Two interesting blogs I read this week

Came across two very interesting blogs this week, each which fit well from another angle with my last post.

The first was by an old friend, Ronnie. Ronnie's one of those guys you either love or hate, with no lukewarm. Kind of like Jesus if you really know what he's about. In a recent blog entry, he spoke of how scripture talks if a seed doesn't die, there is no growth. He made the excellent point of how a church too must be willing to risk death to see the kingdom advance. Ronnie, who is the senior minister of a church (near equivalent of senior pastor to most who live in that matrix), is in process of leading a body into an adventure that may kill, literally or figuratively, the current makeup of a church. At least that's the criticism he must be getting. Churches too often are more about their survival than advancing the kingdom. If the individual is to die to self, shouldn't the corporate body be willing to do the same for the sake of the kingdom? Great thoughts!

The other blog post I came across is one on the "movement" of multi-campus churches sweeping the US. The idea is that one preacher is somewhere, beaming or tape delaying his sermon to multiple sites. There are numerous examples of this within many urban areas, and at least one multiple state one based in Atlanta - with a campus here in Colorado! I have found this concept disgusting, as it is commonly building on a cult of personality around a man from my perspective, and assumes God doesn't provide enough talent to his people to advance the Kingdom. Interesting that the blogger, Neil Cole, has found no evidence that these churches are effective in planting new ones. Many have planted other multi-campus churches, and some of those have planted, but there is no fourth generation church in this movement yet. While only recently growing in popularity, it has been around for quite some time, long enough for there to exist even a fifth generation of planting, but there is no fourth generation. Rather than growing the kingdom, this suggests limiting it.

I've long thought megachurches are a selfish manifestation of the church, driven by consumerism more than kingdom advancement (see Skye Jethani's book The Divine Commodity for more on how consumerism is devouring the church). I foresee as the original "personalities" that build these megachurches die off or stumble, a few of these megachurches may manage to "pass the torch" to a new personality, but most will collapse or lose all passion for mission becoming hollow shells of themselves. Within two generations, the individual megachurches will die, perhaps replaced by others, perhaps (hopefully) not. This multicampus phenomenon seems like McChurch, and when the preaching pastor driving one stumbles, retires, or dies, the structure will crumble, maybe leaving only the original campus intact.

Two interesting blogs, nice contrast. These multicampus churches are another form of a spiritual tower of Babel, IMO. What we need is not selfish churches looking to be the biggest thing on the block and define kingdom advancement as "market share", but rather are willing to die to self to advance the kingdom.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've told some that my next blog post was going to be likely very controversial one whose title gives the preview in itself "Purpose Driven Bondage". It's still coming. But when you chase the wild goose ...

Spiritual Towers of Babel

Looking back on a couple of church splits I've been up close to and the outcomes from them, and stories of other splits, well, while recognizing God can make good come of anything, I wonder of God engineered the splits as he saw those churches as spiritual towers of Babel.

One of those in particular I remember in the year before the split, they started "testimonials" in the service (funny how you call it service with so little serving going on in them). Each testimony seemed to talk about how great the church was, how the church did this or that for them. How the church was like their extended family. Rarely if ever was there a mention of God. And the catalyst to the split was a meeting of a handful of those recognized as the next generation of leaders of the church and a couple of their mentors to discuss how to reach the lost in the area more effectively. In that meeting one idea was to plant a different kind of church not so obviously consisting of members whose parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc were Christians. That idea got around and drew flack as "you need to stay here and build this church".

How many churches are spiritual towers of Babel? How many of those is God plotting redemption of, possibly even planning its split? Does God do such?

New site

Just to let followers of this blog know ... I've started a ning (social networking) site for topics related to much of what I post here in the blog.

It's Christianity without the BS. On the website, the "bs" is spelled out, so you may want to keep the kiddies away. The name kind of says it all. I'm hoping for it to develop to a site for those who need to vent about the system, those who need healing from the wounds the religious systems out there inflict on people, a place to detox from addiction to religion and learn to become addicted to Jesus instead, and maybe even a place where constructive dialogue on practicing a BS free following of Jesus can occur.

Religion is easy

Religion is easy, relationship is hard.

Christ intended for us to practice relationship, not religion.

The word "religion" in the NT

Stuff discovered looking up other stuff ...

James in James 1:26-27 appears to using a bit of sarcasm when using the closest Biblical Greek word for "religion". The word used there is "thraskeia" (closest transliteration of the word from the Greek I'm capable of). Interestingly, the word thraskeia is used twice more in scripture (and interestingly, never used in Greek translations of the OT that predated Jesus' earthly life) -- In Acts 26:5 it refers to the formal system of Pharisaism. Col. 2:18 is a warning against avid the worship of angels. So, what is the story behind the word?

According to Thomas de Quincey in 'Memorials and Other Papers', to the classical thinkers (classical in this sense of the Greeks and Romans from the rise of Greece to the fall of Rome), religion, whether thraskeia or the word cultus, meant simply ritual - no morals, no teaching, no transformation. Simply ritual in the name of appeasing the God who motivated it. (Now admittedly, Thomas de Quincey is no theologian, but he wasn't writing about theology. He was writing about the ancient culture that James was -- it gives context to James use of the word).

With this background, when James used "thraskeia", he would have seemed to have chosen it carefully given its nuances of meaning. He didn't say those who claim to be more godly, pious, spiritual, etc. But more bound to keeping a code, a set of rituals. He points to the rituals these religious types of their day should be practicing.

Hmmmmm.