“Not Even aware Of How Lame It Is…”
… the Church. My goodness this a wonderfully written bit.
Please take the time to read why Julie Neidlinger walked out of Church.
A recent cover story at World Magazine about “NextGen Worship” inspired a strong desire to smack the pastors depicted in the article and in the photos. The cover photo alone enraged me, with the pastor wearing baggy jeans and untucked button-up shirt with flip flops and an ear microphone. Later, the same guy is shown out front of a church holding a paper Starbucks-like cup of coffee. Could he try any harder to be lame?
Thanks to Dave M. and George Grant for pointing me to this wonderful little blog. We may have to link her gents, may be a moral imperative!
al sends
August 13, 2008 at 10:21 am
Did you notice that she employed the phrase “hell in a handbasket”? Dude, that was sweet.
August 13, 2008 at 10:33 am
I was hoping she would stop by here and bring that up. I thought our site title fit nicely with her post. hehe.
al sends
August 13, 2008 at 10:34 am
I caught that Rob – figured that was why Al wanted to link to her.
I found the following a bit disconcerting:
These are the people churches aren’t aware of, because they aren’t anywhere near a church. They slip in, walk out, and aren’t even missed. They don’t fill out visitor cards. They don’t want to be part of a flow chart or be managed as part of a Church-as-Corporate-Hierarchy system. They don’t want a polite follow-up call or to hear a voice on the other end say that they just wanted to “touch bases” with them to let them know they’re important. Even if those actions are sincere and the only plausible route when a church is so huge, they ring insincere.
I agree with what Julie is saying (and it makes me uncomfortable) – but the responsibility is shared. Too many of us expect church nirvana without extending any effort. Making and maitaining relationships isn’t a one-sided event.
August 13, 2008 at 11:31 am
sg,
I read things like this (and it is a bit trendy in certain circles to excoriate the trendy) and my immediate reaction is slightly schizophrenic. I want to denounce the things I don’t like, and defend the things I think are good or neutral. But as someone said in the comments section on the linked piece, it isn’t about the artifacts. It’s about the shallowness of it all, the shameless appeal to cultural hipness. In the end it becomes about artifacts and not meaning.
I think both sides of the argument miss some points. If we elevate the accidental features of a culture to central importance, we sin. If we overestimate the evil of flip flops and blue jeans, we sin.
I find much about the way of “doing church” that Julie describes to be deplorable. It is the cultural tail wagging the spiritual dog. But much about what she loves about her home church is the same with a differing set of artifacts.
At the end of the day, then answers are not nearly so cut and dried as we would like them to be. We can do better. Let’s keep trying.
August 14, 2008 at 3:51 pm
As I said on her site… I think she is desiring genuine hospitality.
al sends