[SpeakersCorner]

The churches in the Midwest have been going through a period of self-examination, I believe, or maybe vision-examination would be a better word. They are at as many places in this process as there are churches. Uniformity is not the codeword here.

Most, maybe all, are happy that the LSM drew the line in the sand. It was liberating. But like liberating a housecat into a life in the wild, there are perils. Some are stepping cautiously into the new world. Some hover near other houses (to continue my cat into the wild metaphor) where it appears more safe. None that I know of has any inclination to return to the LSM fold.

Let me leave the metaphor and be more clear. A few churches here have questioned the whole no name business. Some have adopted names like "XX Christian Fellowship." This has caused some debate among the churches but it has been friendly and open. I have heard no condemnation.

Some have experimented with raising up new churches according to models used by Rick Warren and others: doing surveys, being seeker-based, having Sunday a.m. services that are short, modern, and friendly. Longstanding practices like having communion every week have been altered in some locations ... but certainly not all. Music, a big sticking point in the debate with the LSMers earlier, has broadened and now it is not uncommon for churches to use drums, have a band of some sorts, and sing a mix of contemporary praise songs as well as hymns from the old hymnal. But there is no standard practice regarding music: churches are definitely all over the map on music.

Our theology has not changed too much but the WL worship is gone. The ground of the church doctrine is under review in some places (not all). Long time saints still call on the Lord audibly in meetings and in their personal lives but this practice has definitely diminished. Young folks don't cotton to it. The youth conferences (Ignite, Mountaintop) which caused so much consternation, are still going on with attendance staying strong but not quite as high as at its peak. Of course, the loss of whole churches from the pool (like Chicago) is the biggest reason for this. But the novelty is off which is both a good and bad thing.

Numberswise, I think the general attendance in meetings in the Midwest churches is holding fairly steady. But it has dropped off in some churches that were hardest hit by the "storm." I know of at least two churches where growth is definitely occurring.

We continue to have regional conferences once or twice a year and attendance seems to be as high as ever. The speaking in the conferences is sometimes old school, sometimes new. By that I mean it is sometimes long, sometimes short and punchy. It depends on the speaker. The level of "anointing," in my view, is still very high, perhaps higher than a few years back before all the controversy. This entire controversy has opened up areas of the Bible in new ways.

The LSMers will use as proof that we in the Midwest were rebels and wrong if the churches here fail. That was the argument they used against the 80's "storm" with Ingalls and company. "Look at the fruit," they say. It is a legitimate yardstick ... as long as we can all agree on what the yardstick looks like and what it is saying. My yardstick includes a section that evaluates the amount of liberating truth that is coming out of the ministry. A stagnant message, ritualistic repetition of previous insights is not a good outcome. In this, we in the Midwest kick the LSM's butt all over the parking lot. But by their accounting, they have the anointing because they continue to commune with the deceased WL. (I yearn for the time when he actually appears and says, "Why have you disquieted me from my slumber?" But I digress.)

I guess you could sum up my view of things like this. The Midwest churches are in dangerous territory, perhaps a wilderness. They could fail. The LSM churches are in safe territory and will probably "succeed" if by success you mean continue for another four hundred years. But it's Babylon.

One last anecdote. A leading brother from Chicago recently reportedly said, "You churches under TC are a denomination." I laughed out loud when I heard that one. It's wrong on so many levels. First, we're not under TC. Second, we have less denominational traits than back in the good old days. We don't all even have the same name anymore. We have no institutional benefits. And third, look who's talking. A member of the group with a headquarters, a seminary, and an army of cardinals (but no pope yet).

The above represents my view only. Like all reports on any subject, it is biased and subjective. Some here will likely dispute aspects of it. I haven't been to every church in the area and some of my information is secondhand. But I think I'm pretty close to the reality of the situation.


SC