Adrian made some responses to my earlier remarks, and he make all very good points. I guess I'm reacting to some things that I've seen in the chuch in the United States in recent years - a focus on numbers instead of orthodoxy. Quantity rather than quality, you might say.
A local leader in the Episcopal church, for example, recently said that he would rather have a vibrant community with heresy than to insist on orthodox doctrine and have a church schism.
Larger "non-denominational" churches in this area are, it seems, willing to become social events and entertainment, as long as it brings the people in. But in to what? If the Church must change its character in order to draw people, then why bother drawing them at all?
So, yes, I was unfair to Life Bridge. I made unwarranted conclusions about some people that were kind, giving, and probably very sincere. I did this in reaction to the way in which I saw things happen at another church which used to have a vibrant, and orthodox, community, and now has a much larger, much more vibrant community, at the expense of tradition, clearly stated beliefs, and a commitment to missions. And also at the expense of many of the long-suffering members. But, hey, as long as they brought the people in, these were acceptable sacrifices.
I still have a profound respect for Dr Elliiott, and for many of the folks that have stuck it out there, but I saw no further need to keep attending what was increasingly a social gathering with pretty music.
And so I am elsewhere, with a much smaller community, but a conviction that it is more important to be correct than to be popular.
A blessed Easter to all of you. Christ is risen indeed. Alelulia, Alelulia. I'm still thawing from our sunrise service. :-)
Rich,
I hurt for you greatly. The gates of hell are locked from the inside.
--Moose
Posted by: Moose on April 11, 2004 01:55 PMMoose, I have no idea what you meant by that remark. Would you care to elaborate?
Posted by: DrBacchus on April 11, 2004 02:32 PMTwo years ago, I went to the Christmas Eve service with my Mother and step father. The service centered around the play, telling the story of the first Christmas. It was done in a musical style, and I would easily compare it terms of quality to any of the off broadway musicals I have seen. After the play there was a breif but powerfull service.
Last year, I went to the Christmas Eve service at a church nearer my parents house, again with my parents. This one took the form of a talent show, with different members of the congregation singing, dancing, reading, etc. It even included two young men performing something akin to 'Stomp' which was very good. At the end there was some singing, and it was over (no real service).
My step father commented on the way out that he enjoyed that service much more, because it wasn't as 'preechy'.
I really think the message is far more important than the medium.
We have a near infinite number of options when it comes to pretty much everything these days, when it comes to entertainment you can watch The Bachelor or Everwood, for news you could watch Fox or CNN, the same choices seem to be present with places of worship.
Perhapps though, centering worship around drawing the community in, does have advantages. For those who are still searching, entering a more somber church with a strong (almost hard line) message can be intimidating, as they may not yet be ready to hear such things. For them, entering an easier going church, with a more 'watered down' message can provide a good stepping stone on their path to discovery.
(Though this may border on heresy, perhapps churches of a sufficient size could offer a 'lite' service, that current members of the congregation could bring freinds to. A service more designed to introduce the faith, answer questions, and provide a stepping stone to the more serious service.)
So ... you went to a "church service" where you were entertained by things that had no message, and this was better than going to church? I'm having a little trouble understanding what this has to do with church. This was an entertainment event that happened to be held in a church building? That's fine. I have no problem with that. But it's not a church service. If that's what you're drawing people in for, then call it a theater house, not a church.
Posted by: Anon on April 11, 2004 08:23 PMOh, interesting discussion . . .
First of all, as we've all learned from countless years of Sunday school, the right answers are always either Jesus, followed by Moses and/or Noah, and finally the Ten Commandments . . . and usually in that order.
So I really hate the whole 'WWJD' thing, but I'll make an exception this time . . . when Christ taught the masses, did He ever have gimmicks? Did He send out fliers, "Come one, come All, To the Greatest Show in Town! Need your lepers healed? How about your blind? Possessed by an evil spirit? Then come on down . . . "
No, He was quiet. People were drawn to Him because 1. He was different, and 2. He was different because He spoke Truth.
Did He water down the message for people? I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'watered down'. He didn't speak over their heads. He spoke to them as an equal, but He also made things very plan, i.e. the Samaritan woman at the well.
No, I think we're finally seeing the church succumb to the general relativism of our culture. People seem more willing to reconsider their views and beliefs, in order not to offend anyone.
Did Jesus do that? No. Something about the temple and Jesus taking a whip to the peddlers comes to mind.
Granted, I'm not saying we need a return to the days of 'Crusades' and ultra-Puritanical beliefs, but churches nowadays don't have anything to say . . . not because they don't really have anything to say, but because they choose not to say anything - they don't want to offend anyone.
Well . . . I'm sorry, but sometimes we need to be offended in order to wake up from our complacency.
Posted by: Mr. Hibbity Gibbity on April 11, 2004 09:34 PMWhile I would agree with a large portion of Mr. Hib Gibs statement, I would say that there are stil lsome Churches that don't cower to the "general relativism of our culture", but yes that is a disturbing trend today. (And yes I am speaking of the Orthodox here, as well as some of the more traditional Protestant faiths out there.)
Posted by: Chris J. Davis on April 11, 2004 11:02 PM