Confessions of a Church Snob

Those who know me well can attest to the fact that I'm pretty snobbish when it comes to church. I try not to be because I know that we're all part of the same body and that we should be building one another up but, especially when it comes to things that could effect the way the church is viewed from an outside perspective, I'm particularly snobbish. I like to think it is rooted in the fact that I have a passion for reaching the unchurched and, having many atheist friends, I recognize what sort of things Christians do that repel the unchurched. When I see something that screams "we're Christians and you should stay far, far away" I cringe. For example:
This gem is a church banner that was made for Easter, and thanks go to Matthew Paul Turner for bringing it to our attention. Now, the question is, what is that dog being stabbed to death by the cross and why is the red tornado of blood only dripping on part of the 3d (yes boys and girls, that's half a globe attached to the banner) world? The sacrificial atonement of the crucified dog carcass is only good for those residing in the northern hemisphere... I am baffled that this is the way we try to present the gospel. Am I off-base?

The church I'm attending had a deacon ordination this Sunday. Now, I'm all for the biblical ordaining of deacons, the laying-on-of-hands when appropriate, etc. None of that bothered me. This particular church runs 3 services and I can only assume that the deacons were ordained in all 3 as it was also their introduction to the church. The second of these three services is a "contemporary" service that meets in the fellowship hall and is relatively small when compared to the other two, more traditional services. Well, when the deacons went up to speak they both mentioned that they had never before been to the contemporary service. Now, I understand that if your personal preference is a traditional service, that's fine but when you find out that you're going to become a member on staff at the church, not only should the church make you do it, but you should feel a burden to attend all 3 services on your own. It was as if they were saying "I'm going to be responsible to take care of you even though I know nothing about you or what you do." I think that they should have been encouraged to attend all three at least once before being ordained, but that's just me.

Finally, I wanted to bring up something that's becoming a new trend in Europe: de-baptism. It turns out that many atheists are renouncing their infant baptism as a way of showing that they don't support the Catholic Church's political involvement. They believe that somehow the number of baptisms is recorded and used by the Catholic Church to gain government power. I think that idea is silly but it seems to be a popular one. More than 100,000 Britons have received de-baptism certificates, many of them paying roughly $5 for them. Reading through what the certificate says, I see nothing wrong with it. I think that, although the idea is a bit silly of getting back at the church by de-baptising yourself, that theologically it is a sound argument (aside from Christianity being superstition). From the National Secular Society's De-Baptism Certificate.

"The certificate declares:I ________ having been subjected to the Rite of Christian Baptism in infancy (before reaching an age of consent), hereby publicly revoke any implications of that Rite and renounce the Church that carried it out. In the name of human reason, I reject all its Creeds and all other such superstition in particular, the perfidious belief that any baby needs to be cleansed by Baptism of alleged ORIGINAL SIN, and the evil power of supposed demons. I wish to be excluded henceforth from enhanced claims of church membership numbers based on past baptismal statistics used, for example, for the purpose of securing legislative privilege.”

You can read more about this growing trend here.