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."
Thus Council of Trent Session XXV: Rule IV
...it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor,..
Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.asp)
The Bull Unigenitus, published at Rome, September 8, 1713, as part of its censure of the propositions of Jansenism*, also condemned the following as being errors:
81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.
82. The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.
Finally,
"A dumb and difficult book was substituted for the living voice of the Church...We must also keep in mind that whenever or wherever reading endangers the purity of Christian thought and living the unum necessarium it has to be wisely restricted." — A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953) pp. 11-12.
This sounds like how many RCs speak of Pope Francis, while the "living voice" of that office is what they point us to versus the assured and living word of God, Scripture!
That was actually said regarding the Bible? If so that would be diametrically opposed to John 17:17 "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
Diametrically opposed to the Word is no place for a so-called "living voice of the Church" to be.
Unfortunately, you are right.
Isaiah 5:14. Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.
I have no clue what percentage of the earth's population end up in Hell, but my own wild guess would be about 95%. Everyone who suffers in Hell, is there because they chose to be in Hell. I am sure most of them didn't think they were choosing Hell over Heaven, but it was their choice nonetheless.
Here is another WILD GUESS. I think most, if not all, would choose to stay in Hell, even if they had a chance to go to Heaven. Sooner could a fish live in a tree, than an unsaved sinner live in the presence of God in Heaven. They would be completely out of their element.
So, I think the last thing we want to do, is shake the dust off our shoes at people, but then again, sometimes we just need to move on to greener pastures. There are many, who just flat out don't want to hear the truth. Their blood be on their own hands.
See you in the clouds bro. 😎
G’day Markus.The weather here is perfect about now,22 degrees C.It’ll be hot here soon enough.
Catholics don't cherry pick quotes to throw at people to prove they are wrong, but if we did, we would counter with that quote with the place where Jesus separated the sheep and goats according to their deeds. Or the place where Jesus said just “saying” Lord Lord won't get them into the kingdom. Or pull whole paragraphs from the epistle of James.
These things are nuances: Catholics believe are saved by God's grace, but most Christian churches insist we have to cooperate with that grace.
too much of the arrogant We are saved only by faith stuff, and you get people like my step son and his mother who are self righteous and make everyone around them miserable, but hey they are saved so see no need to change.
Too much of the arrogant “we are saved by deeds” stuff and you get Hillary Clinton.
That passage is pretty much exactly the same no matter what English translation someone uses. The Douay-Rheims says:
That IS in context and besides, there is no "nuance" needed when the Holy Spirit speaks quite plainly so that even a child can understand.
Catholics don't cherry pick quotes to throw at people to prove they are wrong, but if we did, we would counter with that quote with the place where Jesus separated the sheep and goats according to their deeds. Or the place where Jesus said just “saying” Lord Lord won't get them into the kingdom. Or pull whole paragraphs from the epistle of James.
See there, PLENTY of cherry picken'. You pull snippets out of context and you pervert the word of God by trying to make it sound contradictory. It's NOT. No one denies that there are some parts that even Peter said were "some things hard to be understood", but he also said that is was "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (II Pet.3:16).
We are saved by grace THROUGH faith and NOT because of our works, deeds, merits, acts of love, acts of "cooperation" or our own righteousness. Those who say they have faith but act as those you described show by their lives the kind of faith they have - and it isn't genuine, saving faith. THAT kind will result in a changed life and heart and can't help but be towards good and holiness. BUT, it is NEVER our own acts that save us. It is Christ's righteousness imputed to us. HIS righteousness is what saves us, not our own.
When that happens, let us know so we can see it.
I would LOVE to see whole passages support a Catholic position instead of isolated verses cherry picked from different books.
Yes, "dumb" as in having no literal physical voice, and "difficult" as compared to the "voice" of the church, which as we know, is so clear that there is not disagreement among its members as to its meaning, as well as magisterial level ). For Rome imagines that only what she says the word of God consists of and means is the Truth,
The RC argument for this basically is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Which of course, she declares herself to be.
Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.
Yet the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And as is abundantly evidenced, the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme substantive standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
I just gave you three examples from the New Testament.
If you were familiar with the bible you would be aware of what I was quoting and where the three long bible passages came from.
Perhaps you will study the Bible more in your retirement? ... But if I know doctors, they never really retire, they just shift their practice. Stay safe, Lady. You’re a pro-life warrior.
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.