Friday, April 25, 2008

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.

2 comments:

Renaissance said...

TP.

I wish that I had more time to reply and discuss your blog. I get caught up in reading and writing so many other things that I rarely carve out time for myself to have a good discussion.

I enjoy reading your blog. Your writing is clear and well thought out -- leaving the reader with lots of things to think about.

This particular entry caught my eye so I thought I would shoot some ideas your way.

To begin with, I would answer your question "Does anyone have it right?" with a resounding "NO." Getting it right has always been an issue in the church. Consider the problems the first century church faced, in particular in Corinth. When Paul wrote his letter(s), there was scandal and chaos abounding. It is the nature of our human state on this earth. Until the Kingdom of God is finally consummated we will never experience any church that gets it 100% correct.

With that said, wouldn't you say that there are many churches that get it right a lot more than others? Take the issue of "grace" for example. We are saved by "grace through faith." Some churches are grace oriented churches while others tend to be bound to a legalistic mindset. Wouldn't you say that the "grace" churches are closer to getting it right than the "legalist" churches?

I have to keep reminding myself that the "Church" is made up of people and wherever there are people there will be trouble! Therefore, we attend a church and "appreciate many of its features", but we realize that no one church can have all of the features that make up the perfect church.

Many of the reasons you cited about your church are strong reasons for people to attend there.

You mentioned that you "remain a part of this particular church body because they are solid in many areas which I value." I am assuming that your value system is biblically based. Maybe you can explain more clearly how "values" are able to hold someone to a particular church.

In regards to someone questioning your opinion and your reply of being "nobody", I would take issue with that. How can a believer in
Christ claim to be "nobody?" Maybe you can explain your thoughts.

While I understand your "...where would I go question" I would like to state the reasons I would not attend these two churches:

1. The Catholic Church. Certainly, tradition is alive and well, but it is a legalistic tradition. In fact, from friends of mine who are Catholic and with whom I've discussed this issue; Even their spiritual formation and discipleship emphasis is founded primarily on legalism. In other words, "Do it or else you are not holy." Although we know, "Faith without works is dead" as a non-Catholic I know that my salvation does not depend on my spiritual formation or discipleship.

I guess my question for you is, "What do you mean by tradition?" When you say "I would love to see the evangelical church at large give up its shy attitude toward Christian tradition" what do you mean by that? I see many traditions within the evangelical church. Maybe our definition of tradition is different.

What would you like to see in a church besides "Read you Bible, pray and think correctly. The Holy Spirit will do the rest." What are the pitfalls you see in regards to these, seemingly sound, words.

2. The Third-wave Charismatic Church. Working in the inner-city I deal a lot with people who have come from the so called "Third wave" churches. What I find is biblical shallowness and a lot of experientialism.

It seems that a good church should have a balance of tradition, spiritual formation, discipleship and Holy Spirit mindedness. Having attended your church I see it as one that comes very close to a lot of these things. In my own church, I strive to implement through the power of the Holy Spirit this type of worship and atmosphere.

Finally, can you elaborate on your conclusion from J.P.'s Kingdom Triangle? This was the only part of your blog that I had trouble following.

Good to chat with you.

Padly

TimothyP said...

Thanks for commenting, Padly!

You're right that there are varying degrees of "getting it right" from church to church. I agree that any Christian church ought to avoid a theology of working for one's salvation. I also think that, because we're humans and humans are extremists, we should avoid going so far in the "grace" direction that we think we can live however we want to and count on grace as our safety net. Willard makes the distinction between "converts" and "disciples". I think it is important that the church is teaching this idea: while works do not save you, they are the obvious result of a transformed heart and should not be minimized under a form of extremist "grace" salvation.

You make a good point about values and their relation to church attendance. You are also correct in that a Christian's values should be founded in a Biblical Christian worldview. I think these values should be formed through study of the many resources currently available to Christians for study, including the Bible itself. I also think we must be careful in analyzing our values - how did we acquire them and what kind of worldview promotes those values? It is extremely important to look out for values that are based on those things our culture values, such as entertainment and pleasure for the self.

I'm not sure if that answered your inquiry about how values keep us committed to a church, but those are some thoughts anyway.

I say "I am nobody" as a confession of my humanity, and therefore my inability to make claims in an absolute manner. I think of James' words: "What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes." This is what I am trying to communicate. This is mere confession of my frail human state. And, despite my position as "nobody" in comparison to a vast universe and the almighty God, I think I am right because I have been good reasons to think so. But your point is correct. In my own humanity, I am nobody, and yet, in Christ, I am somebody. Thanks for bringing that up.

Now, regarding the Catholic church and tradition, it is a "baby with the bath water" issue for me. You are correct in that there are some Catholic churches which are legalistic in their theology, namely, that works earn our acceptance into heaven. I think that Christian evangelical churches see this legalism and when they throw that out (bath water), they also throw out tradition (baby) unnecessarily. This goes back to our extremist human tendencies. When I say "tradition", I mean things like, "what can we learn from the early church fathers?" For instance, what kind of practices did they discover to be beneficial for the Christian life that may not be explicitly drawn out for us or commanded in the biblical canon? Catholics can appreciate extra-biblical traditions. I think that there is lots of value in this kind of thinking, and I am thankful for authors like Henri Nouwen, Dallas Willard, and Richard Foster who are willing to look at these strengths and teach them from a healthy perspective.

Because of the legalism, and what I think are theological flaws, I would not attend a Catholic church. This doesn't keep me from appreciating their pursuit for holiness, regardless of intent and motive.

"Read the Bible, pray and think correctly. The Holy Spirit will do the rest." I agree that these are indeed sound words. The pitfall, I think, is stopping there. I think God desires to see in us a passionate pursuit after him. I think that, because of our extremist fear of works salvation, we avoid spiritual practices that are beneficial in aiding the Holy Spirit's work in us. This goes back to Moreland's paper that I mentioned. I think evangelicals are allowing themselves too small a drink from the cup of life. I think God wants to see us put more effort into the pursuit of the kingdom life (see Willard's "The Divine Conspiracy"). Reading the Bible and praying are two disciplines that are extremely valuable for the Christian life. But there are more. The evangelical church is training us how to think well. But they are often not training us how to conquer the body. I think we expect the Holy Spirit to do this for us, with minimal effort on our part. Willard and Moreland argue otherwise, and I agree with their points.

I think my main encouragement to the brothers and sisters out there is not to sell ourselves short in the matter of applying effort to the spiritual life because we fear legalism. Paul and Jesus were prime examples of men who worked hard at training and conquering the physical body and its desires. Again, Willard has written extensively on this.

Regarding the third wave churches, you are correct. Moreland, who attends a third wave church admits as much and exhorts his brothers and sisters against what you describe. Again, I think we can adopt the strengths of such churches without adopting the weaknesses.

For example, let's say I hear a singer who is excellent in his performance. Let's say that he is also a smoker. Suppose I tell a friend, "I'm going to contact that guy and see if he can teach me how to sing well." If my friend says, "Don't study with him, he smokes! That'll ruin your voice!" that would be an absurd reason not to learn from this particular singer. Just because I want to know his vocal techniques doesn't mean I need to start smoking. I can take the good and leave the bad. Good is good, regardless of the context.

Your summary of a good balance in church is accurate I think, and in agreement with my point.

The point about JP's book was that, without realizing it at the time, JP had dealt with my concerns in Kingdom Triangle. The strengths of the Catholic church, the strengths of the charismatic church, and the strengths of the evangelical church are all parts of the Kingdom Triangle. His writing explained why I feel the way I do: the church is supposed to have all of these good features. Therefore, it was natural for me to desire the strengths I saw more apparent in other church structures. Essentially, what I was thinking about is what JP has written so thoroughly about, and he has answers for the issue. His book is so relevant for our time.

Thanks again for commenting!