I’ve often found it interesting that the early church fathers did not hold so such. Origen (185-254 CE) presented the ransom theory

He suggested that, as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, Satan had acquired a formal dominion over, and ownership of, all of humanity and the rest of the world. In order to free people from the grip of Satan, God agreed to arrange the death of Yeshua, his son, as a ransom price to be paid to the devil. This would formally compensate for Adam and Eve’s sin, and would release humanity from Satan’s grip. Origen wrote: “The payment could not be [made] to God [be]cause God was not holding sinners in captivity for a ransom, so the payment had to be to the devil.” Origen believed that Satan accepted the offer because he assumed that he would end up with ownership of Yeshua. The devil didn’t realize that Yeshua would escape his clutches. God deceitfully pulled a “bait and switch” operation by resurrecting Yeshua a day and a half after his death on the cross. This left Satan without any reward. Yeshua had escaped Satan’s grasp and was reunited with God. Origen concluded that humans can then be reconciled with God if they trust Yeshua as Lord and Savior.

A couple disturbing things I’ve come across over the years are the following.

1. Folks who have seemingly walked away from Christ, often see God’s actions in PSA as cruel and barbaric.

A blogger over at arewomenhuman stated the following:

I couldn’t stomach the thought of standing in church and singing hymns thanking God for killing someone “for” me.

Another good discussion of this is presented in “The cross is an Insult to Forgiveness”

I’ve often wondered if the doors to trinitarian heresies are opened by PSA. For many in the pew, its almost as if the focus shifts to God torturing Jesus. Its as if Jesus was not God, and as such, it seemingly pretty much throws the trinity by the wayside. Anselm’s (1033 to 1109 CE) satisfaction theory (which predated PSA), in his Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) presents the following:

• Chapter 6 “…the price paid to God for the sin of man [must] be something greater than all the universe besides God….Moreover, it is necessary that he who can give God anything of his own which is more valuable than all things in the possession of God, must be greater than all else but God himself….Therefore none but God can make this satisfaction.”
• Chapter 9 “…God, he will possess omnipotence….He can, then, if he chooses, lay down his life and take it again….Therefore is he able to avoid death if he chooses, and also to die and rise again….the gift which he presents to God, not of debt but freely, ought to be something greater than anything in the possession of God….Now this can neither be found beneath him nor above him….In himself, therefore, must it be found….nothing can be more severe or difficult for man to do for God’s honor, than to suffer death voluntarily when not bound by obligation; and man cannot give himself to God in any way more truly than by surrendering himself to death for God’s honor. Therefore, he who wishes to make atonement for man’s sin should be one who can die if he chooses.”

2. It is possible that PSA may open doors for spiritual abuse and/or the replacement of God’s love and grace with toxic soteriology, even more so without the solid grounding of the trinity. Arewomenhuman presents the following:

Substitutionary atonement requires us to accept that it’s alright for God to behave in ways that would be considered cruel and capricious from anyone else. It requires that we claim God is “good” in a way that doesn’t resemble what we would call “good” in any other context. It preaches a patriarchal God who brooks no defiance and demands perfection from others that “he” doesn’t live up to, and doesn’t have to live up to. In so doing it provides a script and model for authoritarian, hierarchical, abusive relationships between human beings that mirror the authoritarian, hierarchical, abusive relationship between God and humans.

While I’d be in error to attribute causality, my experience with multitudes of de-churched folks over the years, has often indicated that when PSA leans towards or replaces the Gospel, spiritual abuse is often right around the corner.

I wonder if perhaps the early church fathers anticipated this danger, and thus shied away from PSA? They had the same scriptures we do today, and its not as if there were not historical discussions seemingly pointing to PSA… but it was left by the wayside.

His analysis of the focus on knowing “about” God vs. “knowing” God is pretty on the spot though. The ELCA has a multitude of amazing resources that can do a great job of presenting much information about God. Where the rubber hits the road though, is making the connection from knowing about God to knowing and experiencing God.

Robs primary objection, is that the focus ends up being more knowing about God, than knowing and experiencing God. Sadly, the resulting outcome of such is pretty predictable. For far too many, they just walk away after confirmation. They were able to jump some hoops, parrot back some information, and then they think, yep, done with that… Most certainly the statistics of youth falling away from the church lend credence to such analysis.

Where I think his analysis falls apart is his assumptions that knowing about God from the get go is not that important, that one can learn what they need to later on. Granted, such a view seems to align with Luther writing’s quite a bit… most assuredly Luther was not impressed with confirmation, albeit he did not prohibit its usage. It’s also true that the apostles didn’t go through a lengthly training program before Jesus asked them to follow Him (all one has to do is look at some of the outlandish statements and questions they asked to find they were pretty lacking Christian education wise).

It is quite true that “knowing” God for some, can come about the hard way through experience, when everything crashes and burns. Its also true, that “knowing” God can come about an easier way, through knowing God a little bit, and knowing a fair amount “about” God first, so that when the hard experiences come, one is somewhat ready.

Yes, scripture alone doesn’t bring one to that point of view… but most assuredly tradition, reason, and the experience of others certainly reinforces it

Yet another aspect that I think is important is God’s action in confirmation. Again, Luther dint hold such in high regard… but then we must consider a couple bits of scripture. First, God’s word doesn’t return void, as noted in Isaiah 55:11, albeit such is something far outside our scope as humans to understand. And yes, we can hose things up as demonstrated in Mark 7:13. Perhaps such might be part of Lather’s justification for his views. On the other hand, it’s pretty easy to see the incredible retention aspects of confirmation when someone returns to the church after a 20-30 year absence. I’d say that without God acting, such would be impossible…

Lastly, there is the basic ad psyche principle of material learned first is retained to a greater degree than later material. It should also be noted, that if later material ends up being in conflict, it could take a long time and significant effort to relearn things another way. Perhaps this is best illustrated by the following video where Father Barron discusses you tube heresies.

Imagine how ones world would be rocked if they grow up in one Bibliological reference frame, only to have to relearn what their church actually teaches years later. Multitudes of conflicts and internal struggles show up due to vastly different Bibliology, with CWA09 being one of the most recent examples of differing reference frames in conflict.

Confirmation is just too important not to be taken seriously. Part 2 will look at some of the problems in greater depth, and part 3 of this series presents some solutions..

Valley’s, Mountain tops, and Plateaus

We are not all in the same place in our Christian walk. Some are in valleys, some on mountain tops, some in transition up or down, and yes, some on plateaus along the way. We see Elijah in a world of hurt w depression in a valley in 1 Kings 19. We see Peter in a world of hurt for denying Christ in the Gospels, another valley. Yet, we also see Peter on a mountain top, both figuratively and literally during the transfiguration. Plateaus seem surprisingly absent in scripture, albeit most certainly they do exist in ones Christian walk. In a lot of ways, I think plateaus bring us to trust God more fully, even though they are not so much fun being in them.

Discouragement

However, just as in learning to fly, their are times when static contemplation and synthesis can be perceived as stagnation or even back sliding leading to discouragement, yet are very much part of growing in Christ. The key to discerning / avoiding / dealing with discouragement is awareness and perseverance. Awareness that plateaus / pew potatoing occurs, and such is not always a bad thing if discerned properly… and that a plateau might well be viewed as a form of suffering, which then ties right into Romans 5 with perseverance.

Not only so, but we[co] also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. and hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

If we find pew potatoing, is it really a plateau in growth, or is it like the passive, unengaged flight student in rote mode? Some observations…

Travis hit on this a while back with the following as concerns the dangers of passivity and as he says, in-grown, self-centered worship.

When worship is turned into an excuse to avoid our calling, it is insincere at best and idolatrous at worst—we worship a golden calf made in our own image.

Another observation concerning passivity and lack of engagement from JessicaB:

…have never read the bible for themselves. Their thoughts and ideas about God and Heaven are mostly folklore and old wives tales that have been told to them by a grandma or neighbor…or tv.

I could literally elaborate on this into infinity. So I’ll cut myself off by saying: these generalized set of nominal christian’s I’m talking about…

Have never had their lives changed.

@rev3j stated the following on twitter:

in my experience it more often result in inoculations which prevent viral transference

well what I see in the gospels is two distinct groups of people disciples and the crowd disciples actively follow crowds worship praise & listen to messages but they aren’t disciples because they aren’t actively following. Jesus bids us follow

Pew Potatoing and Passivity Under Pressure

The saddest part, is when pew-potatoing gets put under pressure, it usually crashes and burns… just as what would likely happen to a passive unengaged flight student if left alone and unguided.

more in Pew Potatoing and Landing a Plane Pt 3 The flight instructor and the church

Percolation

On a positive note, such apparently passive time could be a time of percolation, not unlike the “learning plateaus” we run into when teaching students to land a plane… such is where different aspects of knowledge and practice intermix with one another over time, and then after a bit of a delay, light bulbs come on.

Discouragement

On a negative note, for a new student, or a new flight instructor, learning plateaus are often a source of massive discouragement, and such can even lead to self doubt… which then often leads to a complete loss of engagement. If left unchecked, this self doubt/loss of engagement path is most commonly followed by the student leaving flight training entirely.

Passivity and Rote Response

On an extremely negative note, a flight instructor does have to be on the watch, as some students are passive in disguise… they merely repeat rote actions. They may appear to have incredible skills, and be making incredible progress in a short period of time… but throw a few extra variables into the mix, and rote repetition fails in a huge way.

Passivity in disguise is one of those things which needs to be identified and nipped in the bud early on, or it can lead to a nightmare. Ie, a student pilot competent to pass the written, oral, and flight test, yet a huge danger to his/herself, such that no way would a flight instructor sign off on them.

Yet there are exceptions under narrow circumstances. Passivity and lack of engagement is not always a bad thing, sometimes, such as in a pinch hitter course for non-pilots, things like working the radio, and the basics of a/c control even if only achieved via rote do fulfill the desired objectives. Ie, in the event of pilot incapacitation, such can and has allowed a non-pilot to be able to successfully land an aircraft.

Part 2 will follow… So, how does this play out in Christianity?

As such, when a buddy was telling me about the difficulty he was having at finding a church when he was trucking, I said hey… do this, or even better check online, it should be easy. Well, he tried, and apparently my methods of old dont work too well anymore, and online doesn’t either. He said the phone book had tons of numbers, but only one had service times listed. The freebie paper didn’t have a church listing at all… and online, well there were a number of dead websites. The only real solution for him was to get on the phone, make a bunch of calls, hope that he got a real person, or a voice recording of service times, or that someone returned his call before the next service. (My buddy is not ELCA, and thus would be unaware of the master locater website thing, and apart from that, its not exactly a friendly gui either.)

This got me thinking a bit. Here we have a Christian on the road, just looking to visit a church and he is running into some annoying barriers. What about the unchurched, the dechurched, or even the person new to a community? Are they going to feel comfortable having to make a bunch of phone calls, even before visiting a church? What about the unchurched who wake up some Sunday morning and want to attend on the spur of a moment?

As such, about a year ago, I decided, ok lets do this for real… So, one Sunday, starting at 8AM the following occurred.

1. Checked the phone book… well, living in a small community, about 20 miles from a moderately sized city, the yellow pages are pretty useless. There are over a hundred churches, and only a few had service times. Apparently Southeast MN and my friends location are alike in that way.

2. Checked the freebie newspaper… well, guess what, no listings whatsoever. Today, I checked a local paper at the library, and it does have a list… the question is, how many would buy a paper to find a church?

3. Checked online… egads, what a mess and those spam type community sites are everywhere.

4. Ok, got out on the bike, and started looking at church signs… some didn’t bother to even have the service times listed! Its fine to promote your future event, your Sunday school program etc… but if by chance some random person passes by your church, knowing the time of service is more than a big deal.

Granted, one could argue that there is nothing wrong with a little effort to find a church, and I could sort of agree with that. On the other hand, it would take so little effort to knock down the barriers… the big question is, Why is does Christian society put up barrier to entry? Jesus may stand at the door and knock… but should the church go and hide the door away out of site and out of mind?

Later that week I came across a blog post from a LCMS guy, and I think he makes some valid criticisms as concerns CCM, especially so in the worship arena. Going a bit further, rather than just CCM, I think much of what he says can apply to almost any music or even art used in worship, irrespective of style or culture.

A couple bits I’ve captured, albeit edited to be generic

Instruments, and with the timbres they produce, is the sound that defines worship music–– and for supporters, it is a requirement

The sound of instruments or lack there of becomes normative and essential for our worship music, or so it is thought.

This is huge, and I think he nails it! “The text should inform how the musical accompaniment is crafted. This time-tested, honored, and responsible approach to hymn accompanying is all but destroyed when using the pop-band approach to congregational singing. And the evangelicals who have employed it have essentially given up using traditional hymns in their worship. This is because it does not work!

Granted, I’m no arranger… but I’ve seen exactly what the author is getting at… and I’m saying, why can’t it work more often (I have seen such work amazingly well within liturgical churches, less so in non-liturgical) I’ve seen the same apply to really bad hymns with organ accompaniment too… but the probability of a major crash and burn seems way less. Perhaps its because so many bad arrangements crashed and burned years ago, that most of the bad news stuff has long since died off? Or perhaps its because of a desire for contemporariness that overshadows text and musical alignment? Or is it just things are too new, and its going to take some substantial iteration before everything works it way out? I dont know, but it will be interesting.

Its not rocket science to note our evangelistic efforts are failing, and that the traditional methods for growth of immigration, birth, and cultural support are no longer all that applicable. Also, when one looks at things like Women’s Bible Circle, or Lutheran Men in Mission, the numbers of participants are pretty low. Being those ministries might be considered some of our major tools for building disciples, we’re not doing so well there either.

The overall concept presented is the following:

… people are redirecting their faith-related activities, loyalties and dollars into a better “value proposition” than Sunday church alone can offer — namely, a dynamic mix of self-selected and self-directed opportunities for working out one’s faith.

I agree with that premise… in the discipleship arena, but as far as evangelism, well I think it falls short for many. Granted, long term wise, if one solves the discipleship problem, evangelism will correct organically.

The author then goes on to present a solution:

Without any apologies for marketplace language, I think we should embrace a concept that I call “Multichannel Church.” It’s based on a fundamental known as “multichannel marketing,” which uses many different channels to reach customers, such as retail store, catalog, Web site and e-mail marketing.

This is where things sort of split in two. Many of the solutions end up being value adders to a Sunday only methodology. There is much potential for discipleship building… but I’m not so sure such methods fit well with those already tuned out to the Sunday experience.

In many ways, the proposals are a replay of the past, albeit they fit within the self selected/directed methodology. The vast majority of which are things from the early days of Lutherans in America. In fact, likely many of the suggestions were close to what was in place up until about 45 years ago, when the decline started. No doubt the arduous task of living on the prairie 150 years ago conditioned folks to get things done.

The concept of Sunday only Christianity likely was anathema, especially since one might only get to see a pastor in church every few weeks, or even months. Its also interesting to note the importance of service back then…. think of all the hospitals built at the turn of the century, manly of them of driven by Lutheran lay and clergy. Now, some can’t even fund their own building… much less a clinic or hospital.

That being said, even if returning to the past were to work, there are a couple of issues. First, one has to consider where folks are in their walk, and that different “channels” of marketing are not applicable, nor even helpful to all. Thats perhaps one of the dangers of a self directed type of approach. Thanks to @stuedal for bringing this to light.

On the one hand, those choosing a monastic style of obedience, sacrifice, and quiet as they pursue discipleship should have such opportunities available. On the other hand, their is a risk of folks choosing just quiet obedience, without discipleship…which doesn’t really help them, nor the church, nor the kingdom, its just quiet obedience. By the same token providing a multitude of options for discipleship involving others can work wonders… but there is also a risk of social activity without discipleship, which again, doesn’t really help them, nor the church, nor the kingdom, its just social activity. Of course, neither social activity, nor quiet obedience is always a bad thing, and for short periods, such can be quite helpful, but they best be time limited, and also not the only thing.

I also have to wonder a bit. Returning to the past, but adding in what technologies provides us today, does make for some great approaches for building disciples. I also think such solutions can work wonders to expand beyond Sunday only Christianity… but whether such avenues work to reach those not tuned into Sunday is another issue entirely.

Lance presents an analysis which is right on the money for many people.

….most people come to a particular congregation because it is close, or because a friend invited them, or the worship style seemed intriguing. Once they are there, they stay because they like something about it–the music, the preaching, the friendly people, or yes, they believed as if they were truly worshipping the Triune God. In terms of theology, or the way one congregation reads the Bible versus another, denominational affiliation seems to have less to do with the matters these days. Even if I preached for a solid year on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, no one is leaving the congregation because they disagree with the Real Presence…

Lance is right on the money for many folks, and I’ve got a future entry on that in the queue, as his statement hits home for me as well. For now, I just want to focus on why beliefs matter and how to work things through when they dont. Obviously, little of this is going to fly with the ardent confessional / traditional parishioner… but then, said folks typically would not get involved in a congregation other than one that exactly mirror their own beliefs, and thus dont fit the demographic this post was written for.

Faith Density

A congregation needs at least a minimum level of faith density for the lack of a better term to avoid mixed messages, or in some cases pastoral dependency. Informal teaching of faith is a huge part of the edification of one another. Sure, in Sunday school or confirmation, a person may learn ABCD… but it hits home in a huge way, when ABCD is brought up and reinforced by a random member of a congregation outside of the formal classroom. Of course, I must admit such is a bit idealistic too… Biblical literacy, to say nothing of denominational literacy is often lacking in the pew, pretty much no matter what denomination one hangs out at.

Bolstering faith density when not aligned

If one makes a decision to hang out at a denomination where ones beliefs dont align real well, rightly handling that denominations beliefs requires a whole lot more personal responsibility than say for those who happened to grow up within said denomination. By not aligning real well, I’m referring to issues for the most part outside of the most centered part of Gospel. The most obvious example would be those beliefs beyond the scope of the Apostles or Nicene Creeds. Ie for churches who ascribe to such either literally, or to the scriptures themselves which back up said creeds. The issue goes back to the aforementioned faith density and mixed message thing. Rightly handling things imho requires diligent effort to find out where a congregation and pastor are coming from, what is mission critical for them, and how one might best help with that mission.

Focus on the common elements

While one may have strong feelings as to the perseverance of the saints, or lack there of or any number of other beliefs… sending out mixed messages over such as a non-adhering person of a congregation does little to edify bonafide members. Rather, building up one another in the things which are common, and especially the things which do serve to center one another is more appropriate. Its one thing to be asked, and to prayerfully respond with humility as concerns a countering belief. It is another deal entirely to intentionally dilute the theology of a congregation from within, no matter how strong one adheres to a theology. This is not to say one should bury their beliefs… but more so, when in fellowship, the center of the Gospel is the big deal, how one when gets there much less so.

Service can be tricky

Service can be a tricky deal at times if one ends up as a teacher or leading a Bible study… but then even within a congregation where one fully aligns with the beliefs, sometimes curricula writers may end up really pushing the limits too. Many years ago, I remember teaching on the early church fathers during 8th grade Sunday school… at the time, it was sort of Argh… but I think I grew as much or more so than my students. More recently, when I was sort of functioning as a Catholic apologist in an ecumenical context, one fellow said I should be teaching RCIA, at least, until I told him I wasnt Catholic… but it sure was an incredible learning experience. Such roles can serve as platforms for massive growth, even if ones beliefs are not aligned… but obviously such needs to be fully squared away with the pastor ahead of time.

Know where your faith is

When one attends a church whose beliefs do not align, 3 possible things can happen. First, doing such could lead to incredible growth, which has been my experience, but I think such is rare. Secondly, such could create massive confusion, which in some cases has led folks astray in a huge way. Third, one could simply decide to change their beliefs to align with said church, or more likely, discern that their beliefs have changed to reflect those of said church.

If we consider how low Biblical and denominational literacy is… the second and third scenarios tend to be more likely. While I’m personally very pleased and aligned with the ELCA’s theological pov’s, theological ideology pales in comparison with following Christ. If a person grows closer to God as Baptist, WELS, Catholic, Presbyterian, or Methodist… by all means that is where they should be. Thus, the third outcome, ie ones beliefs become aligned with their new church, and they grow closer to Christ as a result… that is a wonderful thing!

On the other hand, if coming across different scriptural interpretations causes confusion, doubt, and such starts to become a barrier between an individual and Jesus… then they should flee from that place, and return to their beginning, no matter how many outside factors may have led them to pursuing a different church.

Growth, namely the first outcome is what I’ve found to be incredibly cool… I’ve put in time in just about every Trinitarian denomination out there. Each one has brought another aspect of Christ and my walk with Him to light, and for that I am exceedingly thankful. By the same token, the challenges to my own beliefs along the way have served to strengthen them, as well as widen them. In many ways, we really are not all that different, albeit in a few others, surprisingly so.

Denominational Baggage?

In practice though, denominational baggage is often simply replaced with a picking and choosing of historical theological points of view in so called *non-denominational churches. Where the rubber hits the road to speak, is how tightly such views are held too within the church as a unit. For example, if a church rigorously holds to the perseverance of the saints, ie once saved, always saved and comes down very hard on those who hold that folks can loose their salvation… in reality, all the baggage of perseverance of the saints exists, just as it would in a denomination who holds such views. In a lot of ways, a non-denominational approach can be even trickier to navigate. More often than not, its not just one theological construct, but rather multiples that swing back and forth across many lines.

By the same token, if one suggests perseverance of the saints or lack there of doesn’t matter, such that no baggage is associated with it, where then where does one draw the line? How many theological constructs can be stripped away before Jesus ends up missing parts? How low can faith density go before edification becomes more frustrating than fruitful? How many points of view can be stripped away before edification becomes near impossible due to mixed messages and/or fear of offense? How can one preach the Gospel effectively without any hard decks? What is the absolute minimum needed… and how many other hard deck theological stances beyond that minimum are practical?

A baseline of belief?

If we look to history, the Nicene Creed whether by agreement, or by agreement with the scriptures upon which it is based can easily serve as a baseline hard deck for many, but not all. Ie some Christians do take issue with some of the hard decks presented… but short of 5 or so somewhat contentious issues, baptism, apostolic succession, the filioque, Chiliasm, Nestorianism, the rest of scripture underlying the Nicene Creed is something many Christians can comfortably hang their hat on.

Otoh, there are multitudes of disputed theologies well beyond the Nicene Creed. Some might be inclined to put many of those under the we see dimly concept, others bound conscience. However, when it comes to differing theology, we still run into the problem of edification of one another. Bound conscience may allow one to go a bit beyond mere tolerance to love for folks who lean towards pietism, pseudo-goddess worship, pentacostalism, PALMSGR’s or even the prosperity gospel somewhere within the wider church. Otoh, if one runs into such in the pew and its counter to ones own belief’s, mutual edification is compromised at best, or totally counterproductive at worst.

Social Issues can play a role too

There are also social issues, which seemingly should pare in comparison… but as I myself found out a couple weeks back, perhaps not. The problem shows up when it comes to funding and participation in mission. Ie, if one holds that Jesus instructions were for us to care for any poor person we come across vs caring only a poor believer in fellowship, and the rest of the poor are not our problem… then there will be no small amount of contention if others hold to the belief that Jesus commands were for us to assist any and all poor people. This is especially the case when it comes to funds allocation and/or participation.

So what about being unequally yoked?

This is often where things get tricky… Taken to an extreme, to avoid confusion and error, some folks from WELS and LCMS while more than willing to help out with secular needs will not worship nor even pray with synods other than their own. Taken to the other extreme, many Christians are more than willing to effective serve as Mormon missionaries in pursuit of a moral tenants shared with Mormons. Within the ELCA and our full communion agreements, even with some reformed churches, officially we dont have any problems with many other groups.. yet, I also admit being concerned with the magnitude of Calvinistic beliefs showing up within much ELCA dialog as of late.

My personal thought is that cross polination is a good thing… but one should be grounded in their beliefs, and must be diligent in keeping their eyes open as to the belief system they are yoking up with. Mutual edification is indeed possible, and in a lot of ways, such can be a period of incredible growth. Case in point… the vast majority of my blog entries are initially conceived in a Catholic adoration chapel, and the priests homily last Saturday mentioned the Assembly of God church sign across the street.

However, far too many Christians dont really know what they believe. They end up being yanked here and yon, tossed by the wind and the waves… Perhaps Mormon beliefs dont seem all that different, perhaps US Evangelical beliefs dont seem all that different. Perhaps such folks dont understand that the 4 spiritual laws dont fit within Lutheran theology, nor does decision nor rapture eschatology. Grounding in ones faith is critical… and that can cross any and all denominational lines. If you are a Baptist, be a good one, if you are Catholic, be a good one, if you are ELCA, be a good one… dont just go and flow here or there like a meandering stream.

Love is really the answer

Ultimately, we should rejoice and love one another, despite all these differences, because we are on the side of Christ. How we go about worship, interpreting scripture, and living out our faith can vary widely. In some cases, its a dim view,in others, its theology or social issues at odds such that bound conscience can bring us to love one another despite the differences. In other cases, situations do exist which are beyond bound conscience, and thus would preclude tight fellowship in ministry… but no way no how should that cause us not to love one another.

And this love for one another in Christ is whats cool, is why its easy to say… we dont need denominations, even if underlying it all there are some pretty massive disconnects, and the hard decks, whether defined via denomination or something else really do matter. Yes, perhaps we can’t work tightly together within a ministry context… but there are massive arenas where we most certainly can, and despite such disconnects, Christ enables us to show our love for Him and one another.

*This is not in any means meant to disparage non-denominational churches. I’ve never come across one that didnt hold to some very solid hard decks when it came to their beliefs. More so, its to show that specific beliefs/hard decks do matter and are needed, irrespective of whether one chooses to assign the adjective denominational or not. Also, I purposely used perseverance of the saints as a theological construct, as it is a commonly held pov within many non-denominational churches.

This is a sad deal, as worship is not just the individual, but a number of other factors enter in as well. Travis brought up worship being linked to mission, and to accountability. I’ll go a bit further, and link worship to love and engagement of the community. Its easy to say one loves one’s community of faith, but to love and engage them means really knowing that someones kid didnt eat last night, someone else is failing at uni, and yet another is fearful that they find they can no longer drive safely.

A multitude of years ago, I attended a pretty massive church… 900+ folks at each service, and I knew perhaps 4 folks, and only 1 really well, and that was because he was one of my professor friends apart from church. In a whole lot of ways, I had set up my own personal space right in the midst of 900 other folks many of whom did likewise. Sure the sermons rocked, and we did have corporate absolution, the Eucharist, and during the prayers obviously many parishioners were prayed for… but I never knew who they were, much less could I identify them in the church, much much much less could I recognize them out and about in the community at large

There is no question that corporate absolution, the Eucharist, and communal prayers are a big deal (as are sermons that rock). Yet, beyond such matters, I never made any effort to engage with the community. The saddest part is, I could have easily sat back, and done the same thing for many years… well beyond the 3 years I was there.

The thing is… engagement is messy, worldviews get rolled, scriptural assumptions get challenged, and things are neither simple, easy, nor fast. It takes work, sort of like discipleship, or maybe a whole lot like discipleship. The challenge of a sermon is a good thing… but how much more to also accept the challenge of a community. Its as if I was saying to Jesus, ok, cool challenge me in the sermon, but I’ll pass on the part about actually applying it for real in the community of faith. In effect, I was using worship as an excuse to avoid a call to discipleship.