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."
Most of those are man imposed...not God imposed.
Thanks for you questions. They are most insightful. I'll do my best to give you cogent, true answers.
I did ruin my coffee maker yesterday and have only TEA this morning, so I might not be at my best.
The priests do learn at their respective seminaries what the lessons of the Gospels and readings are. They are not bound to have a sermon EXACTLY on that reading but it they do they must adhere to Church doctrine.
Our priest did the best sermon I ever heard on GRATITUDE on Thanksgiving. Those were his own words. He had been an attorney before he became a priest. The "wordmeister-turned-priest."
"bible study leader"--Students take daily religion classes K-12 if they go to a Catholic school. They learn about their faith EVERY DAY, not just at special times. If they don't, then their parents are responsible for their religious education.
Priests and religious may NOT "come up with anything on their own" if it pertains to dogma or basic interpretations of the Word of God. Yes, there is only one interpretation of the Word of God. Granted, some updating is necessary, as in SPEEDING or DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE, which are not listed in the Bible, but they are sins nonetheless.
If they do "come up with anything on their own" when it is contrary to doctrine then they are in hot water with the local Bishop.
I see you talking about a whole lot of rules the Catholic Church has put in place. My comment was about what God requires of Christians, not what the Catholic Church requires of its members.
Is this your opinion or do you have Bible references?
I see.
1. When Protestants don't go to Sunday service EVERY week they aren't breaking the COMMANDMENT on keeping holy the Lord's Day?
Or is watching football keeping holy the Lord's Day?
2. And, when Protestants divorce and remarry they are keeping the COMMANDMENTS?
Hmmmmm.
Is this your opinion or do you have Bible references?
6. Catholics must observe the MEATLESS Fridays during Lent and on Ash Wednesday Protestants don't have to do this.
Perhaps the burden is upon Catholicism to show where this has to be done.
.
>> “How can you receive a “cultural idiom” unworthily?” <<
By being an unbelieving shill.
You’re really weak on Biblical understanding.
There is no Eucharist; that is pagan hooey.
The eating of the Barley loaf and wine was commanded by Yeshua to be done in remembrance of him. That means being conscious of his sacrifice, and it means every time that the loaf and wine are consumed, not under the direction of some pagan nicolaitan.
.
The same way one could can hypocritically wear phylacteries, signifying faithfulness to God while deceitfulness is in his heart.
" And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD'S law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt. (Exo 13:9) "
"Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord... not discerning the body of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11, 27‑29). If Christ is only metaphorically present in the Eucharist, communicating unworthily offends indeed His person but not His body and blood.
And which is ignorantly cited by Caths as referring to the Corinthians not recognizing the element as being the body and blood of Christ, but which contextually is not the issue.
The overall context here is the church as the body of Christ, and that what one has liberty to eat or do is restricted by how it will affect others. Thus “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31-32)
And which is the context in the next chapter, in which Paul reproves Corinthian church for coming together to eat the Lord's supper, as he charges them with not actually doing so because they were eating what is supposed to be a communal meal, the “feast of charity,” (Jude 1:12) independently of each other, so that “in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken,” and thus what they were doing was to “shame them that have not.” (1Co. 11:20-22)
Therefore Paul proceeds to reiterates the words of Christ at the institution of the Lord's supper, ending with “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [kataggellō=preach/declare] the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
For while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord's unselfish sacrificial death for the body by unselfishly sharing food with other members of the body of Christ, whom Christ purchased it with His own sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) instead they were both eating independently and selfishly. And thus were effectively treating other members as lepers, and as if the body was not a body, and as if others were not part of the body for whom Christ died. This lack of effectual recognition is what is being referred to as “not discerning the Lord's body,” that of the body in which the members are to treat each as blood-bought beloved brethren, as Christ did. Because they were presuming to show the Lord's death for the body while acting contrary to it, therefore they were eating this bread and drinking the cup of the Lord unworthily, hypocritically, and were chastised for it, some unto death. (1Co. 11:27-32)
Because this was the case and cause of condemnation — that of not recognizing the nature of the corporate body of Christ in independently selfishly eating — versus not recognizing the elements eaten as being the body of Christ — then the apostle's solution was, “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.” (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
And which leads into the next chapter in which Christ-like love is described. Paul himself was asked of the Lord, “why persecutest thou me” (Acts 9:4) as Paul was attacking the church, thus showing His identification with the church.
While silently consuming a piece of bread and a sip of wine as is done today may not be that of ignoring others and their needs, yet it hardly corresponds in form to the communal feast of charity referred to here, and misses how we are to show the Lord's death by this supper, and instead it often results in seeing the Lord's death as simply being for individuals and abstract from the corporate body.
And to “take communion” by yourself (unseen in Scripture) is a contradiction in terms to its manifest description of communion. And the Catholic focus upon the elements which are consumed, and in which service many Catholics see interaction with others as an intrusion, and or with many with hastening to leave the service afterward, misses the meaning even more.
This is confirmed by what the Apostle said earlier: "The chalice of benediction... is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" (1 Cor 10:16). We cannot communicate in the body and in the blood of Christ in the Eucharist unless they are really there.
As your premise is false so is your conclusion.
In 1 Corinthians 10 the Lord's supper is described as being the communion/fellowship of the blood and the body of Christ through their communal sharing in that meal done in remembrance of Christ's death, not by eating His flesh. For in context the apostle teaches that this fellowship is analogous to the fellowship pagans have with their gods in their commemorative feasts, participation by believers in which the apostle is condemning.
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20,21)
Which partaking was not by consuming the transubstantiated flesh of devils, but by taking part in a feast done in dedication to demons. For they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the altar, showing union with the object of this feast and each other, and not because the food has been transubstantiated into that of the entity it is offered to.
In both chapters it is the church that as the body of Christ that is the focus, as it was bought by the sacrificial body and blood of Christ, and thus fellowship as per that love they were to show by recognizing each other via that communal "feast of charity," which signified oneness, like as the pagans had fellowship with devils via their dedicatory feasts, not by physically eating the flesh of demons.
Meanwhile,nowhere in the life of the NT church is any priest mentioned as even officiating at the Lord 's supper, much less engaging in a ritual of transubstantiation, and offering the elements as an offering for sin.
Nor are NT pastors ever called priests distinctive from the general priesthood of believers, or charged with officiating at the Lord 's supper, or otherwise even distinctly being involved in distributing food , much less described as Catholic priests ritually effecting a change in the elements as sacerdotal priests, all of which Catholics must read into Scripture.
Instead, the apostles expressed that their ordained function was not serving food but to give themselves "continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." (Acts 6:4)
In addition, nowhere in the life of the church is the means of obtaining spiritual life and growing in grace said to be by literally physically consuming the Lord Jesus, but spiritual life is obtained by hearing the gospel and truly believing it. (Acts 2:38; 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13)
And it is by preaching the word of grace that pastors foster growing in grace, by drinking "the sincere milk of the word," (1 Pt. 2:2) and ingesting its "meat," (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:12,13) being "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up by the word, (Acts 20:32) and with feeding the flock thereby being the primary active function of pastors. (Acts 20:32)
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:2)
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. (1 Corinthians 3:2)
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)
And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)
That the Lord was charging the apostles with being a distinct class of sacerdotal priests in the gospel accounts is what Catholicism presumes, but which is the very thing that needs to be established in the life of the NT church, but which simply is not manifest, which was a
later development . .
In addition, apart from 1 Corinthians is the absence of any manifest description of the Lord's supper other than breaking of bread in Acts and a "feast of charity" (Jude 1:12) which stands in sharp in contrast to the central supreme preeminence of the Lord's supper as a "the heart and summit of the Christian life...by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church." (CCC 1407) “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) with the offering of which being the primary function of her clergy, and around which all else in Catholicism essentially revolves.
.
>> “Perhaps the burden is upon Catholicism to show where this has to be done.” <<
Don’t be holding your breath waiting!
And be thankful that they don’t expect you to observe the 40 days of Weeping for Tammuz (Lent) or the munching of the mackerel (worship of Dagon).
.
Christianity recognizes the only unforgiveable sin is that of rejecting Christ. All other sins can be forgiven through Christ.
.
Excellent expository!
Do you think he’ll actually read it?
.
Christianity does not recognize mandatory fasting in this manner.
Christianity recognizes we can go to our Lord and ask for forgiveness on a regular basis. 1 John 1:9.
Obviously, God, and His material source is Scripture, which is the only substantive transcendent wholly inspired of God body of Truth.
God's means of preservation is writing:.
And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book.. (Exodus 17:14)
And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. (Exodus 34:27)
And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing.. (Deuteronomy 10:4) And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18) And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law,..(Deuteronomy 27:3)
And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, (Deuteronomy 31:24) Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23)
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12)
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15)
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 standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
It was not oral tradition that preserved the word of God and resulted in national repentance, but,
And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses. And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. (2 Chronicles 34:14-15)
Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Chronicles 34:18-19)
Then the king sent and gathered together all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem. And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, great and small: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book. (2 Chronicles 34:29-31)
Nor was it oral tradition that the Lord rebuked the devil (Mt. 4) and religious leaders by (Mt. 22) and substantiated His mission by and opened the understanding of the disciples to. (Lk. 12:44,45)
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.
Years ago, after I first believed at the witness of a Methodist whom the Lord appointed for that purpose, I looked for a suitable church. I still believed after that, that I had to find exactly the right church, the right congregation. I looked into Roman Catholic and others, perhaps oddly using a book that my aunt had recently given me, Leo Rosten’s “Religions of America.” What spoke to my heart was the Lutheran pastor’s presentation in that book, which spoke of responding to God as a loving Father rather than as a stern monarch. And I started with a Lutheran church, and they were loving people. But a quest for certainty eventually brought me to the door of a bible church.
The Catholic “world” inasmuch as I have viewed it on FR, is full of debate which, frankly, can get very catty at times. Oh look what this person said to that person! Not very often (I wouldn’t say never) do I see “look how the Lord is moving here, and He personally is separating chaff from wheat.” With the prime actor being the Lord. No, it’s all about the people most of the time, which makes it look like the no-win game that it has more and more become. What is happening to the Catholic world looks frankly like what is happening to the political Democrat world. If they WERE honest to God at one time, they’re now busy tossing it all to the winds. Luther and the classic Protestant reformers only noticed it early. No perfection themselves, but they swore to put their trust on the Lord that they were convinced would perfect them, based on His promises.
Catholics are typically compelled to subject whatever Scripture teaches to their church, so that in any conflict it can only mean what she teaches, which for them is the supreme law, and to compel Scripture to support said church as needed.
A similar stubbornness exists among certain Protestants who have a cultic church or elitist doctrine to defend and or an axe to grind who cannot examine the evidence objectively to go where the Truth leads.
.
Therein you have perfectly described the Roman catholic church.
.
According to typical trad. Catholics when they malign and or reject their pope, it is because they are committed to Truth, based upon their judgment of what sound teaching is according to past Catholic teaching.
But according to the same Catholics when conservative evangelicals malign and or reject the pope, it is because they presume to judge what sound teaching is according to Scripture, rather than submitting to the pope.
The ultimate story is found in living out a life in Christ, and by that means serious and blessed Christians can be found in all earthly segments of Christendom in spite of official dogma differences. The Lord manages to override these errors for the sake of these Christians.
The bible is important, but yet in the way that the manual for flying an airplane is important. Knowing it A to Z is yet not the same as getting the airplane off the ground.
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.