10.26.04
emerging relevance
The emerging church movement is barely emerging and already I’m a skeptic. Greg pointed this article out to me. Christianity Today has an article in which they feature Mars Hill Bible Church of the Grand Rapids metropolitan area. Mars Hill is one of the newest mega-churches in our area. Christianity Today reports over 10,000 regular attenders.
Great right? A Church that seeks to be culturally relevant, enagage people, change the world. Theoretically, yes. In practice, I’m not so sure. The emergent mystique isn’t so mystical as it once was. The movement–though Brian McLaren will vehemently oppose the term movement–began in the 1970’s with the house church / Jesus people movement. (You’ll see a remnant of this if you visit the Mars Hill website in their logo.)
Is the emergent church really ONLY about cultural revolution? I was under the impression that it was actually about changing the church. I’m afraid that mainstream American evangelicalism has gotten its meat hooks into the emergent church. I’m afraid that “emergent” is becoming synonomous with that other overused word “relevant.” That can’t be ALL the emergent movement is about can it? Relevance?
To me, the problem with relevance is that it misses the point. It implies that same old ‘modernist’ mantra that our message–the message of Christianity–is so powerful, so wonderful, so convincing, that we merely need to be, well, cool, and all will be well. Folks will flock to churches everywhere, we’ll have a big ole’ tent gathering and do some baptisms and before you know it, BANG — the second coming.
But, despite our best attempts, this ‘moderinst’ gospel has seen the Christian Church in this country shrink rather than grow. To me, that’s what’s spawned this renewed interest in the emergent movement. The understanding that cultural relevance was really only a superficial attempt to further Christianity.
It seems, however, that the emerging church is a movement claimed now by the mainstream. Under the modernist belief that being relevant is some magic bullet that will change the world. To me, this emerging church has lost it’s postmodern bite. The post-modern message is not that the Church is dead. The post-modern message is that the church needs to rediscover its cultural roots.
We’ve become so entralled with the idea that culture is the enemy that even something as counter culture as the popular term ‘relevant’ is seen as cutting edge. The Church doesn’t need to be relevant. Culture isn’t what’s wrong with the church. Churches (little ‘c’) are what’s wrong with culture. Churches have attempted to redefine the culture of antiquity with an over emotionalized and just plain wrong understanding of the culture of the writers of the Bible.
Postmodernism is about rediscovering that culture. About turning everything we know upside down and letting the chips fall wherever. I don’t see that at Mars Hill. I can’t say that I know much about Rob Bell, he sounds like a great guy. But there’s something about the machineism of a mega-church that seems unwittingly ‘un-emergent’ to the likes of me.
I hold strongly that cultural relevance should not be the plight of the Church. Frankly, I wish we would ban the term relevant entirely from our vocabulary. The Church doesn’t need to be any more culturally relevant in the sense that it’s being batted around, at least not for the purposes that it is popularly doing so.
Instead, the church could spend a bit more time learning from culture than correcting it. Call me a heretic, a skeptic, or just a crusty old jerk, but I don’t think I can get on board with being emergent if all that really means is being relevant. There’s nothing particularly transformational about that.
, I have always been greatful for that upbringing, sense of family/extended family, and intimacy of really knowing the uncles, cousins, and close family friends through the 2-3 weekly church meetings together. Many churches of this type today are called “separatist” or even “cults” because they dont line up with any major denomination or current contemporary movement. And of course the only of these types you hear about are “davidian” cults or “polygamist” communities in the boonies of Utah. Our theological mix was one of “7th Day”, pentecostal, evangelical, fundamentalism…which I was well versed on and it probably contiributed to my very individualistic search for understanding the confusion of all churches and traditions that call themselves “Christian”, including Catholicism.
bigbrother0074 said,
October 26, 2004 at 3:05 am
i’m curious as to what your thoughts are on relevant magazine. i was under the impression that they were attempting to bring a doctrinally sound message to those who don’t hear that. i like it because it is interesting to me (as it is geared to be, of course) but it doesn’t have all the junk in it the rest of pop-culture does. this is interesting to me: i guess i am morally opposed to viacom (mtv, vh1, com. central, BET, CBS, Showtime, etc…) because it seems everything they stand for i am morally opposed to. they seem to work to steer culture in a direction away from god, morality, and the like. but, at the same time, i am part of our culture, and am interested it. it is a strange idea that pretty much the only tv stations i watch are those owned by the corporation i abhor. i dislike my interests in it, yet satisfy them nonetheless.
you’re thoughts?
Resident Atheist said,
October 26, 2004 at 3:12 am
Back in the day, one problem I had with the church’s striving for relevance is that their very efforts to make their message relevant actually rendered it irrelevant (the parts of it that were coherent, anyway). It took the form of extant cultural presentations without adopting any of the functions, and adopted culture’s flair and style without incorporating any of its substance.
The main problem, and I think you’ve said this before, is that there’s a widespread modernist assumption that the message of Christianity is culturally invariant and that all you have to do is dress it up with the right buzzwords and automatically people will see it as a deeply profound and effectual way of life. In fact, this is quite false. With respect to the very few churches I have experience with, their efforts to “reach out to the younger generation” alienated me and my peers more thoroughly than ignoring us could ever have.
I attribute this to the subculture factor. It’s a sad fact that many people who live their lives in American churches don’t have the foggiest idea what life on the outside looks like, so that any attempt to be “culturally relevant” will be not only reflect a pathetically distorted view of contemporary culture but will also smack of insincerity and manipulation. That, I think, is what turns off most of the people who are turned off by such things.
For what it’s worth…
Cheers,
RA
Just Pat said,
October 26, 2004 at 7:55 am
I think there’s room for “cultural relevance” in the church, in the sense that in order to communicate the message of the gospel, the church should speak the “language” of the culture around us. What I fear is in the donning of current culture we’re inviting the world to a rock concert that in the end turns out to be the same old Amway meeting they always get tricked into.
Jesus communicated to the culture around him. He lived in it, practiced it, told stories about it. I think that’s hospitality. But, our culture is like a swarm of locusts that devours all good things in its path and then moves on. Sometimes mega churches are like they are because of the leadership wants it that way; sometimes because of the kind of people we are.
All said, I think you are right on about the importance of relevance not taking over our mission. Hit it like a hammer, BC.
Wow said,
October 26, 2004 at 9:28 am
WEE! I like your last paragraph, Bad. Also, it seems many of us in the body of Christ are so bent on having a term for which “group we’re in” - in order to seperate ourselves from one group or another (God forbid I might get called a fundie!) - that we’re still missing the point.
Brandon said,
October 26, 2004 at 10:03 am
Thanks guys!
Big Brother, it’s hard for me to give a legitimate platform on Relevant Magazine. My views of their stuff have been shaped in two ways that make me a bad judge of their character. Their message board community is one, and a miniscule amount of inside knowlege of thier publishing techniques is another.
Suffice it to say that I have a problem with the concept that the Church should be relevant for the sake of being cool. I think that’s backwards. I really should make a post on this…thanks for the idea!
Rich said,
February 9, 2005 at 12:36 pm
awesome
Chris duMond said,
March 11, 2005 at 10:16 am
hey guys, first time post-er,
Ummm…where to start. Well, I attend Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, MI and I would not call Mars Hill an emergent church, (although to be honest, I’m not sure there are any definitions or categories for the emergent church so we may just be…it’s all so confusing!)
i would say, however, we are teaching deep biblical roots and truths rooted in Scripture and trying to figure out how to do live in biblical community (another over-used word.) The first year of Mars Hill, Rob preached a 9 month series on Leviticus. Very deep. I thnk we grew from about 2 to 3 thousand to 6 to 8 thousand people. During Leviticus.
Rob talks and walks through Scriptures about divorce, lying, jealousy, cheating, murder, love, manipulation, anger and deceit. Then he says, not much had changed in 2,000 years, has it? He doesn’t make the Scriptures “relevant” (if i hear that word one more time in a conversation about churches today…) they ARE relevant, beacause the Scriptures are the story of us. OUR story. This didn’t happen to a bunch of people a billion years ago on another planet, this is us!
Anyway, that’s me and Mars Hill in a nutshell. Blessings.
Amy said,
March 27, 2005 at 11:30 pm
Amen brother! I too attend Mars hill and I appreciate some actual commentary on the subject that is thoughtfull and well spoken. Thanks
Andy said,
April 6, 2005 at 8:19 pm
I have attended Mars Hill for over two years. I recently studied abroad in Costa Rica, where the “traditional” Catholic church is very alive, and over 90% of the people consider their faith to be Catholic. It CONTROLS their lives. Everything in their life relates to their RELIGION. However, I did not see ANYONE whos faith comes close to the majority of people regularly attending Mars Hill. Mars Hill does not “…worship in vain…” because “their teachings are but rules taught by men” Matt 15:9 This church does not “…break the commandment of God for the sake of tradition” Matt 15:3. However, they do teach to “If you really keep the royal law found in Scrioture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’” James 2:8. They also teach “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned…” Luke 6:37. However, one thing that is taught in Mars Hill which is [should be] important to every christian church or organization is “Is it not written: ‘My house will be a house of prayer for all the nations?’”
Faith is not brought about by judgement, critizicm, and speculation, but by faith, hope, and love. And most importantly: Love Wins.
Regina said,
April 21, 2005 at 2:27 am
Hello All….
Yet another Mars Hill member for the last year, I moved to Grand Rapids listening to downloadable audio of the messages. Prior to that, I spent 20+ years at Word of Faith Christian Center, which I outgrew in my early 20s. As a black woman, I was in search of depth of perception. I realize that an obeying Christian wants and needs to find fellowship, which is difficult with all of the Christian cults circling around. I have attempted to adjust to various religious organizations that remained on the surface of what our real purpose is on this Earth. Often, I felt as if I was looking for too much. I grew tired of the superficial messages that promote “the individual” and the opinion that the issue and the answer lie in everyone else with little responsibility for personal actions or to God.
We all know that there are no perfect places of worship. I do think that Mars Hill eliminates many barriers and assumptions of inclusion and exclusion and I embrace them. Without these barriers, many conflicts disappear. We are all free to praise, worship, sing, dance, and learn. By not having “things” to answer to, be it passing a collection plate or wearing specific attire, a diverse group is automatically included. I can invite people there whom I love, who are not like me; except that they are searching for more, and they feel welcomed and blessed – just the way they are…isn’t that the point? I leave it up to God and I say to myself…”Ok God, I got them here – Your move”.
Out of the 10+ people I have invited, all have stayed and I direct many more to the web site to hear what our Church has to say in the comfort of their homes when God leads them to.
“Where two or more are gathered in His name…” As I read this passage, there is no mention of a lot of the practices that wasted the time that I could have been spending in fellowship, praising God…. In my blue jean skirt. This is a wonderful discussion…
- Regina
Paul said,
April 22, 2005 at 10:46 am
Our congregation, New Covenant near Flint MI, fully appreciates Rob the the ministries of Mars Hill. I have heard Rob many times on the net and at Catalyst…and this Sunday at Mars Hill - the first of many visits. Anyone who questions the realness of Rob, his faith, the faithfullness of the congregation to the Bible, has parked themselves in a tight, legalistic, only-my-way mode. Rob is just an amazing young Christian. We thank God for him. I just don’t understand where the ‘Christian’ critics of the Rob Bells, Andy Stanleys, Bill Hybels, Rick Warrens, et. al. of this world come from. They don’t know the people they condem and certainly don’t appear to know the Christ they claim to be following so closely. I close with this from Rick Warren, “When you’re small, they’ll dismiss you. When you’re growing they’ll criticize you. When you’re large, they’ll resent you. So ignore ‘them’ and get on with whatever God has told you to do!”
juanito said,
April 24, 2005 at 11:06 pm
yet another Mars Hill member reporting… I got the sense from reading the CT article that people are trying to categorize “emergent church”. I just now heard of the term, and to me it means “church that is emerging”, not the latest way of wrapping the gospel in hip culture.
I’ve seen things at Mars Hill that have impressed me with how much they care about being non-”relevant”.
off the top of my head… they’ve had the psalters visit twice:
http://www.psalters.com/
and one time Rob Bell said “SHAME ON YOU” to all the people who call the church office to see if he’s preaching on Sunday.
I’ve visited perhaps a dozen churches in the area, and sense that only a couple churches seek to struggle vigorously with the text, wringing truth out of it. Mostly we hear preaching about the traditionally accepted truth of the text, which i’ve already heard like infinity times since i grew up in the church.
cool blog - i’m bookmarking it right after i post this comment.
haha said,
May 2, 2005 at 9:48 pm
Andy said:
“I did not see ANYONE whos faith comes close to the majority of people regularly attending Mars Hill.
and then Andy said:
However, they do teach to “If you really keep the royal law found in Scrioture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’” James 2:8. They also teach “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned…” Luke 6:37.
I ask Andy, did Mars Hill teach you to judge others and then judge judging others in the very same breath?
papa destiny said,
May 22, 2005 at 8:48 pm
(directed to “brandon” author of the opening words)
(i personally have never been to mars hill and have only heard a small amount of rob bell, so i guess i would have a neutral opinion according to everyone else that have left comments.)just curious man, i know you wrote this article over six months ago. has your opinion shifted at all, or would you still hold to your opinion of what you wrote? Time sometimes has a habit of shifting our views on life, and i am just curious on this subject of emerging, has it changed? Has it deepened or weened? or the relevance thought?
i guess i would like to know your thoughts as of today.
curious, just curious– if you would rather keep them to yourself, well by all means then.
Michael Start said,
July 12, 2005 at 1:17 pm
I have attended 3 times over the past year and a half with my parents who are fanatical about Mars Hill. It seems to me that they are simply looking for a “deeper angle” on Christianity. As Rob Bell told Christianity Today, “We’re rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion” and according to the Detroit Free Press “For half an hour, Bell talked about the wonderous nature of breathing, borrowing from Jewish, Christian, and Hindu (!) teachings. Bell also talks about “dicovering the Bible as a human product, rather than the product of divine fiat” (according to Christianity Today).
One thing that really gets to me though is referring to God as “dude, the dude, a real dude, etc.” Where is the holy fear of an Almighty God? The One Whom when seen by John in Revelation fell down as though dead. Should a God of Love not be more Westernized (maybe Easternized) and be more approachable?
Rob Bell is also quoted as saying “When Jesus becomes kind of an esoteric spiritual figure and not a real dude in a real place at a real time, the really subversive economic and political things he’s saying get lost in an effort to proclaim him as Son of God.” Did Jesus come to lecture on economics and politics or to rescue us from hell? And how could we ever “get lost” in proclaiming Him as the Son of God?
Rob Bell also bashes “preachers bashing Hollywood” according to The Subversive Art - LeadershipJournal.net. Is there no standard of morality?
At one of the services I attended they sang the U2 song with the line “Jesus won’t you take the time to throw a drowning man a line?” Have they lost sight of the “line” that was thrown to us 2000 yrs ago?
A Christmas season service that I attended in ‘04 where an assistant pastor compared, for quite some time, the agony of Christmas shoppers at the mall to the agony of our Lord Jesus on the cross. He went so far as to go “into the Greek” describing agony as an olive being crushed by a mill stone. He even showed slides of these ancient mill stones. Why do you accept this dumbing down of our faith.
One last thing. When David Crumm (Detroit Free Press) asked Bell about homosexuality he used the “powerfully affirming line - God loves you exactly as you are. Period.” Need I say more? -Mike Start
Joel said,
September 3, 2005 at 2:36 pm
“But there’s something about the machineism of a mega-church that seems unwittingly ‘un-emergent’ to the likes of me.”
Yo, I’m so sick of hearing what an emerging church is supposed to look like. That’s so modern. We’re getting worse than ‘purpose-driven!’ How can we say that a truly emerging church can NOT be a community that is large in size?? So what if you grow in numbers? Emerging is definitely not FOCUSED on numbers, however, what do you do? Turn people away?– “Oh, sorry. We’re emerging. Total capacity: 36.” Please - let’s STOP talking about who’s in and who’s out. From what I know about Mars Hill is that they ARE emerging in the true sense of the word. Look at what they’re doing. Transforming church. Rediscovering roots. Re-looking at theolgy. Not to mention that they ARE reaching thousands that are disconnected and missing from other ‘mega-churches.’
Becky O said,
November 14, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Hello-I attend Mars Hill and have been for the past two years. After raised Cathloic, Mars Hill offered me something that the Catholic Church did not. I can be myself. It was the first time I felt that God accepted me where I was at.
I agree with you Joel that Mars is reaching people that are missing the point.
I repect what anyone else thinks, but for me, God has used Mars Hill to change my life.
Be Blessed.
jason said,
December 18, 2005 at 9:13 pm
I’m a huge fan of Mars Hill and Rob Bell. If you don’t see him bringing the cultural roots of Christ’s original followers and Bible authors into his teachings, you likely aren’t listening to him much. He uses ancient Jewish culture and stories of Roman oppression all the time. It seems what is bothering you more is that his following is growing. A mega-church is the only way to reach the amount of people demanding this kind of teaching. If you read his book ‘Velvet Elvis’ he speaks to the fact that his church took off faster than he could’ve ever imagined and he simply has tried to accomodate. The Emergent Church going ‘mainstream’ I don’t believe is a matter of it’s compromise, rather it’s gaining popularity. I believe whatever you think of Mars Hill or the Emergent Church you must ask yourself the foolowing. ‘Has anyone else caused me to look at my faith in ways that I never have before?’. And ‘Has it done me harm or brought me closer to God through a deeper understanding?’. If you haven’t really listened much, then you won’t know. Rob Bell always backs his theories biblically or otherwise factually. If considering truths outside of the Bible (something Rob does)and how they relate back to the Bible scares you (other posters and critics of Rob) then your foundation in the Bible and Jesus’ teachings are likely not yet strong enough to venture out and that’s fine, but it doesn’t make it wrong. Finally, the only thing I’m more sick of hearing than ‘relevant’ is ‘missing the point’ where is that from? Is it all from that McLaren/Campolo book? Can we put it to rest yet?
Michael Start said,
February 7, 2006 at 2:11 pm
If you like the History Channel you’ll love Mars Hill (Bible?!) Church. The Rev. Bell is facinating to listen to and I remember at least some of the 5 of his lectures that I have heard. However, when secular history is used in his book (which I have now read 4 times) to explain away the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ (pp 26, 27) , which he claims to believe but says aren’t essential for salvation, I think he’s gone too far. But if you like the History Channel’s liberal Biblical commentators the Rev. Bell will suit you just fine. -Mike
benjamin said,
February 7, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Well, at least they’re politer than the Lakewoodrivians that plague Greg whenever he mentions Joel Osteen.
Also, in answer to: “Did Jesus come to lecture on economics and politics or to rescue us from hell?”
Yes.
benjamin said,
February 7, 2006 at 6:20 pm
I guess it helps to look at when all these comments came in. Never mind….
stephanie said,
September 14, 2006 at 12:52 am
One last thing. When David Crumm (Detroit Free Press) asked Bell about homosexuality he used the “powerfully affirming line - God loves you exactly as you are. Period.” Need I say more? -Mike Start
I find that funny, considering Mars Hill has a program to help gays find the RIGHT way in life. Most people who go there totally utterly do NOT accept gays.
I ran into an old youth group leader of mine from when I used to go to Mars Hill (I quit going because it’s too far, and believe it or not, feeling like a speck of sand in a group of 3,000 people a sermon isn’t really much fun) and I told her that this new church I’m going to is starting a program to WELCOME gays and lesbians into the church community, she just gasped and stammered “you like that sort of thing?”
Mars Hill does have Baptist roots after all. And Grandville IS one of the more conservative cities in West Michigan.
stan said,
September 15, 2006 at 6:03 am
Wow, this blog (and the others I jumped from) is kind of eye opening.
I really don’t read or hear about too much about the modern church culture. “Post modernism”, “relevance” were buzz words I heard from a younger Christian that was working on a church logo project with me. But the words were being thrown around like buzz words all through our committee meetings, and it made me feel kind of left out.I have since grown a little more cynical of those terms, though I did not know there were Christians like those here who thought those terms were being oversung like “Shine Jesus Shine”. I just finished designing a postcard for a praise concert and the music director picked one design over the other because it was more postmodern. Ugh.
But I found reading this entry and the numerous comments really tiring as it was fascinating.(maybe cuz it’s after 1am) It makes being a Christian sound really difficult, complicated or is something for the cerebral types.
I think American Christians get a little too hung up on celebrities and star pastors and writers…on what they think and what they do and say. I’ve only heard Rob Bell through his Nooma series. I liked the Nooma series, but I didn’t really care to know more about Bell. (But I found a podcast interview of him just a couple of months ago and I downloaded it. Why? Because I had nothing better to do and I am mildly interested in Christian celebrities)
WHAT IF SCENARIO: If God decided to hide all the Christian self help books, take away all the celebrity pastors, take away the Christian pop culture (like CCM, etc), how would that change our lives as Christians??? Would we be shell-shocked? Lost? Theoretically, it should not change our lives at all…we still have the bible, we still have eachother, we still have God, we still have his purpose for us on earth. But I think a lot of us would go through Christian Culture withdrawal and pretty useless to God for a while.
I go to a “great church” which grew on the popularity of its strong and charismatic pastor. I often wondered if he decided to move to Ghana or something, what would happen to our “great church?” Would we get alot of people feeling betrayed or sorry for themselves? Would we see a great exodus to another church? Would I be one of them? It is so sad. (Of course I know that a pocket of strong Christians would not be confused or lost, because they had chosen that church to serve God and to worship God…and they’ll keep on doing that with or without the star pastor, because they identify with a strong God, not a strong pastor)
In places like Asia and Africa, the Christians are really on fire and are sending out tons more missionaries than American churches are,… they don’t have Rick Warren, they don’t have finely honed worship teams, they don’t have our wealth, they don’t have our training, and they may not even have a church building. People who have a 1/4 of the Bible knowledge most of you have are being sent out to be pastors in Africa now. Many are successfully reaching their communities for Christ… with hardly any of the resources we have at our disposal.
I don’t have any documentation why this is so. Maybe it’s because they don’t have the trappings of American Christian culture and deep discussions of “mainstream vs. emergent” to distract them. Maybe it’s because a higher percentage of those congregations are actually working for God instead of just sitting in the churches or talking about churches. I really don’t know. But damn… those believers out there are definitely acting more relevant than those I worship with….me included.
(PS I really start this comment with the intention of criticizing this community. I know I sound kind of negative, but I think there is high potential for this online community to be more than just lively discussions. I just suspect the majority of American Christians are sort of “bad Christians”– my definition would be “a Christian that the Devil has nothing to worry about”.)
UR4given said,
September 18, 2006 at 9:37 am
Stan- I relate to your perspective of relating to a strong God versus a strong pastor. I grew up in a small family church (never had more than 100 members) founded and pastored by my grandfather. Though I’m sure I may have some biases based on blood ties
, I have always been greatful for that upbringing, sense of family/extended family, and intimacy of really knowing the uncles, cousins, and close family friends through the 2-3 weekly church meetings together. Many churches of this type today are called “separatist” or even “cults” because they dont line up with any major denomination or current contemporary movement. And of course the only of these types you hear about are “davidian” cults or “polygamist” communities in the boonies of Utah. Our theological mix was one of “7th Day”, pentecostal, evangelical, fundamentalism…which I was well versed on and it probably contiributed to my very individualistic search for understanding the confusion of all churches and traditions that call themselves “Christian”, including Catholicism.
Most of the “discussions” on this and other blogs related to Church and Christianity come from mostly what I call “American style” Christians. We have successfully, at least for a while, shaped Christianity to our own culture and issues. For me the problem goes to an even bigger scale where somehow AMERICAN Christians believe God and Christ are the foundation of our government and cultural history…and somehow we are always going to win all the wars and investments we enter into with “God on our side”…taking “Onward Christian Soldiers” to a whole new level. Having now lived outside the US…and American churches…for many years now, I have a strong sense that you can only look at many of these issues objectively by pulling yourself out of the game for a while. When you start seeing American culture as a while, and American Christianity in particular, from the outside and through other peoples eyes…you start realizing how strange our “religion” is…even to “Christians” in other parts of the world.
We are one of the few cultures to even have the time or energy to discuss “emerging” versus “non-emerging” churches. Most Christians in other parts of the world are more worried about being shot on site fot their faith…and of course thats been like that this whole past 100 yrs. These people dont have the money for huge mega complexes, Christian schools, or TV/Radio stations…yet somehow, they GROW churches from scratch. Maybe that is because the people are not as educated, and take things more simply than WE do? Amidst falling bombs, or famine and living hand to mouth, faith is a lot simpler maybe? Probably. We Americans ar so spoiled. And most of our Churches are missing the mark…BECAUSE they are full of US.
I’ve never been to these mega churches you all are discussing here and hope I’m not hijacking this thread…but this reminds me so much of the same discussions/debates I had 25 years ago with a few different “terms” and labels. So many discussions that remind me of the early church growing pains of 1 Corinthians 1…
Mike said,
September 22, 2006 at 12:21 am
Does Rob Bell teach Homosexuality is a sin?