Monday, January 14, 2008
What's Your Takeaway?
MMI linked to a Leadership piece title "5 Kinds of Christians." It is fascinating to me that the typology of "Christians" was the intended takeaway from the Leadership article. What I found fascinating was this:
Why would we work so hard to "type" Christians, which is a form of judgment, deciding who is a "real" Christian, and who is not, when the question itself says far more about the church than it does about individual Christians. Each of the categories presented seems defined to some extent about the connection to the church, as if the church is definitively THE body of Christ.
How can we in this age of extreme diversity of religious expression possibly make a claim of being THE body of Christ. Yes I know the Roman Catholic has recently asserted such a claim quite strongly, but historically speaking they are the only ones in the ballpark with even a remote shot at the title, the rest of us just have not been around long enough to make the claim.
You want to do this kind of characterization, I think John did a better job in the early chapters of Revelations, you know the seven letter to the seven churches. The "5 kinds of Christians" are the fruit. I think we need to be looking at the trees that are producing that fruit. It is the only way to get better fruit.
Technorati Tags:church, types, categorization, fruit, institution
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Leadership discussed the survey results with leading pastors and religious experts to ascertain the ramifications for church leaders. Three critical issues emerged:Those later two points are things I hammer on in this space all the time. The first one struck me as fascinating because it seems like Evangelicalism is bearing its inevitable fruit. If we make our faith all about individual salvation, individual, not corporate, faith expression is inevitable. That also explains why those institutions that do thrive do so on the basis of more "worldly" appearance than traditional piety.
* The local church is no longer considered the only outlet for spiritual growth.
* Churches must develop relational- and community-oriented outreach.
* Lay people have to be better equipped to be God's ambassadors.
Why would we work so hard to "type" Christians, which is a form of judgment, deciding who is a "real" Christian, and who is not, when the question itself says far more about the church than it does about individual Christians. Each of the categories presented seems defined to some extent about the connection to the church, as if the church is definitively THE body of Christ.
How can we in this age of extreme diversity of religious expression possibly make a claim of being THE body of Christ. Yes I know the Roman Catholic has recently asserted such a claim quite strongly, but historically speaking they are the only ones in the ballpark with even a remote shot at the title, the rest of us just have not been around long enough to make the claim.
You want to do this kind of characterization, I think John did a better job in the early chapters of Revelations, you know the seven letter to the seven churches. The "5 kinds of Christians" are the fruit. I think we need to be looking at the trees that are producing that fruit. It is the only way to get better fruit.
Technorati Tags:church, types, categorization, fruit, institution
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
