Church Chat

The on-going debate over the progressive church movement won't disappear anytime soon.  Yet, while I appreciate healthy discussion and even some debate between Christians in the spirit of learning and growing together in the Lord, much of the recent discourse surrounding the discussion has often times lost almost all compassion and instead been laden with blatant, illogical condemnation.  Most vocal on the subject are those who would define themselves as being aligned with a "Bible-based", Reformed, or traditional church body.  Each printed holy hand-grenade lobbed by the pastoral leaders of this side garners cheers from their followers, thousands of retweets, and virally shared memes as another battle has been seemingly won in the effort to take back the church.  The reason this concerns me so strongly is because, doctrinally speaking, this is the side with which I most strongly align in matters of theology and Biblical study.  Yet, so many of the arguments, defenses, and even reasonings I hear used are unreasonable, irrational, and even illogical. Shouldn't we as Christians be better than this in the defense of any of our beliefs? One does more harm for a cause than good if he cannot defend or promote his position intelligently! I've come to the point that I refuse to even enter into debate on a subject or doctrine if the other party refuses to participate courteously, compassionately, and intelligently. Consider the following quote I recently saw posted on Facebook; published below it is my rebuttal:

"I don't think any church has ever been relevant to culture, to the human struggle, unless it believed in Jesus and the power of his gospel. If the supposed new church believes in trendy music and cool Web pages, then it is not relevant to culture either. It is just another tool of Satan to get people to be passionate about nothing." - Donald Miller

The logic of this argument is one of my biggest frustrations with the whole "engaging culture" debate. It seems as if Miller is using "belief" in two different manners within the same thought. If in regard to contemporary church styling he is using "belief" to mean "simply espousing the style as a non-fundamental preference", then he is essentially saying that to sing contemporary worship songs and to use the tools of social media is to reject Jesus and His gospel. And, in my experience, that usage of "belief" reflects what often seems to be the sentiment of more "reformed" or "traditional" Christians toward contemporary and progressive churches. Are there many churches that are a mile wide and only an inch deep? Yes, there are. However, this doesn't just exist in the progressive church movement, as I've also seen shallow, ineffective Christianity in traditional Baptist churches.  Horror stories abound regarding those traditional churches and the negative impact some have had for the gospel in the way they've handled their interactions with the secular lost. It is a HUGE generalization for one to say "you're progressive, thus you must not love Jesus as much as WE do." Without saying it, that sentiment is essentially declaring that a local body isn't seriously committed to the gospel and the Word, nor do they revere the Lord in worship unless their worship format aligns with the format preferred and prescribed by the person/people who made the statement. 

However, to try to see the best in the argument, if Miller is using "belief" consistently throughout, then he is correctly implying that a church's devotion can wrongly turn to how they do church and thus turn away from He who is the head of the church. Again, though, that same warning can easily be turned around on those "holier" brothers and churches who initially lobbed the criticism.  

Though it is my hope that the latter represents what the author was attempting to say, the former is often how such a statement is taken and reused. At any rate, regardless of one's position on the subject... If we are going to debate at all, let's do so using the brains God gave us.