I'm always interested when I see people critical of a church based on one impression. I too would hate a church that didn't use the Bible, but this guys blog post demonstrates someone hopelessly caught up in dogmatic analysis of churches.
For example, his lone impression of Harvest Bible Chapel, which he bashes for not using the bible, is based on a one-time attendence of the Good Friday service. First, you can never base any church's standard liturgy or lack their of on a holiday service. That would be the equivalent of basing your view of a church on the Christmas cantata. "They sing too much... didn't use the Bible." Hogwash... it's called special events. Go on a typical Sunday morning and then report back to me. Second, the lack of a "Bible thumping" sermon on a special event is not indicative of an anti-Bible stance. This point is an expansion of the previous point and no less obvious.
And small groups are bad because they make little cell churches.... :)
There is room for analysis of churches, but it's based on their doctrine and not personal opinions on church methodology. I've attended churches of all sizes from 20 to 8000 and God uses each of them and none of them are perfect.
backpewmusings - What does 'Bible Church' mean anymore?
"Back in those days (the late '80s and early '90s), going to a Bible church usually guaranteed you several things: A DTS grad as a pastor, an emphasis on dispensationalism and an unabashed diet of expository preaching, which was usually fairly sound and pretty Christ-centered."
ReplyDeleteWell, at least we're better than his general impression of bible churches.