A friend sent me the image below. I loved it and thought it was worth sharing for a good laugh (or cry). I don’t know anything about sacredsandwich.com (see the stamp in the lower right corner). Seems like a good-natured site satirizing Christianity (i.e., it’s not antagonistic). I actually had a site like that back in grad school. It was a lot of fun. I should note, though, that I believe God can use seeker approaches, though such churches peddle a lot of pablum (and worse) and never seem to take anyone beyond that (nor intend to). And the pablum problem isn’t isolated to seeker churches by any means.
I was raised as a Southern Baptist and the extent of the doctrine taught in the Church I attended was:
1) Get saved 2) Do not sin
That was it. They believed a handful of good doctrines, but, they didn’t teach them. You were supposed to assume they were accurate. They also believed in some nonsense.
I went independent as an adult and have enjoyed the journey, it’s way easier to adjust my views as things are accurized instead of having to buck a denomination from within.
I understand, believe me.
Its very sad. The amount inaccuracies presented in churches today. I have been going to a baptist church for three years and I think Im gonna have a stroke in the future, hearing the things I’m hearing. The “bibical class” is nothing more than a mini sunday service, no brainstorming, no group research, no deep analysis by the teacher, all missing. The funny thing is the teacher says things like: “You have to interpret a verse in context” and things like that and He is the one not abiding by his own rules. I have spoken to a few of them about biblical misconceptions but is like talking to a wall.
I’ll admit this made me chuckle; then I repented. realizing again it isn’t funny.
This one was a good laugh too… Bible rewritten to make it ‘easier to follow:
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2011/12/18/41977/
See my reply to Rafa. Same thing happened to me with this one.
*Correction* instead of biblical inaccuracies, it should read: biblical misconceptions.
You know, it’s so sad it’s almost funny…I recently interviewed for a pastoral position for a church, and they noted that due to recent pastoral instabilities, they were in need of milk, since they hadn’t gotten much meat lately. Oy. I would have thought it would be the other way (we’ve only gotten milk, we want MEAT!).
I’d tell you to see my replies to Rafa and Dave, but this one had me stupefied. I go back to my own personal mantra: Personally, the best argument for the supernatural nature of the Church is that fact that it’s still here despite itself. Only direct divine intervention can explain why it didn’t implode a long time ago to be swept into the dustbin of history.
I come from a charismatic background (and would still identify as a charismatic): I value the emphasis on experience, certainly, as it’s an important part of my faith, but not when certain intellectual problems and matters are swept under the carpet in the manner portrayed above. Fortunately, there seems to be a growing shift these days amongst charismatics in engaging with the intellectual side of faith as much as the experiential.
I think you are right about this shift. I have colleagues who would identify with your and your background, and who are quite serious about wrestling with the text. In recent years schools in the broad Pentecostal tradition (I am thinking specifically of Regent University in VA Beach) have added serious scholars to their faculty. Before it was just Gordon Fee (or so it seemed!) but things seem to be shifting slightly.