I wanted to write about this yesterday but the post could have been misinterpreted as anti-Pentecostal so I trashed it. I'm going to try this again, with the necessary disclaimer: I don't have a problem with Pentecostals. I may disagree with some of their doctrines and practices but I believe they are saved, Spirit-filled Christians.
I think the last straw for me was when I was standing in the church lobby after service. I helped with the children's church so I wasn't in the main service. When I walked out I saw one of the girls in my teen youth group still at her seat in the sanctuary. She wasn't sitting; she was standing there, shaking. The pastor was in the lobby talking to our youth leaders, saying he wanted the youth group to be involved more with the main service because he wanted to see more of that. He believed that God was working on the young woman while she was in that state.
Things like this incident were what had first caused me to question the Pentecostal theology I walked into after being born again in 2007. I did some research and, long story short, the information I found led me to think that the type of church I was going to was quite disconnected from the theology and practices of the original church.
I wanted to find a new type of church. One which was more in touch with the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers. By this point I had been a Christian for over four years. I had read so many interpretations of the Bible that I wasn't terribly sure which was correct. I figured that the writings of the Early Church Fathers, people who lived within the first few hundred years of the time of Jesus, would be able to best preserve and speak truth. The type of church I sought was one that would share their beliefs.
Because I did not agree with the Catholic notion of "faith plus works salvation," there was only one logical choice for me: a confessional, conservative Lutheran church. Being the earliest of any Protestant denomination, I reasoned that it would have doctrines which agreed with what the early church held. And from what I've studied so far, the beliefs of the Lutheran synod I attend is deeply rooted in Scripture and history. I don't foresee myself leaving it for a long time.
As it turns out, I'm not the first person to try and reach back in time to reconnect with what the original church believed. This is actually a current trend, called the ancient-future movement. Dissatisfied with a Christianity that aims to please people and emphasize experience over sound doctrine, many have started looking back in time. People have started reading the works of ancient church leaders like Polycarp, Augustine, and Athanasius. I can't speak for others, but for me it was a desire to get spiritual meat. To find what Christianity was really about.
Some may chide me, saying I'm going back to the traditions of men. Yes, I admit that the type of service that I attend is traditional in nature. But let me ask, what is wrong with that? The only time traditional methods are bad is if they are being used to get salvation, instead of relying on Jesus's finished work on the cross for our salvation. Or one might say I'm favoring religion, i.e. trying to be ritualistic. But a ritualistic church can be just as Spirit-filled - or Spiritually empty - as a church which doesn't use any stylized service formats.
Walking the path of the ancient-future movement has been greatly rewarding for me. Being in a church that believes things closer to what the early church held to makes me feel a stronger connection to the earliest believers, and indeed a stronger connection to Jesus Christ. The liturgical, structured, somberly reverential type of church really drives home to me God's sovereignty, power, greatness, and love. He is not just some unpredictable will or "feel good" therapist - he is God, Elohim, the Almighty.
For more information I recommend this page by The Internet Monk.
I think the last straw for me was when I was standing in the church lobby after service. I helped with the children's church so I wasn't in the main service. When I walked out I saw one of the girls in my teen youth group still at her seat in the sanctuary. She wasn't sitting; she was standing there, shaking. The pastor was in the lobby talking to our youth leaders, saying he wanted the youth group to be involved more with the main service because he wanted to see more of that. He believed that God was working on the young woman while she was in that state.
Things like this incident were what had first caused me to question the Pentecostal theology I walked into after being born again in 2007. I did some research and, long story short, the information I found led me to think that the type of church I was going to was quite disconnected from the theology and practices of the original church.
I wanted to find a new type of church. One which was more in touch with the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers. By this point I had been a Christian for over four years. I had read so many interpretations of the Bible that I wasn't terribly sure which was correct. I figured that the writings of the Early Church Fathers, people who lived within the first few hundred years of the time of Jesus, would be able to best preserve and speak truth. The type of church I sought was one that would share their beliefs.
Because I did not agree with the Catholic notion of "faith plus works salvation," there was only one logical choice for me: a confessional, conservative Lutheran church. Being the earliest of any Protestant denomination, I reasoned that it would have doctrines which agreed with what the early church held. And from what I've studied so far, the beliefs of the Lutheran synod I attend is deeply rooted in Scripture and history. I don't foresee myself leaving it for a long time.
As it turns out, I'm not the first person to try and reach back in time to reconnect with what the original church believed. This is actually a current trend, called the ancient-future movement. Dissatisfied with a Christianity that aims to please people and emphasize experience over sound doctrine, many have started looking back in time. People have started reading the works of ancient church leaders like Polycarp, Augustine, and Athanasius. I can't speak for others, but for me it was a desire to get spiritual meat. To find what Christianity was really about.
Some may chide me, saying I'm going back to the traditions of men. Yes, I admit that the type of service that I attend is traditional in nature. But let me ask, what is wrong with that? The only time traditional methods are bad is if they are being used to get salvation, instead of relying on Jesus's finished work on the cross for our salvation. Or one might say I'm favoring religion, i.e. trying to be ritualistic. But a ritualistic church can be just as Spirit-filled - or Spiritually empty - as a church which doesn't use any stylized service formats.
Walking the path of the ancient-future movement has been greatly rewarding for me. Being in a church that believes things closer to what the early church held to makes me feel a stronger connection to the earliest believers, and indeed a stronger connection to Jesus Christ. The liturgical, structured, somberly reverential type of church really drives home to me God's sovereignty, power, greatness, and love. He is not just some unpredictable will or "feel good" therapist - he is God, Elohim, the Almighty.
For more information I recommend this page by The Internet Monk.