First Church of the Millstone.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger      17 comments      link this post     


The road to relevancy is paved with old hymns, the King James Version, and now, little kids.

Yep. Whoever thought of making sure the kids were out of the service were geniuses, according to the pastor who wrote this blog post. I only wish they could figure out a way to keep them out of the economy section of the airplane, like maybe tossing them out the window, because I don't need any distraction while I'm trying to eat pretzels and fly. There's nothing that says we're serious about God more than forcing new moms sit in a room by themselves, hearing the voice of god through a video feed, or making parents separate themselves from their kids whether they want to or not. That'll teach them to get pregnant!

Get thee hence, children, I've got a killer guitar chord progression to play and your yowling is ruining my moment.

Yep. Sounds like Jesus to me. With links to emergent guru Erwin McManus giving me a clue as to the inspiration this pastor has found, I've no doubt that the new church emerging from the McLaren-esque labeled dead plant material of the old church is really going to last a super duper long time. At least, as long as they keep on thinking of themselves as the young, cool, relevant movement and send the actual young people out of the service lest they disrupt the artsy music and drama that talks around god and is cool in its coolness. Cool. And awesome. We're having some awesome jams here, people! Because nobody - NOBODY - gets in the way of our experiencing god!

That is so just like Jesus. Because he never said to bring the little children unto him. They were far too noisy and distracting during all those sermons on the mount. And all they ever brought were snotty noses and a couple of fish and loaves of bread. Big yahoo. Some use they were. Better to tag 'em and bag 'em and distract them with a balloon animal and Jonah-shaped pinata.

I've got chord progressions, people!

I wonder, in all this pastor's excited, church-planting enthusiasm, if he sees that he's become what he tried to get away from. He created a man-made rule in a supposedly God-made church, a rule that the congregation must follow in order to participate; a silly dogma at best. You can wear jeans! You can have funky glasses! You can have goatees! You don't have to bathe and can have everything pierced and we love and accept you! You can sculpt ice with a chainsaw and enjoy our dramatic video and sound productions! Uh, but no kids, please.

And, in about 15 years, this pastor may find himself on Dobson's radio program whining about the young whippersnappers - the same kids he sent out of his hip service - and how they are destroying the church.

What did anyone expect? Such me-centered churches didn't focus on the family, so now they end up on Focus on the Family. I can't say that I love a screaming baby behind me, nor do I love the constant focus-borderline-obsession with family that leaves singles blurred out in the depth-of-field fuzz - me being single and without children myself - but most importantly, it isn't mine to say. It isn't mine to say.

Before you write me off as someone guzzling Geritol every ten minutes...I got stuff! Electronic gadgets, funky glasses, the ability to write HTML and CSS, a knowledge of useless and arcane pop culture, and can slap paint and sarcasm around as uselessly as the best of them. But this straining toward relevancy is excruciating. It is irrelevant, missing the entire point.

It's like "The Drumhead Trial" episode of TNG. Or like "A Clockwork Orange." Or like the song Ariadne of Dead Can Dance's "Into the Labyrinth" album. It's like one of Egon Schiele's less lascivious drawings. See? I can drop names, sound as cryptic and obscure and relevant, as the best of them. I'm an art major - we were taught to talk nonsense for hours about nothing! I'd fit right in. But the relevant people bore me, because it's a bunch on nonsense. Even the emperor can feel a breeze where there shouldn't be one.

For the sake of relevancy, the baby is almost literally thrown out with the bathwater. Oh that we would all be better students of history, myself included, and see the cycle of each generation blaming the one before, rebelling against the one before, returning to what was.

The times? They are always a changin' and you can never keep up because it's the hamster on the wheel.

What do you do when you pin your latest ministry gimmick on trucker hats and find out they're out of style by the time your shipment arrives? You can't be relevant and be real at the same time, so pick one. I would hope we would all pick real.

And if you choose to be relevant instead, caught up in your own importance, throwing about words like "cool" and "hip" and "jam" and using V for Vendetta as your sermon illustration and yammering on about popular bands and the proper way to order at Starbucks and iPods and jeans as if that somehow clears you from ever being called a religious fuddy-duddy, please do go join the First Church of the Millstone, put on your necklace, and see how well you float. There's another generation fast on your heels. And they can see right through you.

::I was going to include a link to The Shizzolator, a website that would translate this post into a more relevant version that the great Snoop Dogg would accept and perhaps make this post more, uh, relevant to my younger, urban readers. However, The Shizzolator website is no longer available. Evidently, it is now irrelevant. Hope you didn't have any Sunday School materials dependent upon it. Tough bounce for you, if you did. Pays to be real, not relevant.::



| tag: |

Labels:



Copyright (c) Julie R. Neidlinger  4/19/2006 07:21:00 PM   (17) comments   Links to this post    

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed.    Help support this site.   Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine




Links to this post:

Create a Link



17 Comments:

Thanks for the comments. :) I do think you missed the point in us not allowing children in the service. We want children to enjoy coming to church and that isn't happening if they are listening to me preach. :) We also want to make sure that those who are attending are able to hear the message without having to deal with a child crying. I do respect your opinion though but trust me it wasn't about children messing up our "cool" service.

BTW, I'm not a McLaren fan at all, I am about as pomo as Billy Graham, I don't wear glasses and I couldn't grow facial hair if I tried too. However I do look pretty fly in flip-flops and jeans. :)

Anyway, enjoyed the blog post and thank you for the rebuke. :)

By Blogger Gary Lamb, at 19/4/06 20:06  

Next rebuke's on you. I know me. You should have a chance to use it in about six minutes.

By Blogger Julie, at 19/4/06 20:11  

Sounds Like ME CHURCH

This is funny and maybe just a bit cutting. Worth a Look:

http://www.worshiphousemedia.com/index.cfm?hndl=details&tab=MM&id=42

By Blogger Gene, at 19/4/06 21:53  

Brilliant, Julie! Likewise your previous posts in this series.

Here's a link to the Gizoogle version of your entry; the usual warnings about gangsta rap vulgarities apply. Excerpts: "We're mackin' some off tha hook jams here, people! Coz nobody - NOBODY - gets in tha way of our pimpin' god!" "But this weed-smokin' toward relevancy is clockin' . Yippie yo, you can't see my flow. It is irrelevant, straight trippin' tha entire point." I think the translator vividly conveys the sense behind the text in the original language. :)

By Blogger MichaelBates, at 19/4/06 23:24  

Far be it from me to tell another church how to operate. But first and foremost should be the Word - and Julie points out what the Word says about children. That should be the end of the discussion, in my eyes.

Yes, children can create a distraction. Isn't it ultimately on the parents to go out of the sanctuary and minimize that distraction? What exactly are we teaching chilren if they spend their youth separated from the congregation and they never learn the patience and focus (and ultimately the rewards) of devoting their time to the Word?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 20/4/06 11:30  

I'm your newest fan. Thank you Michael Bates for posting a link to this website! Loved this post. I read Gary Lamb's blog entry and it just seems like the "vision" is the most important thing. "Forget the bodies we've trampled along the way, we have a vision to fulfill, people!" I'm okay with having an alternative for children (although I'm debating myself on that one), but to tell people that they aren't allowed to bring their children to the service? That's ridiculous.

By Blogger mshell, at 20/4/06 14:10  

It's very obvious that Julie has never had to try to speak in a church over the noise of crying baby.

It's also obvious that Julie has never tried to speak in a church to people who are clearly being distracted and can no longer pay attention because a three year old will not stop play with his toy truck in the service.

And Julie, when Jesus said "bring the children unto me" let's not take His words out of context (just so you can eloquently bash Gary Lamb) and assume that He was speaking about children not be allowed in the worship service. Clear misinterpretation.

Here's my challenge to you Julie. Next time you actually invite a lost friend (who you've prayed for for years) to go to church with you, sit behind a mom with a two year old who could care less that her kid is causing chaos in the service. Then come back on here and tell us how much your lost friend got out of that one and only service that you got him/her to go to. I dare you.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 23/4/06 19:22  

Anonymous, thank you for putting me up to a dare. What was your real name and email, by the way? I dare you.

But back to your little argument.

Julie knows what it's like to speak in front of a large group of uninterested people. Julie was a school teacher, grades kindergarten through twelfth. She put up with spitballs, flinging paint, broken chairs and much more than Mr. Lamb could ever imagine.

Julie has also taught Sunday School to a bunch of bored and distracted high schoolers. Julie didn't let their obvious distraction and disinterest keep her from continuing to teach.

Julie has, in fact, invited a friend to church during her college years and had to move because the child in front was a wild brat. Julie wonders why you couldn't move to a different seat as well, because Julie long ago learned that she can't change or be in control of what others do, only herself, so she took took it upon herself to move or change locale if a situation allows it rather than trying to change the people in the situation.

Julie understands how kids can be distracting particularly in this discipline-free era. Julie continues to maintain, however, that forcing parents to remove their children from a service, no matter how good/bad the parents or kids are, is a very bad idea. She thinks the fact that you can't see the folly in this is indicative of a bigger problem.

Julie doesn't lightly mock nor eloquently twist and take out of context Jesus' words about the importance of children. She maintains her point on that still.

Julie has had a number of unfortunate run-ins with crying babies, including a 15-hour flight to Australia in economy class with a screaming baby in the seat next to her. She has also taken care of many nieces and nephews, one of which, adopted from a mother who was addicted to crack, had serious issues and wailed and screamed 90 percent of the time. Julie loved this little baby boy but also loved being in church and wonders why she should be punished for taking care of a little one that needed serious love just because other people don't want to hear a baby cry lest they miss the scripture reference or throw into a tither the shaky salvation hopes of a person who would decide not to follow Jesus just because the baby in front was too loud. In fact, she wonders how such a sensitive person will handle persecution as a Christian if something as minor as a bratty child would convince him or her to choose death over Christ. Julie wonders how you witnessed and what you promised if such a scenario - screaming child in church - would turn this person off from Christ.

But mainly, Julie doesn't like unbiblical man-made laws forced upon a church.

Now Julie challenges anonymous to grow some and put his or her name and/or email to the post because Julie wonders if Anonymous has ever had to put out original thoughts and put his or her name to it ever before. Julie dares Anonymous.

(Like that third person? Yeah, next time leave your comment without the snarky tone. Only I get to be that way. Moderated means I threw you a bone. Read my blog EULA, which is posted on every page, for guidance on further anonymous comments with the tone you've just used. I'm don't have to be nice to the anonymous ones; I respect a name.)

By Blogger Julie, at 23/4/06 22:00  

And Julie would like to add, because she beats a dead horse well, that in missions trips to Nicaragua, children are roaming about and dancing during the service. God still moves. The kids are there because the family is there. No one takes the kids out for everyone's comfort. The kids wander around and climb into other people's laps.

And yet God still moves. Maybe if these other cultures and countries could just get a good children's service going they, too, could experience stagnated church like in America.

By Blogger Julie, at 23/4/06 22:04  

Call me out if want, but for the sake of not creating a stir in the religious world I'll stick with anonymous. Sorry. Call me what you will...trust me I've been called worse.

Whether children are in the service or not is really not the big issue here with me. I happen to allow them in my services...screaming babies and all.

What saddens me Julie, is the fact that you (a professed believer) use your blog to bash other believers, especially a pastor who happens to have a very effective ministry to a pretty rough crowd in north Atlanta.

It's obvious that your a very clever writer ( I actually have enjoyed reading some of your other thoughts on your blog). However, brother to sister I appeal to you use your gift to build up the body of Christ rather then to tear it down. Being a pastor is tough. What makes it tougher is to have other believers bashing us over (not theological differences) but philosophical differences.

The Apostle Paul challenges us in the book of Romans to do everything that leads to peace and mutual edification. That's my challenge to you as well.

Sorry for the "snarky" tone of last post. I'm tired from a long week (and day) of ministry.

If you want to talk further I'll e-mail you my personal e-mail address.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 23/4/06 23:13  

That's all well and good, Anonymous, that we ought not to make life difficult for a pastor, but when the pastor puts out a public blog, the only reponse can be public. If Lamb did not want a public response, a bad place to field thoughts is on the internet.

I do get tired of bloggers who blog and then cry when there is a response. That is the nature of blogging. If you do not want a response on a matter, do what I do: I write it in my diary.

I hear the argument about building up and edifying believers whenever someone calls attention to a practice or teaching that is questionable; it is used, usually after a direct jab is unsuccessful, to mollify and guilt another believer into submission.

I believe Lamb is wrong in his policy. I would be remiss if I did not say so. He blogged it, giving me the license to blog it as well. He does not allow comments on his blog so I had to do it on my own blog.

I am not trying to be a clever writer for the sake of cleverness. You ask me to use "my gift" one way, a different way, because you do not like what I said. Why should I take your advice and write differently in this case when I can see that your request stems (as visible by your first comment) from a rather personal or vested interest in the matter? Did the people who agreed with me and echoed my sentiments think I ought to write it differently, too?

You say I'm tearing down. I say I'm pointing out. Do you think I only use my blog to bash believers? Is that it? Have you read all my posts? Am I a basher? What if my "writing gift" is to find fallacies or idosyncracies and write about them in no uncertain terms? Should I tone that down and play nice?

I think you have come by your opinion on me, my writing and my blog by recent posts but not by thorough research.

I welcome your personal email; I will not break your anonymity, though I wonder if you see the connection between you not wanting to make waves in "the religious world" and your request for me to go easy with my "clever writing."

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think it may be edged with the remains of boats that were never rocked.

By Blogger Julie, at 23/4/06 23:38  

No kids in church isn't necessarily a new thing. I remember looking for a home church when we moved to Cali 8+ years ago. I had a one year old that we did not leave in the nursery. And I was pregant with my second, and anticipating breastfeeding him. We were met at the door of the sanctuary and told no children were allowed. All children must be in the nursery.

We worship as a family. At home. Corporately. At times, we have utilized nurseries. At that point, we hadn't.

The ushers directed us to the balcony where there was a modified nursing room. Which they didn't really welcome me to use, because I wasn't nursing--I just had a toddler. And having my husband there was frowned upon--but there were no other nursing mothers, so he was "allowed" to be there with me.

In essence, this church was telling me that we would not be allowed to worship in their church as a family. My husband and I could only come in if our toddler was left in the nursery. And once the new baby was born? I wouldn't be allowed to worship with my husband.

Obviously, we never went back to that church.


Perhaps that sort of thing is consistent with Pastor Lamb's philosophy of ministry. *shrug*



Related to this, is this:
Superfluparents in the Church

By Blogger TulipGirl, at 24/4/06 03:00  

"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think it may be edged with the remains of boats that were never rocked."

Wow. This is one of the best lines I've read in a long time.

I think you're right on. And I think you are right in your interpretation of Jesus' words. But in considering such a policy as Mr. Lamb has instituted, we should bear in mind Israel, where through the entirety of God's covenantal relationship with His people, the relationship was with His people, men, women and children. One of the most powerful passages in Scripture is 2 Kings 23, when Josiah discovers the book of the Law and has it read aloud to "all the people, both great and small. In the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles, the writer specifically states elders, men of Judah, inhabitants of Jerusalem, and all the people were present. When the Law was read, it was deemed important enough for all of God's people to hear.

The whole testimony of God's person through the ages is against this attitude. I know it is justified by Mr. Lamb and your annonymous interlocutor on the grounds that those who are escorted to the "parents and lepers" section are not outside the community, but it saddens me to think believers are coming up with such justifications for exclusionary behavior. Perhaps Mr. Lamb and his fellow "visionaries" could practice some Christian charity in their acceptance of a less than perfect world, and less than perfect people.

By Blogger Nathan, at 28/4/06 15:30  

Let's see you rail on Lamb for being relevant which I guess equates to worldy, and yet you find it important to include in your blog profile your astrology sign and your zodiac year. Isn't that New Age? I'm sorry I'm confused...isn't that what you would call "the pot calling the kettle black?"

And Nathan, what?

By Anonymous Joe P, at 28/4/06 18:50  

Joe P, Blogger, the free service I use to post this blog, automatically puts that in profiles. I certainly wouldn't want it in there, but that's how it is.

So no. No pot, no kettle, no black.

It is important to know what you are talking about; if you used Blogger, you'd have known. I'm not going to hold it against you for not realizing it. As far as I'm aware, when I set up this blog and, hence, my profile, that just popped up.

By Blogger Julie, at 28/4/06 19:54  

Not a blogger. So my apologies.

By Anonymous Joe P, at 28/4/06 23:46  

No big deal, Joe P. It was an honest mistake. I rather wish they would not include the astrological/zodiac information for this very reason.

By Blogger Julie, at 28/4/06 23:49  

----------------------

Post a Comment