Does anyone have it right?

I have given years of attendance to a few churches during the course of my life and have visited many others. I've come to understand something that you have probably realized yourself: there is no perfect Christian church. When I say "church" here, I am referring to a local gathering of people to a single location to share in the practices common to their denomination's beliefs.

I think that most people can find a church that emphasizes something which is important to them personally. Nevertheless, how many people can honestly say that they've found the perfect church? By "perfect", I don't mean absolutely flawless. I mean, a church that does everything right. You may be convinced that you've landed at such a church. Because I don't know your personal experience or situation, I'm going to share my thoughts from my own experience, as well as a discovery I made during recent meditation on the topic.

Like most of you, I've often found myself in the odd position of appreciating many features of the church I attend, while simultaneously longing for the features I find lacking or the changes I wish would take place. There's that part of us that recognizes that not all things are as they should be. You might think to yourself: "I like that part of Denomination X, and that part of Denomination Y, and that part of Denomination Z - but it seems as if no churches have all of those features." You are not alone.

As a child, I went along with my family to a Baptist church. In high school, I switched to a "non-denominational" community church. In college, I attended a Covenant church. Then I switched to an Evangelical Free church, where I am now. Like you, I choose to remain a part of this particular church body because I find that they are solid in many areas which I value. In my case, this church has a very unique form of church leadership in which there is a body of elders who lead the church and take turns preaching and teaching. Everything they do is done as a group. This is different from the standard model of my past experience in which there resides a single "head" pastor who sits above everyone else. This "plurality of elders" approach is the best I've ever seen, and it has some solid Biblical backing.

This church also has sincere elders who fit the model of elders described in the New Testament letters. These are open and honest men who seek God's glory first of all. To match their level of sincerity and integrity, these men teach sound Biblical doctrine. The men who preach most often are also Biblical scholars/professors. To top it off, they are passionate for God's work, for Jesus, and for the gospel message as it goes out into the world.

This church body is also unique in that every member is considered to be an essential minister in the body, and externally to the world. The genuine fellowship and love expressed throughout the body is reminiscent of the early church as described in the book of Acts.

Finally, the worship is led by a man who is uncommonly thoughtful in his programming of the worship portion of the service. He writes many of his own songs to fit the need of the sermon's theme. He is sensitive to the congregation's desires in the worship setting. He organizes appropriate and fitting readings, meditations, and prayers to contribute to the flow and depth of the worship time.

These are the features that keep me at this church. And yet, this church, like yours, is not doing everything right. You might say: "That's only your opinion!! Who are you to determine what's best for a church?!" You are right to say so. Truthfully, I am nobody. I can't say with absolute certainty that my views are correct. But I do think they are correct - otherwise they wouldn't be beliefs. I can only talk about what I have come to believe through my own study. That said, let's move on.

"If I were to leave my church, what church would I go to?" This is a question I have asked myself, and maybe you have too. Over time, I have narrowed my answers to:

• the Catholic church
• the third-wave charismatic church

I have found aspects of these churches to admire. I have friends and acquaintances who have left the standard conservative evangelical church to join one of these other two churches. I can't blame them. My friends have brought up great points about these other churches.

Why the Catholic church? There are two things that have draw for me in the Catholic church.

1. Appreciation for tradition
2. Emphasis on spiritual formation and true discipleship

I think the protestant church, despite its strengths, is still living in a state of overreaction to these facets of the Catholic church. I'm no church history expert, for certain, but I do know that the current evangelical church still bears signs of reaction against Catholicism. Not only do we lack appreciation for tradition, but we swear by the phrase "sola scriptura" and take it to the extreme. Not only do we appreciate the authority of scripture and its usefulness in showing us the way to true salvation in Christ, but we throw tradition out the window, reciting slogans like "If it's important, it's in the Bible" (a slogan I happen to disagree with). The Bible becomes the end of all things. J.P. Moreland adequately discusses this topic in his controversial article "How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It".

I believe that tradition holds some good things for the church. I think tradition gives us insight into useful Christian spiritual disciplines, as explained by Dallas Willard in his book, Spirit of the Disciplines. It also teaches us what honorable saints long past have discovered to be useful in the Christian life and practice. I would love to see the evangelical church at large give up its shy attitude toward Christian tradition.

The thing I appreciate most about the Catholic church is their appreciation for spiritual disciplines and spiritual formation. While most churches I've participated in greatly deemphasize the topic of spiritual formation, I am thankful that many Christian teachers are eagerly pursuing the topic. Most of the books listed in my recommendations - to the right - relate to this topic. Willard's Renovation of the Heart powerfully opened my eyes to the topic in a new way. From there, I dove into the pool of good literature on the topic. Biola University has its own Institute for Spiritual Formation, which has been training sincere Christians in this field for a few years now. I am grateful that such programs exist. We need this training, and we aren't getting it in the church most of the time. The extent of spiritual disciplines (though they won't call them that) commonly discussed in the evangelical church can be summed up as: "Read your Bible. Pray. Think correctly. The Holy Spirit will do the rest." While churches might sometimes go beyond such a minimal ideology, this summation of spiritual growth is inadequate, I think.

Why the third-wave charismatic church?

The reason I am attracted to this church is that they are expectant. As a group, they expect to see the Holy Spirit work in real and powerful ways among the people. I can only imagine entering my local church meeting place and sensing the mutual expectation among the people, ready to receive the Holy Spirit's graces as He stirs in the "body of Christ". Powerful works of the Holy Spirit are happening all over the world, but much less, relatively, in western cultures. One reason for this, I suspect, is that we have naturalistic minds. We are products of our culture's teachings, as much as we wish we could deny the fact. But where a group of people is united in expectation, there I think it is far more likely for the Holy Spirit to act powerfully. He is welcome there.

So why does any of this matter? Recently, when I was running these ideas over in my head, it struck me that there is an answer.

This issue is exactly what J.P. Moreland was addressing when he wrote Kingdom Triangle. He saw these issues and realized that all of the church's strengths were scattered into pieces, spread out among various Christian church types. He realized that the church, as God would have it, would have all of the strengths mentioned above.

This was a real-life application of the ideas presented in Kingdom Triangle. J.P. had an answer for my questions. Once again, I recommend grabbing a copy of this book.

Debate: D'Souza vs. Hitchins

I was looking around on the website of Dinesh D'Souza, a Christian writer and speaker. On his website, he has a link to a debate he did against the prominent "new atheist", Christopher Hitchins. The topic of the debate was: "Is Christianity the Problem?"

These types of debates are very valuable for Christians because they require you to examine what it is that you believe, and to think critically and carefully about the points argued for and against your own position. You might find that you are uncomfortable listening to an atheist argue against your beliefs. This is a good thing. You need to know why you believe what you do. J.P. Moreland discusses this issue thoroughly in the "knowledge" portion of Kingdom Triangle. Do you really believe what you say you believe, or do you just say you do? If you don't have a good reason for believing something, then your belief really isn't a strong belief. But beliefs can be strengthened, Moreland argues. I think debates such as the one linked above are a great way to challenge our beliefs and spur us on to study and strengthen our position, while thoughtfully considering the opposition.

As you watch, I recommend you pay attention to the approach both men take to this debate. Keep an eye out for the strength of their reasoning and rationality. From what background are they presenting their arguments? Are they using good philosophical practices?

So, if you have a fast internet connection, go watch the debate.

Faith and Reason update

I'm posting briefly to add one more resource that I discovered after posting my initial post called "Faith and Reason".

I discovered a site called Skeptical Christian. The site is run by Kyle Deming, who devotes his energy to providing useful information and resources for a reasonable defense of the Christian worldview. He has a podcast and a blog. There is a huge volume of information on his site, so don't hesitate to read his blog or listen to his podcast.

I have also been listening to Greg Koukl's Ambassador Basic Curriculum and Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring. I purchased both in MP3 format from the Stand to Reason website. While I can't say I agree with Koukl on his everything he says in his ABCs, I highly recommend purchasing these products. Koukl is very articulate and solid in his training.

My only disagreements with him relate to small aspects of his approach to Biblical truth. I could be wrong in my assessment, but I think he leans toward the idea that, if an important truth for the Christian life exists, it is taught in some clear form in the Biblical canon. I tend to think that church history and tradition, as well as some extrabiblical sources, contain very valuable information for the Christian life, but Koukl doesn't touch on these sources in his training about the Christian life, at least not in this series. I know that he respects J.P. Moreland highly, but I find that these two seem to disagree on a few things. All in all, I only disagree with Koukl on about 1% of his thoughts in the entire curriculum.

That said, don't let my assessment keep you from using these resources. They are invaluable in training Christians to be top-notch ambassador's for Christ. I will listen to them over and over.