Thursday 27 October 2005 at 10:09 pm
In this book Barna observes and predicts the coming unhitching of the most committed group of believers from the church. The best chapter is 7 which is worth the price of the book.
George Barna's work has to always be understood through the filters and definitions he uses. The prognosis always rises or falls on the strengths and weaknesses of these filters, as is true with any type of surveying work. The basic point of the book is that there is an uber-class of Christians who are tired of the plodding, uneven, unwieldy church and are ready to strike out on their own. They are smarter, more committed, better organized and more on target than the church and shout "lead, follow or get out of the way..." Barna imagines this movement will morph into something ultimately helpful which may revive the church...
more...
Thursday 27 October 2005 at 9:47 pm
From his new book "Revolution"
The congregational model of the church— a definable group of people who regularly meet at the same place to engage in religious routines and programs under the guidance of a paid pastor who provides doctrinal teaching and organizational direction— has been the dominant force in people's spiritual lives for hundreds of years. So why is it so rapidly losing ground at this moment in history?
Perhaps the major reasons are people's insistence on choices and their desire to have customized experiences. The issue of choice is remaking many facets of modern experience. Whether you examine the changes in broadcasting, clothing, music, investing, or automobiles, producers of such consumables realize that Americans want control over their lives. The result has been the "niching" of America— creating highly refined categories that serve smaller numbers of people, but can command greater loyalty (and profits). During the past three decades, even the local church has undergone such a niching process, with the advent of churches designed for different generations, those offering divergent styles of worship music, congregations that emphasize ministries of interest to specialized populations, and so forth. p. 62
more...
Thursday 27 October 2005 at 9:23 pm
From his new book "Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places"
Because of this spiritual poverty all around, this lack of interest in dealing with what matters most to us — a lack encountered in our schools, our jobs and vocations, and our places of worship alike — "spirituality," to use the generic term for it, has escaped institutional structures and is now more or less free-floating. Spirituality is "in the air." The good thing in all this is that the deepest and most characteristic aspects of life are now common concerns; hunger and thirst for what is lasting and eternal is widely acknowledged and openly expressed; refusal to be reduced to our job descriptions and test results is pervasive and determined. The difficulty, though, is that everyone is more or less invited to make up a spirituality that suits herself or himself. Out of the grab bag of celebrity anecdotes, media gurus, fragments of ecstasy, and personal fantasies, far too many of us, with the best intentions in the world, because we have been left to do it "on our own," assemble spiritual identities and ways of life that are conspicuously prone to addictions, broken relationships, isolation, and violence.
more...
Thursday 27 October 2005 at 9:13 pm
Internet Monk has a good rant about the transition to contemporary worship. I've got my quibbles but it is a narrative worth reading. He makes some important points:
http://www.internetmonk.com/index.php/archives/that-flushing-sound-evangelicals-worship-till-theres-nothing-left
more...
Wednesday 26 October 2005 at 5:07 pm
This drew me to dig out a sermon I did on this passage. We tend to read the passage like this:
In my Father's house (heaven) are many rooms (physical places for me to live); if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there (to heaven) to prepare a place for you (in heaven). And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back (at the end of time) and take you to be with me (at the final judgment) that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going (becoming a Christian, going to church?)"
I think this isn't a good reading of the text in its context. If we consider the fact that Jesus never calls heaven "his father's house" and if we think about "oikia" NOT in terms of a physical dwelling but more in line with "household" or "family", the text is different.
For a variety of reasons I tend to prefer to read the text like this:
John 14:2-7 (PVK)
With my Father there are many places to abide; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there (to my Father) to make a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you (with myself and my Father), I will come back (in the resurrection) and take you to myself (into my Father's family, as being "in Christ") that you also may be where I am ("I will always be with you"). You know the way to where I am going.?
more...
Wednesday 19 October 2005 at 10:22 pm
When we talk about how to deal with other religions as well as
adherents to other religions I think we tend to go off the track in
some predictable places. Let me list a few: (sorry, this will be
long...)
1. The Golden Rule was not given to teach us how to deal with only
Christians. It still applies when dealing with people of other
religious faiths. Imagining that we are to NOT treat them as we would
like to be treated ourselves because they are a Muslim or Buddhist just
shouldn't wash.
2. Neither should we imagine that there is nothing we can learn from
other religions. The wisdom tradition in Scripture has wisdom sayings
from people outside of Israel. By general revelation men and women over
the centuries have made immense contributions to human culture and
learning. Why do we so easily separate different kinds of wisdom? We
don't seem to have issues buying oil discovered by Muslim geologists.
It shouldn't be so shocking to imagine that an observation made by a
religious thinker of another religion my be helpful for me. None of us
know all of what has been discovered in the diversity of Christian
traditions throughout history, would it be so crazy to imagine that
over time through general revelation lots of people would realize lots
of things that all of us living in this same world would fine helpful?
Discernment is always necessary, but that is also the same in listening
to other Christians.
more...
Tuesday 18 October 2005 at 9:55 pm
One of the main difficulties I see the church as having today in terms of understanding itself and being understood in the context of a religiously pluralistic world is what I think of as the Christian RFID tag. Dallas Willard calls it the bar code, but with the advent of RFID it makes a better analogy. For those of you not familiar with it it is a small chip with a faint radio signal that can be read by machines looking for it. One of the earliest applications was with dogs and cats. You can get a chip implanted under the skin of your favorite pet, and if it goes lost or stolen and someone takes it to a vet they simply pass the scanner over it, read the number of the implant and check the database to see to whom the pet belongs. On the street the pet looks just like every other pet but if you are equipped with a scanner the pet is unique, it belongs to someone.
In many ways Christianity today seems to be the same kind of thing. Take two average Americans. Both are "good people", they pay their taxes, they are good and generous towards their families and their friends, they give to charity, they take care of themselves and are considered "above average" like the children of Lake Wobegon. One, however, at some time in their life, perhaps as a child at a chalk drawing, perhaps in the stands of some stadium with Billy Graham, prayed that sinner's prayer. Now they go to church, serve on the board, etc. The other never did pray the sinner's prayer. They may or may not have believe in God but they lived a good moral life, in many ways indistinguishable from the first.
more...
Wednesday 12 October 2005 at 8:58 pm
I read this a few years ago but have never forgot it. A good piece in CT by Andy Crouch about God speaking. I use it often. http://www.ctlibrary.com/6414
Wednesday 12 October 2005 at 8:53 pm
I wrote this for Voices.
Since most of you are hopeless traditionalists (except for my friend Ken V who doesn't think we need preachers at all.
%20Happy.png)
) I'll give you my list
1. Illustrations: People forget most sermon points, you can repeat those many times during the year and no one will remember. Repeat an illustration, however, and you'll get a comment for sure. Katrina I'm sure make her appearance in many sermons over the last couple of months. Is it better to talk about with a slide or two or without? Same goes for nearly anything in pop culture. Is it better to say "Tony Soprano" or to see him there in all his miserable glory. How about Jack and Rose from Titanic: "he saved me in every way a woman can be saved..." How about the big line from Jerry Maguire: "You complete me." This week I take on Paul in Ephesians where he teaches husbands, wives, children, slaves. Some things in American culture need to be challenged when you preach that text.
more...
Tuesday 11 October 2005 at 10:01 pm
No one knows what quite to do with hell. Emergents like McLaren struggle what to say about it or whether or not to talk about it. Evangelicals want to profess it's existence but generally shy away from assigning forks to it (at least the kinder, gentler evangelicals). The "religious left" either wants to see hell as unthinkable or reserve it for the intolerant. The best we can seem to say about hell is that hell is for enemies.
Part of me is very much like McLaren. The thought of hell, eternity of suffering, is just plain ugly and I wrestle to square this with how I want to feel about God.
Jen's powerful post, however, reminds me of the other side. As I read Jen's post I could feel it in my bones. Through her writing I could easily imagine myself in her place, seeing my child the victim of the strong and cruel. I quickly imagine myself falling upon these attackers, still young and undeveloped and using my size and strength to allow them to feel what it is like to be small and vulnerable. My hurting them I imagine would be both justified and redemptive. Are these youthful aggressors merely foolish? Victims that are simply returning the favor, their responsibility mitigated by the wounds done to them? Who on earth would not qualify for this category?
more...
Tuesday 11 October 2005 at 7:14 pm
I haven't seen the movie yet. I tend to wait for DVD but the movie is
generating some interesting discussion. Here is an interview with the
filmmaker by Jeff Overstreet (whose work in this area I admire). Good
interview not just on the movie and exorcism but also on the art of
movie making as a Christian. Should Christians make horror films? Never
thought about it before.
http://www.spu.edu/depts/uc/response/summer2k5/bookfilm/EmilyRose.asp
Tuesday 11 October 2005 at 6:08 pm
An interesting piece (referred to me from Voices) on Narcissism:
http://www.policyreview.org/oct05/rosen.html
One important quote from it:
Lasch argued throughout The
Culture of Narcissism that “The best
defenses against the terrors of existence are the homely comforts of love,
work, and family life, which connect us to a world that is independent of
our wishes yet responsive to our needs.” These were the very things
he saw the culture beginning to devalue.
I like that sentence. I do need someone and something that is
independent of my wishes yet responsive to my needs." A good church
should be like this, but this is often one of the things that people
are jettisoning with regard to churches. Churches have become such
thoroughly voluntary organization that in many ways they are ceasing to
function in this way. Same goes for families. We are in real trouble
when we have no one around us who can function in this way in our
world.
Tuesday 04 October 2005 at 9:36 pm
Interesting scholarly critique:
http://www.reformation21.org/Past_Issues/September_2005_Home/Feature_/82/
Thanks for posting the link and thanks for the comments that followed.
As I read this I thought about the development of the (still early)
Emergent movement. This movement did not really arise out of academia,
it came out of churches dealing with the issues of trying to do
effective ministry when so much ministry the church does is
underwhelming. When I read McLaren and others, who are clearly very
smart guys and very well read, they still do theology (and write books)
like pastors, not like scholars. Pastors do enough theology to know
something about it, to get themselves into trouble, etc. but in terms
of the discipline the life is very different from that of a seminary
professor or a grad student. I thought the intro to the piece was very
telling. How often haven't Seminary profs lamented at how when they
sent those young fellas out there into the ministry they were so nice
and ready and the church ruined them. :)
The "confusion" that Jue notes on McLaren's soteriology (footnote 49)
is a great example of this. As a pastor McLaren in his heart is caught
on the horns of what many pastors really wrestle with. What does the
existence of hell say about God's character? McLaren sees the choices
offered by orthodox theology and wants a third option. He doesn't know
what that option might be but he knows that there are problems with the
other two. I understand that, as do many people. In many ways the
emergent movement is still very much emerging and so some grace should
be offered as they try to work at their stuff. I thought Jue was
generous and fair in what seemed to be a seemingly
genuine attempt to be helpful by dialoguing respectfully with the
movement. A good example for all of us.
Part of why I enjoy reading McLaren is that I find him often wrestling
with many of the same things I wrestle with, and that is why many
people find him helpful. I may not always be able to go along with his
conclusions but that is normal. It is just comforting to know that you
are not alone in the misery of your challenge. If you look at the books
that pastors this is often the ground of why they are reading what they
are reading. Pastoring can be a very lonely profession. Unless you have
a good community of pastors around you with enough commonality and
contact for decent community you probably don't get an opportunity to
deal with the kinds of issues that McLaren and others bring up.
more...
