A letter was taped to my front door yesterday. It was from a friend I had visited with a few days before. She read a book about missions and really wanted to talk about what was going on in her heart. I have been wrestling with my self-diagnosed laziness about being the hands and feet of Christ, so I was eager to talk with her in the hopes that we might put our efforts together and see what God might do. We talked for a few hours and while we come from different traditions and have different ways of getting to what we believe, I felt like we had a great conversation and knew it was the start of something.

Then I got the letter. For the most part, she said she was glad we had talked, but the tone didn't communicate that. During our visit she talked about wanting to have Bible studies and talk to people about Christ. When I said that we didn't need to just think in terms of study and prayer, that feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and speaking for the powerless or someone who felt defeated is a demonstration of Christ's love in itself. I said that if the act is girded with prayer and our hearts have at their core communicating that God is the one who can really meet their needs it might do more than simply telling them that Jesus loves them. She basically negated that as plain-old social work (not in so many words) and said that we needed to read the scriptures to people and let God's word live. I wonder if God's word lives because of what we do or because we speak it. I suppose it is both.

Despite our differences, I still felt good leaving her house. To my dismay her letter was a defense of her position. For some reason she felt like she needed to convince me that we couldn't really help people apart from the help of God. She thought I was saying that if people think I'm great because of what I do for them, then they'll think my God is great too. On the contrary, I really do think it's important to communicate to people that God loves them and that he can meet needs that I could never dream of being able to help.

My friend Kara (darewebe.blogspot.com) just started blogging and her first post tells a beautiful story of helping someone whom she will probably never see again, but knowing that it was God's work. She's wrestling with vocation as I guess I am too. I want so desperately to have a cause, a mission. I want to be doing something to end poverty, love the unloveable, and heal the sick. Instead, I just wrestle with what I'm supposed to do.

I don't know why the letter got to me so much. It's OK with me that we come to missions and ministry from different perspectives, but I don't think it's Ok with my friend. What to do with differences among believing friends? How to reach the world with the message of the Gospel?

On a completely different note, Gracie has officially been a 2-year-old for a week. More to come. And check out Mark's blog at nostynostril.blogspot.com. (My hyperlink button isn't working today).

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern.
You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.

Emergent/Postmodern
86%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan
75%
Neo orthodox
71%
Roman Catholic
71%
Classical Liberal
50%
Charismatic/Pentecostal
46%
Reformed Evangelical
36%
Modern Liberal
29%
Fundamentalist
4%

I like the idea of being a "Reformed Evangelical". I don't really know what that means, but I think I want to be it. I'm surprised the Holiness/Wesleyan wasn't my number 1 type.

The Mystery of Raisin Bran

I just finished a bowl of raisin bran and I am really confused by it. Why does it taste good? What about bran flakes is tasty? I'm also perplexed by the little dried up grapes. I don't like them on their own or in anything else, but in raisin bran they are really, quite delicious. It's like a surprise in your mouth because the raisins and the bran flakes have absolutely no visual appeal. There's nothing about them that makes you go "mmmm. . .that looks yummy!" But then you take a bite and sure enough--yummy they are.

I think I woke up too early this morning!

Cineplex Churches?

I'm just now getting around to blogging about last Sunday's Tennesseean article about the church. Of course they had to talk to Rick Warren. He said that his dream was to triple their membership to 30,000 without building a new facility. He wants to have "movie church" where the bands do the music and then there's a video of him preaching. This way he can have services on the hour all weekend long. People can choose to pop in and pop out.

I know he is not the only one thinking about this; there are already people doing it. I'm sure the taped messages are engaging and all, but is that really what church is? Am I just old fashioned? This isn't the same thing as resisting the switch from organ to piano, or piano to guitar, or bringing a screen into the sanctuary, right? I'm all for visuals--all kinds of them, that's my thing. But to never see your pastor in person? Is that OK?

Two weeks ago we had some of our big authors come in for a meet and greet. Tex Sample was doing his schtick about participatory worship. He played a clip of a Janis Joplin concert and showed how the audience was just listening. She was the star. Then he showed a NIN concert and of course the audience was jumping, singing, etc. It was everyone's concert. His point is that UM churches need to take that difference seriously if they want to come back to life.

Then Adam Hamilton, the pastor of UM Church of the Resurrection in K.C. talked about why he started that church. He wanted to start a church that was all about reaching nominal and non-Christians and he believed that the Mainline church is where it's at for doing this. He talked about how so many Mainliners are content to say that their church is dying and then letting these churches die a slow heat death. Hamilton said that he wanted a church that was overtly UM, but that you could feel Life when you walked in the doors. He's a teaching pastor so he's got 7-steps for this and quips for that. But, his premise is so true. The Mainline church is sitting on thousands of years of history. It's not dying or going anywhere.

It strikes me that Rick Warren's cineplex model is 100% observation-style worship. The congregation gets to just sit there and take it in. He says he expects to grow to 30,000 with this model. Then there's Sample who says worship has to be participatory or people will stop coming. Are there really masses of modernists who are content with observing worship? I'm baffled.