the other end of the spectrum

that’s where i feel i’m at. i just spent a large chunk of today catching up on the last two months of posts, and there are a lot of ideas floating through my head, so bear with me. (i’ll try to be concise.)

it’s been several months since i’ve posted anything, so let me give you a bit of background to put this in context:

• i’ve grown up since day 1 in the cggc.
• i was highly involved in my church growing up, and feel very close to it.
• i just graduated college with an engineering degree.
• i feel called to the pastorate, or training indigenous pastors overseas (probably both).
• over the course of my college years, my theological understandings have changed somewhat, leaving me feeling a bit of an outsider in the cggc. (primarily, for those interested, i’m now a calvinist and a complementarian. don’t worry though, i don’t sprinkle babies ;-).)
• in spite of this, i still feel a love for the cggc, especially the church i grew up in.
• i’m young, cocky, arrogant, and in desperate need of grace. yet, i hope Christ will work in, through, and even in spite of me.
  

that being said, i’m not here to debate the finer points of creationism or predestination. but if you’ll lend me your ear (or rather, eye), i’d like to be a little radical among you, since there’s been so much talk of it. bill, this one’s for you ;-).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

first, i’d like to point out the grace that i find flowing freely from God to all of you. your gracious attitude in your disagreements, your love for those you wish would change and for God’s church, your passion for Scripture, and your longing for the lost to enter the Kingdom are all evidences that God is at work in you, and i am glad to be a witness to it.

second, i agree with you as far as most of the problems you’ve identified. the consumer culture of spectator-sport Christianity, the lack of vision and vitality, the chasing after every new fad (especially when it comes to marketing and treating church-as-business), and even bill’s harping on the hypocrisy of paying lip-service to winebrenner while doing things that would make him roll over in his grave are things in definite need of change.

where we don’t seem to see eye to eye is the solution.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) i don’t understand the distaste for creeds. it’s my understanding that there are many early creeds inside the New Testament (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Philippians 2:6-11, 1 Timothy 3:16, 2 Timothy 2:11-13). i agree that we have no absolute authority other than the Word of God, yet even winebrenner thought it necessary to publish a summary of Christian belief and practice. i think ben has said beautifully everything else i would want to say.

2) this next is particularly a response to dave said about church members being “intimidated by doctrine,” though i find bits of this idea all over this blog. here, i’ll let c.s. lewis speak for me, “they all say ‘the ordinary reader does not want theology; give him plain practical religion’. i have rejected their advice. i do not think the ordinary reader is such a fool. theology means ‘the science of God’, and i think any man who wants to think about God at all would like to have the clearest and most accurate ideas about Him which are available. [they] are not children: why should [they] be treated like children?”

moreover, a large part of my generation is tired of what has been called moralistic therapeutic deism: there is a god, he’ll help you when the shit hits the fan, and he’s angry about your sin, so you’d better clean up your act. now, i know that this is not what the cggc believes, but sometimes it seems like it. i’ve been listening more closely to the sermons at my church back home since i’ve started college and thinking more deeply about what Christianity’s all about, and i hear over and over again something along this theme: “here’s a major problem with us, as people in general and this congregation in particular. Christ has taught us to live differently, and has set the perfect example for us. so now we need to fix ourselves and live better.” then we’ll pray for God’s help in our fixing ourselves and doing better.

the problem is that there’s no meat here. there’s no gospel here. and you guys have hit that latter nail on the head. but it’s also that it’s watered down, it’s simplistic. there’s no sense of the majesty of God, no desperate need for and reliance on the Spirit to move in us, no real sorrow over sin (normally either fear of a god that closer resembles zeus than our Father, or a let-down pride that knows it ought to and can do better), no turning to Christ not only our substitute but as our perfect righteousness. we need to get back to the gospel, and not a simple summary, but a meaty exposition of what it means that we’re justified, what it means that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, what it means that “God is at work in you, to will and to work for His good pleasure.”

and please, don’t be afraid of using big words. most people don’t mind as long as you explain them. carburetor, descant and modem are specialized terms, but a mechanic, musician, or techie will know exactly what you’re talking about without a degree in the subject.

3) we need a bigger view of God. as i mentioned before, there’s a distinct lack of the majesty of God in our churches, at least as far as i can tell. most people seem to go to church because it’s “the right thing to do”, or because it’s socially expected, or to clear their conscience. they pray when they need something from God. they read their Bibles every once in a while because their pastor has guilt-tripped them into it, which lasts a day or so and then fades away.

to parallel bill’s repeating question, can we talk about the glory of God? can we talk about a God who, simply because He is, is worthy of my worship? can we talk about a God who isn’t like a lost puppy, hoping i’ll notice Him today and that i’ll turn around, but a God who demands my honor and respect, both by sheer awesomeness and by His incomprehensible grace? a God whose foremost passion is for His own Name, and who loves me because of His own grace, not because of anything good or deserving in me? a God who sent His Son to die, not just to show His love for ill-deserving sinners but also to justify Himself in “passing over former sins...to show His righteousness at the present time, so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus”?

that’s a God i can’t step all over. that’s a God i can’t wrap my mind around. that’s a God who is bigger and better than me in every way, and far beyond my imagination. that’s a God i can gladly worship.

4) along that same line, can we focus on God more than we focus on mission? i'm really glad you guys talk a lot about the mission of God, reaching out to the lost, doing acts of mercy and kindness, etc. but i'm of like mind with john piper on this one: “missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. worship is. missions exist because worship doesn’t. worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man.”

i know he’s specifically talking about frontier/overseas missions, but the same applies for being missional. we are on this mission, hopefully, because we love God and long to see His fame spread, long to have His gospel go out that the lost might be saved, not only or even primarily for their benefit, but so that more might give Him the glory that He deserves. yes, we do and ought to love people, and we want to see them saved from affliction, both here on earth and eternally in hell, and that they would enjoy God and all His gifts, now and forever. but, as far as i can tell, our primary focus Biblically is to be God and His glory, His renown.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it’s getting late, and long, so i’ll stop there. i know there is much in here that you guys agree with, and might wonder why i’m bringing it up. i ask that you not only believe it, and not only that you live it, but that you speak it as well. many of my generation feel like we’ve lost a lot to those who assumed the gospel and theology instead of proclaiming and explaining them.

i also know that this is far from perfect, and hope that you will extend the same grace to me that you’ve shown each other on this blog. i hope you will read this with charity, being able to discern what is good from what is false, and to be humble enough to find whatever may be profitable despite the flaws of my post. may God bless you all, brothers.

The emerging church on Sunday

What does the emerging church look like on Sunday?
If the church at Antioch (and her offespring) is the first emerging church, as I suggested in a previous post, there is not a very detailed picture of what the church looks like on Sunday.

I have intentionally said Sunday, rather than Sunday morning, because the only pictures we have in the New Testament were taken on Sunday evenings. Remember that scene in Troas with the lamps burning and the heat rising and the young man dozing in the window? (I almost always smile when I read that people fell asleep when Paul preached.)

Anyway...there is not much to indicate what took place when the church met. They celebrated the Lord's Supper and Paul preached.

Can we assume the church followed the pattern of Acts 2? Does form matter? If so, what is the foundation for that form?

In case it isn't obvious I have to confess my knowledge of the emerging church is more theoretical than practical and this is one area in which I would like some help.