This post is the product of a series of conversations with Mike Baker and a recent post by Daniel and Heather Cosby entitled “Demolition of the Heart…”. In Daniel and Heather’s post, they wrote:

“Over the last year or two, we have spent considerable energy trying to expose and dismantle the beliefs surrounding this worldly-derived system which identifies itself as “the Church”. To a large degree, this has been driven by the assumption that it is this system which is holding so many people back from experiencing true, authentic, unfettered Life. . . .

But these assumptions have proven to be pretty short-sighted. They forget what lies at the core of everything that diverges from God’s intentions. They neglect the underlying reality of sin. . . .

While it is true that so many of the practices embraced by religious legalism today were borrowed from a combination of pagan influences and Old Testament Law, it is also true that these practices are adopted and preserved essentially because they provide an appealing alternative to simply finding oneself standing naked and condemned before a Holy God. They are safe. They are convenient. They appeal to our flesh. And though they do provide a platform on which pride and self-reliance can flourish, they are not the cause of these ugly human traits. They are a symptom, but not the disease, a manifestation of what lies at the root, an unintended showcase of our fallen nature, which always tends to value ingenuity over dependence, and personal achievement over brokenness…

If we simply focus on knocking down the religious edifices that have been built by those who would trust human wisdom more than God’s, we can easily ignore the reasons why these systems were ever formed at all… We can strive to live as “organically” as possible, and yet in our hearts be just as cold and dead as the bricks in the church buildings we’ve left…

Is it the institutions which enslave people, or is it sin itself?“

I think that is a profound question, and one I’ve been considering a lot lately. Perhaps the issues we have with the institutional church can’t be resolved by merely a new approach. Perhaps the issues are there because of our sinful nature, regardless of our methodical approach to church (or deconstruction of it)? This can be seen clearly in the history of modern day Methodism (hence the name “Methodist”).

John Wesley emphasized a conversion experience and personal holiness and began making many practical reforms to the way church was done, especially how people lived throughout the week and interacted with other believers. He was discontent with the apathy and dead tradition he saw all around him. Wesley never intended to invent a new church, he merely formed small groups known as “United Societies.” It didn’t take long for the Church of England to ban them from speaking in any pulpits, so John Wesley and his brother Charles soon began preaching in homes and other non-church settings. Today Methodism is not much different in practice than most mainstream evangelical denominations, nor is it faring any better. Clearly a new “method” didn’t help – human nature prevails.

Perhaps the reasons we tend to form traditions and hierarchy are because of embedded sin, not because our initial approach was bad. This is really making me reconsider how I approach a lot of issues concerning church practice. I still think things could be a lot better than they are, but I’m becoming much more forgiving of many different traditions and how they came to be.

What do you think? Are we just fighting man and his sinful nature, or are we legitimately fighting corrupt man-made methods? Which is it: fighting man or his methods?

That seems to describe a lot of what we see in the Church these days, which I’ve termed ‘Nonreligious Christian Spirituality.’

I saw this video over at Miscellanies’ blog, who saw it at DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed:

While it may be a McDonald’s commercial, I think it also contains a lot of truth about how we do church as of late. Kevin DeYoung writes:

I admit it’s funny because I like McDonald’s more than I like coffee shops. (I can get a filling meal at McDonalds for the same price as a thimble of hot chocolate at Starbucks). Some people don’t like the ad because they think it makes fun of jazz music, facial hair, and reading poetry. I like the ad, not because I think it makes fun of these things, but because it makes fun of the haughtiness that sometimes comes with these things. McDonalds has cheap greasy food, the atmosphere is utilitarian, and their coffee is pedestrian. But, hey, some people like burgers, fries, frugality, and bad coffee.

I mention all of this because so much that passes for spirituality these days is nothing more than middle class, 20-something coffee culture. If you like jazz, soul patches, earth tone furniture, and lattes, that’s cool. But this culture is no holier than the McNugget, Hi-C, Value City, football culture that most people live in. Why does incarnational ministry usually mean hanging out at Starbucks instead of McDonalds?

Jesus came to save Grimace and Hamburglar too.

Wow, well said Kevin. In Christianity 2.0’s push toward cultural relevance, we can’t be so quick to lump everyone into the ’sophisticated coffeehouse subculture’. God’s people are very diverse, and our fellowships should reflect the same. I posted this picture on Thanksgiving, and I think it speaks volumes. I’ll close with the image and let it speak for itself. Are we reaching these people?

This phrase was made popular with Donald Miller’s famous book, Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality. The subtitle of this book created another term for Christians to use in order to make it clear that they are “spiritual, but not religious.” What can I say? I was sucked into using this terminology for a few years myself. Cliches abounded such as “It’s a relationship, not a religion”, and “I’m a Christ follower, don’t call me a Christian.” Many young adults in my generation chose to distinguish ourselves with these terms and phrases because a majority of the people who identify with Christianity in America aren’t Christians!

To demonstrate that point, let’s take a look at some statistics that George Barna came up with in past studies surveying Christians:

• 60% of all Christians believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teaching (which means that 40% don’t believe that it is accurate
• 40% of all Christians believe that after He was crucified and died, Jesus Christ did not return to life physically (isn’t this a major part of the Gospel?)
• Only 62% of Christians believe that they are certain that God wants us, personally, to help the poor (this means that 38% of Christians think that we are not personally responsible for the poor)
• 51% of Christians believe that if a person is generally good or does enough good things for other during his or her life, he or she will earn a place in heaven (what was the purpose of Jesus dying)?
• 57% believe that the devil, or Satan, is not a living being but a symbol of evil (If there is no evil, maybe good doesn’t exist too? Perhaps God may not exist if Satan doesn’t exist)… hmmm

Did you know that less than half of all born-again adults (44%) are convinced that there is absolute moral truth. Do you now realize that the flip side of this (56%) of all born-again adults believe that there is no absolute moral truth? What is the point in saying you are born-again then? Born-again into what?

Hmm, with statistics like these, we can clearly see that many people who claim to be Christians aren’t really disciples of Jesus Christ at all! (For some even more horrifying statistics see part 2 of my series on the book unChristian by David Kinnaman). It’s no wonder why many young adults who follow Jesus (including myself) don’t want to be associated with the term ‘Christian’!

The Rev. Linda Mercadante, a professor of theology at Methodist Theological School in Delaware, Ohio decided to do some research recently to figure out why so many people choose to identify themselves as being “spiritual” but not “religious.” In an article about this in the Christian Post, it says:

After speaking to SBNRs (spiritual but not religious) across the country. . . Mercadante found that many of them are not in the church – or are not religious – because of “stereotypical arguments against organized religion and the claims of churches.”

“I don’t know where this script comes from – no one knows any real churches that fit this profile or stereotype,” she said. . . . Some of the stereotypes SBNRs listed include churches’ claim to “exclusive truthfulness – that they have a corner on the truth market;” churches demanding that personal beliefs be abdicated; churches demanding conformity to a “corporate mentality;” and churches professing arbitrary or implausible beliefs, among others.

According to Robert C. Fuller, author of the 2001 book Spiritual, but not Religious, it is likely that one in every five persons could describe themselves as spiritual but not religious. Fuller cited a study in which those who described themselves as SBNRs were less likely to evaluate religiousness positively, less likely to engage in traditional forms of worship such as church attendance and prayer, and more likely to characterize religiousness and spirituality as different and nonoverlapping concepts.

Spirituality, in that study, was associated with higher levels of interest in mysticism, experimentation with unorthodox beliefs and practices, and negative feelings toward both clergy and churches. Religiousness, meanwhile, was associated with higher levels of interest in church attendance and commitment to orthodox beliefs.

“Those who see themselves as ’spiritual, but not religious’ reject traditional organized religion as the sole-or even the most valuable-means of furthering their spiritual growth. Many have had negative experiences with churches or church leaders,” according to Fuller.

I find this study very interesting. I laughed when Mercadante said, “I don’t know where this script comes from – no one knows any real churches that fit this profile or stereotype”. I do. And I know many others who do as well.

Why is this? I think a lot of it has to do with the way we do church. Because of pagan influence, church now looks a lot more like a college lecture course than an organic gathering. One man gets up and preaches while the passive “laity” listens. People learn by doing, not by being talked at. George Barna and Frank Viola, in their book Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices, point out that,

Today’s sermon is often impractical. . . . The sermon fails to put the hearers into a direct, practical experience of what has been preached. Thus the typical sermon is a swimming lesson on dry land! It lacks any practical value. Much is preached, but little ever lands. Most of it is aimed at the frontal lobe. Contemporary pulpiteerism generally fails to get beyond disseminating information and on to equipping believers to experience and use that which they have heard. . . .

Let’s be honest. There are scores of Christians who have been sermonized for decades, and they are still babes in Christ. We Christians are not transformed simply by hearing sermons week after week. We are transformed by regular encounters with the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who minister, therefore, are called to preach Christ and not information about Him. . . . The church needs fewer pulpiteers and more spiritual facilitators.”

So are sermons the culprit? No, THE ENTIRE WAY WE DO CHURCH IS THE CULPRIT. Am I saying that all forms of institutional church today are evil? No. But I am saying that it is certainly not the most effective, nor the most biblical way to do church. Christianity 2.0 is all about the missing elements of community, collaboration, and social networking. It will no longer suffice to “preach at us,” we want to be involved! And biblically speaking, we’re supposed to be.

The pagan notion of there being a dichotomy between sacred and profane, or common, is largely to blame for the mentality that has crept into churches regarding ministry. And that will be the topic of the next post. For now, here’s a few things I want you to think about:

• Is it popular to be a Christian in America? Is the attractiveness to identify with Christianity rapidly disappearing?
• Do you think the way we do church in America is a hindrance to spiritual transformation? Is it working?
• Do you identify with any of the cliches listed in this post? Why or why not?

Or at least that’s the message I seem to be hearing from a lot of America’s largest churches and most popular preachers. What ever happened to denying ourselves? What ever happened to the (gulp) offensive teaching that we don’t have the ability in our flesh to discern right from wrong? Whatever happened to keeping the central focus of EVERYTHING on Jesus?

Now it seems that everything is all about “being relevant” and “spiritual.” I mean, we all have the potential to have our best lives now! We just need to have more faith in ourselves! We just need to think more positively and not let negativity get us down! I hope you caught my sarcasm. While 390days.com is about Christianity 2.0 and how the social face of our faith is changing as it encounters a new technological era, I don’t want to see Jesus shift from being the central focus of it all. Do I want to help Christians embrace Web 2.0 and become more “relevant”? Yes. Do I want to see the Gospel take a back seat to this relevance? NO!

Why is it that every pastor seems to have a megachurch mentality? It’s not just pastors. A fellow blogger recently pointed out that even the most well-intentioned pastors often succumb to the pressure from church boards of elders to make church all about growth. I recently wrote a post entitled Developing a ‘Sticky Church’, where I talked about how churches focus far too much on the front door (reaching people) rather than the back door (keeping people). This mentality is spreading like cancer in American churches — and it needs to stop! A few people have been taking notice. I’d like to show you a YouTube video about this mentality in churches. The video is really short (less than two minutes) and is a spoof about a megachurch pastor. First watch the video:

If you really think about it, this video is not just about megachurches. Remember what it said about using gimmicks to get people into church, comfortable seating, shorter services, fashionable appearances, coffee shops, etc.? Aren’t almost all American churches succumbing to these approaches? While Jesus said, “Go and tell…”, why does every church seem to be saying, “Come and see…”? Hmm. . . . It really makes me think, and I hope it makes you think too.

• How has “megachurch mentality” crept into churches in your area? Has it found its way into your church?
• Do you think it’s ok to throw events to show people your church is fun or relevant, even if the Gospel is not presented at those events?

P.S. If you’d like to see more interesting videos on this topic, I have two recommendations. Both are about five minutes long (each). Cheech and Chong at the drive-thru is about Cheech and Chong’s adventure to Sonic Drive-Thru Church. It’s a very entertaining skit about consumerism in American churches.

Sexy God is a spoof about Rob Bell and his book Sex God. Now don’t get me wrong, I like some of Rob Bell’s material, but this video raises some valid points that you may find interesting — and comical. Enjoy!

Yesterday I posted a video that talks about the Web 2.0 phenomenon. Since many are confused as to what Web 2.0 is, I offer a great definition from Stilton Studios’ glossary of terms:

Web 2.0 is a trend in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that aims to facilitate creativity, information sharing, and, most notably, collaboration among users. These concepts have led to the development and evolution of web-based communities and hosted services, such as social-networking sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies (the practice of categorizing content through tags). Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but to changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the internet.

Three terms that jump out at me are “collaboration”, “communities”, and “social-networking”. These three terms define Web 2.0 fairly well. prayeramedic.com is a blog that will discuss how revolutionary change within our culture, such as Web 2.0, affects our concept of community and Christianity in general. I have dubbed this transformation “Christianity 2.0,” that is, the emerging technological movement within the culture that changes the parameters of social interaction in our faith. As a young adult, I offer you a perspective on Christianity and church from a generation that has all but disappeared from both. This is a forum for people of all ages to discuss this transformation and learn from one another.

prayeramedic.com wants to help you make sense of the emerging technological movements in our world today that are reshaping and defining social interaction and what it means to be in community, both areas in which Christians should be known for leading lasting change. We cannot stand by and let an entire generation slip out of the church’s fingers because it is unable to relate to them. We also cannot afford to completely compromise to cultural standards and allow culture to dictate how we “do church.” We must emerge as leaders in social networking, and set the standards for how community can exist in a Web 2.0 world, with Christ at it’s center.

Why does any of this matter to me as a Christian?

All the believers were together and had everything in common. (Acts 2:44, NIV)

Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10:25, NIV)

The older women. . . can train the younger women. . . . Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. . . . (Titus 2:3-7, NIV)

There are numerous passages of scripture dealing with the need for community and fellowship amongst believers. We must encourage, teach, rebuke, guide, and train one another. In yesterday’s post about the anthropology of Web 2.0, I posed the question, “In a cultural context that continuously values individuality, could Web 2.0 have something to do with a longing within each of us for community and collectivism?” I would assert that that’s exactly what it’s about, and as Christians it is vital for us to be leaders in this emergent form of community.

I cited Titus 2 because it is crucial for older and more mature believers to embrace the Christianity 2.0 community so that they can mold and help mature it. If the only people who embrace this cultural shift are young adults, then we will look to each other’s input to grow and mature. Wouldn’t it be so great if older and more mature individuals were contributing valuable input to the community? Not only is this a great idea, it’s necessary for optimal growth!

The Greek word from which we get our English word “church” is ἐκκλησία (ekklesia). This word literally means “called out ones”, and in ancient times was used to denote an “assembly, congregation, or council.” Even the word itself invites us to be “called out ones” in a new and exciting age where we can embrace and shape the early foundations of Christianity 2.0.

So What Can I Do?
At this point you might be saying to yourself, “Well that’s all fine and dandy, but I have no clue how to even begin with Web 2.0. How am I supposed to relate to this generation and keep up with all this technology?” It may seem overwhelming at first, but it’s really not too bad. My first recommendation is to get young adults in your church involved. They will probably be your subject matter experts on this stuff. Here are four things every church should have, that give you at least a basic presence in the Web 2.0 world:

1. A web site that has pictures of your worship experience and a design theme that captures the atmosphere of your church, with at least one element of dynamic content. A static page is one that is rarely changed or updated, such as a biography of your church. A dynamic page continually features new content, such as a church events calendar. This is actually really simple and cheap to do using vCHURCHES if you don’t have the money to drop on a custom design. I know several pastors in their 30’s – 50’s who are able to maintain very relevant websites using this tool, who had little to no technical background to begin with.
2. A church blog (linked to or incorporated into your web site), or blogs for various lead staff members of the church. There are tons of free blogging platforms for you to get started with such as WordPress, Blogger, or LiveJournal.
3. A Myspace or Facebook account (preferably both, with links to and from your web site). Not only can you have a main profile for your church, individual ministries within the church can have their own profiles as well with custom themes best portraying their unique attributes. Be sure to add all of your sub-profiles to your top friends!
4. A lead staff member who regularly checks, updates, and maintains the three above-mentioned items. I cannot emphasize this one enough. DO NOT rely on a volunteer to handle all of this. You must be sure this becomes the responsibility of someone on the payroll. Too many web sites go stagnant when a young adult decides to leave a church or when an irresponsible youth inadvertently allows a spammer to get a hold of your Myspace profile and post links to pornographic websites on it.

For individuals, I recommend steps two and three for you. These are just a few suggestions to get you started in the Web 2.0 world, and to help you become a leader of lasting change in Christianity 2.0.

The church is rapidly evolving and becoming an organic network of communities, moving away from the traditional focus on a building and a local activity-oriented agenda. Change is being made towards a global and boundary-free approach to social networking, which is changing the way we “do church” and think about Christian community.

• What have you been doing in the Web 2.0 world?
• How can you share your faith with people you have never even met?
• What are some challenges to authenticity that are posed by a Web 2.0 world?
• What are some possibly unexplored new trails in the world of Christianity 2.0?