newprotest.org: WWW.YOURCHURCHSUCKS.COM

WWW.YOURCHURCHSUCKS.COM

August 28, 2006
by: jovial_cynic
I'm considering buying the domain: www.yourchurchsucks.com. The goal? To review the churches in my area and explain why they suck. And sure, they're not all going to suck, but I'll bet that most of them will.

I was supposed to go to a church this last Sunday to watch my friend Luke and his wife play music. The church, as I was told, met in the theater on one of the main streets in town, and started at 9am. That's a little early for me, but I it was closer to my house than the church I regularly attend, so maybe it wouldn't be too bad. That, and I was told that the music in the church was very contemporary, so I figured the music might wake me up anyway.

BLING.

I'm trying to figure out what offended me more: the giant flat-screen television you see as you walk into the building, the bright sparkly gold tie the main singer was wearing as she danced across the stage, or the spotlight and camera on the electric guitarist as he burst into his solo piece during a worship song, or the multiple references to the coffee shop for which the church wanted to spend $40,000 to renovate it and turn it into an instrument of the church. Yeah. Mmm hm.

Good news, though. It turns out that I was actually in the wrong church. I figured that out after the service ended and Luke never showed up on stage. Apparently, Luke's church meets in a different theater that happened to be located on the same main street.
np category: religion
tags:

COMMENTS for WWW.YOURCHURCHSUCKS.COM


Luke said:
Hmmmm...I'm tempted by my cynical and humorous side to completely and utterly support your new idea for a website. However, the softer side in me says, "what would your primary mission be?" The name might have been conjured as a shock to intentionally draw the onlooker into exploring such an interesting sounding website.

But I imagine a bit of objection to the same because of the rude nature of something that, if intending to be ministry, is seeming to violate the spirit with which we are to minister: in love and compassion. Remember Romans 12's opening Paul emplores and asks the Roman church (which was not a very holy church to put it lightly) to present themselves as living sacrifices. He doesn't come out and say, "you wicked, pontificating, hypocritical, sucky people."

Maybe a different title would be a better balance of the two. It's not wrong to come out and call someone on their sin, especially as Christian to Christian, but how you do it can be just as sinful.

In the words of my friend Josh
::shrug::

August 28, 2006


jovial_cynic said:
It's true that Paul was a bit more compassionate in his letters to the churches regarding their wrong doing. But on the other hand, Christ did not hold back in his words against the Pharisees.

I'm not comparing myself to Christ, by any means, but I'm saying that the two circumstances might draw two different appropriate responses. Maybe Paul used soft words because the church was young, and Christ used harsh words because the Pharisees, who had been established for quite a while, should have known better. Today, we have mega-churches that are well-established, and perhaps I feel that they should know better. Likewise, the Prophets didn't hold back their words against Israel after they had been established either...

August 29, 2006


Luke said:
I totally agree about mega-churches being held accountable. That, certainly, is something we are called to do as Christians. And Christians should know better than to spread false truth or images that convey a different gospel than the one the apostles preached.

Christ spoke from His being God, and the authority He spoke with was felt throughout as evidenced by earlier scriptures from His childhood on. We don't speak from the same authority, but given the proper circumstances I think it is appropriate at times to lash out like Christ may have.

In any event debating our authority is a side-issue. The main issue to me is placing your idea against what the Spirit is telling you. It can't be a wooden response.

The idea is not a bad one, I think it can be a good one if done with the appropriate measure of spirit & truth.

If your sole intent is to bash churches you don't like, I perceive that it would be poor example of what we as Christians are called to do. Just because I don't like one type of church, doesn't mean that another person couldn't be blessed by God in the place that they're in.

However if your intent would be to carefully and prayerfully evaluate different churches and give your honest impressions balanced with an understanding that all churches might have something to offer, it might be a good thing.

How sad would it be if someone came across your site and read an evaluation of a church they were thinking about attending and decided not to because of your personal impression, rather than attending and possibly being blessed by God (in whatever way He intends {meeting a future spouse, specific prophetic word meeting a need, becoming established in an accepting community, etc...}).

It's a thought that I think you should consider. Balance is the key to just about everything in life. I don't think this would be an exception.

August 29, 2006


jovial_cynic said:
I think you're right. I wasn't actually thinking about making that site, though... that was just me ranting.

As a side note, surely you don't believe that my negative review of a church could thwart the will of God, right? A specific prophetic word doesn't come by chance encounter, but rather by the will of God.

August 30, 2006


add comments. you are limited to 5,000 characters:

<< your name
<< your email (won't be displayed)
<< your website / location
<< type these numbers: 729335 (plus 0NE)

(html -enabled- / no scripts)

<< Comments temporarily disabled >>

Rules: Don't spam. Don't harrass. Don't be a jerk. Your IP address (54.166.89.1) will be logged.