Pope Benedict XVI continues to make things as clear as he can for his own church and for everyone else. So now we have another document from his pen, following on the “Dominus Iesus” document of 2000, that makes sure we all know that there is only One True Church. And a predictable uproar has followed.
But I think we kinda already knew Rome thought that, no?
Christianity Today magazine recently published a troubling article about a group of churches in the United States associated with Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California.
What was troubling was that an old, old pattern among evangelical leaders has emerged yet again. Entrepreneurial, charismatic leaders, such as Calvary Chapel’s Chuck Smith, strike out on their own in innovations that result in considerable blessing to many. Calvary Chapel was the home, most famously, of many of the “Jesus music” rock bands of the 70s and 80s and was a key centre for the “Jesus People.”
But such freewheeling personalities are prone to want to do it all themselves and to keep doing it themselves. And they typically fail to realize that the “go it alone” approach that made sense in the “pioneering” phase can devolve into sheer dictatorial egomania in the “settler” phase.
Read the rest of this entry »
Church Membership: Who Counts? Who Cares?
May 20, 2007
The Washington Post reports on how “soft” numbers are for church membership in the United States–an old story among us sociologists and historians, but an important story nonetheless. The numbers are generally inflated, as many denominations and congregations don’t drop people from the rolls unless they are explicitly asked to do so–and who bothers to do that once they have drifted away from church? They’re also inflated because in at least some regions of the United States it is still “expected” that you belong to a church, so you say so when a pollster asks.
Ironies and paradoxes abound. Here’s one. The Roman Catholic Church, known for making one or two demands on its members, nonetheless keeps on its rolls anyone baptized in its churches unless they ask to be removed. But so do the Mormons and the Southern Baptists, who also are known for expecting members to toe a certain line of doctrine and practice. And even if they were the only three denominations to practice this weird kind of inclusivity (and they’re not), they’re so big that they alone would account for a huge statistical problem.
Hail to the Faithful of Your Church and Mine!
April 21, 2007
Some Christians get a lot of recognition for what they do. Some write bestselling books. Others lead impressive organizations. Some accomplish dramatic feats, while others become popular entertainers.
Within our congregations, a few people–pastors, preachers, worship leaders, and band members–get most of the attention and garner most of the plaudits.
Most Christians, however, do not get a lot of recognition for what they do. Yet they should. So let us raise a toast to the usually-unsung faithful, the Christians who do most of the work while a minority get most of the affirmation. Grab your glass of milk, your tumbler of juice, your goblet of wine, your stein of beer, your demitasse of tea, your mug of coffee, your bottle of soda pop–whatever your cup of cheer–and join with me in praising our fellow servants.
Coercion? Or Church Discipline? Jehovah’s Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Sovereign Individual
April 17, 2007
The British Columbia Supreme Court has been deliberating over whether the parents of sextuplets can refuse blood transfusions for their children on the basis of the parents’ religious beliefs.
Clearly there are a number of crucial issues at stake here: the proper interest of the state in the well-being (as it sees it) of its citizens, and particularly its most vulnerable ones; the freedom of individual conscience on matters of medical treatment; and the freedom of individuals to act according to their religious beliefs. But there is also the question of the freedom of religious organizations to impose consequences on members who flout their shared convictions.
The Parachurch: A Parasite?
February 18, 2007
(I recently was asked to address the question of the “parachurch” by the Canadian Council of Christian Charities. Here is a brief summary of my main argument.)
What are we to make of World Vision, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, freestanding Christian schools and colleges, evangelistic associations, and the myriad of other “special purpose groups” (as Princeton sociologist Robert Wuthnow has termed them) that have proliferated within and especially beyond the congregation-denomination structures of Christian organization?
These groups are usually, but mistakenly, called “parachurch” as if they are not the Church (that is, the worldwide Body of Christ), but instead occupy a shadowy zone “beside” the Church. I use the term “shadowy” to allude to the suspicion and even outright hostility with which they are viewed by some Christians—not least by many clergy and denominational leaders. For such groups often are seen as distractions and diffusions of the Church’s resources, not least its money. Thus we hear pastors urging congregations to tithe first to the local—which is to say, the “true”—church, and then (perhaps) to other ministries.
I respond that such groups are not churches (that is, congregations or denominations), but they are certainly part of the Church. Indeed, I see them as the Church of Jesus Christ deployed in particular modes to accomplish particular purposes.
