Comments on: Mere Churchianity: A Friendly Critique

By: mason

mason — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:45:48 +0000

let me be clear…i have not read the book, but will get a copy today, so my comments may change..i read and listened to Michael for 8 yrs. as a pastor of a small rural church i sympathize with a lot of what Michael had to say. my problem with this review is that i think it totally misses the point of Michael’s ministry. Michael remained in the church all of his life. He pastored, attempted a house church and attended a local church. One of his great sadness was when Denise joined the Catholic Church and they could no longer in good conscious worship together. Does not sound like a man who hated or despised the church. It sounds like a man who despeised man made institutions that tear apart the family instead of nurture the family. Michasel loved the Church and desired for it to be everything that Jesus dreamed for it to be. For people to use the tired old reasoning that the Church will never be perfect b/c it is made up of imperfect people is simply an excuse for laziness and control/power. do you not think that Michael has heard that one before? i mean that is the excuse that every pastor uses to cover up and make excuses for the evangelical circus.

Michael’s call was and always will be to call not only individuals to Jesus but the Church back to Jesus and repent of “pastor as comedian” or worship leader as entertainer. The Church must point to Jesus the author and perfector of our faith. When the Church does not do this it ceases being the Church and we have a right to leave, b/c we are leaving a man made institution and not the Church. Michael never left the true Church just poor imitations and ridiculous circuses that called themselves a church.

as some have mentioned Michael had a particular audience in mind for this book. as any exegete will tell you, when reading literature you need to understand the author’s intent. Michael’s intent was to bring healing to those who had left and to encourage those who were thinking about it to understanding that they are not alone. that the hope of the world is not the Church…but Jesus..that is a message we all need to get back to….

By: C Michael Patton

C Michael Patton — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:37:53 +0000

Thanks Trevin for the review. Very interesting. I look forward to reading the book if I get time.

By: Curvy Catholic :-)

Curvy Catholic :-) — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:43:47 +0000

Hmmm … interesting thought, David. Perhaps someone else will write that book. I’d read it!

By: david carlson

david carlson — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:23:48 +0000

still waiting for my dead tree version – but did re-read the 1st chapter which is online

It seems that if you start with the premise, which was Micheal’s, the intended reader are those which have already left the church. It is how he starts out the introduction, it is his intended audience. His argument is the church (local) often sucks, he understands why you left, but this is the truth about Jesus and if you focus on that you can come back to him.

Perhaps his next book would be on a Jesus shaped church….

By: Curvy Catholic :-)

Curvy Catholic :-) — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:34:06 +0000

P.S. my apologies, TREVIN!!! (reading comprehension without morning coffee = < 0 !!!)

By: Curvy Catholic :-)

Curvy Catholic :-) — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:33:00 +0000

Hi, Lewis – just found your blog while searching for reviews of Michael’s book, which I read when it came out on the Kindle. You’re 100% right that he would NOT want anyone to hesitate to criticise his work just because he’s died. And I do understand your criticism because I loved the book, but it left me wondering just what exactly the reader’s response should be: leave their church? stay? or [option 3 unknown]? I personally think the best answer is just to stay where you are (unless your church is horribly abusive), and ask the Lord to help you get closer to Him in whatever tradition you’re following. But maybe the people Michael is talking to are those who are about to leave church, period – to help them know that it’s OK to do so, for a while, as long as they don’t give up on Jesus. I dunno – it’s a confusing topic, huh? But to make a long post a little shorter, I did like your review!

By: Bob Myers

Bob Myers — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:39:00 +0000

Looking forward to reading the book. But even before reading it, I am thankful for this review for its balance and its push back when it comes to leaving the church. Great points, well stated.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:36:05 +0000

Thanks, Trevin, for nicely reviewing Spencer’s book that, among other things, addresses the sad but real pain and wounds that too many Christians experience in church.

I agree with Trevin that staying in a church of wounding people, such as domineering authoritarian inflexible leaders/elders (who often have no clue that they are wounding you or others) would oftentimes be very good for our own sanctification, so that we might even “love our enemies” in our own church congregation or denomination.

But I also agree with Michael Spencer that leaving a church that is causing you to lose your joy in Christ may not necessarily be a bad thing, especially if the leadership keep insisting on their “wounding” ways. (Of course, they think they’re always right, and you’re always wrong!) The only proviso would be that one does not leave with bitterness, resentment, anger, unforgiveness, a spirit of revenge or retaliation.

Historically, Christians have stayed or left their original church/denomination/affiliation. The Pilgrims left. The Puritans stayed. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones left. John Stott stayed.

Whether we leave or stay, we should commit the decision to God with much soul searching prayer, pray for God to lead us, even discipline us, for our good, so that He might use us for His glory and His kingdom. Also, whether we leave or stay, we should do so with the spirit of love, joy and peace with God and with the people in the church we leave.

By: Tim Valentino

Tim Valentino — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:59:03 +0000

Spot on, Trevin. Many thanks. This paragraph, I think, is virtually unassailable:

“Let’s engage in a bit of logic. If churches are organized groups of these messed up, broken, dysfunctional people, why in the world would we expect the church to always live up to some unattainably high ideal? I’m not saying we shouldn’t shoot high. I’m not saying we should be satisfied with Christless churches. But surely Michael should give groups of broken people (churches) the same patience he gives individual broken people.”

Somebody needed to say it.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:49:18 +0000

Trevin,
Thanks for your review. I haven’t read the book yet, but I do believe I understand where Michael was coming from and what he was trying to say. I am of a different mindset then you. I think what his book is really saying is the Western Church has really become a religious organization rather than a community of believers brought together to bring God’s Kingdom to earth. Jesus ridiculed the church of His day because of the religion. Jesus never intended for “Christianity” to become a religion, in fact I think He would probably disagree with the title that has His name. He wanted to draw all people into relationship with His Father. See when we talk about the church now, we talk about an organization. “Are you going to church?” “See you at church next week.” The church was never meant to be a building or a place, but is you and me in fellowship with one another.

I appreciate Michael’s viewpoint as I had left a church that I had been “born and raised in” and for the first time in my life actually had a vibrant relationship with my Heavenly Father because I didn’t have the “church” to rely on. I had to seek God for myself and I had to read about Him through His Word. And although I am now in a church I appreciate and wouldn’t change the year-long journey that God took me on.