Ack, things have been a bit crazy, and it looks like I might have to shirk my blog for a bit so I can turn my attention to the things I usually shirk by blogging. Does that make sense at all? If not, forgive me, my brain is feeling a bit fried these days. (Do brains have feelings? I don't know.)
But first. My recent post, Profession/Confession, sparked a surprising amount of commentary. Well, surprising to me anyway, because I rarely get more than a handful of comments on any given post. And granted, in this case at least four of the comments were by yours truly, but hey, that still left 11 that were not, so there you go. A frogg files record!
I'm pulling two of the comments out into a new post, because:
1) I think they bring up good questions that are worth discussing further, and to which I'd really be interested to hear people's responses; and,
2) I don't have anything else to write about at the moment.
Now, it's probably a good idea to read the original post first (see link above, or scroll down on this page), but gistfully speaking, the topic we are dealing with is megachurches and their marketing tactics. So, the lovely Pepper wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if using "amusement-park tactics" to get people into the church is a good thing in the long run. What do you guys think? I mean, if a person is attracted to a particular church for a reason other than spiritual fulfillment, is that okay if they eventually come to believe? That might give me more insight into what the "megachurches" are trying to do and if there's something more behind their aggressive marketing strategies. (Plus, it will keep me from judging megachurches so harshly.)
And then Porter answered:
So many questions go begging in that post: What is "a church"? What makes it "a good thing" to "get people into the church"? What is "spiritual fulfillment"? What does it have to do with "a church"? What is "to believe"? and in what? and how? and to what end?
I am sure I will have some thoughts on these comments myself, just as soon as my frazzled brain returns from the holiday it has apparently taken from the rest of me. Unthoughtful of it, really, considering that the rest of me also needs a holiday rather badly. But we must soldier on, mustn't we.
Until my return to coherence, I leave it to you, gentle readers (or not so gentle, as the case may be) to consider and comment on the questions put forth in this post. If you don't, I will be sadly disappointed, but don't worry, I'll get over it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
To Porter: You asked What is "a church"? For anyone who is seeking a church home, I believe the only place to discover what really matters is in the Bible. I answer questions like this by reading the Book of Acts 2:42-47. The first thing we discover about the early church is a commitment to the teaching of the apostles. A good church is a Bible-centered church. Nothing is important as this–not a large congregation, a witty pastor, or tangible experiences of the Holy Spirit.
Unfortunately, preachers who distort God's Word are all to common today. A preacher may be tempted to water down the truth about sin and the need for repentance, or the difficult parts about the incarnation and atonement, and replace them with misguided promises of personal prosperity or a focus on political issues. Many churches are also friendly seeker churches. Not wanted to preach about sin or wanting to offend people in their churches. They only want to make people feel good about themselves, build up their self esteem, while they're still sitting in their churches and the pastor is telling them how great they are and many are on their way to hell.
So, then the first thing to seek in a church is a commitment to sound doctrine. I hope this answers one of your questions.
Thank you Joseph. While we have not yet got a definition of "a church", we have learned several things about it: that it is something to be sought, that it has as synonym something called "a church home", that it can be described as "Bible-centered" or as "seeker-friendly[?]", that it comprises someone called "a pastor", that people sit in it.
I apologize in advance if this comes across as hostile or is, perhaps, illegible; I get passionate about these issues. I do not, however, mean to offend anyone and am sincerely sorry if I do.
Firstly, the Church ... I personally define church (if one must have a definition for something as ambiguous as a spiritual reality) as a place where the "body of christ" is present. I believe that anywhere that people gather in order to glorify God, there is Church (Church universal in the truest sense of the words). Therefore ... (at least in my mind) Church at home, Church in the coffee shop, Church on the road, Church at church, Church anywhere.
IRT Joseph. You bring up alot of doctrinal issues as the reason for "church" (ie atonement, prosperity gospel, the incarnation, ect ..) If the sole point og the church is to maintain positions on systematic theology, then I want nothing to do with it. I do not mean this as an insult; that's just how strongly I feel on the issue. The people of God (I hate speaking christianese and thus apologize) must be about significantly more than "sound doctrine". After all, what is sound doctrine? The Bible isn't so clear on this point as many pastors (especially in evangelical and charismatic/pentecostal circles - my hertiag) seem to think it is. If two opposite points on an issue are both based out of the bible ... is it my doctrine that is "sound" or yours?
For example: eschatology. What would you prefer ... premillenialism, postmillenialism or amillenialism? And these are only the three most popular of hundreds. All have biblical roots. Who is to decided what sound doctrine is. I agree that this is an important reason for fellowship - to bounce ideas off of others so that you might be two minds seeking an answer instead of one, but I hardly see it as the function of "the church."
In my own fallible, human mind it seems that the function of thew body of christ is to continue christ's work of bringing forth the kingdom of God. Yes, we do this by fullfilling the great commission's command to "make disciples," but we also do it by fullfilling the command of Jesus's life by feeding the poor, clothing the naked, giving a cold glass of water to a little child, and by having casual conversation with the many men and women at the well(s) out there.
As Brian Mclaren says: "We need to stop counting conversions and start counting conversations."
Once again, I'm sorry if I rambled ... hopefully at least some of that was coherent.
Quite coherent, Mr. Kappa. Here we have a succinct definition of "a church" (or, "the Church"): It is "a place where the 'body of Christ' is present", which in further terms is "anywhere that people gather in order to glorify God". And we learn more things about a church: that it is independent of location ("Church anywhere"); that its function is to continue to "bring forth" something called "the kingdom of God", which is done partly by an act called "making disciples" but also by feeding the poor, clothing the naked, giving water to children, having casual conversations with people "at the well".
Little Kappa: As long as you're being respectful, you don't have to apologize to me. I will confess that I don't have all the answers but the little I do know, I do share it with people.
First, I agree with you that anywhere that people gather in order to glorify God, there is Church. I don't agree that the people of God must be about significantly more than sound doctrine because if it's significantly more than that, then what was it that made the apostles die for? Second, in reply to your question as to what is sound doctrine, someone once said, "In essentials there must be unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all other charity." To me sound doctrine means what Jesus preached about and why the apostle died for what they believe. I don't know what your background is but I can tell you what I have learned just by reading the Bible, which by the way I love reading.
Paul the apostle, while in prison, wrote to Timothy his young disciple saying that a time will come when people will not endure sound doctrine (2 Timothy 4:3-4). I hope this is enough for you to believe that there is such a thing as sound doctrine. When I believed this I challenged myself to read and study the Bible. It is an incredible book but it needs to be studied.
You wrote, "If two opposite points on an issue are both based out of the bible ... is it my doctrine that is "sound" or yours?" While we can debate over secondary issues we must never divide over it. For example you asked me whether I prefer premillenialism, postmillenialism, or amillenialism? I personally haven't study it much but I do know that man has elevated this topic as an essential. Why? I don't know why but I don't see it as an essential doctrine. However, sound doctrine is believing that Jesus Christ will physically return.
I agree we should help people who need help (Galatians 6:2) I just happened to believe we can both help people and learn what the Bible teaches about sound doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16). I hope this helps Little Kappa.
I think Kappa and Joseph are starting to zero in on this. Yes 'sound doctrine' but if Paul was telling that to Timothy (fun that I read that just a day or two ago) what doctrine could it be but something from the life of Christ of the Old Testament? There was no New Testament to go off of, not like we've got at least. So that makes me think that the sound doctrine would be the truth of the Gospel of Christ - the teaching, life, whatever of Christ. I agree that we've gone and made a number of 'issues' core issues that aren't.
-----
On the topic of churchs, this has made me think of my church. I attend a church that's somewhere around 3000 people. I suppose by some standards that the Frogg showed us that makes it a 'megachurch' And yeah, we're building new buildings right now and have a decent sound system and use a program created for churchs to display our song lyrics. Fancy eh? I can't speak for the "adult services" (aka Big Church) because I only go there on Sunday mornings, but in the highschool group where I help out, Sunday evenings (we don't meet in the morning) are more what you might call 'seeker friendly', the topics are broader, more open, and not fire and brimestone. Most, if not all, of the time they are Bible based though. But then when we meet on Wednesday nights we go what might be called deeper. The people who come are more like regulars, those who really have a desire. The pastor recognizes this and therefore uses Sunday as a place where new people can come without fear, and Wednesday nights for more intesnse issues. I think it works quite well. I'd be curious to know if Big Church goes the same way, but it's always been my turn to run the sound board on Wednesdays so I can't. Judging by the topics they announce though, it sounds like it. I think it's a good balance.
Firstly, I apologize (though you said I didn't have to) to Joseph. My tone was unintentionally haughty, as if I was an angry school master facing off with a student who had dared to cross me. I'm sorry for that. I know how condescending it can be.
Now, in response to your points (and well-taken they were) I would like to clarify. I understand that there is great importance in the maintaining of sound doctrine. I just know that it is the churches job to do that. Should the church tell people what to believe or provide them with opertunities to hash out issues amoungst themselves. Granted, the latter is dangerous; however, the former can be also, and in a much more insidious way. The church (I'm speaking of local bodies now, not the church universal) can become a bastion of doctrine, delegating belief and shunning those who don't submit. I'm speaking out of experience here, not supposition. The church, in my opinion, cannot dictate doctrine because once it does, it has made a specific interpretation of scripture God's Word rather than trusting the Word to speak for itself.
It would be refreshing to see as a statement of belief rather than a point supported by scriptures (ie We believe that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, authoritative rule of faith and practice and source of all truth ... 2 Timothy 3:15-17, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Peter 1:21*) the scripture itself. (ie We believe ... All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.)
Also, in your post you made an interesting statement. In reference to eschatology you said "I don't see it as an essential doctrine." The final judge of what is essential and inessential will be you (with the help of the holy spirit.) Now if I disagree with you who is to decide who is right and who is wrong? Another fallible human?
I say this not because I care about who is right or wrong - quite the opposite. I believe that an obsession with doctrine fosters this spirit of competition amoung denominations and individuals. It makes being right more important than being righteous.
Lastly, yes ... sound doctine is important, so is fellowship of the brethren in the developement of theology, but in the end it all comes down to the individual to make his own judgements, not the body. Notice that the only one of the epistles that even mentions "sound doctrine" is addressed not to a congregation, but an individual. A person. A pastor, yes, but Pauls urgings as to why he needs said doctrine is for his personal benefit ("make you wise ... so that a man [singular] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.")
The churches duty is not to act as a besieged castle, carefully guarding the sacred gift of specific revelation from the tinkering masses, but rather to give said revelation to masses, to do with it what they would (and guide them along in the process also - as christ did.)
PS The apostle's didn't seem to concerned with doctrine ... in their discussion with Paul about what would be required of the gentiles they asked him only to make sure the gentiles ... "abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell." Acts 15:29
Clarification (sigh ... once again): 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence, I just know that it is not the churches job to do that.
Also my * ... That point was taken directly from the "Statement of fundamental truths" - the doctrinal statement of the Assmblies of God (the denomination I grew up in. Yes, I was raised a cuddly charismatic.)
wow. thanks to all of you for contributing so thoughtfully, extensively, and civilly. i am quite impressed.
since i proposed the topic, i suppose i should comment as well, so...
when i read acts, here is what i see: a group of people, which eventually became groups of people in different locations, spread throughout palestine and then asia minor and italy. these people did not, as far as i can tell, "invite their friends to church" to hear about Christ. they lived in the world, they worked in the world, they were "in the world but not of it." they did not invite those who did not believe into their gatherings. why should they? what would be the purpose? when they gathered together, it was for mutual encouragement, for studying the Bible (and remember the Bible they had was probably primarily what we now call the Old Testament), for prayer, and for joy in knowing that they were with people who, like themselves, had pledged allegiance to One whom they determined was worth the allegiance, despite misunderstanding (at best) and persecution (at worst).
church is quite different now, at least in its localized, physical manifestation (or mode, as spinoza might say). so let us see if we can now turn our discussion just a little toward Pepper's question:
"sometimes I wonder if using "amusement-park tactics" to get people into the church is a good thing in the long run. What do you guys think? I mean, if a person is attracted to a particular church for a reason other than spiritual fulfillment, is that okay if they eventually come to believe?"
so for the sake of this argument, let us say that we are referring to "church" in the local, physical-building sort of sense, while still including the people who happen to sit, stand, or kneel within it once a week while listening to someone explain or at the very least talk about concepts found in a collection of ancient texts commonly called the Bible.
what i hear Pepper saying (and i'm sure she will correct me if i'm wrong) is this: if a person starts going to a church simply because it is fun and has lots of cool programs and social groups and good marketing and attractive music, is that ok if, eventually, he/she decides to become a Christian?
(and someone may say, but what is a Christian? well, let's find out, shall we.)
and a respectful PS to littlekappa: on the contrary, i think the apostles (or paul, at any rate) were quite concerned with doctrine, else why a book like romans, which defines, mostly in precise legal terms, the foundation of Christian faith? or what about galatians, which was written in direct response to gnostic strains that were appearing in the teaching at local Christian gatherings?
we should not confuse doctrine (the "what" of belief, if you will) with actions. it will, of course, influence our actions, and that is exactly why it is important.
Last comment for that day. Thank you for doing this grackyfrogg. I so enjoy conversations about spiritual topics (as can be seen by the outrageous amount of time I've spent on the internet). I miss this; I haven't sat in a circle of thinkers for too long (I'm afraid that the small-town south doesn't smile on thinkers and actively discourages their gathering in large groups). I fear that my brain is beginning to atrophy.
Firstly to grackyfrogg: I was under the impression the gnostic heresies didn't begin to surface untill after the end of the first century as christianity began to be mingled with greek philosophy. I believe that it was the early church fathers that combatted gnosticism, not the apostles. I was also under the impression that Galatians was written to combat the judaizers who were going around macedonia and galatia preaching more doctrine (ie circumcision and the law). Hence all of chapter one and two (Paul relating his confrontation with Peter.) Romans is paul's theology, there's no arguing that. But did he write it so that they would convince them of his doctrine or so that they would know what they were getting themselves into? Some believe that Paul wrote this letter largely to sell himself to the church that he felt God was calling him to preach to. I don't know about that, but it's an interesting theory, makes sense with all of his refernces about coming there.
But I digress, your point is taken and true. Doctrine is important, but I would still stand by my position that it is not the position of the church to dictate it or impose it on people, but rather to encourage and guide people as they develope it within their own lives (ie discipling). remember Corinthians ... while Paul was with them he did not try to persuage them with "wise arguements" but remembered nothing but "christ and him crucified."
Also I would argue that the fight agaist gnosticism was more about the definition of christianity than the finer points of doctrine. The sophists were intentionally confusing the story of christ with false gosples (of Thomas) for their own benefit. It would be irresponcible not to point out their corruption; later heresies, however, were more doctrinal in nature (ie nestorianism and the other christiological controversies finally put to rest - for better or for worse - at the council of constantinople)
Ok I'm done with that. As for amusment park tactics and seeker-friendly churches, my intial respose is "by their fruits you shall know them." If they produce, I don't know that I can argue; if they don't, they're doing nothing but harm by marring the name of christ, but the same can be said of any church, seeker-friendly or no, who doesn't produce.
As I said, I love coversations such as these, but I was just reminded of the place where theory becomes practice and theology becomes applicable. I just got off the phone with my friend. She's really hurting. Please pray for her. Seriously.
ah littlekappa, formidable you are, my friend. if what you write is any indication, i'd say there is little sign of the brain atrophy you fear, so don't be discouraged. you are doing well, and i am pleased to have your participation in the discussion. you are more than welcome.
i stand corrected, rightly, re: galatians. thank you.
i am sorry to hear about your friend, and want to pray...but if i am honest, i must tell you that my prayers have been few and far between lately; my spirit rebellious; my faith dry and brittle. i don't know that my prayers will be to much avail, but i will try.
(and would it be rational to pray if i did not believe there was one who heard my prayers, and who cared to hear them? if not, a foolish exercise indeed. but i do believe; God help my unbelief. porter you were right before; a decision must be made, yet not once, but over and over and over again.)
I know that I said that my previous comment was the last one, but I just wanted to say thank you for your previous post, conversational. I just read it, and as I did I felt tears well in my eyes.
If only we could always walk in knowledge of such love ... truly free, set free for freedom by divine love beyond understanding.
Sadly, I often find myself lost in circumstance and unaware of such a love. Now was one of those times.
Thank you.
Post a Comment