I got my first copy of First Things in the mail yesterday, a respected Catholic periodical that welcomes contributions from different (conservative) traditions on the subject of faith in the public square. One of the many articles of particular interest in this month’s issue was one entitled “What Is Anglicanism?” by Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of the Church of Uganda (not available online). In it he draws attention to the crisis in Anglicanism, yet acknowledges that it difficult to reduce to a one-size-fits-all description. Is it over human sexuality? Globalization? Authority? Identity?

More »« Less

(EDIT: In light of Joel’s comment, I should make this a little more clear than my post implies. David, this is not aimed at you specifically. Though I am coming at the from a non-RCC perspective, I’m throwing out a general observation on Church authority that we all seem to be poking at without addressing squarely.)

Appeals to our individual Magesteriums, Councils, Conferences, Confessions, etc. as authority are all well and good, but I have yet to be convinced from the scriptures that any of these man made councils have any legitimate claim to global authority. If we take a trip in our time machine and look at the earliest churches, then sure, they were all lead by the authority of the apostles, and it is from them that the churches received their doctrine. And where do we get the authority of the apostles today? Is it from bishops, priests, pastors, denominational hierarchies, etc.? No. It is from the scriptures themselves.

The New Testament canon is the record of the teaching of the apostles to which believers devote themselves. (Acts 2:42) While the apostles were alive, we could appeal to them. At some point, I’ll grant that we do need leaders ,who are real live people today, to read, understand, and interpret these texts, then teach us also to read, interpret, and obey them. This in itself, however, does not authorize any of the above mentioned authority structures to assume an unaccountable position of leadership. All of us are a priesthood of believers, all of us who belong to the Kingdom of God have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and all of us at one time or another may be called upon to raise the BS flag if someone else teaches a false doctrine. Does it work that way in practice today? Of course not, but I blame that on laziness.

Any one of us can appeal to the authority of our individual denominations, and we often do. But from the scriptures, and this will probably point at David’s church more than anyone else’s, but I aim this at us all, it makes more sense to see the ultimate guidance of the Church residing with God, given to us today by the third person of the Trinity. Below that, whether you look at independent churches, confessionally organized denominations, or hierarchies of bishops, priests, and deacons, I can go as far as councils of leaders praying and studying through issues together. If you like, I could even see one or a few top leaders being regarded as first(s) among equals. But what I do not see, and have never been convinced of, is the idea that one man (save Jesus Christ himself) has any claim to authority over the global Church.

If your pastor proclaimed a three day fast for the congregation [not for any locally significant reason, but just a general “God wants us to do this for spiritual reasons” thing] would you participate?

No.

It’s all in the justification you gave. I can think of possible occasions when I would participate in such a fast. But the spectacle of such a dramatic request would cause my Manipulation! proximity sensors to trigger and the Herd! alarm would not silence until my little legs had carried me to the nearest pub for a plate of fish and chips and a couple or seven of Mark’s ESBs.

Travis, I didn’t realize the NHL was still around. Huh. Who knew?

If I may shamelessly cross post something from one of my sites, I’m curious about the pub’s thoughts on this:

Anthony Esolen asks some reflective questions at Touchstone’s Mere Comments.

After looking back at the end of medieval Christendom, then moving
forward to what he sees as the end of the Nation, he asks the following:

[I]f faith is not the source of a people’s prime identity and loyalty,
and if the nation is not, then what is? What do we revere and obey?
We are made for reverence and obedience; something must occupy the altar or the flag.

As I see it, we reverence our tribes or ourselves. By tribes*, I
mean any group or activity around which we organize our lives. It could
be a sport, a job, a hobby, a club, etc. In that sense, I see many
Americans (megachurch suburban Americans, specifically) treating their
church more like a hobby or a club than a small part of a larger body
at all times and in all places who belong to the kingdom of Jesus
Christ.

If there is one good thing coming out of the missional conversation,
it is the emphasis of Christian Community. One could make the
accusation that this is one more tribe among many, but there is more to
it than that. There is a seeking after that elusive unity Jesus prayed
for in John xx, over and above the schism and denominational
splintering the body of Christ has endured.

* For another idea of what I mean by tribe, read Cory Doctorow’s Eastern Standard Tribe. (Be aware that some of the content is PG-13)

For those who need to hear it, these are the words of Derek Webb’s “Wedding Dress”

Phillip: Ah, the challenges of communicating with one another without the advantages of voice inflection, volume, and non-verbals. Actually, I get your point, and its much easier to swallow. Thanks for clarifying.

And for what its worth, I agree with your complaint about EO’s claim to be the one true church (as you said, not an exclusive trait, but one they have perfected). For whatever reason, I’ve been able to read some very polemical EO writers, roll my eyes past the dogmatic stuff, and learn from them. As a wise person once told me, “you just gotta eat the meat and spit out the bones”.

Phillip: This whole conversation was started because I was called to task by Josh concerning a line I threw in to a post on liturgy and sacrament. That’s all I’m doing with you on your statement:

I’ve read enough about the EO from non-EO-approved sources to never be impressed with them, and all of the EO-approved stuff I’ve read has rung hollow as a result. I’m not a fan.

That first post sounds very comprehensive about anything any EO thinker has ever written. Now you seem to be qualifying your criticism to EO doctrine, which you say is nonsense. Either the only thing you’ve ever read by EO sources has been nonsensical doctrine, or you are backtracking.

Maybe you think I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill. However, in my view it is never a small thing when any Christian is so incredibly dismissive of an entire part of the Body of Christ – especially one with such a long history of great endurance, which from my view in and of itself elicits at least a modicum of respect (unless, of course, you do not consider them a part of the Body of Christ). Attack their thinking, yes. Attach their doctrine, fine. But as members of one another, aren’t we called to at least attempt to see the good and show respect to one another?

More »« Less

Josh: Nice try, but technically not a sect. As your beloved Wikipedia states:

In the sociology of religion a sect is generally a small religious or political group that has broken off from a larger group, for example from a large, well-establish religious group, like a denomination, usually due to a dispute about doctrinal matters.

Phillip: I promise never to call you pastoral again! Let me see if I get your point – you respect some Orthodox people, but you dismiss the Orthodox way of believing and living the Christian life as unimpressive and hollow. Well, like I said the first time, if you feel comfortable basically dismissing the second largest communion of Christians in the world as living a shallow and unimpressive Christian life, then have at it. Its a free country. It is, after all, more about a way of life than a system of thought, isn’t it?

Josh: You know too much. And I don’t really care who is in first, second, or third place. Quick, name me a major Christian sect named after a person(ality).

Josh: You noticed I didn’t include you in the post to Phillip, right? You don’t really come across quite the same way. (JN) But that’s OK. I still love ya like a br… um… distant cousin. (JN)

But seriously, couldn’t your statement about Schmemann be made about the leading thinkers in every movement? Aren’t the best thinkers always looking most critically at their own group? Isn’t this how God brings about change? (Take your man Luther, for example) Isn’t that why God has always given us prophets?

So I don’t think your observation about Schmemann is really a problem pertaining to EO at all.

Sorry, Jesse and Greg, but I’ve read enough about the EO from non-EO-approved sources to never be impressed with them, and all of the EO-approved stuff I’ve read has rung hollow as a result. I’m not a fan.

Phillip: You come across to me as a very kind and pastoral man, so it surprises me to see you pretty much completely dismiss the second largest communion of Christians in the world. C’mon – do you think you would have such a response if you had an Eastern Orthodox priest who was a friend? I’m not saying they’ve got it all figured out or that they are the “true church”, but it is hard for me to believe that anybody could look at the Eastern Orthodox Church objectively and dismiss them as “hollow” or unimpressive.

Have you read Frederica Mathewes-Green, Alexander Schmemann, or Patrick Henry Reardon? Please take two doses of each and call me in the morning. If you don’t feel better, I’ll be surprised.

JS, Jason & Phillip: Great points on the whole personality driven mega church discussion.

I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the role I have assumed in the discussion. After all, it started as a throw-in line in a post in which I was agreeing with Josh about the value of the liturgy and sacraments. However, its good to be held accountable even for throw-in lines.

As I reflected on this discussion, I realized that my perception of Luther and the Reformers has been influenced by my exposure to several Eastern Orthodox writers. They point to the Great Schism as essentially a disagreement over one man being the final authority in the church. The Eastern church was/is presided over by a council of bishops who were/are more or less equals. Actually, they contend that God rules over the church via the Holy Spirit through the whole church. I realize this could splinter off into several different debates (not necessarily a bad strategy – Paul used it a couple of times when he was in a tight spot), but my focus in relation to this discussion is what the Eastern Orthodox say concerning our relationship to doctrine/approach to Scripture. These authors say that it started with the bishop of Rome being given sole place of authority, and then it exploded with Luther and the Reformers. Through the Reformation, there was a “little pope” over each group determing what the scripture said. In today’s evangelicalism, they say, every man is “a pope unto himself”, determining for himself what the Scripture really means.

More »« Less

Greg and Josh, I’m enjoying your discussion, and it raises a bit of a sideways question. Could some of the rise of the modern megachurch and the super-stardom of some of today’s pastors have more to do with technological advances in communication media more than the reformation itself?

When the printing press gave rise to mass communication, do you think that had anything to do with the spread of ideas that otherwise might only happen in isolated pockets?

Fast forward to today. What effect do you think radio, TV, and the Internet (with special focus on the celebrity culture that developed around visual media) has had, and is having on things?

Josh: I find your latest argument more compelling than the previous one. Similarly, lurker John Halton of Confessing Evangelical emailed me with his thoughts on the matter:

The point is that you really can’t blame people for things that are
the consequence, not of what they themselves taught or did, but rather
of other people’s misinterpretation or misunderstanding of those
actions/teachings. If a large number of Protestants want to believe
that Martin Luther is the poster boy for “leaving” one church (as
opposed to being thrown out) and “starting” your own church (as
opposed to continuing to preach the gospel and administer the
sacraments in the same place as before), then that’s up to them. But I
don’t think the actual career of Luther bears that out.

I’ll grant that you guys might have a winning point there. However, I have a feeling one could develop a pretty convincing case to the contrary – tracing the roots of the personality-driven evangelical church right down to Luther and the gang. I don’t have time to give it my best shot right now (plus this point is really not that vital to me). Who knows? – maybe the Eastern Orthodox are right and the problem really goes all the way back to Augustine! : )

Josh: Your point only strengthens my original contention that Luther and the Reformers planted the seeds from which the evangelical cult of personality plant grows. Men with resources, such as Frederick the Wise and his brother John, always perpetuate the cult of personality by placing their resources/support behind the ideas and giftings of the leader. It is still that way today. It didn’t take long for Luther to catch on, did it? He was soon pairing up priests and nuns with glee.

I’m not anti-Luther at all. I’m just trying to make the point that the actions of Luther and the other Reformers – even if they came from the noblest of intentions – caused them to become the personalities upon which those who did desire to “start a new church” focused. Zwingli took things to the next level. Before long, the Radical Reformers were taking things even further, insisting that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were too much like Roman popes. In other words, one might say, the Radical Reformers believed that the Lutherans and Calvinists (notice the names of those groups) were too personality focused.

Josh: Realizing that today’s Lutheran churches are, as you said, (one of the) most doctrinally and liturgically unified tradition(s) in all of Western Christianity, and also realizing that the Catholic Church of the 1500’s desperately needed reform, I anticipated your defense of Luther and the Reformers.

However, I don’t think the current state of the Lutheran Church in any way exonerates Luther and other reformers from the trickle down effect of their actions. I’m not bright enough or brave enough to act like I know if there was any other way – but there were others before Luther and the Reformers (such as Saint Francis) who brought reform (or at least repentance and renewal) to the Church without starting a “new church”. It seems too obvious to state that the concept of “starting a new church” has been expanding exponentially ever since!

Imagine someone inciting a crowd to protest, and the crowd responds enthusiastically, swelling to huge numbers. Eventually the crowd becomes violent, and turns from protest to destruction. The original instigator tries in vain to quell the crowd. Is the original instigator responsible for the actions of the mob? In some ways, no. In some ways, yes. This is not a direct analogy of Luther and the Reformers, but a simple point that just because one would not embrace the end result of his actions, he is not necessarily free from blame; therefore, the current state of the Lutheran Church in no way absolves Luther and the Reformer’s actions pertaining to today’s evangelical church. I believe that they laid the foundation on which others built far beyond their original intention. For that matter, hasn’t that pretty much always been the case throughout history?

In church history as in our personal lives, there are repercussions not only for the sins committed against us, but also for our sinful reactions – albeit almost inevitable – in response to those sins.

Michael: This approach that Riverview (whoever that is) is taking is refreshing. Not only that, but it is also extremely rare. Actually, I don’t recall ever hearing of a church like that. My buddies and I used to dream about such a thing in my college days. I hope and pray that this kind of shared leadership/ resistance to being built around personalities is the future of evangelicalism. I hate to be a skeptic, but – knowing the world of evangelical pastors as I know it – I find it highly unlikey that Riverview is a preview of the future. To be blunt, it is also doubtfully a preview of Riverview’s future. Have you noticed that we men love power and prestige? Have you noticed that we love building edifices to ourselves?

For example, the story of our local evangelical mega-church is one of beginning with exempary shared leadership from a strong group of elders. Dynamic growth. Over the years, leadership slowly but surely fell to the strongest, most dynamic leader in the group (which he willingly “assumed”). Though the structure never officially changed (not substantially anyway), the dynamics did greatly. Now this man – who is a godly man worthy of admiration – is nationally known and has become “bigger” than the church. The church has been struggling for several years now with the spiritual life of their community. I almost forgot to add that this pastor – a former college football player now in his 50’s – had to step down from daily operations a couple of years ago because of health problems.

Another interesting point about this church that needs to be made related to this conversation is that they have gone multi-site (they were already multi-service). This wasn’t really done so much to handle growth as to encourage growth – broadening the appeal, with each venue offering a little bit different worship style. I think it would be disingenious for most of these churches to imply that they are doing multi-site simply to “handle growth”. On the contrary, most of them are doing multi-site to encourage growth by providing a better product to the customer.

Kent: Looks like you made it back home. How’s things with your mom?

Michael: For the life of me, I can’t see why you and Denise feel trapped. As others have said, you guys have tons to offer and I feel certain your options are endless. Just get a dart, say a prayer, chunk it at a U.S. (World?) map, pack up, and go. : )

I’ve been reading your conversation with Frank Turk. You really are a glutton for punishment. Is he an Arkansan? I no longer run in Baptist circles, but I can easily imagine a SBC pastor going to a RCC Ash Wed service being viewed as controversial and a cause for concern. Of course this depends on the individual church.

It seems to me that a major factor is the size of the town/church. The greatest cooperation between denominations seems to take place in smaller towns – where people are more likely to view their community as one big family. Plus, rural pastors are less likely to be egomaniacs – as the nature of their work indicates. My hunch is that the traditional southern city (big town to medium size city) where the SBC dominates like Little Rock, Huntsville, or even Memphis would be the most likely to have quite a few fiercely territorial SBC churches who would strongly resist their pastor attending a RCC Ash Wed service.

Michael: By the way, I noticed that Stetzer mentioned Reggie McNeal in his presentation. I really like McNeal’s book The Present Future (of which I have written a review, if you are interested). McNeal does a great job of taking the commonly held convictions within the broader emerging movement and applying them in the local church context in very practical ways. The book is very readable and easy to follow even for lay people.

Stetzer referred to McNeal as the “recent” director of leadership development for the South Carolina Baptist Convention. Do you know what he is doing now? After reading the book, I was a little surprised he still worked within the SBC. He’s definitely pushing the envelope.

I thought this article in Christianity Today about the sign of the cross was interesting. It made me wonder what Protestant leader I should thank for abolishing the sign of the cross from Protestant practice? Surely that development was not another contribution of that fuddy dud Zwingli?!?

Thanks to Ted Olsen, Online Managing Editor for Christianity Today, for the heads up on the AMiA’s response to the recent action of the Anglican Primates.

First of all, they commend the primates’ action; but they add that the problems addressed are only the symptom:

We believe it should always be remembered that while much of the focus of this recent primates’ meeting has revolved around The Episcopal Church’s violations of the 1998 Lambeth Resolution I.10 concerning human sexuality, those violations have, in fact, been only a painful symptom of the much greater crisis of faith and leadership that presently exists within TEC and the many questions that TEC has raised in recent years regarding the authority of the Scriptures as our “standard and ultimate rule of faith.”

Concerning the Primates call to return to the Episcopal Church under the new pastoral scheme, they responded “thanks, but no thanks.”

“We remain thankful that the AMiA enjoys a secure home in the Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda and the assurances of our Archbishop that this will not change without our request and/or consent. Given our canonical standing within the Province of Rwanda, the Anglican Mission is in no way expected to be placed under the oversight or authority of either the proposed Pastoral Council or a Primatial Vicar, but we will support and pray for our brothers and sisters in the Communion who may be entering into this interim arrangement.”

Interestingly, the AMiA has positioned themselves as “a missionary movement of the Province of Rwanda.” This suits them, as this group seems intent on being an adamantly biblical, fiercely evangelistic, Holy Spirit-filled cutting edge church planting movement. More power to ‘em.

Michael: WOW! That Calvary Chapel article is explosive. I’m surprised at the lack of response. I have mixed feelings about it. Initially, I was thinking it was a hit job. I still am unsure how I feel about the appropriateness of the article. It seems apparent that the article has an agenda, and only presents one side of the story. Having said that, there are obviously some legitimate concerns.

The most interesting aspect of the article from the BHT point of view is the commentary that it makes on the overall culture of nondemoninational Evangelicalism in America (around the world?). I thought Chuck Smith Jr’s comments were insightful:

Chuck Smith Jr., who was recently expelled from the association for theological reasons, says he is not aware of many of the details spelled out in this article. Still, he believes that Calvary Chapel holds a lesson for evangelicals. Entrepreneurial men with little training start Bible studies, grow churches, or head to the mission field. Their ministries become multimillion-dollar organizations. Most of the time, these churches and ministries are successful. But failures loom large.

I’m not sure these churches are really successful “most of the time” – especially if we evaluated them on a long term basis. It is quite telling that the guys who lead the most “successful” (size=success) Evangelical churches are not necessarily the most Christ-like men, but rather the ones with the most business savvy. How did we end up here?

Wow, I step out of the Tavern for a few days and this is what I miss: – Joel Osteen is declared to be the anti-Christ. – Blue Raja resigns?!? Say it ain’t so! Blue, could you at least give us a farewell speech, please?

- JACK CONSIDERS ATTENDING A VINEYARD! Jack, Jack, Jack. I’m not sure what to say, except that I find it amusing that you would describe the Vineyard worship service with obvious disgust, even disdain, and yet still consider attending the church. I don’t care how nice the people are – if you can’t stand the worship service, do everybody a favor and don’t attend the church. Here’s an idea: attend the small group, but go to worship at the Episcopal Church. That type of behaivor is becoming more and more common. Not that I necessarily think that is the best scenario, but it might be at least a temporary solution. If the V guy doesn’t seem interested in you attending small group only, then you’ll know something about him.

Jack, one more thing. You’re married, right? If so, then where your wife wants to attend would move to the front of the line as far as considerations go, IMO.

I love the BHT. I love Michael’s passion and how effectively he delivers his passion with words. Unlike most folks at the Tavern, the BHT is pretty much my only online hangout. My life is too full for scampering about the blogsphere. So the BHT is the one online place I have chosen to be stretched and hopefully grow as we wrestle around with our perceptions and ideas related to the church and the Kingdom. Thanks to each of you who have been willing to tangle with me. I’ve benefited greatly from it. Our common bond, I think, is our dismay over evangelical shallowness, and a desire for the substance and awe of the Kingdom. What that looks like and how we get there are the questions that generate such lively conversations – conversations that I hope continue onward and upward into the future!

Michael, one thing that you posted a week or so ago that has stuck with me is the idea that Lazarus authored the Gospel of John.

More »« Less

Michael: I am interested in reading the story about protestants converting to EO, but the link isn’t working for me.

Kent: I share your categorical dismay. If you are submitting to the uncategorical categorization, then I will follow you into the categoriless abyss.

BUT I’M GOING DOWN IN A BLAZE OF GLORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesse, is EO the ‘cultural/mainstream’ religion of Romania?

IOW, would EO be to her as a Romanian Protestant akin to what the RCC would be to an American Protestant…in which case if it is enmeshed with the culture to some point there may be a cultural disdain even though there may not have been direct (aka ‘participatory) involvement.

Jason, I’d love to hear more about your adoptive process…we are in the midst (meaning ‘long wait’) of ours. My iPod sags in the middle from the weight of my as-yet unheard NTW teachings…

Jesse, I find Larissa’s resistance to EO as intriguing as your attraction; especially as regards your cultures of origin. IOW, I wonder if you are making my point ;-}

Kent: Really well stated post, most with which I wholeheartedly agree. I do think that much of the recent uptick in interest with EO comes in part from a “distance makes the heart grow fonder” affect (including me). However, I’m not sure you can make that case about Catholicism. Sure, Rome is home base, but two points. First, the American RCC is quite different from any other expression and, second, RCC is the largest denomination in the US by quite a bit. So to view an attraction to RCC as an attraction to something foreign, or something “over there”, seems a bit of a stretch.

Now, a case could easily be made that an evangelical might be attracted to RCC because it is a totally foreign culture and the grass is always greener on the other side…. but then that case could be made about anyone changing to a radically different church culture. And this is not necessarily a bad thing. Probably most of you, like me, know people whose faith came alive when switching from RCC or EO to Evangelical, and vice versa. A paradigm shift – a spiritual awakening – can be triggered by a multitude of influences. The Father seems willing to use just about anything to reach us!

I have seen this up close and personally. A good friend of mine is an Orthodox priest who grew up AG. I grew up Catholic and now pastor a Vineyard. Boy, have we had some interesting conversations.

Along these lines, I don’t know if you are aware that the Orthodox Church has historically been divided into jurisdictions, each unique to the culture in which it exists (Russian, Greek, Serbian, etc). There has been a desire on the part of many Orthodox to initiate an American Orthodox Church, but here comes the funny part. The dirty little secret is that the Americans who have become Orthodox have brought financial prosperity into each of these particular branches of Orthodoxy, so none of them want to let go. So, it doesn’t look real good for the establishment of an American Orthodox Church any time soon. (Similar to the issue with the Episcopals – money!)

My personal desire for deeper historic connectivity has led me to investigate Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Messianic Judaism. I learned a lot from all three traditions but eventually came to the conclusion that none were for me because I’m not 1.) a Roman; 2.) Byzantine or 3.) a cultural Jew…nor was I interested in becoming any of these. I’m a 20^th/21^st century American who’s trying to be simply and merely a Christian.

Partially due to these explorations I’ve learned that what people mostly want is a structure of authority and/or doctrine to be parented by. IOW, “I want someone or some structure to tell me what to believe when I’m faced with intellectual, spiritual, moral, emotional or cultural challenges.”

Romans look to the Pope, Byzantines look to Holy Tradition, Jews look to the Torah, and Americans look to Entertainers and Political Power.

I once had a friend who became Buddhist because he hated Popular American Cultural Values; he stared through his navel at a nation half-a-world away, aligned himself with a distant pictorial image of Asian cultural values and chose to become a pseudo-Asian living in Boulder Colorado. His dis-familiarity with the Asian culture protected him from breeding contempt. I believe that a similar cultural phenomena takes place with American Cultural Christians who look back at these Ancient Faiths (RCC, EO or MJ) from the midst of a homogenous, immediate-gratification based shallow-rooted culture.

Conversion to Christianity should, in a sense, counter-culturalize us; or maybe provide us with a transcendent culture. Looking toward other-cultural Christian expressions as a means of separating yourself from your own culture to gain perspective is good; looking toward other-cultural Christian expressions as a means of purifying your walk is a delusion.

Dramatic shifts of faith are attractive and seductive, ask any P/C.  Struggling through the mire of your own culture while expressing the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ is a hard path rife with difficult questions, painful answers and frequent opportunity for failure…and grace.

Re: Michael’s 4th question. This discussion doesn’t come up much in my present (meatspace) circumstances, but it has come up in the context of my dealings with “emerging” ministries, and it has been a thought in my own journey.

Having grown up as a Christmas-Easter mainliner, and coming to faith and joining the Evangelical Free church in college, my life in the faith has grown primarily in evangelicalism.

I’ve never had a problem talking about Jesus and the Christian faith with people, but I’ve always had a problem with the “used car salesman” approach to evangelism that seems to be the norm. (Even when presented with good evangelism information, much of what I hear eventually devolves to the cheesy sales metaphor.) This isn’t really a problem I deal with any more, but it was the beginning of the mental disconnect that made me start honestly thinking about what I believe and why.

I’ve never really been enticed to swim the Tiber, though I believe there are many fine Christians over there, along with some real screwballs. (Catholic readers, be not angry with me. I believe there are screwballs everywhere.) I only know a little about the EO, but what I see gives me the same reaction.

The more church history I read, and the more I study the Bible and theology, the more I become a theological mutt. To date, I can tell you that I happily serve in an evangelical church with wonderful people, that my theology fits best with the Anglicans, that I lean Lutheran in my views of communion, though I am open to discussion, and that I affirm the historic creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, etc.).

If I were to be walking any of the roads to the old country, it would be to Canterbury, but I’d have to make some stops in Ireland, and I’m a fan of the early church, as my email address will attest.

Michael, keep talking about the journey. It makes for some good discussion. (if not here, then at our theology pub nights in MN)

Bill: Can you give me a quick synopsis of the Stand to Reason material? I’m pretty sure I won’t embrace all of it, but I’m curious.

Bill: Concerning your last post…Wow! Talk about opening a can of worms, or more like stirring up the hornet’s nest. Your question could quickly lead to verbal bombs blasting in air. So, I’ll just answer the second question. Yes, I believe there are visible characteristics of a Christian, but - generally speaking - it is not my place to determine whether anyone else other than myself has these characteristics. Rather than tell you what I think they are, I’ll just say I believe whatever Dallas Willard believes. More importantly, I believe the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

Joel: I appreciate your statements about consumerism in the church. I’m sorry, I can’t remember with what communion you’re associated. I too am drawn to Wright’s kingdom teaching, and share your desire to align myself with those who ”best understand this story, this mission”. However, I must say that I am not so confident in my ability to put “all personal preferences aside”, as you say you have. I don’t know my own heart well enough to be certain that I am not interjecting my personal preferences into my theological/philosophical convictions.

All: Why do we have categories and not use them?

I’ll always clearly remember the interaction Laurie and I had with the Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Olathe Colorado back in the spring of ‘95.  After the service he sidled up to us and asked two questions; the first was “are ya Christians?”.  When we replied in the affirmative he snuck a bit closer, bumped me with his elbow, winked a bit and intimately asked “are ya Baptists?”

JS: I get your point. I think it helps for us to consider what we mean when we say “consumer”. We mean more than “a person who chooses a church based on certain criteria”. Based on that definition every churchgoer is a consumer. I think when most of us speak of a church or a churchgoer being “consumer-focused” we are talking about a pervasive mentality.

Speaking of which, did anybody take note of the church that recently celebrated New Year’s Eve by giving away a car? According to the news story:

This December 31, a local Houston area church offers its congregants and visitors in attendance the chance to win a brand new Saturn ION. Every time someone attended regularly scheduled services over the past few weeks, they were given an opportunity to enter the free drawing to win the car.

The car giveaway is designed to attract individuals that would normally not attend, so that they will hear the good news of Jesus Christ. As the spirit of giving is central to Christianity, Pastor Hallam has been willing to do whatever is necessary to impact lives positively in the Gulf Coast area since founding the church in 1985. The church has given away hams, turkeys, toys, electronic gear, furniture, a new PT Cruiser and a new Harley-Davidson motorcycle in the past and even a brand new brick home.

Now that’s pretty blatant.

Michael: Like Joel said, it seems like your problem is with Frederica’s prescription, but I think her description pretty much lines up with us post-evangelicals.

However, I must say that I – unlike you – do not so easily completely dismiss the assertions of most EO’s that our best tact is simply to join them. They truly believe that they are the communion most decidely connected to Christ and the Apostles. If they believe that, then why shouldn’t they insist that joining them is our best move? At least they are being honest. Having said that, I see Frederica as very magnanimous and ecumenical, unlike some EO’s.

I don’t even think that her concern with a “pick and choose” consumerist approach to worship should necessarily be taken as an indictment against every evangelical church that wants to incorporate ancient elements in their worship (though I could be wrong about this). She might be simply expressing a concern that both of us would share with her – that many in the emerging church (and perhaps in other evangelical churches) are simply pursuing the latest “model”, changing the window dressing, trying to keep up with the trends, in order to gather a bigger audience – rather than out of a sincere pursuit of/ response to God and His will.

Hey folks, I’ve been stopping by and reading, but haven’t posted in a while. Sorry for the inactivity. Life.

I was intrigued by a statement made by Frederica Mathewes-Green in response to a question issued by Relevant Magazine regarding worship styles:

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I’m glad to see communities digging into the treasures of the ancient church, particularly in terms of seeking beauty. The less we try to make worship like an evening in the family room, the more we make it something directed beyond our familiar experience, bringing us to the God of beauty, awe, and mystery, the better—and my personal hunch is that this is more attractive to seekers, too.
 
The negative, I think, is a consumerist attitude, in which worship leaders shop for the elements they find most appealing, rather than joining the ancient community and seeking to understand something beyond their limited experience. Consumerism feels like “being true to myself” or “choosing what rings true to me,” but it’s actually isolated, lonely, myopic, and culture-bound.

This statement stirs up my ongoing torment between two worlds. I am a child of the Jesus Movement. I left the cold, disconnected Catholic church as a college freshmen and discovered the warmth of guitars singing love songs to Jesus. About 20 years in, I started picking up on what Frederica calls the “isolated, lonely, myopic, and culture-bound” tendencies of my third wave evangelical world. So I now appreciate the call to a Beauty outside ourselves – outside of “what rings true to me”. However, a part of me still values the warmth of my culture - still likes it when worship feels like “an evening in the family room”.

Thoughts?

Joel, I have observed that spiritual fruit is more likely to result from a daily regimen of adult diaper changes than from the ‘discipline’ of ‘hearing from God’. Also, please clarify my reasoning; If ‘God is good’ because the light stayed green, would it not be axiomatic that had the light turned red that ‘God is bad’?

Jack, professing to be safe they became slaves.

Michael, I use the batch processing functions of Photoshop Elements to downsize and down-save image files for later web publication. Picassa (free from Google) can do the same but I don’t think it’s available for OSX.

Was Apocalypto highly detailed in it’s evisceration scenes or more inferential? All we get for TV is CBS and we’re totally gored out with all of the CSIesque programming.

Finally, I’ve been listening to the EWTN-The Journey Home podcasts per the request of a dear Catholic brother who hopes for a similar story from me. I’ve enjoyed the stories, but frankly (and I’ll tell him this) they confirm my ‘why nots’ regarding RCC involvement. I was listening to an interview this morning with an Anglican Priest who became RCC. A major incongruency; “At some point I simply needed to put aside such issues as ‘justification by faith’ and simply trust in the authority of the Church” vs. a later statement “Protestants right now are more devoted to the charisma of their pastors than they are to the Church”. More »« Less