Thursday, May 01, 2008
The Great Debate
While running down my list of blogs I read daily, I followed a slight rabbit trail and stumbled upon this slice of modern American church. Ignore the main post and just read the comments not for entertainment's sake, but for a pure example of the pointless battles we wage so passionately in Christendom today—against our own brothers and sisters! In this case, it's Tim Stevens, a pastor at a well-known yet typical community megachurch in Indiana, who gets the brunt of the acerbic responses. He recently wrote a book, Pop Goes the Church, that says we should—how dare he!—engage the culture by using relevant language. But as you'll see in the postings, he quickly becomes the emblem for an entire church movement.
Call it "seeker-sensitive," "community," nondenominational," "interdenominational" ... the decripts for this movement all seem to mesh into a similar form. Essentially, it's the "new" church of the past 20-plus years continuing to redefine itself today, trying to reach people via a cultural relevancy that has been declared absent in the church at large. On the other end, of course, lies those who remain dedicated not so much to tradition (although some would argue that) but to the purity of a gospel that should stand alone. In the words of one commenter, it believes you don't need to "prop Jesus up" with thematic messages, slick packaging and rock 'n' roll introductions. Both movements are multifaceted and represent a myriad of styles, methodologies and fundamental principles. Yet we continue to argue which is, for lack of a more precise measurement, better.
For some, the argument is over whether the church is actually broken. For others, it's a dispute over methodology. For those honest enough to admit their personal bias, it's a preference issue. But I encourage you to take a step back from whatever you feel is right and simply assess the heated reactions we often bring to the discussion table. Rather than truly discuss matters and search for truth, we're quick to fire our preloaded guns—once again, at our own brothers and sisters. The comments at the above link show we are at the point—and have been for years—of absurdity. Does this really matter in the grand scheme of things?
I'll admit, I still struggle with the debate between "seeker-sensitive" (I realize I'm over-generalizing here) and the more traditional (note: not necessarily antiquated). I've experienced the positives and negatives of both firsthand, and I've heard years' worth of impassioned arguments for and against each. I am part of an extended family that often derides the seeker-sensitive church's stigma of a watered-down gospel, lack of discipleship and entertainment-based services. This family believes whole-heartedly that a full dose of God's glory and His Spirit's powerful movement is what essentially transforms individuals—not styles or methods, although both play a role in church life. At the same time, my natural family is deeply steeped in a thriving movement that continues to expand. Lives are being changed. Those who have tossed church aside are being reignited with a newfound relevancy of what it means to be a Christian. While this family admits it struggles at times with the maturation of true disciples, it cannot deny that its methods are changing individuals, families and communities.
So where do I land? Most leaders have an opinion. I'll be honest enough to admit I'm still not there yet. At times I wonder if we've missed the boat—on both sides of the lake. I question this new church in America and its lasting effectiveness, just as I question the "old" church and its supposedly waning effectiveness. Both seem to pale when I look at some of the rising, revolutionary churches I see abroad. Yet all of them, at least in intent, aim for the ultimate goal of establishing God's kingdom on earth through the hearts of people. And to me, that makes the bigger issue not how we're "doing" church but whether we're actually being the church—which starts with our fervent love for God and one another.
Call it "seeker-sensitive," "community," nondenominational," "interdenominational" ... the decripts for this movement all seem to mesh into a similar form. Essentially, it's the "new" church of the past 20-plus years continuing to redefine itself today, trying to reach people via a cultural relevancy that has been declared absent in the church at large. On the other end, of course, lies those who remain dedicated not so much to tradition (although some would argue that) but to the purity of a gospel that should stand alone. In the words of one commenter, it believes you don't need to "prop Jesus up" with thematic messages, slick packaging and rock 'n' roll introductions. Both movements are multifaceted and represent a myriad of styles, methodologies and fundamental principles. Yet we continue to argue which is, for lack of a more precise measurement, better.
For some, the argument is over whether the church is actually broken. For others, it's a dispute over methodology. For those honest enough to admit their personal bias, it's a preference issue. But I encourage you to take a step back from whatever you feel is right and simply assess the heated reactions we often bring to the discussion table. Rather than truly discuss matters and search for truth, we're quick to fire our preloaded guns—once again, at our own brothers and sisters. The comments at the above link show we are at the point—and have been for years—of absurdity. Does this really matter in the grand scheme of things?
I'll admit, I still struggle with the debate between "seeker-sensitive" (I realize I'm over-generalizing here) and the more traditional (note: not necessarily antiquated). I've experienced the positives and negatives of both firsthand, and I've heard years' worth of impassioned arguments for and against each. I am part of an extended family that often derides the seeker-sensitive church's stigma of a watered-down gospel, lack of discipleship and entertainment-based services. This family believes whole-heartedly that a full dose of God's glory and His Spirit's powerful movement is what essentially transforms individuals—not styles or methods, although both play a role in church life. At the same time, my natural family is deeply steeped in a thriving movement that continues to expand. Lives are being changed. Those who have tossed church aside are being reignited with a newfound relevancy of what it means to be a Christian. While this family admits it struggles at times with the maturation of true disciples, it cannot deny that its methods are changing individuals, families and communities.
So where do I land? Most leaders have an opinion. I'll be honest enough to admit I'm still not there yet. At times I wonder if we've missed the boat—on both sides of the lake. I question this new church in America and its lasting effectiveness, just as I question the "old" church and its supposedly waning effectiveness. Both seem to pale when I look at some of the rising, revolutionary churches I see abroad. Yet all of them, at least in intent, aim for the ultimate goal of establishing God's kingdom on earth through the hearts of people. And to me, that makes the bigger issue not how we're "doing" church but whether we're actually being the church—which starts with our fervent love for God and one another.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
As a pastor in the United Methodist (read: alleged "monolithic dinosaur") church... I have to agree. We spend so much time pointing out to everyone else where they fall short of the glory of God in their ministry that we forget to seek it in our own. God wants our worship to reflect who we are. The grand history of the church in the world is to take the message in context to the world. Good heavens, look at what Martin Luther did, what John Wesley did, what Amy Semple-MacPherson did. Does the church in Korea look like it does in Cleveland? Does the church in Argentina look like it does in Arkansas? God help us if it does. Should the church look and sound the same for Baby-Boomers as it does for Post-Moderns? No. The Word of God is translatable across cultures, and is able to impact all cultures in unique ways. There is huge danger in all of us having to look and act and sound and experience God in identical ways. God gave us the personalities we have, he wants us to use them in worship.
Post a Comment# posted by 
: 11:22 AM
: 11:22 AMLinks to this post:
<< Home
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ministrytodaymag.com%2Fblog%2Fuploaded_images%2Fatom-789988.gif)
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ministrytodaymag.com%2Fblog%2Fuploaded_images%2Fbloglines-793792.gif)
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ministrytodaymag.com%2Fblog%2Fuploaded_images%2Fmyyahoo-702660.gif)
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ministrytodaymag.com%2Fblog%2Fuploaded_images%2Fmygoogle-777464.gif)
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ministrytodaymag.com%2Fblog%2Fuploaded_images%2Fsub_itunes-743863.gif)
