Pull Up Your Pants - Churchianity Exposed! (Ammended)

I've been doing a lot of thinking, as well as semi-serious research, lately about the differences regarding "Churchianity." What do I mean by the term, "Churchianity?" Well, let me first admit that I did not coin this term. I heard it in my seminary days (oh so long ago) but I am tweaking the meaning slightly.

Churchianity, in my defintion, is the way we "do" church. Every church does "it" differently and those who claim that they are not a church, or are more of a movement, and are not not really organized, are simply trying to pull the proverbial wool over your ever straining eyeballs. Everyone does church in some form or fashion, despite what they may have you believe. At the risk of being completely wrong as well as incredibly reductionistic, I am bravely dividing Churchianity into three major categories:

1) The Traditional Church

2) The Seeker-Sensitive Church

3) The Emerging Church

(By the way, is it just my site, or has Blogger changed its formatting options? It's really getting irritating...I may have to move to Wordpress for this dreadful development.)

1) The Traditional Church

What it is: This is, basically, church as we (those over 25 years of age) grew up and knew it. This type of church comes complete with Sunday school, a visitation program, a worship service (or two or three), a Sunday night service and a Wednesday night prayer meeting. Now, some traditional churches may differ slightly, but this would be the generic, Wal-Mart Equate model. This model, especially those "dead" ones is where number 2 and 3 get their visions.

2) The Seeker-Sensitive Church - Basically, this is a reaction to No.1. In my limited understanding, as well as continued gross characterization, these type of churches desire to reach the un-churched - those who are not involved in church, have never been involved in church, and/or don't know what church is. Therefore, in order to reach these people who supposedly would never enter the doors of a traditional church (complete with its oozing hypocritical nature), the Seeker church throws the organ and piano off of the steeple (oops, some took that down too), and inserts a drum set, guitars, and a rock music feel. After all, the un-churched love rock music and who really listens to music with organs and pianos anymore?

The main leaders in this type of churchianity would be those like Andy Stanley and Ed Young, Jr (whose church I used to regularly attend). Readers of this blog know that I've already taken some heat (from those on the Northpoint staff) when I stated that Stanley's model of church limited the power of the Gospel. I'm not going there right now. I'm just presenting the facts of who they claim they are. You can go their websites and check that out. Also, a good many of these type churches see themselves as businesses and spend vast amount of time planning and reading business books. Also, some churches in category 1 do this as well.

3) The Emerging Church - This categroy is the hardest type of Churchianity to pin down. In fact, some in the EC would have you to believe that they are past pinning down altogether. In fact, they are not really even a church. Instead, they are a movement. Don't let this strategic marketing ploy fool you. They're not just a movement. They're a church. They insist that they are throwing off the shackles of traditional and big business churches and they are going to 'get real.' They also use rock music but some churches use other forms of worship, such as artwork. Also, depending on which Emerging Church you go to, you may or may not hear a sermon. However, most of the Emerging Church leaders that I've listened to (via the internet) come complete with preaching and they use the Bible. In fact, I can't find that much of a homiletical difference between Rob Bell (catgeory 3) and Andy Stanley (category 2).

What's the point of this essay you may ask? Well, I submit to you that all of these worship styles and choices of Churchianity have positives. But don't let any fool you that they are different or unique in some way. After all, the Word of God does state: "That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done,And there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which it may be said, 'See, this is new'? It has already been in ancient times before us." (Ecc. 1:9-10)

Here are some of the similarities that I've noticed:

1) All three meet in buildings.

2) All three have church staff - paid.

3) All three are organized.

4) All three have definite meeting times.

5) All three have different ministries (children, etc.)

6) All three have some lead type of pastor who preaches weekly.

7) All three have small group Bible study (Sunday school or small group)

8) All three have music.

9) All three use the Bible.

All three of these types of churches have their own culture and all three reach their respective demographic well. For instance, the church I am serving at, Crosswell Baptist, could not be simply plunked down in the middle of Seattle and expect to remain effective. Also, Mars Hill would not work as well in northeast Sumter, SC. Does this make me missional? If so, then I'm guilty as charged.

The point is that I believe that all three types are viable alternatives of church.

However, there is one area where I believe that all three fail in: the effective use of Scripture.

All three are guilty of "using" the Bible to get their message and vision across.

All three are guilty of choosing a Scripture, reading it, and then moving on, never to go back to it again.

I'm all for creativity. I don't care if a church plays punk, jazz, country, or polka. I also don't care if you drive a tank on stage, juggle watermelons, or walk around on stilts in an Uncle Sam costume.

What I do care about is how preachers, and their churches handle the Word of God. But you say, "Charlie - what do you want me to do - preach through a whole book of the Bible, verse by verse? That would be boring." Yes, it could be boring, if you let it be boring. And any pastor that makes Scripture boring is committing a sin. Use video, use multimedia, play the organ, breakdance on stage, but please, please, please, let the text decide your sermon topic, not yourself. Believe it not, the Holy Spirit knows your congregation, and their needs, more then you do.

*Ammendment*

Let me add something: The issue I'm really getting at here is that of the sufficiency of Scripture.

I'm not saying sermons should not have illustrations, stories, etc. I think that any sermon point without some kind of illustration will probably be forgotten.

What I'm saying is that do we really believe that Scripture is sufficient enough to meet the needs of our people or are we merely relying on our cleverly devised sermons. Are we allowing Scripture to penetrate the hearts of our people as we expound it through a sermon? Or are we arrogantly foolish enough to think that we can do it by ourselves?