Intellectual engagement in an age of cotton candy churches.

[CCWoody]

Article found here!!!

"You can go to Redeemer and you can not be a Christian and listen to that sermon and be completely engaged."

While the article does not tend to focus on this one issue, I find it fascinating and encouraging that some people still believe that you can build churches without sacrificing the substance of Christianity for cotton candy 3 ring circus "Protestant" message.

 

[knownbeforetime]

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here...

What is the 3 ring circus, cotton candy, 'protestant' message?

 

[daveleau]

It is a church's giving in to Society's beliefs or incorrect theology. One must realize, though, that all churches have flaws. All theologians have flaws. And, remember, that every finger that is pointed at someone has 3 fingers pointed right back at the finger-pointer.

 

[CCWoody]

It is a church's giving in to Society's beliefs or incorrect theology. One must realize, though, that all churches have flaws. All theologians have flaws. And, remember, that every finger that is pointed at someone has 3 fingers pointed right back at the finger-pointer.

You seem to be over sensitive to the characterization. While what you say may be a cute saying, it seems quite out of place given that what is being discussed is an intellectual alternative to the cotton candy Christianity offered by the rest of the mega church planters. Why not celebrate that there is a place of inclusion for those looking for more than fluff instead of casting an illusion of hypocrisy at those of us who find that we cannot subsist on the meager morsels thrown by mega church Protestanism?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

It is a church's giving in to Society's beliefs or incorrect theology. One must realize, though, that all churches have flaws. All theologians have flaws. And, remember, that every finger that is pointed at someone has 3 fingers pointed right back at the finger-pointer.

That saying is more in allignment with the human potential movement than with Biblical Christianity.

Are you saying that Christians cannot hold other Christians in account for doctrine and practice?

That is what it seems you are saying.

 

[artjack]

I live in a place where our service is in our local Gaelic language & alot of it is not understood by us. I think it is time for a global standard language like english. even in our schools sience is taught through the same language & I would imagine it is a hinderence in the future when one faces work in that line as the words are compleatly different, there is no need for it, it is done to keep the language alive but I imagine no need for our local language in the future. we live in the world now not countrys in the large picture. God deserves everyone to understand him properly. in the airline safty world english is used as standard for safty reasons except only in france they use french & I saw on discovery channel that it has lead to an accident because of misunderstanding.

 

[daveleau]

Christians absolutely can hold other Christians accountable. Please don't misunderstand that. It is just that there is often an aire of superiority by making fun of others by using the terms like are used above. -When in fact, both churches have flaws. I detest the letting in of society and the liberalization of the church, but at the same time, we should not be tearing others down to make ourselves look good. As much as I detest Christian liberalism, I also detest and will not return to a church when visiting, if a preacher or teacher pokes fun at other Christians. It is just not right. It is sad that we have some of the liberal beleifs that we have. But, it is equally sad that we denigrate each other so profoundly that we use quotes signifiying a false nature, or we use terms that smack at their intellect or commitment. These society-driven churches are led astray. We should try to help them by learning their beliefs inside and out so we can debunk them on their level (be in the world but not of the world) rather than throwing our beliefs at them and hoping some of it sticks, which is a method that never works.

 

[oworm]

Tim Keller spoke to the 4th Scottish Ministers assembly last year. The theme was "Growing the church" and Dr Kellers lectures on cultural perspectives without compromising the message of the gospel was refreshing,challenging and encouraging!

 

[TwinCrier]

There are some churches that are more driven to fill the pews with buttocks of perferably wealthy members, but I still see more churches preaching the gospel. They just don'y get the publicity as the more fundamental gospel preaching churches.
Locally a mega-church in a nearby city ran provaocative billboards advertising their upcoming seron series on sex. They got covered by all the local tv and radio stations, which was apparently their goal.

 

[knownbeforetime]

You know, I know I live in a small town, but where all these supposedly apostate churches? Where are these churches everyone talks about that supposedly water down the Gospel? I haven't actually seen any.

My favorite teacher certainly isn't intellectually light. www.khouse.org.

 

[CCWoody]

Christians absolutely can hold other Christians accountable. Please don't misunderstand that. It is just that there is often an aire of superiority by making fun of others by using the terms like are used above. -When in fact, both churches have flaws. I detest the letting in of society and the liberalization of the church, but at the same time, we should not be tearing others down to make ourselves look good. As much as I detest Christian liberalism, I also detest and will not return to a church when visiting, if a preacher or teacher pokes fun at other Christians. It is just not right. It is sad that we have some of the liberal beleifs that we have. But, it is equally sad that we denigrate each other so profoundly that we use quotes signifiying a false nature, or we use terms that smack at their intellect or commitment. These society-driven churches are led astray. We should try to help them by learning their beliefs inside and out so we can debunk them on their level (be in the world but not of the world) rather than throwing our beliefs at them and hoping some of it sticks, which is a method that never works.

Boy, you really are taking this personally. I have not mentioned a single church. I'm speaking more of the concept. I don't know why you are taking this so personal. And I don't know who exactly I have made fun of since I have not mentioned any names. I don't know exactly who I am tearing down since I have not mentioned anyone.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten me on who these people are that I am attacking by giving me your opinion of who preaches this cotton candy message.

I, for one, am thankful that we are finally proving that the model for successfully building churches is not held in the jumbotron and a simplified message of "Jesus loves you." You really can feed the whole soul and stimulate the mind without driving people away.

 

[CCWoody]

You know, I know I live in a small town, but where all these supposedly apostate churches? Where are these churches everyone talks about that supposedly water down the Gospel? I haven't actually seen any.

Who is talking about apostate churches?

I think everyone needs to take a step back and have a nice group hug.


Look, let me explain a few of these terms.

#1. "Protestant" - I understand that the quotes around the term Protestant may cause confusion. The fact is that a Protestant is much more than just a non-Catholic. There is an history and theology associated with the term which is not shared in any way with those who are building the vast majority of mega churches. Simply ask them if you share the theology of the Protestants. Ask them if you are still in protest against same doctrines of Rome in in favor of the same theology as the Protestants. Most will tell you these days that they don't like the term because it is divisive and prefer the label Christian.

Also, look at the formation of these big non-denominational mega churches. Do they have any denominational historical ties to the Reformers?

And, though I don't begrude them the use of the term, there are times such as this that I want to make a clear distinction between a "Protestant" (non-Reformer, non-Catholic) and a Protestant Reformer.

#2. Cotton candy churches. I never said watered down gospel. In fact, I make no attempt to discuss the nature of the gospel preached in these churches, but the nature of the intellectually stimulating theology that is taught. As has been said many times with regard to these mega churches, they don't want strong doctrine to be taught for the simple fact that doctrine divides. As such, the Bible studies are more fellowship in nature and the sermons, light and fluffy, designed to not be offensive. And, while I don't object to their desire to have such a service, quite frankly, I'd be in a sugar induced coma in 5 minutes.

 

[daveleau]

It is very good to teach indepth and to preach exegetically. The teachings of the church should cater to all levels of Christians, I believe, as people will be of different Spiritual maturity. We really should teach deeper teachings, and get into deep study, as that is what we are called to do (1 Thess 5:21).

 

[seekingpurity047]

As my pastor likes to say... "All fluff and no stuff" bahaha....

To the glory of God,

Randy

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Christians absolutely can hold other Christians accountable. Please don't misunderstand that. It is just that there is often an aire of superiority by making fun of others by using the terms like are used above.

Dave, are you not aware that satire and sarcasm are legitimate forms of bringing a particular emphasis to a error? Jesus and the Bible figures used them both regularly. However, in this era where most people in the west, particularly in America, have been conditioned to be hyper-sensitive, anything that is not smothered in lavish coatings of sugar sweetness, is personally found to offend their hyper-sensibilities.

When in fact, both churches have flaws.

Invalid reason to refrain from the Scriptural commands to correct and rebuke errors. That again sounds more like the human potential movement's crreeds rather than Biblical Christianity.

I detest the letting in of society and the liberalization of the church, but at the same time, we should not be tearing others down to make ourselves look good.

I think you are way too sensitive about this and are reading things into it that have come from non-Christian paradigms.

The rebukes and corrections are not to "make one look better", but to accentuate a egregious error that is causing damage to the Church.

As much as I detest Christian liberalism, I also detest and will not return to a church when visiting, if a preacher or teacher pokes fun at other Christians. It is just not right.

Would you have left Jesus, had you been there when He poked fun at the Pharisees and others, including the disciples?

It is sad that we have some of the liberal beleifs that we have. But, it is equally sad that we denigrate each other so profoundly that we use quotes signifiying a false nature, or we use terms that smack at their intellect or commitment. These society-driven churches are led astray. We should try to help them by learning their beliefs inside and out so we can debunk them on their level (be in the world but not of the world) rather than throwing our beliefs at them and hoping some of it sticks, which is a method that never works.

If satire offends you, don't read it.

By the way, are you not tearing down the writer of the article to make your own piety look good?

That's what it looks like to me.

 

[daveleau]

There are 4 Gospels, and the reason there are four is because the history of Christ's time on Earth and His Work were adapted to reach others. If today's society is hyper-sensitive to ridicule, then this is evidence that we should respect that and adapt the message (not the content) to reach those most effectively. Ridiculing others has become a stumbling block for many as it becomes a hatred for other groups...other Christians. Christ's actions are also from a sinless position. We are not there and we never will be as long as we breathe. We are given specific prescriptions in Scripture not to treat each other with anything other than respect. Yes, Christ ridiculed, but until we meet His standard of perfection, can we sidestep other Scriptural teachings telling us that we need to be respectful?

Also, Christ used satire very infrequently, when compared to His examples of love. If one does not agree with what Paul teaches and still decides to use satire, many tend to use these satirical examples as the primary method of rebuke, while ignoring Christ's other examples. It smacks of a pride, rather than of righteousness. We are called to be servants first, and to get rid of pride.

I am not trying to look pious. I'm speaking out about ridicule.

I would be very interested in evidence of specifically prescriptive instances of ridicule in Scripture, not just exemplary instances. (Matbe this should be another thread. If you'd like to start one, AWC, I'd participate. )

 

[QuantaCura]

Obviously, I don't have the kind of experience as you all, but from what I've read this is the impression I get:

The original Protestant Reformers cared very deeply about correct theology. They believed that the Catholic Church had erred in her theology and that they were correcting those errors.

As more and more denominations sprung up, a desire for unity came more and more to the forefront. So, it became admitted in many circles that no church is perfect and that everyone probably has some theological errors, so things were watered down to the "essentials" that everyone agreed on. The attitude of "we're all Christians, all of these theological differences don't really matter" became popular--that stuff is just personal preference--on the other hand, I think the whole point of original Reformation was that these things did matter (and of course still do to many Protestants).

Is that a fair assessment?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

There are 4 Gospels, and the reason there are four is because the history of Christ's time on Earth and His Work were adapted to reach others. If today's society is hyper-sensitive to ridicule

What you see as "ridicule" is the legitimate use of satire and sarcasm.

then this is evidence that we should respect that and adapt the message (not the content) to reach those most effectively.

Obviously, you have been influenced by the "seeker sensitive" movement.

You know what hell's best secret is? Preaching the Law!

Have you ever preached as an evangelists to groups of non-believers?

I have, and do. I don't preach a fluffy, sugary sweet, "Jesus loves you just the way you are" message that stokes their egos. I preach hellfire and brimstone through preaching the Law, by which the Holy Spirit convicts them of their wickedness and shows them their need for a Savior.

Over the past 8 years, I have seen hundreds on college campuses, and in open air public squares come to Christ through that Biblical message.

Especially in this culture today where people have been taught by the creed, "I'm OK, You're OK", and think they are fine and dandy just the way they are, the Law has to be preached first before the Gospel can be delivered.

Ridiculing others has become a stumbling block for many as it becomes a hatred for other groups...other Christians.

Who is "ridiculing"? Lighten up some.

Christ's actions are also from a sinless position. We are not there and we never will be as long as we breathe.

Hmmmmmmm, and what about John the Baptist?

Matthew 3;
5 Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him 6 and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

I guess John the Baptist didn't have a handle on the "Sweet Jesus" concept, and apparently lacked the postmodernist ethic of being sweet to convince people to become Christians so they could be sweet like him, eh?

We are given specific prescriptions in Scripture not to treat each other with anything other than respect.

2 Timothy 4;

1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at[a] His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

Boy, seems like Paul is doing some "ridiculing" of people who have "itching ears", who "heap up for themselves teachers", and are "turned aside to fables".

Rebuke is showing respect.

Yes, Christ ridiculed, but until we meet His standard of perfection

Taking that to it's logical conclusion, then one must be as perfect as Christ before they can preach the Gospel, since Christlike perfection is your standard for doing anything., can we sidestep other Scriptural teachings telling us that we need to be respectful?

Also, Christ used satire very infrequently, when compared to His examples of love. If one does not agree with what Paul teaches and still decides to use satire

Dave, for some reason you have this habit of taking everything to the extreme and painting with too broad a stoke. Why is that?

No one is saying that satire being used in every occassion, now have they? Hmmmmmm? Have they? Tell us! Yes or no?

many tend to use these satirical examples as the primary method of rebuke, while ignoring Christ's other examples.

Prove it!

I think you are just too sensitive and any time you see satire you think it is the "primary method" because you are looking for something to be offended by personally.

It smacks of a pride, rather than of righteousness.

The same thing could be said of your prideful exhibitions of piety.

We are called to be servants first, and to get rid of pride.

Then by all means, do so.

I am not trying to look pious.

Now you have some oceanfront property in Tibet to sell me, right?

I'm speaking out about ridicule.

No, what you are doing is interjecting your own hyper-sensitivity into the equation.

I would be very interested in evidence of specifically prescriptive instances of ridicule in Scripture, not just exemplary instances. (Matbe this should be another thread. If you'd like to start one, AWC, I'd participate. )

Phillipians 3;

2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation!

Geeee, I guess you should have taught Paul not to call people dogs.

But I guess ol' Paul didn't have the advantage of the modern human potential movement or the sugary sweet seeker sensitive movement to be influenced and taught by.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

The original Protestant Reformers cared very deeply about correct theology. They believed that the Catholic Church had erred in her theology and that they were correcting those errors.

And many of us Reformers still believe that wholeheartedly.

 

[QuantaCura]

And many of us Reformers still believe that wholeheartedly.

Yes, I know , but many out there really don't think it matters anymore if one professes Calvinist, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist or whatever theology. The thought is everybody has errors so theology is just a matter of personal preference.