Category: faith

thoughts on nouveau-Christianity

There continues to be the fear that people are suddenly losing sight of Christ and Scripture in the emergent/emerging churches and new forms of expressing Christianity. I continue to see this broad paintbrush splattering paint everywhere trying to give some kind of recognition to something people don’t understand. It’s as if they don’t understand a new expression of faith so they assume it must all be heresy and evil (which by definition, heresy is: theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. By extension, heresy is an opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative so couldn’t any form of protestantism be considered heretics? Also isn’t theology simply man’s study of, or best guess at knowing a God whom we can never totally understand, know or comprehend?).

Anyways, Brian’s been reading Un-Christian and shared some new thoughts today:

Barna research ministries has revealed 4 mega-themes that are impacting culture today. One of the 4 is what they refer to as “nouveau Christianity” – the idea that a new form of Christian faith is taking shape in our day. Here are their research results:

The research discovered that people are reframing not just faith in general, but Christianity in particular. While slightly fewer adults – and many fewer teens – are identifying themselves as Christians these days, the image of the Christian faith has taken a beating. This battered image is the result of a combination of factors:

  • harsh media criticism
  • “unchristian” behavior by church people
  • bad personal experiences with churches
  • ineffective Christian leadership amid social crises
  • and the like

The result is that those who choose to remain Christian – however they define it – are also reformulating the popular notion of what “Christian” and the Christian life mean. Some of those changes are producing favorable outcomes, while others are less appealing.

For instance, a generational analysis of the Barna data showed that spiritual practices among those who claim to be Christians are shifting dramatically. New practices are in vogue:

  • embracing racial diversity and tolerance within congregations
  • pursuing spiritual diversity in conversations and relationships
  • valuing interpersonal connections above spiritual education
  • blending all forms of the arts and novel forms of instruction into religious events
  • and accepting divergent forms of spiritual community (e.g., house churches, intentional communities, marketplace ministries)

Traditional ventures such as integrating discipline and regimen in personal faith development are becoming less popular. Repeating the same weekly routines in religious events is increasingly deemed anachronistic, stifling and irrelevant. Rigidity of belief – which includes the notion that there are absolute moral and spiritual truths – perceived by a large (and growing) share of young people to be evidence of closed-mindedness.

The result is a nouveau form and structure for the Christian faith that will have broad-based consequences on the practice of Christianity for years to come.

I know there are many today who are concerned with this “nouveau” development in Christianity. I am not frightened by this changes but instead embrace them for they are the bridges of grace to a generation that needs to know Christ. None of them deny doctrine, the deity of Christ, the Scriptures, or the essential footings of the faith. They represent method changes and reflect the needs and longings of a generation. As “encounter” we stand in the gap of heaven and a generation to bring them to the reality of the cross. What a time to be alive!

Do you believe the Bible?

From last night’s GOP debate:

“Do you believe every word of this book… and I mean specifically, this book that I’m holding in my hand?”

The question was asked by 24 year old Joseph Dearing of Dallas. According to the DMN, he was disappointed in the answers given. He also hoped Ron Paul would have answered it. I’d be curious to know how he answered it as well.

I don’t know if it was part of Dearing’s point or not, but he appeared to hold up the Holy Bible, King James Version. The version itself was not mentioned during the answers or in the DMN story.

But here’s my question – does a person’s belief in Scripture, the Bible affect how you view them as a presidential candidate?
Is it important that they follow it, believe it’s the literal Word of God, read some of it or none of it?

What Would Jesus Do?

You’ll probably here a quote from this answer over and over again from last night’s debate…

Mike Huckabee was asked, “would Jesus support the death penalty?”
The clip you’ll probably hear is, “Jesus was to smart to never run for public office.”

But there’s a whole minute before that you probably won’t see due to time. As Gov. of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee is the only person running on the GOP ticket who’s ever had to give his signature to approve a death penalty and I don’t think he took his decision lightly.

There are those who say… how can you be pro life and believe in a death penalty, because there’s a real difference between the process of adjudication where a person is deemed guilty after a thorough judicial process, and is put to death by all of us as citizens under a law, as opposed to an individual making a decision to terminate a life that has never been deemed guilty because the life never was given the chance to even exist.

FREE: Videos now through Christmas

WorshipHouse Media is giving away a FREE download every weekday until Christmas! That’s right… every weekday. Go HERE and click on the “Daily Freebie” ad to go to each day’s freebie.

Stock up on some videos for your church for 2008 or for this Christmas.

Hat tip to Church Video Ideas

Re: Dominion over all

Ok. Just so you know, I finished reading the article and I can say I agree with most of what the author said. Although I don’t think homeschooling is the only way this “bottom-up” philosophy can take place – I think “bottom-up” is the way we should be making change in our world.

Calling it dominion is a huge turn off to me, but changing the world through our own personal actions and faith and not by legislation is what I’m totally about.

It’s impossible to expect that a culture that’s been in meltdown mode for over a century can be rescued by some kind of miraculous, overnight, 51% to 49%, “top-down,” legislative acts that might hopefully force the country move “our way.”…
Our national mindset of “government as eternal safety-net” is too dead set against it. Besides, even though almost all legislation deals with matters of right and wrong, the kind of restored morality we’d like to see simply can’t be legislated. Laws alone can’t force people to “be good;” only Christ and adherence to His moral standards can do that.

AMEN! The author goes on to say that while some of these homeschooled, “Christian Soldier Repairmen” will become elected officials, they can still have an affect through their lives, regardless of what laws are in place.

…the bottom-up principle still retains a powerful place in the halls of government because the lives of young Christians seeking to become lawmakers are always under the critical magnifying glass and microscope of public opinion. So, whether in pre-candidate mode as a next door neighbor or ultimately as a respected regional representative, exemplary behavior will serve as a life-style model as to what truly good governors and governments (minimal, freedom oriented and Bible-based) are supposed to be about. This “bottom-up-ness” will be especially vivid as Christian officials make their Bible-based moral compass and biblical worldview principles explicit through the quality of their legislation and their public speeches and writings. They’ll also be making a difference by direct impact on the personal lives of their fellow office holders, and the same as it relates to ever-skeptical cynics in the humanist media.

I think he’s painting too broad of a paint stroke here with the “humanist media” but I understand his point. No matter where we are, as elected officials, as road workers, as bankers, as members of the main stream media, or even as bloggers or members of the non-so-main stream media, we should be having a positive influence on those around us.

This huge army of fully engaged adults will, daily, be influencing their fellow workers through winsome friendship evangelism as well as by bringing character, integrity, good example and product-advancing, employer-pleasing breakthroughs to their jobs.

YES! “Work not as unto man, but as unto the Lord.”

Sure, the bottom-up philosophy is a tall order, but, by thinking in terms of one voter, one new office holder, one new group of friends at work, one new child being taught at home by God’s people, it won’t be long before millions will have observed and become convinced, voluntarily, that the way of the Lord is the better way.

It takes one person standing up for Christ to make a difference. And that one person tells another one, who tells another one, who tells another one, until everyone is convinced, voluntarily, that the Lord is the better way.

And to answer my previous questions – Jesus didn’t call His disciples to take on political office, or mass protests, or fighting back against authority because His way was/is different. He called His disciples to make changes one on one and to change hearts, not laws.