different churches // worldview

This video is presented in a way unlike many other "sermon-type" videos. Parts of it, I really liked -- Bell's style is different in that it emphasized a story, and stories (as Jesus utilized so well) stick with us. Stories get points across, and this whole video was a story. Bell's little explanation at the end was almost unnecessary; you understood the moral of the story without it being laid out for you, which means it was executed properly.

As for what that moral is -- Bell is saying that our darkest, scariest, most stormy and turbulent times can sometimes be the best, because they often bring us closer to God. They force us to cling to Him far more strongly than we ever do normally. We're holding onto Him and trusting in Him and His unconditional love completely because we have nothing else to hold onto or trust in, and we know that He'll get us home.

This reflects the truth of one of my favorite verses, James 1:2-3:

"Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance."

Bell's style is different, and I do believe that it is attractive. As I've said, it depicted a story, and people like stories. It wasn't dry and boring as most sermons seem to be. Additionally, it was more modern in the sense that the scenery was constantly changing, constantly keeping your interest. It was more cinematic, in a sense -- I'm not sure whether that's good or bad theologically, but it certainly seemed attractive.

If Bell's videos and others like them are intriguing and teach God's Word, then what's the point of going to church and sitting through a dull sermon? The point is this: Church is not simply about being talked at. It's about fellowship too, speaking God's Word together, worshiping our Lord together, and praying together, as a family in Christ. You can't do that through a video.



In this video, Mark Driscoll lists four "lanes" of emerging churches:

1) emerging evangelicals 
Doctrinally, they are very traditional; they just make the doctrine more applicable and relatable in order to bring more people in.

2) house church evangelicals
While they also are fairly traditional in their doctrine, they avoid pastors, church buildings, and big groups, instead choosing to meet in smaller groups and at houses and coffee shops.

3) emerging reformers 
They, too, are very traditional in their doctrine, but they strive to make it more culturally connected, and they are big on church planting. They identify strongly with Francis Schaeffer, Martin Luther, Calvin, etc.

4) emergent liberals 
Emergent liberals are the very different ones -- and perhaps the most dangerous to Christianity, as they call into question the absolutes that God states very clearly in His Word.

While my church, College Park Church, does not exactly fit any of these descriptions, I believe that it most closely identifies with lane #3 -- emerging reformers.

If I were to create my own church, I think it would most closely resemble lane #3 -- but not identify with it completely. There would be a pastor, and while the church would have no limits in size, there would also be small groups in order to make personal relationships and grow in fellowship. Doctrinally, we would follow C.S. Lewis's idea of mere Christianity -- trusting solely in Christ as our Savior and striving to be more and more like him and closer and closer to him every day by serving others. God's Word has the final authority in everything.

the emergent church: postmodernism & Christianity? // worldview

The "emergent church" attempts to "post-modernize" how the church worships, with DJs, church members writing their names on crosses, and more. "Worship gatherings," with group discussions, are held -- not Sunday morning sermons.

"Christianity is simply not a stagnant belief," says a man interviewed in this video.

But its truths are stagnant. You can't "modernize" Christianity so far that what it is -- its truths, its laws, its principles -- is gone. You can't take it too far, or else it's not Christianity anymore. 

"There's a sort of a comfort in knowing that, one, I don't have to the answers, and that there aren't necessarily answers," says one member of an emergent church, and several other interviewees made similar statements -- and that alarms me.

Of course there are answers. No, we as humans might not know them -- but the answers are there. God has the answers. They do exist. Truths exist.

We want to be encouraging, we want to influence the culture, we don't want to remain in the 1500s, we don't want to be legalistic. But we don't want to become too wishy-washy, we don't want to ignore theology and doctrine -- after all, God gave us His Word for a reason.

Some of those interviewed in the video loved that their church had group discussions, instead of having a pastor preach a sermon to them.

Jesus taught, didn't he? His disciples referred to him as "Rabbi." Teaching is important.

Postmodernism says that there is no such thing as absolute truths. Christianity says the complete opposite. Postmodernism says that you have to be accepting, that each individual should go off of what they "feel." Christianity says that humans are fallible, and that God and His Word are the final authority.

Marrying these two opposites seems pretty dangerous to me.

(More video resources here and here.)