Much of the right side of the church relies too much on tradition for the sake of tradition and not tradition based upon the bible. I have no problems with tradition in and of itself. I think traditions can be very stabilizing, but they are not on par with with scripture.
I think many in the center want to avoid controversy and be broadly appealing. In their attempt to do so they break down the gospel to the most simplistic grounds and never develop an understanding of how the bible speaks to all aspects of life.
I think much of the left have the same concern as the center and desire to be relevant to society. My fear is that much of the left has abandoned the gospel altogether and ignores what scripture plainly teaches. The left want to be compassionate, but they surrender the truth.
I think this sums up my initial intuition as to why a TypologyCentral "church service" is never going to work.
There is a reason we have various denoms/parachurch orgs, and it's because in matters of scriptural interpretation and worship, people disagree strongly sometimes... and in terms of practice, people can't suck things up in a way that violates their religious conscience.
So perhaps religious interpretation/discussion threads can occur, but not a real "church service" per se; the act of filtering out the specifics of various beliefs will result in a general hodgepodge of religious thought and practice that still only appeal to one segment of the group.
Maybe we'll actually find a way to improve the Body of Christ somehow! (All in good faith of course.)
People have been trying to improve the Body of Christ for centuries.
...But we can't even agree on practical application of the word "love"
(especially in regards to behavior that one Christian might consider immoral and another does not.)
I think each generation needs to have fighters, who catalyze discussion and change, but you'd be better prepared to go the long haul and feel fulfilled in a role where you are a "voice calling from the wilderness." (And I'm not even trying to be pessimistic, just realistically this is what catalyzing voices have to deal with regardless of whether they are left or right of middle.)
1. The most disheartening thing about Christianity today is how artificially big, dysfunctional, and unloving it has become. Denominationalism has created dogmatism, clerical abuse of power, and inter-Christian conflict that distracts believers from helping our communities while simultaneously making us the laughing stock of the secular world. Compared to the intimate house churches of the first-century Christians, the outward structure of our modern faith is unrecognizable.
I think focusing on the personal intimate relationships would be far more productive than trying to inflict changes on a large public scale through the political arena, but there is a difference in methodology there that has to be overcome. Conservatism is used to being the "standard" in American culture and politics maybe up to the 1950's or so, and then things started to shift; conservatism by nature wants to maintain things as they are. A new conservatism won't be reflecting a multicultural society for years to come, maybe by the time Gen Y comes into true political/cultural power. (Right now we're still in the declining years of the Boomer phase, and Gen X is really starting to grab the reins.)
2. Society is always changing, and at least in America, it has seemed particularly malleable since 9/11. If this openness to change is just as true for groups within a society as it is for the society itself, now may very well be the time to finish what Martin Luther started: a return to faith based not in buildings or titles, but in relationships and love.
It's something to work for, but I'm more amazed at how 9/11 only really created a pendulum swing back in the other direction so quickly. The more change that occurs, the more resistance that will be raised.
Luther had his own issues (including self-flagellation), even if theologically his ideas were more sound. Even when we participate in transcendent ideas, we have trouble incorporating them in realistic ways into our own personal lives.
Yes Christ came to fulfill the Old Convenant, and upon his sacrifice it was fufilled and then on the new covenant took effect, as he himself stated:
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."
Luke 22:19-20
Pretty much, I'm not sure why there is an argument on this point. And then aside from Jesus' comments, we get books like Hebrews talking about Jesus being the heir of Melchizadek, the legendary Jewish high priest, and thus drawing Old and New Covenant together as one.
I also remember his desperate attempt to prove that the Rapture is a major element of Christian thinking, despite the fact I pointed out that only Dispensationalists believe in it and is not found in any other Christian sect, and that before the 19th century no theologian ever talked of such a thing.
Ironic -- I just looked up Dispensationalism last week in a discussion with someone else, and I agree with you. I happened to be raised in groups that were Dispensationalist or on the fringes of the heated Rapture debates (although at the time I just thought they were representative of all Christians), so it's sort of refreshing when I had realized there were portions of the Church that just really didn't get hung up on it.
I think the popularization of the Left Behind series (by Dispensationalist Tim LaHaye -- ironically again, of "four temperament/humor" personality theory) made the Rapture seem far more pervasive in Christianity than it is actually treated. At the church I last went to, the clergy regularly avoided the topic (as not as pertinent to anything), but a preponderance of the members personally seemed absorbed in it.