making a commitment, or keeping it? Elizabeth Keaton at Telling Secrets thinks it’s the former.

“Membership is VERY different from attendance, Kendall.

Or, perhaps, for your purposes, it isn’t.

This would certainly help explain the fact that when splinter groups like AAC or CANA or AMiA or, for that matter, Mr. Akinola or Mr. Kolini talk about the millions of MEMBERS in their various churches, they are “apparently” talking about ATTENDANCE.

That distinction makes things a great deal more apparent - which is that there is a great deal of difference between the long term commitment of baptism (MEMBERSHIP) and the religious fervor of an evangelical service (ATTENDANCE).

I would agree with her distinction between “membership” and “attendance” if there were more attendees than members. If that were the case, then logically the members are those attendees that are committed enough to officially associate themselves. It could be generalized as “all members are attendees, but not all attendees are members.”

But, according to the numbers, the opposite is true. There are nearly three times as many members as attendees (787,000 attendees of 2.3 million members). What that tells me is that, logically, the attendees are the members who are committed enough to show up. It could be generalized as “all attendees are members, but not all members are attendees.”

Of course there will always be exceptions: nonmembers who attend, members who stay home, etc. But what is the over arching trend? At my ELCA church (in full communion with the ECUSA) we have just shy of 1000 members. But our average Sunday attendance hovers around 425. Out of that 425 we have 6-10 one time visitors, and 5-7 families that regularly attend, but aren’t members. That means there are only about 385 members in regular attendance out of 1000.

Her description is lacking, because, according to those statistics, nearly two thirds of those who have made the “long term commitment” she mentioned aren’t showing up. Her phrase “the religious fervor of an evangelical service” implies that showing up regularly is no indicator of your commitment, while showing up on one special day is.

Would that fly with a marriage? “Honey, I may not come home every night, but you know I love you…I did marry you.”

Elizabeth thinks my logic is “deeply, deeply flawed.” My comment was worded slightly different, but with the same meaning as this post. She says:

It is based on assumption - “the truth is the opposite,” and not substantiated fact “nearly three times as many members as attendees” - which is never the basis for a logical arument

I posted a response, which she chose to delete in moderation. It’s probably because her attack on my logic was unfounded. The “assumption” she refers to is no assumption at all, but a deduction based on what she calls the “not substantiated fact”. My math says that 787,000 is 34% of 2.3 million…so she’s right, I miscalculated…it’s just barely less than three times as many. So, the truth of the situation is the opposite of my original statement about attendance being higher than membership.

Some churches have higher membership than attendance. Some have higher attendance than membership. The number that’s most important is the smaller one. That’s because the better judge of the life of a church than membership or attendance is the number of members who participate in the continuing life of the church and are moved by the Gospel.

Related: Episcopal Church loses 42,000 in 2005; The Episcopal Majority Trumpets “vitality”

I organized a conference this weekend which had as its purpose to focus on Christ, and him alone. It wasn’t an event to teach teens about purity, or abstinence, or prayer, or evangelism or any other important, but secondary concerns of the Christian life. We were there to talk about Jesus.

It had been a long time since I just tried to sit and take a long look at Jesus. I’ve been full time in ministry for a little over a year, and it’s been consumed with assessing the group, and fun activities and retreats, missions, camp, logistics, and “relational ministry”. I started letting all that get in my head, and it eventually obstructed my view of Christ. But this weekend the kids and I were able to sit down, and really look at him. And I learned something.

When Moses came down off the mountain after viewing the Glory of the LORD, it was plainly obvious. His face shone so brightly with the reflected glory, that the Israelites were forced to cover their eyes. Moses had to wear a veil as the glory faded from his face.

Something similar happened with my group. Normally on Wednesday nights and Sunday mornings it’s a chore to get them to pay attention and show any interest whatsoever in what we’re talking about. But yesterday they were fresh, they were excited. They asked and answered questions, discussed issues amongst themselves, and showed genuine interest in Christ and the Gospel. They reflected the glory they had encountered in the previous days.

If we make it a priority to view Jesus up-close and in detail, we’ll continue to reflect his glory to those around us. We may even reach the place which Paul reached when he said he considers all other things rubbish in comparison to knowing Christ.

Too many of our pastors and preachers focus their sermons on us: what we feel, what we need, and how Christ takes care of it. Rather, the focus should be on Him: Who he is, what he’s done, and what it means for us. If we fix our gazes on him instead of ourselves, we may see the reawakening of faith that so many hope for.

Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face,
And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,
In the light of His glory and grace.

Since the beginning it’s been a simple concept: you study the Scripture, do your best to judge your reading by the available information on the historical context, the church fathers, Apostolic tradition, and prayer, and develop a theology. This worked for many centuries. This is what sparked the Reformation, which most of us are descended from, so it seems to have been working.

But now, some people want to change the rules in the middle of the game. For example, now you are allowed to assume that the writers did not mean quite what they said…that the phrase they used was intended or received differently back then than we see it now. Not only are you allowed to make that relatively new assumption, but you are then permitted to accuse those who remain faithful to the traditional understanding of creating revisionist history and anachronistic thinking (like commenter evagrius did on This, From Bp. Mark Hanson).

Occam’s Razor is a good place to start in dealing with this: “All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.” This is not universally true, but can be reasonably applied to questions such as the one raised in the comments of my last post. Concerning John 3:18, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son,” which is the more likely possibility: (a)Jesus was saying that in order to avoid condemnation you must assent to the intellectual proposition that he is the Son of God, and (by nature of the Greek word pisteo, which is translated “believe”) trust in him fully, or (b)that he meant believe in such a way that you could believe in the name of God’s one and only Son without being aware of it? Clearly the more probable of the two is the former.

However, those who hold the latter view speak as though it is fact that, in comparison with us, the New Testament writers and their audience understood many of the narrative, historically presented portions of the Gospels as metaphors. Some only say it in matters like this question of belief, others say that the resurrection wasn’t presented as fact, but as a symbol of an underlying truth. Now, while there are many truths that are symbolized by the resurrection, the Gospel writers presented it as historical fact. But these “scholars” continue to espouse their theories, with little basis other than the improbability of the miraculous occurrences.

In fact, my previous commenter has yet to explain why the term believe is used so often in John and what it actually means, if, in fact, it doesn’t mean what is traditionally accepted. If the entire purpose of the Fourth Gospel was that we would believe, then “belief” must be pretty important, so it should definitely not remain undefined, or explained with a statement like, “I know, I know, John stated that but I’m not sure he stated it the way it’s often understood these days. That is, I think it was understood quite differently back then.” You can’t stop there, you have to explain!

I mean no disrespect to the commenter, but if you intend to argue intellectually, you must base your argument in some sort of evidence, not in your speculation. If you would use Matthew 25:31ff (out of the context of parabolic descriptions of the coming of the kingdom of God) to support a claim that works of service are all that is required to enter heaven (w/o belief in Christ), then I may use verses 14-30 to support a claim that building wealth will also gain entry into the Kingdom (w/o belief).

If we’re going to honestly discuss Christian doctrine and theology, both sides have to use the evidence at hand, and do our best to avoid assumptions, presuppositions, and speculation. Maybe then we can begin to see eye-to-eye.

A couple of months back, after Bp. Schori’s original NYT Magazine and NPR interviews, I sent an email to ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson. For those of you who don’t know, the ELCA and the ECUSA have a relationship of “full communion”. This is a pretty significant linking, though it’s not really a merger. As an ELCA minister I was fairly disturbed by some of the comments she made, especially those saying that Jesus is not the only way to heaven. Bp. Hanson got back to me about a month ago, but my anti-spam got it, and I just noticed it yesterday.

Basically, I asked him what his reaction was, how it might affect the communion, and whether the ELCA would follow suit. This is what he said:

I received your email of November 28 in which you expressed concerns about a statement made by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.

Bishop Schori’s remarks about those who are saved represent a specific theological school of thought that became increasingly popular at the Second Vatican Council and beyond. While it does not deny that Christ is God’s revealed means of salvation, it opens the door for the possibility that God has the capability of saving fallen humanity through a variety of means. Such a position would be in accordance with the biblical principle that God desires the salvation of every human being. We are certain that God accomplishes such salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. We are not certain that God also will act in other ways to proffer salvation. Only God knows how God will act to redeem the world.

In order to place the best construction on Presiding Bishop Schori’s intention, I think we can affirm that it is not up to us, fallen creatures that we are, to determine for God the full range of how God may act towards us. That is how I read her remark that we should not attempt to put God in a box. And while I might not choose to express myself in the same way as Presiding Bishop Schori has done, I believe we can affirm both that Jesus Christ is God’s uniquely revealed means of the world’s salvation and that God has the freedom to act in order to bring all people under God’s kingdom.

The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, in constitutional provision 2.02., declares:

This church confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the Gospel as the power of God for the salvation of all who believe.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate, through whom everything was made and through whose life, death, and resurrection God fashions a new creation.

The proclamation of God’s message to us as both Law and Gospel is the Word of God, revealing judgment and mercy through word and deed, beginning with the Word in creation, continuing in the history of Israel, and centering in all its fullness in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Thank you for sharing your concerns with me. As we celebrate the birth of our Savior among us, may you be filled with peace, joy, and hope.

Living in God’s amazing grace,

Mark S. Hanson
Presiding Bishop

Well, Hanson just ticked up a couple of notches on my respect-o-meter. Typically i see a response that is worded so carefully as a load of B.S., but he makes a couple of strong points. Yes, God has only revealed himself to us in Jesus, and we know that salvation is found in Him. But Jesus told us that the Father desires the salvation of ever person. And we know he has the power to do anything he wants. So the possibility is open that there are other paths.

But the logical conclusion of this position is that we need to spread the Gospel as far and fast as we can and leave the rest to God. If He decides to save people through other means then that’s his prerogative…but we can’t count on it. We have to act as though there are no other options, because we can’t be sure. Similarly, as a 25 year-old I know that Social Security and Medicare might be there when I’m 67, but I better not count on it for my survival during retirement.

Bp. Schori was not saying this. It’s clear that she’s saying that we shouldn’t act as though Jesus is the only way. I find this difficult to do, because Jesus, the Prophets, and the Apostles were very clear that the nations would be saved through the cross. The nations…Gentiles…Goyim, with all their myriad religious traditions, would be saved through faith in Jesus of Nazareth. This is in stark opposition to her assertion that “people of other faith traditions approach God through their… own cultural contexts.” As a church leader she has a responsibility to be faithful to the Scriptures and lead people toward Christ, not make it easier for them to ignore him.

I hope that God chooses to save those who are pure in heart and spirit, but did not find Christ in life. Especially those who were hurt by bigoted, self-righteous, misguided Christians, and couldn’t bring themselves to return to the church that scarred them so badly. But if there were another way, why would Jesus have to die the way He did?

BTW, if your wondering about the random bold words, I decided to emphasize every time I referred to God using a third person masculine pronoun, because Bp. Hanson refused to do so. I understand that there’s a philosophical reason to avoid it, but Jesus called God “the Father” and that’s reason enough for me. Besides it’s stinkin’ hard to read a sentence like, “Only God knows how God will act to redeem the world,” or “I believe we can affirm both that Jesus Christ is God’s uniquely revealed means of the world’s salvation and that God has the freedom to act in order to bring all people under God’s kingdom.” Don’t they teach you not to do that in 7th grade, or something?

Already Making Waves (Revisited), Already Making Waves, A Spoiled Kid In A Weird Hat, More From the Schore, Schori’s Glory

Bob disappeared for about three weeks, but he’s back now. More fodder for jokers like me. Anyway, he’s mentioned an editorial by a guy with the Institute on Religion and Democracy, who took a poorly aimed shot at a group of mainline clergy who asked for the minimum wage to be raised.

But note the tone of utter moral certainty from the prelates. The various Episcopal and Lutheran bishops, presbyters, and Methodist functionaries who signed on, along with an ecumenical smattering of others, would never and probably could never proclaim with such certitude any traditional articles of their own faith such as the virgin birth or bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, not to mention moral teachings about homosexuality or abortion. On these issues, they would likely boast of their “diversity” of opinion.

This is a dumb argument. I’m putting Mark Tooley on timeout for making sane conservatives look bad by ideological association. He’s serving a 5-minute minor for unsporstmanlike conduct (and stupidity). It’s only a minor because the op-ed is quite good and I agree with most of it, but that was a cheap shot, and not valid at all.

Anyway, you should read all of Bob’s post, but this is the bit that bothers me:

So that’s it. The Nigerian Anglican Church in America, or whatever they call themselves, is a response to a single retired Episcopalian Bishop. Never mind that Spong does not represent anyone but himself, and that the ECUSA sticks with a traditional Christian orthodoxy, much less the rest of the mainline. Apparently we are all Spongians now.

Has he not seen Bp. Jefferts-Schori’s recent interview? She makes claims that are definitely not in line with Orthodoxy. Of course, she’s probably not stating the ECUSA’s official position, but she is the head of the denomination. She says, among other things, that Jesus isn’t the only way to God. Now, I know that she’s free to believe that if she chooses, and Bob’s commenters would agree, but is that belief acceptable for a church leader? We’re not talking about politics or society, this is theology, and it goes directly against Scripture.

Bob also states that he’s never heard a Lutheran express anything resembling Spong’s remarks, that “traditional theism is ‘dead,’ the incarnation is ‘nonsense,’ the resurrection of Jesus is a fiction, or the understanding of the cross is ‘a barbarous idea.’ I am an ELCA minister, and one of our pastoral staff has expressed–in private, in classes, and from the pulpit–his belief that the Gospels are not an account of Jesus’ life, but dramatized, with some truth and some fiction, to “illustrate” for the audience the principles of faith. Those thought’s definitely resemble Spongs, and many come directly from Marcus Borg, a scholar of the “historical Jesus”. It’s happening, Bob just chooses not to notice.

I agree with commenter Jarred about the problem with binary thinking. There’s middle ground, and theological orthodoxy doesn’t rule out socio-political progressivism.

Next Page »