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."
Ah, but elephants are such quiet creatures, and if you look the other way, you can imagine they are not there at all. I understand it is very easy with some practice.
And that He would not even be around soon in the flesh
Which point I often forget, and very helpful to seeing the flow of the argument. It is unfortunate in these debates that we retread the same ground so often that we do not occasionally step back and appreciate the wonderful richness of everything going on in this amazing passage. Tanks, bro. :)
Peace,
SR
Why blatant bombast! Once again all you have is mere assertions but which the evidence - and utter lack on your part - is against! You have not and can not and never will be able to show in the record of life of the NT church that partaking of the Eucharist is essential for, or otherwise the means obtaining spiritual life, or spiritual nourishment, thus all you can do is make mere assertions of no incompatibility btwn the literal meaning of Jn. 6:53 and what the rest of the Scripture after that show.
2 & 3- To pretend that 6:55 is referring to His word alone is preposterous. (55) He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life; and I will raise him up in the last day.
Another mere assertion, while NOWHERE does Scripture teach that obtaining everlasting life is by partaking of the Cath Eucharist, not even the actual Lord supper accounts (which Jn. 6 is not). And as shown, a plainly literal reading of those would mean that the same manifestly physical bloody flesh was being eaten, not some Aristotelian metaphysical nonsense!
except in one epistle, and perhaps as breaking of bread in Acts and simple reference to the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12 How about these? Matt. 26:26‑28; Mark 14:22‑24; Luke 22: 19- 30 and I Corinthians 11: 23‑25 & 1 Cor 10:16 5.- Is incoherent rambling.
What part of "Show in the life of the church" "Acts onward, which writings are interpretive of the gospels" do you not understand?! For the last time, using the words which are actually the subject of disputation as your argument is simply circular nonsense.
In addition, your blindness or refusal to actually read what refutes you is evident in you invoking I Corinthians 10 and 11, which is that "one epistle" mentioned, and the attempted arguments for them by you were clearly refuted at length to you already !
Such irrational robotic recitation for Rome makes you sound like a brainwashed cultist and thus is actually an argument against being a Catholic, which is the only argument you have. No wonder even your own brethren must have left you alone here.
Just give it up lest a worse think come up thee.
The question was simply stated, not referring what Jews did or did not reject. If you are unaware of the History to which the question refers, ask for clarification. You appear unable to fathom the question thus you are afraid to ask clarification so you can comprehend the question, showing the desperate nature of your willful blindness.
You have NOT “refuted” anything.
You twist words and assign meaning to suit your purpose.
You ignore clear responses to your challenge “What part of “Show in the life of the church” “Acts onward, “
When I present you with Paul, so who is obstinate to see the truth?
What? One again more lying denial is your argument? And (re. Paul) is it blindness or simply an unwillingness to look at what clearly refuted you??? You simply have no valid argument, and never did. Bye.
John 6 is clear.
You have refuted nothing.
I’m clear on the history.
Many have presented that lame argument in prior years.
1 Corinthians 10:31-32 - Has NOTHING to do with the Eucharist!
1Co. 11:20-22 - Is addressing the abuses of the Eucharist. Paul is making it clear that the Eucharist is indeed sacred and should not be treated as some casual meal.
Which is exactly why he explains the condemnation of those who receive unworthily in 11:23-26.
Your conclusion is shallow nonsense:
“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 “
You just revealed the nature of your closed and shuttered mind. You now belong solely to your cult. ... And just so readers get it, God is not double minded, that He would forbid that which He 'eventually' would 'glorify'. On the contrary, The Bible shows us that He installs the figure of what He will fulfill over time.
You and terycarl don't happen to be captured in the same congregation or neighborhood, do you? Your blind stubbornness defending heretical notions looks a lot like that one's defense of the religion of catholiciism's heresies.
“You have not heard an ‘argument’ yet!”
CORRECT!
And like a little child rolling on the floor with fingers deeply embedded in ears, you refuse to answer a simple question ... perhaps it is because you inner ‘spirit of antichrist’ is warning you to not listen, it might lose hold on you!
Why do you stoop to citing Jewish law against consuming blood when the Christian law forbidding cannibalism is just as strong?
From “The Eucharist in the Early Church”:
The Eucharist isn’t consumption of Blood in the normal sense. Otherwise, we’d be cannibals. Although it’s literally Jesus’ Body and Blood, we aren’t destroying Jesus in the process.
So it’s no more against Jewish kosher laws than it is against the Christian prohibition against cannibalism.
Magic Thinking is strong with you ... that wasn’t even a fair try at straw-manning. I’m afraid I am not equipped to deal with a twisted mind such as makes assertions with self-contradicting parts. Bye bye
Can you read? I invoked 1 Corinthians 10:31-32 because "The overall context here is the church as the body of Christ," and which flows into the next chapter. It may be hard for you to see this, but the Lord's supper cannot be separated from the welfare of the church as the body of Christ, which is to remember and thus effectually show the Lord's death till He comes.
Which sacrificial loving death you do not do by either causing your brother to stumble by misuse of liberty, which is the immediate context of 1Co. 10:31,32, or by eating independently and to the full while ignoring other brethren, which is to "shame of them that have not," which was what Paul censored the Corinthians for doing in the next chapter.
You do not eat or drink to the glory of God by acting as they did, and even if you believe in transubstantiation you should agree with this.
1Co. 11:20-22 - Is addressing the abuses of the Eucharist. Paul is making it clear that the Eucharist is indeed sacred and should not be treated as some casual meal.
That it should not be treated as some casual meal is true, but the issue here is the the censure of 1Co. 11:17-34 was not that of a failure to recognize the bread and wine as transubstantiated flesh and blood, but it was manifestly that of that of not effectually recognizing the body of Christ for which He died, that one bread" of 1 Corinthians 10:17, because of the utterly hypocritical way they imagined that they were showing the Lord's death till He comes - which is what Paul says they were commanded to do - (1Co. 11:26) treating those for whom Christ died as if they were lepers!
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)
Thus Paul simply repeats - not interprets - the words at issue of the Lord's supper (vs. 23-25) concluding, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [proclaim] the Lord's death till he come." (1 Corinthians 11:26)
Therefore, since they were actually not coming together to eat the Lord's supper, because they were not actually showing His sacrificial death for the church by spurning those for whom He died, then Paul next states,
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning [recognizing] the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)
And the church as the body of Christ is what Paul elsewhere also majors on, including in the next chapter, as one who persecuted the Lord (Acts 9) by persecuting His church.
And because the problem was not that of them not recognizing the nature of the elements eaten, but that of how they did not actually come together to eat the Lord's supper due to how they selfishly ate, then the solution Paul gives is not a lesson on transubstantiation (which neither Paul nor any apostle writes to the churches about), but instead, consistent the theme here, he states,
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 once again, even if one holds to transubstantiation then they should still agree that what was not being discerned was the church - which was my argument - which even the notes to the NAB concur with:
[27] It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus' intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf ⇒ 1 Cor 8:12).
13 [28] Examine himself: the Greek word is similar to that for "approved" in ⇒ 1 Cor 11:19, which means "having been tested and found true." The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (⇒ 1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus' death (⇒ 1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (⇒ 1 Cor 11:18-25).
So you can also argue with them, while once again you have no valid argument
Your conclusion is shallow nonsense: “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
Rather, you continue to foolishly charge others with what the public can see applies to you.
Not my fault you are unwilling to take John 6 at face value.
See post # 415 ...
“And the church as the body of Christ is what Paul elsewhere also majors on”
NO!
It is NOT!
It is ON THE EUCHARIST!
You can stamp your feet and shout your bare assertions all you want but such will not make them true, and simply attests again to your utter absence of any actual argument, and your rejection of objective reason-able analysis in your blind defense of what you want to believe.
Thus you are fit to be left to your own chosen deception and its damnable consequences,.
Bye.
Go back and READ John 6 and see what you learn.
The phrase Body and Blood are use so often by Christ as to be impossible to misunderstand, without prior intent.
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.