Showing posts with label Christian culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian culture. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

"Evangelicalism doesn't need a bailout. Much of it needs a funeral. But what about what remains?"

Take a read of THIS from Michael Spencer. These are fightin' words. But it's not all doom and gloom. Later in the article, he writes: "Despite all of these challenges, it is impossible not to be hopeful. As one commenter has already said, "Christianity loves a crumbling empire."

Read the 'prophecy':
Oneida, Ky. - We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I'm convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.

Why is this going to happen?

1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.

The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.

2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.

3. There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile. Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.

4. Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism. Evangelicalism has used its educational system primarily to staff its own needs and talk to itself.

5. The confrontation between cultural secularism and the faith at the core of evangelical efforts to "do good" is rapidly approaching. We will soon see that the good Evangelicals want to do will be viewed as bad by so many, and much of that work will not be done. Look for ministries to take on a less and less distinctively Christian face in order to survive.

6. Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith.

7. The money will dry up.

What will be left?

•Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.

•Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. Evangelicals have been entering these churches in recent decades and that trend will continue, with more efforts aimed at the "conversion" of Evangelicals to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

•A small band will work hard to rescue the movement from its demise through theological renewal. This is an attractive, innovative, and tireless community with outstanding media, publishing, and leadership development. Nonetheless, I believe the coming evangelical collapse will not result in a second reformation, though it may result in benefits for many churches and the beginnings of new churches.

•The emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape, becoming part of the small segment of progressive mainline Protestants that remain true to the liberal vision.

•Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear.

•Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism. Can this community withstand heresy, relativism, and confusion? To do so, it must make a priority of biblical authority, responsible leadership, and a reemergence of orthodoxy.

•Evangelicalism needs a "rescue mission" from the world Christian community. It is time for missionaries to come to America from Asia and Africa. Will they come? Will they be able to bring to our culture a more vital form of Christianity?

•Expect a fragmented response to the culture war. Some Evangelicals will work to create their own countercultures, rather than try to change the culture at large. Some will continue to see conservatism and Christianity through one lens and will engage the culture war much as before – a status quo the media will be all too happy to perpetuate. A significant number, however, may give up political engagement for a discipleship of deeper impact.

Is all of this a bad thing?

Evangelicalism doesn't need a bailout. Much of it needs a funeral. But what about what remains?

Is it a good thing that denominations are going to become largely irrelevant? Only if the networks that replace them are able to marshal resources, training, and vision to the mission field and into the planting and equipping of churches.

Is it a good thing that many marginal believers will depart? Possibly, if churches begin and continue the work of renewing serious church membership. We must change the conversation from the maintenance of traditional churches to developing new and culturally appropriate ones.

The ascendency of Charismatic-Pentecostal-influenced worship around the world can be a major positive for the evangelical movement if reformation can reach those churches and if it is joined with the calling, training, and mentoring of leaders. If American churches come under more of the influence of the movement of the Holy Spirit in Africa and Asia, this will be a good thing.

Will the evangelicalizing of Catholic and Orthodox communions be a good development? One can hope for greater unity and appreciation, but the history of these developments seems to be much more about a renewed vigor to "evangelize" Protestantism in the name of unity.

Will the coming collapse get Evangelicals past the pragmatism and shallowness that has brought about the loss of substance and power? Probably not. The purveyors of the evangelical circus will be in fine form, selling their wares as the promised solution to every church's problems. I expect the landscape of megachurch vacuity to be around for a very long time.

Will it shake lose the prosperity Gospel from its parasitical place on the evangelical body of Christ? Evidence from similar periods is not encouraging. American Christians seldom seem to be able to separate their theology from an overall idea of personal affluence and success.

The loss of their political clout may impel many Evangelicals to reconsider the wisdom of trying to create a "godly society." That doesn't mean they'll focus solely on saving souls, but the increasing concern will be how to keep secularism out of church, not stop it altogether. The integrity of the church as a countercultural movement with a message of "empire subversion" will increasingly replace a message of cultural and political entitlement.

Despite all of these challenges, it is impossible not to be hopeful. As one commenter has already said, "Christianity loves a crumbling empire."

We can rejoice that in the ruins, new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement. This cannot help but be good for an evangelicalism that has made buildings, numbers, and paid staff its drugs for half a century.

We need new evangelicalism that learns from the past and listens more carefully to what God says about being His people in the midst of a powerful, idolatrous culture.

I'm not a prophet. My view of evangelicalism is not authoritative or infallible. I am certainly wrong in some of these predictions. But is there anyone who is observing evangelicalism in these times who does not sense that the future of our movement holds many dangers and much potential?
Discuss.

_________________
Pic on Flickr by Maytevidri.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

I Stopped Attending Church

No. Not really.

Au contraire , I will be a thrice-a-week guy on Sunday!

It's just that I have been thinking on the verb 'to attend' when used in relation to the noun 'church'. I'm not sure that the that the verb 'to attend' should ever be used with the word 'church' - as in 'I attend Christ Church' - not for the believer in Jesus.

Another verb must be used.

I have found it useful to actually ask people what verb should be used before the word 'church'? As in "I [.........] church". I find it is a helpful question that opens up a conversation about a person's attitude to the church.

Two questions:
  • What are your other options? What are the best (or Biblical?) verbs to use with church? And why?
  • What are the implications if 'attend' is the verb being used?
____________________________
Pic on Flickr by Prof.Tournesol.

PS: This post was prompted because I looked at the website of Sojourn Church in Louisville, KY. The lead pastor there, Daniel Montgomery, has a good way about him. We have met on a number of occasions at Redeemer related events. And my experience of him was simple: I trust him. He has a series at the moment called: "Stop Going to Church."

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Cult of Personality: Emptying the Cross of its Power

2 months ago, I declared to a mate of mine that I would not post any more about what is now commonly known as 'Cult of Personality'.

I guess I'd already said my piece. And more than that, I found myself regularly being misunderstood. (Most of my correspondents thought that I was attacking their hero, and so they defended that hero, not realizing that my problem is *not* with their hero, but with we who lift them up! In many ways, they proved my point, but it never helped the dialogue!)

But I'm going to post once more, because I've just now read an article by Carl Truman from Westminster Theological Seminary. The article has put shape and insight into the very issue that I have found most troubling in our Mega-Church, Personality-Driven World. (H/T Justin Taylor)

Seriously.

I finally feel like I have an ally.

Here is it: "The Day they Tried to Recruit Me" By Carl Trumen.

Please take time to read the whole article. Trueman says of the Professorial world --
The cult of professor worship is perhaps the most dangerous and reprehensible cult in the theological world. (...) It is no respecter of souls: nothing so destroys a Christian leader, or his followers, than the mutual flattery involved in the uncritical adulation of a fan-base for a professorial rock star (and I use that term advisedly). Hence, while every instinct in me told me that the offer was a great opportunity to start up Team Trueman on campus, I chose to go against my fallen desires and immediately declined the offer.
But the bit that was most helpful to me is when Trueman made the point that the Rock Star Professor may 'negate the power of Christ' --
What is worse than this, of course, is that such people negate the power of the cross of Christ. Paul makes the point with ruthless effect in 1 Corinthians 1. To indulge in a cult of personality is not simply to miss the point of the cross; it is also to empty the cross of its power. That is why it is not simply incumbent upon students to guard against being sucked in to such idolatry. How much more is it incumbent upon the professors to avoid becoming the objects of such a cult? It is often said that you cannot enter into a pulpit and make yourself look like a great preacher and Christ look like a great savior at one and the same time. So it is in the classroom, on campus, at conferences: the professor, the theologian, cannot point to the power of the cross and simultaneously encourage a cult of personality. These things simply cannot stand together. Indeed, it is surely vital that the professor not only avoid creating such cults but also actively opposes them as they start to arise around him. To do less than this is, I fear, to empty the cross of its power and to lead others into idol worship.
Hear hear.

I have said something similar here:
It's even further nuanced by this: that when we always link to our favorite preacher, and then download, talk about, love, follow, go to conferences to fawn over, get a photo with, compare to, rate, hire because of fame, join a mega-church on the gifts of a single personality, make a Facebook group to express your appreciation for your favorite pastor-teacher, then… it may just be possible, without even realizing it, to 'empty the cross of it power'! It’s all in 1 Corinthians 1-2. 1:17 in particular.

What does it, in this text, mean to 'empty the cross of its power?'

I’m very nervous about the fact that even the good guys are going down the same route, in principle, as the followers of bad televangelists of the ‘80s: running after their favorite preachers. We just do it in style, and with good theology.
I could write as I have done before 'Discuss'.

But I'd prefer to ask: "Do you actually understand Truman's argument?" And if yes, then what do you think about it?

______________________________

Here is the original post I put up on this issue:
No, I'm not a fan of John Piper.

And here are some others:
Yes, I am a fan of Selwyn Sexton (3 Posts).
Trading Card for Evangelicals.
Jonathon Edwards and Tacos.

And here are all 14 posts with the Tag:
Corinthian Hoo-Haa.

________________
Pic on Flickr by Noniphon.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

TheTyranny of The Text?

I was speaking to a friend the other day. He is not in a (regular) preaching ministry, although he serves in a church with a strong preaching ministry.

He was lamenting good preaching, and was fired up about it. In particular, he aimed his fire at preaching that just 'adheres the the text'. He maintained that most preaching that (basically) sticks to the text is boring. Terribly boring.

And he offered two suggestions as to why preachers just adhere to the text (instead of setting the text in a more coherent theology, or a larger narrative). He suggested:

1. Concerns about Unity: He said that in lots of churches and denominations, there is so much disagreement about world view and theology, that "at least we can agree about these 10 verses". Or, on the other hand, it puts some limits on debate: "What do these 10 verses say, or not say?" Adhering to the text is a way to not rock the boat.

2. Fear of Theology: Preachers are afraid to put together, and then to stand by a coherent theology that they preach week by week. So we limit ourselves weekly to 'just saying what this chapter says'.

Further Reading:
Discuss.

_________________________
Pic by Bethmalena.

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Does Church Shopping have an Upside?

Last week, Richard Mouw, President of the Fuller Theological Seminary in CA, wrote a piece in Christianity Today called "Spiritual Consumerism's Upside: Why church shopping may not be all bad." His idea is that 'church shopping' has an upside: that if we 'shop around', we might find our vocation -- a place God wants us to be -- not unlike the Catholics finding their calling within the RC Church. Read the article HERE.

The article bothered me for one simple reason: He seems to fail to realize how a metaphor works! I posted the following response on CT. But there isn't really space for dialogue over there. So we could have it here. Here is what I posted:
Help me to understand. With great respect (writing to Dr Mouw), it appears that you misunderstood the nature of a metaphor.

'Shopping' is almost always about me and what I want right now: I need a TV, I choose the one for me, and pay the lowest price. I need shoes, I shop around. I need a car, I haggle for the price. Precisely because its about me. That's why the metaphor 'church shopping' has been used so negatively for so long. That's why the word 'shop' and the word 'church' ought never be placed together!

What you are describing here is (in your own words) vocation. Vocation is not shopping. It's about finding God's plan and place so that a person may serve him and his world. What you are describing here as vocation is exactly right. We need to pray and seek to find the right place to promote the Kingdom. We need discernment in churches and discernment in theologies. Yes!

But surely a metaphor (like shopping) has to actually *mean* what it implies. That's how English works, does it?
(And this is worth a read too: Anthony Sacramone wrote a post on 'First Things' HERE. Anthony is an acquaintance of mine, and begins his critique: "With all due respect to Dr. Mouw, his thesis is just daft." and concludes: "But a day at the mall it [Church] ain’t." I might say that everything else in between is pure gold.)

So...
  • Have you ever gone looking for a church? (That is, you weren't called out to serve in another church. For whatever reason, you were in a position where you had to go looking.)
  • If you were honest with yourself, would you have liken it to 'shopping'? In what way?
  • How would you spot consumerist tendencies in yourself (if you had them) and what can you do about it?
__________________

Friday, August 10, 2007

Do our Churches have a version of Rumspringa?

You've heard of Rumspringa, right? It's an Amish thing. It refers to a period in adolescence where young Amish are not bound by their communities. And many (although not all) do the crazy things that they think about all the time, but couldn't normally do! Rumspringa literally means "Running Around". They idea is that after they have 'run around', they (hopefully) come back and dig in to community and stay there.

Do our Churches have a version of Rumspringa?

I just read this article from LifeWay. It's a survey of young Americans. It refers to the fact the 70% of American church-goers, aged 18-22, simply stop going to church for a year or more. They leave their home town (say, they come to NYC!) and simply don't connect with a new community in which to be accountable. Go ahead and read the article. There are lots of reasons they give as to why they stop contributing. And many apparently come back.

Here in NYC, it rings true. The Christian Groups on campus (while top-notch) are comparatively small. I meet young people all the time who are not really connected into a community that functions in a healthy way with strong accountability. They sometime go to several churches for different personal-preference reasons ("I go here for the 'worship' , there for the 'teaching', and I drop in to another church for the 'community' " etc.) And many don't go anywhere, except sheepishly when they go home for breaks.

In three weeks time (when the new school year begins) my community, Christ Church NYC, will meet many of the students who will be confronted with this choice.

Some questions you could help me with:

1. What do you make of the survey and the thoughts contained within?
2. Can we do anything about it?
3. (For my Australian friends: What are the differences, do you think, between the continents?)
4. What is a compelling vision for this age group?

Here is a quote:
Stetzer noted, "There is no easy way to say it, but it must be said. Parents and churches are not passing on a robust Christian faith and an accompanying commitment to the church. We can take some solace in the fact that many do eventually return. But, Christian parents and churches need to ask the hard question, ‘What is it about our faith commitment that does not find root in the lives of our children?’"
h/t Justin.
Pic by niznoz

Thursday, July 26, 2007

What makes God look Glorious?


This video clip is John Piper at his God-given best: Strong, profound, pastoral and devastatingly simple.

These three minutes settle the matter for me: I will not give ground to the prosperity gospel, and I will speak openly against it. There is too much at stake. The alternative life (suffering in and for Christ) has a Power that the proponents of the prosperity gospel cannot and will not understand.

(Warning: there is a profoundly sad story mentioned at 1:30, for the sensitive).

H/T Christine

__________________

Friday, July 13, 2007

Irony

Does anyone else think it’s ironic that Christian people use the word 'Christianese' to describe Christian jargon?

Personally, I think its tops. And a gentle smile comes across my face whenever the word is used.

See also here.

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Advice to churches: 'Anyone new feels alone and stupid!'

Interviewer: In your visits to churches, how important were first impressions, say during the first 5 minutes of arriving? If the first impression was negative, did you sometimes find the overall experience overcame that?

Jim: VERY important- if ANYONE approached us (without it being their job) it was the exception rather than the rule. It hardly ever happened but when it did we NOTICED. Frankly the lack of that failed to change much else for us since we adapted to the environment and simply stopped expecting spontaneous, unsolicited, non-directed greetings. Here’s how people feel whenever they enter a new experience—alone and stupid. Churches need to “attack” those feelings by training Christians (the non-professional and non-highly motivated kinds) to simply say “hi” to someone who they have not noticed before. That one small action would do more to increase church attendance than any other single action currently being tried.

H/T Benjamin.

Pic is by Elektracute on Flickr

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

On becoming a Roman Catholic

Before moving to New York City, I met very few Protestants who were interested in becoming Roman Catholic . But I've met quite a few here in NYC. It's got me thinking. Becoming a Catholic is a very serious business and ought not to be treated lightly. I think that the Catholics themselves would say that. And I would agree, but for entirely different reasons.

I can't imagine doing it, and I'm troubled by it. There is too much extra stuff there that I couldn't bring into my heart -- there is too much theological, soteriological, ecclesiological, pastoral, and political stuff. But I won't go into that now. Instead, I have been trying to work out what the appeal is.

What would make you do it?

Now this is all a bit of fun (so please don't take this too seriously), but I reckon that there are at least six kinds of Protestants interested in the Roman Church:

1. Rebellious Protestants – who kind of reject their Spartan evangelical upbringing and enjoy telling their parents during summer vacation that they are now going to mass!
2. Mystery Protestants – who kind of reject the hype and loudness and 'certainty' of their Protestant church, and seek to simply sit in quiet mystery for a moment.
3. Unity Protestants – who are confused about the 100,000 different options and splits that the Protestants are famous for! 'If you don't like it, then start another church' stuff! And these Protestants find some assurance in the fact that Rome at least has the appearance of unity – even if he has to live in Rome.
4. Historical Protestants – who simply admire that the denomination is older than their pastor! :)
5. Political Protestants – who find the stand of Rome against some things inspiring: like abortion and euthanasia and ordaining women as priests.
6. Admiring Protestants – who admire one or more particular Roman Catholics (Like Richard Neuhaus, or Henri Nouwen or some friends maybe) and seek to find out what 'they have that I don't have'.

Have I missed anyone in my list?

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Sermon Help: By 'x' all people will know...

I am speaking on John 13:34-35 at our Maundy Thursday service:

Jesus said: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
So its by your love for one another that anyone else could then pick you out from the crowd as a follower of Jesus. And not something else.
My question: What would that something else possibly be? What do you think it is? What does the secular media think it is? What do Christian people think it is? What do 'Church shoppers' think it is?

By 'x' all people will know that you are my disciples, if you 'x'."

What could 'x' be if it is not love? Take a stab at it and be creative.
?

Thursday, March 29, 2007

'...But I liked the story the folksinger told'.

I only ever got half way through the popular book called Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. It wasn't that I didn't like it. On the contrary, it is a very entertaining read. It was frustrating at points but genuinely funny at other times. And sometimes profound.

I never finished it because, on an flight from New York to Atlanta, I was talking with a Jewish person about Jesus, and the only literature that I had on me was the book I was reading. I hope that some things in Miller's book was helpful.

Anyway, read this expert from Blue Like Jazz and then I have a question, and a bit of a survey...

A long time ago I went to a concert with my friend Rebecca. Rebecca can sing better than anybody I've ever heard sing. I heard this folksinger was coming to town, and I thought she might like to see him because she was a singer too. The tickets were twenty bucks, which is a lot to pay if you're not on a date. Between songs, though, he told a story that helped me resolve some things about God. The story was about his friend who was a Navy SEAL. He told it like it was true, so I guess it was true, although it could have been a lie.

The folksinger said his friend was performing a covert operation, freeing hostages from a building in some dark part of the world. His friend's team flew in by helicopter, made their way to the compound and stormed into the room where the hostages had been imprisoned for months. The room, the folksinger said, was filthy and dark. The hostages were curled up in a corner, terrified, When the SEALs entered the room, they heard the gasps of the hostages. They stood at the door and called to the prisoners, telling them they were Americans, The SEALS asked the hostages to follow them, but the hostages wouldn't. They sat there on the floor and hid their eyes in fear. They were not of healthy mind and didn't believe their rescuers were really Americans.

The SEALs stood there, not knowing what to do. They couldn't possibly carry everybody out. One of the SEALs, the folksinger's friend, got an idea. He put down his weapon, took off his helmet, and curled up tightly next to the other hostages, getting so close his body was touching some of theirs. He softened the look on his face and put his arms around them. He was trying to show them he was one of them. None of the prison guards would have done this. He stayed there for a little while until some of the hostages started to look at him, finally meeting his eyes. The Navy SEAL whispered that they were Americans and were there to rescue them. “Will you follow us?” he said. The hero stood to his feet and one of the hostages did the same, then another, until all of them were willing to go. The story ends with all the hostages safe on an American aircraft carrier.

I never liked it when the preachers said we had to follow Jesus. Sometimes they would make Him sound angry. But I liked the story the folksinger told.

Now... I liked the story too. Isn't it a TOP illustration? Doesn't it resonate? Almost every other sermon I wonder if I can squeeze it in somewhere. It's that kind of illustration. It fits in with the current desire to preach a 'beautiful' Jesus, and it works perfectly with our current language with regard to sin: we are 'broken and hurting' (rather than willful and rebellious).

But my question: Is it a true representation of Jesus' command to 'follow him'?

I don't want to buy it simply because it resonates with me. So I did a little work in the Gospels. Here are the results of my survey:

  • Take a read of THESE verses. They are far more aggressive than Miller's illustration may suggest. It is far more in line with Bonhoeffer's bold statement: "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die." There is no softened look. There is not question (will you follow me?), but a command. This is not the 'hero whispering', it is the Lord commanding.
  • I found THESE texts to be more neutral on the topic. There isn't the suggestion that these men have a sense of 'brokenness'. They are called to follow, and they simply do.
  • But THESE are verses of people who follow because they were healed, or cared for. They are Jesus getting down beside and with suffering people. Interestingly, he makes no command to follow him -- they just follow.
  • THIS verse from Luke comes very close. 'It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick': the captive whose very need means that he is invited to follow.
  • And the most interesting result: Miller's illustration has the strongest case in the Gospel John! THESE verses are all from John.

I'm aware that this is a lot of words for a Blog, but it may make a good Bible Study for some Home Group or something. Or...comment away...

Do you like the illustration? Is it exegetically or theologically accurate? Does it ring your bell?

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Guest Post: Growing up Christian in Communist China.

Stella goes to my church. She is a great servant of Jesus. I wrote a post a few weeks ago called Why the CHINESE UNDERGROUND CHURCH grew. It was part of a WHOLE SERMON I gave a couple of weeks ago. I was looking for confirmation that what I said was a true and accurate statement of what happens in China. You know how these things can be exaggerated.

Stella wrote the following note for this Blog (She agreed that I could post this publicly):

A note from a Chinese who grew up in a Christian family in China: To be more precise, the 'underground' church in China is actually called 'house church', cos they are located in people's houses instead of public locations.

They are churches not registered in Communist government, but 'have not officially been outlawed'. Due to the 'fears of a center of popular mobilization outside the control of the Communist Party of China', Chinese government tries to control their numbers.

I’ve heard that when a house church goes beyond 30 people, government will interrupt with dismiss or fine or even persecution. But I can’t find the official proof for the specific number.

Actually the restriction varies in different provinces. For the open cities along the coast, there are no specific numbers to restrict the house church; while more severe restriction for inland cities.

My hometown is one of the open cities by the east coast of China, where the house church sometimes goes to over 100 people, but still without government interruption as long as they are not doing anything obviously threatening government, such as preaching something anti-government.

I do agree that the way house church splits might result in the faster growth, which is sort of like 'cell division' type of growth, the size might be small, but the growing is speedy. To quote a Chinese saying ---" a single spark can burn out the whole forest" :)
I then asked Stella if she felt unsafe in church in China. Here is her answer:
While I was growing up, I didn't feel anything unsafe because of my religion. But I was used to going to THREE SELF CHURCH mostly, sometimes going to house church as well. I just follow where my parents go.

My sister is currently in a house church, the one I mentioned in your blog which has over 100 people. I went with her to the Sunday service twice while I was in China last month. I didn't feel anything unsafe at all. It was in the pastor's house. Normally if you would like to open your own house for a public gathering, no matter for what purpose, you are supposed to register in the government. They did so, but government doesn't want them to register, instead they want them to go under the Three-Self church. They don't want to do so, cos they don't agree with the way how Three-Self operates. So the government just let it be without taking any action to interrupt. but I guess maybe they will keep an eye on it.
I guess if anyone wants to ask any questions, Stella may be able to answer! Pray for our brothers and sisters in China.

Thanks Stella.

Monday, March 19, 2007

Rob Bell and Al Gore and Stardom

I balked at posting this. But I've decided to post and see what comes...

I've been having more thoughts about the New Media and Rob Bell posting. I feel like I'm coming close to being able to express some of the things that concern me. And by that, I'm not meaning the things that concern me about Rob Bell's theology (although that would be worth discussing).

My concern is about us turning a local church pastor into some sort of superhero. (And especially when recognition of that person comes in a short space of time without some level of rigorous testing.)

Try this for comparison:

I read THIS ARTICLE last week in the Sydney Morning Herald. I think its from the New York Times. It is about Al Gore, who (with respect to the environment) really is in academic turf, and yet he is speaking people's language around the world, and being treated like a pop star. Read this bit:

Although Mr Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in An Inconvenient Truth. [...] While praising Mr Gore for "getting the message out", Dr Vranes questioned whether his presentations were "overselling our certainty about knowing the future". "He's a very polarising figure in the science community," said Dr Pielke, an environmental scientist and a colleague of Dr Vranes at the University of Colorado. "Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr Gore."
Now, try this exercise: Change 'Mr Gore' to 'Mr Bell'; 'scientist' to 'theologian'; 'science to theology'; 'An inconvenient Truth' to 'Velvet Elvis'; Dr Varnes to Ben Witherington (who generously and appropriately praises and yet still questions some things that are said by Bell), and 'future' to 'Talmud'.

I may be wrong, but do you see how we now mirroring society? Am I onto something? The key line is this: "Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr Gore."

Something is not right. Something doesn't add up. And something has to be said or done before a culture of Corinthian Hoo-Haa becomes a problem for Christendom. Unless it has already happened.

I wonder if Tubeo is right when he commented on a previous post:

Can I drop another idea in here? A couple of years back there was a conference in Scotland (I'm pretty clueless about the details - maybe someone can fill me in here) where it was concluded that in western culture 'the famous' has overtaken 'the hero' (used in classical terms) for what we look to and marvel at.
Let me clarify: I am not arguing for an elite group of people who have the right to be heard. Not at all. Not at all. I am, however, nervous about having super-stars in Christendom. I think that it's too Corinthian.

Thoughts?

Friday, March 02, 2007

New Media and Rob Bell in the 00s.

I know its two weeks ago, but I want to write a point of clarification re the Bell v Packer post .

My aim was not to compare a previous generation (that had 'higher reading') to the current generation (that has 'dumbed down'). Not at all. Anyone who knows me knows that I have never been a particularly great reader, nor am I a thinker, and I'm certainly no academic. I had to marry one to feel better about that deficiency in my development. :)

And I also know plenty of students here in the US and in Australia who are profoundly careful and wise about who they learn from and who they read, as the comments pointed out.

I am asking, though, if there have been any significant shift in the last 20 years.

I guess I just wondered how and why it is that we place a good man like Rob Bell in center stage on academic issues. Why are we now turning to Mark Driscoll for 'Christology'? And Rob Bell for 'Jesus in his Jewish Context'? And Brian McLaren to tell us about 'Major Cultural Shifting'? I'm sure they all have good thoughts, and good popular ways of teaching those thoughts. But have we put these guys in over their own heads? I hope not. That would be no fun for them.

Maybe nothing has changed. But if it has, what has changed? I think that the answer is, in part, New Media.

Sam R wrote asks some questions about New Media HERE.

(I'm not out to criticize New Media. If anything, we need to get the guys who still use typewriters to start using their 'puters.)

I guess my point is not that we ought to be reading 'higher' (which could be simply elitism), but it is this: That local regular pastors are now being treated as though they are ground-breaking global scholars. And we are looking to these guys to 'repaint the faith' (to use Bell's terms), or to give us a 'new kind of Christianity' (to use McLaren's term). Of course, I have no problem with Rob Bell and Mark Driscoll et al doing what they do as a pastor in their local communities. They ought to pastor their churches by speaking the truth in love. And their communities can debate and speak personally with them about any new and fresh thoughts.

That’s how community works.

But with the iPod, its global. Anyone and everyone can 'choose' Bell while joggin' or catchin' the train. Heck, you can listen to Bell on your way to and from church on the same text that your own pastor just bumbled his way through! :)

But then do we leave behind the books and reflections of the people who, over decades of work, debate and study, have been proven and tested to 'know their stuff'?

Does that still sound elitist? I sincerely hope not, and I apologize in advance if it does...

:)

Friday, February 23, 2007

Post #9: Why the CHINESE UNDERGROUND CHURCH grew.

SCROLL DOWN and read all the posts leading up to this one. But make sure you read the TEXT.

Do you know one possible reason that the underground church grew in China? And I’m not thinking persecution, which is the normal answer. One answer: Because of the communist government made it happen.

I have been told this (and I am looking for people who can comfirm this to be the case): That the communists knew groups were meeting and tolerated them. And monitored them. When a church grew to about 30, they said –

"Look, its OK that you meet, but you can’t have that many. It is potentially subversive."

So they were required to split in two. And therefore they grew and grew, splitting, and multiplying. And they knew each other, and kept each other accountable. I don’t know what this all means for us. We are more than 30 at Christ Church NYC. And we are more than 150 (See previous post).

I guess it will mean starting a new service. (For my non-NYC readers, we are planting a new congregation on April 1st).

Let’s get shrewd and keep thinking about our next congregation / church plant.

V9 (the second thing to learn) coming in a little while...

Post #8: Why GORE-TEX is more shrewd than the people of the Light.


SCROLL DOWN and read all the posts leading up to this one. But make sure you read the TEXT.

Have you read the Fifth chapter in The Tipping Point? The one with "The rule of 150". The book is a secular book. But the writer of Tipping Point asks the question – Why did John Wesley change the world is a way that George Whitfield didn't? Even though Whitfield was more famous in his day, and apparently a better preacher?

The answer, according to The Tipping Point, is this: he started smaller churches wherever he went. No more than 150 in one grouping. And then kept on 'planting'. 150, the book maintains, is a size that cultivates trust and community.

Armies know this. How do you get men to fight with each other and to trust each other? And to utilize gifts? Answer: Group them in groups of 100, and not many more. (They have centurions etc.)

Gore-tex – the coat manufacture takes this perspective. Every factory they have, (and there are 45 Plants worldwide) apparently has only 150 employees. They do this so that you do not have to have 'department heads'. Instead, you have relationships and trust. And do you know how they make sure it’s only 150? -- Make the car park fit only 150 cars! So then you are forced to start a new one factory. Shrewd.

Of course, not every company runs this way, nor necessarily needs to. That’s not The Tipping Point’s point. And I’m not saying that a church should only be 150. We at Christ Church NYC are a touch more than 150. But at least a book like this helps us here in Manhattan to ask the right questions. Not, 'are we big'? But 'is our size optimal for maturity and accountability and touching and transforming more lives for Christ?' What are we aiming for? And what is our 'car park' to make us plant more churches?

I am very keen for comments from readers on this one. Is OSO a reader?

But still...
… the people of the world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the people of the light.
An example of a shrewd church in coming in just a few hours... (When I'm back from IVCF [EU] at NYU. Pray for them will you? Great people. A few of them have joined Christ Church, and we are excited about their lives).

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Jim Packer in the 80s, Rob Bell in the 00s?

Tell me the truth.

First, to understand this post, you must read THIS - It is Ben Witherington's post on Rob Bell's speaking tour. (You'll need a few minutes). Read the comments too.

Amongst lots of thoughts on reading that Blog, I have this one:

When we were at University, everyone I know read people like Stott, Packer, Carson and Wright and others like them to learn and explore difficult things from the Bible. If we needed to know what the Ancient Jewish traditions were, it was scholars we turned to -- people whose academic 'runs were on the board'. We 'listened' to them debate. And if we didn't read them, we talked and listed to those who had read and digested these guys. The scholars may not have been particularly creative writers or outstanding speakers. But they spoke the truth with some level of authority. They wrote the proverbial book on these subjects. And they showed all their 'working out' in endless footnotes and bibliographies.

Now, more and more people are turning to Rob Bell, Mark Driscoll and Brian McLaren and others to educate us about theology and 1st century Jewish history and how they relate to the interpretation of Scripture and culture.

I know that popular speakers have always made clear what the academics have said. We all went to Katoomba Conventions and loved it. We all had good pastors teaching us the Scriptures faithfully within community and in creative ways that we could understand.

But now its global.

At least three things have changed:
  • We are getting to be impatient readers -- They've all read Blue Like Jazz and Velvet Elvis, but try handing a student today John Stott's The Cross of Christ. Too much theology for some.
  • A distrust of authority -- Academics get it wrong all the time. If they can get it wrong, then it doesn't matter whether a person is proven to know their subject. Especially if they 'connect' with young people and 'connect' with culture.
  • The invention of iPod and iTunes, togther with the 2 minutes it takes to download any old junk.

Am I right? And have we taken a turn for the worse? And is there any hope?

I'm not sure. All I know is that Ben Witherington III sat waiting in a packed house ready to watch Rob Bell speak about the history of Judaism and its impact on Christianity.

Methinks it should have been the other way around.

Sunday, September 17, 2006

The new 'Company Talk'

Churches used to talk all the time about removing jargon from our language. This was ‘company talk’, and those looking to join the company didn’t know the lingo. So words had to be explained or avoided.

So we worked hard at not using words like ‘sin’, ‘righteousness’, ‘judgment’ and ‘atonement’. These words needed to be avoided or explained. Interestingly, you could freely use words like ‘love’, ‘peace’ and ‘hope’. I’m not sure whether jargon was the problem, so much as fear of confrontation.

Hmmm.

Anyway, times have moved on. And the company is not quite the same as it was. So, I give you now the new company jargon. I've picked up many of these in this last year.

  • Missional
  • Worshipful
  • Emergent
  • Emerging
  • Lead Pastor
  • Wholeness
  • Wellness
  • Healthful
  • Conversant with...

I don't know what half of these words mean, and I work here.

Love, Justin.


Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Acts 2 community: There is no going back.

Let me run an idea up the Flagpole ... Please feel free to shoot it down.

I’ve been pondering the widely-held belief that the “Acts 2 Community” is the ideal Christian community: the one to which we should aspire. Here is what that community was like:
  • They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching; fellowship; to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
  • Everyone was filled with awe.
  • Many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.
  • All the believers were together and had everything in common, and they gave to anyone as he had need. etc.

George Barna in his latest [odd] book Revolution basically uses Acts 2 by which to measure all other churches, past and present, saying: "Who wouldn't want to be a part of this?"

And the challenge, of course is that if the Church could get herself back to that, we’d be better off: we’d be more God honouring; less institutional etc. We need real community. And the 'Acts 2 community' is real community we need.

There is no doubt that the text here is describing a situation that is wonderful. That is clear. It’s also clear in Acts 4:32-35. The truth is -- I do want this kind of community. And I think that Acts 2 functions as a wake up call for our often lazy-consumer-driven church experiences.

But I'm not sure that God wants us to go back to this.

I am wondering whether the 'Acts 2 community' is an adequate model for us. It’s not enough. Here are my three reasons why we need to go beyond the Acts 2 Community.

1. They have yet to include a single non-Jewish person.

The Gentile question doesn’t get hammered out properly until Acts 15. God has to give Peter a bizarre dream to get him to move beyond racial boundaries. The Acts 2 community is a racially Jewish community only. It is yet to be inclusive.

Don’t we want the Jew-Gentile community that gets hammered out after Act 15? With all the difficulties that come with reaching out beyond racial comfort zones? I'm glad, as a Gentile, that the community did not remain the way they were.

2. They have yet to be tested under the fire of persecution.

That doesn’t happen until Acts 4 [a 'nibble'], Acts 5 [a flogging], Acts 6 [Stephen arrested], Acts 7 [Stephen murdered], Acts 8 [A full-scale persecution breaks out]. Up until that point, everyone loves ’em.

Don’t we want a Church refined by the fire? One where ‘convenient faith’ is shown for what it really is? Isn’t the persecution and the testing [post Acts 2] one of the most powerful aspects of Acts?

3. They have yet to feel - and work through - disillusionment.

The first ‘problem’ with the community doesn’t happen until Acts 5:1-11. And a major shock to the system it was.

Don’t we want a community that can deal with disappointment in a gospel way? The Acts 2 community had yet to experience the disappointment. Don't we want to be able to cope, without replacing the gospel with inappropriate idealism? I want a Church that reflects Bonhoeffer’s words:

  • "Thus, the very hour of disillusionment with my brother becomes incomparably productive, because it so thoroughly teaches me that neither of us can ever live by our own words and deeds, but only by the one Word and Deed which really binds us together--the forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ. When the morning mists of dreams vanish, then dawns the bright day of Christian fellowship."

I think that I’d prefer the Acts 2 community together with what God does in that community after the ideal is described. God had more blessing for them. And we are the inheritors of that blessing.

There is no going back. Only forward.

Fire away.

Love, Justin.