a normal cause-n-effect thing, or a “supernatural healing” from a natural (through principles of human physiology or good medical treatment) healing.
We wouldn’t have to relegate the beautiful emotions that God has created us with (love, hate, depression, sadness, fear, excitement etc) to a “worldly” realm and rename emotions as “supernatural movements of the spirit” to give them any merit. For example, the Dualist can’t feel excited or gitty during Handel’s Messiah (a worldly human emotion), but can feel “moved by the Holy Spirit” (a spiritual thing).
Lastly, if we weren’t Dualist, we wouldn’t have to subscribe to a dishonest form of sanctification or godliness where we must pretend that we are spotless to be of value. In other words, ignoring our brokenness, thinking we have all the answers, thinking that all our motives are pure, that we attend the one true church. A non-Dualist Evangelicalism could honestly appraise their brokenness, ignorance and reliance on God’s grace. The pretending could stop and we could all be real.
Headless Unicorn Guy
“With entire churches embracing AIG and even iMonk said (Am I right here?) that he thought the SBC would soon come out with a statement about the age of the earth, I don’t think so. AIG followers are fanatics. No quarter allowed. If you don’t agree, you are likely a heretic. End of discussion. — Ky boy but not now
“AIG? Is that another acronym for Young Earth Creationism Uber Alles?”
Yes. Sort of.
If you are a Christian and a scientist (pro or am) you’ll likely be embarrassed.
Mark Nikirk
“Can I add a #11…Abolish the practice of self-service communion.”
This seems to really be a fallout of #3. Authority.
“AIG? Is that another acronym for Young Earth Creationism Uber Alles?”
Hmmm. URL got eaten.
answersingenesis.org
I’d definitely agree that non-Catholic Christians are way more excited about who they are and what they believe than we are, for the most part. I’m still suspending judgment about the pros and cons of that, but while we could definitely use some Evangelical passion, I’m not at all sure that importing cart-blanche the culture-war machinery that’s so useful in convincing Protestants that they are “different” from other folks is a good idea.
A couple of years ago we had a “Catholic music” concert at my church – that consisted of a dude playing a couple worship songs… and some Billy Joel covers.
We don’t go in for the -Jesus as Entertainment- spectacle much in our church. The dude went over like a plane crash.
I like to think that’s what growing up Catholic is good for; we have the exact opposite of the whole Wretched Urgency / Get All The Sin Out of Your Life And Replace It With Puerile Crap syndrome. Among the many things we don’t do with Him that we should, it’s to our credit that we don’t date Jesus, we don’t rock out with him, we don’t declare him to be our buddy, and we don’t use him for entertainment.
We eat Him.
If your belief-system involves sharing a weekly meal of the trans-substantiated flesh and blood of The Son of God, you pretty much don’t bother trying to pile any more gimmicks on top of that.
Because “Buddy Jesus” just strains credulity.
Heh, I got a real kick out of “Buddy Jesus” in Dogma. As offensive as it was, I could totally see us doing something like that. I mean, if we hadn’t actually done the WWJD fad, I bet we’d find that offensive if it popped up in a movie like Dogma.
Michael,
I love most of what you wrote in this post, and I have serious misgivings on *aspects* of a few things (mostly involving #1 and #3, as a Reformed Christian), but I am going to refrain from going into those misgivings, as they relate to the Catholic/Protestant issue, and I don’t want to even appear to be starting a debate here.
A question– have you read Norman Geisler’s piece in his Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics on the church and the formation of the canon? I basically agree with his formulation, though I admit that even he is probably not able to address every aspect of the “authority” issue for evangelicals.
Mark Dever once explained Christians’ differences in Bible interpretation in a basically epistemological way. He said that the differences are a result of the Fall– a result of the fact that, post-Fall, *no one* sees *all* truth in a completely clear way. Sometimes, this “not seeing” is willful; sometimes, it is a result of our finite understanding.
On #10, at this point, I am neither definitively Charismatic *nor* cessationist, but I have to say, I don’t see the Orthodox Presbyterian Church *ever* embracing the Charismatic movement… but some SBC churches have done so without even realizing it, so I can never say never!
Good words from Patrick Lynch:
“Introspection seems to not be a value in many parts of Evangelicalism, and in a church environment noxious with competition for numbers, it has no place. It’s sort of gross to watch; I try to pay attention to as much Protestant media as I can, and the way I often ‘encounter’ Jesus feels hypnotizing and empty.”
This is part of why I value the Puritans. They admittedly went far too far in certain ways, including with introspection at times (it could become morbid with some of them), but at least, they understood that introspection has a *place* in the Christian life. With the way that Michael writes about “evangelicalism” sometimes (the Osteens, seeker-sensitive churches that have all but abandoned the Gospel, and so on), I wonder if Reformed Christianity even has a place in the movement anymore…
Patrick Lynch:
Your comments had me laughing today – “… we don’t use Him for entertainment… we eat Him” – although true, it would have been a great line in a skit.
They have several stories. One about driving a tank or APC up on the stage. — Ky boy but not now
That would only work if you did it when passing the collection plate — traverse the main gun towards the audience and announce “THIS IS A STICKUP!”
(Do you think I just gave TBN an idea? Excuse me, a “Revelation Laid onto Paul & Janet’s Hearts…”?)
There is a natural law……everything changes. Our physical bodies begin to die just after conception (maturing/being used up/ageing). Same with the universe (continually expanding/being used up/ageing). Life for all things physical has a God appointed length. In nuclear fission, the chaotic movement results in a glorious product….energy. Since division itself is a natural law…could not the broken parts of the ‘church’ over centuries be a good thing.
Change is healthy and invigorating. All the broken pieces of churchdom are the result of broken communities due to the law of ‘expansion’. The broken pieces of the universe are very different and very necessary to maintain its cycles. Each ‘part’ makes a statement by its very physical existence. TRUTH is HUGE because GOD is HUGE. One religious faction or denomination cannot contain the whole truth of God…..not possible…never intended to be that way. He uses natural examples to reveal spiritual truths.
Shouldn’t we allow the same ‘parts’ in the Body of Christ? Ed Young, for example, has not been positioned to speak to 16th century Christians. He speaks to NOW when fidelity in marriage is laughable by many. His message is that unity between a Christian husband and wife is necessary for function as ‘one.’ And that unity is as much physical as spiritual. The very church we love is symbolized by the marrige of the Bride and Bridgroom. Life itself is explosive. Why wouldn’t we see the same thing in something as DYNAMIC as the Church. The problem is that some do not recognize that the pieces make up the whole.
Carolyn
“Shouldn’t we allow the same ‘parts’ in the Body of Christ? Ed Young, for example, has not been positioned to speak to 16th century Christians. He speaks to NOW …”
My dedicated Christian friends who were at his church 15 years ago will tell you, politely, with apologies to Barney Fife:
“He’s a nut!”
Ky boy but not now, I didn’t mean at all to contradict or question your comment concerning the friends who attended Young’s church. I only meant to make the point that…though Young and other pastors/denominations seem to be ‘off the wall’….we need to be careful not to hinder something God uses for benefit.
We all have the same concerns. We want the church to be all it can and should be. And we all likely are not quiet sure how to accomplish such a magnificent task.
Martha:
I am so relieved to hear you were technically within your parish boundaries.
While it is true that many Christians describe themselves as searching for a new church home when the main pastor leaves, it is because they are truly knit together. Because I was raised RC, I was very reluctant to make tight connections with anyone at church. I hated it when people greeted me at the door and wanted to hug. I was used to going to mass, offering the sign of peace, and leaving without ever speaking to anyone. I still struggle with the whole hugging thing but I do have the community thing incorporated into my life now.
I do think the RC are correct in moving their priests about every 5 years or so. It does keep it fresh. Of course, the people become very attached to the building and as RC churches are closing down, you end up with those rebellious RCs camping out in their sanctuaries begging the bishop to keep them open. Martha, you need to go teach them how to submit to authority. They are too uppity.
Way off in the future (post internet) I foresee unity in the church because, if for no other reason, I bet Jesus gets his prayers answered. John 17 occurred BEFORE our Lord called out to his Father and got crickets while hanging on the cross.
“Yes, Son, I heard that. I’m working on it in my own way, in my own time.” (God answering Jesus’ prayer in my imagination.)
Remember “this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” 2 Peter 3:8.
So, we’re either 740,000,000 years (1000y/day) in or we’re at the beginning of “day 3″ (1day/1000y). I prefer thinking in terms of the latter… I say “How long, oh Lord?!” and He responds “Give me a week, Jim.”
So… what if we’re almost to the mid-point of church history? 60th century believers will be looking back at those “early church Christians” at the turn of the 21st century who remember life before the interweb… Hopefully, the current blogosphere will not look too embarassing to our future generations in 4,000 years. I wonder how all of our blogposts (and other data trails) will be compressed, archived, and stored for all their little eyes to see? What will they do with the moment-by-moment record of our thoughts, rants, feelings, and general daily activities? What will they think of our denominations? Our goatees and metro/retro untucked rayon shirts? Our scandals? Our powerpoints, guitars, small groups, and websites?
Maybe unity was formerly possible because so many had no clue what so many others thought about so many issues. We are so much more exposed and amplified these days… and eventually we tear each other apart. Are those correlated phenomena? Is the church suffering a bad case of “too much information”?
Jim,
Jim, JOHN 17…THE PERFECT…what a beautiful thought!
The truth for me..from my experiential relationship with God is the following: THE PERFECT CHURCH already exists and is alive and well. It is ‘in the world but not of the world.’ It consists of those ‘lively stones’ spoken of by Jesus. He is the CHIEF cornerstone.