Becoming Unwanted, Part 3

“Cheer up, Church
You’re worse off than you think
Cheer up, Church
You’re standing at the brink
Don’t despair
Do not fear
Grace is near”
– Charlie Peacock

This is the third and final post in my series called “Becoming Unwanted”. I had originally intended to conclude the series with a reasoned analysis and edifying summary of what I’ve learned from the church “unfriending” experience that I described in Part 1 and Part 2. Unfortunately, despite considerable cogitation (but probably insufficient meditation and prayer), I’m not sure what to say.

In fact, I’ve written and re-written this post about three times now. Some paths of reflection lead to despair about the church and my situation. Other paths seem clear at first but then melt away or become impassible. Yet others beckon me to scale some mountain — to do some bold and daring thing. Am I just grasping at something concrete in an effort to exert control, or am I simply afraid to step out in faith?

Come, let us reason together

In any case, I’m just not up to the task of “solving” the problem on my own. Come to think of it, that’s probably a good thing; I shouldn’t do this work in isolation. Therefore, instead of presuming that I’ve got the answers and attempting to write a polished commentary on the state of the church, I’d like to throw out some thoughts and questions for evaluation by you, my readers. Please comment!

The primary purpose of Becoming Creation is to consider the relationship between scientific and Christian knowledge. Thus, given my background and interests, my particular story centers on the compatibility, fellowship and communion of a scientist with a local evangelical church. Most of my readers are scientist-Christians like myself, but I know that several people are following this particular series because of similar struggles with church doctrine and polity that have nothing specifically to do with creation/evolution or science. I am just as much interested in hearing from this latter group of readers as I am from fellow scientists. What are the commonalities and differences in our respective experiences?

Conclusions/Assumptions

Note: I numbered these points so they’d be easier to reference in comments. There is no particular order.

1. The creation-evolution topic provides the perfect litmus test for evaluating the doctrinal rigidity of church leadership. Discussing modes of baptism and communion are a close second.
2. Most Christians (like most people) have an outdated rationalist/Enlightenment view of epistemology (how we know what we know) with regard to science, and they unwittingly approach biblical interpretation and Christian theology in the same manner.
3. Strict biblical inerrancy is a type of idolatry. Churches whose statements of belief begin with a declaration and explicit foundation of the inerrancy of Scripture are prone to such bibliolatry.
4. Churches who claim no creed but the bible are deluded and dangerous; their private interpretation and theology is their creed, which (by denying that they have a creed) they falsely equate with truth itself rather than acknowledge as a human summary of basic beliefs.
5. Independent, nondenominational churches are the least prepared to accept diversity of Christian thought. If they’re new, it’s only a matter of time before their statement of beliefs becomes rule of law.
6. The typical American evangelical church is out of touch with the church universal (in time and space). In fact, most churches (whether denominational or independent) are poorly educated even about their own particular traditions’ origins (i.e., why it started; what it rebelled against) as a way of understanding their place in history. More importantly, they blindly assume that those same formative issues still apply today.
7. Christian education (CE) in the church should include constant dialogue with all of church history and Christian thought. Furthermore, such teaching should be saturated in the belief that true believers existed and still exist in all these traditions, whose contributions should be taken seriously. This is the best way for adults, teens and children to appreciate the distinctiveness of their church’s particular tradition without glorifying it as THE truth itself.

Questions/What Next?

Even if my conclusions above are correct, they don’t directly point the way forward. Whatever I may think about the general state of “the church” in America or in my city, the fact remains that every seven days I must decide where and how I will spend the Lord’s Day. Finding a tolerable Sunday morning worship service is hard enough, but finding a church that “functions” effectively as a community for me and my family seems impossible in this city.

1. Find a different church? Honestly, I’ve more or less given up on the hope of finding a home in an independent evangelical church. If I’m going to attend another church, I’m inclined to seek out a mainline denominational church, even if that means tolerating a slightly greater diversity of views than I am personally comfortable with. I know of at least one such church in town.
2. Start a new church? I could pursue starting a new church with other disenfranchised families we know, but am I prepared to work with others to develop a statement of beliefs and establish a method of church governance that actually works? These friends are like me in general ways, but all of them are different from me with regard to science (and probably many other particulars such as politics, too). Could we get along? What’s to prevent this church from staying grounded in the essentials of the historic church? More importantly, would it advance the gospel and kingdom in our lives and beyond?
3. Do home church? This is a less formalized version of starting a new church. It would be easier to implement, as it would involve a smaller number of people and wouldn’t require long-term commitment and overhead (such as hiring a pastoral staff). It would also allow more direct ministry to some of our most needy friends, since we could focus the format and time together based on their needs. But is such do-it-yourself church really healthy overall?
4. Forget church altogether? This doesn’t really seem like a “defensible” Christian option, but it certainly is appealing at times. I know brothers and sisters in Christ who have disengaged for many years at a time. They’ve been burned repeatedly in the past, and have given up trying to be part of a local church congregation. It’s these sorts of people that I have in mind when I contemplate the home church option.
5. What’s best for the family? If  choosing among these church options is difficult for me as an individual, it seems next to impossible when I consider the needs of my whole family. My wife’s needs are different from mine, and my teenage children are old enough to have real and meaningful opinions about church life. On my own I could immerse myself in a very “liberal” community of faith, where I could be a positive witness to a living faith and grounded theology. But can I entrust my kids to that sort of environment? Alternatively, home church is less appealing when I consider what it communicates to my children (who are already slightly sheltered from the larger community by virtue of being home schooled).
6. Am I a hypocrite? Am I guilty of intolerance just as much as those I accuse of not tolerating my views? Admittedly, I’m pretty confident that my views on Scripture and science are much closer to the truth than the views held by the church leaders I sparred with. However, I never demanded that the church leadership adopt my views; I only expected that they respect and allow them in the community on the basis of my genuine Christian life.
7. Where and when to draw the line? Years ago, I almost completed avoided mentioning my views on evolution in church life. More recently, I’ve used the evolution litmus test with the pastor as soon as possible after visiting a church for the first time. The strategy worked well at Midtown Christian Church, where pastor Mark passed the test. Unfortunately, he was dismissed by the elders for such liberalism, and this makes me wonder if I should be conducting the test more broadly and drawing the line more boldly. Yet, to do so too soon and too boldly after beginning to attend a new church isn’t fair to the test subjects (church leadership) because they haven’t yet been able to observe the quality of my Christian life. Oh, that I could get beyond the critical evaluation phase!

Please comment!

Don’t forget to chime in with your comments and analysis. I submit myself to your correction and rebuke as much as to your affirmation. (The first one to suggest a three point outline with alliteration wins the sermon-writing prize!)

I’ve been asked to write a guest post for a series called “Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church” which my friend Steve Martin is planning to run on his blog called An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution. Your comments here will help me in that task. Thanks for your participation.