Just Beyond The 100th Time

74 thoughts on “Just Beyond The 100th Time”

1. I am filled with love for each of you. Your are a community as God is the community into which we are all beckoned. Don’t ever stop your search for the missing ingredient in you and your churches. I found it after much effort. I didn’t leave my church but I did shake much dust from my feet. I found what was missing in a very unlikely place. It is in my heart right where God said He put it. I was led to it by, of all people, Jesus himself. The discovery started when I was ready to learn from Him and I “happened” to read the title of the first chapter in a book: “What did Jesus teach?” Huh, I already know what Jesus teaches, I thought. I was wrong. My knowledge of what Jesus teaches was only as deep as the ink on the paper. So much for my great teachers the clergy of the various churches, the theolgians, the philosophers the modern day Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes who lay heavy burdens on us. These are the only folks that anger Jesus for the harm they do to his sheep with their superficial understanding and preaching. It was St. Thomas of Aquinas himself who said to his amanuensis “Take all these books I have written and burn them for they are worth only but straw”. This happened after Thomas experienced Jesus revelation directly while offering the Eucharist. He never wrote another word of theology. He had received the missing ingredient. So, what did Jesus really teach? So few seem to know. The scriptures have at least ten levels of understanding, according to some medieval scholars. The ink was not deep enough for me. When I mined Jesus teachings, I encountered great treasures of understanding put there for me to find when I became humble enough to ask, seek, knock. I did have to sell all that I had intellectually relied upon but it was only the garbage Paul said it was. It is clear to me that there are some major problems with the translation, interpretation and application of Jesus teaching. The only way to know for sure is to judge by the fruits, as Jesus taught. The fruits of the prevailing churchy scene were not enough for me, or you, I gather. I had to let Him reveal to me understanding of what He taught and then I had live it to see if it worked, which it does. I found it amazingly simple. All great things are simple. Today, I hang out with churchy people in hopes of passing Jesus’ true teaching along. Though the churchy ones clearly love me, they always joke of burning me at the stake for my outrageous, but refreshing, insights into the scriptures and the current secular/religious scene. It must be good because even the churchiest people eventually see at least some of the light I must try to bring. It is said we are all created with a tiny crack in our skulls, that His light might someday penetrate. I am glad that I can readily admit I am the greatest of sinners and totally unable to make myself or anyone else sinless. It keeps me humble enough to remember that God created me worthy and that I cannot improve on His work. What I can do is unlearn what I learned from the ignorant and gullible people who taught me the great untruths they believed in about their and my unworthiness. Today I am first a spritual being, then a Christian, then a church member.
   Happiest New Year to you all!

   LikeLike

2. I recently converted to conservative Lutheran after wandering in the evangelical wilderness for 10+ years actively looking for relief from the previous decades caught in the hamster wheel of evangelical principles and etc. I was completely burned out by the law diet and Christless Christianity I kept finding.

   I love the Lutheran understanding of the Lord’s Supper – it is a means of grace and I receive the body and blood of my Savior for the forgiveness of sins among other benefits. This is why it is central to the worship service. It is word and sacrament together – not one or the other. In Lutheran confessional circles you are forgiven with the absolution and the Lord’s Supper every Sunday. Much grace and gospel!

   IMonk – have you read Dr. Allen P. Ross (Anglican) book: Recalling the Hope of Glory? He is an OT professor at Beeson Divinity and his book is supposed to be a survey on worship from Genesis to Revelation. I haven’t read it yet, but it’s supposed to cover why the use of liturgy and communion is the scriptural foundation for how God wants to be worshiped. It’s not a Lutheran book, but I ordered it hoping to understand what the bible says about worship.

   I am relieved to be out of the evangelical nightmare and very slowly learning the traditional forms of worship, hymns, church calendar, lectionary, and etc.

   LikeLike

3. “Where are we told in the New Testament that we are producing experiences? Where does it say we are competing for the world’s attention the world’s way?”

   I think it says this all over the NT. Signs and wonders are what grabs you into the NT. Wow, imagine walking on water, experiencing healing, feeling the Spirit shake the room… And didn’t Paul say he was “all things to all people?” Was he really a good Jew as he said in Acts, or did he eat whatever was put in front of him? Sounds like he was being flexible and was “competing for the world’s attention the world’s way.”

   Churches offer this way of thinking because, on a simple level, this is what so much of the NT says. This is entry level Christianity. It is what Jesus and Paul used to get people’s attention. It gets old quickly, but it is biblical. I know I sound cynical, but every enduring Christian eventually realizes a deeper message when they see the inevitability of the cross and the need to only become all things for Christ.

   LikeLike

4. I completely agree with everything you’re saying, Michael. I agree with you that personal transformation is at the heart of it, a personal discovery of what it means to follow the person of Jesus. I do think that a big component that’s missing in Evangelicalism is spiritual direction. If all of us frustrated Evangelicals would seek-out a spiritual director (in the truest sense of the word… not a “mentor” or “accountability partner”) to have someone to journey alongside us, be with us when we ask the hard questions, challenge us to look deeper, be a presence of prayer in our lives, etc… I think we would discover a richness in growth and relationship that we’ve been looking for. If churches saw spiritual formation and ALL that that entails as a main focus of ministry, they would be open to asking, “How is this helpful for growth?” of everything they’re doing. I do really see individual spiritual direction and group spiritual direction as a huge aspect that’s missing in current evangelicalism that has the potential to make a huge difference in our growth. Maybe this is a first step.

   LikeLike

5. Ragamuffin, first off as I mentioned before Justin Martyr and Didache do not give us a picture of the relative time or importance of the various elements of a Sunday service they offer instruction and description of the various elements (and not exhaustively). But with regards to the changes between first century Christians and second century Christians in general, if you take the faith of a relatively small group of Palestinian Jews and then expand it quickly to millions of non Jews throughout the Roman empire you are going to get some changes. We are talking about a language change, a cultural change, a philosophical and educational change etc. These are big changes. I would be incredulous if there were no changes. Of course there were changes.

   And keep in mind that I am not even talking major or malicious changes. I am not saying they started denying the faith or rejecting Christ or any thing radical. I am saying that they went from emphasizing the written word of the God and its exposition (a Jewish practice that Jesus and Paul would have been very familiar with) to emphasizing the Eucharist as central (with sacrificial elements that are foreign to the NT and the Apostolic fathers).

   I am no Baptist but I think that we need to realize that if we are imagining that the modern Catholic Mass was even remotely like a first century Jewish service…..well, I can’t help there.

   LikeLike

6. imonk, no, I am suggesting that transubstantiation is a later development. Real presence has always been affirmed but the manner and way in which the Christ was present was not defined for many years (actually arguably not defined until Aquinas). But keep in mind that Orthodox and Protestant affirm the real presence in some sense (but both reject transubstantiation). One thing that we don’t find in the early churches is devotion and worship toward the host. This is something that is a result of later thinking. This coupled with the teaching that the sacrament is a sacrifice (something not found in Protestantism) certainly contributed to the change in emphasis from word to Eucharist.

   I don’t think that the early church were baptists.

   LikeLike

7. I frankly find it hard to believe…bordering on incredulous…that the same men who were roundly being persecuted for holding unswervingly to the faith the Apostles handed down to them, that argued forcefully to their own peril against heresies and syncretism, completely ditched what the Apostles taught them regarding how to conduct worship services and what was the central element of it. So much so that by the time Justin Martyr wrote his letters or the Didache was put to paper that they utterly missed the boat.

   I just don’t find that believable. And two glancing passages in Acts, one of which in context was not a normal Sunday service, aren’t enough to make a Biblical case to change my mind.

   LikeLike

8. Will S:

   Are you suggesting that the real presence is a later development?

   Do you believe the early Christians basically had Baptist theology and ecclesiology?

   peace

   ms

   LikeLike

9. Triple A, you do realize that I was not making the case that Acts had any sort of exhaustive description of the early church service. What I did argue is that there are a few touch points (the few services that are described coupled with the terms that were used to describe Christian pastors) that seem to indicate that the centrality of scriptural exposition as a means of drawing near to God and His Son. I then coupled this with the well documented fact that the broader Jewish faith viewed scripture as a way of experiencing the divine presence.

   I then made the argument that these two points are helpful indicators that traditional Protestant liturgy that focuses on the reading of scripture and the preaching of the Word are not terribly off base. And I made the argument that the later traditions that played off the development of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist and the increased emphasis on the literal presence of Christ in the bread are the drivers for Eucharistic centrality in the Catholic service (and other apostolic traditions).

   It doesn’t seem like a big leap of logic to me and it is pretty consistent with the thoughts of protestant theology over the past 500 years.

   LikeLike

10. Will et al: For those of you who are intent on building a liturgy or church service on the texts we find in Acts, there is a very interesting essay in the Guardian this week by Jane Williams (wife of the Archbishop of Canterbury and a great theologian in her own right) on the question of “when Luke is simply chronicling what his research suggests actually happened, and when he is making theological recommendations.” See the article at this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2008/dec/29/christianity-acts-apostles-church-ideal. For a more extended discussion of what the early church did with liturgy, try Aidan Kavanaugh’s modern classic “On Liturgical Theology.” Both resources counsel caution in trying to discern what a “real” service looked like from Biblical texts.

    LikeLike

11. Hi Will

    I think some of your assumptions about me aren’t quite right. But the only point I really want to get across to you is this: either it’s all about Jesus, or it’s verging on pointless.

    Read your own comments on exposition (with which I fully agree): “every sermon that we find in Acts and the letters that we find within the New Testament suggest that the reading of the OT and the exposition of such in terms of Jesus was pretty darn central.” Amen. But when I read it from you, it sounds like the emphasis is on the fact or act of exposition, almost as an exercise or centerpiece; but for them the emphasis was not the exposition but Jesus, and he was the point of the act and fact of exposition, without whom they would not have been expositing.

    Not only are the sermons in Acts about Jesus’ death and resurrection, but communion is also about Jesus’ death and resurrection, and so is baptism. (I’m another of the Lutherans, in case you can’t tell.)

    Exposit all you want about Jesus’ death and resurrection: that is what creates faith, hope, and love. Just don’t tell me that exposition is the point; Jesus is.

    Take care & God bless
    WF

    LikeLike

12. WF, Couple things. First of all, your interpretation of I think goes a bit too far. The passage is not an explanation as to how to do a church service but is instead a call to join together in the name of Jesus. That is he was establishing his church. It is interesting that that there was a saying in the Pirqe Aboth (Mishna) that Jesus may have been echoing as he uttered those words. It reads, “If two sit together and teh words of the Law are spoken between them, the Divine Presence rests between them.” I don’t think that Jesus was drawing a contrast between church and the Pharisaic tradition so much as he is placing himself above all the other incarnational touchpoints of the Jewish faith (he also does so with the temple at various points) but I don’t think that we can conclude that therefore Jesus was telling us that the reading of the word is downplayed. On the contrary, I think that this quote (if it is true that Jesus was referecing the Pharisaic saying) demonstrates further that the praxis and modes of worship for Jesus and his followers were closer to the Pharisaic approach than to any other Jewish traditions.

    No, Jesus’ statement does not suggest that he is advocating a radical break from the Jewish worship but instead suggests that he wants that worship to be about him.

    You are right that the New Testament was still be collected in the Apostolic church but every sermon that we find in Acts and the letters that we find within the New Testament suggest that the reading of the OT and the exposition of such in terms of Jesus was pretty darn central. Further, there is much evidence (within and without the New Testament) to suggest that in the days of the Apostles they were already reading each other’s letters and the gospels within their worship and even considering them scripture (i.e. 2 Pe 3:15). In other words, ever single data point we have of the apostlic age shows us that scripture and expositional preaching were central to the service.

    Finally, it is important to keep in mind that neither Jesus nor Paul viewed themselves as inventing a new religion but instead bringing the fulfillment of what had been given before. So to say that Jesus and Paul (one a Pharisee and one close to the Pharisees in many ways) completely changed the worship service without a whole lot of evidence to say that they did (which I don’t think you have presented) begs the question.

    Just to note one more time: I believe that communion is important and should be practiced weekly with weighty worship. I believe that liturgy is unavoidable and therefore might as well be planned. I think that if we don’t have a Christian calendar, we will have a pagan one. I think that the bells and smells of catholicism are not required but can be nice. Don’t get me wrong on these things. I am not a Baptist and I hate worshiptainment. My only point all along has been that scripture and exposition should be central and the protestant decision to place them in the center is based on good scriptural backing, historical backing and theological foundations.

    LikeLike

13. About the rabbinic theology that the full presence of God was there whenever the word of God was proclaimed … That does happen to be the same rabbinic theology that Jesus appropriated to himself, and instead of ‘whenever two or three study the Torah, the presence of God is with them’ it became ‘whenever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them’.

    We can’t lose sight that the Word of God was never primarily a book: the Word is always living and active, and is primarily an incarnation: it is Jesus. The proof that the word of God is not mere information is that God did not send a book; he sent his Son, and all the books in the world could not contain him (though it hasn’t stopped us from trying).

    The Word of God created the world (he spoke and it was). The Word of God became flesh — we are not so much the people of the book as the people of the incarnation. And if the word remains information and is not incarnate, if we do not live the words of God (starting with joy in creation’s goodness), then we’ve missed it. “We diligently study the Scriptures because we think by *them* we have eternal life. These are they that testify of *Christ*.”

    Take care & God bless
    WF

    LikeLike

14. Oh, let me clarify. I was not trying to say that the Eucharist was imported. Not at all. It was there at the beginning and continues to be a important element of the service (and the tendency to go to once a month communion is simply wrongheaded).

    What I was saying is that Catholics, in general, go to church for the Eucharist. I remember the churchgoers at my RC church would regularly leave after Eucharist (skipping the last hymn, benediction etc). This is a result of theology (specifically the sacrificial and transubstantiation). In contrast, Protestants have historically centered around the word. We have said that the reading and exposition of the Word is the primary means of communing with God. So, similar to the Catholics, it is not strange to see Protestants slipping out the back at the end of the sermon.

    I guess my whole point has been that, while perhaps neither approach is perfect, the latter is much closer to the biblical glimpses that we have (and the Pharisaic tradition that the early church had so many connections to) than the former (which is the result of later theology derived based on Greek philosophical influences). I think we need to be a little careful when we reference ECF as though they are representative of the apostles. The church was grown exponentially in terms of numbers and geography and what may have been done in Lyon or Hippo decades and centuries later. The ECF were as a whole awesome guys that deserve our reading but they certainly implemented some innovations(as any scholar would attest) that we might want to think twice before we adopt.

    Now, perhaps we as protestants need a better theology of the Eucharist. I think you are right that our tendency to completely downplay the sacrament is a reactionary result of anti-Catholic sentiments. The historic Protestant Creeds (39 Articles, Westminster confession, etc) have a higher theology of the Eucharist than what is typically shown in the modern day evangelical church. The Westminster Confession, for example, says that Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist. Theological confusion on the issue is probably the reason that Eucharist has been relegated to once a month.

    But I don’t think that we will ever have the high view of Eucharist that the Catholics have for the simple reason that this high view is the result of theology that was an innovation of church history and is unsupported by scripture. In short, the Catholics (God love em) are wrong on this one.

    LikeLike

15. >…Maybe I am wrong on this but I don’t see anything in the Biblical tradition that would indicate that communion or anything else should be the center of the service.

    Can’t agree with that, though I’m not sure what “center” means in your usage. “Breaking of bread” is accepted by all credible scholars as Eucharist. Paul’s instructions in I Cor are clear.

    I can’t find any evidence in the ECFs that the Eucharist was imported in at the expense of preaching.

    The Didache is pretty strong evidence of a continuity from The Gospels to the Epistles to the early second Cent, and then it’s on to Ignatius.

    I was taught as a Baptist to NOT see the eucharist in the NT because of anti-Catholic assumptions. I don’t see how an honest reading of the Gospels cooperates with any kind of preaching/eucharist “either/or.” It’s clearly both/and.

    LikeLike

16. Imonk, I guess my point was the following. The few examples we have of church services (ie Acts 2, Acts 20) record the events by largely recording the sermon. If we are to assume that Luke was accurately recording the services, I think it is not a big jump of logic to say that the sermon was the centerpiece of the service from a time standpoint.

    By noting that Acts calls elders of the church “preachers” rather than priests or pray-ers or etc I was inviting us to the conclusion that: these men were known for preaching the word *primarily*. Certainly the administration of communion, prayers, and music were part of the job then as they are today but the people knew them to be preachers primarily. I think that is significant and might give us a sense for how they related to the people (by preaching and presumably doing so in the context of church services).

    Maybe I am wrong on this but I don’t see anything in the Biblical tradition that would indicate that communion or anything else should be the center of the service. And I think that Wright’s discussion of the Pharisaic and Rabbinic traditions as viewing the Torah as a valid way to experience God maybe an explanation as to why the Apostle Paul (a Pharisee himself) might adopt such an approach to worship.

    We should keep in mind that Catholics put the Eucharist at the center of the service for theological reasons. They believe that they are performing a sacrifice every time Mass is said and that Christ Incarnate takes the form of bread. This sacerdotal sense of the pastor did not find its roots in the NT and actually did not really gain ground until late in the second century. We should remember that the Greek word for Priest is hierious while the new testament word for a pastor was presbuteros. It all gets complicated in history but at some point pastors started to be known for sacerdotal functions to an extent that prebuteros came to be the word that was used for hierious. We now translate hierious as priest (a derivative of the word presbuteros).

    Obviously theology is a driver of liturgy. While I have argued that it is a mistake to look to the Catholics for answers (for the reasons stated above) I also think the ridiculousness of the typical Baptist service reflects something ridiculous going on theologically.

    LikeLike

17. Will S: Exactly how does the use of the term “preaching Jesus Christ” settle the issue that the sermon was the largest component of early church worship?

    Maybe it was, but I’m completely in the dark on how you are making this conclusion. The NT never says how long a sermon should be. Examples of shorter or longer sermons or the content of sermons does nothing to answer the question.

    I am constrained to 20 minutes in my sermons by school schedule. It never occurred to me that this was a problem since my audience has an attention span of about 8 minutes.

    I agree that if all elements of worship clearly taught in the Bible are combined, you have a service longer than an hour. And I agree that the proclamation of the word will be one of the longer elements. But we simply don’t know about the length of sermons or a lot of other things about them.

    And BTW, I loved the phrase “Protestant tradition.” Honesty is always appreciated here. 🙂

    peace

    ms

    LikeLike

18. BTW 2, I totally agree on the weekly Eucharist. I think it is bad thing to not do it weekly.

    LikeLike

19. BTW, If we really want to be consistent with the historic traditions, we would stop having short 1 hr services and go to 4+ hour services. Then maybe the 40-45 minute sermon won’t seem so long.

    LikeLike

20. Ragamuffin, Didache does not give any indication as to the relative length or emphasis of the various parts of a Sunday service. Your willingness to dismiss New Testament examples of church is wrong and certainly breaks from the Protestant tradition of allowing Scripture to be our primary guide as to how we should live out our faith. You can discount Acts 20 but I think that it gives us a better sense of what church looked like for the apostles than Didache does. Further, there are other NT examples. For example, the worship on Pentecost in Acts 2 is recounted as primarily a sermon by Peter. There are also several points in Acts where the worship is summarized by the phrase “the preaching of the word” (e.g. Acts 5:42, 8:4, 8:25, 9:28). In Acts 6:2 describes the primary role of a pastor as “preaching the word”.

    And don’t get me wrong, I like a high liturgy and I like tradition. I actually am in favor of a movement in this direction among evangelicals. But I do think that if we look jealously at the Orthodox or Catholics we run the risk of forgetting to blessings of the Reformation where the great reformers rightly placed a huge emphasis on the reading and exposition of scripture as the centerpiece of our worship.

    LikeLike

21. Ragamuffin: Exactly.

    LikeLike

22. Is it worth noting (before we all run off and become Russian Orthodox) that the New Testament glimpses of churches appear to be pretty heavy on the preaching element of the service? For example, Acts 20:7-12 shows a Sunday Service that includes the breaking of bread but the preaching is the center. Paul speaks until midnight as people literally fall asleep!
    First of all, building a pattern based on one instance where Paul spoke a long time at the Sunday service is hardly a good way to decide how to order a worship service. It notes that Paul was going to be leaving the area the next day so I would say that context lends itself to the view that this was an unusual thing rather than the norm. An exception was being made to hear directly from an Apostle and to take advantage of the time that you had him there in town.

    There are other more detailed descriptions of the early church worship service from The Didache and from letters by Justin Martyr to the Roman emporer at the time that show that the pattern was clearly one of a service centered around the Eucharist but that included reading Scripture and teaching. And this pattern persisted for well over 1500 years after the Apostles.

    I’m certainly not saying that there’s some perfect length of time for a homily or sermon to run. But I do think that structuring a worship service around a 40-45 minutes sermon (and pushing Holy Communion to a monthly or quarterly occurrence as a consequence) is not the way it was meant to be.

    LikeLike

23. Is it worth noting (before we all run off and become Russian Orthodox) that the New Testament glimpses of churches appear to be pretty heavy on the preaching element of the service? For example, Acts 20:7-12 shows a Sunday Service that includes the breaking of bread but the preaching is the center. Paul speaks until midnight as people literally fall asleep!

    It is interesting that, according to NT Wright, there was a movement in Judaism in the first and second century to provide alternatives to Temple worship. The Pharisaic and Rabbinic traditions made the case that the full presence of God was experienced any time that Torah was read (and this was presented as an alternative to Temple worship).

    I would argue that we as protestants have historically followed this line of reason. If the Bible is God’s word and we are seeking to be conformed to His image it makes sense that the transforming Word of God would be at the center of that effort. I don’t think that the Catholic/Orthodox traditions of a 10-15 minute homily is in any way substantial enough. And I know from personal experience that Biblical illiteracy among even the most devout Catholics is pretty prevalent as a result.

    None of this is to say that some more structured liturgy should not be considered and adhered to but I think we need to avoid the trap of thinking that the long sermon is a modern innovation that should be deemphasized.

    LikeLike

24. Thank you.

    LikeLike

25. j michael jones,

    your comment has to be one of the saddest and most heartwrenching comments I have seen. Sorry things are like that right now. One of the reasons I landed where I have in my journey is because most of the church (including many in my own denomination)cultivate a piety that makes it impossible to be open and honest about who you are and what your’e going through. This is the other dirty little secret that no one talks about-there is no real fellowship in many(if not most) churches. No mutual encouragement, or as the old Lutherans termed it “the consolation of the brethren” What’s needed is a place where our salvation isn’t called into question because we drop an F bomb, or we have one (or five)drinks too many because our marriage is failing or our kids are sick or in trouble. Most Evangelical theologies have no category for this kind of thing even though they talk a good game of grace. Too bound up in rules( read that principles) for Christian living.

    A pox on it all-without love for each other, especially in the worst situations, the best worship and theology are nothing but a huge waste of time.

    LikeLike

26. >”We long to be human beings, fully alive to who we are, to God, to one another and to all that being made in the image of the incarnated God means.”

    Sounds like a need for the corporal (teach the ignorant, feed the hungry, clothe the naked) and spiritual (pray for others) acts of Mercy.

    >”We long for worship to engage the senses, the body, the whole personality. We long for mystery, not explanation.”

    This sounds like the Catholic or Orthodox liturgies, with incense for the nose, vestments and sacred art for the eyes, postures for touch, wine for taste, and hymnody for the ears. Personally, I prefer the Orthodox explanation for the Eucharist as “mystery”.

    I suspect that if we worship God as God likes to be worshipped then we will also be satisfied. Revelation and the OT tell us how God is worshipped and likes to be worshipped. Malachi 1:11 is a simple litmus test for worship.

    >”We long for prayer that is not a means to accomplish things, bring miracles, generate power, impress the listener.”

    A Benedictan monk once told me the story of a man centuries ago who wanted to be a desert hermit. Asking what he should do, the head hermit gave the man a basket of sand with instructions that everytime he prayed to dump a cup of water into the basket. At first the sand just became wet, but eventually some of the sand washed away. When the basket was empty, the young man asked about his empty basket. The elder hermit explained that just as the sand was washed from the basket a little at a time, so too are the effects of sin on our soul washed away everytime we pray. I’ve never looked at prayer the same since. Even a simple “God bless you” after a sneeze has some effect.

    A second spiritual epiphany came when leading a small group during Lent. An older lady taught me to pray for “those who have no one to pray for themselves.” While leading a college campus ministry this past fall, I offered a petitionary prayer for those who had no one top pray for themselves. One of the attendees had felt so alone that they had attempted suicide the past week. That one momentary prayer changed their outlook. Millions of people need our “second” in their lives.

    BTW, when I pray for others, I ask God to be merciful, forgive them their sins, and fill them with grace. Only later do I ask for healing, comfort, or other materialistic things. I pray at the sound of sirens and everytime I spot the Angel One helo from our Children’s Hospital in the air. Mercy, forgiveness, grace, comfort.

    God bless… +Timothy

    LikeLike

27. Amen

    LikeLike

28. It’s hit me like a ton of bricks this past year: the blogosphere is full of voices that think we are all a bunch of big brains, and nothing more. We need more information. More data. More sermons. More books. More facts. More lectures. We are what we think. We are what we hear, read and think. So open up those brains and pour it in…after an appropriate prayer.

    Yes, the “appropriate prayer (TM)” Christianizes it all…

    IMonk, everyone: I’m a former Kid Genius, diagnosed and labeled as such immediately post-Sputnik. I grew up as a “big brain and nothing more”, constantly absorbing and sifting “more information, more data, more books, more facts, more lectures”. And I’ll clue you in to something:

    It left the rest of me — the kid behind that IQ score, the personality with that Big Brain (TM) — as an arrested development case on the level of Michael Jackson. Amid that cascade of information, data, books, facts, and lectures I NEVER LEARNED HOW TO BE A KID. I NEVER LEARNED HOW TO BE AN ADULT. COMPUTERS DON’T HAVE FRIENDS, LET ALONE GIRLFRIENDS, NEVER MIND A MARRIAGE AND A FAMILY. High School Hell almost killed me; even today at 53, the rest of my “soul” is barely out of adolescence, except with 30+ extra years of scar tissue and an urge to make up for lost time without knowing how.

    THAT is what becoming “a big brain and nothing more” does to you. I WANT MY LIFE BACK. I WANT THOSE 40+ YEARS THE LOCUSTS HAVE EATEN. I WANT TO HAVE THE LIFE I NEVER HAD AS A “BIG BRAIN” AND NOTHING MORE. And the Christianized “voices that think we are all big brains and nothing more” are just setting up others for the same misery.

    No, they- we- are longing for authentic humanness in the Gospel. A full and genuine human experience. Normal human life as God created and recreated it. Not more information in a competition to quote the most scripture and do the best imitation of a walking apologetics class.

    And besides, Islam has us topped in the “quote the most scripture” department. As well as the “fight the decadent culture” department.

    We long to be human beings, fully alive to who we are, to God, to one another and to all that being made in the image of the incarnated God means.

    Not Souls (TM) to “Be Saved” for Fluffy Cloud Heaven instead of “fully alive” and sanctified for Resurrection (with BODIES!) into the New Heavens and New Earth.

    We long for beauty, for multiple expressions and experiences of beauty.

    Contrasted with the “Cult of Ugliness” that has taken hold all around us, secular AND spiritual.

    LikeLike

29. I haven’t even finished reading this yet, but had to comment. I reached this point about ten years into my evangelical sojourn. People brighter than me (i.e. most people) probably reach it in about five. It was really frustrating too, because I knew I had alot of “growing” left to do (And still do, but that’s another story.), and because I, in ignorance, was operating the way Michael said, ” … the model of Christian spiritual formation now extent in worship is one that sees the 40 minute information dump as the primary means of spiritual growth.”

    But it was starting to look like I had all the info dumped that I was ever going to get. But I knew I had so much more growing to do. But there was no more information to be had. Conclusion: I was one bad apple if I could be so “spiritually immature,” despite all the knowledge God had allowed me to accumulate over all those years.

    Somewhere along the way, I came to think that discipleship, spiritual formation, whatever, is only partly about learning stuff. I started thinking that maybe it is more a matter of transformation than of education. Not that education is unimportant, mind you. I thought of it as running the mile in a track meet. There are certain pieces of information a runner has to have, or he will never be able to run that mile in 4 minutes. But, in the end, you can’t “teach” someone “how to” run a 4 minute mile. He has to do the work of transforming himself into someone who can do it. (Here the analogy breaks down somewhat, since God is the one who does spiritual transformation, but I’ll stop with this before I confuse myself.)

    Now if I can just get me some of that “transformation” somewhere ….

    LikeLike

30. Anyone who hasn’t read the Marian discussions at Vatican II would find them interesting. The two camps were 1) Mary seen in reference to Jesus (co-redemptrix, etc.) and 2) Mary in reference to the church. The final statements lean toward #2 and there is a clear ecumenical superiority in doing so. Certainly helped me to see that polarity in discussion.

    LikeLike

31. The opposite of evangelicalism’s “church-as-lecture” may not be either “church-as-more-talking” (a la AA) or “church as entertainment” (I fear for my sanity every time we do the last verse of some praise song three times), but the church as the earthly representative of mankind before God “in faith, prayer, and sacrifice, in hope for all, and still more in love for all.” (Von Balthasar, I think) Another alternative is offered by this fine thinker and pastor: “The church is not some piece of machinery, is not just an institution . . . It is a person. It is a woman. It is a mother. It is living. The Marian understanding of the church is the most decisive contrast to a purely organizational or bureaucratic concept of the Church.” Or so suggests the current leader of the Catholic Church, Benedict XVI. Perhaps your wife is on to something, IM?

    LikeLike

32. Preaching is a vital part of Christian worship – it’s just that much of what is called preaching in popular evangelical Christianity is not preaching. The topic of authentic Christian preaching is the Triune God unveiled in the gospel centered in Jesus Christ with the outcome that disciples will come into deeper union with God. How to have a better marriage or parent etc., may be the topic of catechesis and may be touched upon in preaching, but it is not what preaching is about. If the evangelical world would get this right a lot of good things just might take place. Besides, if you want to get all pragmatic and church growthy about it, at the end of the day don’t folks come to church to meet God?

    When I preach, my goal is to give a sermon that you cannot take notes on and that you will not go home and apply. I want the listener to be stirred to worship God right then and there.

    It’s about God.

    LikeLike

33. My point in bringing 12-Step groups (it is called a fellowship, by the way) into this discussion is that it appears that what most Christian denominations believe (and each has a different take on this) is necessary to invoke the intimate healing presence of God to a gathering is really not the case. The miracles I see in my own life and in the lives of other members are exactly what you don’t see happening in church groups. The message is given in the hearing, not in the telling.

    The real impact of the Gospel, as I have come to understand it, is not that I heard God’s story; it is that those who came for help to those who had done the same found God together in their broken helplessness. They got to tell their stories and though rambling, lonely, disjointed and bitter, they were heard and found that through the courage it took to tell their stories and the loving compassion it takes to listen, their stories got better and helped others get better.

    LikeLike

34. Michael,

    Yes, the commenter is correct. You know, I think the Reformers’ and Puritans’ doctrine of the “pulpit” has taken “preaching” beyond where it should go. It is the center of all of what happens Sunday. One man speaks. One. Everybody else listens. I don’t see this in the bible. If everything is done for edificaion, like Paul says, how is the PASTOR ever edified? He’s the only one that speaks.

    That’s what pastor’s conferences are for, I guess.

    LikeLike

35. (Can I call you Pastor Michael?)

    Thank you for writing this post, and the last one as well. I’m away from “home” at the moment, (ironically, attending seminary, studying “educational leadership”) and inadvertantly learning quite a bit about what I want/need in a church.

    My congregation back home is amazing. It’s a mainline megachurch that imperfectly but sincerely walks the line between the good and beautiful and deep of the heritage and tradition and the alive and outreach and “what we assume people want and think is cool” of evangelicalism.

    Since I’ve moved away to school, however, I’ve been attending a different church. It’s not nearly as big, but is growing nonetheless. Spending Sunday mornings in an environment without a lot of the extraneous megachurch “stuff,” I have had the opportunity to notice something about my new church, and it has become my favorite part of the service. The two pastors there split the preaching about 75-25 (weekly, they don’t tag-team sermons!). He who doesn’t preach on a particular week leads the liturgy.

    The pastor who preaches less often, well, I love it when he does the liturgy. Because when he proclaims the absolution, he breaks into the biggest smile I think I’ve ever seen on anyone. I love this, because it reminds me that it’s real. People don’t get looks like that over something that’s fake. I’ve never discussed it with him, but just based entirely on the sparkle in his eyes and the grin on his face, I would guess that the best part of his job, for him, is getting to proclaim forgiveness in the name of and by the authority of Jesus. And speaking of Jesus, I see Him in that moment. It’s no longer Pastor, it’s Christ himself forgiving my sins, and grinning like crazy as he comes running to welcome me back.

    God’s timing is always perfect; I love my church back home terribly, and at times, I miss it (mostly the people, occasionally the coolness) like crazy. But when I left this summer, there was a part of me that was a little over it, a little burnt-out on the glamour. For right now, I have found the deep I need, and for that, I am praising God.

    Happy New Year to you all – although I rarely comment, this community has been a source of much encouragement, lifting up, and discernment for me. Here’s to the hope that we would all grow closer to the One whom we seek!

    LikeLike

36. J. Michael – http://www.samsonsociety.org

    LikeLike

37. I don’t know who said it first . . . but it could have easily been me, or maybe any of us. I do think that I’ve been at different places at different times in my life. There was a period when I (I now think erroneously) could sit and listen for hours to instruction on techniques of godliness. Then there were long periods of times I sat and longed to hear theology, and Biblical exposition. I expect to be at that place again. There were times I could sit and feel the emotional worship take me to another world.

    But for now, I long for a friend. As a middle aged Christian man, I’ve never been lonelier than I am now. Sitting in our Church worship week after week is like handing a man dying of thirst a tall mug of ice cold. . . . sand.

    I long to talk to my pastor or any man in my Church with my guard down, talking about how sad I feel about my kids moving off to college, or how disappointed I am with some things in life, or how I still have dreams unrealized. I equally long for one of them to tell me something personal and of substance . . . maybe how they are struggling with an issue or how their marriage isn’t perfect. I’ve done every thing I know to do to create that safe zone where they should feel free to talk. But it is counterintuitive to speak honestly in the context of a Church.

    I hate standing in the basement of our church each week for snacks, coffee and “fellowship” while I have to filter every word that I want to say . . . to avoid the “that’s disgusting” look from my fellow-believer, or from my pastor.

    I hate to start to talk about the most important thing of my deepest place and watch the pastor look at his watch or sigh in disbelief as if I should beyond that by now.

    Speaking of AA, I would love for my brother Jason, whom I suspect is a closet alcoholic, to talk to me about it. I would love to be there for him and to help walk with him out of the emotional labyrinth. I’ve tried to bring it, to his angry response. I think he could talk to me better in a bar than a worship meeting.

    That’s the disappointment I feel when I sit each week and listen to the sermon.

    LikeLike

38. What makes an AA meeting or most other 12 step meetings relevant to this discussion is the fact that usually, having reached the bottom of ones journey, people tend to bring the full weight of themselves to the discussion. They discuss life, things that could not possibly be said anyplace inside a church circle, meeting, etc. It’s this type of fellowship that facilitates an authentic journey, and authentic relationships.

    LikeLike

39. Michael,

    I like what you said, “We long to be human beings, fully alive to who we are, to God, to one another and to all that being made in the image of the incarnated God means.

    “We long for beauty, for multiple expressions and experiences of beauty.”

    Perhaps I am misapplying your statement, but this is one reason that like you, I am going to read much less theology and “Christian” books and more fiction, poetry, and biography in this New Year. I just picked up some Billy Collins poetry from the library today.

    It dawned on me this last year that the gospel should free us to enjoy life – all of it. But I am pretty one dimensional. Most of my time is spent reading Christian book after Christian book explaining yet again things I already know and believe. This is much like the sermons your commentor mentioned.

    It seems to me that this is a “navel gazing” of sorts. Christian theology ought not enslave me to more Christian theology. No, it ought to release me into the world with new eyes to see and a new heart to appreciate all that God has created.

    But how can I do this if all I do is read the same thing over and over. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that we have made theology and end in itself. But it seems to me that theology is a means to an end – better understanding God and our world so that He and it can be enjoyed for His glory!

    I hope this is not a misapplication of your post.

    LikeLike

40. The reason God is at the AA meeting is, at least for starters, that it’s a room full of people made in his image; people for whom Jesus became and remains human.

    LikeLike

41. I think of that quote from “Mr. Blue” that you used in another post, that Christ “saved us from the terrible burden of infinity”. Add to that Bonhoeffer, who wrote, “The real man is at liberty to be his Creator’s creature.” Somewhere, the gospel was perverted to be a path to a supernatural, super-human state. This reaches its pinacle in faith/prosperity teaching. Christ became human to make us human again. As Bonhoeffer said, “The quest for the superhuman, the endeavor to outgrow the man within the man, the pursuit of the heroic, the cult of the demigod, all that is not the proper concern for man, for it is untrue.”

    I think it is worth pointing out the obvious, that to be human is to be the likeness of God. The goal is not becoming a bodiless god. It is displaying the image of God with our mind, soul and bodies. Spiritual formation can’t be separated from service and vocation; our spirituality is formed in the tangible. Wasn’t it the gnostics who equated spirituality with knowledge, and also distained the tangible?

    LikeLike

42. treebeard:

    Thanks for the kind words, but I really believe there is a “solution.” The solution is for each one of us to be true to our own journeys and to make that journey authentic. To say no to consumer church and ask what a balanced, Jesus shaped spiritual formation is all about.

    peace

    ms

    LikeLike

43. iMonk,
    Thanks for your response, and peace to you as well. I understand where you’re coming from. Thank you for sharing your journey with us, and allowing all of us (such a truly diverse audience) to share our journey with you and with one another.

    If you don’t mind my saying so, I actually laughed at this quote of yours: “If I go to my pulpit and come out of the closet on what I think about evangelicalism, I’m probably unemployed in a week. Ditto in this space.”

    Does this mean you’ve been holding back?! Wow. If you’ve been pulling your punches for fear of what others might think, I haven’t noticed. I can’t imagine what your blog would be like if you were truly “out of the closet.” You seem to be very frank and unashamed in your critique of evangelicalism, which I truly admire, even when I on occasion disagree.

    But I hope you realize that you have a ready audience. And even if there is no practical solution, at least there is an online fellowship where we can commisserate with each other. Your blog, and the comments, are a true New Testament ministry. So for what it’s worth, please be encouraged.

    LikeLike

44. I wouldn’t even say that what I’m getting in these sermons is milk. Much of it is quite good and meaty. It just isn’t enough. I have this gnawing feeling that won’t go away that there is much, much more to Christian worship than kicking music and great sermons. There are depths to which I want to go that a sermon simply isn’t going to take me, no matter how meaty or well-delivered.

    LikeLike

45. Ragamuffin and IMonk,

    Your coments made me think of I Corinthians 3:1-3 –

    But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh …

    It really seems like we have the opposite problem right now. So many Christians are now ready for solid meat while all churches and pastors are giving them is a constant nonstop diet of the milk of infants. I’m hungry for spiritual steak & potatoes, and this milk-sop diet in the church is starving me to death.

    LikeLike

46. Being the originator of the quote iMonk started this post with (though certainly not the originator of the thoughts and feelings behind it), let me offer what I was trying to say.

    What I’m not saying is that I possess all knowledge or understand all the nuances of Greek and Hebrew and Jewish and Christian history. Nor am I saying that a pastor NEVER offers an insight I hadn’t considered before.

    What I am saying is that I’ve heard an awful lot of the same sermon series over and over. And while it never hurts to be reminded of important things, I do have a fairly good sense that what I’m missing and needing right now is most likely not going to come from another sermon. I’ve sat under some of the best teaching you’ll find anywhere for several years. I’ve read some of the best devotional, theological and Christian living books that exist. Knowledge is not what I lack or what I’m longing for (though I’m certainly not opposed to more learning).

    That is what I mean by the quote above. And it’s why the state of affairs even if good contemporary evangelical churches is leaving me feeling like something’s missing. I want…I need…I crave more.

    LikeLike

47. Yes. YES. Yes. Thank you.

    LikeLike

48. Treebeard:

    I think the idea that I, as a blogger, should be telling people what to do on their own journey would be arrogant on my part. As the comments reveal, people are finding their own paths and their own responses. Internet Monk.com isn’t one of the TR blogs that tell everyone what books to read and what pastors will cure all heretical ills. I am writing my own journey. I am lamenting evangelicalism. I am inviting others to share their journeys.

    I’m trying to survive where I have almost no options. If I go to my pulpit and come out of the closet on what I think about evangelicalism, I’m probably unemployed in a week. Ditto in this space.

    I find a lot of hope here. I’m sorry that there isn’t the “practical solution” you are looking for. If you haven’t noticed, I’m tired of practical solutions and I’m a poor source for any of them.

    peace and thanks for reading,

    ms

    LikeLike

49. “We long for mystery, not explanation.” – Amen

    LikeLike

50. I’m not preaching AA — I’m really not. It’s against the traditions of AA to do so. I’m trying to point out the dilemma I have found in denominational settings — any denominational setting. I’ve frequented Baptist, Assembly of God, Church of God in Christ, Church of the Nazarene, Methodist, Pentecostal, etc., etc. I’m now a Roman Catholic for a lot of reasons, the least of which being that their services are engaging and informative. One is that they leave you alone as long as you’re not being disruptive.

    Maybe what I’m saying is similar to that which an old time commercial fisherman said about fish — God is where you find Him. Maybe the point of a worship community should be not just that you find God’s healing and true human spirituality in the sanctuary on Sunday morning, but that through your gathering in unity and agreement once or twice a week you are able to find those things at the lunch table at work or in the backyard with your spouse and kids or alone out on the water.

    LikeLike

51. IMonk, I do appreciate the post. But I still have to ask, how does this become practical? Many people became evangelicals with the very mentality you describe, because they were tired of what they found in the mainline denominations. Others, as you have stated in a previous post, go back to those denominations after they see through modern evangelicalism.

    What exactly are you looking for practically, as opposed to theoretically? I appreciate Surfnetter’s focus on AA/Al-Anon (I know, you don’t want to go this direction, but humor me). I attend Al-Anon, and have found tremendous Christ-like comfort there that I did not find in modern-day Christianity. There is a genuineness and humanness with 12-step programs, because of the participants’ broken condition, although it is not an “orthodox” expression of the church.

    So iMonk, are you prophesying something specific? Are you contemplating something practical? It’s easy to say “we’re gonna leave and find another path,” but that’s been done and tried before. Many have become evangelicals, or joined megachurches, or joined house churches, or left denominations or returned to them, in order to find another path. Often they end up just as frustrated as they were to begin with.

    Sorry for the gloomy cynicism. Please say more.

    LikeLike

52. Monk,
    Amen brother. I believe treebeard is RIGHT–we cannot find the faith, the love, the forgiveness the brotherhood we seek in the pews, so we create it and nurture it online. Maybe site like yours are the new Churches for the millennium. My church is evangelical, and the sr pastor is wonderful, Godly man who I love and respect. But there is legalism that permeates the congregation. I was in a Bible Study and felt like Paul preaching to pagans–the New Testament has set you FREE from the Law–because these wonderful fellow Christian brothers felt distanced from God because of their sins. My heart wanted to break. People feel burdened and depressed with the weight of legalism and negativity–where’s the JOY!! I think what we’re all striving for is Mature Christian faith constantly refreshed with the Spirit and fellowship in Christ. Hard to find.

    Monk–keep writing and I’ll keep reading.
    Amen.

    LikeLike

53. Ah, makes even more sense now. Still, it would be nice if we saw more prayers have effects…prayers for healings, etc. Sure, all prayer is answered, but it’d be cool to see the broken bone knit immediately.

    LikeLike

54. Stuart: Changed to “not a means to…”

    LikeLike

55. We long for prayer that does not accomplish things, bring miracles, generate power, impress the listener. We long for the depths of spirituality, not the show of being spiritual.

    EDIT – probably should be “We long for prayer that DOES accomplish”

    Great post otherwise!!

    LikeLike

56. Ok….Back on topic please. (I appreciate AA, but that can turn into a huge debate.)

    LikeLike

57. I don’t know if what makes Al Anon and AA meetings so special can be incorporated into any other institution. I truly doubt it. But God is there at every meeting as soon as the opening prayer is said and the opening statements are read. And then it’s a group of human beings who are there in agreement that they are powerless over what it is that is troubling them and that they need God’s (the God of our individual understanding) help.

    I know that parenthetical is a source of scandal in evangelical circles. But the truth is that He is the only God that can help anybody. I certainly cannot be helped by the God of your understanding unless I share that understanding — and there is no way that I can know if I really do without being you.

    That phrase — “God as we understood Him” — was added at the insistence of a founding member of AA who had a serious problem with institutionalized religion. I believe that phraseology has saved 12-Step groups from dying a religious death decades ago. People who would never set foot in any one of your church services find God and are healed by stumbling or crawling into the rooms of 12-Step groups. And then many do find the serenity to be able to move from the basement meeting rooms on weeknights upstairs to the sanctuary on Sunday morning.

    I think that the tension that some are experiencing at the idea of accepting in your theological sphere “the God of our understanding” is exactly what needs to be let go of if you truly want to experience real, plain-old human spirituality in your gatherings.

    LikeLike

58. this post reminds me of something Madeline L’Engle would say for some reason….I like it.

    LikeLike

59. God created

    LikeLike

60. You’re talking about a real “human” spirituality that is missing in denominational services. “Human” is a got created category. Any other categories by which human beings distinguish themselves from other human beings is man created and is a deterrent to true spirituality.

    Every Christian liturgy, every prayer meeting, Bible study, meditation group .. every gathering under the auspices of some human designation meant to delineate how we are different and therefore purer, less in error, more original, etc., than other groups takes away from the leveling category of what we all share — the frailty of our humaness. And each of these groups must be careful that they stay within the dogmatic boundaries of the self-created category, which leads to consternation and frustration of God’s power and desire to heal. God can heal everyone if He so chooses, but, from my experience He wants to do it through us, but in a way that leaves us wondering who healed who. This is what happens in 12-Step meetings. I see it there all the time, and have not seen it anywhere else on any consistent basis.

    LikeLike

61. I’ve been to plenty of AA meetings. I know what I think you mean. But I can’t be sure.

    LikeLike

62. Anyone here know what I’m referring to …?

    LikeLike

63. “Some of us will finally say good-bye to this insanity. Some of us will stay, but we will not be listening anymore. Some of us will discover others ways, other paths, other pilgrims and friends.”

    Dear Contemporary American Evangelicalism,

    I have said good-bye. I am not listening. I am discovering new ways.

    I don’t think I ever left you, but you left me. Or maybe it just took me awhile to understand what you are all about.

    You are not evil, just misguided; just heading in the wrong direction. You are of the world, but not in it. And I cannot find nourishment in soil that has no history, reverence, liturgy, tradition, Biblical or theological depth, true aesthetic, or organic relationship to real life.

    When I seek Good News, I am offered moralism. When I seek wisdom, I am given the “Left Behind” series. When I ask how I may grow and become spiritually formed in Christ, I am given an 8-week program in “discipleship”. When I ask how I may serve as Jesus served, I am only told about work within the temple, never among my neighbors. When I express my doubts, you run and hide. When I lament my circumstances and God’s silence, you tell me to have faith. When I fail, you have no idea what to do with me. When I long to feel connected to God’s people in all ages and around the world, you cannot grasp what I am asking.

    We had our moments. But I’m moving on.

    LikeLike

64. Beautiful, iMonk.

    Is cyberspace the only place on earth where such fellowship can be found?

    LikeLike

65. For me, the music, (and I do appreciate the work, time and effort put into the preparation of the weekly service by the worship leader and the team) is most necessary to sustain my weekly walk. Of course, as a musician, I also apply it to my life personally, at home, on a daily basis.

    It is all important, the reading, studying, praying, listening but I must admit, and I may be wrong, that the music in corporate and private worship is the most life-giving part of my walk. It has been for decades. I wonder if it will change when I get old.

    LikeLike

66. Go to some Al Anon meetings and just listen.

    LikeLike

67. Another spot on post, iMonk.

    I would add only this quote from Peter Leithart (himself a Presbyterian) in Against Christianity as a link between this post the last.

    “Reformed Protestants generally adopt only one physical posture in worship – sitting to listen to a sermon – and therefore we are trained in only one spiritual posture. We are trained to accept as a matter of course that it is possible to think our way through life, all of life.”

    I think he’s talking particularly about Reformed with a capital ‘R’ – but this would certainly apply to the broad emphasis in Evangelicalism on the sermon.

    Sidenote: I was recently shocked to find how many sermons some listen to online during the week. I can’t but believe this contributes to the problem you’re describing.

    LikeLike

68. Heraclitus said that you could never step into the same stream twice. The same foot could never come into contact with the same water at the same point in a stream bed more than once, or even for a prolonged period of time.

    The same gospel can never come into contact with the same circumstances at the same point in someone’s life more than once.

    Why we need to go running after the latest fad, the latest way to present the gospel, the latest method to increase attendance or spiritual growth is beyond me.

    Christianity is about the story of God’s good news in Christ entering into the lives of those who hear it.

    It is about the Word incarnating in the mind, body, soul, strength of the hearer.

    LikeLike

69. “We long for prayer that does not accomplish things, bring miracles, generate power, impress the listener. We long for the depths of spirituality, not the show of being spiritual.

    We long to be loved, to be quietly accepted, to be told to lie down in green pastures, to stop the race, to pray in silence. To be given a spirituality of dignity, not a spirituality that is a feature of this week’s sermon series on how to have more sex, make more money, have better kids, smile more, achieve great things and otherwise turn the salvation of Jesus into a means to an American end.”

    Amen!

    I am astounded how many of my fellows can earnestly talk and seem to believe in suffering joyfully, counting loss as gain, etc in our walk with Christ and yet every prayer they offer for me as someone with a severe chronic neurological illness is for miraculous healing.

    I’m not exactly enamored of being sick and disabled, but Christ has taught me that true healing is on a completely different level. I trust in his power to grant me ease and healing, but what I crave is deeper knowledge of him, a more godly walk and greater peace.

    I would love to be supported and encouraged in trust in Jesus, not on what doctors may someday be able to do.

    LikeLike

70. Part of the answer to this is a different theology of preaching and what it is attended to achieve. If the goal is to be fresh, new, innovative every week, then I am going to work at Lowe’s! I can’t do that – who really can! If the goal is to draw people to worship the Triune God by remembering him and his great acts in history, then sign me up. THAT I can do (with the help of grace of course).

    Cheers!

    LikeLike

71. I described it in about half of the essay. Forgive me if it’s not a clear concept. peace ms

    LikeLike

72. I don’t know what you mean by it.

    It could be taken to mean many things.

    1. The fact that humanity needs to be saved.
    2. Our lack of saving Grace
    3. The incarnation fully God fully man.
    4. Human fear and doubts when faced with Truth.

    etc.

    LikeLike

73. True humanity in the Gospel? You missed it?

    LikeLike

74. Humaness in the Gospel? I don’t get it.

    May be I did not catch it, what is it that you mean by that?

    As far as my Terrible, shameful dirty little secret,

    “The Liturgy Wars is the dumbest most ridiculous thing ever, it is important but the fact that they still can’t seem to get it together on this just makes me want to scream.”

    LikeLike