faith

[jochanaan]

[councillor hat on] Perhaps further discussion on this might fit better into another forum, such as "Unanswered Questions about Christianity." I think most of the participants here have enough posts on the forums to be "Residents" and so are able to access that forum. [councillor hat off]

[midwesterner]

Perhaps you could move the thread. I know it started out really as my personal introduction, but I'm happy enough for it to be moved.

[midwesterner]

Correct, but carrying out the metaphor, a waitress that is friendly and attentive, but never brings out any food, or makes mistakes on half the dishes is not going to be considered a successful waitress, regardless of how friendly she is.

Which brings us back to my point that we need both.

A waitress that doesn't deliver the food isn't a waitress.

A waitress that doesn't treat the customers in a way that is customer-attractive will drive the restaurant out of business.

You may not be able to see it from your vantage point, but from mine it is abundantly clear that the vast majority of church (and the vast majority of Christians) are doing a poor job of "reaching" those who are outside of the church.

It's not just my opinion, either. Most people won't set foot into a church, and it's usually not because they have some desire to "continue in a life of sin" or because they have an essential aversion to faith.

And I think there are at least 4 different reasons for this.

1) Churches and "Christians," by and large, are completely foreign in culture to most Americans. Honestly, even I can't relate to church and "Christian" culture - and I'm a Christian!

2) As bn2bnude mentioned, churches and Christians are largely communicating the wrong message. The predominant message that comes across to most of us isn't love.

In fact, the church and Christians now have a poor image in the minds of an awful lot of people. Some would say MOST people, and they might be accurate in that. The public image, by and large, is not a positive one, it's a negative one.

When you have a negative public image, you've got problems.

So how could the message be changed? I think that in many ways, in order to change the message you have to change the content of church culture and attitudes. In other words, in order to communicate a message of love, you have to decide to actually DO love as a clear and significant focus. Yes, there are some churches that are really doing this. But there are a lot that aren't, or at least aren't doing it very well.

Is actually "DOING" love too much to ask? I wouldn't think so, seeing as how love is supposed to be the single defining element that separates followers of Christ from those who are not followers of Christ.

3) This is kind of the same thing (or at least the flip side of it), but churches (and Christians) are widely perceived as judgmental. In other words, the main message that is passed across is not "there is love in this faith," it's "we think you're a bad person."

4) All of this brings us to the next issue: marketing, in the sense of packaging the message. Now if you're sending the wrong message in the first place, good marketing may not help you. But I don't think the church is doing a terribly good job of actually communicating, even in cases where they might have the message right.

5) Lastly, I don't think churches or Christians broadly understand how to integrate faith with modern life. This contributes significantly to the irrelevancy.

By this I mean that not only has culture changed since ancient times, so has life and our understanding of the world and how to deal with life. Most churches and Christians have not understood and embraced and integrated these changes.

I know that's not going to be very clear, and I'll probably end up elaborating on it later on.

My point is that this culture is the definition of the friendly waitress, and we are never going to out-friendly her. However, we have the ability to deliver the food in a way that contemporary culture never can.

We might not "out-friendly" the culture, but I don't really see any reason we couldn't be AS friendly.

[midwesterner]

Even when it's not actually posted on the front billboard, the message from many churches (not all, but many) can often come across fairly loud and clear:

"We think that, until and unless you change to become like us, you're basically human garbage, fit for the burn pile."

This is not what I would call either good marketing or an undistorted message of the actual Christian faith.

As another note, I don't want to be too negative or critical here myself. I understand that a lot of churches and a lot of Christians are doing some good things. And sometimes, a LOT of good things. And sometimes, a lot of good things that extend to the purely unselfish and that go unrecognized and often completely unappreciated.

But someone asked me about my initial statement that I often don't feel terribly comfortable around Christians and church people. I hope what I've said goes a long way towards explaining why, for me personally, the very word "Christian" has a "cringe factor" associated with it.

[midwesterner]

Hmmm (unrelated) - I was going to post something under Personal Naturist Experiences & Trip Reports, and it says "Residents" can post there, but I can't post there.

I also can't get access to the "For Men Only" section, even though my gender in my profile is listed as male.

[midwesterner]

Nor can I post under Nudism & Health Issues.

[midwesterner]

Or under General Conversation.

Since I'm currently only 1 post under 25, I'll post this as a separate message and see if that makes any difference.

[pugiofidei]

[councillor hat on] Perhaps further discussion on this might fit better into another forum, such as "Unanswered Questions about Christianity." I think most of the participants here have enough posts on the forums to be "Residents" and so are able to access that forum. [councillor hat off]

Does it count as being nude if you're wearing a hat?

[midwesterner]

No, but he wasn't non-nude for very long.

[jochanaan]

Well, I went ahead and moved the strip--threads are for textiles! --to this forum from the "Faith Journey" forum. Thanks for the okay, midwesterner!

[jochanaan]

I'm with you on this, midwesterner. Part of the problem is on "the world's" side, of course; no one likes to be told they're doing the wrong things no matter how loving and positive the message. But many of us have developed an "us vs. them" attitude that often comes across as judgmental. Also, our language hasn't kept up with the ever-evolving usage of English. We still use words like "propitiation" and "transsubstantiation" to describe things we believe; how many of us even know exactly what those words mean?

And as a musician, I am somewhat painfully aware that much of our music is in a style that's already obsolete among many young people. I can still remember when Christian rock music was derided as "of the devil;" fortunately that kind of talk is no longer heard, but even "contemporary Christian music" is behind the times. I was noticing copyright dates last Sabbath as the congregation I attend was singing praise, and I don't remember seeing any at all from the 21st century; they all began with "19--" Whatever happened to "O sing unto the LORD a new song..."?

[pugiofidei]

We still use words like "propitiation" and "transsubstantiation" to describe things we believe; how many of us even know exactly what those words mean?

Those are both Latin words that were adopted into the English language precisely because English has no native way to express the precise theological meaning behind them. Well, we could try "a thing for bringing about an attitude of pity", which would break down the meaning if propitiation, but for the past 2,000 years there hasn't even been full agreement about whether "propitiate" or "expiate" is correct term to use in Latin. The Latin term "substance", when used theologically, does not carry its literal meaning of "standing under", but translates the Greek "Οὐσία", which the classical world defined as the what a given thing is as intelligible. So the English for transubstantiation would be "an act in which there a occurs a movement within a thing that changes the terms of its intelligible being".

The English language just wasn't built for this kind of thing. It was built for grunting at Hrothgar the Horrible to bring in another round of grog. So instead of trying to hammer English into a peg it just wouldn't fit into, English theologians just adopted Greek and Latin words wholesale.

[midwesterner]

I'm with you on this, midwesterner. Part of the problem is on "the world's" side, of course; no one likes to be told they're doing the wrong things no matter how loving and positive the message.

Very true.

But many of us have developed an "us vs. them" attitude that often comes across as judgmental.

Also true. And unfortunate.



The interesting thing is that Jesus' way of doing things was definitely NOT a "me versus them" kind of mentality. Far from it.

even "contemporary Christian music" is behind the times.

True.



I don't know how to feel about "ccm" in the popular sense. It's fine, really, if you take it for what it is: music for people who are already Christians.

[prairieboy]

How relevant is the church? How relevant was Jesus in His generation? Ask the blind man who could now see, or ask the lame man who could now walk. We are the body of Christ, and we should be every bit as relevant. However, most of what we read about Jesus happened outside of the synagogue, as most of our interaction with unbelievers will happen outside of the church. So what about inside of the church building. My first impression of the church I presently attend was that there were a lot of empty seats. My second impression was that there were a lot of young people, 16 - 30. If you aren't "relevant," those people aren't there. The music was loud, and lively, think Hillsong. God spoke to me through the message. Actually my first impression was in the foyer before the service when I saw people praying for each other instead of talking about the weather, the hockey game, etc.
The praise and worship portion of the service is consistantly strong and accompanied by a strong presence of the Holy Spirit. More often than not I have tears running down my cheeks at some point during that time, and I have NEVER been like that before. The messages are usually personalized by God and some portion of it is for me. There is an alter call nearly every Sunday, for salvation, and then for people wishing for prayer in various areas of their lives. There is a real and powerful sense of God being there. The people are accepting of others where they are. I have felt a real freedom to open up to people, to ask for prayer, and to be vulnerable. The pastor has been tremendously helpful to me personally, and to others. The church is actively involved in, or promoting, numerous outreach ministries; helping to get furniture and household goods to people that need them, food banks, a neighbourhood place to hang out and read a book or talk to someone while you do your laundry. All types of things. And yet, their focus is not on programs, but on relationships, first with God, then with each other, and then to those around us. People are being healed, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. Is church relevant? Absolutely!!!
Those churches are out there. If your church is not like that, start changing it. If you can't change it, then find one that is like that. I wish I had changed churches years ago when my children still went to church with me. My former church was good, with a wonderful caring pastor. BUT I questioned it's relevance. My kids questioned it's relevance, and now none of them attend at all. God is working and He is working primarily through His body, the church. Make sure that you are in one that is open to allowing Him to work the way that He chooses to work. I was a Pharisee and I wanted Him to work within the boundaries that I felt comfortable with. I am now not only outside my comfort zone, but I forget where I left it.

[bn2bnude]

We've got to remember....

"The Church" as the body of believers is only partially represented by the people contained in the local church buildings.

What Christ calls "The Church" is every believer. If you were to read "From Eternity to Here", Frank Viola paints a picture of the church as the second Eve to Christ being the second Adam.

What we typically call "Church" is a man made (maybe God ordained but still man made) institution which is fallible.

Is "The Church" relevant? The bride of Christ is and will always be relevant. The building on the corner may not be at all.

If we are getting our identity from the building or organization on the corner, we've put our faith in the wrong thing. We should be getting our identity from Christ alone.