Posted on 11/30/2016 2:41:47 PM PST by SeekAndFind
A Canadian study has found that Mainline Protestant churches that have both modern worship services and teach a literal interpretation of the Bible grow faster.
(Photo: Reuters/John Gress)A parishioner cries as he signs a song of worship in the 7,000-seat Willow Creek Community church during a Sunday service in South Barrington, Illinois, November 20, 2005. Institutions like Willow Creek and Houston's Lakewood Church, each drawing 20,000 or more on a weekend, offer not just a vast, shared attraction but a path that tries to link individuals on a faith-sustaining one-to-one level beyond the crowd, observers and worshipers say.
The Canadian researchers who authored the study, "Theology Matters: Comparing the Traits of Growing and Declining Mainline Protestant Church Attendees and Clergy," surveyed 2,225 churchgoers in Ontario, Canada, and interviewed 29 clergy and 195 congregants. The study will be published in next month's issue of the Review of Religious Research.
"This study was important because it quantified empirically something that evangelical renewalists have been saying for decades — theology matters," said the Rev. Tom Lambrecht, vice president and general manager of Good News Magazine, a United Methodist publication, in an interview with The Christian Post.
Lambrecht, who served for 29 years as a United Methodist minister in Wisconsin, told CP that people who are interested in the things of God "want spiritual substance, not just a feel-good message or the opportunity to engage in community service." The Church, he said, has to to be distinct from and offer more than local civic associations and charities.
A solidly Orthodox Gospel that motivates churches to adapt their worship life and ministries to engage the next generation more effectively will be one where the message remains the same, but the means of delivery look different.
The study also showed that services at growing "churches featured contemporary worship with drums and guitars, while declining churches favoured traditional styles of worship with organ and choir."
"The use of contemporary Christian worship music is an example of that adaptation," Lambrecht said. "It has been around for over 40 years, yet some churches still resist making that adaptation." He added, however, that he's seen examples of churches that have more traditional styles of worship that are also yielding growth.
Pastor John Daffern who leads a Southern Baptist congregation in Columbus, Mississippi, calls himself "an apologist for the modern church."
(Photo: Chris Ellis Photograhpy)Josh Daffern, pastor of MTV Church in Columbus, Mississippi.
"I pastor a church that fits that mold," said Daffern, who leads MTV Church, in a recent interview with CP after he read some of the study's findings.
"We are theologically conservative, according to that study, and yet we are unashamedly modern and we are in a sustained period of growth in our church, and that is in direct contrast to many of the Mainline churches and even some evangelical churches.
"And I think the wisdom of that study is the two parts. There does need to be a modern sense of an expression of the faith while at the same time a conservative, Orthodox view of Christianity," he added.
Daffern said he believes that what church growth comes down to is how man-made controls are applied and both liberals and conservatives do that in their own way.
"For those who would say that we want to liberalize the tenets of Christianity and pick and choose which parts we are comfortable with and which parts we aren't, that's man exerting control over the theology," Daffern said.
"In the same way, a conservative theology yet a traditional approach is still trying to exert man-made control over religion, but it's not over the theology but over the cultural expression," which amounts to an approach which he describes as leaders saying, "Hey, we're going to stick to the Bible but we're going to pretend that it is the 1950s or the 1960s."
Those man-made controls rob the supernatural aspect out of Christian faith, he asserted.
Lead researcher of the study, David Haskell, said in an interview with The Guardian earlier this month that Christians who rely on a fairly literal interpretation of the Bible, "are profoundly convinced of [the] life-saving, life-altering benefits that only their faith can provide, [and] they are motivated by emotions of compassion and concern to recruit family, friends and acquaintances into their faith and into their church."
The study also found that only half of the clergy interviewed who are presiding over declining churches agreed that it was "very important to encourage non-Christians to become Christians," whereas every member of the clergy in a growing church felt that way.
A whopping 93 percent of clergy and 83 percent of worshipers from growing churches believed in the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, compared to 67 percent of worshipers and 56 percent of clergy from declining churches. One hundred percent of clergy and 90 percent of worshipers from growing churches believe God does miracles in response to prayer, whereas only 44 percent of clergy and 80 percent of worshipers from declining churches say so.
"One of the reasons that people are drawn to modern churches is because people don't want to be part of a monument." Daffern asserted. "They want to be part of a movement. One of the greatest beauties of Christianity is that it is living and active."
"In my world, as a Southern Baptist pastor, I tend to deal with churches that have a conservative view of the Bible yet a very traditional mindset, often times it is monument to a bygone era of what they imagine to be the golden age' of Christianity in America."
Such churches are perfectly poised to come back were the 1950s ever to return, he mused.
However, the problem with some more modern churches, he added, is that people sometimes make the modern expression itself an idol of sorts.
"But the key is to be modern enough while not being a mere imitation of everything else around in culture."
Between you and SR I feel I'm in a deep Bible Study of most precious value.
“you have no justification for suggesting Jesus had to correct their misunderstanding.”
Uh....Yes, I have as justification the words of Christ.
“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life; and I will raise him up in the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.
As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eats me the same also shall live by me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live forever.”
Then you start guessing as to what the next passage means, citing some unknowns debating how many expressed this view.
“Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard,’ and who can hear it?
Then you go on to assert that Christ didn’t correct them, when its clear that He did just that.
But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
It is the spirit that quickens: the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that, would betray him.
And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
So, who are these “scholars” who insert some extra-scriptural debate about who held which opinions regarding Christ’s assertions?
Berengarius was the first to openly attack the Real Presence in the year 1088, but he retracted before he died.
Please see my citations of St. Augustine, St Cyril, St. Basil, in Post #335 and as for your “he light of the rest of Scripture”, please refer to my citation of St. Paul in post #336.
You have no “rest of Scripture” to substantiate your point.
You pretend some unnamed interpretive authority who has no standing.
OK. 😀😆😄😃 It's hard to figure out sometimes. With my screen name, it's obvious. 😎 The bottom line is, I am an ex Catholic like you. There are a number of us here. I don't plan to swim the Tiber anytime soon. 😃 Gamecock is watching me lik a hawk, to make sure I don't swim the Tiber 😆
Um try reading the post. It was filled with example after example that you apparently are unable to comprehend. Maybe reading that post would help you ... or not. MGHMOYS
Me too, brother.
We cannot give up on them ... there are eyes reading these threads who have hearts open to GOD, searching for TRUTH. The examples of bullheaded ignoring of clear teaching helps some to see the contrast.
Post numbers 323, 325, 327, 338 and 340 are a wealth of data points to aid you in sharing the Truth with Catholics. Those who have hearts open to God’s Grace will be blessed.
Thanks for the info bro. I like to use the Navigator’s bridge illustration. I think it’s quite good.
Those five posts are loaded with Bible study data points.
1. Nature of the debate among the Jews
The debate I referred to is not extra-scriptural. It is embedded in the text itself. The rabbinic material was only suggested as one possible basis for the debate. This is the passage:
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
(John 6:52)
The English word “strove” in the original is the Greek word ‘machomai.’ It means a sharp dispute, a quarrel. This vigorous debate was not with Jesus, but as it says, ‘among themselves.’ There clearly was confusion, a difference of opinions. Like the old joke, between any two rabbis, there are three opinions. At minimum. :) To picture this crowd just sitting there like mindless drones all sharing a common understanding of what Jesus was saying is to contradict the text.
2. The alleged duty to correct.
I have carefully read the text you have provided and saw nothing in there that says Jesus was obligated to correct misunderstanding.
However, I do agree Jesus offered a correction. But you have misplaced it. The ‘quarrel among themselves’ came directly on the heels of verse 51, where Jesus says He will give His flesh for the life of the world, an obvious reference to the atonement, his death on the cross.
You appear to think I am referring to verse 60, “this saying is hard,” which follows Jesus describing Himself as the bread that comes down from Heaven. I am not sure why you think that is my point of reference. Yes, the two passages are related, obviously. But the quarrel comes earlier. It proves there was no uniform understanding of what He was saying.
But the clarification I’m talking about doesn’t come until verse 63, where Jesus teaches that the flesh is not what gives the benefit, but the spirit, that His words are spirit, and life. This is a clear and specific rejection of a physical interpretation.
But notice what happens. Even after Jesus gave them an out, so they could be sure Jesus was NOT advocating the physical eating of human flesh in defiance of Moses, they still broke off from following Him. He knew that wasn’t the real issue. Unbelief in Him was the issue. As it says, He knew there were those who did not believe.
But what is it they didn’t believe? That His words were spirit, and life, that belief in Him was the only true food and drink that can give eternal life, as He had already told them here:
And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
(John 6:35)
Do you see how coming to him is here substituted for eating him? Bread is something you eat. But it is in coming to Jesus our appetite is satisfied, and it is by believing in Him that our thirst is quenched. Jesus is making it painfully obvious He was not talking about the physical consumption of His flesh or the physical drinking of His blood. He was talking about the desperate need of our hearts.
But there were some who did not believe, and the symptom of their unbelief was their inability to read His blazingly obvious metaphor. They got stuck in a hyper-literal interpretation, because it was the only shelter they could find from admitting the harder truth, that they didn’t need a fishes and loaves miracle worker, they needed to believe in the only one who could by His sacrifice atone for their sins and wash away all their guilt. Denial is a hard wall to penetrate.
Peace,
SR
Dude, throwing some uninspired quotes of so-called church "fathers" (the true NT church did not begin under them) is not an argument for what the NT teaches since they came after it, and can be shown to have deviated from it.
And as for your sppsd "argument" from Scripture, you already tried this which was soundly refuted at length, but like a man driven to blindly defend a cultic church you simply repeat the same specious assertions as if they were arguments. Just face the fact that you have no real argument, and never have.
Merely quoting words in contention - the interpretation of which is the very issue, is not an argument, nor is reiterating your superficial but refuted attempted argumentation. If you want to defend as literal (and thus the preeminence Catholicism gives to the Lord's supper) Jn. 6 and the words at issue uttered at the last supper, then you must do so in the light of the rest of Scripture, esp. the NT church in Acts onward, which writings are interpretive of the gospels. And thus you need to:
1. Show that taking part in Lord's supper was essential in order to obtain spiritual life, as per your literal uptake of Jn. 6:53, versus believing the words of Christ as Him being the promised Messiah who takes away the sins of the world, seen in the preaching and teaching of the NT church in Acts 2, 10, 13 and so forth, by which souls obtained spiritual life in them.
2. Show that in the life of the NT the Lord's supper being described as a daily sacrifice for sins at the hands of men called "priests" (distinctive from laity), with the offering of it being a primary function, versus simply a communal commemorative and declarative meal with no priests ever mentioned, nor pastors exhorted to be faithful in this feeding, but instead being exhorted to feed the flock by preaching the word of God which is said to be spiritual nourishment.
3. Show that the Lord's supper was held as being spiritual nourishment, 'the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) versus believing the word of God, which is uniquely said to be spiritual "milk" and "meat" and spiritual nourishment. (1Co. 4:6)
4. Show in the life of the church that it held the Catholic Eucharist to be "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei) and thus the Catholic Eucharist being manifestly described as the preeminent practice of the NT church, versus even the Lord's supper not being manifestly described except in one epistle, and perhaps as breaking of bread in Acts and simple reference to the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12.
5. Failing this, explain how the Holy Spirit could fail to clearly manifest the Lord's supper as being the priestly Catholic Eucharist and preeminent practice of the NT church, with its "priests" being charged with conducting (by Peter and Paul etc.). And with the only censure for not recognizing the body of Christ being that of not recognizing the church as such, due to hypocritically ignoring and shaming members of it by selfishly and independently eating, while supposedly showing/declaring the Lord's unselfish death which purchased the very body, the church, (Acts 20:28) and the souls they were ignoring (1Co. 11 )
Your “examples” are lame interpretations without foundation.
The Scripture I presented you is the plain truth and can not be denied by fraudulent and out of context interpretations.
Why do you insist on skipping the Scriptural sequence comprising the conversation?
From John 6:52 you SHOULD move directly to John 6:53-68 for the response and the complete context.
I have a 27 page paper that answers each and every challenge you set forth.
Let me know if you’re up to it.
In contrast, oral tradition by nature us supremely susceptible to undetectable corruption, with Scripture (what parts of the Word of God were not directly written) being the wheat of such among the chaff, and thus both Jewish and Catholic oral tradition contains teachings that are not the word of God, but which are claimed to be under the unwarranted premise of the veracity of leadership.
But, we are commanded to tell the stories of God to the next generation.. The problem is the mission creep over time. Pretty soon, Moses gave them manna in the wilderness, etc
Protestants are not exempt from this either. oral tradition, in and of itself is of God, but we can pervert it.
So how do we get to the truth if both oral and written can be corrupted?
Job 4:12) “This truth was given to me in secret, as though whispered in my ear.
The above scares Catholics, that there would be personal interpretation, Luther said, “so be it.” What does God say?
Ears to hear. The following provides some insite:
Joe_2:29 In those days I will pour out My Spirit even on servants—men and women alike.
Act_2:18 In those days I will pour out My Spirit even on My servants—men and women alike—and they will prophesy.
As an aside this morning. I am continually amazed that the NT is just God repeating the OT. Or maybe the OT repeats the NT?
Joe_2:28 “Then, after doing all those things, I will pour out My Spirit upon all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your old men will dream dreams, and your young men will see visions.
Act_2:17 ‘In the last days,’ God says, ‘I will pour out My Spirit upon all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.