Ok. the Thirsty Theologian had an interesting link on his page that I followed yesterday evening to discover this post. (by the way, TT has some great posts up top right now about why a literal translation of the Bible is better. Go take a look. For instance “if I relay a message inaccurately, does it matter how clearly I speak?”)
anyway, Julie Neidlinger’s post is haunting. I think she is feeling and expressing what so many people are feeling and not expressing. I know that the last few Sundays that I went to a new site/campus of a big traditional church I was just angry. I felt like it was a cheap shallow imitation of community that was completely missing the point. I didn’t want to be angry, but I was.
I have gone to church my whole life and I have felt bored and apathetic at times. I have felt energized and convicted at other times, but for seven sundays in a row, the overwhelming emotion was anger. “why are we doing this?” “why are we doing this, this way?” “WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS?” and similar things were running through my head until it was about to explode.
When I read Julie’s thoughts, it hit me why I was angry. All we were doing is taking plastic church and putting it in a hipper wardrobe. The hunger inside me was to really be the church, not a cooler version of the church facsimile.
Listen to this excerpt and then go read the rest of her cri de couer.
Whatever. I’m not looking for a program or ministry geared for me and my situation. I’m just looking for people to connect with and be church with. I’d like marrieds and singles and old and young in that group. I’m not looking for easy homogenization.
It won’t work
As it is, I, and others like me, will walk out of churches. The coffee bars in the foyer, the casual attire, the buzz words, all the programs and activities imaginable, the big-screen video monitors, the contemporary music — it is actually repulsive and fake to a large chunk of people.These are the people churches aren’t aware of, because they aren’t anywhere near a church. They slip in, walk out, and aren’t even missed. They don’t fill out visitor cards. They don’t want to be part of a flow chart or be managed as part of a Church-as-Corporate-Hierarchy system. They don’t want a polite follow-up call or to hear a voice on the other end say that they just wanted to “touch bases” with them to let them know they’re important. Even if those actions are sincere and the only plausible route when a church is so huge, they ring insincere.
Such people, like myself, sound impossible to reach or include in the system of church as we know it today, which is my point. They way we do church today isn’t necessarily being church. There needs to be something else for those of us who can’t stand the way services are arranged, the way emotions are herded into a set time frame (which today involved — what was impossible for me — going from the whole congregation doing “the wave” as instigated by the children’s pastor into, about ten minutes later, “surrendering to Jesus” with soft piano music and hushed tones), how discussion is nil and being preached at in silence is the accepted method of learning…
…nope. Not gonna work.
I’m not looking for starched Baptist legalism, but Casual Friday Church is as equally fake and disgusting.
“Casual Friday Church” what an excellent name.
recently my family and I have been trying to find an authentic church community with which to join hands. With which to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength. With which to love our neighbors as ourselves.
We have found a place where that is the desire of the leaders. You know what? plastic church is there too and it appears to frustrate the leadership. They desire for their people to break through to authentic community. Progress is slow.
Why? Why are we this way? Why do we persist in creating/maintaining a safe distance from one another?
I read an article sent to me by a friend. The article accurately pinpoints the reason as rebellious sinful hearts. The author is unnecessarily provocative in his title and thesis because the problem really is individualism and the solution really is community.
But he is also correct that the real underlying heart issue is rebellion. Rebellion against the command of God to put Him first in our affections. We want to do what we want to do with our time, money, words, talents, family etc. Rebellion against His command to love one another as we love ourselves. We want to be friends and show love to who we want to be friends with and show love to. Usually only those people who are a lot like us. Usually those people who can show us love in return. Usually those people who have the ability to return the favor.
Just sayin’. Julie N. touched a nerve in me. she expressed well what I have been feeling. I feel inside the hunger she expresses. I am glad she put her words down for all of us to see.
I was thinking about this post this morning as I rode my bike past the new Grace Covenant Sanctuary at 360 and 183. And I thought, what’s wrong with a Big Plastic Church? If Christ is honored, and God glorified, what’s wrong with that.? I also thought about Saddleback. If you have a great preacher, who proclaims the Word of God, and does so in a “big” church, what is really wrong with that? The complaints she raises are valid . . . but isn’t it just a little whiny?
To tee off on your point, who is really responsible for the “community” part of the church? I would argue – THE COMMUNITY! Maybe the “big” churches should do more to foster this, but aren’t they trying? I know we all still have a bad HPBC aftertaste. . . but a Christ honoring, bible believing church is what we need, regardless of whether it is in a 30,000 seat arena or in a living room.
Am I off? I know you will have some thoughts.
Hey Frank. I know what you mean about Julie being whiny. But to me that was part of the attractiveness of what she wrote. She was conveying in every way that she is as broken and messed up as any of us and she was without artifice in expressing her desire for deeper connections with other people. Refreshingly glaringly honest.
I also think you are on to something. It has something to do with what Steve was talking about in his “right way to do church” post. (http://blog.visionnavigator.com/2008/08/right-way-to-do-church.html) Different congregations can be seen as different parts of the body of Christ with different roles. There is certainly nothing wrong with a big church just because it is big.
But I don’t think a “plastic” church can be Christ honoring or God glorifying no matter what its size. I believe it is God’s design for his church that we love one another fervently and thus show the world a difference. John 13:34-35, I Peter 4:8. That kind of love presupposes an intimacy that “plastic” churches just don’t have.
I can’t encourage my brothers daily while it is called today so that they aren’t hardened by the deceitfulness of sin, if I don’t know what encouragement is needed. I can’t goad/spur/provoke my fellow believers to love and good works and be goaded in return if I don’t know them well enough to know where to poke. I can’t come alongside somebody in a spirit of meekness when they have been overtaken in a fault if I don’t know enough about them to know that they have been overtaken and they can’t come alongside me unless they know me. (Heb. 3:13; Heb. 10:24; and Gal. 6:1).
The hunger to have that kind of relationship with others is what I thought Julie expressed so well. Rebellion against God’s commands with regard to relationships is what I think prevents it.
I completely totally and strongly agree with you that we need Christ honoring, God glorifying, Bible believing churches regardless of size. I believe those congregations will be marked by a deep and intimate love for one another.
Yeah, I guess I didn’t mean to use the “plastic” modifier there.
My point is that there is a time and place for everything. The points you make in the 4th paragraph are correct but aren’t they the daily responsibility of believers to each other and not the church? Just playing the Devil’s advocate here.
I think churches have taken on that responsibility and, it ought not be theirs. Maybe clearer lines need to be formed, based on scripture, to delineate responsibility.
You and Julie are taking on that responsibility and are to be commended for it.
Good words, good discussion. Thanks.
I think you are absolutely correct that loving one another is an individual responsibility. It is one of the spiritual sacrifices that we bring as priests of the new covenant. I Peter 2:5.
Over and above the personal responsibility that each believer has, I think that the group of believers has a role to play in fostering the development of a healthily intimate truly loving community.
In other words, I have the responsibility to do what I know I ought to do, and shouldn’t part of my goal be to associate with fellow believers who have the same goal in mind so that we can hold each other accountable for progress?
Do see what I mean? Trying to find a group of believers who have this goal as one of their core values even though in practice they haven’t achieved it yet as part of fulfilling my responsibility to achieve an intimate loving community?
Keith
Yes I agree completely. I was just wondering if size really does matter.
Just been perusing your blog and stumbled across this “discussion.” Interesting. It seems to me what is putting Julie off the church in general, and specifically the “new” church is the same thing that puts off most non-believers. They view the structure, formality (or forced informality, as it were), and size as fake, plastic, faux, diet church, impersonal, and unauthentic. I get that. But, to paint with such a broad brush is foolish and shallow. I am going to take the role of the devil’s advocate in a minute, so bear with me. However, I, too, have been guilty while sitting in church of letting my eyes wander to those to my left and right and putting thoughts in their head. It is a great way to build the spiritual image of one’s self, to view those around you as not as mature in their faith. He’s only here because his wife made him come. Or, she merely came so she could be seen by the rest of the “in crowd.” They came to keep up appearances and didn’t want to miss the social gossip before and after the boring part of church. Cynical are those who don’t appreciate the coffee bars in the lobby, the big screens, the contemporary music. It’s the church’s attempt to stay relevant and meet people where they are. Instead, it’s viewed as a fake and insincere way to draw people in to pad the numbers and get rich. You wanna see what happens when churches don’t change with the times? Go to Europe, you’re welcome to join the other three people at any one of the thousands of them on a Sunday morning. The church refused to change, it refused to stay relevant and meet people where are, it demanded that the congregants endure the same old, same old. You know what happened, society passed them by! The church became irrelevant and people stopped coming. I commend those churches who are preaching the same true biblical message unapologetically, but doing so in a culturally relevant environment. Application of God’s Word to modern day issues and problems, questions and lifestyles is, to my estimation, a way to keep the US churches full. Otherwise, the buildings here won’t even become the museums and architectual monuments of a bygone era as they are in Europe.
What a person “gets out” of church is only known to that person. There may be a great number of people who find themselves fully engaged and plugged in to their relationship with Christ while in such a place. It is a heart issue, period. My thought is to be grateful to Him, who allows us to worship in different ways. We are blessed to be in a country where we can worship freely to whomever, whereever, whenever we want. If Julie doesn’t find what she’s looking for in the modern day church, she doesn’t have to attend. Her article has an air judgementalism I find condescending. The implication being she is “deeper” than “those shallow people.” Those poor souls, they don’t get it like I do! Hrumph! She needs to celebrate the fact that she can begin her own church if she wishes and structure (or UN-structure) it however she feels. Those looking for the same style are free to join her. Based on her comments, it sounds like there is a fertile field of like-minded would-be church-goers if only there was such a place. I would encourage Julie and others of her ilk to build it how they want and get to the business of God instead of criticizing the way others choose to worship. But, the church is in a lose-lose spot to her. Ten years ago churches were criticized for being “too stuffy” or “too image conscious.” So, a trend began to make church more casual. Now, that it’s caught on, it’s being criticized as “diet church” or “church lite.” I suppose the next movement will the “church al fresca” — no clothes necessary lest you be judged. That would likely find Julie’s support until it becomes mainstream. Once that occurs, it’s time to move on. Once you’re part of the majority, you’re shallow. Different equates to depth. Um, I don’t think so.
There are certainly some criteria one should have when deciding to join or become part of a church, not the least of which is, “Can I serve Him here?” We should ask not what our church can do for us, but what we can do for our God (and church!) Music, attire, lights, buildings, prosperity should not be the reason(s) one does/does not attend church. Is the Bible being taught? Can you embrace those around and be authentic around them and they around you? Can you get involved in serving for the glory of the Kingdom? Those seem to me to be much more pertinent issues in selecting a place of worship. Maybe it’s me….
Go Matt. wow. I think you are on to something. Now how do we get past surface appearances to the real deal? does that happen naturally? must it be encouraged? how? Hopefully, the issue doesn’t really have anything to do with clothes, because I ain’t going nekkid to church or anywhere else for that matter. and for that you should be grateful.