Wow, big surprise, right?
In reality, no. This is not the first time people have been frustrated with the Church and have vocalized it any way possible.
That being said, what did surprise me was the Church, and those who attend it, were being criticized for things that broke outside of the usual "Church slams" I've seen in the media and secular world before. Though there was a bit of talk about the usual "dry, rule driven, guilt inspiring" aspects of Churches and Church communities, these articles didn't seem to focus on those usual points so much as they were did on something else: the apparent hypocrisy of Christians today who say they follow Jesus, but don't actually reflect who Jesus is and what a life of discipleship actually looks like; the way in which many Churches are attempting to bend and contort themselves so that they fit with "this world" and seem cool. This article in The Province is a good example.
The second thing that really surprised/scared me was a lot of the criticism was not being put forth by atheists. Instead, the Church was being openly, and harshly, criticized by people who refer to themselves as "evangelical," or people who are in the public eye, have influence, and known to be Christian (Anne Rice, as seen in the article above). Also, have a look at this opinion article that I was directed to by the "Mars Hill Church Blog."
Now first off, it was rightfully pointed out on the Mars Hill Blog that Mark Driscoll has never preached sermons with those titles.
Secondly, although some of the critical points brought up - as I mentioned before - are surprising in that they are both valid and atypical of the usual Church lampoons I encounter when people get going on "why I don't go to Church," many other points sorely miss the mark of what the Body of Christ stands for today.
I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. The fellow in the Wall Street Opinion Article speaks pretty harshly about the fact that many Churches are now speaking openly about sex in sermons. He argues that this is a bad thing, because, according to him, it is illustrating a feeble attempt to boost attendance numbers with shock and awe tactics.
Of course, there are always going to be people who use "racy topics" to attract more people, but saying that the only reason why Churches are talking about sex is because they are trying to be "culturally savvy" is completely wrong.
Why is such a statement wrong? Because for too long, the Church has tried to dust the issue of sexuality under the carpet and not talk about it.
The truth is this: pastors are talking about sex because it needs to be talked about.
The reality is this: if we aren't taught about sex in Churches and what constitute's God's image and plan for sex and relationships, there are countless people and things outside of the Church that are lined up just waiting to
"teach us" about what sex is and when and how it is meant to happen.
So that's my first point: Maybe it's not all shock and awe; perhaps for the first time, we Christians are allowing people in the Church to encounter and deal with issues that they are struggling with in a way that is supportive and helpful. Yes, there might be a few who talk about sex to "be cool and relevant," but that's between them and God - not for us to condemn. Would you rather have it that we don't talk about sex and let people fend for themselves? I sure wouldn't...
Second point: is it wrong that a Church decides to incorporate different styles of music in their worship services? Doesn't the Bible, and the God who created this world, invite creativity, diversity, and uniqueness? Why should we always stick to "one way" of telling God we love Him? Whether we are telling Jesus we love Him with indie music or an organ and a hymn book, the truth is: we are still saying we love Him. Again, don't let the few "cool hunters" cause you to condemn a far larger number of individuals who have creative gifts and passions and want to use them to seek, find, and worship God.
So that stands as my rebuttal to some of the inaccurate accusations made against the Church.
The second thing that scares me is this: the people doing the criticizing call themselves Christian, are doing nothing but criticizing. Sometimes their points are valid, sometimes they aren't. But whether or not a point is valid, neither article offers any sort of solution to the problems they so harshly present us. Instead, they leave us with two choices: either stop going to Church altogether (like Anne Rice) or search for what is referred to as "real' - and I quote McCracken in the Wall Street Journal: "As a twentysomething, I can say with confidence that when it comes to church, we don't want cool as much as we want real."
Interesting solutions on both accounts.
Completely nihilistic and unproductive.
Question: what is "cool" and what is "real?" Where do I go to find a "real Church?"
Example of how the cool vs. real argument is broken down when we think about it: last time I checked, it was far more "real" than it was "cool" to openly talk about sex both in and outside of the Church walls, and say that when it happens before marriage it is wrong. Telling people this is not typically viewed as "savvy" and "relevant."
So the problem to me, doesn't wholly rest in the fact that these Christian individuals are criticizing some of the questionable aspects of the way in which Church is being done these days. Criticism is a good thing, but when we start and end with criticism and fail to move past that, we are doing nothing more then looking at a horse that is half dead and delivering the kill blow - then we continue to knock it around a few more times just for good measure.
Instead, why don't we look at the wounded horse, and try to heal it? Why don't we look at its faults, and seek to strengthen the parts that are weak?
While the Body of Christ may appear weak to some - even people who refer to themselves as "evangelicals" - there are many who are willing to receive the Spirit of Jesus Christ and do everything they can to make His love and grace apparent.
"Are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour? Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The Spirit is willing, but the body is weak." (Mark 14:37-38)
Are we being tempted into falling asleep? Can all we do is criticize? In many cases yes. Why? Because it's easier to fall asleep and dream about what God's Church can be than it is to wake up and do what we can to make those dreams a reality.
Now first off, it was rightfully pointed out on the Mars Hill Blog that Mark Driscoll has never preached sermons with those titles.
Secondly, although some of the critical points brought up - as I mentioned before - are surprising in that they are both valid and atypical of the usual Church lampoons I encounter when people get going on "why I don't go to Church," many other points sorely miss the mark of what the Body of Christ stands for today.
I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. The fellow in the Wall Street Opinion Article speaks pretty harshly about the fact that many Churches are now speaking openly about sex in sermons. He argues that this is a bad thing, because, according to him, it is illustrating a feeble attempt to boost attendance numbers with shock and awe tactics.
Of course, there are always going to be people who use "racy topics" to attract more people, but saying that the only reason why Churches are talking about sex is because they are trying to be "culturally savvy" is completely wrong.
Why is such a statement wrong? Because for too long, the Church has tried to dust the issue of sexuality under the carpet and not talk about it.
The truth is this: pastors are talking about sex because it needs to be talked about.
The reality is this: if we aren't taught about sex in Churches and what constitute's God's image and plan for sex and relationships, there are countless people and things outside of the Church that are lined up just waiting to
"teach us" about what sex is and when and how it is meant to happen.
So that's my first point: Maybe it's not all shock and awe; perhaps for the first time, we Christians are allowing people in the Church to encounter and deal with issues that they are struggling with in a way that is supportive and helpful. Yes, there might be a few who talk about sex to "be cool and relevant," but that's between them and God - not for us to condemn. Would you rather have it that we don't talk about sex and let people fend for themselves? I sure wouldn't...
Second point: is it wrong that a Church decides to incorporate different styles of music in their worship services? Doesn't the Bible, and the God who created this world, invite creativity, diversity, and uniqueness? Why should we always stick to "one way" of telling God we love Him? Whether we are telling Jesus we love Him with indie music or an organ and a hymn book, the truth is: we are still saying we love Him. Again, don't let the few "cool hunters" cause you to condemn a far larger number of individuals who have creative gifts and passions and want to use them to seek, find, and worship God.
So that stands as my rebuttal to some of the inaccurate accusations made against the Church.
The second thing that scares me is this: the people doing the criticizing call themselves Christian, are doing nothing but criticizing. Sometimes their points are valid, sometimes they aren't. But whether or not a point is valid, neither article offers any sort of solution to the problems they so harshly present us. Instead, they leave us with two choices: either stop going to Church altogether (like Anne Rice) or search for what is referred to as "real' - and I quote McCracken in the Wall Street Journal: "As a twentysomething, I can say with confidence that when it comes to church, we don't want cool as much as we want real."
Interesting solutions on both accounts.
Completely nihilistic and unproductive.
Question: what is "cool" and what is "real?" Where do I go to find a "real Church?"
Example of how the cool vs. real argument is broken down when we think about it: last time I checked, it was far more "real" than it was "cool" to openly talk about sex both in and outside of the Church walls, and say that when it happens before marriage it is wrong. Telling people this is not typically viewed as "savvy" and "relevant."
So the problem to me, doesn't wholly rest in the fact that these Christian individuals are criticizing some of the questionable aspects of the way in which Church is being done these days. Criticism is a good thing, but when we start and end with criticism and fail to move past that, we are doing nothing more then looking at a horse that is half dead and delivering the kill blow - then we continue to knock it around a few more times just for good measure.
Instead, why don't we look at the wounded horse, and try to heal it? Why don't we look at its faults, and seek to strengthen the parts that are weak?
While the Body of Christ may appear weak to some - even people who refer to themselves as "evangelicals" - there are many who are willing to receive the Spirit of Jesus Christ and do everything they can to make His love and grace apparent.
"Are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour? Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The Spirit is willing, but the body is weak." (Mark 14:37-38)
Are we being tempted into falling asleep? Can all we do is criticize? In many cases yes. Why? Because it's easier to fall asleep and dream about what God's Church can be than it is to wake up and do what we can to make those dreams a reality.
0 comments:
Post a Comment