One of my favorite shows right now is The Good Place. Not surprisingly, it inspires some interesting discussions about how faith is depicted on TV, and how that reflects on our national view of God.
Speaking of faith and culture, a few weeks ago I mentioned that there are certain moral absolutes that transcend all cultures. Here’s a take on this from a decidedly non-Christians perspective.
Switching back to the Church and entertainment, how about a church that focuses exclusively on reaching into the House of Mouse? Meet the pastor who answers the question, What happens when you plant a church only for Walt Disney World employees?
Also on the church-planting front, what would happen if a Baptist church started an Anglican congregation?
Finally, this isn’t an article, but rather an extended Facebook post on the concept of Spritual but not Religious. It’s by one of my favorite Christian thinkers, Leonard Sweet, and he doesn’t take a positive view:
I used to hear “I’m spiritual, just not religious” as the positive yearnings of people looking for deeper experiences of faith than they were finding in specific religious traditions. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that “I’m spiritual, just not religious” can be one of the most condescending and colonialist not to mention godless statements anyone can utter. What that phrase has come to mean is that you arrogate to your individual advantage those juicy portions of religious traditions you find appetizing, and brush aside the remainder as unprofitable and unworthy of your palate. “Spiritual-but-not-religious” is an act of goddifying self at worst, consumerist tourism at best, as one wanders the aisles of the supermarket of religions and picks out this and that as mementos of one’s visit and as stray morsels one may want to consume for oneself without respect for their origin or commitment to their context. “Spiritual-but-not-religious” treats religions as brands to be consumed, not belief-systems to be understood, or faith-traditions to be honored.