Trends in Christianity

NOTE: I originally named this column "Fads in Christianity" but have decided to rename it "Trends in Christianity". Fads are typically very short lived (less than 2 years) and each of the things I mention below lasted longer than 2 years. So I feel trend is a better term after all.

One of the more interesting phenomena of church life in the past 40 years or so have been a number of trends that have come, gone, come back, gone back, stayed around, etc. in the life of the church. Here's a sampling of these trends.

The Bus Ministry Trend: Running bus routes to pick up children for church. Most popular in the 60's and 70's.

The Evangelism Explosion Trend: Dr. D. James Kennedy's witnessing course. Most popular in the 70's into the early 80's.

The Seeker Sensitive Trend: Based on Willow Creek's weekend evangelistic services. Began to catch on in the late 80's on into the 90's.

The Experiencing God Trend: Based on studying the popular curriculum by author Henry Blackaby. Trendy during the 90's.

The Promise Keepers Trend: Going to the stadium events. Most popular in the middle and late 90's.

The Purpose-Driven Trend: Based on Rick Warrens' two bestselling books. Most popular in the late 90's and early 2000's.

The Prayer of Jabez Trend: Bruce Wilkinson's book. Most popular in the early 2000's.

The Worship Renaissance Trend: We're still basically traditional but we have added power point screens, contemporary music and praise teams. Began catching steam in the late 90's and still going strong at this point.

The Calvinism Trend: Who would have thought Calvinist theology would make a big comeback? Began in the mid 90's and is still going strong at this point.

The "Beth Moore Study" Trend: Women's Bible studies that have been popular in all of the 2000's. Still going strong at this point.

The Emerging Church Trend: A post-modern attempt at doing church with both liberal and conservative theological streams. Most popular in the mid-2000's and I think just now starting to wane somewhat (though it's hard to tell for sure).

The Joel Osteen Trend: A man who is a trend all to himself. Began in the mid-2000's and still going strong at this point.

Now there have been two basic responses of Christians to all these trends. They have been to either:
a) Latch on to them and ride them as far as we can until the next big thing comes along.

or

b) Rail against some or all of them and (via default) defend the way we've always done things.

Can I suggest a third alternative that should be obvious but doesn't seem to be crashing through the thick skulls of American church men.

c) Judge each trend on it's own merits. See if it is theologically accurate. Find out if God is using it. See what God wants you to do with it.

Some of the trends reflect ways of doing church. Just because it may be new to you does not make it automatically bad. Just because you have a preference that is different does not make the other preference heresy. Great care needs to be taken to make sure these ways of doing church do not contradict Biblical truth in any way, but once this test is passed, and God is leading you to do so, feel free to use new methods.

Most of the books I mentioned are excellent. You need to read them before you judge them. There are great misconceptions about them that are bandied about that just are not true. For instance, Prayer of Jabez has been accused of being a health and wealth Gospel book. A closer examination of the content does not bear this out.

In closing, the two trends I would exercise great caution with are the last two. I have great problems with the liberal wing of the Emerging church (and I disagree on some points with the more conservative wing). There is some value to studying this movement but you need to be theologically grounded to do so. And as for Joel Osteen: well, I don't want to say anything negative about a person, but Osteen's theology has proven quite shaky. While some of the things he says may have some value, Osteen is committed to a health and wealth theology that is very shaky and just not Biblical on many levels.

Which brings up a caution about all trends: run them through the Word of God before embracing them.

Good Names for Rock Groups

After the previous column, I need to have some fun.

These are names I think would be good for rock groups.

Raging Timidity. (I like two words that don't go together)

Oat Bran. (Nasty food. Good rock group name)

Deep Dish. (I think it sounds better than "Deep Dish Pizza")

Dinosaur Droppings. (I would not want to be a member of this band)

Theological Nightmare (made up of Wayne Grudem on bass, Alister McGrath on keyboard, Millard Erickson on vocals, and John R.W. Stott on the drums)

Deleware (if you can have groups called Alabama or Kansas, then why not?)

Microwave Popcorn (this would be a good Disney Channel band)

One Hit Wonders (I like truth in advertising)

Office Politics (It started with four accountants and a dream)

Mildew (A good grunge band)

No Talent Hacks (another good example of truth in advertising)

The Electric Mowinkles (there was this German Old Testament higher critic named Sigmund Mowinkle who, while not being remotely close to the best biblical scholar, definitely had the best name of any biblical scholar)

Pipeline (I've been to Alaska recently so it's still on my mind)

Sermon Prep (Well, I preach so this is also on my mind)

and finally, the last (it may not be the best, but it's the last for now)

Democratic Meltdown (it all started with four Republicans and a dream)

Do You Hate Me Yet?

I am about to reveal things about me that may cause you to hate me. I'm talking primarily to you Christians. It seems we have trouble with loving each other because we have differences with each other. I am going to give you the reader a test of your love level toward your brother in Christ. If you struggle with still accepting me as a brother after this you may have trouble fulfilling Jesus command of unity found in John 17. Here goes:

Preferred Worship Style: Contemporary completely. I like the old hymns when sung in a contemporary style. I do not like traditional organ music (I have sometimes joked that the organ was invented in Hades - my apologies to you organ lovers). I do not like southern Gospel styles of music (I don't like to OD on music about heaven which is probably about 75% of this style of music). Within contemporary styles, I'm not much on hip-hop or Chritian metal.

Political Involvement of Christians: Vote for sure. I believe in Christians holding political office. I believe preachers can comment on politics as long as it is relevant to their sermon topic. I believe Churches should not endorse candidates but also believe the government is wrong for making this practice illegal. I believe individual Christians should voice with freedom their political views and that definitely includes pastors. I do not believe that other Americans should have rights that a pastor would be denied.

Calvinism/Arminianism: I'm in the middle but lean closer to the Calvinists. Man is definitely totally depraved. Pre-destination and election are definitely in the Bible but I believe they do work together with free will which is also clearly there (I can't explain how this works anymore than I can explain how the trinity works). Christ's atonement only covers those who accept his grace yet it is not arbitrarily withheld from some. It's hard to argue for an irresistable grace when we have plenty of Biblical characters who rejected it (i.e. rich young ruler, Agrippa). On the other hand, the idea you can lose your salvation seems clearly to be ludicrous and makes your salvation dependent on your actions rather than God's. God is very much a sovereign deity!

For the record, I will note that I admire past Christians on both sides of this debate. I admire Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, William Carey, and C.H. Spurgeon who were all Calvinistic. I also admire Count Nicholas von Zinzendorf and John Wesley who were more Arminian in their theology.

Preaching Preference: INTERESTING!!! I am not as concerned with topical/expository debate because if your boring it doesn't matter which style you use. You will not communicate to your audience. For the record, I believe that both are needed in a church. You simply must go through the books and preach them to mature your people in the faith. It is also necessary from time to time to address what the Bible says about a particular issue in a topical format. There is a huge amount of junky stereotyping (i.e. Expository sermons are dry and boring, Topical sermons are shallow) of each side that is totally uncalled for and needs to be abandoned.

Prophecy: I believe in a pre-tribulational rapture of the church before the seven year tribulation period that precedes the millenial reign of Christ. I reject the idea that the seven churches of Revelation represent different eras of the church age. Postmillenialism is an idea that makes no sense to me and I don't see where in the world it comes from. On the other hand, it is inexcusable fro pre-millenial Christians to fall into hopeless cynicism about the world getting worse and worse and thus fail to work for social change when necessary.

That's just five areas of testing. I suspect that virtually noone in the world will agree with me completely on these issues. Please don't send replies trying to convert me to your view one way or the other (as the purpose of this column is not about engendering debate). This column is just a test to see if you can love a brother who has differences with you on some issue(s). It is also a test for me too on whether I can love those who disagree with me.