Thursday, May 17, 2007

The Second Thing that's Wrong

Ken Eckerty has posted a website entitled "Why I left the Organized Church" (http://www.savior-of-all.com/organized.html). It gives 10 or more reasons, and I'd like to take them on. The second thing that's wrong:

Intellectual theologizing that takes the place of spirituality.

Wow! That's a good one. I think it breeds itself in Bible college or seminary where the favorite passtime in the cafeteria for students is arguing the fine (or not so fine) points of theology. Some of these students, who will one day be pastors, assume that a solid theology is equivalent to a solid spirituality.

I remember a man who, while not a pastor, was an expert in one of the many theological systems. He could argue his case until the cows came home. But on Sunday morning, instead of listening to the sermon, he would sit in the middle of the congregation, theology book open on his lap, and he would read. When the service was over, he would go home, talking to no one unless some controversial issue of theology had come up.

Was he spiritual? It's not for me to judge. But he was certainly cold.

Yet there are some responses to this criticism:

1. Christians these days are more likely to err on the side of too little theology than an intellectualized for that takes the place of spirituality.
2. There are some pastors who still elevate the intellect over the heart, but they seem to be a dying breed in mainly very small congregations.

But all this leads me to ask the church - Are we still elevating what we believe so far over what we are supposed to become that our spiritual experience is cold? Do we, on the other hand, have a profound spiritual life but mask it behind our theological position so that others fail to see the life within?

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

The First Thing that's Wrong

Ken Eckerty has posted a website entitled "Why I left the Organized Church" (http://www.savior-of-all.com/organized.html). It gives 10 or more reasons, and I'd like to take them on. The first thing that's Wrong:

A narrow demand that believers worship in a certain way, believe in a certain way.

My response: He's right. Churches are firm believers in a slippery slope. You know how it goes, you start to slide, but the incline takes over, and before you know it you're at the bottom of the mountain, broken and dead. So churches figure out what they consider to be the true way to worship or believe (God's way?) and they stick to it. When their approach is challenged, they start thinking about the slope again, so their tendency is to make people toe the line.

Of course, there are several things wrong with the thinking in the previous paragraph:

1. Nobody can put all churches in the same basket. Some are more paranoid than others. Some aren't paranoid at all. For every bad experience with narrowness and control, there is some other church where people hang a lot looser.
2. The worship wars of the past are beginning to wane as contemporary styles begin to be embraced by young and old alike. True, it's not universally contemporary, but most Christians have found a style they like, in a church of their choice, so that no one is forcing them to worship in a certain way. Again, this isn't universal, but it's pretty common.
3. In the area of belief, I do think that our tendency to over-theologize does lock us into narrow systems (more on this in a later post). But we have to remember one thing - Because the Christian faith is based on what it believes to be a message from God (embodied in the Bible), churches will never be "everything goes" fellowships. Beyond all the arguments over theology and interpretation, there are certain bedrocks that must be there or we lose Christianity and replace it with something else.

Which leads me to ask the church - If we know who we are, why are we so fearful of flexibility in the things that matter less? Why do we try to force people into narrow moulds that simply drive them away? Why are we so based on rules, when Christ has made us free?

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

What's Wrong with Organized Christianity?

Ken Eckerty has posted a website entitled "Why I left the Organized Church" (http://www.savior-of-all.com/organized.html). He makes it clear that he hasn't left behind his evangelical faith, only the organized churchey part of it.

I suppose a proper supporter of much of organized Christianity could just tell Ken how wrong he is, but I think I need to take him seriously. Here are his main complaints about the organized church:

1. A narrow demand that believers worship in a certain way, believe in a certain way.
2. Intellectual theologizing that takes the place of spirituality.
3. Denominationism that divides Christianity and breeds exclusivism.
4. Biblical illegitmacy of church membership that "divides the body of Christ."
5. Activities and ministries that replace our first love of Christ.
6. Emphasis on old Covenant law, especially tithing, that breeds guilt.
7. Unbiblical preeminence of the pastor or elder's board that rules rather than serving.
8. Professional clergy who believe the church is their church.
9. Transformation of the church into a business with a business-like mentality.
10. Fine points of theology that separate believers from other believers.

Ken has not abandoned fellowship with other believers, but he is alienated from the organized forms of Christian fellowship. Is he right? Is he wrong?

I hope to comment on his ten points in succeeding posts. For now, think about it - Is Ken out to lunch or is his complaint legitimate?