I had a vacation week this week and we were in town on Sunday and attended that church. The church scene in greater Santa Barbara is dominated by a couple of megachurches and it seems that the individual congregations go in and out of style. When I speak to the families whose children attend our nursery school and ask whether they're a part of a local religious community, about 1/2 say they attend whatever megachurch is in style at that time. The church we attended this morning is the in style church now and it showed. There was a line of cars waiting to get into the parking lot. The average age was significantly younger than Cambridge Drive and there were scores of pregnant women, toddlers, and kids. The sanctuary was very full.
This morning's experience felt authentic. I felt the genuineness of the worship leaders and deeply appreciated that. Signage was poor. A first time visitor could easily get lost in the shuffle but that is part and parcel of a megachurch. There were bits of the service that literally made no sense (communion was just weird), but the biggest problem for me was the sermon. The preacher spoke on John 12:27-33 and said the passage addressed two questions: why did the cross have to happen and what did the cross accomplish. The sermon was consistent with the statement of faith I read a bit over a year ago. The woman who spoke (yes, a woman) talked about the purity and justice of God requiring the death penalty and that Jesus "had to suffer for a day so we would not have to suffer for eternity." I'll let the logic behind some of the arguments go but the theological underpinnings I find really problematic.
The preacher presented the defining characteristic of God as being purity... and the purity is so pure that it is literally immiscible with the sinful nature of humanity. Why is the cross necessary according to the sermon? Because God's purity requires wrath and justice, which in the case of human sinfulness equals death and eternal punishment.
I found myself wondering how many of those young mothers would pour out wrath on their children regardless of what they had done. Earlier in the service, members were asked to share scripture passages that gave them comfort during difficult times and one quoted Matthew 7:9-11
9 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? 10 Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!You can see the inconsistency here... especially since these words were spoken by Jesus long before the cross.
Again, I found myself wondering how many of those in the congregation actually believe in a God whose wrath is so all consuming that the only answer is the death penalty or eternal agony... and if that penalty is meted out on one who is innocent, then all the better.
Sorry... that i not the God I believe in.
I would argue that the defining characteristic of God is love and that by its very nature love is never immiscible. Indeed, that is the very message of the incarnation. In my theology, God's love requires forgiveness and reconciliation not punishment. The cross is not punishment for human sin but the example of human sin and the example of love that goes so far as even to suffer. It is God reaching out to us no matter the cost.
Just like the other local megachurch we attended a few years ago, I found myself wondering why the folk are there. This one did feel authentic... at least it has that going for it and it is possible that much of the congregation actually agree with the theology that came from the pulpit this morning. On the other hand, if they do not believe that message... you can draw your own conclusions.