I should write something about all of the people who aren't going to church this upcoming Sunday because it is Christmas. Does that sound as backwards as I think it sounds... and we are worried about a war on Christmas. When people make parties, get-togethers, and other traditions more important than going to church the seldom times Christmas falls on a Sunday then we lost the war on Christmas. It is now a secular holiday.
"But I have family coming over." Bring them to church.
"But we have so much going on and I have to get ready." I refer you to the story of Mary and Martha. Who chose the better thing?
I usually don't get upset over people's schedules and decisions to not attend worship. I get it. People are very busy and need to take care of themselves. But this is Christmas, one of the most holy days of our Christian calendar and it doesn't always fall on a Sunday. So on the days when it does shouldn't we make the effort.
If Easter didn't fall on a Sunday would people still attend church on that day?
Someone suggested to me that perhaps the quiet, simple time in the morning with the family is an appropriate way to honor and celebrate the birth of Jesus. It sounds good, but wouldn't it also be good to gather with your church family to honor the birth of Jesus?
Surrender the claim for titles. Surrender the demand that the pagan tree be called a "Christmas tree" because it has religious significance. I don't think people really care about the religious significance or they would be in church on Sunday. Surrender the idea that the reason for the season is the birth of Christ. Surrender it all because we have lost, Christmas is a secular holiday. Joy to the world.
Well, that was a whole lot of cheer.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Monday, December 05, 2011
A Naked Critique
I just read this interesting article from the Alban institute:
Basically the author, N. Graham Standish is arguing that the reason why a majority of churches are dying is because they have stopped listening to God. He claims that every "thriving" church he has attended are all open to the presence of God in their community. I don't know what he means by "thriving," but we'll assume it means they have more than 200 people a Sunday and really good donuts.
He claims that all of those other, apostate churches are mired in rational functionalism which is rooted in the idea, "that we can uncover the mysteries of life and the universe mainly through rational thought and disciplined investigation. It is the tendency of denominations, their congregations, and their leaders to subscribe to a view of faith and church rooted in a restrictive, logic-bound theology that ignores the possibility of spiritual experiences and miraculous events."
Sermons are basically academic papers. Churches are run like a rote institution. They are cold, vapid, and basically dead.
Those "thriving" churches are "open to God at its core." That is basically all Standish says about those "thriving" churches.
Mr. Standish (or is it Rev. Standish, or Dr. Standish?) I am calling you naked. Well, I'm not actually calling you naked but your theory naked. It is weak, hypercritical, and groundless. I think that is the nice way to put it.
It is very easy to go to almost any church and say, "well, since you are doing things that I don't like you must not be listening to God, you heathen, bastard church."
It is just as easy to say, "this church is doing well because it is doing the things that I think are exciting and important. They must be listening to God. Let the angels sing and rejoice."
Basically Standish is saying, "if you can't see what I see then you are Godless and doomed to failure." If you can't see the fine clothes on the emperor, then you must be a fool.
But I will call out the emperor's nakedness. Standish's critique and claim is nothing but putting up a false facade of spirituality and making other struggling churches feel like crap. There may be some value to the critiques he makes, but the package stinks. Thanks N. Graham Standish. Thanks a lot.
Basically the author, N. Graham Standish is arguing that the reason why a majority of churches are dying is because they have stopped listening to God. He claims that every "thriving" church he has attended are all open to the presence of God in their community. I don't know what he means by "thriving," but we'll assume it means they have more than 200 people a Sunday and really good donuts.
He claims that all of those other, apostate churches are mired in rational functionalism which is rooted in the idea, "that we can uncover the mysteries of life and the universe mainly through rational thought and disciplined investigation. It is the tendency of denominations, their congregations, and their leaders to subscribe to a view of faith and church rooted in a restrictive, logic-bound theology that ignores the possibility of spiritual experiences and miraculous events."
Sermons are basically academic papers. Churches are run like a rote institution. They are cold, vapid, and basically dead.
Those "thriving" churches are "open to God at its core." That is basically all Standish says about those "thriving" churches.
Mr. Standish (or is it Rev. Standish, or Dr. Standish?) I am calling you naked. Well, I'm not actually calling you naked but your theory naked. It is weak, hypercritical, and groundless. I think that is the nice way to put it.
It is very easy to go to almost any church and say, "well, since you are doing things that I don't like you must not be listening to God, you heathen, bastard church."
It is just as easy to say, "this church is doing well because it is doing the things that I think are exciting and important. They must be listening to God. Let the angels sing and rejoice."
Basically Standish is saying, "if you can't see what I see then you are Godless and doomed to failure." If you can't see the fine clothes on the emperor, then you must be a fool.
But I will call out the emperor's nakedness. Standish's critique and claim is nothing but putting up a false facade of spirituality and making other struggling churches feel like crap. There may be some value to the critiques he makes, but the package stinks. Thanks N. Graham Standish. Thanks a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)