UPDATE II: Phillip Winn has an excellent response to this post.
UPDATE: Moderation is on. My apologies that I have to do this so often.
Bill Kinnon reviews DeYoung and Kluck’s newest book, Why We Love the Church. I haven’t read the book, and won’t, but Bill did, and talks about it.
Tim Challies reviewed the book in early July.
A sympathetic DeYoung reader/hearer makes some very pertinent observations about the direction of things.
My mailbox is the constant recipient of the stories of those who have left the church, are considering leaving, or are wondering why they haven’t. Their stories are a large part of what I carry with me when I write or speak. Some of their stories are typical of leavers, and would not impress those who love the church. Other stories, however, are clearly stories of churches that are wrong. Deeply, painfully, often irreparably wrong. These stories make me angry that there exists people who, in the name of the infallibility of Christ, claim their church is right in situations of heinous and obvious wrongdoing.
I often get links to websites where individuals and groups in particular churches are using the internet to air their grievances against their church. I tend to believe a lot of what I read because it comports with human nature, but I respect the process churches may be using to deal with these situations, so I don’t ever publish those links. That may be wrong, but it’s a choice I’ve stayed with, so I am not an unaware critic with an agenda to tear up ministries and churches. Far from it.
We’re in an interesting cycle. A bunch of Protestants- Protestants, mind you- are constantly writing and blogging about the church in a way that leaves little room for their churches to be wrong and no way for the churches of their theological opponents to be right.
So if a Calvinist stalwart X rents a storefront, appoints his eight best friends as elders and announces a series of sermons exposing N.T. Wright as a heretic, they’re a church and you’d be wise to not criticize. On the other hand, if open theist Y is pastor of a church that’s a hundred years old in a denomination with an orthodox confession and real oversight, you’re advised to get out of that church as soon as possible, because it’s a den of damnable false teaching.
The latest 2 day theology conference can issue a confession and render opinions on all matters related to family, gender and church order, but the Roman Catholic Church is not a church.
If you leave a church you’re disgruntled, a whiner or spiritually rebellions, unless you leave an emerging church (see furnished list), in which case you’ve obeyed the Holy Spirit.
Here are some verses that go together. Pay close attention:
Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever….17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Jesus talked a lot about the nature of power in leadership, usually in some version of calling leaders to be servants:
Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.â€
Now let’s assume that a leader or leaders do not imitate Jesus. Their lives are not worthy of imitation. They see the ministry as an advantage to themselves, not to you. They assume the posture of “great ones,” never the posture of servants, and they are constantly redefining servant leadership to mean whatever they happen to have done recently, i.e. promote the new building program.
In many quarters today, because there is not an explicit passage saying “here’s how to leave,” it’s common to hear those who leave such a situation described as whiners, immature, church haters and disgruntled. That’s a form of seeking to intimidate the critic into silence, and it needs to be called what it is.
In many, many cases, such persons have experienced actions that involve serious manipulation and pain. They may have decided they cannot stand to be brutalized in the pulpit week after week. They may have concluded that last week’s sermon on how tattoos are an alternate baptismal symbol indicating you’re on the devil’s team was the last straw in the legalism department. They may have decided they don’t want to put their children in the church’s children and youth program where they will be trained in entertainment and consumerism masquerading as discipleship. They may have observed instances of ministerial malpractice, but they know being the person to blow the whistle will cost them dearly.
Now you can say whatever you want about such persons, and you may be right in some points, but it is hard for me to see how these are disgruntled whiners. And short of a view that certain Protestant congregations are the only portals to eternal life, it is hard to say that those who leave these churches are imperiling their souls. For many people, the peril of their souls is exactly why they are gone.
Further, the churches being defended are deeply different in their approach to ministry. Church A may be a full menu traditional church, while church Q is a multi campus, preaching heavy, small group oriented church. If members of A or Q hear Frank Viola and decide to take up with a group of organic Christians or house worshipers in their community, why are they not serious? How have they abandoned the bride of Christ?
If our hypothetical church leavers simply step away from the institutional church to see where the Kingdom of God can be found in their world, are they in the position of being traitors, or are they perhaps doing exactly what the church needed to do all along, i.e. send missionaries out into the community and world for the sake of the Kingdom?
I just mention these thoughts to make a simple point: The current defense of the church may be necessary, but many of the assertions being made are not necessary and have about them the scent of males in power having far too much fun flirting with infallibility. The Christian ministry is one of the few places in our world that men can assert that they and their institutions must be submitted to in the name of God. That’s heady stuff, and I’m not even close to being prepared to buy the bona fides of everyone who claims it.
Choices about the church are very fundamental. I do not believe Protestants can ever underestimate the seductive lure of high ecclesiologies and their claims of authority for those who fear their church is not getting proper respect. On the other hand, the low ecclesiology of the New Testament makes the church’s entire value its connection to Jesus, its organic head. (I can do no better than the Sweet/Viola Jesus Manifesto on that one.) When Protestants begin talking about the church in terms that Roman Catholics would recognize as being their own view of infallibility and salvation, it’s time for a serious review of what’s going on.
The Reformation was a wonderful thing, and its failure to avoid the state-church connection or to establish the church as a missional movement was its great failing. The good news was that the Reformation gave Protestants to tools to repair their own ship, rather than scuttle it. Many readers will fault Bill Kinnon for saying that Deyoung and Kluck are throwing cheap red meat to the galleries and will point out that emergers do the same. I acknowledge that may be true, but I also must acknowledge that for all they get wrong and for all their youthful arrogance, the emergers will seldom be found touting the centrality of “Submit to your leaders” or sounding like their churches are too right to ever be wrong.
The current defenses of the church do well to laud it as the bride of Christ, but when those who have been abused, berated, manipulated and stuffed full of legalism must endure the epitaphs of being whiners and immature, selfish agitators in order to question the church or tell their story, the defense is itself flawed. That’s “do as I say, not as I do,: baptized and dressed in ecclesiastical gear. It deserves to be ridiculed. It’s foolish and it’s dangerous.
I have no grievance with the call for loyalty and confidence in the church. Just place all of this in the context of the kinds of churches we read about in Revelation 2-3, and with plenty of room for the church and its leadership to be very, very wrong.
I cannot and will not stand with a church no matter what it does. There are times to walk away, and times to speak critical, truthful words. Our defenses of the church must preserve the centrality of individual integrity and the superior loyalty we have to Christ over any institution.
NOTE: I want to be clear that I love the church and believe it is normal and Biblical for Christians to be part of community. There are some things in the Christian life that are not possible outside of community. I am NOT insisting that believers leave the church, but I am asking for a more sophisticated discussion of what that leaving or distancing may mean. We live in an era when many churches act as if they are the Kingdom. They are not. Many act as if Jesus does not work outside of them. That is not true. For example, listen to part of the Challies review of the DeYoung and Kluck book:
The authors show how the church is central to all that God is doing in the world and prove well that without the church there is no Christianity. They take the historic view that participating in the church is normative for the Christian life—that under ordinary circumstances we should not expect a person who deliberately remains outside the visible church to be a true believer.
The words “normative” and “ordinary” are helpful, but saying all true believers are part of ??? visible church is confusing and wrong. Challies rejects the RCC and many, many other churches as being illegitimate. And what do you make of the causality of the sentence “without the church there is no Christianity?” I find it utterly astonishing and thoroughly worthy of the applause from the Romans in the room. The Old Testament covenant, the OT remnant, Christ, his movement, his disciples, his apostles: all precede the institutional church. The church is the great evidence that Jesus has sent the Spirit into the world. But I am not surprised- at all- to find someone saying that without the church there is no Christianity. I’m just surprised it’s not a statement defending the RCC.
When Jesus threatens to remove a church’s candlestick, but says he stands at the door to have fellowship with anyone who opens the door, we ought to think more carefully about what he is saying and to whom.
A well known reformed blogger has written “Here’s the thing: the church is a consequence of the Gospel. That is, the Gospel causes the church.” That’s absolutely correct, and why the church always stands under the Gospel, hence Revelation 2-3.
The Internet Monk Archives 
I was 8 years old and sang in the kids choir. My family had started goign to another church but I liked being in choir so one of my parents would take me to the old church so i could sing in the choir. the choir director foudn out we were at another church and told me I could be in their choir any more, which totally confused me. this was my first realization that the christian life had a crappy, political aspect to it.
LikeLike
It’s funny, when I read the blog post title, “Leaving room for churches to be wrong” when linking over from Jamie Arpin-Ricci’s blog, I thought it would be about counseling emergers to be more patient with all the obviously silly/wrong/weird stuff that churches do, and for emergers to be more patient toward churches hoping they will eventually come around on their own without us having to tear them a new one…
…which seemed like good advice…like allowing someone you love to figure out their own issues without constantly blasting them in the face about it. Just because you know what’s wrong doesn’t mean you should always say it.
LikeLike
This is a great article that everyone should read. However, there is truth, there is authority. Christ and His Word are final in both. Those of us that are tired of the disjunct however with the institutional church (sign me up) and biblical teaching need to prayerfully consider our alternatives. Derek, I agree with most of what you say but we need caution when we are thinking the whenever, wherever I go argument. You really do need a local body to fellowship with, I don’t care if its in a yard, garage, etc. Think about it……who are we to be accountable to in regards to the Lord’s table which should be withheld in a discipline issue? What do we do with the issue of discipline (this is completely ignored in most churches as well)in regards to the teachings of Jesus and Paul on the matter? I am most afraid of trading one incorrect system where men/institution have absoulute authority for one where I assume the same role….it does seem that accountability to one another is important……granted many will take the chance to Lord that over someone…..we need to make sure we are not Lording over our own errors.
LikeLike
I heard a story of a “church health” consultant in an unnamed denomination who was invited to help out a church. He read all their stuff and got a feeling for what they were about and was asked by his superiors to go visit them. He called up the head elder and they discussed a few things and they said, “We’ll do whatever you tell us to do to get things rolling again.”
He said, “I’d like your elder board to resign,” to silence on the other end of the phone. The man in the troubled church thanked him for his time, but they would not be needing his services.
He was contacted by his superiors and asked to explain himself. He said, “These people said they were willing to do anything to rebuild their church membership. They lied.”
Men who are not willing to sacrifice their position of authority for the sake of reconciliation or (ahem) church growth really don’t care why someone left.
LikeLike
Yup, Headless, that’s the one.
It’s a weird mix of intense Anglo-convert piety, English upper-middle class snobbery, and genuine science fictional future prophecy.
The bits about euthanasia – the description of the train accident, when instead of (as you’d expect) doctors and ambulances, the “ministers of euthansia” arrive, that’s genuinely chilling. Even more so than the suicide clinics:
“Down the steps of the great hospital on her right came figures running now, hatless, each carrying what looked like an old-fashioned camera. She knew what those men were, and her heart leaped in relief. They were the ministers of euthanasia. ”
It’s that touch about “her heart leaped in relief” – that the idea of killing as a benison has become so accepted by the general public, that is the touch of authorial genius.
LikeLike
I’m with you on the Monday thing.
Also, those who are naturally morning people. There’s nothing natural about being not only wide-awake but cheerful at ungodly hours of the morning like nine a.m.
If God meant us to be productive then, He wouldn’t have invented afternoons 🙂
LikeLike
Giovanni, when did you last – if ever – hear anyone from the Reformed waxing wroth about the iniquities of the Oriental Orthodox?
I would love to know!
Besides, I think we need to work on beefing up the Carthusian all-in wrestling and mixed martial arts team before we tackle the monks of Mount Athos, which is why we’re keeping our beaks shut in the meantime (gotta give them time to tweak their training schedule for peak fitness!) 😉
LikeLike
Headless, the only Christian vampire fiction I can think of off the top of my head was a story by Alan Ryan called “Following the Way” years back.
You probably will not be surprised to find out that Jesuits are involved 😉
Also, some short stories by F. Paul Wilson – one has a nun vampire killer, another has a priest. Okay, these are Catholic vampire stories, but still – they’re out there!
(I first got the inkling I knew waaay too much about vampire fiction when I read Kim Newman’s “Anno Dracula” and could identify *all* the vampires referenced in the first few chapters) 🙂
LikeLike
“As a church elder I do have one request of those who choose to leave. Tell us why you are leaving!”
This only works to a good when the Elders are willing to listen. Ours were not. Not in any way shape or form. Well a little then when it became clear they were a part of the issues they became quite deaf.
LikeLike
No, it’s a Bored Mormon Housewife’s Wank Fantasy.
Headless Guy, I have to make sure that I’ve swallowed my coffee before I read your posts….you’ve ruined some of my work shirts, I hope this make you feel dirty …..
Greg R
LikeLike
“You can accept truth and trust authority only if the truth allows questions and the authority allows challenges.â€
AWESOME !!!
Greg R
LikeLike
Tom, I agree with Jjoe. Valid reasons to party A may not be valid reasons for B. And if someone isn’t walking away from Jesus, it really shouldn’t matter why people are leaving, if we continue to believe that a heart for Jesus is a GOOD HEART, not one of stone (as Ezekiel says), but one of flesh.
When my family and I left the congregation we were with, there was nobody asking us. No elders, no pastors, nothing. And when people DID ask us where we were going, we told them, “We’re not going anywhere because God is wherever believers are.” I liken where we are at to when Abraham was told to leave his family. God didn’t tell him WHERE to go, just TO go.
Several well-meaning people have told us we NEEDED the fellowship of believers. “Yeah, we have that.” Whenever we can, we have people over to eat with us, to talk about our struggles, etc. And we encourage each other through those struggles and hurts. There are people who know us (and us them) more intimately and love more thoroughly outside of any congregation.
This time, my website link (above) details an open letter I wrote to work through forgiveness and pain last summer when we left. I had committed a while ago to leave, but there were some things going on that delayed that. The final visit to a service was Labor Day weekend last year.
And when God calls us back, or somewhere else? We’ll follow the still small voice where He leads.
But, yeah, when attendance continues to rise, and so does the giving (including the pastors’ salaries), people don’t care why you left. If they notice.
LikeLike
I’m not so sure about Twilight. In my neck of the woods, it’s pretty quiet on the Evangelical Book Burning wagon.
I’m not read up on it, nor have I seen the movie. But Interview With a Vampire and Lost Boys scared the crap out of me at a time in my life when I was into horror and suspense. I can certainly see the droves of people flocking to certain Christian bookstores aimed and families and life (lol) to get their fix of Christian Vampire and/or teen gothy angst stuff.
Reminds me of a podcast I was listening to today (Rob Bell) pertaining to the sacred vs. the common. God has left the Holy of Holies. Sure, we have access through the ripped veil, but He is loose in the world! Sadly, we don’t see it when we’re sucking down Testamints and driving our fish-covered minivans to soccer practice.
/snark.
LikeLike
There are two concepts here.
‘leaving THE church’ means no longer being a Christian.
‘leaving A chruch’ means finding another congregation or denomination.
From a non RCC point of view iMonk’s post was about the later.
Says he who, along with a group of 10 families had to leave a church over the issue of pastors were in charge and right even when wrong. So submit. 😦
LikeLike
With all due respect, and speaking as someone who has left because of disagreements, if you’re looking for reasons that are ‘valid’ or to find things you can do to change their minds, people are going to shut down.
Elders and pastors and such are usually excellent communicators and persuaders, so getting on the phone with one can be something to be avoided. They’re going to ‘win’ the conversation, and on top of their talent and skill they’ve got that God card to play.
Also, for someone to say “this is wrong, change it for me” would make the person leaving feel selfish. There are plenty of people happy with things the way they are, so why mess things up for them?
Email can be a way of communicating things someone would never say in person, but the problem there is no one wants to have a candid email forwarded to God knows who. And it’s so easy to be mistaken about the emotions involved.
Perhaps a trusted third party could serve as a go-between.
LikeLike
He means the Holy House of Loreto, Giovanni. The pious legend that it was transported from the Holy Land by angels (which I have seen rationalised as that it was dismantled and transported by a family surnamed D’Angeli, but I have no idea either way how it ended up where it is).
I strongly suspect the Holy House of Loreto began as a pilgrimage attraction — sort of the Medieval equivalent of a “George Washington Slept Here” tourist trap.
Curtis – or St. Christopher the Dog-headed?
Move over Francis of Assisi, Furry Fandom has a new patron saint — and this one even resembles Anubis!
There’s dogma, doctrine, discipline, popular devotion, and folk religion. And then there’s the crazy stuff, which is pure fun 🙂
“I try to make everybody’s day a bit more surreal.” — Calvin & Hobbes
And I should, in all fairness, mention the Catholic version of the “Left Behind†books – Robert Hugh Benson’s “Lord of the World.â€
Is that the one dating from roughly World War One? And does it incorporate (or maybe even advertised as Scofield did Darby) the Three Days of Darkness?
LikeLike
Especially when City Hall has continuous cosmic-level justification (Special Words of Knowledge & Prophecy — “GOD SAITH!”) for everything they do.
LikeLike
In about another year or two, when the series is done and the hype is beginning to fade, is just about when the pulpit bashers should become aware of it and start flapping. — Martha
No, Martha, you’ll know Twilight has truly jumped the shark when all the “Just like Twilight, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!” Christian Paranormal Romances start showing up in all the CHRISTIAN(TM) Book & Gift stores.
(That is NOT a joke. One of the Lost Genre Guild attended a CBA/ECPA conference a couple months ago where they said the Next Big Thing in CHRISTIAN(TM) Fiction Will Be CHRISTIAN(TM) Paranormal Romance, using “Twilight” as the secular example of What’s Hawt Now.)
To be clear, though, I’d happily bash “Twilight†but on the basis that it’s an offense to vampire mythology
No, it’s a Bored Mormon Housewife’s Wank Fantasy. Period. Even a reviewer at Hollywood Jesus calls it “Female Porn”. Uber-HAWT Edward (sparkle sparkle sparkle) is just Perfect Porn Star syndrome with a sex change. (And a strong physical resemblance to a certain Joseph Smith.) And Twihards (Twilight fangirls) are some of the most Intense True Be-LEEEEE-ver drooling fanboys you are ever going to encounter, and I say that from a background in Furry and Anime fandom.
LikeLike
An argument for church necessity is difficult. An argument for church normality or ordinariness is not. Jesus founded a movement and there are aspects to the Christian’s experience that take place in that movement’s communal gatherings.
But the idea that Jesus created an institution that we plug into in order to get the essential Christian life creates the environment for abuse and manipulation. The church serves Christ and Christians. The Christian life doesn’t happen “in” church.
LikeLike
Really, all of my arguments are not in Scripture?
1) We find assembling together (Heb 10)
2) We find the sacraments (I Cor 11)
3) We find ordained elders who have authority (I Tim 3; Heb 13)
All these are part of the Visible NT Church. Remember, my beef is w/ people who think they can be the Church by themselves, not w/ people who have left one church & are looking for or in between a particular local congregation.
LikeLike
Is it possible that sometimes a church leaves the person?
I think it must happen when I hear testimonies about those missionaries who were forced to sign a man-made document or to ‘retire’ from service over having a ‘private prayer language’.
Sometimes it is the people in a church that force other people to leave because they no longer have a home there. Everyone can understand why such people leave a toxic situation.
Then, sometimes those who are troubled choose to stay and work for the day when the persecution ends. They realize that not everyone CAN ‘walk away’: not the children, or the extremely elderly for whom ‘church’ is a life-line, or the mentally challenged.
I believe these people who stay are heroes who endure difficulties for the sake of helping the vulnerable and less fortunate in their church community . Their ‘witness’ to the other church members is a powerful force for positive change ‘in community ‘ because they caring more for the welfare of others than they are worry ing about their own angst.
LikeLike
Good post, thank you. As a church elder I do have one request of those who choose to leave. Tell us why you are leaving! We’ve tried to contact people who have chosen to leave our church to find out why and see if there are things we can do to change their minds or, if that is what is needed, change ourselves. There is an old saying “The only common factor in all your problems is you.” If people leaving a church have valid reasons I can accept and agree with their decision and look hard at myself and my church to see the lesson there is for us. We as elders in our church have always taken a stance to never “bad mouth” anyone who chooses to leave. But what do we get when we ask why? Most commonly some sort of unassailable Christian platitude. “We feel in our hearts that the Spirit is calling us to move on.” or something like that.
Churches and church leaders do err and do need to learn, grow and even at times repent. I can also see that sometimes, when nothing is wrong, God will move good members on for plans that are beyond my comprehension. But it is very frustrating to be left guessing what issues are behind some departures. So my request is, just tell us.
LikeLike
“I cannot and will not stand with a church no matter what it does. There are times to walk away, and times to speak critical, truthful words. Our defenses of the church must preserve the centrality of individual integrity and the superior loyalty we have to Christ over any institution. “:
I grew up in the SBC and can remember when Priesthood of believer was hammered into our little heads. There was very little celebrity pastor idolatry going on back in those days. Perhaps because it was before the advent of celebrity pastors except for a few well known evangelists.
But times have changed. Now too many tend to follow Paul or Apollos.
Now I realize the indwelling of the Holy Spirit makes us part of the Body of believers wherever that may be.
LikeLike
Ah, I was told that if I was looking for something deeper in fellowship and for people to be connected more than the Sunday morning crowd that I was in the wrong place for that. These people were content to love Jesus and enjoy the music and the fellowship on Sunday morning and the sermon that was presented.
I want more from my faith. And I think Jesus calls me to something deeper than a 14% (1 day of 7) Christianity.
LikeLike
“In the end, each of us must find our way of saying, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,â€â€¦
I KNOW that’s all that keeps me in the Church. Where else can I go for the “words of eternal lifeâ€?”
If it didn’t fatally compromise my quantum-mechanically indeterminate mixed state of eternal security, I would tatoo that Bible verse across my chest. Sometimes it’s about all I have too.
But it is so much.
LikeLike
Imonk,
I hope maaaaaaannny people read your post and think on it. As you have already alluded to in your post, Jesus addresses both the church collectively and the individual as well. Rev. 2:5 & 3:20 are both in the good book. You are right.
Grace to you,
Benji
LikeLike
I am not familiar with that. I will have to do some reading.
LikeLike
I am my self very touchy on the subject, learning the history of why we are called Roman does not sit well with me. It is not only inaccurate it is insulting, used of course, in that context.
Its like the people that tell you, “I use to be Catholic but I am Christian now.” Its like the people that love Mondays, you just want to slap them.
As I hear a lot of those Anglicans may be corporately swimming the Tiber soon along with the (TAC) there is the (FIF) who have joined serious talks of reunion which would be great. A lot of messy situations if def going to be tough. We can only pray.
LikeLike
Martha I think we are waiting for the Orthodox to join us before we ever touch any subject on theology regarding eastern churches. 🙂
LikeLike
“Leaving Room For Churches To Be Wrong”
I am thinking about the role of a Christian’s conscience as informed by the Holy Spirit.
I was once advised by a priest:
consider the teachings of the Church,
consider the reality of my situation,
pray about it, and follow my own conscience.
For me, there can be no ‘I did /did not it because an Authority told me to do (or not to) do it’ excuse on the Day of the Lord. I will be held accountable for the way I followed or did not follow my informed conscience under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Is this, in any way, what concerns the topic ?
I mean as far as ‘room to maneuver’ in the realm of the sanctuary of private informed conscience; or is the topic strictly on the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of doctrine; i.e. ‘The Doctrine Wars’ ??
LikeLike
Bill,
The Driscoll quote is disturbing. And I like much in his movement and preaching. But part of the reason for the mass disillusionment with the inst. church is it’s almost total capitulation with the cult of celebrity, the cult of wealth/success/prosperity, the cult of the leader. There is a widespread misunderstanding, that a leader’s ability to build churches, polish reputations, preach compellingly to audiences, write books, engage the media, give out acronyms for living, speak in tongues, exegete Scripture, etc….somehow indicate the presence of quality pastoring, of Jesus-filled ministry. It’s hard to look at movements afoot and not see, in spite of nearly airtight systems and doctrines, that people are looking far more like little so-and-so’s then little Jesuses. They talk like so-and-so. They use the same mannerisms as so-and-so. They have the same “Holy Spirit tics” as so-and-so. Who are people following, in these situations? I’ve often thought that a Pagan sophomore philosophy student with Wikipedia could master Reform theology. Absolutely master it. And then preach it effectively, with Scripture to support it. Probably manufacture some passion for the material too. it’s not that hard. Yet apparently in some circles(and I’m personally very indebted to Reform theology) mastering the theology is the best qualification we can think of for being a minister or leader. That’s because successful people are the model for ministry, not Jesus. That’s because Christians buy the cult of success every bit as much as secular America does. So alpha, steamroller personalities who get lots of stuff done and garner accolades are considered better Christ-ians than everyone else. Spiritualize that garbage and you have “they are sinning by questioning,” and the host of horror stories in imonk’s post. there is no need for Jesus in that evaluation of what leadership or discipleship should be. because people would rather be like the most glamorously marketed and consumed personality, and that’s not Jesus. I don’t care if you’re ecclesiology and commitment to the local church is perfect in this scenario. You fail. You fail miserably even as you are succeeding. I’m not exaggerating when I say that I really could get most of what I get in the average church from a couple episodes of American Idol.
Good for your friend for engaging you in a relational, nonsuperior way, and good for you for seeing that. I’m sure in that approach to dialogue, you almost can’t fail to do the Jesus-y thing. Whatever that is.
Nate
LikeLike
Okay, I can get behind that. I’m in that enthusiastic group and when I saw the pro-RCC comments meet with anti-RCC comments I probably fell into an overly defensive mode.
Keep up the great posts, I’ve enjoyed the blog for months; though this is the first time I’ve really jumped into commenting.
LikeLike
Yup, that’s what I do.
LikeLike
I suppose so. But if we’re already in the mode of theorizing about the Church and the church, our pastors would scold us very much if we didn’t at least bring up the Catholic theory. 😉
LikeLike
I never said “one and true” at all, and I’ve only ever heard this label applied to the RCC by non-Catholics. Likewise, I could never minimize a Protestant as “less than” a Catholic. But it seems many Protestants have this perception of the RCC (I got it a lot from my friends and family when I converted) and so I assume there must be a lot of RCC representatives running around with the idea. If they’ve run into you with it, I’m sorry you had such a poor encounter. 😦
The value I found was in re-discovering thousands of years of Christians – the leaders AND followers – wrestling with the same issues I have in my faith. I came to the point where I stopped thinking I was personally infallible in my understanding of “Christ and the Gospel” – how could I be sure I was worshiping Christ in His way, or worshiping myself. I’ve come to trust the honest struggle of the whole Christian tradition more than my own small part in it. Like a theological “wisdom of the crowds” collectively under the authority of the Holy Spirit. I found that tradition deeper and more accessible in the RCC.
I don’t believe the RCC is “getting away with” “self-imposed” mandates any more than I believe my Protestant family and friends are getting away with self-imposed mandates. Since I believe in the authority and ability of the Holy Spirit to work on us as individuals, I guess I don’t understand why He shouldn’t work on us as groups and churches as well.
LikeLike
Curtis – or St. Christopher the Dog-headed? Or St. Murgen the mermaid? 😉
There’s dogma, doctrine, discipline, popular devotion, and folk religion. And then there’s the crazy stuff, which is pure fun 🙂
And I should, in all fairness, mention the Catholic version of the “Left Behind” books – Robert Hugh Benson’s “Lord of the World.”
Depending upon one’s viewpoint, one may or may not cheer at the section describing the destruction of Rome 🙂
LikeLike
And in another display of “Two Catholics, three opinions” (which I think I stole from the Jewish version), I wouldn’t particularly care to use the term ‘Roman’.
I don’t mind it on here, because it’s useful shorthand in some ways. But as an Irish Catholic, it has certain connotations in that it was primarily used by Anglicans, especially in terms of opposing the claims of the Universal Church and as both elevating the Church of England to be a branch, if not the ‘proper’ form, of the Church and reducing the Catholic Church to just another denomination. Same way in referring to the “Bishop of Rome” (he’s only a bishop, same as the bishop of York, so why does he think he’s so special?)
The Anglo-Catholic notion of the Branch Theory and that Anglicanism is on a par with the Latin Rite Catholics and the Orthodox – well. Rome and Constantinople can lay claim to being ancient sees. Canterbury – not so much.
But again, this is a political/historical thing. In the interests of ecumenism, I’d probably just smile politely when an Anglican or Episcopalian talks about being ‘Catholic’ 😉
LikeLike
When I made the decision to leave the church I had been at for 15+ years… well, it took me four of those 15+ years to get the courage to do so. I had been involved in every aspect of the ministry, but was shriveling on the vine, so to speak. Don’t get me wrong, the pastors meant well. And even though I tried my best to leave in the “right” way, I know it hurt them for me to leave. After all, I had grown up there. But I knew that either my faith or mental health would be on the line if I had to face one more progam-filled holiday season where the Big Show was more important than experiencing and communicating (as Robert Webber would say) the “Christ-Event.”
One of the things I had been most involved with was leading the worship band. I recently remembered something interesting. Several years before I left, I was considering turning the music ministry over to someone else. We didn’t really have a “someone else” in mind, but I was pretty burnt out. I took a “Christian Worship” class at a local college that used Webber’s Worship is a Verb as the main textbook. I left that class pumped up about worship and my role as someone who is to help the congregation worship God. After a couple months of me being pumped up, the entropy of the Big Show finally won out. By the time I left the church, I was once again questioning whether I should have even taken the “job” of music guy.
Recently, though, as I’m helping the new small fellowship I’m with work out the form the worship service will take, I rediscovered Webber’s book. Again, I’m pumped up. But this time, I’m working with a leadership that doesn’t value style over substance. I’m working with a leadership whose #1 priority is the little flock they’re over. And I think we’re going to end up with something really, really good.
LikeLike
Yes, but we can come across as saying (or seeming to say) “Heretics, repent! Join the One True Church!” and it’s motes and beams time here. I think we should give the children of the Reformation a breathing space to decide their theory of the Church and the church. Besides, I’m finding these kinds of posts and the comments very informative – I know what the Catholic position is, but the ins and outs of American Christianity in all its weird and wonderful manifestations is fascinating.
Would I love it if everyone in the world were Catholic? Well, of course yes. But I’ll settle for Christian 🙂
LikeLike
Martha,
I forgot to add this. Church leaving feels frequently like you are leaving Christ. You know that you are part of the invisible Church, but it doesn’t help until you find a new body of believers to join.
LikeLike
Luke: Posting guidelines are under the FAQ tab, guideline 10.
Trying to convert anyone out of their tradition to another (without direct questions or inquiries for information) are not allowed at IM. This is not a debate blog of any kind. My exchange with Giovanni today is the price he’s paying for not being banned after his original comment that was completely off the map.
The basic rule here is DISCUSS THE POST.
The “Catholic Problem” at IM is that we have an enthusiastic group of RCs eager to tell the evangelical world how great things are on the RC team. If this isn’t in response to a post or an allowed comment, it’s inappropriate, and would be inappropriate from the Amish or the atheists.
I have plenty of posts in a year aimed at RC issues. This doesn’t seem to be one of them, but Giovanni opened the door and I allowed the discussion to go on.
I’d appreciate it if we could either a) discuss the post or b) not.
peace
MS
LikeLike
by pro-RCC posts, do you mean proselytizing-RCC posts? or do you mean posts that are positive in attitude towards the RCC?
LikeLike
I don’t understand this either? I can’t tell which statements are sarcastic and which ones are serious.
Also, how did this topic of priestly celibacy even come up? Especially in response to L’s plea for returning to a core Christianity?
LikeLike
Martha,
You have it correctly defined. Before my crossing the Tiber, I was a Southern Baptist who had left several churches. Many a time, I was glad that my job took me to another area. Gave me the ideal reason to leave the local church.
If you look at it as parish shopping, you might have a better understanding.
LikeLike
Some of us who leave, have tried to give feed back, but just get, “Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.”
LikeLike
I’ve actually started taking to calling us Roman for short. It seems to help designate within the larger Catholic Church – i.e., between the different rites – AND is ecumenical to some of the “Protestant” traditions – e.g., an Episcopalian friend considers himself Catholic and calls me a Roman.
LikeLike
I agree we Romans have a different meaning of ‘leaving the church’ because we have a different definition of ‘the church’ – i.e., the Church and the church. 😉 But I think it could be helpful to expose Protestants to the Catholic understandings of ‘the Church’ and therefore what it means to leave, and what it means for the Church to be wrong.
Personally, I converted to Catholicism after the sexual abuse scandal made all the big news, and I’m sad to say it isn’t something I’ve investigated much. But my sponsor thru RCIA, also my sister-in-law, said it really tested her faith to its limits. In the end, she, and I believe a lot of Catholics, decided not to leave, but to adopt the position that the offending clergy (priests AND bishops who concealed it) were the ones who must leave the Church. Which is an interesting twist on the scenario.
LikeLike
“Consider that most pastors have difficulty processing difficult people in their theology of pastoral ministry. ”
This is why I have tried to deal with my own issues by myself for years. Pastors and leaders seemed all too willing to deal with people who had it together and were doing something well “for the gospel”; productive Christians whose potential was skyhigh. All which I was not. Leaders didn’t know what to do with me, other than prescribe “repentance” which was a mix of moralism and do-it-yourself perfection. I learned long ago that skubulon is more helpful (a word that Reformed guys LOVE to throw around) flushed down a commode.
LikeLike
It seems like it’s already shaping up to be anything post-modern or relativism. I just can’t seem to think of a material icon that symbolizes these?
And yes, Twilight vampires deserve all bashing they get. E.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m96hu-xprfE
LikeLike
Thank you, thank you, Michael, for this post! The NT church is ek-klesia — the ones called out. What I’ve seen more and more is that the ones called out are called out of the institutions calling themselves “churches” but which are really based on power, ambition and self-interest — with a distinctively male flavor that tends to exacerbate the disempowerment of women already disempowered by the people in their lives.
LikeLike
Bill, I hope you don’t censor yourself. Sometimes telling the truth means telling it bluntly, not without regard to whether you’re offending your brother but in regards to speaking honestly, even that very act is offensive to those who prefer that everyone speak politely and “positively.” Though I’m in the Reformed camp, I too have my concerns about some things I see within it…things that you and iMonk spoke to very well. Thank you both for doing so.
LikeLike
Jennifer –
Thank you –
I think you could not have said it better, and to feel nervous is a good thing as pilgram writes by the way..
LikeLike
Absolutely. I don’t want to get on anyone’s case, particularly anyone who is just honestly seeking for God. I grew up in a “non-denominational” Evangelical church, so I never had a sense of church X or church Y as being “the (right) church.” For that I appreciate my upbringing – we never focused on the distinctions between Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, or any other “denomination” of the church. So even before I became Roman, I had some sense of a mystical catholic (little c) church connection that cut across the whole faith community.
Like you, Martha, I experience a fullness of that intimate connection in our Roman Tradition. I’ve been to Mass all over my own diocese, and also Chicago, San Jose, and even Sao Paulo Brazil since my conversion. I was able to participate in the liturgy in Sao Paulo even though I speak absolutely no Portuguese! Our Tradition cuts across geography, language, and culture in a special way. In every place I feel at home. It’s a powerful sensation.
LikeLike
You know what hurts more?
When you leave after 10 years as a leader in the ministry and the only phone call you get is “Please return the keys”.
That hurts.
LikeLike
No, he means the flying Holy House of Loreto, something of an IM inside joke (if joke is the right word). Apparently, for our dear host, the Holy House is the epitome of Catholic credulity. 🙂 Let us hope he never stumbles upon the cult of St. Guineforte…
LikeLike
“My evangelical tradition had me believing that I should be able to discern the Truth with just my NIV Bible, my ~2lbs of gray matter, and the Holy Spirit. ”
I find this humerous.
What besides the self proclaimed authority of the RCC as the “one and true” do you believe adds any more value to your need for validation and patriarical veting necessary to assit you in your inablity to worship Christ so apparently disarmed?
The humorous part of the argument is that “the one true” has argued falibilty of it’s leadership while maintaing the infalibility of the same receipients of the tradition. How in the world can a protestant be minimized as “less than” in the RCC eyes if they do as Christ commanded, and Paul admonished to not suffer one ….et. al.
When leaders in my church deviate from Christ and the Gospel, I will obey Christ. I will not obey a self imposed cultic mandate – regardless of how many of thousands of years it’s got away with it.
LikeLike
Michael, please remove anything I have commented that offends you in any way. I cannot know if I am causing you a problem. I will not be offended at all if you remove any of my comments.
I would not want to cause any problems for you.
Just delete. And let me know that I am not in keeping with the ‘protocol’ you have set for your guests who comment here. I will not trouble you further if I have been the problem.
Respectfully, Christiane
LikeLike
Peace to you also, Michael.
The ‘rites’ are liturgical and patriarchal descendants of the early Christian centers of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, and reflect differences in customs, language, emphases, and church liturgical practices, but not core beliefs in matters of faith and morals.
In the western (Latin) center of Rome, the custom of priestly celibacy became the accepted practice. It is not a ‘different belief’, Michael, just a different tradition.
The different ‘rites’ of the Catholic Church celebrate the same core beliefs, use varied liturgical practices according to their history, and are given the same dignity in my Church.
They are a celebration of ‘diversity’ in ‘unity’ and we are encouraged to experience personally these different ways of praying if we have the opportunity to do so, as we share the same faith.
Your comment about ‘teachings’ was confusing, as I believe that you are surely sophisticated enough to understand the difference between a matter of faith & morals, and a matter of traditional liturgical practices and the histories of formation of clerical vows.
My godmother’s great aunt from Russia told her that their priests were married. We never thought this was a ‘difference in belief’ so much as a difference in customs in the eastern tradition of the Ukrainian Catholics.
Michael, I know its confusing. But even in the Protestant world, you have differences within a denominational structure. Southern Baptists struggle with primary, secondary, and tertiary ‘teachings, customs, beliefs, interpretations,’ .
The core faith that holds Southern Baptists together used to be based on the Words and Actions of Jesus Christ in the Bible, but that language was removed from the Baptist Faith & Message some time ago. And now, there are many ‘factions’ but still they attempt to hold it all together: the Calvinists, the ‘Baptist Identity Crowd, the ‘Full Quiver’ group, the No Women Preachers’ Group, and so forth: trying to hold it together in order to serve Christ in the Mission fields. Not easy for them.
Do Southern Baptists share the same ‘core Christian beliefs’ in the Authority of the Christ of the Bible?
I think they do. Maybe that will be ‘enough’ to preserve their unity. That remains to be seen.
I
LikeLike
J. Michael– wow. That’s so scary. Unfortunately, it’s exactly true (all the statements– the divorce analogy, the pressure not to leave, etc.). I really think that, when you boil it down, most people in a local body really do view a departure as a kind of betrayal. I read the comment in I-monk’s other article where the author posited the idea of all the local congregations comprising The Church in (insert city name here). I think this is a revolutionary, paradigm-shifting, liberating concept. But I have never met a person in leadership (or in laity for that matter) who really acted like this were true.
Realty: you leave a congregation, all kinds of relationships are strained or broken. I’ve been on both sides of this, and it’s really hard. Right now, we’d probably be looking around, except that all of our immediate family goes to the same church we’re at. If we left, it would cause nothing but huge problems. So we duck our heads and try to ignore all the personality-based, hyped, mega-church-wannabe, legalistic, backwoods traditional, frustrating horse hockey. It’s really, really hard to realize what the church ought to be, and see it play out so very differently. Come quickly, Lord Jesus.
LikeLike
He means the Holy House of Loreto, Giovanni. The pious legend that it was transported from the Holy Land by angels (which I have seen rationalised as that it was dismantled and transported by a family surnamed D’Angeli, but I have no idea either way how it ended up where it is).
And although we are not bound as a dogma or doctrine to believe that, it is not considered anything contrary to faith or morals (as would be, say, the idea that angels declared Mary a goddess) so if people want to believe it, it doesn’t do any harm and they’re left alone.
Same way that someone who believes in flying saucers wouldn’t be kicked out of church, unless he started going on about Bible codes that revealed flying saucers were a sign of the Tribulation. Oh, wait: what church tradition wrote all those “Left Behind” books again? 😉
Besides, if we dissed the Holy House, then we’d have to remove Our Lady of Loreto as patron of air travel.
LikeLike
Depends, Michael.
A lot of the things that are criticised are to do with how political struggles shook out in Western Europe, so when talking about certain elements, maybe clarifying that “Latin Rite Catholicism” is what’s meant is no harm.
I’ve not yet heard anyone talking about their disagreements with the theology of the Chaldean tradition of the East Syrian Rite as exemplified by the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, which is in communion with us and accepts the primacy of the Pope 🙂
LikeLike
Giovanni, for me (and I think for you?) ‘leaving the church’ means stopping being Catholic and either converting to Protestantism, or a non-Christian faith, or going atheist all together.
For those others on this discussion thread, ‘leaving the church’ may mean no more than leaving congregation A where the pastor is acting like a little tin god and joining another congregation in the same tradition, or a similar one if they don’t or can’t find one in the same denomination. Doesn’t mean stopping being Lutheran or Presbyterian or whatever. Something along the lines of my father preferred attending the Parish church in the town rather than our local church and went there for Mass, confession, devotions, etc.
We’re doing an amount of talking past one another which is not helping.
LikeLike
Perhaps we have a different understanding of what the church is. I am glad to hear that you have found a way to worship with others in a house church setting. I think that is fantastic.
However, I think the NT teaches that WE are the church. I am not the church. You are not the church. WE are the church.
We are called to commit our lives to each other in service, worship, discipleship, and love. This is not easy and we are not called to do this with only people we get along with.
I am currently in a plant church with people who I don’t always get along with. However, we are constantly striving to forgive and love in way of Jesus.
LikeLike
Sorry for any confusion. I should’ve made it clear that I was asking rhetorical questions at face value.
(1) As far as you not having any idea what I was talking about, again I apologize. I was trying to address the fact that the “leavers” who suffer and are criticized are rarely innocent parties. At the same time they rarely just get up one day and get bitter for no reason – someone in leadership screwed up!
(2) You couldn’t be more right! In the example I cited, we met for nearly 6 hours with an overseer (3) and there was no restoration. If we couldn’t work it out in person, the internet would seem a miserable option!
Hope I didn’t come across as trying to get people on my side. I would think if I’m trying to rally support for my position, it mustn’t be a very solid one, eh? This sad story took place five years ago last month. I’ve learned a lot and am grateful to have come out smiling!
LikeLike
“Twilight”? Romanticising vampires and possibly proselytising for the Mormons, to boot?
In about another year or two, when the series is done and the hype is beginning to fade, is just about when the pulpit bashers should become aware of it and start flapping.
To be clear, though, I’d happily bash “Twilight” but on the basis that it’s an offense to vampire mythology 🙂
Sparkly vampires who are all happy families? Pshaw! Evil blood-drinking Mittel Europeans who are demon-spawn and need to be staked! That’s my kind of vampire! 😉
LikeLike
Thank you for your response Derek. I appreciate your personal willingness to serve Jesus in the difficult realities of a house church. Please don’t misread my previous post, I appreciate and support house churches. In regards to your post, here is my response.
“What training did Paul have?â€
1) Paul was directly called by Jesus as an apostle and is considered by many to be set apart along with the other apostles because of this distinction.
2) Paul was a Pharisee prior to his conversion. While this did not necessitate a formal education, it is clear that he was well trained in the Jewish Bible.
3) There was no NT scripture for Paul to have been trained with at the time of his conversion. Following Paul as an example in pastoral training would mean that our leaders do not need to read the NT.
4) Neither you, nor I, nor any other contributor to this discussion is Paul. Our writings are not considered to be “breathed by God.â€
“The first actual seminary wasn’t until the 16th or 17th centuries. Before that, guess what? No seminaries or Bible colleges. “
1) While seminaries as we know them today may have only been in existence since the 16th century, the education of Christian leaders goes back into the NT
2) The first English edition of the Bible wasn’t printed until the 16th century as well. The more recent development of a resource is not an argument that such a resource should not be utilized.
“And what training does one require for “pastoral careâ€? Does it really take a paid professional to visit the hospital or to listen to the marital woes of a couple in challenge?â€
Pastoral care is simply much larger than these sentences describe. Modern counseling practices for instant are an important resource for pastors in the US.
“How about we each listen to see what God would have us to to respond to tangible needs in the world?â€
Agreed.
“Many Christians just fork over their tithes (I don’t see that in the New Covenant) to pay the guy behind the pulpit to do their work and BE the church.â€
This isn’t an argument against properly trained pastors but an argument FOR properly trained pastors.
I think perhaps you have also written this response with the assumption that I only support seminary training.
LikeLike
We’ve got different models of the church in our heads, and different experiences of it.
I’m agreeing with Michael on this point – this post is for the Protestants and how they understand church.
Which, from what I am picking up thanks to sites like this, is vastly different from what I understand as “the church”. Take the post on the denominational church – that, to me, seems to be saying that they should consider the wider church outside the community they attend; that they should have some notion of their denomination as a body, that they should feel a relationship with all the other churches in the area belonging to their tradition. That if they go to the next town, the Baptist or whatever church there is as much their church as the Baptist church they attend at home.
To rediscover the concept of the parish, which is mindblowing to me as a kind of “Well, sure!” notion along the lines of “Hey, you know, grass is green everywhere!”
And that’s before even beginning to address the idea of other Christian communities.
Before we start recommending what they should or shouldn’t do, let us let them have five minutes to think about where they are and what they do.
Yes, as a Catholic, I feel connected to all the Church in time and space. I feel that St. Peter’s is as much ‘my’ church as my parish church. I feel that St. Declan is my forefather in the faith. But that is not a feeling that everyone has. Michael, whop me over the head if I’m wrong, but I’m getting the impression that for some people, the church is Fifth Ninth Gospel Church of the Universal Lamb located on Smith Street which they attended with their mother and father, and that any other community is a complete different entity totally separate that has nothing to do with them, even if it’s the Fifth Ninth Gospel Church of the Universal Lamb congregation all the way over on Brown Street.
Let them get their heads around the idea that there is more to the church than the pastor and the people in one building on one street in one town, before we get on their case.
LikeLike
Thank you, Michael, for the link, and thank you, Steve Scott, for the kind words.
LikeLike
I read the above and told myself, “SURELY that is an overstatement”….and then I did a mental rewind of when I’ve heard that phrase used in the last 30plus yrs….. no, on second thot, sad to say, but when I’ve heard it trotted out, it was most often by someone with a BIG agenda, running short of warm “vision-fodder”. I’m sure it’s possible to use it in a Christ honoring way (I think), but in my experience, it’s been a ‘weapon of choice’.
This whole topic has made me see the emergents in a more sympathetic light (along with the responses to “one-true-churchism”).
Here’s to preaching a JESUS that people WANT to be committed to.
Greg R
LikeLike
Exactly!!!!
LikeLike
Sorry about the full Italics. I don’t know where that came from.
LikeLike
So ecumenical pilgrim, we need to join the established churches that have educated clergy?
Sometimes yes.
There scores of established churches and educated clergy which are serving Jesus with humility and grace. I have had the wonderful experience of meeting pastors from traditional churches (PCA, SBC, etc.) who were passionate about leading their community in the mission of God. However…
Sometimes no.
In the US, and most of the western world, gaining a solid pastoral education is not an unscaleable obstacle. Your response seems to assume I was only referring to the modern western formula for higher education as a path to pastoral formation. While I am a strong supporter of seminary as a fantastic place to gain such training, I did not state that it is the only avenue for gaining such an education. It is possible that local churches are able to provide enough education to adequately prepare pastors academically as well as spiritually.
I also never said that anything that could be understood as a defense of established churches over new endeavors. I am actually part of a church plant myself. An argument for education/preparation is not an argument against church planting or even house churches. I was merely expressing my concern over a trend in house churches where a “leader” reads a stack of popularly written Christian books and then starts a house church. I have run into several of these.
Is someone going to tell the 80% of the world church, esp in India, China and Africa?
My comment did not include anything that would upset the growth of the church throughout the world. We are called to make disciples and to have trained leaders in our churches. There are numerous methods for training people in areas where a seminary education is an impossibility. Just because the western education model doesn’t fit in those scenarios doesn’t in any way mean that we can’t train pastors. Nor does it relieve us of that responsibility.
iMonk, I think your response is framed with your assumptions about my post and not the actually content. We probably agree much more than you think we do.
LikeLike
1. I’ve heard the phrase “you need to be more committed to the church” at least 10,000x in my 52 years as a Southern Baptist.
2. I can’t think of a phrase more wrong in every way. It almost defines the addiction of evangelicalism to itself and its starvation for Jesus.
3. Satan must really like it. He probably has t-shirts.
LikeLike
I’ve been a part of 4 congregations now in the 13 years that I’ve been a believer.
1 while I was still in college. Graduated and moved.
2 after school, same ministry at the first. Good people; lots of genuine love and care. Wasn’t perfect, but it was genuine. Married there. Took my wife with me and moved out of state with the complete blessing (and sadness) of the pastor, his wife, and our friends. There was a great prayerful send-off.
3 Small mega-church. Had our kids when we were attending there. Genuine friendship and love. 2300 people and about 140-150 small group ministries. Places to grow, serve, and love people inside and out of the building and “structure”. Moved out of state and took the family with me.
4 Small evangelical church. Most were “born and bred” in the denomination there. We stuck out like sore thumbs. I can’t tell you how often I heard the phrase “left the church” equating with “left God” and coming back to the church with “getting right with God.” Disheartening, to say the least. Left that church at God’s prompting to housechurch with my family. At the time, I was traveling all week and my weekends were spent in good part quietly bored (as were my children) disengaged from my family on the pew. God convicted me to be more engaging with them and lead them spiritually, so we left.
5 Making a hard effort NOT to “recruit” people to join us, despite the lonely road. We’re open about what we do and why we do it. Several folks are very interested and excited for us while others heap condemnation.
I’ve heard the argument that leaving a church is tantamount to divorce and we need to be more committed to the church. Fact is, we’re always going to be a part of the church as we’re part of the Bride of Christ. So, you can’t leave something that doesn’t have walls.
Hate to say it, but look how hard it is for people to be deprogrammed from cult mentalities. And Jesus is the real deal. A guy on an island in the middle of nowhere is no less “out of the church” just because he can’t fellowship with people… And don’t tell me that “well, if he was in civilization, he’d be looking for a church to go to.” We don’t “go to church”. We “be with” or “are” the Church.
LikeLike
I disagree with your first contention that Popes, Bishops and Church councils have continuously contradicted each other. I would like examples, the assertion is misleading.
Developmental doctrine does not equal modern understanding same goes for the Trinity. Truth is not about a majority vote if that was true then we would all be Aryans or Nestorians.
LikeLike
What training did Paul have? Sure, Peter walked with Jesus for 3 1/2 years, but what actual training did Paul have?
I’ve been asked about training and leadership and decisionmaking and sermons with regard to my family’s housechurch. The first actual seminary wasn’t until the 16th or 17th centuries. Before that, guess what? No seminaries or Bible colleges. And what training does one require for “pastoral care”? Does it really take a paid professional to visit the hospital or to listen to the marital woes of a couple in challenge? How about we each listen to see what God would have us to to respond to tangible needs in the world?
Many Christians just fork over their tithes (I don’t see that in the New Covenant) to pay the guy behind the pulpit to do their work and BE the church. In community and love. And we wonder why pastors consider quitting in the numbers that do…
Write a check for the mission trip and call it “love”, but never greet and invite people over for dinner. And Jesus said, anyone can invite their friends and family. But those that invite the stranger…
And yes, I need to work on this, too.
LikeLike
Hah. Zam! Well said! 😉
LikeLike
Phillip Winn’s last five paragraphs put the wood on the ball.
LikeLike
I have heard about the vote on gay clergy and gay marriages which is coming I believe in August 14th.
Ditto on the Conservative Baptists (Southern Baptists in my case) My wife she is SB and I know what you mean. Her preacher who is from Arkansas gives the coolest sermons they are very much like what you would imagine a southern preacher sounded like. I would say that he is about 95% orthodox in what he preaches, to my Catholic ears at least.
LikeLike
Michael,
I’m afraid you’ll probably have to keep a close eye on me in this area too. I’m a fresh zealous Roman convert, but I’ll try to keep from proselytizing. I’ll try to just offer my personal Roman experiences and not quote the Catechism. 😉
-L
LikeLike
As formerly one of those, I thank you for your prayers! I left my congregation and left off christian discipleship for about 7 years. You can’t outrun the HS, though! He brought me back into an active prayer life, which led to intense Bible reading, which walked me back into the church building (first a new one as I had moved out of state). Participating in the body of Christ after 7 years of nothing more than occasional random attendance was a breath of fresh air, with a “clean slate”. We were forced to move back to our home state suddenly,and I am now happily a member of the same congregation I once disappeared from. It’s a great church, and I’m glad I’ve been matured enough to take part! For me, the humbling and empathy I needed was waiting in the wilderness. In addition, while out there I was granted a valuable perspective on the visible church from the outside, and now I sit on the inside with an outside perspective but an insider’s place and language. I praise God for never giving up on my stubborn self, and for giving me a good church home and mission there.
LikeLike
Is this directed at me? God knows I’m as clumsy as anyone with the evangelism hammer and I don’t mean to swing it around blindly.
My comment is only meant to “promote Rome” in the sense that Rome can really and truly offer comfort to some people who experience “angst and lamentation” over divisions in the Church.
I’ve never experienced a heavy “leaving” of a church, so if anyone has and they find my comments to be cold comfort, I really am sorry. I’m trying to articulate some of the reasons why a Roman like Giovanni would fee like this is an opportunity to evangelize the Roman way. But I don’t mean it to sound like a cure-all for the pains of division.
LikeLike
Dear iMonk,
Perhaps this ‘angst’ is more universal than you know. I am reminded of Psalm 42 and of the words of Augustine: ‘Our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.’.
A gift:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrLowOJ1O0Y
LikeLike
Monk,
Thanks for the clarification. Godspeed to your book and its author.
LikeLike
When I encountered the “consistency” of the RCC Tradition, understand that I compared it to the “consistency” of Protestantism. My Protestant traditions were far more inconsistent than my Roman Tradition? At least that has been my experience.
In Catholic “contradictions” I see the wrestling and the striving of the Church to continuously develop a fuller understanding of what God does to, for, and with us in Jesus. I find comfort in that. I don’t need to know what has been understood by all Christians at all times in all places; I simply believe the Church (we) are continuously *trying* to understand it.
Of course modern understandings will differ from the historical. But as George Salmon said, it’s like how an oak tree is different from an acorn, or a butterfly is different from a caterpillar. The question is whether the change has been a development or a corruption. I happen to believe the former and so I find Rome a comforting cure for the angst I had over my own contradictions of faith.
LikeLike
I’ve been a church attendee for 50 years and have only “left†once (except for moves t other cities), and that was to start a house-church. I am contemplating switching churches presently. This church-leaving is, unfortunately, like going through a divorce . . . and it shouldn’t be that way. I mean, if we looked at the Church via the eyes of Jesus (what a novelty), we would see a huge crowd of true believers without the micro-empires and walls, which we call “the church.†Therefore, switching from one gathering to another gathering . . . well, shouldn’t be a big deal.
I believe it becomes a big deal when pastors or church leaders get their own self-esteem mixed up with the local gathering-micro-empire. Someone leaving then becomes a personal offense to them.
We’ve had several families leave our church this past couple of years. The approach for dealing with the problem appears (from my perspective) is to come down hard on those contemplating leaving . . . making leaving the local congregation = to leaving Christ. We were just asked to read The Bait of Satan by John Breve. In his first chapters he defined disagreement with church leadership as being “offended” and being offended as a dangerous sin. Then he makes the claim that no one should ever lever their local gathering, unless God Himself speaks directly to them (however you want to interpret that) or you will be turning your back on God and (implied) in danger of the fires of Hell.
LikeLike
Michael is doing something unique and admirable – trying to foster a blog environment for thoughtful and civilized discussion and support. He got it right by realizing that the only way to do so was to declare this a proselytizing-free zone, and then to enforce it by moderating aggressively (much as it clearly pains him to do so).
LikeLike
So ecumenical pilgrim, we need to join the established churches that have educated clergy?
Is someone going to tell the 80% of the world church, esp in India, China and Africa?
LikeLike
I can agree with so much of this but it also makes me nervous.
First, if we accept that a disciple of Jesus can just bounce around from community to community without committing to living, worshiping, and serving along side others who are just as committed then our ecclesiology may be lacking. I understand that the local church community is not fullness of the Church (body of Christ) so leaving from one church to another is acceptable in some circumstance. But it really should be considered a BIG deal to leave a community; perhaps akin to marriage dissolution. You don’t leave because it is difficult. But after careful evaluation of abuse or adultery a divorce may be in order.
Second, I am sure there are numerous house churches which are doing a fantastic job training and equipping followers of Jesus. However, I have also experienced a number of house church leaders who are inadequately trained to lead. They have limited or no education in pastoral care, leadership, and scripture. As such I have heard “sermons” which would make no sense if one utilized a different English translation of the Bible from the one the leader is using. Popular books are utilized as if they are adequate for theological training and the priesthood of all believers is used as an excuse for inconsistent and immature theology.
LikeLike
Adrienne, that… was breathtaking. When my family and I left the church we were attending, we had given up on looking there for the “in spite of” love. Now, more than we were when we moved to a new state 10 years ago… we’re alone. Very much alone. I see you have a site/blog with your name. I’ll be checking it out.
LikeLike
That is sad.
But, you know, even Our Lord had no place to rest His Head.
That is little comfort, I know.
LikeLike
Flying houses? Do you mean flying saucers? I am actually one of those too, not that they have landed but I am at least open to the possibility of intelligent life outside of Earth and that they may in fact have the technological knowledge in how to get here.
The Church is not perfect it is “made” perfect.
LikeLike
To be an evangelical by conviction and/or tradition, but to feel uneasy, even homeless and grieved with the state of evangelicalism. To be “homeless” in the only tradition you can call home.
LikeLike
Your position that the RCC has somehow held a consistent tradition is misleading. Popes, Bishops, and Church councils have continuously contradicted each other. Beyond that, the modern understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome has not been held in common by all Christians, at all times, in all places. In fact, when Rome first began to publicly declare supremacy over the full church MOST Christians disagreed including every other historical patriarch.
LikeLike
I don’t understand your response.
In fact God allows the Church to say what is true. The contradiction of the two statements are in your mind. I do not see a contradiction.
LikeLike
What is ‘evangelical angst’? I take it that it is some form of discomfort. But how do you define this ‘angst’?
LikeLike
If you’d asked me a year ago what church was for, I probably would have said “an organization working to bring people closer to Jesus.” But my year of reading has changed that. My current understanding is:
– The Church is all the people who have agreed that Jesus has overcome their sin with his grace, and are willing to serve him over any other concern.
– Therefore, the Church is a world-wide community, united by humble recognition of God’s love, and filled with his Spirit. The Church’s job is to describe what Jesus has done and help Jesus in what he does now. It is a community with many local gatherings of many flavors.
– Therefore, wherever a person commits to a local gathering that is marked by grateful love for Jesus and transparent, challenging, “in-spite-of” love for each other and their neighbors, then they are part of the Church.
Unity is hard. “In-spite-of” love is hard. If your current “church” is not a community dedicated to this kind of love, then don’t stay. It’s not the Church. But I hope you can find some gathering of people who do love. It will be the Church if you join a community of people that puts Jesus and the spiritual health of others before themselves. I don’t personally care if that community is Catholic or Protestant, Reformed or Emergent, house church or megachurch.
LikeLike
I’m not Catholic.
I’m not even a very pro-Catholic evangelical.
But here’s my interpretation of what Giovanni is saying (which makes sense to me–but I’m Mennonite. We’re into weird and idiosyncratic rules.)
Celibacy is not a requirement of God for faithful priests.
However, it is a good and advantageous thing for faithful priests.
Some rites require it; some don’t; it’s OK for ministries to require things beyond Scripture.
(For a Baptist parallel, think of abstaining from alcohol; it’s entirely possible for that to be non-essential to being a godly pastor, but required for the role of campus minister at Liberty.)
LikeLike
There are those posts where that input is welcome, but the “all evangelical problems are solved by coming home to Rome†meme needs to be reeled in and put away.
That’s just the Catholic equivalent/flip side of “Just Read Your Bible More”. Or “Just Accept Christ As Your Personal Savior — And Really Really Do It This Time”.
Because people are people, and the people are full of tricks and twistiness.
LikeLike
Your willingness to use moments of evangelical angst and lamentation to promote Rome is beyond belief. — IMonk re Giovanni
When all you have is a hammer…
(And if that hammer doesn’t work, Use A Bigger Hammer…)
LikeLike
Maybe coming home to the Cross is more needed.
Billy Graham gave a sermon long ago that told of a man who was lost in his city. In the center of the city was a landmark cross, very prominent and well-known. When he stopped for help, he said this: ‘take me to the Cross, I can find my way home from there.’
Too abstract?
No. Christ came to reconcile, to heal, and to save. To Whom shall we go if not to Him?
LikeLike
Believe me Giovanni, I have all the appreciation in the world for your church’s system. You have the only major segment of Christianity that gets science/evolution/faith right, AND you can still leave room for people to believe in flying houses. I seriously do not know how I could ever come up with anything that good. My side rejects them all 🙂
LikeLike
>since I believe that when you say God, you mean scripture
Are you saying I worship scripture, like you worship Mary? Oh wait…..ahem.
God speaks in scripture. You get an A.
God doesn’t allow the church to say scripture says two different things about marriage and ministry and ascribe their sleight of hand to him. F.
But then I get an F in infallible church tradition and an A in “which Catholic do I believe today?”
LikeLike
My local congregation is in crisis due to issues arising from denominational doctrinal disputes (ELCA). Some are leaving because our congregation is too conservative, some because the ELCA is too liberal, and some because there’s too much infighting. I’m sad, and I’m staying till the lights go out.
What I do notice is that, thanks to currents in “mainline” Protestant churches, I find myself feeling much more comfortable with Catholic, Orthodox, and conservative Baptists (none of whose salvation or validity I dispute) then with many of my “brethren” and leaders in the ELCA. I guess I’m tired of getting broadsided by the heterodoxy of so many in my own stream.
LikeLike
Too true: there’s plenty of angst on this side of the Tiber too.
LikeLike
I would say “e” The Church by your definition I guess it would “a” since I believe that when you say God, you mean scripture. Hence let us look at scriptures.
1.The Priesthood of St. Peter who was married.
2.The Priesthood of St. Paul who was celibate.
I believe the scriptures are clear on all Marriage, Ministry and Authority.
LikeLike
Nice word spin. So when you have the married priest from one rite in the room with the celibate priest do you say
a) God has two answers
b) the Scripture isn’t clear
c) You’re wrong.
d) No, you’re wrong.
Because if God doesn’t have one clear teaching on marriage and ministry, then we can’t trust the Bible to say anything clearly. We need our authority figures to clarify so we can all be confused but trust someone somewhere gets it.
LikeLike
That is because “mandatory” celibacy is not Apostolic teaching (aka Dogma) however celibacy is Apostolic teaching. Rites refer to manner of celebration of the Mass not believe system hence it ca not be a denomination. I don’t see a contradiction, it is a discipline which is not dogma.
LikeLike
Thanks Derek. My problem is that every post isn’t “OK….what do the Catholics feel we evangelicals need to hear today?”
Well meaning RC friends see this blog and overhear its conversation and feel that it’s an pen invite to say “Come to Rome. That’s what you are looking for.”
The IM audience is WELL AWARE of that option. I certainly am. It’s almost destroyed my ministry and marriage.
There are those posts where that input is welcome, but the “all evangelical problems are solved by coming home to Rome” meme needs to be reeled in and put away. I don’t want apologies, RC friends. I respect your conviction. But how many times do we need to go over this? Our evangelical angst does not mean we need to hear about the non-angsty Christianity at Rome.
LikeLike
Nate,
I believe we have an epidemic of Ezekiel 34 “shepherds” who see “the sheep” as their property, forgetting they themselves are sheep under the One True Shepherd, Jesus. They overemphasize authority and seem incapable of finding Matthew 20:25-28 in their ESV Study bibles.
Jesus-shaped leaders are more concerned with the lives of those under their leadership than they are with their own authority. They recognize their “leadership” as a call to radical servanthood. And from that posture, when they must strongly discipline, they have modelled a life worth following, earning the right to be heard.
Too many young pastors (and probably old ones, as well – though that has been less my experience) wear their office like young cops wear their uniforms.;”My role is in a position of authority over you – and as a ‘Good Christian’, you will submit to me. And, if you resist my authority, you are in rebellion.” (See Michael’s Driscoll quote.)
That being said, I received an email this morning from someone who felt that my DeYoung Kluck post “gushed venom” toward the Reformed. It was written well as an appeal to engage in dialogue with a desire for relationship. From the writer’s posture, I had no choice but to receive the rebuke and to consider it seriously. The writer, a much better student of the Scriptures and the Historical Church than I, could have crushed me with proof-texts and appeals to the wisdom of the Church Father’s. Instead, he appealed to me as his Brother in Christ – asking that, in relationship, I consider the impact of my words. And I will do my best to do just that.
LikeLike
On a more universal note, I was just listening to Fulton Sheen recordings when he tossed off this in reference to free will but it fits here pretty well (roughly from memory): “You cannot become a Saint in church where you can not also be a devil.” The point is any Church with enough people or viewed over enough time will have some human flaw.
LikeLike
This definition is not mine but from the encyclicals of JP II who defines the Church as where the Eucharists is found. However he did discuss Christ going beyond the visible boundaries of the Church. Further the requirement for Apostolic Authority is implicit in the Eucharistic definition because in the absence of valid orders there is no Eucharist. Of course this is an article of faith that binds us to the Church.
LikeLike
Michael, it’s your sandbox. I’ve been running into pro-RCC responses to my facebook and twitter responses, too. But no need to bore folks here with details. Let’s just say that, since those are not “moderateable”, those friends might have to go. My updates are just that; my updates. They are not “discussions” like you’ve provided for us here.
For us… in part, but for the Kingdom? Probably moreso. And I pray that God continues to use you and this medium to expand the Kingdom.
LikeLike
I have no idea, Headless Unicorn Guy. What are you thinking?
Harry Potter’s done with. That horse has been beaten dead. Even Pokemon has been gone after (published by the same people as D&D).
I’m actually thinking that the moralily/thought police might go after iPods, of all things. I needz my Eye-Munk!
LikeLike
OK. I’m moderating all discussion on this thread. My Catholic friends are welcome here, but once again we are turning IM posts into pro-RCC posts, and I’m not going to continue it.
My apologies.
LikeLike
Since the different rites completely undermine the consistency of Rome’s teaching of priestly celibacy, I’m happy to recognize all those denomin…..uh….rites under the umbrella of authority. It shows me as a Protestant that the real deal is accepting Rome’s authority, and after that you can have totally contradictory teachings about priests and marriage.
peace
ms
LikeLike
“Your willingness to use moments of evangelical angst and lamentation to promote Rome is beyond belief. I’d ban you, but frankly, I think it serves my greater purpose for you to show just what you have to sell.”
Well, I joined the RCC BECAUSE of my evangelical angst … so I don’t know that it’s totally inappropriate to promote Rome in those moments. For some, Rome offers comfort for this very wound. Let me explain.
My evangelical tradition had me believing that I should be able to discern the Truth with just my NIV Bible, my ~2lbs of gray matter, and the Holy Spirit. Problems came up for me when I encountered issues like this one; a “fallacious” – or at least competing – belief that drove a technical AND a PERSONAL wedge between people who I knew were authentically faithful Christians. And even more prominent than that, I carried around a lot of angst over the faith of Luke-today competing with the faith of Luke-yesterday – I had divisions and wedges within MYSELF.
Up to that point, I had been a staunch individualist. I’m still a card-carrying member of the Libertarian party. So you can be sure I was lamenting my inability to figure things out. What’s more, I don’t know that I’ve ever really experienced the Holy Spirit guiding me in all Truth, as seemed to come so easily to some of my Protestant institutions.
So what I encountered in the Roman Tradition is relief from my anxiety over the competing beliefs. Here I found two thousand years’ worth of millions of Christians wrestling with these beliefs – Tradition that my own Evangelical tradition seemed to ignore! And what’s more, the RCC had been pursuing the Truth in Love right on thru its persecutions, divisions, and yes – its own abuses.
So this was the Tradition with which I could identify and relate. I didn’t find an autocratic infallible organization trying to mandate Truth and heresy, though I can see how it can appear that way from the outside. I found a living organism seeking to love God and each other while maintaining the Truth that of what Love is.
Anyway, maybe Giovanni’s comments are a bit trite, but I don’t think the idea of “selling Rome” in the midst of angst or lamentation is totally inappropriate.
LikeLike
Hi i monk,
It’s me, L’s
I think you’re fine calling my Church the RCC, but I wanted you to know a little bit about the ‘wider picture’. I did probably assume that you were not aware of it, and I apologize for that.
I like your blog. It is thought provoking, and open to comments andd what I like to do: which is ‘sharing’, not ‘proselytizing’.
We need to ‘discover’ our unity again, under all of the weight of the centuries and human manipulations, there lies a core of Christianity we all share. Whatever that core is, it will not be rejected by any person who follows the Way of the Lord. Our Christian brothers and sisters have wandered so far from one another.
LikeLike
Perhaps my response is too simplistic, but I take a kind of back door approach compared with most of the comments. Two analogies: I go to church like I go to the grocery store. I go there for things I need. While the store offers lots of stuff what I purchase includes only a small amount of the total they offer. I never frequent their wine section or the isle with feminine products. So it is in church. I “buy” what I need and pretty much ignore the rest. Also going to church is like going to Mavericks games. My son has half-season tickets so I get to attend a few games each year. Sit in the same seat each game, just like church. Enjoy the dynamics of the game and the crowd and cheer for the team, just like church. Say hello to the person sitting next to me, just like church. I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, just like church. Coaches and players come and go, just like church. I go to church where the pastor helps me understand what the Bible says. I go there to focus my attention on the Lord and worship Him. If a particular song is not a style I like, I focus anyway on the words or something, and worship the Lord. So the various problems associated with church attendance are not a big issue with me. Find a church where most of what goes on helps you worship and provides some opportunity for fellowship and service, and ignore the rest of the junk and strive to be a positive influence within your little sphere of influence.
LikeLike
My random $0.02:
This post and comments take me back to yesterday’s entry regarding “the denominational church.” My two favorite guys on the internet are imonk and Greg Boyd. Imagine we put them in a room with Pope Benedict (Protestant I am but I like the guy). Are they going to agree on all points of theology? Nope. Would they have communion together? Nope. Should we conclude then that two of them are false teachers that we need to guard ourselves against? I would certainly hope not. Should we doubt their Christianity or salvation because they can’t agree? A resounding NO!!!! “I can’t be part of this church” is not the same as “This church is not part of THE CHURCH.”
Why do we lack humility when it comes to these things? If brillant theologians over the millenia do not agree, why can’t we just say that it is not as simple as “read the text of the Bible alone?” Read the Bible, listen to others, pray, and if you take a position on an issue as a result, fair play to you. Doesn’t mean you are right. Ragging on other churches while exalting your own to me sounds a lot like mistaking a country’s embassy for the country itself. If it is undignified for the U.S. ambassador to France and his empliyees to insult the U.S. ambassador to Spain and his staff, then how much more is it for fellow christians to brand each other heretics, false teachers, etc., or beat down “church leavers” when you don’t know why they left?
LikeLike
Yeah I also see the difference between the Church to which part of it is the authority given by Christ and the building.
I would tend to agree with Catholic and Orthodox side as, in my opinion, they have been given authority and can therefore send (Mission) people to proclaim the Gospel to every living creature. At this point let me say that I nor any other Catholic has a problem with Protestants spreading the Gospel, however if you are speaking of authority and using the examples of the Patriarchs then Protestants can not be in the same standing. It is authority after all what we are speaking of if you want to include Patriarchs.
No we can not debate which church represents the ideal of the “The Church.” That is the whole point, the Church is not an ideal it is an institution and it is not human it is divine. This is the crux of the matter, the very essence of the argument. Yes the Church is made up of us (people) fallen creatures, however its authority to given to fallen creatures does not derive of fallen creatures but from God.
Therefore I say subsists? Yes, because it is not ours, we did not make it, it is given to us. Nothing human hands can do to destroy it, re make it, or corrupted.
LikeLike
I like what Jennifer wrote about the Church as ‘ekklesia’, the Body of Christ, to whom all in Christ bbelong, and which is not marked by seams of separation, because it’s unity is found In Him, with Him, and through Him. I am reminded of the description of The Body of Christ as written by Jean Vanier in ‘The Broken Body’:
The Call to Wholeness in the Body of Christ
He came to transform fear into trust,
so that the walls separating people into enemies
would disappear,
and we could join together in a covenant of love,
‘So shall we fully grow up into Christ,
who is the head,
and by whom the whole body
is bonded and knit together,
every joint adding its own strength
for each individual part to work according to its
function,
so the whole body grows until it has built itself up in
love.’
Yes, this is the vision of Jesus for our world
announced by St Paul:
one body –
with the poorest and weakest among us at the heart,
those that we judge the most despicable, honoured;
where each person is important
because all are necessary.
His body, to which we all belong
joined in love,
filled with the Spirit.
This is the kingdom.” Jean Vanier
My feeling is that there was a lesson in the ‘seamless robe’ of Christ which could not be divided,
that we have overlooked in our pride. We tried to divide everything up in our human way, but the Body of Christ will not be divided. It is protected from the weaknesses of our humanity, so that it can offer a shelter to us all. .L’s
LikeLike
No, you can continue doing what you do, and when I’m tired of it, I’ll pontificate you to the banned list.
LikeLike
I attend 3 churches regularly.
I’m a member at one where my daughter refuses to let her parents leave and I have many brothers and sisters in Christ whom I love (my ‘church family’). The former pastor here is the one who kept urging me to go into some kind of ministry.
I work at another (as a result of the pastor at church #1), so I attend there for political reasons, yet I have many friends. And I’m under more authority there than anywhere, because my boss is the senior pastor. I get urged to join but I pay no attention.
And I prefer to worship at yet another church where I don’t know anyone, but I feel more connected to God. I can walk in, sit in the back row, and worship with my mind totally on Christ and not on work . And they serve communion every Sunday, no small thing.
I guess some might call that totally consumer driven church, but it works for me. My family isn’t really on board with it but then again I’m the one in the family who is submersed in the church biz.
LikeLike
Christiane:
Thank you. I was aware of that, but didn’t know I needed to mention it whenever I mention the Catholic Church. I appreciate the correction.
I know it’s dangerous to speak about the Catholic church, but I can’t help myself.
I always learn something new when I do. 🙂
So should Protestants avoid the term “Catholic Church” altogether and always say “The _________ Rite in the Catholic Church?”
peace
ms
LikeLike
I don’t think I was doing that, I was simply trying to engage what I believed to be flawed logic. I don’t know of any other way to deal with the proposition at hand.
Am I or any other reader simply to read, and cheer on as you twist the theological pretzel?
Because if that is what the proposition of this blog is to simply watch you pontificate (ironic I know) then I will be content to simply stay away and only read the blog as to not hurt anybodies feelings.
LikeLike
OOPs, I meant, ‘when the Bishops and the Patriarchs (plural) gather together, it is in Rome.
Sorry ! L’s
LikeLike
Good Morning Everyone,
I am L’s, a Catholic woman, and I do not proselytize (you can ask my Baptist blog friends, whom I love dearly)
I think I can help a little bit though, to clear up a ‘misunderstanding’.
When you speak of RCC Church, you are confusing my Church with my ‘rite’.
I am a Catholic ‘of the Latin (Roman) rite’.
In my Church, we have many liturgical and patriarchal rites which are joined together in communion with Rome. For example, my godmother is of Russian Ukrainian descent. She is a Catholic woman of the Byzantine rite, or in her case, specifically the Ukrainian rite.
All in all, we celebrate unity in diversity, with 22 different ‘rites’ in my Church.
In my Catholic Church, the Roman rite is only one of many, but when the Bishops and the Patriarch gather together, it is in Rome.
I hope that helps a little.
You will be better able to speak more knowingly about the RC, if you understand the relationship of the different liturgical and ecclesial rites that descend from the major centers of early Christianity such as Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandrian, etc.; and how these different were rites formed in their own cultures and today retain communion with Rome.
LikeLike
In the end, each of us must find our way of saying, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 
I KNOW that’s all that keeps me in the Church. Where else can I go for the “words of eternal life”?
LikeLike
For example, if I heard my pastor say that tattoos were a kind of “devil’s baptism,†my immediate question is what is that kind of fundamentalism doing to my kids. I know because of my own work that it is that sort of thing that destroys the faith of thousands of students once they reflect on it. — IMonk
Nowadays it’s tats and piercings.
When I was younger, it was Dungeons & Dragons. (Click the link for an analysis of the results; especially the “Cultural Shifts” section.)
Before that, it was long (as in Early Beatles) hair.
Any guesses what the next “devil’s baptism” to be preached from the pulpits will be?
LikeLike
Aggie I don’t think you have the Catholic definition of the Church quite right. Even if there is no consecrated host the Church is where there are those who have been sent. It is in the Apostolic Authority where its visible body is. In order to remain Catholic after abuses and corruption is to realize that men are sinful and they make mistakes. Yet the promise of our Lord was not that men will stop being sinful, but rather that despite that sinfulness we would be led in to all truth.
“In the absence of faith in the Eucharist as the defining element of the Church there’s really no compelling basis to stay.”
Absolutely.
LikeLike
Almost a world’s record in once again using the IM website- which is openly about a flawed evangelicalism- to assert the truly deluded position that all evangelicals need to just go to Rome and the “infallibility†question will be solved.
The Order of St Borg strikes again — “ALL PROTESTANTS! PREPARE TO BE ASSIMILATED! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE! WE’RE GONNA GETCHA! WE’RE GONNA GETCHA! WE’RE GONNA GETCHA!”
I’ve seen “MY WAY *IS* THE ONLY WAY!” crazies among both Catholics and Evangelicals. I’ve seen male-supremacist Quiverfulls (and their perpetual-child brides) among both Catholics and Evangelicals. I’ve seen control freaks among both Catholics and Evangelicals. I’ve seen convoluted theology fanboys among both Catholics and Evangelicals. I’ve seen Marian Vision fanboys among Catholics and God Speaks Directly To ME Alone fanboys among Evangelicals. The Order of St Borg is just the mirror image of The First Church Fellowship of The Borg with Latin bells-and-smells, and you’re a LOT better off if you can avoid both.
LikeLike
What is to explain? There is no place in the NT where we see what we would call the church as an institution today. Christ died to redeem His church, the bride. “Membership” in a local church organization does not indicate that you are part of the Bride of Christ. All of your arguments are based on assumptions that we don’t find in Scripture.
LikeLike
Despite our obsession with “leadership” – all the magazines, conferences, consultants, etc. – “leaders” is is a term rarely used in the N.T. The Hebrews 13:7 passage you quoted is the main place, and even there, it is in a shepherding/pastoral context (“keeping watch over your souls”).
The power-play type of leadership will often quote 1 Cor. 2:16 out of context and claim “we have the mind of Christ”, and thus infallibility in whatever they say… but the “mind of Christ” that is described in 1 Cor. 1 and 2 is servanthood that looks like foolishness, literally “Christ crucified”.
LikeLike
iMonk, I think I see you’re point, but I don’t think I’m understanding your first paragraph. I’m in no way advocating the Just-show-up-&-be-a-member-&-everything’s-OK. Nor am I saying the Church is ONLY thing in God’s Kingdom or synonymous w/ that. You & I are on the same page; the Kingdom of God is the point. What I’m saying is that I don’t find anywhere in the NT where Christians can intentionally divorce themselves from any Christian community whatsoever & be Sola my interpretation/my relationship w/ God & be spiritually healthy. In other words, it’s the exception & not the rule in which members of the Invisible Church are also committed to/under the authority of/serving the Visible Church, be that house church, Baptist, Presby, or RCC (& yes, I’m a PCA guy saying the RCC is a legitimate church). Also, that doesn’t mean we swallow hook, line & sinker everything…as you put it, we check in, but don’t necessarily buy in.
LikeLike
Corndog,
If you really grew up IBF or if you even grew up SBC you know that answer before you ask it.
There are local churches, outpost in the Kindgom, they are not the Church, the universal body of the redeemed.
I recommend Philip Mauro’s sp? The church, churches, and the Kingdom for a good description of the three and where they fit.
LikeLike
Thank you again for an amazing post. While I agree with the other blogger, that a lot of church leaving is done lightly – I’m wondering why people feel they can judge others on them leaving when we don’t know why they left or what really went on – or even how long the internal debate went on that led to it.
I know I probably have looked like a church hopper to some (3 churches in 3 years of living here) but sometimes it takes that long to find out whats going on, and sometimes new pastors arrive and churches change after you’re already there. I had good reasons (I felt) for leaving – but I’m just not the type to air my disagreement to the public… And I’m sure many others whom may give very lame excuses for leaving, etc, or whom don’t tell and people think they’re leaving lightly – are probably the same way.
LikeLike
Sometimes we sound like this:
I wrote a script for being a Christian and it just happens to include exactly what this institution says it does. I can just join and live the Christian life automatically. How convenient. It’s the same approach we get from public education in this country. Here’s education: We dispense it. Here’s Christianity: we dispense it.
The church is a witness and a resource to what Jesus is doing in the Kingdom. Saying church involvement IS Christianity is a world-shifting mistake.
Hmmm…..what if you’ve decided to view the congregation as the point and to forget that the Kingdom is the point? The same thing? The bus is loading outside.
LikeLike
Arthur,
Really? Do explain.
LikeLike
Yep, very true in a lot of cases… and also because sometimes you just want to get away from the hurtful situation, and don’t want to have that one final confrontation. Unfortunately, for those left behind in an unpleasant environment, it makes it even harder to address the issues because “those people that left never said anything about being unhappy with X or Y.” (Been thru that one).
Speaking as one who’s been pentecostal for 34 years, I’ll say that the bottom line is: You can’t fight City Hall.
LikeLike
CornDog,
The local church organization is not the Bride of Christ.
LikeLike
I think we first have to look at our definition of “church.” The Church is the Bride of Christ, a living organism. When someone says they are “leaving a church,” they are often talking about an institution, not the living, breathing Body of Christ. People leave churches but do not leave The Church. I appreciate the pastor who said he does not worry any more about people leaving his church to go to another. If we are Christians, one cannot leave The Church, by simply leaving one institution.
I am not saying it is a light decision, then, to leave a particular group of believers. However, we must look at what we are saying concerning The Church and what it really means to be the Body of Christ.
On another note, I appreciate how this post mentions Viola and how groups of believers meeting together “organically” in house churches are just as legitimate as those in an institutional church. The Church is about The Body of Christ, not when, where, or how you meet together.
LikeLike
Consumers abound. Pharisees abound. Confused disciples abound. We see it clearly in this season’s Gospel lectionary readings from John 6. In the end, each of us must find our way of saying, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,” and also support all who seek to satisfy that hunger.
LikeLike
I heard something today that relates to this, Michael. From Scandalous Freedom podcasts by your friend Steve Brown:
You said, Spencer is “rebelling, because he’s questioning.†That’s a Driscoll quote btw.
Here’s what Steve says (twice for emphasis) on The Punishing Plagues of Putting People on Pedestals. “You can accept truth and trust authority only if the truth allows questions and the authority allows challenges.”
This quote moved me on my drive into the office this morning. A breath of fresh air. I stay current on Steve’s and your podcasts. Keep them (and the blog) coming!
LikeLike
I’m now in the PCA as a licensed preacher, but I grew up in an Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) Church. I’m grateful for my parent’s commitment to that church, but I’m an expert in experiencing churches that are legalistic & spiritually abusive. DeYoung/Kluck’s book isn’t necessarily addressing the spiritually abused as much as it is addressing those who’ve bought into the super-individualistic, America-charged, The Shack-like, I-can-make-up-my-own-Christianity, Church-is-optional view of contemporary professing believers (&, please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems as if this post is more an issue w/ Challies’ review, rather than the book. Dude, Challies is a Reformed Baptist. Of course he won’t like the RC Church). For a professing believer to say he doesn’t need the church & to try to do “church” w/o sacraments, gifted teaching of the Word (teachers whom Jesus gifted the Church), & discipline really betrays a misunderstanding of the Scripture’s teaching on Jesus’ love for His Bride. The more the Gospel works in a person’s heart, the more he’ll love the church, warts & all (& believe me, I’ve seen ’em in my own denomination & even in my own presbytery). This isn’t an exhortation to those finding a church where their conscience can breathe freely or about gaining healing from spiritual abuse. This is about arrogant, consumer & entertainment-driven post-moderns thinking they can grow in & love Jesus w/o loving His bride.
LikeLike
many of the assertions being made are not necessary and have about them the scent of males in power having far too much fun flirting with infallibility
What you said
LikeLike
I think this post highlights a real difference between Protestant and Catholic teaching that is not really arguable but a matter of differences in faith. If a Church is defined as a community of Christians devoted to Christ, then if makes total sense to leave such a community if abuses can not be corrected or come from those in charge. If a Church is defined by wherever the presence of Christ is in the Eucharist then leaving it is not an option according to an axiom of faith. However those that suffer abuse by those in charge of a Church with the Real Presence, given that belief, are understandably thrown into a crisis of faith that may lead to the exit. No honest Catholic can look on our Church and not see that shameful and horrific abuse that occurred. As result everyone’s faith was tested and many Catholics left the faith. In order to remain in the Catholic Church it’s necessary to separate the too frequent worldly failings of the real men that lead it from the spiritual graces that the Church offers, again as an article of faith. In the absence of faith in the Eucharist as the defining element of the Church there’s really no compelling basis to stay.
LikeLike
No, the Catholic church experiences division. Once it divides, though, the people leaving are called Protestants. 🙂
LikeLike
same here, we’d find a church, and then after a while my dad would start to get annoyed with the pastor or the other people in the congregation and we’d have to leave. It made it hard for me and my brothers to make christian friends.
LikeLike
>but many also are streaming out because they look at how we have created something that we call “church†that doesn’t look much like what we see in the New Testament.
Amen.
LikeLike
“What hurts, though, is when people leave and give no feedback or reasons.”
Probably because they think that no one is interested in hearing their feedback or reasons.
LikeLike
Mark A: There’s a reason, as I said in the third paragraph, that I don’t publish the websites and links of those who are mounting accusatory movements against various churches. Your post is a perfect illustration.
1) I have no idea what you are talking about.
2) There is no way an internet audience could possibly make a judgment about who is right or wrong.
3) It’s a matter for elders and overseers to make, and in the end, for those involved to make.
Your overall point is fine, but the use of a situation no one can understand except a handful of people is why we can’t use the net as a way to garner support and make judgments.
peace
ms
LikeLike
I actually have read DeYoung and Kluck’s book. I thought it was generally well written but ultimately unpersuasive unless you were reading it to reinforce what you already believe about organized religion (see: http://thesidos.blogspot.com/2009/07/book-review-why-we-love-church.html ) I also found that the tone was smarmy and mocking in many places.
What seems to be missing from both WWLTC and the various defenders of institutional Christianity around the web is that you can: a) be orthodox and b) question the traditions that have sprung up around the local gathering of the church. In rejecting “church as we do it” is not a rejection of the church and it is not slapping the Bride of Christ because First Baptist Church of Pigsnout, Iowa or Third Presbyertian Church of Podunk, Michigan are not the Bride of Christ in the first place. Many people leave “church” because they have been hurt but many also are streaming out because they look at how we have created something that we call “church” that doesn’t look much like what we see in the New Testament.
LikeLike
As someone who has been rightfully accused of “spiritual abuse” I have found the subject to be far more complex than this essay implies. Maybe I missed this point, but I have rarely found one side – the leadership or the leavers – to be exclusively in the wrong.
In my most painful case, the disgruntled, angry, immature “leaver” was all of those things, and saying it isn’t a matter of intimidation, it’s simple fact (when someone claims they should be hired by the church, starting at $60K because they graduated Bible College, uh…). To claim that not being given a paid leadership position is a waste of their gifts, is a tad audacious methinks.
HOWEVER, this person had heard the senior pastor – who happens to be my Dad – repeatedly gossip and tear down the sheep. This “leaver” had even had his own own father’s nervous breakdown cruelly criticized by the Pastor. This “leaver” wasn’t without arrogance and foolishness, but he wasn’t without legitimate pain at the hands of his Pastor.
Was he wrong for leaving? Was he wrong for never really extending forgiveness to his Pastor, even as his Pastor asked for it with tears (I was in the meeting)? What happens when the abuser has been abusing in “auto-pilot” mode, and when he comes to his senses, asks for forgiveness? Yes, the abused left the church, but he left bitter, critical, and shaking his head out our pathetic failure of a ministry. Who’s in the wrong? Who failed to have the mind of Christ?
Obviously, I’m leaving a lot of information out, but certainly not in an attempt to make me or my father look good. It’s just a sensitive subject that, in my experience, usually reveals two opposing parties, both of whom are exhibiting carnality dressed up in spiritual play clothes.
For what it’s worth…
LikeLike
As a fairly new pastor, one might think your answer would have been discouraging. However, that you point out that these challenges are typical in pastoral ministry is actually a great relief. Thanks for your honesty and candor. This whole post (& thread) has been excellent.
LikeLike
I am so grateful for what you do. It’s analysis with a view to discipline, but so…heartful. A thousand thanks.
LikeLike
I grew up bouncing from church to church because no church or pastor was good enough for my family – we were highly legalistic and it was an unhealthy situation. I’ve known others like my father that way, and it grieves me to see their children taken in and out of churches. Do I think there are ever good reasons to leave a church? Of course. But it should not be a frequent or rash decision.
LikeLike
Have you read Leithart’s “Against Christianity, for the Church”?
LikeLike
Michael,
I live in an area (Phoenix metro) that in places has many churches on a single block. I drive by eleven churches between my home and my office. My office happens to be at my church, because I am the pastor of it.
God has been working on my heart a great bit lately that I must be focused on His kingdom, not mine. If someone leaves my congregation to join another then the kingdom of God has not been damaged; it has simply been rearranged a little. That is no affront to God. What hurts, though, is when people leave and give no feedback or reasons. When they are serving in ministry and then just vanish, I must say that it is really tough to take for a variety of reasons.
Sure, there are bad churches. There are abusive pastors and bad politics. However, I also believe that there are many local congregations (in diverse denominations) that are great places to heal, to grow, to serve and be part of community. I worry not about those who leave for another church, but for those who leave for none. While the “Pauline missionary” approach sounds laudable, I think that it is FAR more common that the people who leave for no community at all leave not to evangelize but to cease in any meaningful Christian discipleship. I know that there will be exceptions to this, but that is my anecdotal findings. Those are the ones that I really pray for and worry about.
LikeLike
Seems to me that this is he utter edge of confusing Christ with her Bride.
“The center and circumference of the Christian life is none other than the person of Christ. All other things, including things related to him and about him, are eclipsed by the sight of his peerless worth…….It’s possible to confuse “the cause†of Christ with the person of Christ”
You are why protestants exist.
LikeLike
Austin- you need to meet me so you’ll know I don’t have any answers 🙂
A pastor is called to work with difficult people. Read the early chapters of Ezekiel.
If those difficult people are hurtful and discouraging, that’s normal.
If they are faith destroying- which seems a much less likely situation- then that’s a real line for me.
Consider that most pastors have difficulty processing difficult people in their theology of pastoral ministry. Non cooperative sheep or non sheep posing as sheep demand much more love and tenaciousness.
I’d also remind you that there are tools in the toolbox that are often unused: constructive confrontation, even church discipline processes. Division and gossip are issues. Pastors aren’t immune, but the health of the community demands more of a “physician” than some pastors want to be, and I don’t just mean preaching at them. I mean taking some elders and talking to them.
Warning: one of my friends did that and he’s now on a 3 months leave of absence 🙂
LikeLike
Imonk,
On the reverse, and you can probably guess why I ask. At what point and to how much abuse should a pastor subject himself before he leaves. I’m in a spot where a vocal minority, not large enough to remove me, but too large to be removed by the majority are making my life, my wif’e life, and the life of a lot of church members miserable with their antics.
Any advice?
LikeLike
Bryan Cross and Mr. Challies should have lunch 🙂
LikeLike
“without the church there is no Christianity”
That’s a messy quote no matter how you look at it.
The church decided what was scripture, but not without first being made a church by the scriptures. It’s kind of a “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” thing.
Just thinking out loud…
LikeLike
Michael,
“I don’t believe Jesus wants my faith, my marriage or my children destroyed by staying in an abusive church or a church that allows the beating of the sheep.”
As regards my own personal view, you nailed it right there. In many cases, a person might consider that their own faith can stand continued exposure to an unhealthy spiritual climate, but throw marriage and children into the mix and it becomes a lot more complicated. I guess it’s up to each individual to assess at what point the risk and/or actual damage becomes too great (based on their own God seeking, soul searching and seeking out wise counsel).
This sort of decision is never going to be easy, even in a church where the type or level of abuse is quite blatant to outsiders. It potentially becomes even more difficult in churches which appear on the surface to be appropriately loving, caring, admonishing, etc., but which are damaging in less obvious and more subtle ways.
LikeLike
The problem is that Giovanni is well aware that we don’t proselyte on this blog, but he thinks his comments are somehow not exactly that. I’m happy for RCs to believe their church is infallible or fallible or whatever. We just don’t evangelize or proselytize one another at this blog. It’s been our rule for years. But it’s possible that some religions view the lowly requests of a be-nighted protestant brother with less than complete seriousness.
LikeLike
Sometimes I have to say, all the arguing that goes on about what is the better way to be a Christian makes me want to stop reading, stop talking. It makes praying and making meals for potlock suppers look very good.
LikeLike
I like Mr. Turk’s admonition to be the people of God and to use Gospel tools in our interactions with one another. I think Mr. Turk’s descriptions of the dynamics of church life and my descriptions of church discipline as needing to be more pastoral care oriented are helpful and complementary approaches.
Mr. Turk believes you should stay till you are thrown out. My simple answer is that this approach is laudworthy, but I don’t believe Jesus wants my faith, my marriage or my children destroyed by staying in an abusive church or a church that allows the beating of the sheep.
For example, if I heard my pastor say that tattoos were a kind of “devil’s baptism,” my immediate question is what is that kind of fundamentalism doing to my kids. I know because of my own work that it is that sort of thing that destroys the faith of thousands of students once they reflect on it.
Sure I’m going to talk to him, but we know where that’s going in 90% of all contexts: Spencer is “rebelling, because he’s questioning.” That’s a Driscoll quote btw.
It’s a small thing. Very small. But it has major implications, and there are limits to which I would be willing to allow the Gospel to be confused with that sort of fundamentalism and limits to what I’m going to allow my kids to be exposed to (or my own soul to be exposed to) in this short life of ours.
These brothers have a desire to make the church essential as a defense against a trivial, church shopping age. Make the church about the production of disciples, not the entertaining of disciples. It will thin out your hangers on and keep your real followers. It worked for Jesus.
LikeLike
I (evangelical) was once in a seminar at Notre Dame with a group of mostly Catholics, taught by Alasdair MacIntyre, who is a very prominent philosopher and who converted to Catholicism as an adult about 20 years ago. He said something I have never forgotten:
“There is no crime which has not been committed by some Pope and many bishops. So when I am dealing with members of the hierarchy, I always treat them as potential members of the criminal classes. That does not prevent them from being the successors of the apostles.”
FWIW, Imonk and Giovanni both.
LikeLike
I have no idea. I can search spam….
LikeLike
I don’t expect any church to be right 100%. But there is a percentage I don’t feel comfortable with. My personal experience was the Evangelical groups and churches I were part of were virulently anti-Catholic, as well as anti-denomination in general. I couldn’t accept that.
Going back to my childhood Catholic roots, I found I couldnt reconcile their Byzantine beliefs with my own. Nor their cover-ups of scandals. So I left there as well.
LikeLike
Just wondering why my comment hasn’t shown up? Tried posting it again but it wouldn’t let me. Perhaps I unwittingly said something controversial….?
LikeLike
I am not going to read the book because my own book is aimed at church leavers, etc and I do not want to be writing in response to these guys. Just reading the current defenses of the church making the rounds on the web is already distracting enough. I’m trying to write something pastoral, not polemical.
LikeLike
(My apologies to my Catholic friends and readers, but Giovanni knows that he’s provoked me, and he has, and I’m not in the mood right now to suffer fools gladly.)
Almost a world’s record in once again using the IM website- which is openly about a flawed evangelicalism- to assert the truly deluded position that all evangelicals need to just go to Rome and the “infallibility” question will be solved.
If you can look at me and tell me that your church is infallible- with a history of blessing bloody conquest, marriage to the state and human abuse on its hands- then all I can say is “advertise away, sir.” I’m always amazed that out of all the Christians in the world, it’s your bunch that will walk into a post about hurting people and pain-causing churches with the assertion that it’s all because we are Protestant. Sir, your arrogance knows no bounds. The measurement of how incredibly insensitive you are is that you come into a post where thousands of church victims will read about what is their story and say “You should go to Rome.” Insensitive is the least I can say. Many other words come to mind.
If there is anything that makes us Protestant it’s that we can no longer buy that nonsense about your church or ours. If anyone reading this believes that the answer is to go to the bus where everyone believes their church is infallible, well by all means go. I hope you have a great trip. Wave at those boys standing by the side of the road.
Your willingness to use moments of evangelical angst and lamentation to promote Rome is beyond belief. I’d ban you, but frankly, I think it serves my greater purpose for you to show just what you have to sell.
LikeLike
Michael,
I assume you’re aware of Frank Turk’s recent (and possibly not yet finished) series of posts entitled “Not done lightly”, in which he seems to me to be suggesting that the vast majority of people who leave churches nowadays do so too far lightly, and that we should consider leaving church as being just as serious a matter as leaving a marriage. While I understand Mr Turk’s reasoning, and cannot argue with some of his scripture-based arguments, or indeed with the fact that some people undoubtedly do make these decisions too lightly and/or for the wrong reasons, I’m left with the feeling that there is, in his view, little alternative for many long-suffering church endurers than to “put up and shut up” (unless they can rock the boat enough to be asked to leave, which apparently makes it OK).
I’d be interested in your response to Mr Turk’s position as outlined in his recent posts. (I’d love to see an online debate between the two of you on this subject.)
I suppose the underlying question is this: how do you preserve a sufficiently sacred view of the church while at the same time allowing for the reality that many people experience – a reality in which many come to the conclusion that to stay is more damaging (spiritually, emotionally and relationally) than to stay? Once you start making exceptions – i.e. saying “you should stick with your church unless….” – is this inevitably a slippery slope which will automatically lead to large numbers of people leaving “too lightly” in Mr Turk’s words?
LikeLike
It’s not really just about division, it’s about all of the manifestations of human sinfulness. I know that doesn’t jive with R.C. ecclesiology, but as I understand it, there is a difference between “the Church” which is indeed “the pillar and the foundation of truth”, and the churches, which are the multitude of human institutions in which the Church is manifested.
And as far as I can see, the R.C. Church (i.e. the church under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Rome, the Pope) is as much “one of the churches” as any of those under the other ancient patriarchs or any of the newer, protestant churches.
We can debate which church most fully represents the ideal of “the Church” but as human institutions they are all filled with sinners and lead by sinners and therefore affected by sin in various ways.
I don’t buy “subsists in”, evidently. “Is part of”, yes, but “subsists in”, no.
LikeLike
Another insightful piece Mr. Spencer.
LikeLike
I’ve left a couple churches in my life. I’m not positive they were the right thing to do, but it felt right and I feel better about where I am today. We do church. We actually really like our current church and the people there.
LikeLike
In a time when many, if not most, authority structures in our culture exploit those under their authority, the church as infallible guide is a non- starter.
LikeLike
The Church being “the pillar and foundation of Truth” can not be wrong.
No the Orthodox and Catholic tend to suffer from division too, however the divisions that we experience are rather different from that of most Protestant denominations.
LikeLike
Catholic.
LikeLike
I’m sorry to post again but I just read through this post a second time and… WOW!!
Thank you for this:
“The current defense of the church may be necessary, but many of the assertions being made are not necessary and have about them the scent of males in power having far too much fun flirting with infallibility.”
*dancing and clapping* Amen, amen amen!
LikeLike
Wow
Possible “the church” could be ……wrong?
I mean after all, only protastent churchs exprience division correct?
LikeLike
Wow
Possible “the church” could be ……wrong?
I mean after all, only protastent churchs exprience division correct?
LikeLike
Interesting position.
Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox?
LikeLike
Something I haven’t heard much of in my admittedly brief perusal of the church-leaving debate, is that churches are made up of people who have relationships with each other. So leaving a church or staying at a church is a really a function of what those relationships are like. If people leave a church over a petty grievance did they really have anything deeply invested in that community to begin with? On the other hand, someone who is invested (that means with other people’s lives, not just involved in “ministries”) is going to have a much better inner gage as to when it’s time to leave. They’re not going to cut and run on their friends, they’re not going to throw away friendships that have taken years to build– unless the offense is really devastating.
So the point I’m trying to make is, shouldn’t people of the DeYoung/Kluck flavor be concerned with fostering quality relational investment among their sheep? Sorta like Jesus-shaped discipleship or somethin’? Maybe they express this in the book. But some blogs I’ve read definitely don’t. This seems like a way more important factor then say, some weird mosaic of biblical references that seem to point to the vast importance of the local church. Or the necessity of people to “submit to leaders” at all costs.
in my area there was this epidemic of people concerned about “sheep-stealing”. I don’t know if this has been a huge concern in other places, but my thought on it was similar: “If a church’s ‘disciples’ don’t have the relational investedness and fabric of character to keep them from leaving it for the most glitzy, entertaining thing in town, 1)what makes you want those people around, and 2)how is it that your church producing a pattern of “sheep” who value hype over substance?
Nate
LikeLike
Touche, sir.
I tend to consider the Radical Reformation a subcategory in the Reformation saga.
Although, as a man who considers himself a theological progeny of the Radical Reformers perhaps I should thank you for segregating the Anabaptists from the Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. I wouldn’t want to be too quickly lumped in with those ruffians. 🙂
LikeLike
“The good news was that the Reformation gave Protestants to tools to repair their own ship, rather than scuttle it.â€
Actually this is your gift and your curse. I am trying not to be antagonistic here, however shouldn’t the fact that you have to keep rebuilding or rather repairing the ship over and over again without certainty of ever getting it right tell you something about the creator(s) of the ship. It seems to me that if the Church is an institution established by God, then there is nothing human beings can do to destroy it or to recreated.
“Here’s the thing: the church is a consequence of the Gospel. That is, the Gospel causes the church.â€
True the historical events of the Gospel tell us of the establishment of the Church, but without the Church we would not have the Gospel.
LikeLike
Perhaps he won’t read it for the same reason I will not.
There are just too many good books being printed to commit to reading them all.
It sounds like an interesting book but even if I did put it at the end of my reading queue I would likely even browse the table of contents for several months.
LikeLike
Monk,
Just curious: why won’t you read the book? DeYoung’s work on finding God’s will is first-rate, a Friessen for the 21st Century, and especially good for sensitive or neurotic young people paralyzed by too many choices and the fear of making a mistake.
One cannot read every book, of course, but to say you won’t read it makes me think you’re more sympathetic to leavers than you are to stayers, both of whom are equally subject to pride, self-righteousness, and pretended omniscience.
To say ‘the church is a mess and I’m inventing my own’ reminds me of the hippies of forty years ago renouncing marriage in favor of ‘love’ and ending up with the same boredom, infidelity, and disappointment their parents experienced.
LikeLike
Wow. Good stuff.
LikeLike
Traditions, denominations and worship styles all have seemingly been born out of grievance. I wonder what that says about the Bride of Christ as a whole?
People hurt people, institutions (churches) are constructed some more so than others to allow it, i.e., autocratic church government sorts. I attended for the first 18 years of my Christian experience a denomination that regularly made celebrities out of their pastors. They bred, mini-me’s all over the place. Problem with Mini-me’s are that they typically aren’t Sheppard’s and typically are looking to have the celebrity of the pastor and lack the oversight. These people often hurt people.
So in my experience…. so what. It really hurt, still does at times. Devastated and stumbled me for a time. Still comes down to what now, and honestly I’m in the midst of trying to listen to God for that answer.
I can say this – I will never put myself or my family in the situation where “the cult of personality” will ever be a part of my corporate worship experience. I think this is the real danger.
LikeLike
Great post! It’s when we forget that Reformation motto: semper reformanda.
LikeLike
That’s why I didn’t say the Radical Reformation, sir 🙂 In my church history class, they were two different things.
LikeLike
“The Reformation was a wonderful thing, and its failure to avoid the state-church connection or to establish the church as a missional movement was its great failing.”
I would argue that this statement isn’t taking into account the radical-reformation of the Anabaptists who were murdered by Christians for refusing to join the state church.
LikeLike