Wake-Up Calls (by Brian McLaren)
This is an important year for studies on religious life in the U.S. From Kinnaman and Lyon's UnChristian, to David T. Olson's The American Church in Crisis, data is accumulating that business/ministry as usual is not a great strategy for most U.S. denominations and nondenominations.
The new Pew study highlights the fluidity of commitment among the American people of faith, and it raises important questions for church leaders in at least three areas.
1. If congregations and denominations are not connecting with people's questions, needs, and desires - people are moving on. Old-fashioned denominational loyalty is gone. Church leaders can complain about it, but they'd also better acknowledge it. Now this fact could be used to advocate increased religious pandering ... a "give 'em what they want" approach that turns church leaders into "purveyors of religious goods and services" (a damning turn of phrase from the missional church folk) who are competing for share of the religious market.
But it could also have a much more positive effect: by convincing church leaders that blindly maintaining the status quo is a losing strategy, the data can liberate them to ask deeper questions like ... Why are churches here? What is our mission? What is our core message? Does Christ's church have a mission, or does Christ's mission have a church? How much can, and should, change in our churches? What shifts in church history can guide us as we face this sea-change in our religious environment? In other words, the new data could challenge leaders to ask, not simply, "What do the customers want?" but, "What does God want?" ... and not just "What do members need from their church?" but "What does the world need our churches to become, be, and do so that God's will can be done on earth as it is in heaven?"
2. People are dropping out of church altogether. The fastest-growing religious segment - especially among the young - continues to be the unaffiliated. If the "church growth" question of the 90's was, "How are we going to attract baby boomers to come back to church services on Sunday?" the "church mission" question in coming years might be, "How can our churches inspire younger generations to live a new way of life as disciples each day of the week?"
3. Old categories are blurring and old identities are diversifying and fragmenting. The study highlights the simultaneous growth and diversification of the old evangelical base, for example. As older generations pass from the scene and the alliances they created lose strength, who will help catalyze new movements and alliances? What will their priorities and ethos be?
In light of the accumulating data, it's become increasingly clear: we don't just need new answers to old questions, but we need new questions as well.
The new Pew study highlights the fluidity of commitment among the American people of faith, and it raises important questions for church leaders in at least three areas.
1. If congregations and denominations are not connecting with people's questions, needs, and desires - people are moving on. Old-fashioned denominational loyalty is gone. Church leaders can complain about it, but they'd also better acknowledge it. Now this fact could be used to advocate increased religious pandering ... a "give 'em what they want" approach that turns church leaders into "purveyors of religious goods and services" (a damning turn of phrase from the missional church folk) who are competing for share of the religious market.
But it could also have a much more positive effect: by convincing church leaders that blindly maintaining the status quo is a losing strategy, the data can liberate them to ask deeper questions like ... Why are churches here? What is our mission? What is our core message? Does Christ's church have a mission, or does Christ's mission have a church? How much can, and should, change in our churches? What shifts in church history can guide us as we face this sea-change in our religious environment? In other words, the new data could challenge leaders to ask, not simply, "What do the customers want?" but, "What does God want?" ... and not just "What do members need from their church?" but "What does the world need our churches to become, be, and do so that God's will can be done on earth as it is in heaven?"
2. People are dropping out of church altogether. The fastest-growing religious segment - especially among the young - continues to be the unaffiliated. If the "church growth" question of the 90's was, "How are we going to attract baby boomers to come back to church services on Sunday?" the "church mission" question in coming years might be, "How can our churches inspire younger generations to live a new way of life as disciples each day of the week?"
3. Old categories are blurring and old identities are diversifying and fragmenting. The study highlights the simultaneous growth and diversification of the old evangelical base, for example. As older generations pass from the scene and the alliances they created lose strength, who will help catalyze new movements and alliances? What will their priorities and ethos be?
In light of the accumulating data, it's become increasingly clear: we don't just need new answers to old questions, but we need new questions as well.
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is board chair for Sojourners. He is in the middle of an eleven-city speaking tour you can learn about at deepshift.org.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I've never understood denominational allegiance. If the denomination isn't reflecting God's values, you owe no loyalty whatsoever.
However, there is also problematic trend of church attendees bouncing from church to church. In our church, we've seen groups of people leave because we aren't interested enough in theological study, or because they are frustrated at certain people, or because they haven't achieved a certain leadership position etc...
No church is perfect, and churches ought to examine the efforts they make to lure those who are frustrated with other churches. God brings us to points of frustration to bring glory to him, and I don't see a scriptural basis for continuously fracturing faith communities.
Older generations have a lot to teach younger generations. To be fair, the "seeker-based" movement of the 1990s appealed to those looking to sever such a relationship. But at what cost? Can younger Christians stand up to the latest Christian fad, to the detriment of their church and their faith.
With all due respect to the Josh Harris' of the world, I'd rather emulate the guy who is still in the race after 20,30, 40 years than the guy who has the latest Christian bestseller or the coolest new church idea.
So yes, let's work to be attractive to new generations. But let's also remember that the tide also ebbs. If we base our approach on polls, we'll get lost in the undertow.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 27, 2008 1:28 PM
I agree with Kevin here. I remember a pastor friend who had a member of his congregation complain that the church was spiritually dead. His response: "With an attitude like that, what do you expect?"
Posted by: Another nonymous | February 27, 2008 1:35 PM
Brian, your statement is the right place to start.
... [to ask, not simply, "What do the customers want?" but, "What does God want?" ... and not just "What do members need from their church?" but "What does the world need our churches to become, be, and do so that God's will can be done on earth as it is in heaven?"]
Right, kev, denominational allegiance (or rejection), like diefying or condemning thoughts or people because of a label like conservative or liberal, should be replaced with justice, kindness, and a humble walk with God.
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | February 27, 2008 2:21 PM
At least in the area where I live (right outside a major U.S. city) the Christians I talk to in my age group (under 35) aren't that concerned about the denomination of the church they attend, so this Pew study doesn't surprise me. They are more concerned about a particular church's doctrine, how a particular church interacts with it's community, and the type of people that attend. For better or for worse, this seems like what drives people to different churches. Denominations don't seem to matter.
As more and more young people choose "unafilliated" the question for the future isn't going to be "How can our churches inspire younger generations to live a new way of life as disciples each day of the week" but "How can we convince younger generations to accept a relationship with Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior?" and let good works flow from that. The positive affects of Christians living out Christ's teachings every day of the week will be minimal if there are fewer and fewer Christian disciples in the first place.
Posted by: Eric | February 27, 2008 3:15 PM
After re-reading my above post I think "convince" was a poor word choice on my part. I think "encourage" or "lead" might have been better.
Posted by: Eric | February 27, 2008 3:21 PM
I agree with what you said Eric, but the problem with most Christians today is that they are accepting a relationship with Christ, but then not becoming disciples or followers. "UnChristian" by Kinnaman and Lyon talks a little bit about this. The trend among most churches is to get people "saved," but not really care about their new "converts" after that. Accepting a relationship is just the beginning of the journey, but we can't assume good works will follow after acceptance because trends have shown that doesn't happen.
Yes, people need to accept Christ, that's always been the church's motivation. But the question for this new generation is whether or not they will take it a step further and follow Christ as disciples every day. Churches need to be more motivated in discipleship than ever before, actually showing the relevance of Christ's teachings for today. The vibe most young people get is that the church only cares about converts and Christ only cares about our souls after we die. I know we don't want to hear that, but that is what they are hearing from us.
Posted by: Matt G. | February 27, 2008 4:08 PM
Reading Brian's thoughts as well as studying UnChristian with our Church Staff has caused me to consider what I see as largely a difference between Empire Christianity and Kingdom Christianity. Empire (the dominant form today) is focused on maintaing power through control by manipulating the masses into maintaining an institution (in their defense I don't believe the majority of these churches have set out to do this on purpose. Even the Religious right would agree that Kingdom is better. The difference is how Kingdom is achived. They've largely tried to achieve it by electing the King or fear mongering). Kingdom, on the other hand, is focused on invitating people into a new way of life then empowering them to live that life everywhere. In this model, the leaders don't control the masses they recognize God is King.
In the first century the religious leaders chose Barrabas over Jesus. Empire over Kingdom.
Some still do.
Posted by: John Close | February 27, 2008 4:13 PM
Matt - I absolutely agree with you that churches need to focus on how Christians live their lives once they start on their walk with Christ. I was just pointing out that with the number of unaffiliateds and non-religious rising, particularly among the young, we need to take note of that too and address it.
Posted by: Eric | February 27, 2008 4:21 PM
Churches need to be more motivated in discipleship than ever before, actually showing the relevance of Christ's teachings for today. The vibe most young people get is that the church only cares about converts and Christ only cares about our souls after we die. I know we don't want to hear that, but that is what they are hearing from us.
That's because of the way Christianity has been sold, often as mere "fire insurance" that demands little or nothing while Christ, of course, demands everything. This consumer culture often downgrades "religion" to "one more thing on our plate" as opposed to Christ being "all, and in all." "Pray TV" became an empire that way, but simply blaming the Christian media won't fly.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 27, 2008 4:59 PM
That's cool Eric, I got ya man. I hope you didn't think I was saying you in particular thought that discipleship wasn't important, I wasn't. We both agree, we were just coming at the issue with 2 different angles. Faith without good works is no faith at all.
Posted by: Matt G. | February 27, 2008 5:59 PM
Matt - I absolutely agree with you that churches need to focus on how Christians live their lives once they start on their walk with Christ
Posted by: Eric
My pastor will say sometimes that we are the Only Bible some people will ever read .
I thank God the people around me when I was first saved were well grounded in word and showed the Love of God through them .
Posted by: Mick | February 27, 2008 8:44 PM
"The trend among most churches is to get people "saved," but not really care about their new "converts" after that."
The same with the approach to abortion, where once the baby is born there's little interest or commitment.
Whether it's born or born-again, the follow-through too often isn't seen as imperative.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 27, 2008 8:47 PM
I'll concede that many churches emphasize "fire insurance" to the detriment of discipleship. Conversely, there are many churches that are eager to jump right to the growth without any mention of repentance of sin or acceptance of God's grace. Let's have a both/and approach.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 27, 2008 9:13 PM
kevin s: "I'll concede that many churches emphasize 'fire insurance' to the detriment of discipleship. Conversely, there are many churches that are eager to jump right to the growth without any mention of repentance of sin or acceptance of God's grace. Let's have a both/and approach."
I agree 100%. I'd be interested in hearing about ways that we can be sure churches pursue a both/and approach. I suggest that one way is to emphasize that Christians need a proper balance between Sunday school/Bible study and worship services.
Posted by: carl copas | February 27, 2008 10:00 PM
"They are more concerned about a particular church's doctrine, how a particular church interacts with it's community, and the type of people that attend."
Eric:
My take on the issue is that the denominations have failed to communicate who they are in an attempt to not offend. Doctrine and how we relate to the world around us should be identifying distinctives which like-minded believers coalesce. People have differences of opinion usually rooted in theology and the mega-church shallowness is simply the step-child of a vacuous ecumenism birthed from the seed of fear of differences.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | February 27, 2008 10:16 PM
I'd be interested in hearing about ways that we can be sure churches pursue a both/and approach. I suggest that one way is to emphasize that Christians need a proper balance between Sunday school/Bible study and worship services.
The first thing we need is a return to holiness -- that is, a "psychic separation" from the world's way of doing business. If we did that we couldn't build churches fast enough. But to do that we would have to endure persecution, which the American church simply cannot handle, let alone tolerate, right now.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 27, 2008 11:42 PM
" I suggest that one way is to emphasize that Christians need a proper balance between Sunday school/Bible study and worship services."
That's the both. The "and" is an attempt to bring about Christ's kingdom on earth. That means restoring justice to all humans, and that certainly includes helping the poor. But remember, those affluent white suburbanites are no less broken and in no less need of restoration.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 28, 2008 12:15 AM
One of the big problems there has always been is what the 1st few chapters of John's revelation calls the "Nicolaitan" problem - Greek means "rule over the people".
New Testament Christianity, as outlined in the Epistles, emphasized a VERY INTERACTIVE body of Christ - with all members ministering to each other. It assumed diversity. It assumes a very ACTIVE group - where each member was put there by God - and needed to actively participate and offer what only they can give.
In contrast, most of America's churches have clergy manipulating and "ruling over" the "laity".
Attempts are made to control people. There becomees less room to listen to God's voice. There is little room for creativity. The body of Christ and the Spirit is stifled.
Part of this problem is the size of very large churches. Perhaps I see this more clearly than most due to me having a rather quiet, low-key, non-flashy personality - who can easily allow myself to be pushed aside by loud, pushy people.
In large churches, there are limited opportunities to grow in your gifts and faith. Everything you can get involved in is already pre-programmed. You don't really need faith. All you have to do is hop into The Groove - and move. God doesn't need to lead you, because The Groove does.
In a smaller fellowship - well, you never know WHAT God may ask you to do! You wind up having to do all sorts of things you never had to do before. And have to trust God to lead you. Look Ma, no hands!
You know what? In small fellowships, I discovered God could lead quiet, non-flashy me to do all sorts of things that I would never have had the opportunity to do in a large church. Because I would have been pushed aside by some flashy person.
And God stretched me. Ohhhhh to be stretched! To have no loud people to hide behind. To have no excuse that "Surely someone else around here is more talented than me! Let THEM do this. They have more experience at it. I am not eloquent. Lord, please send someone else."
Instead...to be thrown in head first into a ministry or situation where there is NO ONE to spoonfeed you the answers. No paved sidewalk. No one...but you...and God. No one...but you...the Word of God...and the Holy Spirit...and a few godly sounding boards. To borrow the lyrics of one of my all-time favorite songs by Steve Camp, "Living Dangeously in the Hands of Gode":
I'll quote just a bit of it:
"How easily Jesus is forgotten amid the comfort of my life
How the flames become a flicker, and faith a brilliant disguise
Our Sundays become a holiday, they're an empty exercise
And the cost of real devotion seems so foreign to my life
Chorus:
Oh, to gladly risk it all, oh to be faithful to His call
Abandoned to grace yet anchored in His love
Living dangerously in the hands of God
Our Lord He is a hiding place, His hold is strong and sure
Though the storms may rage around Him in His love I stand secure
So let me live like I believe it, and though my faith is prone to fail
Though I cower under trial, by His grace I shall prevail.
Spoken: There's safety in complacency, but God is calling us out of our
comfort zone into a life of complete surrender to the cross. To live
dangerously as not to live recklessly but righteously. "
Scary? Well...YEAHHHHHH! The most outwardly efficient way of doing things? No, probably not. The most efficient way of doing things would be a top-down, well-run church machine - with lots of flashy people out front leading the charge.
But the best way to develop into a person who listens to God and knows you can trust Him? The best way to stretch your faith? Uh-huh, you betcha!
I choose the wind and the unpaved path - because God goes with you.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | February 28, 2008 1:09 AM
What is wrong with going to a different church or fellowship - does that mean you are separate?
I have many different friends - few of them fellowship where I do. Some speak in tongues, I don't. Many have different ideas about prophecy than I do. Some don't tend to want to study the Bible in-depth like I do. Some don't like lively worship.
And so...we wind up going to different places to fellowship.
But...we recognize that we are ONE body of Christ. We freely join forces in Christ.
There is a world of differency between "unity" and "sameness" - where you all wear identical uniforms and all march in lock-step. Ephesians depicts that quite clearly. We may all be quite different (and even worship in different places) - but does that STOP us from having a commonness of purpose?
Posted by: Amazon Creek | February 28, 2008 1:22 AM
I've never understood denominational allegiance. If the denomination isn't reflecting God's values, you owe no loyalty whatsoever.
I'm curious what you think the denomination is supposed to do?
Mine:
Maintains a world-wide mission effort - I don't think there's any country without our presense or effort. Some have to be fully under cover, even.
Maintains an accreditation and standards organization for educational institutions, and we have a world-wide educational system.
Maintains a world-wide medical system - medical outreach in most third world countries, everywhere else has a hospital system, research hospitals and "better living" health outreach to communities.
Maintains a global disaster relief and needs based development system - again, almost no nation is unentered, often having a larger and better organized presence that the International Red Cross.
Provides a liability insurance system for all of the above, and for our churches and their activities. Along with this is an extensive risk management analysis and some training and guidance.
Provides financing for new church starts, building projects, schools, etc.
Provides trust services.
This is just a small segment of our denomination does. It is quite decentralized. The "world" organization is quite small, with the bulk of things being done a regional (smaller than a state, generally) conferences.
And of course, spiritual leadership. The world church does publish a list of core doctrines, and of course the obligatory church manuals, pastor's manuals, and of course, the educational system includes many universities and colleges that offer theological training and pastoral education beyond that.
So, I do support our denomination, as it accomplishes a lot of really amazingly wonderful work that none of us could do singly.
However, I belong to my denomination because it follows all the commandments, and because it teaches the whole gospel... and adds nothing to it.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 28, 2008 4:13 AM
"Now this fact could be used to advocate increased religious pandering ... a "give 'em what they want" approach that turns church leaders into "purveyors of religious goods and services" (a damning turn of phrase from the missional church folk)"
And that is what the progressive movement literally does. With damning effect. "Do as thou wilt . . ." That is not a Christian doctrine.
Posted by: Wake up! | February 28, 2008 8:14 AM
And that is what the progressive movement literally does. With damning effect. "Do as thou wilt . . ." That is not a Christian doctrine.
You would do well to consider the words of St. Augustine: "If you but love God you may do as you incline."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 28, 2008 8:51 AM
I think a big distinction needs to be made between the Augustine quote from Rick and wakeup's use of the "do as thou wilt" quote from Crowley (or McVay or one of those other evil guys with the horns). The Augustinian quote needs little explanation in this context because it has God as the center to keep us from following our selfish and destructive impulses and even suggests that we are active agents in fulfilling God's will. However, "do as thou wilt" rests on a selfish and destructive philosophy that sees no problem in engaging in deceit or even murder if it furthers one's individual objectives. It is social Darwinism stripped of its sophistry and boiled down to its essence, and it was inappropriate and unfair to accuse the progressive movement of following that doctrine.
Posted by: I and I | February 28, 2008 10:22 AM
What Augustine said was "Dilige et quod vis fac." Note that God is not mentioned, except implicitly. "Dilige" means to show esteem or respect, rather than love as we usually use the word. What Augustine is recommending is an active attitude, in which the first principles - respect for others and for all things as God's creation - will inevitably lead to right action.
Posted by: Another nonymous | February 28, 2008 10:33 AM
A NEW Question and a WAKE UP CALL:
Where is Sojo re: the 'three stooges' of the 'Christian' right who seek to instill FEAR and demonize Islam and who are making BIG BUCKS for doing so???
DOING SOMETHING on WAWA:http://www.wearewideawake.org/
February 26, 2008: The Walid Shoebat Show and "America is Beautiful, but she has an ugly side"-Neil Young
Posted by: Eileen Fleming | February 28, 2008 5:47 PM
St. Augustine:
Before Emperor Constantine brought Christianity into the mainstream, all the early Church Fathers taught that Christians should not serve in the army but instead willingly suffer rather than inflict harm on any other.
St. Augustine was the first Church Father to consider the concept of a Just War.
Within 100 years after Constantine, the Empire required that all soldiers in the army must be baptized Christians and thus, the decline of Christianity began.
With the justification of war and violence supplied by Augustine’s Just War Theory, wrong became right.
Nothing much has changed in two millennia, for in today’s Orwellian world politicians claim the way to peace is through war and that nuclear weapons provide protection.
I don’t care who wears the uniform, or how noble they believe their cause, war is the ultimate form of terrorism for any civilian caught in the crossfire of violence.
Even as a kid, I could not understand the logic that promoted the need for Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save American lives; and why there was never a mention of repentance for the innocent that died.
Eisenhower warned America not to bind our economy to the Industrial Military Complex.
But, like most prophets, he was ignored.
In 313 AD, Emperor Constantine legitimized Christianity and thus, those who had been considered rebels and outlaws began to enjoy political power and prestige.
Jesus’ other name is The Prince of Peace, and with the marriage of church and state, his true teachings were reinterpreted.
The justification of warfare and the use of state sponsored violence corrupted what Christ modeled and taught.
Jesus was always on about WAKE UP! The Divine already indwells you and all others. Christ taught that to follow him requires that one must love ones enemies; one must forgive those who hate, curse and revile them, without a thought of payback.
Christ lived a life that proved evil can be opposed without being mirrored, and that the cycle of a “tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye”, will never bring peace and justice.
Before Emperor Constantine brought Christianity into the mainstream, all the early Church Fathers taught that Christians should not serve in the army but instead willingly suffer rather than inflict harm on any other.
The term Christianity was not coined until three decades after Christ walked the earth. Until the day of Paul, followers of Christ were called members of The Way; the way being what he taught!
Christ was never a Christian, but he was a social justice, radical revolutionary Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who rose up and challenged the corrupt Temple and disturbed the status quo of the Roman occupying forces by teaching that God was on the side of the poor and the outcast.
Clement, Tertillian, Polycarp and every other early Church Father taught that violence was a contradiction of what Christ was all about.
There have always been those Christians who spoke out against this corruption of scripture and they have been ignored, reviled, rejected, mocked, persecuted and maligned throughout time.
There have always been Christians who have never abandoned the true teachings, such as the Quakers, Mennonites, some Catholics and Protestants who have been faithful witnesses to Christ by denouncing violence and caring for the poor.
There have also always been Jews, Muslims, atheists, anarchists, secularists and other’s who have lived lives that embody the message of Christ.
I have had the opportunity to meet some of these people in Israel and Palestine and they fill me with hope to believe that as greater numbers of global citizens come together -which is inevitable with the borderless World Wide Web-in solidarity with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights we will find the way to challenge and remedy the wrongs committed by the princes and principalities of this world that perpetuate violence for violence.
It is a spiritual battle we all fight, for both good and evil cut through every human heart.
Because all life is interconnected and interdependent we are all forced to deal with the war within the individual human heart when ever it erupts into society and issues forth from the political realm.
May God have mercy on us for what we the people of the USA have done unto others; for we have done it unto God!
e
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Posted by: Eileen Fleming | February 28, 2008 5:54 PM
Denominationalism is tough when thats all you know. Growing up in a denomination for the better part of 25 years it was a complete eye opener for me to attend one of the earlier Emergent Conferences that coincided with the National Pastors Conference a few years back in Nashville.
Through the years I see a similar comparison in "US Pride" and denominational pride. That being, when your denomination or your flag goes in front of the cross you have serious concerns. But most dont view it that way.
There are a lot good points here Brian, and I believe these numbers will continue to be this way. My biggest thing coming out of big church and denominational churchisms, into a small house church trying to do more with less in our own community, is seeing how people react to this sort of small house church outreach that seems to be blooming more and more. And what happens in the immediate churches that surround us?
I love the point about being less about churches feeding their own flock, and more about feeding the communities that surround them.
www.emergingconversation.com/Blog
Posted by: Jason | February 28, 2008 9:41 PM
Old categories are blurring and old identities are diversifying and fragmenting ...
Brian forgot to mention that old truths are being traduced, too. Yes, the fragmentation of Christianity is accelerating. Welcome to the triumph of the Reformation.
Posted by: Mark | February 28, 2008 11:40 PM
One of the problems is greatly reflected in all these posts, that people are more concerned with getting than giving. We look at Church with a consumer mindset wondering what it has to offer us. This is not how the church is described in scripture. As a Youth Minister I believe our culture's Youth Ministries are setting up this problem. We separate the kids from adults and tell them that worship is borning, no wonder they go off the college and don't want to attend Church they have no practice at it. We need to undergird our Churches and our youth with strong intergenerational contact. Some Churches do this well but most don't we need to be more intentional about it.
Posted by: Chris Thomas | February 29, 2008 10:15 AM
Personally, I LOVE the diversity and historical richness provided by having a multiplicity of denominations, each with their unique heritage, theology and method of worship. The only problem is when they don't get along with each other or see themselves as being "more right" than other denominations. That is why I appreciate interdenominational projects and coalitions such as the National Council of Churches. There are probably some such coalitions among the more theologically conservative denominations as well, but from what I've seen they can be divisive against mainline churches (compared to the NCC, which includes and welcomes conservative churches despite its being called a "liberal" organization).
Posted by: I and I | February 29, 2008 11:16 AM
One of the problems is greatly reflected in all these posts, that people are more concerned with getting than giving. We look at Church with a consumer mindset wondering what it has to offer us.
You nailed it. What's worse is that so often we get attached to our way of doing things that we forget that others experience God differently. My own church uses a contemporary worship style, but at one time we used much traditional black gospel and Anglo hymns in our worship services, and for our offering on MLK Jr. Sunday we had hip-hop dancers dressed in camo (read: spiritual warfare). Now, I'm personally not at all into hip-hop, but if it can be used for the Kingdom, well ... who am I to denounce it? (And my church is part of a denomination.)
There are probably some such coalitions among the more theologically conservative denominations as well,...
Specifically, the National Association of Evangelicals.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 29, 2008 11:39 AM
I was going to mention them, but I remembered that I heard somewhere that they don't let NCC member denominations join their organization. Since that kind of defeats the purpose of what I was talking about, I decided not to. Does anyone know if it is true that NAE does not let NCC members join?
Posted by: I and I | March 2, 2008 8:19 PM
I and I -- I don't know if NCC members are proscribed from joining NAE; however, I do know that NAE was founded as a counterweight and a response to NCC.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 2, 2008 9:45 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?