Gen X is making all the same mistakes as the Boomers they so glibly deride. Anyone remember the Jesus freaks of the early 70s? Ex-hippies who maybe had bad acid experiences found Jesus while hanging on to their long hair, dashikis and communes. Same damn thing.

Community is a good thing. People need love and to feel they belong. That is not the problem. Sorry, I cannot fall for the poor religious folk routine.

So, you are a hypocrit if you don't accept the ideas of fundamentalist religions, there are others besides American Christians, whose common premise is that all other religious ideas are fundamentally wrong? O.K. On the other hand, you are a hypocrit if you do bad things, like vote for Bush, and claim that you are religious.

How is this going to work? How can we all be converted by either logic or faith?

The dilemma here can only be solved by...ending the world!?!?!

It is easy to discover the unsolvable situations that face our world or to find answers in religious texts. Don't fool yourself.

As a former cultist I am very concerned for the people of this group. I know first hand the danger of wifely submition. Frankly, my blood ran cold as I read this article. Thankfully there are resources to help people when they leave out of balanced groups like this. Wellsprings Retreat and Resource in Athen Ohio will be waiting when some of them realize what they are really apart of.

Katie B writes:

"Some of us have found and maintained satisfying, deep, caring relationships within faith communities, we walk in church confident individuals and walk out confident individuals who enjoy the fellowship of others."

Thats great. You gloss over the fact that often this fellowship people feel with others in church is based on the premise that they are the chosen people and are living the only truth, based on some persons interpretation of an ancient text. You are already part of a communtiy, unless you live in isolation. I don't understand the need for the creation of another one. How is this segregation good for the whole community? That is my point.

"And as for your "...can't logically think of a way to solve their problems without submitting some patriarchal answer god" comment: There are millions of people outside of churches, believing in no god, who can't logically solve their problems either. Thus the plight of man, but it sounds like somehow you're enlightened, so please, do tell.

I don't think our problems will be solved with religion. Personally, I don't even understand the impulse. I think it is a huge distraction. I simply don't get it. If you think that is arrogant then so be it. We do have answers to our problems so why not spend our energy on what we can fix, instead of bickering about the unknowable.

Shannon KH

Mars Hill, so far as I know, is non-denominational. Like Willow Creek is non-denominational (or the more pc way "interdenominational"). No, I am not equating Mars with Willow - they are very very different churches. But both are non-denom places.

Or as the Mars Hill (Seattle) ministry likes to put it "evangelical missional".

You could easily throw around the terms "Emergent/Emerging" and Calvinist to describe them as well. The biggest Emerging Calvinist group I can think of is Sovereign Grace churches. And tho there are some similarities, I don't think they come from RCA (Reformed Church).

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this. My memory of Christian denominations isn't as sharp as it used to be. I -love- it when people throw around terms like "fundamentalist" or "evangelical" and have -no- idea of the complexities involved - so thank you for asking.

I just spent time reading Driscoll's blog. Not to be simplistic or reductive, and certainly this doesn't explain everything, but I think Our Friend has a bit too many issues about hyper-masculinity. I read several posts, and he often has to mention being a man, or snarks about 'limp wrists.' Plus he has a link to some gladiator-type television show, with a pic of the hero in leather gladiator gear.

I'm just sayin'.

MP Sherwin, I totally agree! My knowledge of the taxonomy of denominations is not complete, but there are certain dividing lines that a lot of people aren't aware of that are bigger than whether the denom is biblical literalist -- or, well, OK, at least as big.

One of them is over infant baptism. I think (not sure) partly this goes back to original sin. This is big! This is where Baptists got their name--against infant baptism. I don't think Mars Hill practices infant baptism. I think that serves to narrow down the possibilities of the traditions from which they may have come.

I don't think Presbyterian practices infant baptism either. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

One of the big dividing lines is over church organization. Some denominations have bishops who can tell them what to do. Some denominations are real big on local congregation rule. This is where Presbyterians got their name. Presbyter means Elder (local congregation, not a bishop) This is big! Mars Hill church is big on elders.

One of the big dividing lines is the denomination's history and how far away they branched off Catholicism. (Apologies to the Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian or some I don't even know about who are left out of this part.) Which big theologian in the 16th or 17th century did their antecedents follow? Calvin, Knox (a big woman-hater, I am told) or the church of England (Methodist branched off Church of England, then Nazarene and Holiness off Methodist) Nazarene is Biblical literalist as far as I know, and strict fundamentalist, but their history is very different from Baptist who branched off the Dissenters. I don't fully know what Dissenters are but Baptists I believe are counted as having come from Dissenters. Puritans were Dissenters.

A lot of the megachurches and "non-denominational" churches are really Assembly of God. Assembly of God came late to the party and has only been around about 100 years. They are holy ro-I mean charismatics (believe in spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues) and from what I can tell, Mars Hill Church does not believe in that. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

There are two kinds of charismatics. A fun kind who can wear makeup, dance, and as far as I know are gay-friendly (Tammy Faye!) Then there's the John Ashcroft kind. Very different! but it doesn't show on the surface. People see holy ro- I mean charismatics and think they're all the John Ashcroft vein.

Another difference between denominations is whether they take Revelation literally. Few people know this, but the "Rapture" and "Millennium" and "End times" and Israel has to rebuild the temple before the Second Coming was considered a fringe thing even among fundamentalists 30 years ago. It has gained popularity for whatever reason, and nowadays it seems like all fundamentalists believe that but they don't. church of Christ and ICOC (Kip McKean cult) would never talk about the "End times," Armageddon etc. They don't believe in it. Assembly of God do. A lot of the evangelicals now in ascendance in politics do.

OK I'm obviously going to appear crazy that I care so much about the difference between denominations, but part of my point is that what used to be a small fringe segment of even fundamentalists, premillenials and charismatics, have become synonymous with almost all of Christianity. Just in the last few years. That's a small part of Christianity, but it's all that seems to get notice right now. Except this "Emergent" stuff and I guess from the article they are Premillenial but not charismatic. (not sure.) You can attend a mainline denomination all year and hear all about how to live a Christian life and help the poor and not be resentful and mean and hateful and never hear one word about Armageddon, etc. It seems a lot of people don't know this because the news is always all about the premillenial and charismatic evangelicals. I suppose this is what chaps my hide.

Another big dividing line is "Once Saved Always Saved." Baptists and Presbyterians believe that. Church of Christ and Methodists do not. This goes back to some theologian named Arminus, I think. The denominations that believe "Once saved always saved" sometimes have little else in common. They can be fundie or not fundie. This is one of Calvin's 5 points...it is very important to Presbyterians.

Now back to Mars Hill. I looked at their Doctrinal Statement and I think they are Calvinist. I don't know enough about the Reformed or PCUSA or Orthodox Presbyterian to know how close they are but they don't seem to holy roll. They do take the Bible literally.

They say Total Depravity and saved by faith and Eternal Security on their Doctrinal Statement. While most "nondenominational" or "Interdenominational" churches are pretty close to Assembly of God or Bible Church, I believe because of "Total Depravity" and "Eternal Security" that Mars Hill is some kind of Calvinist.

From listening to Mars Hill's podcast, they are VERY scary strict though. They can dress hip and have cool music but they teach that if you got divorced you probably picked the wrong person and that's a good indication you can't be trusted on selection of a mate. They are all Sinner Sinner Sinner!!!!! Did you repent! did you repent! Get their podcast on divorce! They sure are big on things like that--a clue to me that Driscoll and many of their followers are hurting from topics like broken families of origin. You can tell from what they emphasize over a series of their sermons.

Hope this has been entertaining and hope someone else can add to the taxonomy of evangelicals.