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."
Here ya go; on another thread.
Church history reveals that it was not until three hundred years after the birth of Christianity that the doctrine of the Bianity (325 C.E.)...
And Rome is like the liberal media and Google, etc, which exalt themselves as the supreme judges of what is true versus fake.
Indeed. And as said, if literal they would have believed that "my body which is broken for you," "blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.." meant they would be consuming the actual manifestly bloody flesh of Christ, not a crucified body of Christ which looked, tasted, smelled, and would scientifically test as a mere inanimate object. That would be no more real than that of some Gnostics versus the Christ whom "we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." (1 John 1:1)
The transubstatiationist overlays this entire passage, and particularly verses 53 through 58, with a pseudo-Aristotilian theory that would not appear until over 800 years later in the teaching of Radbertus.
But while it can and is argued that a basic belief in transubstantiation is evidenced much earlier, yet Rome requires such precise belief in her theory than it makes professors of theories heretics. Such was the case with John of Paris
This was a Dominican theological whom the Catholic Encyclopedia says was "endowed with great ability, was the most subtle dialectician of the age, possessed great literary and linguistic attainments, and was considered one of the best theologians of the university." However, in treatise on the Blessed Sacrament, in which he tentatively advanced the propositions that "the Body of Christ is, or might be, present by assumption (I. e. by the body of Christ assuming the bread and wine), and that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not of faith." resulted in him being "deprived him of the offices of lecturing, preaching, and hearing confessions." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08475b.htm; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08475b.htm
That the original hearers of the words at issue on the "real presence" would not have naturally assumed that, if literal, the Lord was speaking of giving them some of His actual manifestly bloody flesh to eat, but that they instead held to orthodox transubstantiation theology is absurd.
And of course, the Elephant in the Room is that the record and teachings of NT church in Scripture simply does not evidence that it held the Lord's supper as the central exalted formal liturgical priestly sacrifice for sins, which is consumed in order to obtain spiritual life and nourishment, as the Catholic Eucharist. But instead, the word of God is presented as this, and the preaching of it being the primary active function of pastors.
Quoting vast blocks of Scripture and proclaiming Aha! doesn't constitute an argument.
Indeed, but which question-begging arguments by assertion is typical of many Catholics.
The combination of these two is effectively an argument from silence, according to the following syllogism: : Premise 1: If the Jews misunderstood Jesus, he had a duty to correct them. Premise 2: They understood him in the Catholic way of understanding, and He did not correct them, Conclusion: Therefore the Catholic way of understanding this passage must be correct.
And yet what the Lord did explain that they flesh profits nothing, as indeed nowhere does Scripture teach that literally physically eating anything provides spiritual nourishment, which the word of God does. And that He would not even be around soon in the flesh, which corrected basic misunderstanding that the Lord was going to give them some of His body to eat, as in endocannibalism, which people consumed some of the deceased body of a beloved person in order to obtain spiritual properties.
I will tell God I believed and defended the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, the Epistles of Paul, and the foreshadowing in the Old Testament.
And fought against the heresies of those who would twist the clear meaning of Scripture.
Yes, This fella:
13 Jesus then stepped forward, took the bread and gave it to them, and the same with the fish.
14 This was the third time that Jesus revealed himself to the disciples after rising from the dead.
15 When they had eaten, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me more than these others do?’ He answered, ‘Yes, Lord, you know I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’
16 A second time he said to him, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ He replied, ‘Yes, Lord, you know I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Look after my sheep.’
17 Then he said to him a third time, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ Peter was hurt that he asked him a third time, ‘Do you love me?’ and said, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep.
18 In all truth I tell you, when you were young you put on your own belt and walked where you liked; but when you grow old you will stretch out your hands, and somebody else will put a belt round you and take you where you would rather not go.’
19 In these words he indicated the kind of death by which Peter would give glory to God. After this he said, ‘Follow me.’
Retro-nothing:
It has been contiguous:
St. Augustine (354-430) writes: “That which is seen on the table of the Lord is bread and wine; but this bread and this wine, when the word is added, becomes the Body and Blood of the Logos.”
St. Cyril writes: “As a life-giving Sacrament we possess the sacred Flesh of Christ and His Precious Blood under the appearance of bread and wine. What seems to be wine is not wine, but Christ’s Blood. “
St. Basil (331-379) prays in these words of his liturgy, “Make this bread into the Precious Body of our Lord and God and Redeemer Jesus Christ, and this chalice into the Blood of Our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, which was shed for the life of the world.”
I have provided refutations, yet you choose to ignore them.
As for volume, I have dozens of books on the subject of the Eucharist alone.
Would you like a list?
The understanding of the Jews is not in the least “controversial”, as those who refused to believe left, and those who believed stayed.
You have to invent the controversy to misunderstand this point.
Hmmm. No controversy? Did I write this?
The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
(John 6:52)
Now you can split hairs and say a quarrel isn’t a controversy. I won’t take that as a serious response. No reasonable person would. So while we were not there and do not know all the details of the controversy, we can be certain there was one, if we trust the words of Scripture.
Peace,
SR
Thanks!
Now go finish reading 6:53 through 6:68 and you’ll have your answer as to how Christ addressed their confusion.
So let me understand this. You are thanking me for disproving your premise that the Jews understood what Jesus meant? Ok then. You’re welcome! :)
Peace,
SR
Circular logic again
I would ask you this: Prior to the life of Jesus, was it the clear command from God to the Jews not drink the blood or eat the flesh of fellow humans?
SR, that principle reminds me of a Catholic/Protestant (I am not a Protestant) thread, maybe two years ago now. I specifically remember you and MM responding to it, but I think others did too. Anyway, I asked one guy, why he didn't have a priest with him, to interpret the Bible for him. He said he didn't interpret scripture, he just read it, and told me what it said. I guess that's like saying a quarrel is not a controversy, but I was over 8,000 miles away, and I could hear the laughter reverberating through my WiFi connection. It brought the house down.
Which is a blatant lie. Show me one "refutation" to me that has been ignored, while i will show you the spurious nature of what you imagine to be refutations, again and again quoting the very words which are in contention, or quotes by mere men parroting the same bare assertions, and which require us to see how the NT manifestly understood them, which simply does not and never will support your selective literalist carnal apprehension of them.
Now either provide the evidence required by my 5 simple statements or stop engaging in mere argument by assertion.
As for volume, I have dozens of books on the subject of the Eucharist alone. Would you like a list?
And what will that prove? Mormons have volumes also, and which simply does not translate into Truth, while not matter if you have more volumes than the world can hold you still will not find what you so desperately need to show in the life and teachings of the NT church (Acts onward, which are interpretive of the gospels) as per my 5 requirements.
Now you’re going to site the Jews rejection of New Testament teachings as your excuse?
How much the NT do Jews accept?
You’ve “disproved” nothing.
You simply reject the plain meaning of John 6 and use other misrepresented Scripture as your excuse.
LOL! As you wish, FRiend. Like my dad used to say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. No hard feelings. :D
Peace,
SR
I remember that too. Amazing. :)
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.