Join "The Journey," travel to "Pathways," or take it to "The Next Level"...
12/23/2003 1:52:04 AM
When my final Protestant pastor saw that I was becoming deadly serious about entering the Catholic Church, he made one last, desperate pitch. "Why don't you found your own church?" he asked. "Wouldn't that be better?"
Um, no. I certainly didn't think so. Still don't. But it is very appealing to many, many people. Thus the 35,000 or so denominations in the world, a huge number of them in North America.
This fascinating article, "The Un-churches," in the Denver Post, provides a revealing excursion into the world of small groups that are springing up in the Denver area and, more importantly, into the thinking and beliefs of the twenty and thirty year olds who are founding them.
The names of these "churches" offer some clues as to the general approach: The Journey, Pathways, The Next Level, Connected Life Church, The Crossing, New Life Church, Pierced Chapel, and (I'm not making this up) Scum of the Earth Church.
My thought, upon reading this article, is that those who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it. There is much that is good about the intentions of these groups and there is much that is near-sighted and theologically-skewed. Not surprisingly, there is a strong emphasis on the individual, rejection of structure, love for "freedom," and "expression." That's not too original, as anyone who's older than twenty-eight can tell you. On the other hand, there is some talk of connecting with the past and of knowing history. But it seems that this "connecting" takes on very shallow and pretentious forms: lots of candles, Celtic crosses, and some neo-Gregorian chanting. As though wrapping yourself in the flag of the past makes you wise to the reality of the past.
Just this last week I had a lengthy conversation with Mike, a 22-year old who attends a "Christian Center" (which is Assemblies of God) and who has been "saved for two years and five months" (he mentioned this fact at least four times). We spoke of many things, but the comment that stood out the most was one that I've heard so many times, albeit in slightly different forms: "I’m all about loving Jesus. I’m not into theology or religion." As in: Jesus is good, dogma is bad. Jesus is great, Church is stuffy. Jesus rocks, ritual blows.
Needless to say, Mike isn't into history, doctrine, dogma, and the complexities of Christology, ecclesiology, soteriology, and every other "-ology" that has a rich and meaningful—and living—place in the life of the Church. It's all about him and Jesus, him and his Bible, and him and his private prayer time. Hey, it's wonderful that he's in love with Jesus. But it seems to me that he might also be in love with being in love with Jesus, just as these myriads of little groups and experimental "churches" are in love with being different, being experimental, being cool and hip.
Reading the article, I wonder: Where is the emphasis on Truth? On objective, historical fact? On the wisdom of those who have gone before? On real, lasting traditions and Tradition? On the struggles and hard-fought victories of the councils, the saints, and the doctors who are much wiser than 22-years snow-boarders, 34-year old apologists, and 48-year old stock brokers? Just wondering....
