Has the Church assumed a “Quick Fix” posture?

Has the Church assumed a “Quick Fix” posture?

     In a word…yes!

     Somewhere along the line, (or perhaps lots of “somewheres”) the Church has moved from understanding the process of following Jesus to misunderstanding it as an (solitary) act of following Him. One is about the fact that following Him is a journey, while the other defines it as an event.

     Evangelical Christianity in particular has reduced the whole of experiencing Christ to a single experience with Him. Having been raised in a conservative Christian home, I was raised to believe in an experience that we called, “being saved.” I still hold to this basic theology but see crossing the line of faith as the beginning of an eternal relationship with Christ, the beginning of a process, not the end. Paul seems to agree with this in Philippians 3:12-14. 

     There are many metaphors in Scripture given to help us understand this relationship. One is the metaphor of marriage. Anyone who believes the marriage ceremony and honeymoon to be the end of the marriage process have either not been married or have most probably not been successfully married. The exchange of vows and consummation of marriage is only the beginning. Every day of marriage is another step in the process of knowing one another on a deeper level, responding with love to the desires of the other and discovering the joy that comes by pleasing the other person.

     Another metaphor which describes “the way” is the maturation process of human beings. Jesus talked about the “birth process” and Paul describes “stages” of maturity (babies who drink milk and more mature believers who eat meat, for example). Babies aren’t born as mature adults, for which birth-giving mothers are thankful, and yet all mothers expect their babies to eventually learn to take care of themselves and become independent adults.

     Defining Christianity as an event rather than a process is problematic for several reasons. One, we set expectations unrealistically high for new believers which frustrates both them and the Church. Two, we remove both the new believer’s motivation to spiritually mature and our responsibility to disciple them. Three, the attrition rate is unsatisfactorily high because those who have come to faith are quickly disillusioned because the trouble-free, prosperous life which was advertised cannot be delivered. But perhaps most troublesome is that defining Christianity in a one-stop, quick-fix, easy answers kind of way, robs those who choose to walk with Jesus the beautiful experience of building a lasting, trusting, and progressive relationship with the Savior. What God desires, after all, is to be in meaningful relationship with His creation…us.

     So the next time you are tempted to simplify the adventure of following Jesus to “a formula and a prayer,” remember this: If that’s all your relationship with Christ consists of, it is most likely a shallow relationship at best and perhaps no relationship at all. Don’t cheat others out of the “bigger-than-life” adventure of getting to know Jesus.

Facebook...love it or leave it!

I can't decide if I love Facebook or hate it. Most days I hate it, but I still go to it and read it every morning. It's kind of my morning "paper" only it just has stories about the people I know, or at least am friends with on Facebook. I don't know some of my "friends" on Facebook, but that's another story.

Anyway, every morning I catch up on the drama that's gone on overnight. Most of the time it's small potato stuff, but every once in a while there's something juicy. Mostly it's people complaining about life, family, school, sickness, and the way people treat them, etc. I'm always amused at how people I saw a few hours earlier are suddenly deathly sick a couple of hours later and yet are feeling well enough to give you all the details on Facebook.

I wish there was a negative/positive meter on Facebook that would rate what percentage of your posts are negative. I have some Facebook friends who are 100% negative, or at least I assume they still are. I "hid" them a long time ago because they depressed me with all their sickness and marriage drama. If there was a negative/positive meter then when someone asked to be your friend you could kind of make an informed decision before hand.

Another thing I really hate about Facebook is politics. Maybe it's not the politics as much as it is the intolerance on both sides for each other. Democrats say they believe in everyone's opinion being valuable but that only seems to last as long as your opinion is the same as theirs. Republicans say they're mad because their conservative Christian values are under attack. They say that, of course, as they attack what they perceive to be liberal and anti-Christian. Personally, I think Facebook would benefit from banning political rhetoric, but then Facebook would be much less entertaining.

I don't like the posts that promise if I post this or that for 10 minutes that I'll inherit a fortune or have good luck. I especially don't like it when they bring God into the mix. It reminds me too much of the preachers who promise me a million dollars if I send them a thousand. Besides, who takes down their posts after 10 minutes?

I do like seeing people's pictures on Facebook, at least most of them. Really some people shouldn't take so many close ups of themselves and post like 20 times a day. Pet pictures get old too. Other people's pets aren't nearly as cute as they think they are and unfortunately neither are some babies. I do like vacation pictures, especially if they're neat places. However, I think everyone should be limited to one Pinterest recipe post per day. I hear Americans are getting fatter every year. I'm pretty sure Pinterest posts on Facebook are to blame for that.

All in all, I guess it's a love/hate relationship with Facebook for me. I'll keep reading it and occasionally posting if I feel I have something worthwhile to share. In general, I think everyone should probably post a lot less, especially about themselves and try to keep it positive and funny. Post some videos of people falling down...that always makes people laugh.

Jesus, Paul and Table Fellowship

I often hear from those in academia and would-like-to-be theologians, how Jesus and Paul preached two different gospels. These days we are seeing quite a momentum to swing toward the words, deeds and example of Jesus for patterning our life and mission as Christ-followers. It seems lately that Paul gets the blame for all the apparent inconsistencies in the New Testament (or Second Testament, as my professor Leonard Sweet likes to say).

Although one can make a case for some differences in their approach to mercy and grace, one of the most striking similarities is their teaching and exemplary living regarding “table fellowship.” The concept of eating together was deeply ingrained in the culture of Jesus’ Palestine. One of Jesus’ major religious faux pas, as least as far as the Pharisees was concerned, was His table fellowship with prostitutes, tax collectors and sinners. His willingness, even intentionality about inviting everyone to the table speaks volumes about how He interpreted the levelness of the playing field when it came to grace.

One of the important teachings of Paul that can be overlooked, if the culture in which Paul speaks is ignored, is his teaching about table fellowship and the Corinthian church. In his instructions concerning the meal served before the observance of the Lord’s Supper, he speaks directly to the class warfare and segregation that had made its way from the Roman dinner and drinking parties to the Lord’s Table. The issue was the preferential treatment of the rich, allowing them to eat and drink before the poor. This segregation into lesser areas of the house meant they ate much later, were served poorer quality food and drink and were separated for obvious reasons from the rich host and his cronies. This teaching in I Corinthians 11 begins with a discussion about divisions in the church, moves on in chapter 12 to talk about the body, the more presentable and less presentable parts and the need to treat all parts, especially the less presentable ones with special care. The discussion then moves to Paul’s most excellent treatise on love (charity) in chapter 13. Of course, knowing that there were no chapter divisions in Paul’s letter, we must assume that this long discourse on non-preferential treatment, honoring all parts of Christ’s body and allowing agápē love to be the guiding force in our actions, is a written reiteration of Christ’s living example of table fellowship. I can just imagine Paul recalling the stories of Jesus and His controversial meals as he sent his message to Corinth: “The table of grace is for everyone!”

Seeing this consistency between Paul and Jesus ought to speak to those of us who claim to be following Christ in the twenty-first century. There is no room in the house for classification, segregation, or prejudicial treatment toward any who would desire to sit at His table and “dine with Him.” Ain’t nobody got time for that!

I Don't Like Christmas Carols

I Don’t Like Christmas Carols

            I told my wife I was going to write a blog about my favorite Christmas carol. She asked me what my favorite carol was. I told her I didn’t have one because I really don’t like Christmas carols. She said, “How are you going to write about your favorite one then?” I said I’d just make something up.

            Well, now that I’ve thought about it, I decided it’s probably not nice to make something up and act like I like something that I really don’t like. I think that’s called a lie, although it seems like a pretty innocent lie to me.

            I guess it’s better to tell the truth and the truth is I never have liked Christmas carols. I’m not really sure why. I grew up singing them, but I didn’t like them as a kid either. I’m not a Scrooge. I love Christmas. I like Santa Claus alright…although my wife doesn’t. I like snow and eggnog and presents. I guess it’s fair to say that I like pretty much everything about Christmas except the carols…and maybe mince meat pie. I’ve never really been sure what’s in mince meat pie.

            I know why I don’t like some carols…like We Three Kings. It’s in a minor key, and it’s kind of boring. My son sang it in a Christmas play once. I liked it that time but I think that was only because my son was singing it. That one that has the long GLORIA in the chorus…people always take a breath in the middle of the word and that bothers me, that and the egg shells thing. Silent Night is ok I guess, although I like it better in German and with a guitar…call me a purist. And then there’s the problem with the words, Away in a Manger for instance. That line about “no crying he makes.” Not only is awkward English, I’m pretty sure Jesus cried like every other baby.

            I guess what really bothers me about Christmas carols is that they kind of trivialize what happened that first Christmas. I mean think about it. God came down to earth! It wasn’t just about a star and shepherds and wise men. It was about God putting on flesh and coming to earth to be the Savior of the world. I’m not sure how you capture that in a song, or a sermon, or a book… I’m just saying that I think sometimes we reduce God-sized events into people-sized poems and songs and it really kind of steals the mystery and majesty of it all. I guess I don’t mind if you sing Christmas carols, just try to remember that Christmas is bigger than any carol.

            Meanwhile, I’ll keep trying to find one I like. Maybe next year.

           

It Takes A Community

When I was working on my Master’s degree, I took a theology course. Our main text was written by Stanley Grenz who sees all of theology through the “lens” of community. One of my fellow students, Kim, was so sick of hearing about community by the end of that course that she could barely stomach it. Needless to say she wasn’t a big fan of Grenz. I rather liked his take on theology and although community is not the primary factor that shapes my theology, it's probably in my top five. Kim and I are still good friends even though we don’t agree about Grenz, but that’s probably because I believe in community so much.

I’ve been thinking about community a lot lately. I think it was a key ingredient in the early church. I think for the most part it’s a missing ingredient in the 21^st Century church…but I don’t think it should be. The problem is that it takes time and effort to build community and I have a sneakin’ suspicion it also takes some work by the Holy Spirit. There’s a difference between a community and a village. A few years ago former First Lady, Hillary Clinton wrote a book entitled, “It Takes A Village.” It was a nice thought but the truth is it takes more than a village. You see, a village is a group of people who live in the same geographic location. They can still be disjointed, disconnected and dysfunctional and still be a village. A community is a group of people linked together not so much by geography as by heart, soul, vision and purpose. What I think it “takes” is a community.

Here’s the problem: I think the church lives a lot more like a village than a community. We are bound by geography (same church building) but many times are still disjointed, disconnected and dysfunctional. We ought to live in community, united by heart, soul, vision and purpose. That doesn’t happen overnight. It takes time, discovery, assessment and intentionality to become a community. Sometimes people come to the realization during that process that although they are linked by geography they are not part of the heart and soul of the community. They may choose to move on to a place where they can be part of the community. We grieve over the loss but I think we probably should celebrate. I don’t intend for that to sound mean but I know some will take it that way. Shouldn’t we all want each other to be where we can be a part of community? That’s a good thing, right?

I get so excited when I see community begin to happen. As I write this blog, we have three people in our church building right now who are cleaning restrooms, vacuuming and mopping floors. They volunteered to do that this week because it was needed for the greater good of our faith community. A few minutes ago I got a call from a woman who lives in our neighborhood. She needed a ride to a woman’s shelter tonight for a meeting for abused women. I texted someone in our community and they agreed to give her a ride…no questions asked. Last week Jane and I visited a couple in our church family where the husband is recovering from major surgery. Some limbs needed to be trimmed because they were damaging their roof. I passed the information along to a man in our faith community who said he’d take care of it…no cost. Over and over, every week, I see community beginning to happen more and more in our church family. Although some will never understand this statement I have to say it anyway: We are never more spiritual than when we are living out a loving community as a testimony of what Christ has done in us.

How about you? Are you living in a village or a community?

A New Scorecard

As a pastor, I’m always reading books. I try to read as much as possible about the church…new trends, what progressive churches are doing, and how the church can relate to our culture. Some folks don’t like that very much because they think people ought to relate to the church instead of the other way around but that’s a subject for another blog.

What I’ve noticed lately is that there’s a lot of talk about using a “new scorecard” in the church. In other words, the advice is to reevaluate how we measure success. I happen to agree with that because for too long we’ve been measuring the wrong things. For example, churches have measured things like how many people read their Bible each week, instead of evaluating how many lives are impacted by reading the Bible. In some ways we’ve measured how spiritually “sterile” we’ve been able to make the church by attracting other folks who are just like us. Perhaps we should be trying to spiritually diversify the church by reaching folks who aren’t quite as religious as we are, or at least as religious as we think we are. Leonard Sweet has suggested in his marvelous book, “So Beautiful” that we are making progress when we see more cigarette butts in the parking lot…not less!

As a matter of fact, I’ve been thinking that perhaps those of us who call ourselves “Christ-followers” should be thinking about a new scorecard too. I’ve been trying to figure out lately how I can impact more people who are in need, instead of how I can accumulate more stuff. Instead of a newer car, I’ve been trying to figure out how I can make a car I recently received from my dad last long enough to free up enough money to employ some homeless men to do work around my house. My wife and I have seriously been thinking about downsizing, maybe to the point of selling our home and using the equity to pay cash for a very small place so that we are not tied down with debt enabling us to be able to respond to God’s call whenever and whatever it is.

I think it’s important to reevaluate what we call success. It’s important to think eternally instead of temporally. I’m trying to reinvent my personal scorecard. What about you?

Can we really be the church?

Can we really be the church? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, although a lot of people think that. No, I really think it's a good question: Can we, given our culture and predetermined ideas about what church is, really be the Church that Jesus intended for us to be?

I used to be pretty sure we could, given the right group of people, favorable circumstances and godly motivation. That was when I was 25 years old. A lot has happened to me since then...and to our culture. I'm a little more skeptical now...jaded I think they call it.

I do think we can "have church." We can "do church." But when I read the last part of Acts chapter 2, I wonder if we can ever return to the kind of loving, self-sacrificing "all-for Jesus" kind of community that was present there.

They didn't worry about buildings and structures. Organizational stuff came later and wasn't about power, influence and restrictions. It was about setting God's children free to minister His love to others. I can't find a lot of stuff we do in church now in the Bible. I'm also pretty sure we've left a lot of good stuff out.

People have expectations now that might not be for the best. Some people blame it on the consumer mentality. I have my own theories but I probably shouldn't post them here. To be honest, I'm just not sure there are that many people interested in becoming an "honest-to-God" church.

It always amuses me when people talk about the "good ole' days." Of course what they usually mean is the 1940's or 1950's. When I talk about the good ole' days I'm talking about the 40's and 50's, like the first century. Most people I talk to don't really want to go back that far. I guess I don't blame them...it cost a lot to be a Christian back then...I think I read that some of them even got thrown to the lions.

So lately I've been trying to decide what to do. I'd like for the church I pastor to be more like Jesus wanted. I'm trying not to talk about it too much (you know, the lions and all), but something inside of me just can't seem to forget what we're called to be. I hope God gives me the courage to talk about it more. I'm pretty sure it's worth the risk.

I call myself an eternal optimist. I guess that's because part of me still thinks it's possible to be the church, the kind Jesus talked about and the kind I read about in Acts 2. I think, before I die, it would be really cool to be a part of a church like that.