Internet Noise Floor

July 20, 2008

The Seattle Church Seeking Landscape

In case you didn’t know, the church plant Heather and I had been going to more or less since we arrived in Seattle – Christian City Church Seattle – had to close its doors a few months ago. This was our second time in a row playing a significant roll in a relatively new congregation (before coming to Seattle we were heavily involved with Newsong CC in Westford, MA), and we were pretty well exhausted, so we’ve been taking it easy for a few months, taking a bit of a sabbath from throwing ourselves into “big church”. But now it’s time to get back out of our shells and be a part of something bigger than our own preferred circle of friends (our “organic church”, if you will).

Now, my tastes in church are pretty unusual, in that I don’t see a dichotomy between good theology and felt experience. Indeed, I don’t think I’ve ever been in a church where either was taken as far as it should be, and that makes it really hard for me to be content in a church that settles for doing one moderately well at the expense of neglecting or abusing the other. We need to know God truly, and we need to connect with Him intimately, and what I really want to find is a church that is growing in the practice of doing both.

Having said that, it shouldn’t surprise anyone out there who knows the Seattle church landscape that we’re having a rough time finding the right one. A few of the contenders we’ve had the most experience with:

Mars Hill Church – Heather says I have a total man-crush on Mark Driscoll, and she’s probably right. For my money, he is far and away the best bible teacher in the country right now, and I’ve borrowed more than a few sermon points and presentation patterns from him. That said, his congregation (I’ve now visited three of their campuses and Ballard multiple times) is consistently standoffish and disengaged when it comes to worship singing. (I’m reminded of a church in Boston that I wrote about years ago.) Now, Mark said just last week (skip to 7:58 in the video) that he wants for his congregation to get more expressive/involved/engaged in an encounter of worship in their services, and he seems really sincere and serious about it. But he’s said that before – several times – and, in visiting from time to time over the course of the last three years, I haven’t seen any movement (literally or figuratively) to speak of on that front.

Blue Sky Church – Our contender with which we have the least experience and about which we have the least information, my admittedly underinformed impression is something like this: A Vineyard breakaway (because apparently the whole VCC movement has gone at best soft-egalitarian and at worst anti-complementarian) that seems to have its theology straight (albeit more minimalist than I like – no doubt a product of their Vineyard roots) and seems to want to have engaging worship experiences, but seems to lack the kind of catalytic culture-building leaders who can actually shape a congregation that gets into that sort of thing.

Christian Faith Center – Casey Treat’s multi-campus (Federal Way/Everett) church. We visited a few times and watched their TV show a few times, and I have a lot of friends who are former CFC-ers. Their worship is earnest (if a little dated), but when preaching on “faith” Casey sometimes seems to almost bend himself (and his text) over backwards to get it around to the “what’s in it for you” angle. Now, I do believe that the Bible makes promises that we need to know about, but if I’m not sure if my senior pastor is keeping the first thing first (God’s Glory at All Times in All Circumstances Regardless of My Blessed or Unblessed State) and the way-down-the-list thing way-down-the-list (He will bless you abundantly), it does a number on my confidence in his ability to be a shepherd after God’s heart.

The City Church – whose leaders are friends with some of the Christian City Church guys. I’ve been really impressed with what I’ve seen of the youth ministry (Generation Church/Judah Smith), although I’ll grant there is probably some doctrinal inconsistency in there to be wary of. But I can’t go to youth church anymore (if you’ve had a beard for more than a decade, it’s time to get out of youth group) so I have to look first at my experiences with their “main” services, and my main complaint is that I’ve yet to hear a message – live or on TV – that makes me uncomfortable enough with my own sin to actually want to repent of it. Maybe it’s Wendell’s personal politeness or maybe it’s an errant theological politeness, but it fails to grab my heart and demand my allegiance to the God who made me.

Lots of Little Churches – there are plenty of church plants out there that haven’t cracked 100 (yet, or in a long time; many never will, or never will again). The last three churches I’ve been involved with have been in this category, the last two for Heather. While I admire and cheer for what these guys are doing, we need to find someplace where we can seek some help from an existing, established, credible ministerial infrastructure without immediately getting recruited to help build it. I need to recharge with a taste of the innumerable multitude shouting “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and unto the Lamb” in a way that yet another clan of 50 simply can’t offer.

I write these things not to rip on any of the above churches. I think all of them have something worthwhile to contribute to the Body of Christ in the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I guess my main point is that, as a war-wearied and theologically savvy church seeker, it’s hard to find a church that’s publicly honest about their weaknesses and areas they need to grow. I think Mars Hill comes the closest on this point (having seen more public apologies from Mark Driscoll than from every other Evangelical leader in America combined), but I’m also worried that they’ve just got so far to go in figuring out what it means to encounter God in a corporate setting that it will quench something that’s always been really important in my Christian walk.

P.S. – There are other churches we’ve considered and even visited which I won’t mention in the interest of being charitable. Let’s just say “I want to be around winners, so I go to X church” commercials turn us off almost as much as idolizing Rob Bell, transmogrifying the gender roles debate from a Biblical issue into a “justice” issue, or bling pastors preaching bling gospels. If any of those sound familiar, sorry, I’m probably talking about you. Big things matter, and those are all either big things or they point directly to fundamental big things that allow/cause them to happen.

16 Comments »

  1. So, what has become of all the other founding pastors of Mars Hill?

    Comment by Ted Salas — July 21, 2008 @ 1:10 am | Reply

  2. no wonder you’re having a hard time – you’ve got to be the most “theologically savvy church seeker” i’ve encountered. i think it’s brilliant how you dissect each community and the relevance for your particular flavor of faith you desire. i didn’t know C3i seattle was finished – that’s no good! were you playing music for them?

    btw – my blog has changed (dead link in your “pals” section) – http://thomasfitzpatrick.wordpress.com/

    peace!

    Comment by thosfitzpatrick — July 21, 2008 @ 5:23 am | Reply

  3. Ted — I assume you’re asking about Mike Gunn and Leif Moi? My understanding was that they eventually spun off to do more Acts 29 church plants. Or are you googlebaiting for a blog that didn’t like how two other elders were fired last year? That doesn’t worry me so much. It certainly worth being aware of (and I am, thanks), but in any church of Mars Hill’s size a bigger red flag would be the absence of a 100-strong congregation of dissenters complaining about the leadership.

    Thos — thanks, updated the link. Yeah, I held down the keys/bass for a long time and then took over worship leading for about the last 4 months before they shut down. Gave me an excuse to work on my 6-string skills (which have since lapsed back into non-existence).

    Comment by adamdbradley — July 21, 2008 @ 9:43 pm | Reply

  4. There’s a very healthy, strong community in Seattle belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I know we get a bad rap among some circles, but our faith in Christ is strong and the gifts of the spirit are manifest. Have you ever been to one of our meetings?

    Comment by Thaddeus — July 22, 2008 @ 6:12 pm | Reply

  5. Thaddeus,

    I wish I could say this more gently, but faith in a false image of Christ and manifestations of a spirit of error are not on my list of acceptable compromises.

    Not to be flip, but unless the LDS has renounced its heretical soteriology, Christology, and eschatology, abandoned its unbiblical legalism (consuming tobacco, alcohol, or caffeine is not a sin; their abuse may be, but the same applies to healthy foods), embraced the doctrines of the trinity (”who are the trinity” is a grammatically incorrect question and the article flagrantly misrepresents Nicaea), the cross (the last Mormon I talked with about this said the cross was “foolishness”, which is a problem in light of 1 Cor 1:18), and the orthodox historic creeds (including Nicaea and Chalcedon), and been welcomed into communion with other theologically orthodox denominations, a “bad rap” for bad doctrine is well deserved. It may be self-consistent and it may even be helpful to some but it is decidedly not Christian. I’m sure you’re very nice and sincere and well-meaning people (the Mormons I know and have known certainly are), but that does not make your doctrine any less erroneous.

    Peace,
    Adam

    Comment by adamdbradley — July 23, 2008 @ 4:02 pm | Reply

  6. Hi there,

    I am a local pastor in Portland Oregon. I had just been praying for quite a while and got on the net to ferret out some different points of view and found your post here. I would like to talk with you if you are willing. As a new senior pastor, I feel like a misfit in many ways. I have an intense desire to stay true to scripture, to see the Lord exalted in all things. At the same time, I don’t want anything to do with legalism or religion. Anyways, for what its worth, I could use a little input. Thanks for the post!

    Joseph

    Comment by Joseph Branchflower — July 26, 2008 @ 4:35 pm | Reply

  7. Sorry, I put the wrong blog address in my last comment.

    Comment by Joseph Branchflower — July 26, 2008 @ 4:36 pm | Reply

  8. adamdbradley, thank you for your response. I would very much like to put the misrepresentations of Nicaea right. What, specifically, did we get wrong? (Re: the title, I was hoping to emphasize the inherent illogic of defining a multiplicity of entities as a single entity and vice versa, not abuse the English language.)

    Our rejection of protestant soteriology, Christology, and eschatology are an indication of our belief in a universal apostasy. We don’t hold the words of any reformers or protestant scholars or pastors with the same weight as genuine prophets of God.

    We don’t mind being excluded from communion with ‘theologically orthodox’ Christian religions, we just resent not being given the proper classification as Christian, since it gives the false impression that we don’t believe in Jesus Christ of Nazareth. We worship and honor Him as our Savior and God.

    Comment by Thaddeus — July 27, 2008 @ 8:34 pm | Reply

  9. Thaddeus,

    Unfortunately, I’m sure smarter guys than me have already argued with you about this stuff, and I would wager smarter guys than you have tried to convince me of your position as well, so I’m not sure how fruitful this conversation can be.

    Regarding the trinity — I can only assume you are using “entity” colloquially and not in its technical sense, since there is no illogic in saying, for example, that two different mathematical expressions of a physical law (mathematical entities) are each and both identical with the one physical law (a conceptual entity), or that eleven circuit courts and the Supreme Court (legal entities) fully comprise and are identical with the federal judiciary (another legal entity). Thankfully, the point is moot as the Christian formulation of the trinity generally avoids the language of “entities” (which is far too plastic and polymorphic a word) and speaks along the lines of God’s three-ness in personhood and His one-ness in essence, each used in the formal sense.

    With respect to Nicaea, what “specifically” the LDS church got wrong was to reject it. Each and every affirmation in the creed is an accurate articulation of the doctrines clearly stated in Scripture, and an accurate statement about the One God of Whom they speak — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Most to the point, to reject Nicaea indicates clearly that you are speaking of a different Jesus than the authors of the New Testament, the apostolic fathers, and every church since who has agreed with them.

    By way of illustration, if someone said to my wife “Yeah, I know Adam Bradley — 4-foot-8 guy from Korea who collects butterflies and writes haikus professionally”, my wife would know that he was not talking about me. Similarly, when you say that Jesus and the Father are “one” only in purpose and not in their being, that Jesus is a created being and not co-eternal with the Father, that Jesus’ atonement was universally efficacious, that Jesus was born in Jerusalem and not Bethlehem, that the final judgment is not final, or that Jesus is somehow a “brother” to Lucifer, you are clearly speaking about a different Jesus than the one the four gospel writers were speaking about. If you say that drinking alcohol is sinful, that the dead should be baptized, that we are “little gods” instead of “bearers of the Imago Dei”, or that the preaching of the cross is foolishness, then you are clearly not talking about the same Jesus we read about in the letters of Paul. The “Christian” name is more than lip-service to an abstract label pronounced “Jesus Christ”; it refers to a historic body of knowledge and belief from which you have deliberately distanced yourselves and which you have vocally proclaimed to be “apostate”.

    What’s worse, our disagreement doesn’t stop at the identity of Jesus Christ. We disagree on soteriology, which means we mean very different things by calling Jesus Christ “Savior”. We disagree on our doctrine of the nature of God so we mean radically different things when we call Jesus Christ “God”. We no doubt also disagree on liturgy, spiritual formation, and the process, means, and structure of discipleship, so we mean different things by “worship and honor”. Our understanding of faith and works is different, so “believe” means something different. So you say something like “we believe in Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and we worship and honor Him as our Savior and God”, but only the words “we”, “and”, and “of Nazareth” mean even approximately the same thing as they do when a Christian says those same words. It is not an honest plea, but rather linguistic sleight-of-hand and equivocation. Is is bald-faced bullshit (in the technical sense discussed in Frankfurt’s excellent book by the same name) intended to produce sympathy and remove the light of doctrinal scrutiny from the heresies which the LDS church continues unrepentantly to promote. It is the same sort of equivocative deception at work when LDS “elders” walk into the lobbies of Evangelical churches as their services let out and try to lure those still immature in their faith away (having seen this myself at a Mars Hill service).

    Furthermore, a desire for those you call apostates to “recognize” you as Christians is of itself internally incoherent: if the apostate calls you “Christian”, they have welcomed you as a fellow apostate. So, which is it? Are you seeking the approval of God, or of men? Would you prefer to call us apostates or for us to call you Christians? Holding doctrinal positions constant, the two options are mutually exclusive.

    BTW, I’m not talking about anything particularly protestant here, so I won’t let you get away with a rhetorical dodge by taking a pot shot at unnamed protestant theologians. I’m talking about the core elements of soteriology, Christology, and eschatology which are well and truly “catholic”, which all of the branches of the Christian family tree — Roman Catholic, Byzantine, Russian, Coptic, Nestorian, Protestant, Anglican, etc — across centuries, continents, governments, languages, races, civilizations, economies, cultures — ALL agree upon. All of these traditions have weighed the revisionist “new revelations” that Joseph Smith authored and found that they flatly contradict Scripture and are therefore unworthy to be admitted as Scripture’s peer. You are free to consider a man who comes to abrogate Scripture a “genuine prophet of God”, but we believe that God does not speak without speaking truly, so we allow Scripture to prove Scripture, judge revelation against revelation, and do not allow a prophet to continue to prophesy when he tries to claim an authority which exceeds or contradicts the received text of the canon. A different gospel is indeed no gospel at all, and you can’t get around Smith’s rejection of the orthodox reading of Scripture by blaming a theologian who is simply reciting, chapter and verse, the same Scriptures that nearly two millennia of the Church have relied upon to repeatedly condemn many of the same errors.

    The Lord grant you wisdom to consider these things.
    Adam

    Comment by adamdbradley — July 29, 2008 @ 10:32 pm | Reply

  10. Adam, thank you for your reply. I apologize if I have brought a combative or contentious tone to your blog. I just wanted to extend an invitation to visit your local LDS Chapel. Many people don’t realize that visitors are welcome.

    Your thoughts are well-reasoned. I’m pleased that you have such a firm understanding of your roots. You are right that this topic has been discussed at length by people much smarter than me. If you would like to know the LDS rebuttal to your claims, I recommend Are Mormons Christian? by Dr. Stephen E. Robinson.

    Aside from our conclusion to reject the concept of the Trinity, is there anything in my article, “Who are the Trinity?” that is misleading or untrue? I really just want to make sure it’s accurate.

    Thank you,
    Thaddeus

    Comment by Thaddeus — July 30, 2008 @ 9:03 am | Reply

  11. Thaddeus,

    Thank you again for your courtesy and participation. It has been fun to knock the cobwebs off of this old line of defense.

    To your “Who are the Trinity” article, I would object particularly to three excerpts. Two I believe to be misrepresentations of the history of what happened at Nicaea. The third is a simple re-re-re-statement of what I have said above :)

    [...] most of those attending agreed to the concept that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the “Trinity” which is this mystical mixture of spirit and material that isn’t effected by passion. It is large enough to cover the whole earth and small enough to dwell in your heart.

    This kind of mischaracterization is at best a shoddy caricature and at worst an intentional straw-man a revisionist historian has sold you. It presents the findings of the council as slipshod and fuzzy rather than crisp, decisive, and minimalist. The central finding of Nicaea was that Jesus and the Father were of “one substance”, which has nothing to do with a “mixture of spirit and material” or “passion”. The notion of God having to be “large enough” or “small enough” to do anything is itself subtly telling of a flavor of anthropomorphization or materialization that the church fathers repeatedly and consistently rejected — God is God over space and time, not merely a god within them.

    It is also worth noting that the Mormon notion of the Father and Son being “one in purpose” but not in substance was specifically considered and rejected at Nicaea, which (if nothing else) is a point on which you could correctly say they disagreed with LDS without any question as to the historicity of your claim.

    Part of the dignitaries had left the convention and went back to the Eastern church where they proposed that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were separate beings, laying the groundwork for the Orthodox Greek and Russian churches.

    An east-west division and variant readings of the Nicaean Creed did arise specifically over a question of how the Holy Spirit relates, strictly with respect to His “begotten-ness”, to the Father and the Son. Both sides, however, were in complete agreement that Christian truth is found within the “one substance/essence, three persons” framework. In fact, the Eastern church comes closer to believing that creation is part of the creator (panentheism) than it does to believing that the trinity is composed of three separate beings.

    He (Joseph Smith) saw God and Jesus as two separate, physical beings.

    Here my objection is not historical but theological — Smith was able to re-introduce this error because, unlike the church fathers present at Nicaea, he was not bound by conscience or confession or ecclesiastic discipline to Scriptural fidelity. Once you free yourself from adherence to the texts which depict the Father as “spirit”, the Son as both united with and co-eternal with that Father, and the Son as “taking on” or “clothing” Himself in flesh in the Incarnation, a whole cornucopia of new speculations and vain philosophies of men are opened up to you, but they all stand outside of the Christian text and tradition, and no amount of creative theologizing and prophesizing (”calling something a prophecy which is not” ) will ever succeed in wedging those dogmas back inside the parameters of Scripture. I would submit that if such a notion is a pillar of Mormonism (as a proposition concerning the nature of God must be), then Mormonism can only be considered a true revelation of God to the extent that the New Testaments itself is considered a flawed or errant revelation, or to the extent to which the present-day scholarly grasp of Koine Greek is so tenuous and flawed as to render any semantic precision in the text completely inaccessible (as some post-modern theorists would do).

    Peace,
    Adam

    Comment by adamdbradley — August 4, 2008 @ 10:03 pm | Reply

  12. I’m interested, what exaclty happened to the CCC in Seattle. I used to know those guys pretty well. What caused the church to have to close it’s doors?

    JOMOE

    Comment by jomoe — August 18, 2008 @ 7:43 am | Reply

  13. Jomoe – in a nutshell, the church wasn’t able to grow enough to be financially viable as the primary support for pastors on religious worker visas. Nothing particularly out-of-the-ordinary, just a long series of stumbles without any big breakthroughs to offset them. Darren and Bree are now on staff at CCC San Francisco (www.c3sf.com).

    Comment by adamdbradley — August 18, 2008 @ 10:15 am | Reply

  14. Thanks for the update. That’s unfortunate to hear… glad to hear it wasn’t anything super dramatic. What’s your thoughts on the CCC movement. I was a part of it for some time.

    Comment by jomoe — August 18, 2008 @ 1:02 pm | Reply

  15. Adam,

    sounds like you should join Mars Hill, and see what you can do on the inside to move their worship towards a more experience and encounter based time. Although I would say that many charimatic churches I’ve been to seen to care more about people experiencing worship rather than God’s glory and honouring him in worship. I mean, isn’t that the point of worship anyway? Since when is it all “tingly feelings” and our own experience of it? :-) I think there must be a balance here somewhere, and I would agree with you that Mars Hill could learn a few tricks yet in this dept.

    Alastair (Edinburgh, Scotland)

    PS I’m sure my wife would say that I have a man-crush on Driscoll as well! :-)

    Comment by Alastair — October 9, 2008 @ 7:02 am | Reply

  16. Heya Adam, nice words.

    Was at dinner with Travis the other day and he told me CCCSeattle was no more.
    Nice reading your thoughts here my friend, and wishing you all the best with all you’re up to.

    God bless,

    Hugh

    Comment by Hugh Wilson — October 10, 2008 @ 1:15 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.