A Great Post & Follow-up Interview
Friends,
Julie R Neidlinger of Lone Prairie has written an exquisite and beautiful post that I’d like you to read: Why I Walked Out of Church. (I even set this link to open on the same page so that you won’t waste time reading my drivel before you get there.)
Imonk, a personal favorite blog of mine, has posted an interview he conducted with Julie (but he has to open in a new window).
I found that much of what Julie wrote (I hope it is OK for me to say Julie instead of something more formal like Ms Neidlinger since I do not personally know her) resonated with me but from a different perspective: I see things from the pulpit point of view. What I have found is that often it is tempting to be phony precisely because of the weariness of seeing people uninterested in the things of Jesus, or seeing empty pews, or seeing the fakery of those in the pews (what I call the ‘SpongeBob Squarepants approach to Christianity’; you know, there’s never anything wrong) who call on Christ for salvation but know nothing of discipleship or doubt or what to do when the two cross paths. Julie the parishioner; Jerry the pastor: the same struggle.
I only want to quote one line from Julie’s post:
I’m having difficulty putting this into words.
I have been in church all my life. Never known a day without it, but being a preacher makes it hard sometimes. I agree with Julie: the way I feel sometimes, it is hard to put into words. Love the church; hate the church. Strange. I appreciated her post, her honesty, and the courage it takes to say what she said in the midst of our church culture. I want to publicly say thank you to Julie for writing it. Now, if only we can get the right people to read what she wrote…
Semper Deo Gloria!
September 8th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
[...] up comment thread here. No Comments Leave a Commenttrackback addressThere was an error with your comment, please try [...]
September 8th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Julie is a great writer with creative literary pictures. She can sometimes hyper analyze which in my view can obscure the overall observation she is raising. The forrest for the trees thing.
One of my favorite comments of hers is when she referred to the ODM comment section as “incestuous”. (Or something like that)
September 8th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
She probably meant that you are the incestuous ones. You always have the same 5 or 6 making 200 comments per post.
As for her post;
When the church realizes that the “community” isn’t about you, me, we, us, or……
When the church understands that the Body of Christ is about well……
CHRIST, that is, it’s about one man only, then we might get away from the over-aged frat boys (Hey, I just described the contributors to this blog.)
It will be called heaven becuase there will be no organized religion there.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Well that is something like I would write about (just not as eloquently). I can’t belive this is getting ANY sympathy in these parts. Where’s the lecture about personal preferences in worship styles and relevance? Just when you about had me convinced of my own error(s) now you posit this. Hmmmmm.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Seems like more run of the mill de-humanizing of people who should be considered brothers and sisters.
If you don’t like the pastor’s clothes and choice of beverage well maybe the problem isn’t with the pastor or that particular church.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Provoking, you bad boy….
I am a 56 year old, been a Christian since I was 16. I have had the pleasure to be a member of about 5 different denominations from Baptist, Episcopal, Penetecostal/Charismatic. I have seen the good and the bad. I have been congregant, elder, vestryman, on staff worship leader, teacher, and representative between church and superintendent of a denomination. Again, I have seen the good and the bad.
But, more recently, I too have also walked away from the church. I do so as an obedient move to the what the Lord is moving me towards. What that looks like, I don’t know. I do know that He has put in my heart a desire to know His word better, and in knowing His word I will learn to know Him better.
I could go into all of the things that caused me to move away from the church (denomination, not the body of Christ) but I won’t because it matters not. I am to be obedient to whatever the Lord has for me.
For me I agree with Julie, it seems that real evangelism should be “out there” on the job, in the neighborhood, at the park, atthe store, driving down the parkway, writting on blogs, etc. I appreciate this post and the links it provided to read.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
If that’s what you came away with from the piece, I think you need to re-read it. Just knowing how Julie is from reading her other stuff, she isn’t about judging people based on appearances. The post is about turning church into a formula.
It’s about the insincerity of pastors trying to be the coolest of the cool people to convince people their church is cool. I know this thing irritates me too. I guess the thing I see is a lot of pastors are still thinking they have some sort “right” to have people attend their church. It’s like they want people to come, sit in the pews, and give tithes, but they really don’t want to invest relationally in people. But that’s what ministry is. It isn’t about what you learn at Bible School.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Bo Diaz says,
I would imagine that this is just a personal preference on the part of the author. I don’t really find that to be all that important or have anything to do with the tenants of faith. I think there are more important issues in the article.
Why does this part of her article bother you? Or is it the article in general you have a problem with?
September 8th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Phil posted quicker than me…
September 8th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Here is a question I would like to present… At what point or when does a “program” even though we may think it is proper type of evangelism, or “way of doing it” become an abherant practice?
Or is it an “anything goes” attitude as long as they raise their hand when asked to commit or recieve Christ?
I am genuinely asking as I don’t have an answer when we cross the line or if there is a line to cross?
September 8th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Julie made it abundantly clear, in one of her updates at the end of the post, that the essay was decidedly NOT about the clothing the pastor was wearing. Read through the comments section and especially her last comment before she closed the comments section. It will explain what she was getting at.
IWTT,
I cannot imagine what you mean.
jerry
September 8th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Obviously you know her better than I do, but reading this as an article which stands on its own all I see is a lot of kvetching about external matters, and assuming because what is present in the larger culture is present in the church that makes the the church “insincere”.
You can’t have it both ways. If the church is present in the larger society there will be spill over on at least things that don’t matter into the church. While I don’t know the specific church she’s running down in public here I do know churches like that and there’s no insincerity involved with wearing and drinking the fashions of the day, they happen to be Christians and pastors who are fashionable/up to date/whatever not Christians who are pretending to be fashionable/up to date/whatever.
She comes off as an ODM-Lite, all the same complaints with half the venom.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Jerry,
I couldn’t stomach the comments, such unjustified condemnation being rained down on the bride of Christ in there. If Julie really was concerned about church becoming formula she should have called her commenters out on it since they’ve obviously created their own formula which states the only good church is a small church.
There was even a reprehensible statement in the first couple of comments about hoping her church didn’t grow. There’s someone who’s really eager to bea city on a hill.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I like what Julie said in the I-Monk interview:
I too am a wanderer. I gave up church shopping a long time ago. Occasionally I might stop in one but, it usually ends up the same and that’s the end….
I got fed up with programs MANY years ago IWTT. We don’t need ‘em IMO. Julie nailed it in the quote I put up here. I love her wit always have!
September 8th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I agree with Jerry, Bo, I think you missed her point….
September 8th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Sorry, I should have said Phil!!
September 8th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
(from Julie’s article)
That’s right. But even in small churches there are people that don’t develop real relationships, often because those people are emotionally needy, difficult people to have around: people who don’t want to go to church “events” because they are uncomfortable in large crowds, but people who would like to BELONG to some small group, or even have ONE friend who cares that they exist.
People who become MORE emotionally needy because they aren’t treated like human beings for whom Christ died.
And all churches, large and small, fail to some degree when those types of people are side-lined or not given the extra bit of attention that they need to feel accepted.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:21 am
amy,
I agree with your statement, I just wish you really believed it and did what you wrote here at this site.
Yet, the funny thing is that most ODM’s rant against “comfortable churches” because the bible is not preached in them… so I wonder… is it possible that a church can be both.
To all,
I wondered quite a bit myself… and believe me I understand what Julie is talking about very much. Yet, I wonder if it is not just that “church” but that we also need take responsibility.
For me I wanted something real and authentic that was about the people of God and what God is doing. I had been part of a people’s church that did what they believed God wanted them to do, yet I was never quite sure how I fit there.
I started a new church plant in hopes that I could find what I was seeking. In the end I gave that up and joined a Vineyard church plant. I never imagined I would be with Vineyard yet here I am. I see that in some ways, just letting God love you and letting Him love others through you is both the easiest and hardest thing one can do. It is not about being cool, (I left that ability years ago, though some still think I am… I really do not see myself as “cool”)
People are people and need love. I have been to seeker/pdl churches and people were loved, I have been to mega and small churches and people have been loved… not always perfectly yet still loved.
I have been loved at all these types and models, for Jesus used people at these churches to love me and used me to love them.
iggy
September 9th, 2008 at 12:46 am
I agree with Iggy that we need to take responsibility for ourselves. Often when I listen to people’s gripes with church I think to myself that they themselves are part of the problem they are describing. Like Jerry said in his previous post: What is wrong with the church? - Me…
I also found that when I stop focussing on my needs (incl. to fit in) and start focussing on the needs of others and start ministering to those needs my own needs are miraculously met.
September 9th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Some people grew up in mega-chruches and they love it. Some grew up in liturgy and they love it. Some grew up in Calvinistic churches and they love it. Some love their pastor being “cool”. Many who got saved in some style or format swear by it.
So when the single mother with four children, one with special needs, comes to your small country church they do not seem equipped for her obvious family needs. She goes to a mega-church and they have a class for her special needs child, one for each of her children, and a SS class for single moms. That may not be my cup of tea, but God can and does use anything.
You have pastors with tattoos now who minister to a specific group. The bottom line is there is no formula, God sees the heart. Find an imperfect church that you like, drop the criticl glasses, and serve.
From my independent Baptist days I can tell you that analyzing can be addictive and immobilize you spiritually. There is no other way than to walk in total grace and hope for the best in all circumstances, and what rings your bell may not be what ministers to everyone.
And remember, someone may come to your church and walk out with a list of things they do not like either.
September 9th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Rick,
I agree… and though I may not like the mega church now as my personal preference, our leadership team often talks of how they help smaller churches like ours.
1. We get those who “need” something more…
2. We get the “mature” believers who want to not hassle with the “programs” to get going in ministry.
3. We can send those “special cases” as you stated to the mega churches, as we just cannot help them as they have need.
4. We actually work hand in hand with one of the mega churches here at times as we are not in competition with them… we are all the same team.
I may prefer to minister more “one on one” in my smaller church and find I can move more freely as God wants me. I tried to do what God called me to do in mega churches and found that I often just cannot do the things God wants me to… there are too many hoops to jump through to get things done. Yet, again, I have many friends in many different churches that love where they are… and I see that as great!
I would not fit in a Free Will Baptist though I have a friend who pastors one of those churches… I have friends in Church of Christ and Church of God… I would not fit in those either… I have Baptist and Calvinist friends and we all work together on things yet again I would not fit in their churches… God placed me where I am… and I see that He will place people where He wants them.
At our church, we have a revolving door policy. We want people to stay, yet also see that God has His plans for them also… so…we let people come and go as God moves them. If we just let God do as He wills the Body works very well, yet if we place our preferences and agendas ahead of God, that is where we fall into many issues.
iggy
September 9th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Iggy said:
I look at church membership as the place where God plants you, the pace where He wants to use you at that specific time. We often look for a church where I feel comfortable, where my needs are met, preach the way I like or believe the same as I do. Like Iggy said: “we place our preferences and agendas ahead of God”. God has plans for us and we should seek to find out what those plans are and then get our lives in tune with God’s plans and this includes in what church we should serve. If we fail to do this we end up cynical about church, get hurt and stay hurt and start up blogs criticising and analyzing churches thinking that I can do it better than those churches.
I am not saying that Julie R Neidlinger is one of these people. I actually quite enjoyed reading her article. I just have had so many conversations with people who left churches or wanted to leave our church and it was all about them
P.S. Sorry for the rant. I had to get that out of my system. I feel better now.
September 9th, 2008 at 7:30 am
The invention of the car and the urban population boom has compromised the commitment to any particular local church. Not to mention the cultivation of individuality and the overall selfishness of western thought.
September 9th, 2008 at 7:41 am
This is the will of God: Sell your motor car and go live on a kibbutz.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Ahhh. My faith is restored. All is right on with the world.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Not surprisingly here, I find myself agreeing more with Bo’s assessment of the article than others. She said she wanted to dump coffee on the guy’s head! Why? Because she can tell how lame he is by looking at a picture in a magazine.
She railed on about how guys don’t become men. If Ingrid wrote this article–I am even willing to say word for word– many here who are upholding Julie would have had a problem with it. We cannot have it both ways.
Here’s a grace filled statement,
This was a rant. Which is fine. It’s her blog, she can write whatever and however she wants. I’m sure Julie is a nice person, but she IMO she rants a lot.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:22 am
The entire point could have been summed up as:
I prefer a smaller church as opposed to a larger and more culturally relevant one.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:29 am
“If I see another cool Bible college student or pastoral studies major wearing the hemp choker necklace, flip-flops, open-at-the-collar shirt that’s untucked, and baggy jeans, saying words like “dude” and “sweet”, I will kick their ass.”
I just cannot imagine walking around the church with that kind of attitude. It is very judgmentally voyeuristic. If I read some of Julie’s posts and was a member of her church I would always be wondering what she was thinking.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:05 am
In the I-Monk Julie says this:
I feel her pain, that seems to most times always be the case. I’m surprised at the many different POV’s of the article just here alone!! I’m not exactly sure if that’s good….or bad.
It did seem to me that most of the negatives against her “rant” didn’t get her point at all.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:17 am
That’s the thing, she gets frustrated because people didn’t agree with her. They thought her “rant” was whatever and she (once again) puts the blame on them. Why doesn’t she extend the same grace to those pastors she’s all fired up about?
September 9th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Joe M’s comment #26 represents well what I had planned to say in thinking over this article. So, read that, and consider:
Some observations:
Should “honesty” be valued only in people one likes and mostly agrees with?
1)I don’t think Ingrid would have written some of the things that Julie wrote, especially that quoted in Joe’s comment #26. Let’s give her some credit.
2)Most people here already like Julie.
She is witty and writes in a unique way. Her topics appeal to a broad range of people. She is, it seems, honest. She is single, pretty, and perhaps a bit “like the girl next door.
3) Ingrid has made comments, one in particular, which continue to be quoted as if they are the essence of all that she is. I’m guessing Julie will live down her comments because in spite of the ugliness of them she somehow comes across as a small-town waif with whom many folks identify.
4)In real life people will accept amazing statements/ideas from people just because they like them.
5)Should Julie be commended for her honesty or reprimanded for lumping and dumping?
6)I think that the core idea of real relationships missing in churches is something that all churches, big and small, need to look at.
7)I like Julie. I like Ingrid. Just to make that clear. I agree with many of Julie’s ideas in the article but think it should be viewed as a conversation starter, not as a theological “this is the way the church should be and isn’t” document. And to be fair to Julie, I don’t think she meant it that way.
9) Should “honest” comments such as Julie’s be kept to a private journal? Is she sinning by letting her thoughts be known?
10) I think it’s important to look past a person’s clothes, no matter who they are and no matter what the clothes are, except for the purpose of being sensitive to how a person’s outward appearance might demonstrate that they are in need of help. In which case a person will have to get to know the real person, not the outward appearance, to help them.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Scotty,
I think those who have a problem with it get it. They see an angry single woman who’s ticked off at almost everything. I’ve lurked here for a long time. She’s a classic passive/aggressive. She walked out because she was mad about the Childrens ministry being brought before the church. You sum up her entire post into, “Wa, Wa, Wa, my needs aren’t being met.” Can the parents of children walk out when they do a service about singles?
Of course not. Her post was an angry rant, period.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:25 am
The smiley face was supposed to be the number 8. Don’t know how it got there. Anyway, don’t read anything into it, since it got there by accident.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:25 am
I think she wrote pretty clearly. She wants to kick the asses of anyone who wear particular clothes or speak a particular way because they are what’s wrong with the church. The only thing I’m surprised by is the fact that so many agree with her.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:26 am
For the record, I don’t think she sinned by posting her article. I just don’t understand how it’s being held up as so great.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Knowing that Julie is probably covered most of the angles for which people have commented I have to wonder “What was the point”?
I’m not trying to be glib here but she has adequately portrayed the inadequacy that she feels in Church today. However as I’ve read and re-read the post I continually came back to one recurring theme. “I don’t like the church because it panders to others needs but doesn’t pander to my needs.”
Understanding completely that she openly admits it’s tough to articulate none-the-less, for all of the traction swirling around this post, it would seem that some resolution would be in sight.
*sigh*
September 9th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I still don’t think the clothing is the problem. I think the problem is people acting in a certain to attract a certain people when all the while it is just a sham, a cover-up–something decidedly fake. I think it is the fakeness of it all that really concerns her. As if, the only way to really be a modern preacher is to dress this way, act this way, do these things–and so many others faking it and trying to fit in when that is not who they are at all.
I think she is just looking for something a little (or a lot) more real.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Jerry,
She got all of that from a picture? How does she know their fake? It seems to me the same charge could be leveled against her. I mean if we’re just pulling that stuff out of the air.
She knows he’s a fraud b/c he has a Starbucks like coffee cup? A co-worker just walked by me with one, I’m going to have to stop typing now so I can go kick his ass.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Yeah, I gotta be honest, I’m not sure I see anything different there.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:59 am
One more thing:
I get that fact that many 20 something men today seem to “launch” fairly late in life. I have counseled my fair share of guys struggling to find a path. I also very much understand the frustration that swirls in womens circles about men like this.
With the Ingrid posts weak-kneed men, Julies post about latent maturity in men, and IMONKS quote from Mad Minerva about men parsing the thoughts of a single woman I needed to say:
Ladies,
We too (men that is) have our frustrations.
You have been sold a bill of goods. You bought it at Fairytale Land with the Knight in Shining Armor attachment. Along with it came a Romance novel wrapped in a Daytime Soap Opera.
As frustrated as you are with “delayed entry” men, men are equally frustrated with the “shoot the moon” fantasies that most women have.
With divorce rates sky rocketing at over 50% inside the church and the court system continually favoring woman in large percentages for custody, alimony, and child support is it any wonder why men are a little gun shy to embrace the “Happily Ever After”? Or why they choose to embrace singleness?
I’m not suggesting that any of these things are good reasons or rationales for delayed adult hood. Rather I’m suggesting that all of us should evaluate why we are in the situation we are in instead of castigating 50% of the population as being the problem.
For the record I’m happily married. But I’ve been there.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Its also a bit disingenuous to attribute putting of “real adulthood” as something that occurs only within the church. Much like the clothing of pastors she wants to kick the asses of, this is something that has spread through out society and is likely a reaction to longer life spans and greater prosperity. So if she’s going to be kicking asses over this issue, she’s got a lot of asses to kick, and probably ought to start training in some sort of ass kicking martial art.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I guess I can emphathize with Julie because I know we are coming from a very similar church background. I know she was raised in the A/G, so she’s probably seen some of the things I have. I guess it comes down to a matter of reading things into comments we want sometimes, but I guess I am willing to read one of Julie’s rants with a bit more grace than Ingrid or other ODMs.
For one, Julie isn’t about masks from what I can tell. The ODMs seem to be all about masks. I think the think the danger is that we can take off the hyper-reformed mask of the ODMs and put on the hip, cool mask of modern evangelicalism. Either way, it’s turning faith into a commodity that marketed.
For me the issue comes down to the fact that it seems in many ways we have made being a pastor more of a profession than a calling. We send kids to Bible College to learn the “skills” they need to be pastors, but a true calling must come from God. I guess I’ve seen too many people who can say all the right things, wear the right uniform, but really don’t seem to give a crap about people. They’re trying real hard to be cool and all, but they still don’t really relate to people. The pastors who I’ve seen really make a difference haven’t been cool. They’ve just been real and honest.
I guess the way I read that piece was as piece longing for authenticity. So maybe I’m being too generous and reading too much of my own feelings in it, but that’s my story and I’m stickin’ with it.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:53 am
You know I was thinking a little about this post and discussing it with a friend. My friend (who has read more of the broader blogo-world comments) pointed out there really isn’t a bunch of different angles on this post, there are basically two. Those who agree and those who don’t. For an author what more could you ask for? There’s a conversation going on.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Phil,
I very much hear that. And since you know me beyond the comments of this blog I trust that you know that I agree. Authenticity is what is desired by all people I believe.
But Julie doesn’t necessarily say that. She points fingers at the issues and doesn’t offer that solution. I appreciate her candor and willingness but I would think that if she longs for authenticity then she shouldn’t peg others as being un-authentic rather she should live that out.
Also when she is being authentic she really should be able to understand that peoples reponses are also being authentic. Even if they don’t agree with her take on Church.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Well, yeah, I understand that. I guess my question would is haven’t you ever been around someone and just gotten the impression they were a total fake and fraud? What do you do in that situation? Pretend you don’t notice and play along? Or are you sometimes forced to take a stand?
I guess this hits close to home for me because my wife and I recently had to resign from our positions as campus pastors because of various reasons, but the main one being that we had pretty much lost all respect for the senior pastor at the church we were at. The reason being that the pastor was a totally different person in his private dealings with us than he was in public. And the sad thing is that this guy is in of the highest positions in the district, so he’s generally well-respected. So he goes to speak at seminaries, and you have these students who are trying to emulate him. It’s like there’s this rottenness at the root that’s never dealt with.
So, yes, maybe Julie was venting her frustrations, and maybe her post was a bit rough around the edges. But I’ll take that over a polished turd any day.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Phil,
I think you’re reading way too much of your story into Julie’s post. She drew her conclusions from a picture. She had to walk out why? Well, because, (and I tried my best to get the whole context here)
She was annoyed. She’s annoyed because there’s a children’s ministry and there’s not good men to date, just guys stuck in the “guy mode.” Never is there a mention that maybe she’s the problem. She’s annoyed and she’s right. Did this pastor teach heresy? Nope, he just annoyed her. I’m just failing to see how this is different than what Ingrid posts.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I just read beyond her OP for the first time. My soul. How can you read her comments (her’s not the one’s other people put there) where she makes references to “lame brains” and not think that she’s just a touch angry? I could use her blog as a research center for one of my classes.
On another note, I think her entire post is a reaction to this truth,
September 9th, 2008 at 11:23 am
It would seem that “the ODM’s” value honesty and authenticity as well. Slice has a post called, “At Last, An Honest Headline” which links to an article called “Osteen Arms Thousands with Hope, Not Doctrine .”
Is that a problem for you all? Would it be a problem if another name were substituted for Osteen? It’s someone’s honest, authentic opinion.
I think that comments about honesty/authenticity, making certain comments not being sin open up a much larger discussion.
Yesterday I read a random comment on come article here calling what ODM’s do “sin.” So just what are the Biblical parameters of what is sin in speaking out against others?
I honestly think this is something that needs to be discussed in light of some of your reactions to Julie. Can a person say for example, “I just wanted to punch that person in the face” (similar to Julie’s)without having sin in their heart? What about phrases like “the painted girls of Sodom” (one of Ingrid’s which she will never be allowed to forget)?” Is one somehow okay and the other not?
As Christians we are to examine others’ fruit as well as our own. Speech is fruit, good or bad. Speech demonstrates motive and attitudes, good or bad. We can’t always know motive but we aren’t called to judge someone’s primary motive as “good in God’s eyes” when it might very well be otherwise, or at least, mixed.
Anyway, that’s how you all usually come across - that we are to give grace and judge other’s motives as good. Here the conversation is being extended to the value of being authentic. How does this apply to your treatment of Ingrid’s comments and Ingrid personally?
Another issue: Masks
Phil says,
And yet Phil few people have unmasked the details of an unsavory marriage in order to help other people the way Ingrid has. Can you imagine the pain that it causes just to relive those kinds of things? To potentially open up herself to more attacks from the person involved, as a result of making her issues public? To acknowledge that that marriage happened partially as a result of her own turning from God?
September 9th, 2008 at 11:25 am
I sure appreciate all the analysis of me, personally.
Play it again, Sam.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I don’t know, I think sometimes it’s alright to get angry. I can understand it. I’ve played on the worship team at some conference where the time spent showing DVDs talking about different programs almost equaled the amount of time the speaker was given. Program-driven ministry is almost too much for me to bear too.
As far as the immaturity in men, it’s not something I worry about as much, but I will say that’s there’s probably a lot of truth in it. When I see the college guys I know calling their mom’s everyday and having their girlfriends packing their lunches for them, it’s kind of a bit annoying. A lot of them don’t have jobs, and are just living off school loans.
Anyway, I still liked the rant…
September 9th, 2008 at 11:30 am
As far as this goes,
If this represents accurately what was said,
then I also might have left as well, temporarily or permanently. If it were my own church I probably would have confronted whoever said it.
Because it is a lie. I’ve seen kids pay attention extremely well “with just a Bible.” And if they can’t, well that a problem that needs worked on, isn’t it.
Don’t get me wrong - I like “creative” ministry, especially puppets. But God help us poor people when we have the attitude that “just a Bible” isn’t enough.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:32 am
As far as I’m concerned any of the good that Ingrid has done is undone by the harm she’s inflicted on others. That’s the whole danger of double-lives.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Yes I’ve been around fake people or people I perceived to be fake. But what do I take a stand on, the fact that people are fake or the fact the people have a reason or a need to be fake?
I think Julie does the latter for the most part in her post and her comments. She perceives a problem and tries to evaluate the reasons for the problem. I just think she misses the mark and paints very broadly.
Agreed. The question though is does she progress the ball down the field with her venting. I think she accomplishes that just in the myriad of responses that she has received. I struggle with throwing a rock into a pond only to see the ripple. Which I’m not so certain was her goal?
September 9th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Amy,
Why do you keep b ringing up Ingrid’s failed marriage… we have in fact called that off limits here in discussion… yet you seem obsessed with bringing it up over and over.
Please stop running Ingrid through the mud Amy, I am tired of you spreading and keeping gossip about Ingrid’s failed marriage.
It is YOU not us that bring this stuff up… YOU AMY…
Not me, Phil or anyone else here, only you.
Stop and go look in the mirror… it is you.
And true honesty in an ODM is rare to say the least… most hide behind a thin veil of honesty but then disregard biblical teachings if they get in the way…
iggy
September 9th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Julie,
You have communicated a difficult idea that people struggle with. So we wrestle together and individually with your analysis.
You have raised claim with many corporate issues that also are personal issues not only with yourself but also many of us here. Unfortunately this is the venue with all it’s short comings and it’s frustrations.
You mentioned that you “were tired” and it’s difficult to articulate what you are feeling. If that’s still the case sit back and allow our conversation help you more clearly define and wrestle with the issues you’ve presented. If not the case then help us to more clearly understand your position.
Grace and Peace,
Chris
September 9th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I don’t know, I guess I didn’t analyze the post that much. I just read more on the surface level of frustration. I know we have “analysis” in our title, and that’s what we do, but sometimes a rose is just a rose.
I guess I tend to approach people with the same measure of grace they give to me. The ODMs do not exhibit grace for the most part. Julie tends to exhibit it more, so I will admit I read a rant from her through a different lens.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Julie,
I hope you understand I am not analysing you at all. If anything I expressed my own feelings and thoughts. You have written a great post and as far as you personally I see we may not agree now, but may have totally agreed a couple of years ago… things change… people change.
Again, I tried to talk only about the situation you are describing… and not about you as a person.
Be blessed,
iggy
September 9th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Thank you, Chris. At this point, I read with shallow interest. That post has been “live” for over a month and I’ve received just about every response imaginable from every kind of person I can think of.
On this particular blog, I have a more than slight amusement with the responses of some, due to past history of writing for this blog before an inglorious exit that occurred behind scenes.
I do think it ironic for Mr. Diaz to take me to task for allowing the comments I did on my site in light of what passes for comment here.
But, by all means, soldier on. Don’t let me stop your analysis of my mental, emotional, motivational and personal well-being. Glad to provide a case study. I’ll just watch it unfold from my seat in the bleachers.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:51 am
BUT….Program-driven ministry is easy! You don’t have the messy lives or the deep conversations that require you to actually care.
Pop in a video, read a story, get a puppet, etc…It’s controllable and you can assuage your guilt by patting yourself on the back with all the “good Truth” you throw at people.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:56 am
At half-time will you head to concession stand and get me a hot chocolate? I kid, I kid.
Agreed. As do I.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I thought Julie’s post was very good. Interestingly enough (to me), I wrote a post over a year ago, expressing some of the same/similar sentiments re: “trendy pastors,” but my post didn’t receive as glowing a review, i.e “exquisite and beautiful.” Guess I just didn’t say it right.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Perhaps because you sound…well…angry and right. Not sad/frustrated and questioning.
I don’t know it could be the Stop Obama sticker, or the Reformed warning sign, or the Got Socialism? ad. Or maybe it’s the 5pts address.
You seem pretty staunch and unflappable in your view. Tough to have dialog with that. I guess?
September 9th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Iggy,
What is the purpose of what you wrote? I truly can’t understand why a site that claims to value truth and humility etc continues to let you make such twisted remarks.
Almost entirely without reprimand.
__
A single lady came to our church a while back, said she has been looking for her “small town church back home-type church” in our area, for a year I think.
And I know what she means and sympathize with it. As well as much of what Julie has said.
Sadly, I don’t think she’ll find what she’s looking for.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I think that part of the problem of interpreting Julie’s post is that, like being relevant, having a problem with relevant becoming a gimmick is difficult to explain.
My church had an assistant pastor who slowly morphed into a Rob Bell look-a-like over 4 months. I didn’t understand why he felt the need to do that.
Some Sunday mornings I look at the stage and every single person in the band as well as the minister is wearing flip-flops, and it is 60 degrees out. I don’t get it.
It bothers me when I read a post on stuffchristianslike about using Michael Phelps as a sermon illustration and next Sunday my pastor does.
Every church has it’s culture and often times I think that the people are oblivious to it. Every so often I find myself stepping out of my normal viewpoint, I look around and everything just looks wrong. I can’t quite put my finger on it but it makes me uncomfortable, and sometimes a little angry. It is like realizing that everything is a caricature.
Note: I don’t have a problem with Rob Bell, flipflops or Michael Phelps. I found myself doing this many years ago at a different church when the minister and elders all had comb-overs.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Well part of it may be that Bell is perceived to be reaching people, and I think there will always be some copycatting of “success”.
I don’t want to sound like I’m totally without sympathy to pastors. I know pastors are under a lot of pressure to get people in the doors, and I think that often assistant pastors have the worst of it because they can get it from all sides. So I think that what happens is pastors depend on a church for their salary, and they just become desperate to find something that works.
My wife and I were fortunate because we didn’t depend on the church for our income, and finances weren’t really something we had to worry about in the decision to leave. I know it’s different for a person who’s income comes from the church. I guess that’s why I always think it’s good for person to get a “marketable” degree before they go to Bible College or seminary. There’s nothing wrong with a pastor being able to support himself. In many ways, I think it would prevent a lot of the spiritual abuse that goes on in churches.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I spent 12 years in a fundamental, baptist, small church and now go to our area’s version of the mega-church. One of the big differences is that now I can look over a group of people Idon’t know and make a fairly accurate guess as to what each person’s position in ministry is by what they are wearing, etc.
In the small church, because of a lack of staffing, nobody had one role, and therefore didn’t dress or act a specific part.
There are times where I find the “copycatting of success” to be annoying. Of course, there were many annoying things about the small church as well.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Chris: “…You seem pretty staunch and unflappable in your view” As did Julie.
If it’s “right” then it’s right whether it’s whispered or yelled from the house tops. I agree you may not get as many to listen if you’re yelling, but facts are not negated by the delivery. My post pointed out the same thing as Julie–under the guise of being “different,” they all look and act the same.
What does Obama have to do with anything; you just looking for something? Because I’m not for Obama or you may be–that prevents conversation?
September 9th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Keith,
You posed the question/statement “Guess I didn’t say it right”.
I was merely presenting a hypothesis as to why it didn’t get the same sort of traction that Julies post got. That’s all. Nothing more.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
I’ll whisper next time.
(Note: Obama wasn’t an “issue” when I originally posted my comments–June 07.)
September 9th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Yes!
September 9th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
If you desire to be heard it is probably best to use a method that your audience can understand.
Some people raise there voices when what they should do is reinforce their argument.
Don’t confuse passion/authenticity for loud/different or vice versa.
The real irony in all of this, is if we were to get down to brass tacks, we all strive to fit in while struggling to be authentic. Human nature is human nature whether it comes in a 3 piece suit or carries a starbucks cup and wears flip flops.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
iggy,
watch out.
apparently you need to be reprimanded.
don’t feel bad though, you can chalk it up to ’suffering’ for righteousness or something like that.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Keith,
I would happily give your post a glowing review, and I will use words like ‘amazing,’ ‘exquisite’ and, perhaps, even ‘glorious,’ but I’ll have to read it first and see if it resonates with me as Julie’s did. As you can see, however, Julie’s post is at least a month old (I don’t get out much). I didn’t even know you had a blog until about an hour ago. But I’ll read your post and see what happens.
Anyone,
In the meantime, I wonder if there is something to be said about being being fashionable just because it is fashionable to be so? And nowadays, it seems people are trying so hard to be unfashionable that it has become fashionable to be unfashionable. Pshaw! I’ll state again, that I think there are many people in the church, or, as in the case of others ‘not’ in the church who are looking for something a little more real and a little less fake.
I know I am.
jerry
September 9th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Keith,
OK. Just read your post. I don’t think your post is in the same vein as Julie’s, sorry. I think your complaint is completely different from Julie’s complaint. Sorry. But, on a brighter note, your blog is very nicely put together (except for that ‘Reformed’ badge you have pasted so proudly). I’m reformed to, but certainly not by any particular theological idea whereby God creates some people just so he can crush them in hell and end up ‘glorified’ by it. Other than that, nice blog!
y/f
jerry
September 9th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
” On this particular blog, I have a more than slight amusement with the responses of some, due to past history of writing for this blog before an inglorious exit that occurred behind scenes. ”
Julie was a writer for crn.info?
September 9th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I think we should all be fashionable and wear white suits like Benny Hinn and/or white robes.
Might as well get used to what we will wear when we go home.
Seems really important, what do you think? Now that I have been an SmA–!
Maybe the underlying issue is how one has been raised. I was raised in churches that always expected men/boys to at least wear a shirt with a tie and the girls in nice dresses. The thought behind it was to show some “reverence” to the Lord even in how we dressed. I wore a tie until about 6 years ago when the pastor got a hold of either a RWarren or BHybels thing about being “whatever” to draw the masses even if it was we need to dress more casually so that more people will feel comfortable.
Hence many men in the church lost the ties, before long it was jeans and flip flops, t-shirts and shorts, bare mid-driff tops for girls and generally anything goes within reason. I will admit, I have a problem with it and it is ME that has a problem with it. So what am I to do, accept it or go someplace where I am more comfortable.
But there is so much more to the issues I have, but I choose to no longer battle about it because I have not seen much accomplished, from/through it, and I am going to have to answer for myself when I stand before the Lord. So again, the two commandments, Love the Lord with all of your heart, soul, and strength and others in the same way are the foundation of who we should be.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Jerry: Thanks…I think. 8^)>
Reformed obviously means different things to different people. I don’t categorize my being “reformed” as “God creates some people just so he can crush them in hell…” Of course, since He’s God and I am not, He can do whatever He pleases…who’s gonna win an argument with Him? None of us deserves the grace He chooses to bestow on us.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Keith,
I think the real issue isn’t how your post compares to Julie’s, but whether or not hers would have been received in glowing terms if it had your name on it. Undoubtedly not. Most certainly not if Ingrid had authored it.
And that’s sad.
It’s also sad that if I were alone in making negative comments about Julie’s post, instead of being accompanied by others who are sympathetic to this site, I would have been accused of playing “gotcha.”
Because one is only “allowed” to criticize, question, without being criticized if certain others here agree.
If a completely unbiased person who wasn’t aware of church issues or you or Julie were to read both of your posts, I would guess that most would prefer reading Julie’s. Simply because it’s more story-like. One can picture the poor and discerning Julie or the angry and self-serving Julie (however one might interpret it) walking through the various scenarios.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Here’s an interesting quote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-09-08-megachurches-numbers_N.htm
The part I thought was especially insightful is this:
I think that “wanting to feel good about who they already are” applies to most people, regardless of type/size of church they are attending.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Amy I agree whole heartedly with this. Would you agree that the opposite could also be true? Some don’t like it because Julie authored it.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Yes the opposite could be true. But I’m not sure who that would apply to who is taking part in this discussion. Who are you thinking of?
September 9th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Amy,
The purpose I wrote was that you may see that you are bringing up things that have nothing to do with the post and dragging Ingrid’s failed marriage up which is wrong.
Please stop…
You seem to not take reprimanding nor polite requests…
Again, please stop bringing up things about Ingrid this site has already stated was off limits… it is you not this site that do this often… check your own heart… please.
iggy
September 9th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Who cares who wrote what? The church is not a building, method, a preference, it is the Body of Christ and the people who have found new life in Him…
So what if Ingrid wrote it? So what if Julie wrote it?
One might have more grace about it, yet, really it all misses the HUGE point of what The Church really is.
iggy
September 9th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Nobody in particular. Certainly in this world of blogging though things get parsed and agreed with or disagreed with based on whose camp you most align yourself with.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I find it depressing that threads like these go on forever, and nothing actually gets stated, but discussions in which we can learn things about our faith and Christ don’t seem to crop up often in comparison.
83+ comments about what exactly?
September 9th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I only wholeheartedly agree with everything I write. Everything else I approach with caution and suspicion.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I just saw your comment, Chris P. I didn’t know you were a John Lennon fan!
Also, I for one was never cool enough to be a fratboy.
Community is certainly about us, too. This is how it’s described in Acts 4:
Of course, you would probably call them all a bunch of socialists now…
September 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Socialism is much closer to Christianity than is capitalism.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
O, Rick…
You just had to go there, didn’t you?
September 9th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Uh oh…I said that once at church Rick and almost got fired.
Be careful you may get your citizenship revoked.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
My citizenship is in heaven, any earthly citizenship is coincidental and unimportant and was bestowed upon me without my consent.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Avete amici! :salutes Roman style:
So…we’re not imperial fans then I’m guessing, eh?
September 9th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Unfortunately so to varying degrees.
I don’t think Julie belongs to any camp, though.
Iggy,
Your post #84. Why do you CONTINUE twisting what I said.
I would seriously like to know, maybe from some writer here. Is Iggy ill or something? Or is he a healthy human being who deliberately twists things? I have chosen to ignore, not even read his quotes in the past.
It bothers me exceedingly that you all jump over some people but let him post things such as he is posting now. Is this because of some health issue, because he’s just become part of the setting, or what?
Joe C,
Jerry wrote an article in favor of Julie’s article; others see her article as ugly and self-serving. Discussing her article fits very well within the parameters of this site. Simply put, if Julie’s article, attitudes, etc shouldn’t be discussed, then neither should the ODM’s writings, attitudes, etc. Such ODM discussion is the main reason this site exists.
I like both of the devotional articles you’ve written recently. If that’s the kind of thing you really feel God calling you to do, maybe this isn’t the place for it. Because you are going to be held in some way responsible, linked to, the attitudes and views of other writers and contributors who are given free reign - whether you want to be or not. So whatever good things you have to say are going to be viewed in light of what you appear to give tacit approval to on this site.
You want fairness and gentleness and God-honoring attitudes. But you can’t really look at things fairly and help things be fair and gentle and God-honoring unless you’re willing to take lots of time to sort through discussions.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Amy,
The only one that seems to not be able to see beyond themselves between us is you…
I did not twist your words. You brought up something that was agreed on to not discuss… and accused us of bringing it up…
You lie to and deceive only yourself.
iggy
September 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
“So whatever good things you have to say are going to be viewed in light of what you appear to give tacit approval to on this site.”
Jerry - from one who occassionally is labeled as such, here is some advice. Who cares what anyone thinks? I could care less about anyone except Christ, and He isn’t telling anyone but me what He thinks about me. Tacit approval - what a joke.
Who is going to view you or me in that light? MacArthur? I could care less. Anyone else? I cannot express how little I care about what anyone thinks or believes, especially about me.
I am better than some think, and I am worse than others think. I again give my consent to anyone to attack me and demean me in the most prolific and caustic terms. They called my Lord “that pestilent fellow”, why should I care what they call me?
September 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Amy,
You kind of are missing my point.
I choose to associate with these other contributors because though they are imperfect like myself, I believe they are all trying to do the right thing. I do agree with their sentiments concerning the purpose of this site. I was told I could write as little or as much as I want, on the subjects I feel led to write on, and that is what I am doing. I’ll leave the analysis of the ODMs specifically to those who are better equipped, and I’ll level only personal comments in that regard. I’m hoping the topics of my studies are themed around the subject we encounter here on the blogsphere. Not that I needed to explain myself or all of this to you and others, but there you go, it’s out there.
Now on to my point.
The point is that most of this discussion has been no better than the 100+ comment discussion earlier on whether Jerry’s comment meant ‘himself included’ or not. And no, that is me saying “let’s start that discussion again hooray!”, I’m just using that to make my point.
Take it for what you will Amy
Joe
September 9th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Exactly Rick.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:30 pm