This just in from the Vatican: the Pope says the Catholic Church is still the only “true” church. In a document released yesterday, he answered a few questions about the Catholic Church’s teaching, including this one:

Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

Protestants, naturally, have a different view (see also the Westminster Larger Catechism, questions 62-65).

The only ones really upset about this paper are those devoted to ecumenism (unity among all Christian churches), who apparently don’t mind if the Pope believes the Roman church is the only true church as long as he doesn’t talk about it (a rather postmodern sentiment).

Many (mostly conservative) Protestant denominations are not surprised or especially bothered by the Pope’s declaration because it’s nothing new or surprising; he’s simply reiterating Catholic dogma that’s been around for centuries.

The article on the front page of the Journal Star today is about the traffic jams around Northwoods Community Church.  Riveting.

I think the most interesting paragraph in the story was this one:

Though it claims only 750 parishioners, attendance at Northwoods has soared to an average of 4,300 members over the last six weeks – 550 more than the count at the beginning of the year.

Isn’t it odd that they have such high attendance, but low commitment?  So many people willing to attend, despite major traffic inconvenience, but so few willing to commit themselves through formal church membership.

Northwoods models their church after Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois.  It’s a “seeker-sensitive” church model, which means that on weekends (Saturday night and Sunday morning) the services are geared toward reaching the unchurched.  The preaching doesn’t focus so much on doctrine and theology, but rather on the felt needs of the people they’re trying to reach.  They set aside Wednesday nights as the time to build up believers and have more “meaty” sermons and extended times of worship; in other words, their Wednesday nights are more like most churches’ Sunday mornings.

I wonder how one measures the success of such a model.  Is success measured in the number of weekend visitors, or the number of committed members?  Or should the measurement be something else entirely?  I’ve been reading a book called Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, and she claims that, historically, churches didn’t measure “success,” per se, and they certainly didn’t measure it in terms of numbers.  Rather, they were more concerned about doctrinal purity and personal piety.  They spent more time teaching their children the catechisms and their congregations the creeds, and evangelism was more of a personal endeavor than a corporate one.

I wonder how Northwoods defines success, and if they’re pleased or troubled by the disparity between visitors and members.  Maybe Michael Miller can do a column on that in the religion section sometime.  In the meantime, they’re trying to get that traffic situation under control.