Well, this is certainly taking sola fide to the extreme. But the faddishness of these churches gives them a relatively short shelf life. (I noticed in the story that one pastor fretted that his demographic of 30-somethings was too old. "Are we still cutting edge?" he mused.)

Despite the fundamentalist teachings of these "post-modern" churches, those serious about religion will either not be attracted to these churches in the first place, or quickly move on to churches with a more traditional service. The theology presented by "post-modern" pastors is usually a heavily watered-down version of Reformed or Baptist teaching that probably differs little from The Purpose-Driven Life. Traditionalists have little interest in copying these "flavor of the month" churches.

Since everyone has a personal relationship with God, the very idea of going to church every week (and having that attendance generally define the dimensions of your relationship with God) seems bizzare to me -- it's like going to group marriage counselling to define the dimensions of your marriage.

I think a large part of the search for a new way to worship in groups is an attempt to deal with the underlying inappropriateness of having a group of other people so deeply involved in your personal relationship with God. So we find people doing things that seem more appropriate to do with other people (celebrating, singing, dancing), rather than focusing on directing and defining your personal relationship with God.

Also, if anyone's confused about the "scum of the earth" name, it's actually from a Bible verse:

"When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world." (1 Corinthians 4:11-13)

The fact that someone has an easier time understanding radical Islam than understanding that, I think, says more about the person who can't understand the name than it does about the church.

I've always been curious about what exactly that term means: "personal relationship with God". Does God actually communicate in these relationships? I think for me it ties in with questions about what exactly is meant by faith, and the necessity of it in Christianity. Is it more along the lines of, "I have faith that God exists?", or is it more like, "God does exist and I have faith that anything happens here in my life is part of his good plan".

Maybe these are questions that are dependent on the beliefs of each believer. I guess I've always wondered why, such as in the example of creationism vs evolution, that people believe that there is going to be some empirical evidence that points to God, especially since I thought Christianity itself teaches that belief in God is actually supposed to be a matter of faith arrived at by free will. If the evidence in this world pointed toward miraculous suspensions of natural laws occurring, it doesn't seem like it would require much faith; your reason could take you there.

Just curious, like I said. Personally, I don't believe, but since there are so many religious people in the U.S. I do try to get an understanding where they're coming from.

Heinlein is probably the most prescient writer I've ever read...which isn't saying a whole lot, though. I'm quite sure that prediction will come to pass in the next 30 years or so.

Their theology, if you can even call it that, is certainly pretty sad. On the plus side, it's better than having riots over the nature of Christ. I think.

To be fair, I've attended a number of contemporary churches where the theology is solid and not watered down. Many are, that's for sure, but I'm not even sure I'd say "most." Either way there are plenty with "traditional" theology and a contemporary service.

"I've always been curious about what exactly that term means: "personal relationship with God". Does God actually communicate in these relationships?"

Why don't you ask God? Whatever the answer (even no answer at all), that's your "personal relationship with God" I'm talking about.

For example, you say "I've always wondered why, such as in the example of creationism vs evolution, that people believe that there is going to be some empirical evidence that points to God, especially since I thought Christianity itself teaches that belief in God is actually supposed to be a matter of faith arrived at by free will."

That, my friend, is you describing your personal relationship with God. On the other hand, anything I were to tell you qualitatively or quantitatively describing the dimensions of your "personal relationship with God" would constitute something OTHER THAN your personal relationship with God. It would be me commenting on your description of your relationship with God.

Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I hate churches like the ones mentioned in the article from Detroit--all jazzed up to get people in the seats. What ever happened to tradition.

The NYT had a good article on the postmodern churches of exurbia over the weekend: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/magazine/327MEGACHURCH.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Aaron, I know a lot of Christians who would consider a "personal relationship with God" a terribly reductionistic (not to mention American) way to look at the faith. A believer's call into the covenant community -- the church -- is just as important as his or her personal faith. The church, not the individual, is the bride of Christ, according to St. Paul. Spend some time with a Catholic or Amish Christian to discuss the importance of doing things together as believers and you'll see what I mean.

The "personal relationship" concept (for Scriptural support, see, e.g., Psalm 145:18) can be interpreted in various ways, though at its core it reveals that formalized ritual or hierarchies are not absolutely necessary for interaction with the divine.

The "personal relationship" concept was necessary to break the Catholic Church's control over Christianity in western Europe.

Josh said: "Either way there are plenty with "traditional" theology and a contemporary service."

What I find saddest are the churches with traditional service but watered-down theology. This seems to affect mainline Protestant denominations, who, seeing membership slip, become more inclusive in their message only to lose one of the great charges of the Reformed tradition - preaching the Word in all its glory and difficulty.

These folks suffer from the opposite problem from what Paul discusses, but I believe it to be equally, if not more, disturbing. The churches look like standard bastions of old-school religion but are little more than instruments of social pandering for the sake of their own earthly survival.

Doug -- I would argue that the idea of a personal relationship, as currently understood, is more directly descended America's pietist heritage (Puritanism/Methodism/19th-century revivalism) than from Reformation-era Christianity. I don't think the five solas of the Reformation can be so easily distilled down to a personal relationship idea. Luther and Calvin certainly did NOT suggest that going to church was unimportant or "inappropriate," to use the language Aaron used in his first post.

"That, my friend, is you describing your personal relationship with God."

Hi Aaron, thanks for the reply. It seems that in your view the term 'personal relationship with God' can mean anything and everything I think or wonder about. I don't ask God my questions because I think it's impossible to tell if he's responded or not. I'll admit it is a vague concept though and is highly subjective as far as how to define it.

As far as faith, I should have phrased it better, but I guess my question has to do with what faith means within Christianity, although there are probably as many answers to that as there are Christian religions. I have asked Christians before if God exists, and some have responded that they are sure of it, because they had a personal relationship with him, or they see his handiwork in nature, etc, which led me to believe they are basing their belief somewhat on reason or evidence. I can understand someone believing in God if he's talking to them. I guess to try and put it more succinctly, how do you fill in this sentence, "Despite not being able to demonstrate it and understanding that other people could reach a different conclusion given my 'reasons' for believing it, with regards to Christian belief, I believe ______ on faith". (the part before "I believe ___" is there just to clarify what I mean by 'faith', not to get anyone to blaspheme, if it can even be viewed as such)

I'm not trying to be antagonistic or misrepresent anything, and maybe I've misdefined the term faith.

I agree with Josh (Claybourn). Contemporary service need not mean watered-down theology.

That said, there's a fine line between making a worship service "culturally relevant" and turning it into a form of entertainment. I'd say the church that installed a coffee bar in the middle of the sanctuary has crossed that line, but it's not really for me to judge.

No objectively and undebateably true doctrine? Maybe not, however I avoid debates with anyone who claims to be Christian but doesn't believe in Christ's sacrificing atonement and his resurrection. I'll have dinner with them, go to the movies with them, play tennis with them. I will not however, expend any energy arguing those two faith matters.

I sometimes get into arguments with Calvinist friends over the topic of God's sovereignty and free will, but I've never felt those discussions were truly productive on either side.

As for watering down of theology, for me it primarily relates to Christianity's abandonment of the poor and its frequent embracing of some version of a prosperity gospel.

"not, however I avoid debates with anyone who claims to be Christian but doesn't believe in Christ's sacrificing atonement and his resurrection."

Ah, well, yes, that's a fair point.

Dave,

To me, a belief in God "on faith" is the same thing as a "personal relationship with God." I think "faith" is an adjective, not a noun. I think it means "more than I can justify to you." Saying "I believe, on faith" is the equivalent of saying "I believe, more than I can justify to you."

It's this inability to fully justify the belief/relationship to another person that makes it personal (it doesn't make it wrong; if I can't justify to you my belief in God, but you can't justify to me your belief that God doesn't exist, which of us is "wrong"? Do we vote? I don't think that would help ...)

A Christian who believes "on faith" has some personal relationship with God that is unrelated to anything that person can point to that would justify the believe to you. Conversely, you have a personal belief (that you cannot justify to them), that there is insufficient evidence to justify a belief in God. Technically, from their perspective, YOUR belief is also "on faith" since your supporting evidence does not justify your belief to them.

Of course, that means that you can't "have faith" as I define it, because faith isn't a noun to be "had." When someone says you should "have faith" I have to admit that I don't know what they're talking about, other than that they're saying "believe what I believe, even though I can't justify it to you." Which isn't particularly persuasive. That's why I think faith has to be personal.

"Saying "I believe, on faith" is the equivalent of saying "I believe, more than I can justify to you.""

The main drawback I see to faith as defined above, is that you can believe absolutely anything "on faith"; and people do, sometimes dangerous things. I didn't mean to imply that anything required justification, and you're right, depending on how you define the terms, you can say that any outlook on life is "on faith". I'm content with saying "I don't know" or "no one knows" about the unknown, like existence of gods, life after death, etc, and I will change my views if evidence was to emerge favoring these things. But I don't think it makes sense to say "I don't know, on faith".

Regardless, belief is not voluntary, so to me it's not an issue where there's a wrong or right belief, since any belief "can't really be justified to anyone else" ultimately, unless there's some common ground to work from. And this thread has strayed far away from the article on the churches... Thanks for the thoughtful replies!

I'm reminded of Paul's words on this subject:

"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law." (1 Corinthians 9:20-21)

Honestly, why do we care how folks do church as long as they are reaching people with the Gospel? Theology, yes, we should be concerned that the church teaches good theology. But form?