ln a way, this is Part 2 of my essay "The End Of The Christian Right," although the two are not directly related. "The End Of The Christian Right" focuses on an aspect of Christianity that I predict has reached its peak and will now decline. This posting describes where I see the church going in the future. These are not my ideas, but rather ideas I've acquired from others; I've acquired them because they make sense to me as I observe what's happening around us. The church is now heading for a major change of direction, so major that it is being called the Next Reformation. Much of what I write here I learned at the conference The Pilgrim Nation. Read about that conference and the future of the church in this posting. To see this posting with pictures and weblinks, go to my regular blog, http://jlee.harshbarger.name/blog and go to the Church & Christianity section.

THE EMERGING CHURCH: THE NEW REFORMATION

I had the privilege of attending a two-day conference entitled The Pilgrim Nation. It was led by Phyllis Tickle and Ken Wilson. Phyllis Tickle used to be the religion editor of the publishing industry's prime trade journal, Publishers Weekly . She is now 73, retired from her official position, but very active in speaking at conferences and similar endeavors. She is an Episcopalian who is well known throughout certain circles in Christendom, and is well informed of what is going on in Christianity at large.

Ken Wilson is pastor of the Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor. Not surprisingly as a result of the denominational affiliations of the leaders, many at the conference were Vineyard people and Episcopalians, but there were other denominations represented there as well.

The focus at the conference was two-fold. Much of the conference was on prayer, but a strong aspect of the conference was the changing nature of the church in North America today, and how prayer fits into that new landscape. What I'd like to cover in this posting is the leaders' view of what direction the church is heading, because I think this is of major importance.

The Church Goes Through A Major Shift Every 500 Years

The most surprising thing for me to hear is Phyllis Tickle's contention that we are in the midst of the next great reformation within the church. She pointed out that about every 500 years, the church goes through a major reformation, where the authority of the church shifts. She started by going 500 years back to the Protestant Reformation. She pointed out that although we tag it as starting in 1517 with Luther's 95 theses, you have to consider that at that time, that was just one incident that happened; no one at the time had a way of knowing that a new reformation was about to begin with that event. Picture yourself in 1517: First of all, news traveled quite slowly. And once you did hear of the event, it would be, "Wow, he's really daring. That's an interesting thing to do. I wonder what will happen to him." Even if you're really in the know on developments within the church, at that point in time, you wouldn't say, "Wow, this will surely cause the downfall of the unified authority of the Catholic Church!"

Phyllis Tickle mentioned other things happening that caused the Reformation. She said the roots of it really began back in the late 14th century when there were three popes, all with their own armies, fighting and killing each other to gain control. Another factor was the end of serfdom and the rise of nationhood. She also mentioned the scientific developments of the time, particularly the discovery that the sun did not revolve around the earth, but rather the earth revolved around the sun, which really shook up all theological thinking. She didn't mention this, but I'm sure many also recognize that the invention of the printing press was a part of this process.

When the Protestant Reformation hit, it caused a crisis within the church. To this point, the authority of the church had rested in the pope and the councils in Rome. The Protestant Reformation destroyed this understanding of the authority of the church, changing it from church tradition to "sola scriptura." Here I'm not so sure I'm repeating what she said, or just going from general thinking on the topic (unfortunately I didn't get a chance to write about this when it was fresh on my mind), but think about the fears present during this time. If one only uses Scripture to determine right and wrong, how can you prevent someone from coming up with crazy interpretations and doctrines to support whatever they wish? This is, in fact, still a problem that Catholics have with Protestantism. In a book I read of testimonials of Protestants who converted to Catholicism, a turning point for one person was that he was sitting in a discussion with 12 other people, and they offered at least a half dozen different interpretations of a problematic passage (about remarriage after divorce). This caused a crisis within him--how do we know what is true? This is what the Catholic Church is for--to use the history of the apostles and councils to interpret Scripture, to ensure that it is God's interpretation and not just some Joe Christian's interpretation. The threat in the 16th century was that of theological anarchy; how could God's teachings be protected from corruption if people only used the Bible for direction?

The major event in Christianity 500 years before that was the Great Schism, when the eastern church broke away from the western church. Suddenly there was not just one authority of Christianity, but two. Each one claims--even to this day--to be the One True Church, accusing the other of apostasy of sorts. 500 years before that was the fall of Rome, with the resulting rise in monasticism; with the political/religious power of Rome collapsing, the authority of Christianity transferred to the monks.

It is the belief of a number of people today that we are now in the midst of another reformation. Once again, there will be some major shake-ups in the church, and the authority of the church will change. And this is the part that really has me excited.

I have heard for some time of the existence of the Emerging Church . This is not a denomination or even an official association of congregations, but rather a group of people and congregations discussing the direction of the church to come. Two leading voices in this discussion are Brian McLaren, author of A Generous Orthodoxy and The Secret Message Of Jesus: Uncovering The Truth That Could Change Everything, and Rob Bell, author of Velvet Elvis: Repainting The Christian Faith. But before I try to describe the emerging church, I would like to review the view of the church as presented by Phyllis Tickle and Ken Wilson, which originated from someone back in the 1970s.

Four Major Types Of Christianity

This view sees the current church as basically sitting in four camps, illustrated by a quadrant. In the top left box of the quadrant is the Liturgical camp. Those in the Liturgical camp include Catholics and Episcopalians, where the Liturgy and rituals are an important part of their religious experience. In the top right box of the quadrant is the Social Justice camp. This is dominated by mainline Protestant churches who believe that the primary commission of Jesus is to help him bring his kingdom by serving the poor and helping bring about justice within society for all who are oppressed. In the bottom right box of the quadrant are the Evangelicals. This group focuses on converting others to Christianity, seeing "The Great Commission" as the primary call of Jesus to his disciples. In the bottom left box of the quadrant are the Pentecostals and Charismatics, who value the "gifts of the Spirit," and for whom experience is an important part of their religious life.

There is a bit of bleeding between the lines, of course. There are charismatic Catholics, there are evangelicals who accept some forms of charismatic expression; Catholics are strong on social justice; some evangelicals also incorporate social justice into their purpose, and some social justice churches incorporate some evangelism into theirs.

In each of the quadrants are what are termed "corner dwellers." These are the churches/denominations that are very strictly in their camp and will not blend any other influences. In the bottom left corner would be the old-time Pentecostals. In the bottom right corner would be the Fundamentalists. In the top left corner would be very traditional Catholics. These groups will continue in their traditional ways no matter what direction the church as a whole goes. In the Church that is emerging, it is predicted they will make up about 15% of the church altogether.

In the quadrant, there are also some groups that are in the middle of the quadrant, not quite blending with the other quadrants, but interacting with them. For example, in the Social Justice quadrant, traditional mainline churches are sometimes doing church plants of emergent churches, but they themselves remain in their social justice camp. In the Evangelical quadrant, the megachurches make up the circle of churches that are open, not corner dwellers, but don't really blend aspects of the other quadrant. (I can't remember what the circles in the other quadrants represented; it's now six weeks later when I'm writing this, I have few notes, so I have forgotten some of these things. I'm so disappointed I didn't have time to write about this while it was fresh on my mind!)

(To see the drawing of this quadrant, go to my regular blog, because I don't know how to insert pictures into this website's blogs.)

Now I will focus on the horizontal and vertical lines of the quadrant. On the horizontal line, the top portion represents orthopraxy, and the the bottom portion represents orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is the emphasis on holding correct doctrines, right beliefs. Orthopraxy is the emphasis on correct procedures, right rituals. Phyllis Tickle gave an example of each. As an example of orthopraxy, she explained that in the Episcopalian church, the wine left over from communion should never be poured down the drain; it should only be poured into something that goes to the outside. It would be unthinkable to pour it down the drain. But ask the typical Episcopalian whether or not they believe in the Virgin Birth, and they will probably be undecided. For her example of orthodoxy, Phyllis Tickle told about a friend of hers who is a Southern Baptist. She believes one should not drink alcohol. But when Phyllis gets together with this friend, her friend will drink wine with her. Phyllis points out that what this woman believes is more important to her than what she does, while for an Episcopalian, what they do is more important than what they believe. In more general terms, those on the orthopraxy side find religious rituals to be very appealing and some of the most important aspects of their faith. Those on the orthodoxy side don't like rituals and consider their beliefs to be the most important measure of their faith.

On the vertical line are orthonomy and theonomy. Orthonomy focuses on "what makes the soul sing." Theonomy is more focused on keeping theology all straight. The charismatics and Catholics are on the orthonomy side, where experience is core to their religious observance. The mainline Protestants and evangelicals are on the theonomy side, where proper understanding is core to their religious experience. Those on the orthonomy side fear the theonomists are sola scriptura; those on the theonomy side fear that orthonomy is license to make Christianity into anything. "What makes the soul sing? Well, illicit drugs can do that."

All of this discussion about these four quadrants is leading up to this: The emerging church, the direction of the new reformation, is beginning to blend all of these quadrants. They are all swirling together toward the center, creating a new kind of church with a new authority. While there will always be churches in each quadrant, and while the corner dwellers will not be affected by any of this, the majority of the church will move to the center; Phyllis Tickle estimates about 60% will wind up there. This prediction, by the way, she said applies to churches in North America, Western Europe, and Brazil. I can't remember if she said it specifically does not apply to the rest of the world, or if she just hadn't studied those areas enough to determine if that was the case. Most of those in attendance at this conference had read the book by Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom, which I reviewed at Amazon. His book thoroughly describes where Christianity is headed globally; he sees the center of Christianity moving to Africa, with strong influence from the USA and Latin America. This shift in centrality will change global Christianity, as these areas are much different in their worldviews. Two changes in particular are greater acceptance of miracles, and influence of local cultures. It is my opinion that these influences will have a similar effect on changing the church, though the church will likely look different in Africa and Latin America than in North America and Europe; the southern churches will likely be much stronger in Pentecostalism, while the northern churches will be stronger in social justice and rituals steeped in tradition and Christian mysticism (i.e. Eastern Orthodox type of mysticism). These are J Lee's predictions, based on what I've learned from Phyllis Tickle and Philip Jenkins.

But back to that quadrant for Western countries. As I mentioned above, the church is now in the process of swirling all these elements from the different quadrants together toward the center. The resulting center is illustrated with the image of a rose. Phyllis Tickle said that the two main groups that are at the center of this quadrant today are those who identify with the Emergent Church, and the Vineyard. The Emergent Church is primarily on the top half of the rose, bringing traditional rituals for their mystical, reverent beauty, and their sense of social justice. Where the emergents tend to be particularly weak is in theology, which they prefer to keep very open; in fact, many of them are nearly universalists. As a result, evangelism is very low on their priorities.

Phyllis Tickle said the the Vineyard denomination is the major force on the bottom half of the rose, bringing into the center the gifts of the charismatics and the heart for evangelism. Vineyard is also strong in the social justice area. An important thing that Vineyard brings to this rose, according to Phyllis Tickle, is a strong theological foundation that balances the looseness of the emergents.

The New Church That Is Emerging

What will the new church look like? Of course we cannot know for sure at this point, but signs are pointing in these directions:

1) A renewed sense of social justice, with an emphasis on helping the poor and those destitute in other ways.

2) A resurgence of traditional prayers and rituals that got left behind in the Protestant movement; more emphasis on the mystical and a reduction in the importance of doctrine.

3) An increase in the value of experience.

I would like to respond to the points above from my own perspective. I have already written what I feel is happening in response to #1 in my essay "The End Of The Christian Right." I see a growing emphasis, particularly among the young, of bringing about the Kingdom of God here on Earth through mercy and compassion, as opposed to the recent emphasis on morality, especially sexual morality. I see this happening across the country, across denominations.

Numbers two and three dovetail perfectly with what is going on in the culture at large. The modern age is dying. The modern age is all about reason and science, argument and proof. The post-modern era is in its beginning stages. Post-moderns are skeptical about absolute truth, certainty, and the claims of science. Science has its limits; truth cannot be known in full. In fact, all truth is colored by experience. This general cultural trend will hit the church, with a result in much less concern about theonomy, and much greater desire for orthonomy.

A Change Of Authority In The Church

In the beginning of this posting, I reported that Phyllis Tickle pointed out that with each church reformation, there was a change of authority. The question now is, what or who will the new authority be in the new reformation? Of course we cannot know that yet, just as people in 1517 could not have told you how the Protestant era would have turned out. But Phyllis Tickle thinks the new authority will probably have something to do with experience. Sola scriptura will be the cry of the Protestant Reformation, but in the new reformation that will not be the authority.

Scientific advances also had an effect on the last reformation, and it appears they will on this one too. The major shake-up in the last reformation was the new knowledge about the earth and sun. With all the Bible references that indicate the sun's movement, and that the earth is solid on its foundations and cannot be moved, if we revolve around the sun, then is the Bible true? And if the world is round, then where is heaven? It had always been Up, but if there is no Up, then where is heaven? These are the questions that shook up people 500 years ago.

It seems today's science is going to revolve around what it means to be human. We have already entered this debate with the scientific advances in stem cell alteration and reproduction, and cloning. Now there are chips being implanted in the brain of depressed patients to keep them from being depressed; they alter certain parts of the brain's waves. Another debate going on: Adults with serious ADD who were not on medication found it nearly impossible to keep their faith. After taking medication for ADD, now they can do things like pray and go to church and other activities that they couldn't before, and they report that now they are able to be faithful. The debate is, can you say that you can only keep your faith with drugs? Is it really your faith then, or is it the drugs?

Advances in brain technology will make it possible to do even more things that people cannot do on their own. With more and more types of brain chips available, where will the God-created human end, and the scientific, man-made human begin? What if chips can be made to focus on the part of the brain that lives religious experience? Is it ethical to give someone such a chip if they want it? Will they have real faith then, or will it be artificial faith?

Questions like this will shake up our worldview as the new information about the sun and earth shook up the worldview of those 500 years ago. As the printing press changed the world then, so the Internet is changing the world now. I think Phyllis Tickle is right: Considering the technological changes we are facing, the cultural changes coming with the death of the modern age, and the changes happening within the church, it looks like we are in the beginnings of the next reformation of the church.

Excited About The Change

I came away from this conference very excited to realize that I am alive at a time when the church is shifting to something new. Such changes are rarely pretty and smooth--the Great Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformation were hardly tranquil transitions. But it's exciting to sense all these changes occurring and to wonder what direction it will go. How will God move among his people next?

I am glad more than ever to be a part of Vineyard during this exciting time, since Vineyard is one of the key players in this movement. Vineyard began in the 1970s, with its distinction being an openness to the "gifts of the Spirit" as practiced by charismatics, but without all the fanfare. Something that has also always been a part of Vineyard is a concern for the poor. (I reported on some of our local Vineyard ministries in my December 3 personal blog posting.) It appears this emphasis is becoming even stronger, as the Church at large is going more this direction.

At the conference, at one meal I had the opportunity to sit at a table with some Vineyard pastors from Canada, and the pastor of the new Monroe Vineyard church. It was interesting to hear from the Monroe Vineyard pastor that their church fits in with the local Catholic and mainline churches better than it does the evangelical churches, even though Vineyard considers itself evangelical without a doubt. From the Canadian pastors I heard some exciting stories about what was going on with them, but unfortunately I didn't get to write them down while they were fresh in my mind.

Since Phyllis Tickle has been to the Ann Arbor Vineyard, where I attend, and our pastor has been in contact with her (as well as the two of them doing this conference together), we have had some influence from her at our church. She authors books for the Divine Hours. From ancient Judaism to Christianity through the ages, the Divine Hours are the times of prayer each day. I can't remember all of them; I think there are seven. Basically, they're every three hours beginning at 6:00 AM. At these times, traditionally Christians stop what they're doing to offer up prayers, and the tradition is to recite long-standing prayers of the church. You can see the Divine Hours at the Ann Arbor Vineyard website ; they change throughout the day according to time of day (and they're different each day). Our pastor has been very enthusiastic about these and got many in the church interested in them, including me. Now we sometimes do the Psalms and prayers from the Divine Hours in our church services. This is how the liturgical is swirling into our congregation.

So this is what is happening now! The church is changing! Not that it's ever stagnant -- the church of 1760, 1860, and 1960 are all quite different in many ways, yet for most of Christendom, sola scriptura still was the authority. If the authority changes, the differences in the church between 1760 and 1960 will seem very small indeed, in comparison to the shift of the new reformation.

Keep your eyes and ears open. Open your eyes and see the changes coming about. Open your ears and hear the new emphases in people's words. And, read some of the books below to get more background on the changes happening in the church today. This list is a partial list of the books recommended to us at the conference.

===============================================================

BOOK LIST

The Secret Message Of Jesus: Uncovering The Truth That Could Change Everything by Brian D. McLaren. This is the second book I've read by Brian McLaren (the first was A Generous Orthodoxy, also recommended at the conference). I think it is better written than A Generous Orthodoxy (I reviewed this at Amazon), staying on topic more and being more clear about what Jesus is all about. If you've never read McLaren, who is a strong voice among the emergents, then I recommend The Secret Message Of Jesus as your first book by him. I think he's right on the mark as to where the church is heading today.

The Next Christianity: The Coming of Global Christianity and The New Faces of Christianity: Believing The Bible in the Global South by Philip Jenkins. The notes given to us at the conference state: "Jenkins...is perhaps our most trusted and most quoted authority on the subject of globalizing Christianity." I have read the first one above and highly recommend it; it is a real eye-opener as to what's going on in the church at large and how it will change due to the influence of the South. I am eager to read the second book also. In 2007, Jenkins is scheduled to release the third book in this trilogy, this one focusing on what's happening to Christianity in Europe.

Who's Afraid of Post-Modernism: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church by James K. A. Smith. The notes from the conference state: "For those who want to get a concise, albeit evangelical and radical, distillation of what post-modernism is and what it means to at least some large part of the American Church, this book is a God-send. It is short, authoritatively presented, and accessible."

The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity by Carl Raschke. The notes from the conference state: "Like Smith's Who's Afraid of Post-Modernism, this book comes from an evangelical perspective, but it is a superb analysis of what is happening to us currently, just as it is a useful engagement of the emerging new body of Christianity."

The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture: How Media Shapes Faith, the Gospel, and Church by Shane Hipps. From the conference notes: "This deceptively easy-going book deftly weaves Marshall McLuhan and Co. into an at-times brilliantly insightful critique of current 'church.' It's well worth the time it takes to read it and more than worth the time it takes to ponder it."

A New Spiritual Home: Progressive Christianity at the Grassroots by Hal Taussig. From the conference notes: "A Methodist pastor and Visiting Professor at Union Theological Seminary, Taussig has also been associated with the Westar Institute and the Jesus Seminar. He brings to overview of contemporary American Christendom a liberal, but still very pastoral and professorial interpretation of where Christian theology really is in the minds of many pew-dwellers and former pew-dwellers."

The Phoenix Affirmations: A New Vision for the Future of Christianity by Eric Elnes. From the conference notes: "This volume is a kind of 'Here I Stand' declaration for that part of mainline Christianity that is hesitating between re-traditioning or re-configuring into the new Protestantism and/or becoming fully emergent. Elnes, a UCC pastor in Arizona, is a brilliant observer of the intersection between culture and faith (see www.crosswalkamerica.org to understand the full implications of what he is daring), and a clear-eyed student of the theological shifts involved in our current and heated ecclesial discussions."

Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense by N.T. Wright . This book is often featured and promoted by our pastoral staff (but...um...I haven't read it yet). The notes from the conference state: "The Bishop of Durham has, in this his latest book, written what I suspect will stand for decades as a classic in Christian apology. Some parts of Wright's theology will offend American Christians, but most of it will not. Rather, they will find here a reasoned and pastoral voice offering a blessed place of thoughtful and faithful quiet in the midst of an otherwise disturbing storm system. Well worth the read by folk on all sides of our current debates, it is the kind of 'lest we forget' book that's good for all of us now and again." <>

I have moved many times in my life; as a result, I have regularly attended a number of churches, not to mention visiting even more churches when looking for a church to settle into at each locale. Top that off with traveling a lot and visiting churches in those places, I have experienced quite a variety of churches in my lifetime. Because of this broad experience, I am able to help people who are looking for a church, to help guide them into a church that will fit what they're looking for. I ask questions about their personal tastes, their beliefs, etc., and give them suggestions on what type of church they may find most suitable for them.

Awhile back, an acquaintance of mine moved to a new state and wanted some information about churches in order to help her pick a church in her new city. From that I have gotten inspired to write a kind of general advice piece on things to consider when searching for a new church -- particularly what to avoid, because in terms of what to seek, that has more to do with personal tastes and beliefs. There are some things, though, that are advisable to avoid no matter what one's tastes are.

Here in part 1, I plan to discuss general church characteristics, especially in terms of what to avoid and the converse of that, what to look for. In part 2, whenever I may get around to writing it, I plan to discuss my viewpoints and experiences with various denominations in order to provide a guide for someone seeking a church suitable to their tastes.

Before I begin, I want to address a different but related issue. I have been running across a number of people lately who are Christian but who do not go to church. In most cases, they have had bad experiences at a church or churches, and are so hurt or turned off that they do not go to church at all. So before I begin on how to pick a church, I want to list two reasons on why it's even important for a Christian to go to church.

WHY CHURCH IS ESSENTIAL FOR A CHRISTIAN

1) We were created for community. God designed us humans to need other humans, and Christians need to be sure that at least some of their fellowship is with other Christians, in order to help them grow spiritually, as well as to get support from a Christian viewpoint. There is deep power in praying with other believers and in worshiping God with them. Another reason related to the community aspect is something Rick Warren highlights in his book The Purpose-Driven Life: Being in community with other believers is what really makes you grow spiritually. It's easy to see yourself as loving and living as Christ would when you're on your own, but you don't really know how loving and how Christlike you are until you are in a community with other believers, including people that you disagree with and people that rub you the wrong way. Community forces you to see yourself in a mirror. Also, as the saying goes, "Iron sharpens iron."

2) We need the leadership of the church to keep us focused on growing as Christians. Yes, it's possible to grow on your own, but you will tend to grow in areas you want to pursue or areas you find to be easy to tackle. A good church will have a balanced coverage of spiritual topics, some of which will be uncomfortable to you and make you squirm, but it's important to be challenged that way. On your own, getting challenged is easy to avoid, or if it does happen, it's too easy to fall without the support of others.

Those are just two reasons I can think of why church is essential for a Christian. I might add the Bible verse Hebrews 10:25, which warns, "Let us not give up the habit of meeting together, as some are doing." The rest of my writing today will rest on the assumption that someone understands this importance of attending a church, but is not sure what to look for in a church. I will start with the "negative":

10 TYPES OF CHURCHES TO AVOID

1) In politics, there are those who believe the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as closely as the Founding Fathers envisioned it, and on the opposing side are those who view the U.S. Constitution as a "living, breathing document" that can be continually revised and "updated" via judges. There is nothing morally right or wrong about either position, but when the latter attitude is taken toward the Bible, this is an entirely different matter. There are churches today that seem to be embarrassed by Christianity, and are very concerned about making Christianity as "updated" as possible. I'm not talking about technology or anything like that; I'm talking about theology and morality. This is the kind of church that's always trying to explain away the Bible to make it more comfortable for modern ears. This is the kind of church that is more concerned that the Bible matches current scientific beliefs rather than the other way around. Someone who personifies this type of thinking is Bishop John Spong, whom I and many others consider a heretic. One of his major books is, A New Christianity For A New Day. If you find yourself in a church that has trouble believing the miracles in the Bible, that has trouble accepting that the morality of the Bible is for all time, then you are in a church that wants to make God in an image it chooses to, rather than trying to conform their image of God according to what he has revealed to us. This is dead Christianity. Avoid this by all means.

2) At the opposite end of the spectrum is the church that, instead of having trouble accepting and believing the Bible, says things like, "At this church, we teach THE BIBLE!" Teaching what's in the Bible is a good thing, of course; that's the problem with the type of church I described in point 1 -- they don't fully believe the Bible. But I'm talking about the kind of church where at least the leadership and usually the congregation also is convinced that the way they understand the Bible is THE TRUTH and anyone who disagrees with them disagrees with GOD. In other words, if a church is obsessed with doctrine, they're missing the point of Christianity. Christianity is about relationship with Jesus Christ. Such churches will claim that's what they teach (that Christianity is about relationship with Christ), but when you listen to them, they're really focused on doctrine. They're focused on a set of principles rather than on a relationship. The Bible should be approached as a letter from God, in which he reveals himself to us, and we learn about what he is like in this letter. Reducing Christianity to believing the right things not only misses the point, it also reeks of pride, looking down on everyone who believes "wrongly." (See my entry "Talking With The Proselytizers" for more discussion on what this kind of thinking leads to.) Jesus called us to humble servanthood, not to assenting to a set of proper doctrines to boast about. That was in fact what part of the problem with the Pharisees was; Jesus denounced them harshly.

3) Avoid any church where the pastoral leadership claims to have "authority" over your life. I have been at some churches where the leadership will not even allow their congregants to decide on accepting a job without getting permission from the church leaders. They will claim this is Biblical and will quote Bible verses about leadership authority and their responsibility as shepherds to care for their sheep, but such a totalitarian grip on people's lives is not the spirit of the New Testament teachings on leadership. This is one example of why it's important to be very familiar with the whole Bible, so people like this can't pull the wool over your eyes with their Bible-quoting. There is one church I visited where the congregation cited their creed, and I was utterly stunned that part of what they recited is, "I will not question the pastor, who is God's mouthpiece." Unbelievably shocking. I never went to that church again -- there is clearly a power problem there. If you find yourself in a church where the leadership acts like they own you, run away...far, far away.

4) Some churches don't use an authoritarian approach but rather use other tactics, such as manipulation and guilt. Such tactics can come from the leadership only, or they can also come from the culture of the congregation at large. Churches like this say a lot of things in passing to induce guilt in order to manipulate you to do what they think you should do. I will give an example of what I mean from a joke we used to tell: "If you go to church on Sunday morning, you like the church. If you go to church on Sunday evening, you like the pastor. If you go to church on Wednesday night, you love God." Why was this an effective joke? Because it exposed the unspoken opinions people displayed through facial expressions, tone of voice, and things said. You know, "real Christians" come to church every Sunday morning & evening and Wednesday night. "People who really love God" will serve the church in some capacity. "Pure Christians" will only listen to Christian music. Stuff like that. Comments that are said indirectly but have underlying messages like this are disgusting abuses, using manipulation and guilt to get people to conform to the party line. If you find yourself in a church where the leadership especially, or the vast majority of the congregation, uses such tactics, this is definitely a church to avoid.

5) Avoid churches that confuse culture and personal tastes with theology. There will nearly always be some people within a church that will do this, but that's not a problem; what I mean is, avoid a church in which the leadership and the vast majority of the people do this. People who expect Christians to dress a certain way, listen to a certain kind of music, participate in certain kinds of activities, and who judge someone's relationship with God based on these things--such people are completely missing the point of Christianity. In the church I grew up in, we had a saying, "Don't smoke, drink, cuss, or chew, or hang out with those who do." Most commonly churches that confuse culture and personal taste with theology are conservative or fundamentalist churches, who define how close a person is to God by whether or not they drink, dance, watch R-rated movies, wear "proper" clothing, and on and on. But this could also be true in a liberal church, where one's relationship with God is judged by their concern for the environment, labor struggles, or their opposition to capital punishment or war. Such external issues should never be the temperature gauge of one's relationship with God, and a church that judges people in this manner is a church to avoid.

6) This is somewhat similar to points #4 and #5 above, but not quite the same. Avoid churches where it's important to look like the perfect Christian, or to put it another way, avoid churches where the people are pretentious. If everyone is expected to smile, and no one speaks of their failures in following God, they are not being honest. It's just a big show to look like you're holy and have it all together. No one is helped through such a charade. You won't get any real Christian fellowship or spiritual growth at a church like this.

7) Avoid singular issue churches. The Bible is a very broad book, covering the whole gamut of the human experience and God's interaction with humans. As such, a church should cover a wide range of topics, dig in all parts of the Bible, and seek to develop a balanced spiritual church life. If you only eat one kind of food, even if it's a healthy food, you will become malnourished. Likewise, if your spiritual diet consists of only one or two things, you will become spiritually malnourished. There are two churches I left because of this reason. One church's sole focus was that all the people in the church should invite their friends to church. (The church didn't start out this way; it degenerated into this one-track mind.) Every Bible study, every sermon, every announcement and exhortation somehow came back to this singular theme: invite your friends to church. Eventually that church died as a result of its malnourishment. Another church I left because I begin to see that it was singularly focused on peace. After awhile, it began to seem to me like every Bible verse and everything that happened in the Bible was filtered through the lens of peace. (The anti-war kind of peace, not the inner kind of peace.) It was like their god was Peace, and Christianity was just their justification for their religion of Peace. The only singular issue church that's acceptable is a church whose singular focus is on knowing God more deeply.

8) Avoid churches that water down the message to appeal to more people. This is a little harder to detect, and will likely take longer to realize what's going on. What I'm speaking of here is a church that avoids the tough parts of Scripture, the things that are hard to swallow, in order to not offend anyone, or to turn anyone off, or to make people uncomfortable. This is different from point #1, in which the very foundations of Scriptural theology are gutted. In this case, the leaders of the church hold orthodox theological views, but they just avoid talking about the stuff that may be unpopular. Such churches are typically very large because there is a message that appeals to many people. A large church is not guilty of this automatically, but it's the first thing I sniff for if I'm attending a wildly "successful" church.

9) Related to point #8, watch out for churches that try to sell Jesus as the way to getting what you want, be it wealth or some other desirable thing, like a perfect spouse or successful career or whatever. This is treating Jesus like a genie. He does not exist to give us what we want; we exist to please him.

10) The Bible says, "Behold the kindness and severity of God." God is love, and God is holy. Some churches espouse what they call "grace theology" which in practice is little more than an excuse to do whatever they please under the guise of grace. That is cheap grace. Jesus died a horrible death during his time on earth because of our sin; to treat our sin lightly is to treat his sacrifice with contempt. On the other side of the coin, if a church is so focused on holiness (I'm not speaking of the external things like #5 above; I'm speaking of factors more aligned with true holiness) that grace is given short-shrift, it turns a relationship with God into a perfection-approval trap that is discouraging, frustrating, and can even cause you to give up on your faith because it seems impossible. A church should not give too much emphasis on grace nor too much emphasis on holiness, but a balance between the two.

I've given you 10 things to watch for in a church, and if a church has any of these characteristics, it is definitely a church to avoid. Now I'd like to list some irrelevant factors, some things that should not be used to determine whether or not a church is a good church.

IRRELEVANT FACTORS

1) How friendly a church is. I have been to some churches where the people are very friendly, but they suffer from one of the 10 things mentioned above. The church I went to where they recited the creed "I will not question the pastor," the people there were wonderfully warm and friendly. But it's a toxic church where a pastor cannot be challenged, and the fact that the people are friendly is irrelevant; you will get burned. I've also been to churches where it has been very difficult to get to know anyone, and I had to do what I call "fight my way in." At one church, when I was single and attended that church's singles group, there were 75 people and no one ever spoke to me. So what I did was, when I overheard conversations about where people were going to go out to eat after church, I went where they were going, just showed up and found a table to sit at. No one knew I hadn't been invited--the group was too big. Eventually people began to recognize me and get to know me and eventually I developed friendships. It took months, but the people there were spiritually strong and great for my spiritual growth. The church I go to now took many, many months before I could begin to develop relationships with people, but there was so much good about the church that it was worth being patient for. Don't judge a church by how friendly the people are. You're there to worship Christ and develop your relationship with him, and a church with friendly people may or may not be the place for that purpose.

2) The existence of a few hypocrites. I get so tired of the line, "I don't go to church because it's full of hypocrites." If a church is truly full of hypocrites, it will likely be a church like #4, #5, or #6 above and should be avoided. Every church is going to have some hypocrites, but EVERY institution has hypocrites; that's not unique to the church. You don't go to church to find a place full of perfect people; you go there to learn with others how to follow God. There will be hypocrites; don't worry about them. If you get stung by a few, seek out the true Christians and don't let the hypocrites get to you.

3) The existence of immature Christians. (Related to #2.) I grew up in a church where there were people who, upon entering the church and finding "their" pew taken by someone else, would turn around and walk out. I saw a number of other actions that exhibited this type of ludicrous behavior. Some were likely hypocrites; others were just immature Christians. It was not my place to judge the heart of these people; only their actions could be judged as not being Christ-like. I knew crazy people like this, but I also knew many who exhibited the love of Christ and were an inspiration and model to me. Immature Christians are not hypocrites; they simply have areas where they need to grow and become more Christ-like. Don't we all. This goes to my point of the reason we need to be part of a community -- to really test our own love for others and Christ-like patience, mercy, and grace for people who are annoying. If the church is dominated by immature Christians, then you have a situation like Avoids #4-6. But don't let encounters with immature Christians turn you away from a church if they're not in the majority.

WHAT TO SEEK IN A CHURCH

Most of what I say is something to seek in a church is the anti-thesis of what to avoid, so this section will be shorter.

1) Anti-thesis of Avoid #1 & #2: Find a church that believes the Bible is the infallible authority and completely true word of God, but doesn't overemphasize doctrine.

2) Find a church where the leaders are not controlled by the people, but where the leaders are in charge. However, their assertive leadership should be gentle and Christ-like. Also, the anti-thesis of Avoid #3: Find a church where the leadership exhibits the type of servant leadership Jesus modeled.

3) Anti-thesis of Avoids #4 & #6: Find a church where people are open and honest, not pretentious and who don't try to get points across through guilt and manipulation, but by speaking forthrightly in kindness.

4) Anti-thesis of Avoid #5: Find a church whose focus is on relationship with God, getting to know him better and obeying him, rather than focused on external qualities. If you abide in Christ, you will produce good fruit.

5) Anti-thesis of Avoids #7 & #10: Find a church that covers the whole Bible and does so from a variety of perspectives. God is a big God. He created us as complex creatures and made many different kinds of people. The church should touch all of our humanity and a wide variety of people.

6) Anti-thesis of Avoids #8 & #9: Find a church that has a focus of deepening one's relationship with God, getting to know him as he is, and making sure we conform our lives to him. The focus should be on God, not on us (as in, "what God can do for me").

As I stated at the beginning of this entry, I have regularly attended many churches in my life. I have not regularly attended any churches that are dominated by qualities I've listed in 10 Types Of Churches To Avoid. I say that because while there is no perfect church, being that churches are made up of imperfect humans, I still believe there are plenty of good churches out there. I've experienced more good churches than bad ones. To those who have been burnt by bad church experiences, let me exhort you to not give up; keep seeking to find good churches. Also, adjust your expectations: There will always be people who are going to burn you, because they are fallible humans. I wrote this in hopes that you can consider what factors make a church bad as a whole, to learn what to "grin and bear," and what not to tolerate. Grin and bear the hypocrites, grin and bear the immature Christians...and seek out those who are better models of Christ-like attitudes and behavior. But of course, remember, even the best ones will fail you, for they are human. Only Jesus is perfect, and he is always there to heal your hurts.

 *****************************************************************

Notice that I did not touch on personal taste items like worship styles. In this piece, I tried to deal with aspects that go across denominational lines. The next time I pick up this topic, I will deal more with personal taste issues to help one in finding a suitable church.

Most of the time when I fly, I use the time to sleep.  On a trip to Arizona, I especially wanted to sleep because I had to work until midnight the night before I left, and my plane left at 7:00 AM, so I had about 3 hours of sleep.

Since I always fly space available, that means on a full flight I usually get a middle seat, but amazingly, on my flight from Detroit to Minneapolis I got an aisle seat.  Ah, I can stretch out more and sleep!

Wrong.  I had a talker beside me.  Well, not one of those people that yap on incessantly, but rather, someone who wanted to carry on a conversation.  At first I was slightly irritated that I wasn't going to get a chance to sleep, but the more I talked to this guy, the less I cared about missing my sleep because I was enjoying conversing with him.

I learned he was flying from Wichita to Manila, so we talked about that a bit first.  Then I learned he has lived in Japan and Taiwan--so have I!  Regarding his Manila trip, he is a pastor and he & his wife were going there to see whether or not they wanted to be missionaries there.  He is a pastor of an evangelical branch of the Presbyterian denomination.

From there, we talked about his thoughts about becoming a missionary, and I shared with him some experiences from my relatives who are missionaries.  We also talked about the denominations of the churches each of us attend.

Somewhere in the midst of this conversation, he told me about a church he was a part of when he lived in St. Louis.  It was a fascinating story.  An issue within Christendom is that churches tend to be primarily monoracial.  This bothers a lot of people, but they're not sure what to do about it.  Churches tend to grow by personal relationships with other people, and people naturally tend to hang out with others like themselves, so churches tend to grow into monocultural congregations.  It takes a planned, determined effort to make a church multicultural, something most churches are not willing to do.  I was part of a church just starting out in an area that was multicultural, and I really tried to push the idea with the church leaders of the opportunity and importance of making a decided effort to build a multicultural congregation.  But the response I got was that to them that felt inauthentic, that it would be seeking people just because of their ethnic background in order to make a multicultural church.  As I expected, as the church grew, it turned out to be pretty much 100% white.

What this St. Louis church did was definitely a planned, determined effort.  The people starting the church sold their suburban homes and moved into the inner city in multiracial neighborhoods!  By planting themselves as residents in these neighborhoods, they became neighbors, so they weren't just "evangelizers" coming in from the suburbs, but people who shared life experiences with their neighbors.  That's how they built that multicultural church!

Another topic we talked about, I initiated because he said he was from Wichita.  When I think of Wichita, I think of the fierce debate regarding abortion that goes on there.  Kansas, definitely a red state, seems like an odd place for such a debate to be so intense, so I asked this pastor what the story was behind that.

He said that it was because there is an abortionist there who specializes in late term abortions, and because of that, people come from all over the nation and even the world to have late term abortions done by him.  His enterprise became so big that he had regular rooms in a local hotel (a chain--I can't remember which), and even had nurses that would attend to the women staying there.  However, after a couple of women died, the hotel would no longer let him do that, for fear of liability.  (Those signs "Keep abortion safe and legal" come to mind--we don't know how safe abortion really is because it's the only medical area that is not required to report injuries and deaths!) 

This pastor spoke of the intense spiritual warfare in the town as a result of this doctor's killing empire.  He said that it is impossible to be a church in that city and not be somehow pulled into that issue.  Regarding the spiritual warfare, he said that while he was outside the clinic, he even ran across a couple people (apparently employees at the clinic) that he was certain were demon possessed...he said the sound of their voices and the things they said did not seem human.  He admitted that it was unusual for a Presbyterian to speak of such things (that's more the domain of the Pentecostals and Charismatics), but that's what he sees of the situation with his spiritual eyes.

This reminds me of an article I read back in the 80s put out by Last Days Ministries--I think the article was by Winkie Pratney--which pointed out that whenever some great work of God was about to occur, there was a mass killing of babies.  One example in this article was that when Jesus was born, the attempt to stop him resulted in Herod killing all boys in the land under 2 years of age.  We are often aware of how Satan opposes us daily in our lives, trying to tempt us to do things that will destroy our lives, as well as the way he gets people to kill others, such as the genocide going on in Sudan, but I think we are much less cognizant of Satan's work behind the slaughter of millions of children every year through abortion.  He is the one who seeks "to steal, kill, and destroy" all of God's creation, as revenge for getting kicked out of heaven for his attempted coup to replace God, and it doesn't take long in looking around the world to see that he is doing all he can to destroy and kill those whom God has created -- from the womb, and embryo destruction, to child abuse, to drugs and gangs, to suicide bombers, to horrible violence via religious hatred (Sudan and other parts of Africa, India, Indonesia, and many more places), to promotion of doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia.  There is one Being behind all of this.

With conversation topics like living in foreign lands, the work and life of missionaries, denominational characteristics and beliefs, developing multicultural churches, and spiritual warfare in Wichita, I didn't mind not getting my sleep on that flight.  I thoroughly enjoyed talking to this gentleman.

On my flight from Minneapolis to Tucson, I did get to sleep all the way...

(This was originally posted in June 2005 on my regular blog, J Lee's Soapbox, at http://homepage.mac.com/catservants/iblog/C1860588003/E20050709010912/index.html.)  

My blog's web address is: http://homepage.mac.com/catservants/iblog/index.html