The best comment you have made in your whole article is:

“Can you find evidence the Bible prescribes one over the other?”

It takes us back to the premier place where questions should be answered. I am not an “old style” way of doing church fan, but I do not think going to an unbiblical model is the answer. We need structure because structure is biblical. The key is returning to biblical structure. Where scripture does not speak regarding “how to,” we must discover “what works” with those we are sent to reach. That is as long as “what works” does not contradict biblical principles.

When it comes to doctrine, I do not understand how anyone can say doctrine is not important. If it is unimportant then we could pull most of Paul’s writings out of scripture. And who knows how much of the Old Testament we could just throw away.

Here are my questions:

How could we live our lives within the framework of the church in a more biblical way? How can each of us do the ministry that God has given us in accordance with Scripture? How can we wake up true Christians to the mission that Bible mandates for all of us? How can we get people to stop playing church (be it in an old school church, new style church, or no style church) and instead live the life of a biblically defined disciple?

Sola Scriptura!

Blessings, Rich. Keep writing and asking the questions that the church world must hear.

R. Duane Gryder
AG US Missions Motorcycle Chaplain
http://www.deserthighway.org
ebenezerstone@hotmail.com

This is all about being genuine disciples first. Deconstructing The Helpful Deconstruction Of the Emergent Church Movement…

That’s fine as far as it goes, but at some point you need to settle on an answer, even if the answer is truly relative to culture, context, and circumstance. Unfortunately, I’m having a hard time finding an immovable center to the critique from the emergent field.

I don’t care so much how you do church. What matters is your love of God, your love for others (especially within the Body), and your obedience to the revealed will of God.

Good points Paul, thanks for stopping by!

Rich.

Granted, many A/G churches are stuck in the 1950s, others have been seduced by contemporary worship styles that are merely fads. Worse, the larger churches seem to be creating an elite, patterned after Hollywood, which anoints certain persons as celebrities and keeps the masses dependent, even disenfranchised. Adherents are told to sit down, shut up, and be sure to pay their tithes.

However, it is dangerous to be too full of opinions. I always remind myself of Watchman Nee’s words, that until a would-be spiritual person actually hears from the Lord on a matter, he should keep his mouth shut. The Lord does not necessarily anoint our personal opinions, our tastes, or our traditions. As I have often observed, “Some people think they are spiritual, but they are really just PARTICULAR.”

Whew!

Yes, I’m sick of church culture when it’s inauthentic. And there’s much to criticize within the A/G and any other Evangelical church. I just think the ingratitude is a stench. I agree, we owe a debt of love to those who raised us–even when we disagree.

Rich.

You wrote, “The question 100 years ago was, and is, do we keep the church the way it is (traditional) or try to change it for the ‘better’.”

Good question. I think the Church as a whole will change cultural expressions, but I have to question the wisdom of wholesale change for the sake of change itself. What happened in the early 1900s with the burgeoning Pentecostal movement wasn’t a decision to change the church, but a wholesale rejection by the established church due to its allergic response to tongues and etc. Faced with rejection and castigation, practicing Pentecostals had a choice to continue their ministry and faithfulness as homeless nomads, or band together, find a common doctrinal center, and use their group strength to leverage outreach (esp. missions). This wasn’t a bunch of folks dissatisfied with mainline or fundamental church culture, this was a scattering of people who formed community through a sort of diaspora.

And this is what the emergent church lacks. Sure, there’s a “conversation” going on, but there is no theological center, there is no commonality in practice and ecclesiology, and there is no large-scale community beyond individual house-churches. Where are the emergent church’s missionaries? Where are the emergent church’s ministry preparation centers? Sure, that happens in the house-church. Really? Let’s see that work out over the next twenty years.

But that’s still beside the point. I’m totally comfortable with the call for change. I’m totally comfortable with the house-church experiment. I think the conversation is worthwile and useful if not necessary.

I just think there’s far more cynicism, spite, and, yes, hatefulness than is healthy in a church movement, and I think it lacks an identifiable theological and biblical center. You can’t criticize a moving target.

You asked, “Should you spend time worrying about facilities or just spend the money appropriately on a good building and focus on worship?”

Good questions, but why second-guess God here? If God has blessed a ministry with a congregation that tithes and if God has led the church board and congregation to move forward on a building project, why must we assume that any expense above and beyond the bare minimum is profligate expense? Why must we assume that God does not want us to spend his money on his structures? I mean, come on, where is the faith? Cannot God provide for our social outreaches as well as the buildings we worship in? God is blessed neither through our penury (emergents?) nor our consumption (word of faith?), to claim one or the other is presumptive.

Who can truly judge the appropriateness of any given church’s spending except God?

Note: I’m not arguing for big building budgets. I’m merely asking, why is this an issue? How small is your God? Why does the expense or inexpensiveness of the building impact your worship? A hovel does not make your praise any more authentic than a mansion does.

Although, I’ll confess, that the ornate crap I see on the set designs for TBN put me off mightily. Especially when you realize it’s bullsh*t and it’s all plastic, cardboard, and cheap paint anyhow. That is for ostentatious showyness, and that is vulgar.

Rich.

“It is ridiculous — you are hateful toward the culture which created you.”

Burn. Thanks for the humbling truth. :) After 4 years at Wheaton College, I about OD’d on church culture. And I have counseled friend after friend tired of churchy cliches and holy eccentricities. So I am sympathetic to many of the emergent folks’ concerns (though I do take issue here and there). Anyway, now I’m living back in my pastor father’s home and in the depths of the ghetto, only to remember that I love many people here. Also, I owe them.

My dad and I got a big kick out of the tent pitching pastor, too. :)

(Just checking out some of my commenters’ blogs.)