Is the High Church Less Pretentious? @rachelheldevans

On Saturday, Rachel Held Evans posted a great piece entitled, Why Millennials Are Leaving the Church. I agree with a lot of what she wrote (and her writing in general). The part I want to comment on is her explanation for why so many young people are leaving the low church (the more casual, traditional evangelical style) for the high church traditions (more focused on liturgy and tradition). In the middle of her post, she writes:

Many of us, myself included, are finding ourselves increasingly drawn to high church traditions – Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Episcopal Church, etc. –precisely because the ancient forms of liturgy seem so unpretentious, so unconcerned with being “cool,” and we find that refreshingly authentic.

This is where I disagree. In fact, my experience is that the high church traditions have come across as far more pretentious than those of the low church. Perhaps it's some of the people I've encountered in those churches who look down on anything more casual and spontaneous.

Some argue that liturgy and tradition is quite meaningful, as it makes them feel connected to the many generations who have come before and the congregations worldwide who may be doing the same thing at the same time. This makes sense intellectually, but I have to say I've never had that experience, at least emotionally. (Roger Olson has a great post that includes some comparison and analysis of this.)

Perhaps it's because I'm pretty big into low church tradition in many ways, even theologically. While I haven't gotten to experience it, I love the idea of the completely non-planned and community-driven Friends (Quaker) services. And I can't say I personally have ever been moved by a liturgy. But I've definitely been moved by more casual experiences.

I think where there's a big disconnect for many people of all generations is the scripted nature of evangelicalism. While casual may appear to be spontaneous, many of us know the services Held Evans criticizes are highly scripted, often more so than their liturgical counterparts. And I've heard it said a few times that most churches actually are quite liturgical, if we look at having a routine set of behaviors and schedule for a service.

But some seem more performance-driven than others. Is the purpose of a script/routine/liturgy for practicality, everyone knowing what comes next, or because we all believe this is the right way to do it and will draw more people in, effectively creating an emotional experience (and these are not mutually exclusive options). In my experience, many evangelical churches have moved more and more to the latter, effectively disregarding the potential work of the Holy Spirit to move. And at the same time, I don't think the emotions created by an amazing performance are inauthentic or wrong (concerts and theatrical performances do this all the time, and we're fine with it).

I think too much of a focus on the performance in an area where performance isn't key (the Church) is the problem, though. There becomes this fear of failing to do things properly (another theme in many areas of Christendom). And soon we lose a direct experience of God for performance. I love Renovaré's retreat theme this year: "Changing Performance for God to Experiencing Life with God."

Too much performance in church, and the congregation becomes an audience. That's why I generally like low church traditions: I feel a greater sense of participation. Yet early in grad school, I remember one of my professors sharing her experience in the Episcopal Church. She described how even her small son (around 4 or 5) could participate because of the repetition of the liturgy. That gave me a whole new appreciation and understanding of liturgy and high church traditions.

In my current congregation, I see there being a very nice balance between the low and high church traditions. There's definitely elements of liturgy, but there's also a low church accessibility. People of all ages and backgrounds lead the congregation in some of the liturgical prayers and elements (I don't know how common this is elsewhere). But then there's times when the service feels like a pretty casual, contemporary service. I don't think anyone would ever freak out if something were missed or forgotten one week. I think the key is that there isn't a rigidity to a particular style. In many ways, I see our congregation engaging in this balance because it's worked practically for the congregation. Not because it's so inherently amazing.

Traditional liturgy has a lot of benefits. So does the casualness and apparent spontaneity of stereotypical evangelical churches. But both are just a style and can be used to be highly pretentious. Both can create accessibility, and both can shut people out.

Love or God? @markgalli @christianaudio

The first part of my review of Mark Galli's God Wins, primarily based on Randy Alcorn's preface is here. This post reviews and engages the rest of the book, solely based on Galli's words.


Galli cites Jeremiah that the human heart is evil and deceitful. However, this is not the full picture. It ignores the New Covenant promises that Paul describes and that John Eldredge has spent many books emphasizing: Christ gives us a new, good heart. This missing element is overlooked by many of the neo-Calvinists today, which creates a punitive justice-focused system of salvation and theology and that I believe is far too narrow in focus.

Galli's first chapter clarifies different types of questions: Questions about God and questions about oneself. Galli illustrates this with examples from Mary when she asks how God will make her pregnant (not doubting that God will be able to do it) and Zechariah questioning how he can be sure that God really will give him a son (doubting the agency of God). Galli argues that Mary's type of question is good, while Zechariah's is sinful.

The contrast is compelling, but I'm not sure it's accurate. Galli seems to forget the clear case of Thomas after Jesus' resurrection, demanding to see physical evidence to believe that the resurrection has actually occurred. This sounds more like a Zechariah question to me. Yet Thomas was not at all condemned, rather met with deep love and the evidence he needed. God, of course, does not always provide the evidence we want, but asking is not necessarily sinful.

Galli argues that Bell only presents God as agent. He describes the downfalls of this extremely well, explaining that God as agent means God doing things for us. I completely agree with Galli that God as agent misses the Gospel, with God as lover as a more accurate and deeper understanding of God. This is one of my criticisms of most of the neo-Calvinist movement--I only see them presenting God as agent and leave out the whole relationship thing. At the same time, to be fair, this may be my reading of them, just as that is Galli's reading of Love Wins. I actually read that lover element in Bell's work far more than an emphasis of God as agent. If Bell limited God to this agent role, I would be in complete agreement with this criticism.

Additionally, Galli and other critics of Love Wins have argued that Bell does not present a full picture of the Gospel. I agree; he didn't. But I don't think he meant to. He was focusing on a particular element, just like most books do. In academia, an entire book can be focused on an incredibly narrow topic in order to go in-depth. In the popular press, people aren't used to this, but I think that's a better analogy for Bell's work. Bell was simply asking questions about the theology of Heaven and Hell, which is only a small element of the Gospel.

Further, Galli has joined the chorus of many others who have criticized Bell for asking questions and not resolving them. I don't see the problem there. Bell explicitly states he wrote Love Wins in order to get people to think, not necessarily to draw a line in the sand. Readers of my blog know that I value that type of perspective, so I obviously appreciate that type of writing more than taking a clear stance. Yet that makes it harder to categorize someone...

At one point, Galli criticizes Love Wins as presenting Christ's Incarnation as more important than the crucifixion and resurrection. I'm not sure that's an accurate depiction of the book anyway, however, even if it were, that may not be incorrect. Protestantism has historically emphasized the resurrection, hence the empty cross that is frequently displayed in churches. Roman Catholicism has focused on the crucifixion, resulting in the crucified Christ on display. However, a lot of the Orthodox Church has prioritized the Incarnation. So there is, in fact, a significant history of focusing on the Incarnation.

One of the central lines and arguments in Love Wins is the question, "Does God get what God wants?" while referencing Scripture that God wants all people to be reconciled to him. Yet the book also discusses how God loves us so much that he gives us what we want, so if we want Hell, we can have it.

Honestly, the way Bell phrased this no-win question was not entirely fair, but it's a beautiful literary style and excellent for an argument. However, Galli takes it a bit concretely, emphasizing how people's wants are not stable nor can be very healthy for us. Using the analogy of a child's wants, a loving parent does not simply give into those desires. In fact, love gives someone what they need, not what they want. True enough.

However, I didn't read Love Wins in the same way. I would have a hard time believing Bell meant this type of superficial wanting. Rather, it is a deeper acceptance or not of the reality of God's love. The best example of this I can think of is from Les Miserables (spoiler alert, if you don't know the story). Javert, the officer of the law, has been tracking Jean Valjean for decades, with the belief that once a thief, always a thief. When Valjean spares Javert's life later, Javert is unable to accept that reality. He cannot live in a world of grace and transformation, so he commits suicide. He would rather die than live. That's the wanting that God will not force on us. There are people who will not be able to handle who would be accepted in Heaven, so they choose Hell.

This relates to another one of Galli's central criticisms of Love Wins: It gives too much weight to people's free will. Galli argues that people running their own lives is not freedom, but rather slavery to sin, and there is definite truth to that. He also basically argues for a bondage of the will perspective, explaining how the Holy Spirit is what gives us faith to believe in God. Again, I think Galli read Bell's book too literally. The bondage of the will and freedom of the will debate has existed for centuries and continues to do so, now particularly in the realm of neuropsychology. I'm not going to get into that debate for now, but again, the point is that there is a long, strong history supporting a freedom of the will and even some combination of bondage and freedom.

Galli also criticizes Love Wins as presenting God as impersonal and not present in Heaven. I would simply chalk this up to differences in reading because I read Love Wins as an intensely personal, relational Father who is the epitome of Heaven. Bell may have used different language than many evangelicals do in describing the personal nature of God. However, I found the language incredibly meaningful and personal.

Like many critics of Love Wins, Galli labels it as supporting universalism. The problem with most of these comments is that they use a particular definition of universalism. The way I have always heard universalism defined is that all religions are essentially equal, along the ideas that all paths lead to God. That's most definitely not what is presented in Love Wins. In fact, on page 78, Bell states, "What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody." Earlier, he explains that Jesus is the only way to God. However, does not mean that people of other faiths cannot be saved through Jesus: "What he doesn't say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn't even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him" (p. 77).

Some people cannot comprehend how a person Jesus could save someone from another religion and not be a universalist. But this perspective would state that Christianity does have greater value and insight into life and God than other faiths. It is a Christianity worth believing, as Doug Pagitt has said. True universalism would say Christianity is not better than any other faith. That is simply not present in Love Wins.

What I think was the best contribution this work provided to Christian literature on the argument for eternal damnation was that finite events have long-term consequences. A car accident that was not my fault can result in an amputation or many other issues. The decision to get drunk once can lead to all sorts of behaviors with very lasting consequences. This is how many things work, although we try to think all consequences don't last. Galli's argument is that this is the situation with Heaven and Hell and our decision to follow God in the present life. Rather than God necessarily punishing us, those eternal states are simply the natural consequences. The question Bell raises that many people have asked still remains, though: Would a loving God set up these as the natural consequences?

Ultimately, God Wins is stimulating, but I found Love Wins to actually demonstrate a fuller and deeper view of the Gospel and God than God Wins, albeit Galli's reason for writing this book was the lack of fullness and depth in Love Wins from his perspective. If one is very interested in the Heaven-Hell debate, this is a good resource for additional ideas.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Outliving Your Life @MaxLucado @christianaudio @caReviewers

I haven't read one of Max Lucado's books in a long time, but I get his weekly email devotionals. So when I had the opportunity to review his latest book through a complimentary copy of the audiobook from christianaudio, I jumped at the chance.

Outlive Your Life's subtitle is You Were Made to Make a Difference. Honestly, I didn't catch the connection of the title and subtitle with the content of the book until the very end, but then it all made sense. The basic premise is that our contributions to the world and the Kingdom of God can last long beyond our earthly lives based on caring for others.

The premise and message of the book is excellent. I wouldn't say it's anything remarkably profound. It's very consistent with much of the discussions on missional and social justice work. However, Lucado has a great style that makes ideas down-to-earth and understandable and reasonable to anyone. I loved how he began each chapter with a biblical story or a contemporary story related to breaking down barriers and caring for others. The rest of the chapter interprets these tales, again making them seem like something we all could participate in in some fashion. In fact, his website has links to several practical ways to engage in caring for others. One idea with which I was unfamiliar and really like is microfinance. It's a relatively accessible way to make a significant difference in others' lives (his story about this is powerful).

I also appreciate the prayers with which Lucado ended each of his chapters. It was a nice way of remembering that this work is not done for the building of oneself or for secular ideas of social justice, but as a dedication to Christ.

This celebration of Christ through social justice makes the book uniquely evangelical in a good way. Actually, this was more of the impact for me personally than the message of the book. Again, the ideas are things with which I agree and have heard many times. However, hearing the presentation of the concepts from a conservative evangelical like Lucado is very refreshing.

As readers of my blog know, I have struggled with some of the styles and emphases of evangelicalism in creating an "us-them" sort of ethos. Lucado roundly shuts down that idea. In contrast, he emphasizes that Christ broke down boundaries and worked to include people rather than exclude people. Evangelicalism needs more people like Lucado who hold strong convictions without condemnation.

With regard to the actual audiobook, it was well-produced and well-read. The narrator, Dan Butler, did a nice job showing passion and appropriate reflection. However, like I have said many times, I wished Lucado would have read it himself. Having heard him speak live before, it was odd hearing a very different type of voice reading his words. Also, I listened to most of it with my wife during our trip to and from Fresno to visit her family for Thanksgiving. Butler's voice was a bit too soothing, so we had to turn the audiobook off a couple of times to stay awake (not because of the content! :) ). But it was still a great listen and very encouraging and refreshing, giving me more faith in evangelicalism again!

Christian Humanitarianism @christianaudio @caReviewers

I received two complimentary audiobooks from christianaudio at the same time: Jesus Manifesto (reviewed yesterday) and Humanitarian Jesus by Christian Buckley and Ryan Dobson. I was expecting to like the former more than the latter, but that's exactly the opposite of what happened.

Humanitarian Jesus was much more engaging and legitimately struggling with real-life issues that many Christians are facing today. As being "missional" is one of the hot new things for young Christians, it is important to know what it actually means to be missional.

Social justice is important. So is evangelism. But how do you define each?

That's exactly what this book tackles. The first half of the book is Buckley's argument for finding a delicate balance between both social justice and evangelism (he says both are needed explicitly). And yes, Buckley wrote the whole thing. He says that in the introduction. Dobson helped him get the interviews that comprise the second half. His name probably helps sell copies, but I don't think he was particularly involved.

Buckley is an excellent writer and is definitely on the more conservative end of the missional/social justice spectrum. However, unlike the negative and unfair stereotype of conservatives being unwilling to consider alternatives, Buckley does a great job of looking at all the options when engaging humanitarianism.

This is particularly seen in the second half, in which Buckley interviews a very wide variety of well-known (on the order of Franklin Graham and Tony Campolo) and not-so-well known Christian leaders who also engage in humanitarian work. I found the second half much more interesting and engaging. This is where the reader (or listener) gets to hear from the people who are actually doing the work and how they approach the balance of humanitarianism and evangelism.

The views are on both extremes and everywhere in between. And that is a good thing. It helps the reader/listener really engage all the nuanced issues in the arena of missional living. As Buckley states, the goal of the book is not necessarily to convince people of one perspective or another, but to get people to look at their views again and understand the complexity of the issues. For that, I have a lot of respect. And the book achieves that.

As with other audiobooks, I wish Buckley would have read it himself. The narrator was excellent (one of the best non-author narrators). However, there is something lost when the author does not read his own work, particularly when it comes out of a particular passion.

Theology After Google Wrapup or Where's the Praise? #tag10

Sorry for the delayed wrap-up. I finally scheduled my first licensing exam, so the next two weeks will be extra focused on studying. But no more highly anticipated waiting for my final thoughts on the Theology After Google conference. :)

First of all, the third day was by far the best. It was less focused on convincing everyone to use technology and social media and more of showing people various ways of actually utilizing it. I also appreciated that there was less focus on technology as the end-point in contrast to it being a means to an end.

There were a few points that particularly stood out:

In his presentation, Doug Pagitt (whose writings I very much admire and who I was very excited to meet at the conference) discussed different "Ages" that America has passed through that have affected how the church operates. He noted that we have been in the "Age of Information," which has created a church that is all about teaching. I have discussed before the question of the emphasis on teaching in church, but this really helped pinpoint it, describe it, and put it into perspective, particularly that church (even the organization on Sunday mornings) can and should be much more than teaching.

He also describe a phenomenon that I've noted before about the differences between mainline/progressives and evangelicals. While I have described it as a cognitive/affective split, he named it as open minded and challenging one's own assumptions and theology versus challenging one's aesthetics and mode of presentation. I think we're hitting on the same idea: Mainline/progressives are willing to change their thoughts, but not their mode. Evangelicals are willing to change their modes, but not their thoughts. While there's exceptions to these rules, I find them largely true. The problem is, I still have not found a satisfying answer as to why this is the case.

Further, I'm really sick of this divide. My friend and I both noticed that there was evidence of a very strong divide between evangelical thought and mainline/progressive thought. The conference was sponsored by and dominated by the latter, and there were various comments and such that showed a disdain for evangelicalism. I still want something in between. As I shared in a breakout group, I'm currently going to an evangelical church. I can do the cognitive challenging stuff on my own (I do it anyway). I need the group for the praise element. For some reason, I find that that is something that I cannot do satisfactorily on my own.

In response, Doug Pagitt mentioned how he is out of the mindset of "the God of the gaps," referring to God is only present with what man cannot do. I completely agree with him, as readers of this blog should know. God works incarnationally. However, there is something important about occasionally being explicit and praising God. An analogy I thought of is marriage. I should show my wife how much I love her and live that out. However, I also need to say it out loud. And frequently. I think it's the same with God, for God's sake AND for mine. Probably more for my sake, as I'll forget why I'm doing something.

That's one of my biggest criticisms and complaints from the conference. There was a noticeable lack of praise. I called it "devotion and worship" before, but I realized "praise" is probably a better descriptor. I think that may be an artifact of the mainline/progressive tradition. This is what makes me feel more evangelical than I thought I was. Now interacting with many of the top movers of Emergent Village, I understand why some people, like Dan Kimball have separated and started their own organizations. I don't know or remember the reasons why, but if I were deeply involved, I would consider that on the basis of wanting more explicit praise. Yes, I find it that important.

What do you think? What is the role and importance of praise? What does praise look like to you?

Theology After Google Day 2 or Web 2.0 and Worship #tag10

So Day 2 of Theology After Google is over, and we're about to start the final day. I've had a variety of thoughts and reactions. So here we go, and some of my conclusions will hopefully be helpful to the wider web audience. :)

It's a good conference, and I'm impressed that there have been no bad presentations or presenters. That's rare in a conference. However, yesterday morning I was getting a bit bored, honestly. It was too much repetition and trying to convince us of using social media and Web 2.0 rather than 1.0. My friend and I kind of thought, "We all probably believe that anyway if we're here." After talking with one of the organizers, Phillip Clayton, that does not actually seem to be the case. In fact, it has in some ways been more of a Web 2.0/social media boot camp. That would explain why I'm one of the youngest and one of the few young people there...

If you need or want boot camp, you can also view the conference live or again here. I would recommend the afternoon sessions from yesterday, starting with the video game one. Good stuff there. I like the metaphors, particularly about predestination and free will.

On that note, one of the things I have wanted the most is using Web 2.0 for worship and devotion. That's an element that seems to be noticeably missing. In fact, to me, this conference could go on without God. I'm not sure I've felt God's presence at all. It's more reliant on all of our thoughts and creativity.

The one exception is someone who I have been introduced to in this conference and really like is Callid Keefe-Perry. I'm definitely going to start following his blog. He does a nice job of being incarnational and reminding us that why we do what we do is to connect with God, not just be self-sufficient cognitive beings.

One of the suggestions I thought of last night is using Twitter to share with other people (and remind ourselves) of ways we've seen God in the world around us, using the hashtag #incarnation. That's a long hastag, so if you have other ideas, please share!

What other ways can you see Web 2.0 and social media being used to facilitate worship and devotion?

Finally, both my friend and I have noticed the major divide between mainline/progressives and evangelicals. Both of us feel out of place in both worlds. I personally thought I was closer to the mainline/progressive world. After this conference, I feel closer to the evangelical world, largely because of this issue of devotion and worship. I know mainlines do that, but I'm still puzzled as to why it's been so clearly absent here. It's really sad. These two groups really need to get closer together. I need a way in between...

Theology After Google Day 1 Thoughts #tag10

Last night was the first night of the Theology After Google conference, and I really enjoyed it. It got me thinking about a few things, so like a good blogger, I have to share them with the world, assuming everyone will read them. :)

The conversations my friend and I had after during the TheoPub was focused on social media. Yes, the conference is about the use of social media (i.e. Twitter, Facebook, blogging, etc.), but I don't really think that's the main point. As the speakers said last night, "Google" is really a metaphor for what is changing in the world (primarily America) and theology. In short, the technology revolution and easy accessibility of information, which also allows everyone to contribute to information, is leading to a new democratization of theology. The parallel is the advent of the Gutenberg press and Bible, which paved the way for the first democratization of theology, namely everyone being able to read the Bible.

Social media definitely helps get the information out. That's the way I use it, I realized last night. Social media and technology are more about information and content than really connecting with people. I use the "social" tools, but I realized last night that social media connection feels to me more like a superficial connection. It makes me feel connected, but when I really think about it, I'm not really connected with the others. This may be idiosyncratic to me and part of my introversion, so I'll own some of that, too.

Ultimately, though, I think we need to remember social media is a tool and medium, not the end goal.

As some criticisms (the organizers asked for feedback), I really didn't hear anything new last night. It may have been new to some people, but... That's not necessarily a bad thing. It really was laying the groundwork of the philosophical underpinnings of what will likely be discussed over the next two days.

Additionally, we were encouraged to stay connected online and multitask. I appreciated that, so I tried. However, I found it quite difficult to pay attention to the speaker, read tweets, and tweet myself. I think today I may check tweets and tweet responses occasionally, but focus more on being present in the moment. To me, that's more powerful and something that can be lost in an age of technology and social media (and believe me, I LOVE technology, including my new Android phone :) ).

Finally, my friend and I were both realizing last night that there had not been any prayer. This is a group of Christians. Are we afraid of opening a theology conference in prayer? Or closing it? He also commented that it would be nice to have some musical worship. I have to agree.

Prayer and worship (and yes, discussing theology can be worship) would help us maintain our focus and remind ourselves that this is not all about us, but about God and connecting to God. I realized last night, that night one actually felt more like a celebration of ourselves (i.e. the Academy Awards) than really attempting to worship and connect with God...

It may also be indicative of the fact that most of the organizers come from a more "progressive" background. This just emphasizes what I've observed about mainliners being more cognitive while evangelicals are more affective. Why can't we have both?!

Incarnational Attractionism

This is an excellent article discussing the differences and values of both missional/incarnational church and attractional church. One, I love the emphasis on incarnationalism. This has been something that has been getting more attention the last year or two.

I also particularly loved this paragraph:

Are the communities of faith that we build such homes? Do we represent the Father’s heart in such a way that, even in the face of rejection and exploitation, the prodigal would know that our churches would welcome them? Sadly, most people would characterize the church as a place where just the opposite is likely to occur. And yet, it is this kind of attractional nature that we must desperately seek to embody as His people. This is what we should endeavour to become so that people will be drawn to Christ and His Church. This is attractional ministry at it’s truest.

In continuing the discussion from yesterday's post on mainline and evangelical churches, the mainlines frankly do a better job of this in most cases. And that is what attracts me to them. Yet I have a strong attraction to evangelical churches, too, again in their affective attunement.

Liturgical v. Contemporary Church, Part 2

Three months ago, I wrote a post noting some observations I had about liturgical versus contemporary churches. I recently read this article, entitled The Living Emerging Movement. Many readers of this blog know that I do consider myself best described by the emerging movement. I appreciate it because (from my perspective and my version of it as it seems everyone's definition is different), the conversation is just that: A conversation. There is the ability to discuss life and theology and be critical thinkers in the search for Truth with the hope and belief that there is an ultimate Truth. I think the emerging movement has also reignited discussions and focus on lively worship.

There is a lot of talk of the emerging church being dead or almost dead. I hope it doesn't, in part because of what the above article mentions. McKnight guessed several years ago that emerging Christians each will go one of three ways: into the mainline denominations, back into old evangelicalism, or leading evangelicalism into a missional direction.

I personally can really feel the tension between these options. I'm not sure where I land, which is why I don't want the emerging church to die. It's something with which I can associate that is the best descriptor of me. And I know many people also feel like they are not accurately described by any movement, denomination, or label.

Anyway, one of the reasons I struggle with this is the feeling of worship and what the mainline versus evangelical churches emphasize. I realized this weekend that mainline churches do a very nice job of being critical thinkers. They nail the cognitive elements of Christianity, usually much better than the evangelical churches. I've been a member and a part of evangelicalism for many years, and I can say it often advocates much less than critical thinking.

However, the evangelical churches historically have done an excellent job of having more lively worship. By that I mean more affective, referring to emotion and the full range of emotion. While some people are very moved by the liturgical, traditional services (I went to a service like that for quite a while myself), these models do often have the implication of displaying less affect. Now, as one of my friends has said, evangelical churches have become rather stale recently, focusing more of inauthentic performance rather than real, affective worship. And that's one of the things the emerging movement has challenged.

So in many ways, it seems we have found ourselves in the age-old cognitive-affective, head-heart, thinking-emotion split. It's hard to integrate the two together (believe me--I've worked with many clients on that issue). Yet I long for a church community that can do just that. They exist, but they're hard to find in my experience. What about yours?