Julie Neidlinger recently wrote a post on her blog/journal (www.Loneprairie.net ) called “Why I walked out of church”. Julie writes with amazing transparency, and in a very penetrating way, about her disenchantment with what she has seen in modern evangelicalism, including the wannabe trendy genre of “doing church”. Her post obviously has resonated with many folks, and irritated some as well. “Why I walked out” has become a frequently cited post in many circles, including a Reformed blog that reprinted her post in its entirety because the moderator thought it had much to say to his audience of pastors and seminiarians. Julie’s discussion of why she walked out may strike you in a variety of ways.
Some, who read her post in a somewhat superficial way will come away saying “she’s just another bitter, unhappy, can’t-be-pleased person”. Read it again. Slowly, thoughtfully.
Some will read the post and find what they may believe is a blanket endorsement for traditionalism per se, or a penchant for legalistic judgementalism. Read it again. Slowly, thoughtfully.
This post was originally written by Julie in response to a NextGen Worship article in World Magazine. Understandably, Julie recoiled, as would I, at what she calls “the Christian version of annoying hipsters, an overly-studied and homogenized “with-it” faux coolness”.
Julie’s got a way with words that may stun you with her candor. I happen to resonate with much of what she says…not all of course, but an awful lot. If you want to peer into the heart of a 30-ish sister in Christ who’s stuggling with what she sees around her in the panoply of church misfires, read her post carefully and thoughtfully, and listen to her heart.
Here you go. Read it here and come back with your thoughts.
Filed under: Christianity, Culture, Ecclesiology, Emerging Church, Theology
This young woman needs to be heard. She is not supposed to exist, but she does. Couple of quotes from her struck me:
Churches, sadly, usually catch the fad too late–on the tail end–and end up coming across just as Julie describes.
Now this post is not about what we wear to worship. No. It is about young people being different–no, wait, being the same. Julie obviously sees right through it. Sad that so many others don’t seem to see themselves being catered to and marketed to.
In an attempt to be “relevant” to the culture, they have rendered themselves “irrelevant.”
In an attempt to be “different,” they have become the “same.”
Ever read some of their blogs? Listened to some of their sermons? Visited their church websites? Cookie cutter religion at its finest… or should I say worst? They can even purchase their sermons series complete with power point visuals. No need to study the Word, just regurgitate what your sermon notes, which came in a box delivered by UPS, say verbatim.
You can recognize these churches by what their next sermon series is entitled:
Desperate Households
LOST (don’t get me wrong, I love the show, but think it makes terrible sermon material)
Best Sex Life Ever…
These same churches often assault your mailbox with fliers promoting their next “coooooool” series. I emailed one of these churches after receiving such garbage. I asked the pastor where “Jesus” was in all of their production. Not one word on the flier about Jesus, God, Church, or the Bible. It was all about drinking free Starbuck’s Coffee, dressing casually, and listening to a “rocking” praise band.
Suffice it to say, the response I received was a little scathing. The word judgmental and judging was thrown around a bit.
While I would have chosen some of my words differently than the above author (I just can’t promote expletives or disgusting slang), I can totally concur with what this woman wrote.
Two thoughts.
1. I doubt seriously that the ‘churches’ she is ranting about are really churches at all.
2. I hear in her no talk from a person who is genuinely seeking her Savior, and I saw no desire from her to actually commune with the bride of her Savior.
While she certainly has valid observations of many of the typical Purpose-Driven ‘churches’ out there today, what she says she misses from her small-town church doesn’t seem to have anything to do with worshiping in spirit and in truth…it seems to be all about preferences and externals.
I would take her more seriously as a ’sister in Christ’, as you call her, if I had read anything at all in her comments about her desire for Christ, and that not finding Him in the churches she was attending was the real reason why she left instead of because of her dislike for the way things were structured.
In fact, unless I missed it, she never even mentions Christ in the whole article.
Does the junk she mentions take place in so-called churches all across the country…absolutely. Does that give her justification to walk away from the true church of Christ…never.
I would also be curious to hear her explain the gospel, because I fear she may not know it.
To clarify, then, when she titles her post, ‘Why I Walked Out of Church’, she is only referring to A church and not THE church?
There’s a big difference, to be sure, because many of us have either walked out of a church before for the same reasons as she, or have just never gone back to that same church again.
What of her understanding of the gospel and love for Christ and desire to be with the saints? I do not have time to run down through the comments of her post, so I don’t know if she expresses any of that there or not.
Thank you for the link; this is a continuation of some very interesting discussion.
Without sound defensive, I want to say, regarding this: “I hear in her no talk from a person who is genuinely seeking her Savior, and I saw no desire from her to actually commune with the bride of her Savior.”
…you couldn’t be more wrong. Do not make such a judgment call. You can interpret the post in question as necessary, and get after me for language and inconsistencies, I guess, but please do not say that about me and my faith; you have very little to go on to make such a statement. I have a very large site with many blogs, and you will find Christ and my faith woven into much of it, particularly in the “blog” and “studies” links. I don’t claim perfection or a perfectly controlled tempter, but above else, I love and long to serve Jesus very much.
But again, thanks for the mention here on your blog.
Julie,
Thank you for stopping by and commenting. I have found your post very instructive and much needed. Your blog is excellent and quite varied. Well done. And I for one, have not at all questioned your faith. Heck, I don’t even know you and surely cannot make such a judgment based on one post.
Many blessings.
Les
(That would be “temper” and not “tempter”, lest this devolve into a discussion on the Jezebel spirit.)
Granger Church is much like the ones that have been discussed here. You can even buy your sermons from them. They just did a study on their membership.
I may get these numbers wrong; I am blonde….
47% of their membership do not believe in salvation by grace.
57% of their membership do not believe in the authority of the Bible.
The rest of the statistics can be found at http://www.alittleleaven.com.
I’m going to work my way through Julie’s post again. But right away I thought she was on the money about something that bothers me as well, even in “Reformed” churches.
When she says, “What I’m saying is that I can’t stand the phoniness, or trendiness, or sameness — or whatever I’m trying to say here — that the church seems to catch onto at the tail end, not even aware of how lame it is. The fact that this is not only actually successful in appealing to people, but attracts them, also disgusts me.”
You know “Reformed” folks are always behind the times. I don’t know why we sometimes even try to emulate the modern “happening” church. Presbyterians and Lutherans shouldn’t even try to be cutting edge, because by the time we do, it’s obvious…we weren’t.
Great post. I’m chewing on it some more.
If I see another cool Bible college student or pastoral studies major wearing the hemp choker necklace, flip-flops, open-at-the-collar shirt that’s untucked, and baggy jeans, saying words like “dude” and “sweet”, I will kick their ass.
THAT is hysterical. I’m rolling in my office chair (which isn’t easy to do on carpet mind you).
Oops, I commented under the wrong name.
If I see another cool Bible college student or pastoral studies major wearing the hemp choker necklace, flip-flops, open-at-the-collar shirt that’s untucked, and baggy jeans, saying words like “dude” and “sweet”, I will kick their ass.
THAT is hysterical. I’m rolling in my office chair (which isn’t easy to do on carpet mind you).
Why is it that she can threaten to kick another Christian’s a#$, and you call it candor, and I point out what is missing in the article you invited all to read and respond to, and I’m uncharitable?
As I said before, I based my reply on this ONE article which you linked to. I have NOTHING else of this person. I merely read the article you linked, and based my reply on that one post. You may have had other background on her in addition to this one post…I did not.
You asked for opinions, and I gave you mine. But, I guess the only opinions which are acceptable are the ones which agree with you and her (as I am the only one who has taken an opposing position). I was intentionally sharp with my comments because I saw her being extremely sharp with hers, and I was curious how my sharp comments would be received in light of how her sharp remarks were received.
You praise her, but apologize for me. You look past her immature use of language (and I get the feeling many here even consider it cute and funny) and the utter lack of the presence of any talk on her part about the real reason for going to church, and yet my honest look at this article gets labeled in such a negative fashion.
Even Julie, on her blog, took offense at what I said. Why is it that she can speak of other professing Christians the way she did in the article, and yet I can’t even ask a few pointed questions of her and take note of what was missing in the piece?
Brian, here it is in plain language:
You are welcome to comment on the post. You are not welcome to comment on the person writing it.
So, instead of falling into the pattern of some other commenters on other blogs that featured this post of mine, who chose to say I was bitter, some kind of old hag or something, and whatever else they could come up with, you could comment strictly on the post (which you did in some places) and what I said and did not say instead of delving ever so slightly into your personal take on my faith in Christ or anything else about me that you CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW.
Talk about the topic.
I am not the topic.
You noted what was missing in the piece, but also topped it off making a statement about my salvation. There is no need to question my salvation. If I were unsaved and wrote the post, would it have any less message? Why is it necessary to say that you see no evidence of a person seeking after Christ? Is that a prerequisite for discussing topics of the church? Is it?
This is a disgusting thing I see on all blogs, this tendency towards veering from the topic at hand — the message — and going after the messenger.
I appreciate the apology on my blog; it certainly wasn’t expected nor necessary. I’ve long grown accustomed to the “blessed interaction” any post on religious topics tends to bring forth from fellow Christians, so I really was not terribly put out. But thank you for being so considerate and taking responsibility for comments on your blog; it is unusual and refreshing.
Ok,
Let’s talk about what was missing in the post, then.
There was no mention at all about the real purpose for going to church…worship. Why was that? Why was the main thing for gathering together as the body of Christ not even a part of the equation in what was said about all the trendy hipster dufuses in the article?
What I saw in the article was an opinion regarding, yes, a great problem in many assemblies of people who claim to call themselves a church, but those are only the symptoms of the real problem…they are not worshiping in spirit and in truth. They are NOT the church!
How’s that for candor?
Julie, you said it was YOUR own inability to fit that forced you to leave the church. Why could you not fit with them? Was it because of doctrine or something else? If you are Christ’s, the answer is because places like that are not true churches.
The only thing churches like that attract are the world, and I pray that is why you were so repulsed…not because of their attempt to be trendy and ‘with it’…but because they are NOT the Bride of Christ.
That’s what was missing in your article.
BTW, have you joined a healthy, Bible-believing, God-honoring church yet? I pray that you have.
I have answered your identical comment over on my studies blog, Brian. In case you have a bit of last-word-itis, I will say that I now bow out of the discussion; I have more pressing things I need to study and focus my attention on right now than responding to the random questions of a person I do not know. I believe I’ve said all I can say on the matter. Thanks for the discussion.
“Let’s talk about what was missing in the post, then.”
Brian, I have largely stayed out of this, but feel the need to respond.
First, I do believe that Julie is fully capable of defending herself.
Second, I also believe you were out of line to question Julie’s salvation and spirituality.
Third, to the quote from you above, you don’t get to define the content or purpose of her post. You have missed what I think she was trying to point out–namely the failings of the horizontal aspect of the church. I don’t think she was attempting a treatise on the church in totality.
“There was no mention at all about the real purpose for going to church…worship. Why was that? Why was the main thing for gathering together as the body of Christ not even a part of the equation in what was said about all the trendy hipster dufuses in the article?” SEE THIRD ABOVE.
“Julie, you said it was YOUR own inability to fit that forced you to leave the church. Why could you not fit with them? Was it because of doctrine or something else? If you are Christ’s, the answer is because places like that are not true churches.”
Brian, again you are making judgments on something you cannot possibly have knowledge about. To say that the church she walked out of, even with some problems, is not a true church? YOU can’t know that. You really ought not make judgments with such limited knowledge. You went on to declare that they “are NOT the Bride of Christ.” Strong statement from someone who really knows nothing about that church.
Whatever you think was missing in her article is surely your opinion which you are entitled to. However, again, you are presuming on her intentions in writing the article and arguing from silence as to the validity of her post.
I, along with Randy, was glad to apologize to Julie, even if she was not expecting it. But in my opinion, you should be the one apologizing for questioning her spirituality.
Brian, also:
This sort or “baiting” which you have done before is unbecoming a Christian brother.
With all that, comments are closed.