Comments on: Denominational Reviews

By: Getting There

Getting There — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:22:35 +0000

church Is 24/7… outside the building… with people, purely just loving people everyday and being a witness to them is real… getting together without the help of an organisation… real fellowship starts when you step outside the church bubble building and live your life seasoned with salt!

By: Getting There

Getting There — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:19:39 +0000

The ‘Fake love-fellowship church’ they make sure they greet you and make you feel at home as long as you are going the same direction as them and then one day you have a question on their teaching and boom… the love suddenly dies down and the church becomes the ‘Im better than you church”

By: Random Acts of Linkage #86 : Subversive Influence

Random Acts of Linkage #86 : Subversive Influence — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:07:53 +0000

[...] Characteristically-defined Church Names [...]

By: Mark R

Mark R — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:11:38 +0000

GO YOU GOOD THING …. AMEN!!!!

The Weaker Seeker Church – yah, got me there!!!! I Pastored one for near on 4 years.

By: Deacon

Deacon — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:12:39 +0000

Deacon: If we only knew. I’m being convinced more and more every day that it cannot be institutional. I don’t think the first church was. It was definitive and known, but not hierarchical. It functioned without a Roman government, a Greek philosophy or a European “feel” (to steal from a quote out of Reimaging Church) and it definitely cannot be a business as we have made it in the west. I think it already exists, just outside the reach of most. Outside the big stone and wood structures. Think of the church in Russia that was illegal. Think of Albanians who were killed for gathering. That type of church had to be a threat to the government and to the enemy. We as westerners cannot gather without somebody controlling. What if we could? What if we could all “just hang out with Christ” together? No flippin’ stupid performances, no showtime, no bloody boring sermons that mean absolutely nothing, no stealing of people’s money to buy homes and cars and oh yes, no more blue haired greeters to smile and show their dentures! Could we actually live without materialism? That’s what I see. I know many who operate in this fashion overseas, just not many here. So many call themselves “church planters”, but they’re just young kids trying to build their own “church”. We have this terrible problem in the west – we need to build structures and things! We cannot build the kingdom of believers because that cannot be measured and no credit can be claimed. Kind of like how we go to foreign countries and “build things” for the poor and impoverished ones. We come back and brag and what in God’s name does that do for them? I personally know of too many who say “enough”! Stop with your materialism and bring your love and engage for longer than a shortened week of your life. These kids in the orphanages and hospitals are humans! They’re not objects to be pitied for a moment and then forgotten! Maybe we could join with them and call it a “church”?

Rant over!

By: Alan Paul

Alan Paul — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:50:14 +0000

No not that argument at all – I’m not THAT predictable – I really want to know what kind of church you see working – not your pie-in-the-sky-sure-to-be-chaotic version Deak – there needs to be leadership of some kind… I figure if you can beat the church up one side and down he other (and I am all for it by the way – you have read some of my stuff – you know how I feel about the church) then you should also be willing to tell me a realistic model that would work for church.

By: Deacon

Deacon — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:03:05 +0000

Usher: Deak, I sense Alan is poised to throw in the all familiar defensive argument of “There is no perfect church, so the problem must be you!”

Deacon: Yep, pretty much that’s what I read.

Usher: If the world would only question the institution they would find it wanting. It’s no different than the Columbus questioning the flatness of the earth. It consumed his whole life. Just like the earth being flat was the accepted state at the time, we have come to accept the institution as the church!

Deacon: Maybe the best answer is that a “good” church has no bylaws, no titles, no programs, no traditions, no budgets to pay people to lead others in “their” direction. No performance, no rhetoric, no “divine interpretations” and absolutely no hierarchy. Just a group of lovers of Christ pursuing Christ. Think of it as courting, exploring and seeking to discover the intimacy of Christ, nothing more, nothing less.

By: Alan Paul

Alan Paul — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:41:04 +0000

Nw that we know what a “bad” church looks like, how about a post on what you think a “good” church looks like?

By: Sephie

Sephie — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:59:12 +0000

Great post! I love it!

Have you checked these out?

A Month of Sundays
The Stranger Sends 31 Writers to 31 Houses of Worship
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=242675

The Mystery Worshipper
http://www.ship-of-fools.com/mystery/index.html