This is interesting.
It would be even more interesting if someone had the resources to scientifically study the effect of having a “purpose-driven” program adopted in a church compared, say, to what happens when a mainstream Evangelical Reformed Church gets a neo-puritan ruling regime. Or for that matter, what happens when a pastor shows up wearing a robe without giving any warning to the session, let alone to the congregation.
Right now, we have wine available in the trays for the Lord’s Supper. But Jeff served a grape-juice communion for a decade before that finally happened. As a seminary student in St. Louis from 1995 to 1998, and an intern for part of that time, I never got to drink alcohol in the service.
Shoving fast change into a church is always a recipe for disaster. Unless there is some desperate circumstance that necessitates the attempt (i.e. the church has a year to grow or die), I don’t see how it can be justified.
I thought this line had somethng of a universal feel to it:
“The Bible’s theme is about redemption and atonement, not finding meaning and solving problems.”
Sound familiar? Its the old assumption that we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
I can just see the prophets of Israel sitting around and chatting about how change ought to be slow, with remedial style warning and education, and always with a ‘heads-up’ to those who think they are in the know.
The sad part on both sides of these sorts of issues is that rarely are these issues (including Warren’s wackiness and his model) a matter of fundamental import or ones which ought to divide a church.
Often, change simply confronts our idolatries and that is why many people can’t handle it. I’m all for going slow when required, but sometimes we need to reserve the right to make appropriate changes as necessary.
Its unclear to me what sort of changes are being resisted. What do the resisters want? What do the changers want?