Summer iTunes Mix

When the days get longer, the skies bluer, and the mercury in the thermometer starts to rise higher, this is some music I like to put on shuffle.  My criteria for this playlist is rather subjective.  This music just sounds like summer music to me.  Objectively speaking, most of this music is light, fun, danceable, and nostalgic sounding (even if it is actually new music).  Musical genres range from rock to pop to electronic to oldies.  I've been listening to this playlist on shuffle recently in the car and around the house, and these albums all seem to work together.  So here is my recommended summer playlist.  Pour a lemonade, sit back in a lawn chair, and enjoy.

Air, Moon Safari
Animal Collective, Merriweather Post Pavilion
Animal Collective, Strawberry Jam
The Beach Boys, Pet Sounds
Beach House, Bloom
The Beatles, Magical Mystery Tour
Cut Copy, In Ghost Colours
Cut Copy, Zonoscope
Daft Punk, Discovery
Eleanor Friedberger, Last Summer
Fleet Foxes, Fleet Foxes
Fleet Foxes, Helplessness Blues
Fleet Foxes, Sun Giant
Grizzly Bear, Shields
Grizzly Bear, Veckatimest
Jonsi, Go
M. Ward, Transistor Radio
MGMT, Oracular Spectacular
Moby, Play
The Morning Benders, Big Echo
Panda Bear, Person Pitch
Panda Bear, Tomboy
Paul Simon, Graceland
Real Estate, Days
Real Estate, Real Estate
Sam Cooke, Portrait of a Legend 1951-1964
She & Him, Volume 1
She & Him, Volume 2
She & Him, Volume 3
Sigur Ros, Med Sud I Eyrum Vid Spilum Endalaust
Toro Y Moi, Freaking Out
U2, All That You Can't Leave Behind
Vampire Weekend, Contra
Vampire Weekend, Vampire Weekend
The Walkmen, Heaven
The Walkmen, Lisbon
The War on Drugs, Slave Ambient

 

On Being Great

It's no secret that I admire John Wesley.  As a longtime Methodist, it's hard not to.  My second born son is even named in honor of him.  Over the years, I've found myself returning to Wesley's journals and sermons time and time again for encouragement and spiritual insight.  In seminary, one of my favorite classes was on John Wesley's epistemology within his 18th century context (sounds fun, huh?).  My final paper for that class was an analysis of John Wesley's use of small group structures within the early Methodist movement.  When we lived in the south, my wife and I took a weekend trip to St. Simon's Island and saw many of the sights associated with Wesley's time in the colonies.  When we were in Savannah last summer, we made sure to get family photos in front of John Wesley's statue, which is located in one of the many picturesque town squares.  If someone asked me who were the most influential historical Christians in my life, I would probably start by mentioning C.S. Lewis and John Wesley.

A few years ago, as I re-read some of Wesley's journals, I found myself praying, "Lord, I want to be like John Wesley."  Now, maybe that might strike some folks as a strange prayer or even an arrogant prayer.  Wesley is a great man in the history of Christianity.  Isn't it a bit presumptuous to aspire to be like him?  Well, I must confess that I want to be remember as a "great" Christian man just like he is.  That is just my human nature.  Maybe it was a wrong prayer, but I prayed it.  After praying this prayer, I had several experiences that I found unusual.  These are two stories that stick out in my mind.

I was hiking at a local park with our first son (not Wesley) shortly after I prayed this prayer.  Near the end of our hike, I came upon a man working by the side of the path.  The man was elderly, in his retirement years.  His task struck me as a strange and futile task.  He was using something like an axe to cut down bush honeysuckle (a pesky invasive species) that was growing along the path.  I stopped and talked with him for a few minutes.  He told me that he came out to the park as a volunteer once-a-week and worked on trail maintenance.  Part of the way into the conversation, we discovered that we were both Christians.  For some reason, he started talking about Romans 7.  He said that Romans 7 was proof that a Christian can never really achieve perfection in this life (a Wesleyan doctrine!).  A Christian will always be simultaneously a saint and sinner.  For a split second, I thought about arguing with his exegesis of Romans 7.  But then a verse came to my mind.  I quoted Philippians 3:13b-14: "Forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus."  The man acknowledged my point, and shortly after our conversation came to an amiable close.  When I got back in the car, I found myself thinking again, "Lord, I want to be like John Wesley."  All I can say is that I felt an overwhelming sense of a response (not words, but just a knowing), "If you can't preach to one man in the woods, how can you preach to thousands of people in a field?"

Another time I was lying in bed, reading some of Wesley's journals.  I was struck by one story in particular.  Wesley recounts preaching in his old hometown.  His father had been a Christian minister there for years, laboring as a shepherd, without creating a huge impact.  Wesley comes into town and preaches a sermon and a massive revival breaks out.  Large numbers of people are coming to Christ and lives are being changed.  Once again, I found myself praying, "Lord, I want to be like John Wesley."  I want to share the good news of Jesus and see crowds of people being changed by the power and beauty of the message.  Once again I felt an overwhelming sense of knowing God's response, "What if I asked you to be John Wesley's father?"

I know a lot about Wesley, but you know what?  I couldn't tell you his dad's name off the top of my head.  I'm pretty sure his mom's name was Susanna, but I don't know John Wesley's dad's name.  I bet a lot of other folks don't know his name either.  Maybe some people in his own town didn't know him, even though he labored among the people as a faithful minister of Jesus Christ.  Lots of people know John Wesley's name though.

Why do I share these stories?  Well, I think God was trying to re-educate me about "greatness."  I was praying to God because I wanted to be great for God, but God was trying to help me to see that I don't understand God's definition of greatness.  I think John Wesley is great.  He started a movement that has spread around the whole world, influencing millions of people!  In his own day, scholars estimate that the Methodist movement impacted around 300,000 people (that puts a lot of so-called megachurches to shame).  Wesley's writings have continued to have an impact on Christians down through the ages.  His theology has influenced various denominations, and the Wesleyan theology eventually became the taproot for the Pentecostal revival of the 20th century.  What a great man!  Look at the impact he left on the world!

Over the years, God has reminded me that God's standard of greatness includes the small, the mundane, the commonplace, the everyday, the insignificant, the foolish, the overlooked, the inconsequential.  Sharing the Word with one person is great in God's economy.  Preaching to thousands is not greater.  Being a faithful, loving, caring, and nurturing parent is great in God's economy.  Leaving a legacy on thousands is not greater.  A person with simple faith and simple obedience is great in God's eyes.  Of course, the world might not consider that person great.  The world might forget that person's name.  The world might overlook that person.  But God does not.  John Wesley's father is great in God's sight.   

Suggested Resources on the Bible

This is an annotated bibliography that I've assembled to include with syllabi for future classes on the Bible.  Feel free to leave me suggestions of books you like.

Suggested Resources on the Bible

Bible Dictionary

A good Bible dictionary is an indispensable tool for a student of the Bible.  This is one of the resources that every serious Bible student should own.  There is a lot of variety when it comes to Bible dictionaries.  Some editions are single volume and some are multiple volume.  Most major publishers have their own versions.  A few notable and respected publishers would include Eerdmans, HarperCollins, and Oxford.  Some are geared more towards the everyday reader and some are geared more towards scholars or seminary students.  With so many Bible dictionaries available, the student is able to choose whichever version suits his or her own needs and tastes.

New Testament

Bruce, F.F.  The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.  Bruce, one of the world’s leading Bible scholars in his day, presents a historical and scholarly argument for the theological and historical integrity of the New Testament documents.  The book covers topics such as the composition and canonization of the New Testament, archaeology, and ancient extra-biblical literature related to the New Testament.

Metzger, Bruce M.  The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content.  2nd ed.  Nashville: Abingdon, 1983.  In his day, Metzger, a long-time professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, was one of America’s most widely respected New Testament scholars.  This is a very readable and accessible introduction to the New Testament that still has value today.

Historical Jesus

Borg, Marcus J. and N.T. Wright.  The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions.  San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1999.  Borg and Wright are two of the leading scholars in contemporary debates about the historical Jesus.  Borg, a liberal, and Wright, a conservative, take turns writing essays about topics related to the historical Jesus.  This format allows the reader to hear both sides of the issue and gives a window into respectful scholarly debate on polemical topics.   

Johnson, Luke Timothy.  The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels.  San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996.  Johnson, one of America’s leading New Testament scholars, argues against the scholarly findings of the Jesus Seminar and argues in favor of a more traditional understanding of the historical Jesus.

Ratzinger, Joseph (Pope Benedict XVI).  Jesus of Nazareth.  New York: Doubleday, 2007.  Pope Benedict XVI chronicles his own search for the true historical face of Jesus.

Bible and Culture

Jacobs, A.J.  The Year of Living Biblically: One Man’s Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible.  New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2007.  Jacobs is a non-practicing Jew who is a journalist for Esquire magazine.  As a writing project, he decides to try to follow the Bible as closely as possible for one year.  The book is very humorous and gives a different view into the cultural impact of the Bible.

Kling, David W.  The Bible in History: How the Texts Have Shaped the Times.  New York: Oxford, 2004.  Kling shows how eight different Bible verses have a had a historical impact on Western Civilization and Christianity. 

Bible and Archaeology

Feiler, Bruce.  Walking the Bible: A Journey by Land through the Five Books of Moses.  New York: Harper Perennial, 2001.  Feiler is a Jewish journalist who decides to try to travel to the archaeological and historical sites associated with the Pentateuch.  This book was also turned into a very good documentary series by PBS.

Bible Translation

McGrath, Alister.  In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture.  New York: Anchor Books, 2001.  McGrath tells the story of the KJV Bible translation and examines the cultural impact of one of the most influential Bible translations ever written.

Bible Reading Practices

Peterson, Eugene H.  Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.  In this book, Peterson, the author of the beloved contemporary Bible paraphrase The Message, teaches a spiritual approach to reading the Bible as sacred literature.    

Biblical Theology

Wright, N.T.  Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church.  New York: HarperOne, 2008.  Wright, one of the world’s leading Bible scholars, re-examines the theological significance of the resurrection of Jesus.  As a part of the book, Wright also presents a historical argument for the physical reality of the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Concordance

Like a Bible dictionary, a concordance is another fairly basic Bible study tool.  In a concordance, one can look up words and where they appear in the biblical text.  Additionally, one can use a concordance to identify the Hebrew or Greek word behind an English word.  As with Bible dictionaries, various publishers have their own concordances.  Strong’s concordance is an extremely popular option.

Commentaries

In general, commentaries are written for scholars and pastors.  In a commentary, a Bible scholar will typically address one or two books of the Bible in more detail.  Usually a commentary will have a short introduction that deals with the historical context, authorship and composition, and the audience of the book.  Then the commentary will typically go verse by verse or paragraph by paragraph through the book of the Bible, explaining the meaning or giving more insight into the historical backdrop.  There are a plethora of commentaries available.  Bible students can select commentaries tailored to their needs.  Two recommend series are The Pillar New Testament Commentary series and The New International Commentary on the New Testament.  Both are published by Eerdmans.  Other publishers have their own series as well.

Tips for Good Academic Paper Writing

In my Bible and Western Culture class, I typically require students to write at least two papers each semester.  At first I required two research papers.  I scrapped that idea for several reasons.  One, the papers were truthfully pretty poor.  Students clearly didn't like writing them, and I didn't like reading them.  Two, I decided that a research paper was not the best fit for the class.  Now I require three papers: a movie review, music review, and a final reflection paper.  These papers allow students to creatively investigate and analyze the connections between the Bible and elements of culture, specifically movies and music.  Students seem to enjoy writing these papers more, and, in general, I like reading these papers better than the old research papers I required.  Regardless of what type of writing assignment I give, I find a number of common writing mistakes (or maybe it is just general sloppiness). I am not an English teacher, but these are my tips for writing a good academic paper.  These tips come from my own experience writing papers as a student (trust me when I say that seminary students do a lot of paper writing), and from my insight as a teacher.

Here are my tips for good academic paper writing:

1. Before you start writing, you should have an idea of what you are trying to accomplish.  You might even sketch an outline of your paper beforehand.
2. How you start and how you end are very important.  
3. The opening paragraph should give the reader a basic idea of the concept of the paper.  Don't be too hasty to get into your arguments or main points.  A good introductory paragraph typically includes a clear thesis statement that summarizes the main point of the paper in one sentence.
4. The closing paragraph also serves a very important function.  You should never include new information in the last paragraph.  Instead, the closing paragraph restates the main points or arguments of the paper and brings the paper full circle.  If it sounds like the opening paragraph and closing paragraph are a bit redundant, they probably are.  Repetition is a key to effective communication.
5. Here's another way to think about the overall organization of a paper: (1) Tell the reader what you are going to tell them.  (2) Make your main arguments.  (3) Remind the reader what you just told them.  A three-point paper would have a structure like A-B-C-D-A.
6. The main body of the paper should have at least three supporting paragraphs that advance the thesis statement of the paper.
7. Review the writing guidelines for your particular academic field.  In a lot of cases, this means following MLA format.  Other popular formats can be APA or Chicago style.  Whatever style is required, you need to know the basics, and you need to follow the rules as closely as possible.  You can buy a handbook for these styles to keep on the shelf, or you can usually find some good websites that will help you out.
8. Too many people don't understand the concept of plagiarism.  Here's the bottom line: Whenever you get information from a source, you need to cite it clearly in your paper.  If the idea doesn't come from your own brain, you need to give credit to your source.  This applies whether you are quoting directly or paraphrasing.  You should never play games with this.  Give your sources credit.  It makes you look good because it shows that you've done your homework, and it protects you from accusations of plagiarism. 
9. Quotes don't explain themselves.  You can't just quote and move on.  You need to explain the quote in your own words.  If you just quote a bunch and move on, you are essentially letting other people write your paper for you.  You need to show your reader that you understand the quote and can demonstrate how it supports your argument.
10. Long quotes (generally 4 lines or longer) are to be avoided like the plague, especially in a short paper.  Only use a long quote if it is absolutely necessary and pertinent to the argument.  If your paper is full of long quotes, you are essentially allowing someone else to write your paper for you.  While this might make it easy to fill up four or five pages, this isn't going to earn you a wonderful grade from your teacher.
11. You should always have a works cited page for a school paper (unless the assignment is very clearly a "journal" assignment rather than a paper).  When in doubt, take the assignment as seriously as possible.  Never assume that it is just a casual assignment and that you can cut a few corners.  Lots of students do this.  It shows laziness, and puts you at risk of being accused of plagiarism if the teacher thinks you've drawn on information that you don't cite.  By the way, your teacher should never have to ask you to give your sources.  This goes without saying.
12. Put the appropriate heading at the top of your paper: name, course, professor's name, date, title, etc.
13. Spell your teacher's name right!  This is super tacky if you don't.
14. Staple or paper clip your sheets together.  Don't just hand your professor a stack of papers.
15. Print your paper more than five minutes before class.  If you leave yourself a small window of time, you can count on something unexpected happening.
16. Turn your papers in on time.  A perfect late paper is going to get a B or C.  An average paper turned in on time is going to get a B or C.  The moral of the story?  Turn your papers in on time.
17. Websites are almost always questionable sources for an academic paper, especially Wikipedia.  If all your sources are from the Internet, it doesn't reflect well on your research skills.  It just proves to your reader than you are lazy.  Schools have libraries for a reason.  Use them.  Open a book.
18. Proofread your paper.  This means more than using spell check.  Read your paper out loud if necessary.  Sometimes it can be hard to pick up on your own mistakes.
19. If you are really serious, have someone else proofread your paper.  You should choose proofreaders wisely.
20. Once you turn in your paper, you are responsible for the content of your paper.  You can't blame mistakes on your proofreader (or the college writing center).
21. Always go the extra mile.  If you just do what is required, that should earn you a C.  If you want an A, you really need to think about going above and beyond the call of duty.
22. Always follow instructions.  If nothing else, at least do what your teacher has asked you to do.  If your teacher has asked for a three page paper and you turn in a one page paper, don't be surprised when you get an F.  If your teacher has asked you to write about a particular topic and you write about something else, don't be surprised when you get a D.  This isn't rocket science.  Following instructions will take you a long way.
23. Avoid opinionated rants unless specifically asked to give your opinion in a paper.  Academic writing should be as objective and unbiased as possible.  If you want to write opinionated rants, start a blog.  Then you can write whatever your heart desires.
24. At the same time, in some papers you can make use of your personal voice and even some well-used humor.  This just depends on the nature of the paper.  If you are writing a scientific paper about the mating habits of mallard ducks, you should probably keep it dry.  On the other hand, I always enjoy hearing a little bit of personal voice in papers for my class.  You need to use discernment when it comes to this.
25. Finally, you should default to a more professional tone in your academic papers.  This means no contractions.  No profanity should really go without saying.  Avoid slang.  Stick to third person and impersonal language.  Be gender inclusive with your pronouns.  Once again, a personal tone is appropriate in other forms of writing but not in academic papers.

Many Denominations, One Gospel

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another (Galatians 1:6-7a NASB).

The diversity in Christianity today can really make your head spin if you sit down and think about it.  Broadly speaking, you've got Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, and Pentecostal Christians.  These four groups, while certainly having some similarities, are in many respects quite different.  Church leadership structures are different.  Worship styles are different.  Approaches to the Bible are different.  Theologies are different.  Then, if you bring all the subdivisions of Protestant into the picture-- Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Anabaptist, Episcopalian, Anglican, and the like-- the diversity gets even more complex.  In fact, a cynic might be inclined to see all the diversity in Christianity as "proof" that the whole thing is a bit of a joke.  Christians can't even agree with themselves when it comes to much.  What a sham!

With this in mind, Galatians 1 always makes me a little uneasy.  Paul insists, quite passionately, that there is only one gospel message.  The gospel might be complex.  The gospel might have different angles.  You might be able to put the gospel different ways.  But, there is still only one gospel.  Any other gospel message is not just another alternative.  According to Paul, any other gospel is a sham, and Paul invokes a curse against any so-called Christian preacher who preaches anything other than the one true gospel.  Although there is a lot of diversity within Christianity, all Christian churches should (and "should" is the optimal word here) preach the same gospel message.  This raises two questions:  What is the gospel?  Do all Christian churches in fact preach the same gospel message?

To the first question, what is the gospel?  As I alluded above, I think that the gospel message is both utterly simple and infinitely complex.  This can lead to a diversity of expression, but the core message must remain the same.  So what are the core essentials of the gospel message?  Well, first let me say that I believe that Romans 1:16-17 is possibly the most important text in this discussion.  With that in mind, here is my answer:

• "The righteous will live by faith."  Living and active faith makes a person pleasing to God.  Anyone with the same type of faith as Abraham is declared righteous before God on the basis of their obedient faith.
• Jesus Christ died for my sins.  Jesus Christ was raised so that I might have new life.  The gospel message is not just a message of forgiveness.  The gospel is not just about the Cross.  The gospel is about death and resurrection.  If the story ended with the Cross, there would be no gospel.  The empty tomb proves that there can be new life in the Spirit.
• In the context of Galatians, the gospel is a message of freedom and unity.  Before encountering Christ, persons are slaves to sin and their own fleshly desires.  In Christ, a person is totally free.  Totally free to do whatever they want?  No.  Totally free to love God and obey God by the power of the Spirit. Christian freedom is not the freedom to satisfy our selfish desires, but the freedom to obey God and keep his commandments.  The gospel is also the great unifier.  It levels the playing field, making all people the same before God and totally dependent on the mercy of God.
• The gospel message is a message of rescue.  While we were yet sinners, a loving and gracious and merciful God reached down and rescued us.  Why?  Because we were so good?  Because we were so righteous?  Because we were so worthy?  No, on all accounts.  God reached down to us because of the character and nature of God.  God reached down because he was so good.  God rescued us because he was so righteous.  God delivered us because "God is love."

Now, these are just a couple different ways to put the message.  Maybe someone else might put the message differently-- use different words, focus on different aspects, emphasize different points-- but the content would be similar.  With this in mind, I am comfortable with Christians expressing the message a little differently.  My way is not the highway.  But we do all have to be in the same ballpark.

To the second question, do all Christian churches in fact preach the same gospel message?  This is the question that makes me a little nervous.  I shift in my seat a bit.  I'm not going to point any fingers (except at the TV preacher and his "prosperity gospel"), but this question will make you wonder.  If you've been around churches long enough, you've probably heard a lot of takes on the gospel.  Are they all in the same ballpark?  In my experience, I will have to say no.  This is why Galatians 1 bothers me so much.  I think there are some "alternate gospels" floating around out there, and Paul is clear about those gospels.  They are lies, and the preachers of false gospels stand under a curse.  Gulp.  All I can say is that as a preacher I want to be very careful to stick to the biblical gospel.  I will also say that I want to attend a church that preaches the biblical gospel.  If I was at a church that preached another message, I wouldn't stick around too long.  For those churches that have gotten off track, my hope is that God will bring them back to the the one and only gospel.  At the end of the day, we might have many denominations, but there is only one gospel.   

A House Church Worship Service

In this blog I am going to try a bit of an experiment.  I am going to pretend that I am a casual observer attending one of our house church meetings.  Even though I am a regular participant in the house church, I am going to try to write as a detached observer.  Why?  Well, I am just trying to give folks an objective look at a house church meeting.  I am doing this because folks might be tempted to view house church as strange or secretive.  In all actuality, there is nothing strange about it and folks are always welcome to join us.  So to dispel any gossip or rumors, this is what one of our house church meetings is like on a weekly basis.  On a more positive note, maybe folks who attend church in a more traditional setting can learn something from the house church model.

Meetings are always at the same time and same place every week.  This makes things more accessible for folks who might only come once a month or a few times a year.  They always know when and where.  Some house churches like to move around, but this adds an extra layer of logistics.  You have to get the word out each week about the meeting location.  In our case, we've found that it is easier to just meet at the same time and same place.  Naturally, this means that one of the members has to be willing to open his or house house each week.

Attendance varies from week to week.  Just like in traditional churches, the house church can have more folks on Christmas and Easter.  If you count the kids (and I figure God counts them), a "regular" week might mean that 30-35 people attend.  A bigger meeting might mean that an extra 10 people attend (those extra folks might be a combination of guests, family members, and folks from other house church meetings).  In general people tend to dress more casually.  Regulars come from all different Christian backgrounds-- Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.  In general, people do not identify by those labels.  They just consider themselves to be "Christians" (what a novel concept!).

The worship space is a large rectangular room that combines a living room and dining room.  Chairs are mostly assembled around the perimeter of the living room, and there is "overflow" and kid's seating in the dining room.  The preacher for the day tends to sit at one end of the room, and attention focuses that way during the sermon.

A typical service follows this pattern (and, yes, even a house church tends to follow an informal "liturgy"):

• Opening: Sometimes the opening is as simple as a member saying a prayer.  Other times, the pastor might read a scripture and share a brief devotional thought.  Sometimes one of the congregants is asked to do a brief devotional sharing at the beginning.
• Worship in song: We always sing five songs.  Not four or six, but five.  I suppose someone decided five was a good number.  The songs vary depending on the worship leader.  Sometimes the songs are very contemporary.  We sing Chris Tomlin and Matt Redman songs like lots of other churches.  Sometimes the songs are more traditional, albeit played with a more contemporary arrangement.  We might sing "Amazing Grace" or "Be Thou My Vision" for example.  The band usually consists of two or three members.  The instruments are usually two or three acoustic guitars.  Sometimes the guitars are accompanied by hand drums.  The musical style is probably "folk rock" (given the acoustic instrumentation).  At the end of music time, one of the members of the church will often start a spontaneous a cappella song (or sometimes two spontaneous a cappella songs).
• Sharing time: After the singing time, the worship leader will usually lead a time of group sharing.  The question is typically asked, "Does anyone have anything they would like to share this morning?"  Anyone from the group-- guest or regular, young or old, male or female-- can share whatever is on his or her heart.  Responses typically come in three varieties: a brief devotional thought on an encouraging Bible verse, a personal testimony from the week, or a prayer concern.  Typically two or three people will share.  Sometimes there will be more.  Usually no more than five people share each week though.      
• Sermon: After the sharing time, the pastor offers a message on the Bible.  These messages can last anywhere between 25-30 minutes (give or take depending on the day and the speaker).  Sermons rarely go longer than 40 minutes though.  The main pastor tends to preach three out of four Sundays.  On the other Sunday someone else from amongst the congregation will typically give the message.  The style of the message can vary depending on the preacher for the morning.  Sometimes the preacher will make use of a whiteboard to draw pictures or write key words.  Sometimes the preacher will invite some discussion and group participation.  Sometimes the preacher might tell a story or two in order to illustrate a message.  The messages will usually incorporate several different Bible passages or sometimes focus more closely on one single passage.
• Communion: After the sermon, there is a time for communion.  Sometimes the pastor presides over this sacrament.  Other times the pastor will select a congregant to lead the communion time. Whoever presides over communion will usually over a few simple words.  Many times the pastor will read from I Corinthians 11 to remind everyone of the purpose and significance of communion.  Then the communion elements will be blessed and distributed by two church members.  Each person receives their own cup of grape juice and piece of the bread.  Once everyone has been served, we all eat in unison.  While the juice and bread are being distributed, someone will often start a spontaneous a cappella song.  Lots of times we will also sing something spontaneous after receiving communion.  The communion time also allows space for personal prayer and reflection.
• Prayer: After communion, we spend about 5-10 minutes in prayer as a group.  Folks might call this "popcorn prayer" (if you've heard that one before).  People take turns praying spontaneously.  In general people will pray for health needs or other practical needs in the community.  Someone might pray for our political leaders and governmental institutions (in a nonpartisan manner if I might add).  Lots of times someone will pray for all the parents in the church and the children.  Those are just some examples.
• Closing: To bring the prayer time to an end, the worship leader will say a final prayer that closes the meeting and blesses the time of food and fellowship.  The service almost always lasts about 1 hour and 30-45 minutes (it is never two hours long).
• Food and Fellowship: After the service most folks will stay for a communal meal (some leave though).  Some people will bring a dish to share.  Some won't.  You don't have to bring anything.  All are welcome to share.  Meal time and fellowship time usually lasts for about another 45 minutes to 1 hour.  After that people go home.

So what is different between a house church meeting and a traditional church service?  Well, I hope you can see that there isn't a lot of difference.  We do the same things as most other Christians each week.  So what is unique about the house church?  Well, here are a couple of unique strengths of the house church:

1. The meeting is much more personal and intimate.  This is obviously bad for anyone who wants to hide in the back row.
2. Anyone can share what is on their heart each week.  We don't only listen to the preacher.  Anyone can contribute to the service.
3. Since we don't have a building or lots of programs, we can spend our money on different needs.  By the way, we don't take an offering during the service.  There is an inconspicuous box off to the side on a table.  People will put offerings in it before or after the service.
4. The worship music doesn't come across as a performance (at least I hope it doesn't).  Everyone sings along.  People don't just sit and listen to the band/choir.
5. The service is highly participatory and we sit in a way that creates a more communal dynamic.  

A Catholic Perspective on Contemporary Churches

For my class this semester, I required that students attend a religious service, in a tradition different from their own, and write a short reflection paper.  One of my students, a Catholic, attended a contemporary community church for her paper.  I was really struck by some of the things she said in her reflection.  Since she came to the contemporary church with an outsider's perspective, some of her comments strike me as eerily "prophetic."  I think her observations resonated with me because I've had similar thoughts over the years.  I was brought up in traditional Methodist services for most of my life, and those tend to have a little bit of the Catholic flavor (that is the middle way Anglican heritage).  My Methodist church didn't start having a contemporary service until I was in college.  To this day, I still enjoy the old hymns, choir music, and the church organ.  Even though I attend a more "contemporary" house church right now, I sometimes miss some of the old traditions (or maybe it is just nostalgia).  Anyway, without further rambling, here are my Catholic student's observations on the contemporary Christian church phenomenon.

1. She thought that the contemporary worship music was a lot like a concert.  Before anyone mistakenly takes this as a compliment, I need to say that she appeared turned off by the concert vibe.  She didn't think it was "cool" or "hip."  She mentioned noticing video cameras throughout the worship space.  She found these bizarre.  She thought the stage lighting was off-putting and theatrical.  In my experience at big contemporary churches, the people often don't sing (or you can't hear them because the sound system is so loud).  So I can validate her critique.  Contemporary worship music often turns into a concert (and the music snob in me would like to add that they are rather poor concerts by critical and artistic standards).
2. She pointed out that the contemporary church did not serve communion.  The service basically consisted of 20 minutes of singing and 40 minutes of preaching.  There was no sacramental life to the service.  Now, contemporary folks might not think that this is much of a criticism, but, historically speaking, this is a serious deal.  The sacraments (baptism and communion) are two of the defining characteristics of a Christian church gathering.  The basic Reformation Protestant theology is that the Church is defined by the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments (you can look this up if you don't believe me).  A church with no sacramental life is either half a church or hardly a church based on the classical understandings of church (ecclesiology).
3. She thought that the pastor preached mostly about his own personal life and only barely talked about the Bible.  She heard more about the pastor's family than she did about the Word of God.  I jokingly told her that a sermon like that is called a "testimony," but her criticism is still valid.  She said that in her Catholic church they read from the Bible each week (multiple readings), and the priest gives a short homily based on one of the Bible readings.  I found this critique fairly ironic.  For years Evangelicals have accused Catholics of not reading their Bibles or caring much about the Bible in general.  The tables seem to be turned these days.  Now the Catholic is accusing the Evangelical of disregarding the Word in favor of personal stories and anecdotes.  This is something I have observed first hand as well.  Most contemporary churches have moved in the direction of topical preaching rather than biblical expository preaching.  The pastor picks a topic each week like finances, marriage, or sexual morality.  He finds a few video clips and makes his main points.  Then he stuffs a few Bible verses into the sermon for good measure.  Viola!  A contemporary church sermon!  It might sound "Christian" or "biblical" on the surface, but how much has the sermon been informed by a genuine engagement with the Scripture?  One wonders. 

If you are a big supporter of the contemporary church movement, you should take these criticisms seriously.  Contemporary folks see their way as the way of the future (which is a pretty arrogant and historically short-sighted viewpoint).  If it is the way of the future, the Church universal might be in for troubling times.