Government, Pandemics, and the Church

The current situation of a national health crisis combined with government mandates about public meetings have created an interesting situation. In recent days, the issue has been complicated and exacerbated by racial tension and rioting in the wake of the George Floyd death.

Most of the basic facts are known, so I won’t rehearse those here. What I would like to do it lay out a brief outline of issues related to this situation as it relates to the church.

Most states issued some sort of shutdown orders that included churches. Churches typically took one of three responses, two of which look very similar. Some churches continued to meet in defiance of the orders. Some churches stopped public meetings out of concern for public safety and community testimony. Some churches stopped public meetings in order to comply with government orders.

What should the church have done? Was this a time for civil disobedience? Should the church have “honored the king” and submitted to the governing authority in line with 1 Peter 2 and Romans 13? Or should the church have obeyed God rather than man in line with Acts 5?

Among those who claimed we should obey the government, the most often stated reason was that the government was not asking us to disobey God. Thus, civil disobedience (obeying God rather than man) was not a legitimate option. Furthermore, it was argued that the orders were “generally applicable,” meaning that churches were not being singled out; everyone was under the same order.

I confess that that neither argument makes sense to me. For the first, God has commanded the church to meet. The government commanded the church not to meet. There is, to me at least, a very clear demand by the government to not do what God has commanded us to do. I am not here appealing to Hebrews 10:25 and not forsaking the assembling. A temporary absence from church for health reasons is not forsaking. We should actually encourage that so as to limit the spread of disease. If you had a church member who vomited all night on Saturday night, you would encourage that member to stay home on Sunday. You would not consider that forsaking. I rather appeal to the whole pattern of the NT, including the very name “church” which means assembly. You are not the church unless you “church” (to partake of a now frequent and sometimes disturbing practice of verbing a noun). So when the government said, “Do not meet,” they were commanding disobedience to God.

As for the second argument of general applicability, there are two points of consideration. First, biblical commands to meet are never, to my knowledge, based on whether they apply to everyone. I don’t see anywhere that God says, “Don’t meet if no one else is.” Second, the US constitution carves out a right for religious freedom that it does not carve out for others. While the courts have generally upheld “generally applicable” as a reasonable restriction, such a view seems to render the First Amendment protections for religious expression meaningless. I think the framers included it so as to single out religious expression (and freedom of the press and assembly). In other words, the only reason for the First Amendment is to prevent general applicability from being a reason to forbid worship, peaceful assembly, or expression. 

As I mentioned above, the recent protests have complicated and exacerbated the issue by showing that churches aren’t being treated the same as others. Protests were allowed but churches were not? Large groups of people could assemble in close quarters and without masks in many cases but churches could not? Both are protected by the First Amendment. In Michigan, my state, the governor (wisely, in my view) from the beginning included a paragraph that her order was not to be construed as taking away freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. In other words, it never really applied to churches. She further clarified that churches would not be subject to penalty, meaning it was nothing more than good advice. It was never legally binding on the church.

So what should we have done?

I am of those in the second category. We did stop meeting. We had a livestream each Sunday that we tried not to make a regular service and we had a livestream teaching on Wednesday evening. We did this because of public safety and community reputation. I talked to people in the medical field, front line workers in hotspot hospitals, who told me, “Larry, you have to stop meeting. This is serious and this is dangerous.” So we did. I talked to pastor friends who said, “Larry can you imagine what happens when your church shows up in the news as a place where the virus was caught? You can’t risk that.” So we stopped meeting.

So what of the government orders? Does Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 apply here? My short answer is No, because the orders were forbidding what God commands. My conscience leads me to conclude that we must obey God rather than man. 

I would submit that most of my pastor friends who stopped meeting because of the governor’s orders, did not stop because of governmental authority primarily. These same people would freely and gladly reject that authority if meeting was forbidden for a different reason. They stopped meeting because they thought the order was reasonable and correct. In other words, they stopped because they agreed, not because they thought the government had authority over the church. As soon as the reason for banning meetings was something they did not find convincing, they would have resisted it.

What if the government's orders had been different? What if the government had said, "Churches can meet in groups of 50 or fewer (or 25 or 100 or some percentage of capacity)"? I would say we should honor that order and live under it because we are not commanded to meet in groups of a certain size. 

Of course the danger here is to meeting as a subset of the congregation is not really the church. Multi-site churches are actually different churches. Multi-service churches are actually different churches. I don't have a problem with either. But let's call them what they are. A church is an assembly, a group of people who assemble. If you don't assemble, you are not a church. 

Another danger in this is that it set a precedent. The government declares an emergency and the church just rolled over and said, “Okay.” Again, I think churches should have stopped meeting for a time. But I think they should have done so for different reasons than governmental authority.

The government has no authority to forbid what God commands. Pastors and churches do have the responsibility to be wise, to do things right and honorable in the sight of all men, to love their people and their communities. And sometimes that means not meeting so that a dangerous virus is not spread.

Lastly, I would appeal for grace to those who see it differently. Do not condemn those who believed they should start meeting before you think you should. Do not judge those who believe they should continue the shutdown. To their own master they stand or fall. God has not revealed a date for reopening. So do not play God over those who see it differently.

Ryle on the Importance of a Church That Teaches Hell and Judgment

“If you would ever be a healthy and Scriptural Christian, I entreat you to beware of any ministry which does not plainly teach the reality and eternity of hell. Such a ministry may be soothing and pleasant, but it is far more likely to lull you to sleep than to lead you to Christ, or build you up in the faith. It is impossible to leave out any portion of God’s truth without spoiling the whole. That preaching is sadly defective which dwells exclusively on the mercies of God and the joys of heaven, and never sets forth the terrors of the Lord and the miseries of hell. It may be popular, but it is not Scriptural: it may amuse and gratify, but it will not save. Give me the preaching which keeps back nothing that God has revealed. You may call it stern and harsh; you may tell us that to frighten people is not the way to do them good. But you are forgetting that the grand object of the Gospel is to persuade men to “flee from the wrath to come,” and that it is vain to expect men to flee unless they are afraid. Well would it be for many professing Christians if they were more afraid about their souls than they now are!”

J. C. Ryle, Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties and Roots (London: William Hunt and Company, 1889), 252–253.

Radical Minimum Standard

Recently my mind was drawn to a chapter in a book I read a number of years ago. Overall, the book was unremarkable, but the last chapter was worth reading and rereading.

A couple of quotes from the chapter are worth hearing.

“A honest evaluation of the dramatic number of callings that the church has created would reveal that we have found extraordinary ways of describing the overwhelming amount of Christless living in the church.”

And

“In the process of creating a theology that accommodates apathy, disinterest, compromise, and even rebellion, we have lost the essence of the movement for which Jesus died. We made a mistake of making heroes out of those who were simply living a normal Christian life.”

To me, this strikes hard at modern Christianity. Simply put, it seems to me that we have largely lost the mindset of early Christians that we read about in Acts. To quote an old proverb, soft times have made soft Christians. And soft Christians like to take it easy.

There’s some talk going around today about the new legalism of missional living (and a response here), accidental Pharisaism (Accidental Pharisees: Avoiding Pride, Exclusivity, and the Other Dangers of Overzealous Faith which comes highly recommended, at least if you consider my friends high).

But it’s hard for me to imagine that the early Christians would have considered our dilemmas to be anything other than, well, inane pursuits of narcissistic immaturity.

The body of Christ, for many, is not the center of our lives. It’s just another social club where we hang out each week. Or whenever, depending on soccer schedules, baseball schedules, sales flyers, holidays, TV shows, movies, the temperature outside, the relative position of the clouds to the sun, the time we managed to crawl in bed on Saturday night, whether or not the game goes into overtime.

The body of Christ is not a place of ownership, but a place of consumption. We go, get a meal (probably more like just snacking a bit), tip the waiter, err, the pastor. And head out to our real lives. You know, the things that start around noon on Sunday.

The mission of God to be disciples and make disciples at high cost to ourselves is less important than whether we ourselves are taking care of ourselves. We have created false dichotomies, saying things like “I need to care for myself right now,” or “I need to take some family time,” or “I need to take care of my marriage,” as if those are things that cannot be done inside normal New Testament commitment to the body of Christ and the mission of Christ.

There’s another old saying, “I would rather burn out than rust out.” I seriously doubt there are many in danger of either.

We seem mostly to float, aimlessly meandering through the meadow of life, deaf and blind to the warfare that it taking place on all sides.

But at least we are comfortable.

Around the Horn

At first, Here’s an interesting interview with Justice Clarence Thomas. It’s on the long side at an hour and eleven minutes, but it is interesting in a lot of ways. Particularly interesting are his comments on clarity in writing. They come mostly towards the end, though I didn’t note the time. But among the gems is this: “The beauty, the genius, is not to write a 5 cent idea in a ten dollar sentence. It's to put a ten dollar idea in a 5 cent sentence.” Most preachers could stand a dose of this. And no, the fact that someone can watch a two-hour movie or a four-hour basketball game does not mean that they should listen to you drone and ramble for an hour.

At second, here’s another contribution to the theme of young people leaving church. It’s worth consideration.

At third, several weeks ago I saw an article (now lost) about a message by a charismatic pastor at Desiring God’s Pastor’s Conference. The speaker apparently said that cessationists were scared of the Spirit. I set it aside at the time to write against the idea that everyone who disagrees with something is scared. In the meantime, Eric Davis has written an excellent three-part series on this very issue (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3), and it is much more than I would have written. So don’t be afraid. Just give it a chance. You never know. You might get a word of knowledge from these articles.

Coming in last today (or the home run, if you like to spin it that way) is Ed Stetzer’s recent article on the myths about megachurches. I found it interesting and instructive. One of the myths is that megachurches are growing from sheep-swapping. Ed disputes it, saying that only 44% of megachurches are “local church transfers.” If you look at the statistics Ed cites, it turns out that 90% are people with significant connections to church (local transfers, distance transfers, and dechurched). Which helps to remind us that the statistics show that megachurches aren’t growing primarily from conversions. Now, I am not complaining about that. But some people (not Ed) seem to think that megachurches are signs that people take evangelism seriously, and as a result they are really reaching people for Christ while small churches are just lazy and unevangelistic. Turns out, that’s not the case.

Ed also wrote an article about how megachurches are thriving. Some in the comments expressed some reservation, and Dave Doran expressed his reservation here, particularly about what “Christian” and “thriving” means. Ed responded to Dave that he was comfortable with how he used the words, which is, frankly, to miss the point. Being comfortable is not the same as being clear or being accurate. It is much more important to be accurate and clear than to be comfortable. And this points me back to the first link and Clarence Thomas: Write clearly so that people know exactly what you mean, and so that whether they agree or disagree, they do it with knowledge.

Around the Horn

At first, Thom Rainer gives Ten Reflections on a Decade of Church Consulting. There is some thought-provoking stuff here. 

At second, here’s a good use of 26 minutes and 35 seconds. It’s the speech at the National Prayer Breakfast given by Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon. It’s worth watching, not for the spiritual content (there’s very little), nor for the dramatics (there is almost none), but rather for the style (always learn from communicators of all kinds), and for the content (is it convincing to you? What would make it more convincing?). 

At third, here’s a comparison of answers to a question about rebaptism. One is from a paedobaptist (one who baptizes infants) and one from a credobaptist (one who baptizes only believers). There are a lot of good reasons not to be a paedobaptist and this article exposes many of them. The credobaptist answer is a good one. By the way, you should remember that many paedobaptists don’t believe that babies are saved when they are baptized sprinkled (which makes me all the more curious as to why do it). Presbyterians who baptize infants do so for a different reason than Catholics who baptize infants. Please don’t confuse them. Presbyterians are our brothers, even if they are disobedient to the command to baptize.

And last, here’s a good discussion between Ligon Duncan and Thabiti Anyabwile about baptism. I am a Baptist by conviction, but it’s good to here a discussion about it.

On Changing the Name of a Church – Part 4

Previous articles: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

In considering our name, we need to consider our philosophy of church growth. In the last article, I talked about how a name attracts people who already know what it means, and repels people who don’t, or at least repels people who have a certain conception of what it means.

I wonder if part of the problem here is an underlying belief that churches are built (at least in part) by trading sheep, so when someone dissatisfied with the Baptist church down the road starts looking, let’s have “Baptist” in our name so they will come to us. If we don’t have “Baptist” in the name, they may go looking somewhere else. (I am not just speaking hypothetically here. This statement has actually been made before.)

It is a view that may have merit, but there are some concerns. First, the lesser concern is this: If they are dissatisfied down there, what will they be two years from now at our church? Maybe fine. And maybe not.

The greater concern, in my mind, is this: What about the people who are unchurched? Why should we be more concerned with dissatisfied believers than with unconverted people?

I know there is some debate about how much the church should be sensitive to unbelievers in our community. 

The truth is that I want unbelievers coming to our church, and not just once, but week after week. I believe in the converting power of the gospel consistently preached. I believe that if we expose people to the clearly taught word of God week after week, it will have an effect. And if some unbeliever will come to our church for six consecutive months, I will take my chances with that because I know that over six months, they are going to hear the gospel preached week after week as the Scripture is preached both to believers and unbelievers. That doesn’t mean I design services for unbelievers. It means that I expect unbelievers are going to be there, and I am going to address them at some point (or usually at several points) during the service.

When we are considering our community, we need ask the question, Are people, unbelievers particularly, more likely to visit our church if it does not have the name “Baptist” in the church name?

If the answer is Yes, then we should strongly consider that in establishing or changing the name of the church.

Some people charge that removing a label such as “Baptist” is a matter of honesty and integrity, like we are hiding who we really are in order to get people to come in. I don’t think this is necessarily true since there are a lot of things about our churches that do not show up on our signs, things that are part of our core identity.

For instance we are committed to the inerrancy and complete authority of the Bible as God’s revelation. That means, among other things, that we are cessationists who use a modern version. This commitment is, in fact, prior to our Baptist commitment simply because being Baptist arises out of being committed to the Scriptures. Yet nowhere in our name is that commitment or its implications held out.

By not having “ICABGRACWUMV” on our sign, are we hiding who we are in an attempt to get people in? Hardly. Yet when someone comes to our church, that is exactly what they will hear. And it is what they will see in our doctrinal statement.

The fact is that when someone comes to our church, they are coming to a Baptist church regardless of what’s on the sign. And they are going to hear and see the gospel regardless of what’s on the sign. And if they come long enough, they are going to be taught Baptist polity and doctrine as the Scriptures are unfolded.

Having a label, or not having a label, won’t change any of that for us.

And having a label, or not having a label, won’t change anything else either. So if you have bad preaching, or bad breath, or unfriendly people, or bad music, or a dirty and smelly facility, it will all be the same.

So before changing your name, try to figure out what the actual problem is at your church.

In conclusions, each church should think carefully before removing (or adding) a denominational label to their church name. There are a host of factors to be considered, such as community, area churches, strength of church tradition, whether or not the label is actually a barrier, etc. And the only way you can assess these things is by careful thought and study.

A pastor and the leadership team of the church must work very carefully through these issues before dropping a denominational label. It may be a good thing to remove a label, but it should not be entered into hastily.

If you have denominational commitments, then don’t be afraid to own them. You don’t have to do it in a sign, and in fact, it may be wise not to. But your guiding documents should clearly state what you are, as should your new members’ orientation or your membership classes.

Concerns about Missional

While the idea of missional ministry has some strengths, there are some legitimate concerns. The Tall Skinny Kiwi (Andrew Jones, whom I found to be a very gracious person in some interaction some years ago) highlights one of these for us today, only for him it’s not a concern.

But I think it should be.

He says,

But now it's 2012 and while some young, enthusiastic people are out there planting churches like its 1997, others are focusing on launching more sustainable, more holistic, more measurably transformational Kingdom solutions.

One of the biggest trends in church planting that I observed in my recent 30+ country trek is the SHIFT AWAY FROM planting churches towards NOT planting a church at all but focusing on a wider range of transforming Kingdom activities. Some church planters are delaying the worship service piece of the pioneer missional ministry for as long as possible and sometimes indefinitely. (Emphasis his.)

Much could be said about this, and I will resist that temptation, at least here and now.

But it raises the question of why didn’t the apostles and disciples in the first century focus on “launching more sustainable, more holistic, more measurably transformational Kingdom solutions”?

They thought they were supposed to plant churches. And so they did.

Indeed, it is very instructive (or at least it should be) that those who walked with Jesus, heard his preaching about the kingdom, learned from him how to live and preach, witnessed his death and resurrection, and received his commission first hand went out to plant churches.

They didn’t think Jesus was calling on them to focus on “launching more sustainable, more holistic, more measurably transformational Kingdom solutions.” I am sure Jesus could have called them to do that. But he didn’t.

No, they thought Jesus was telling them to plant churches.

One of the concerns that many have had with the missional movement, and in fact one of the key issues inside the missional movement, is the relationship between church and kingdom, between gospel words and deeds. I won’t rehearse all that history here.

Suffice it to say that the NT model of ministry is not “launching more sustainable, more holistic, more measurably transformational Kingdom solutions” than the church.

The NT model of ministry is planting and growing churches.

There are a lot of ways to do that, and it can look a lot of different ways. But in the end, it is churches that Jesus has called us to plant and build, to be a part of and to serve.

Any model of Christianity that does not have local churches at its center is a defective model of ministry, even if it looks like people are getting helped by it.

Andrew goes on to say in the comments that “the word "church" is tricksy [sic] so i apologize for any confusion, but i am using it here to refer to the typical worship service attractional strategy that most church planters employ to start and grow their church.” He later clarifies it even more, along the lines of the “Church Inc.” mentality.

But I don’t think that helps. I think there are some problems with the way people plant churches on both the attractional and the missional end. But the answer to that is not to not plant churches in favor of “more sustainable, more holistic, more measurably transformational Kingdom solutions.” The answer is to plant churches the right way.

And attractional will be a part of that, as will missional. (Which reminds me I should get back to that series I started a long time ago.)

By the way, as an aside (or perhaps an addendum), this is why the doctrine of the kingdom is actually important. If we don’t know what the kingdom is, or mistake it for something it’s not, we end up pursuing things like Andrew talks about here.

It’s pretty much in vogue for views of the kingdom to take a back seat, and I think this is the ultimate end of that. It’s why I think we can’t relegate eschatology to the back pew. I am not saying it needs to be in the front pew. But it matters.

A Word Worth Hearing

There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular and in the beaten path of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true. There is an incessant craving after any teaching which is sensational and exciting and rousing to the feelings. There is an unhealthy appetite for a sort of spasmodic and hysterical Christianity. The religious life of many is little better than spiritual dram–drinking, and the “meek and quiet spirit” which St. Peter commends is clean forgotten (1 Pet. 3:4). Crowds and crying and hot rooms and high–flown singing and an incessant rousing of the emotions are the only things which many care for. Inability to distinguish differences in doctrine is spreading far and wide, and so long as the preacher is “clever” and “earnest,” hundreds seem to think it must be all right, and call you dreadfully “narrow and uncharitable” if you hint that he is unsound!*

This is a good word for this day, when people are amused and aroused by circus performers, standup comics, and musical shows masquerading as church.

It’s a good word where numbers and passion are the indicators of leaders that we should honor and esteem.

It’s a good word where creativity is a key part of church philosophy of ministry, where arts and media teams seem among the most important feature of preparation for the weekend services of a church.

It’s a good reminder that manufactured success is not lasting success.

It’s as good a word today as it was more than a century ago when J. C. Ryle wrote it in Holiness.

So, to channel the words of Paul, be careful how you build the church. It doesn’t belong to you. (1 Corinthians 3:10-17)

On Changing the Name of a Church - Part 2

Following up on part 1 of this series, let me address a second reason why a church might consider changing a name, namely, to distance yourselves from problems of the past without going so far as to actually reconstitute.

Every church (or organization) is has a history, and most histories of any length are probably going to have some unsavory moments in them. Some of these issues, depending on their visibility, can cause a church to develop a reputation that is not good for the gospel in a community.

It may be their history of financial dealings. It may be a string (or single occurrence) of unethical or illegal behaviors by high profile leaders or members. It may have to do with the stance on community relations or racial relationships. It may have to do with a previous pastor’s ministry emphasis. And the possibilities go on.

Sometimes, these things can be dealt with by public statements and restitution where possible. And as much as possible they should be.

But on occasion, these things have so badly damaged the testimony of the church in the community that renaming the church may be a very wise thing to do.

Renaming your church can provide a fresh start and some distance from the past. It can say, “We are a new old,” or “We are an old new.” It can change away from the focus from “The church where the youth pastor molested a girl” or “The church where the pastor stole $100,000 and left the creditors unpaid.”

However, this must not be used as a way to avoid legal or moral obligations. Neither should it be done while retaining the people or policies that were either cause or contributor to the problem. In other words, this is not an “easy way out.”

Changing a name for this reason is, in my opinion, more controversial that closing a church and restarting it. It runs several risks.

First, it runs the risk of simply being wrong on the issues. Some pastors lead churches to apologize for things that weren’t necessarily wrong. Just because someone differs on philosophy of ministry does not mean that they have compromised the gospel or hurt the church.

Second, it runs the risk of attacking faithful believers by implicitly (or explicitly) accusing them of something that they didn’t do, or that wasn’t wrong for them to do. It can become an attack on the heritage of godliness that has preceded a particular ministry at a church.

Third, it runs the risk of shaming the gospel and the church by becoming just another church that finds fault with everyone who doesn’t do things their way. It can become the pastor pursuing his pet issues without respect for the larger body of Christ.

Fourth, it runs the risk of further damaging the church’s testimony in a community because it can appear to be a rather transparent way to avoid problems, like putting lipstick on a pig.

So tread carefully here, and consider whether some other tack may be more effective for the gospel.

On Changing the Name of a Church - Part 1

These days it is somewhat common for churches to change their names. Particularly common, it seems, is the dropping of denominational labels. Even presently, the Southern Baptist Convention is considering a name change for itself.

Is this good or bad? Well, it depends on who you listen to. And why you do it.

I think there are good reasons to change names, and bad reasons to change names. In this series of posts, I want to discuss some of the reasons why a church should, or should not, consider changing its name, beginning with reasons why a church should consider changing its name.

Leading off, and perhaps the most obvious, I think name changing is a good idea when you are restarting a church. It creates a new identity. Studies have shown that a church’s greatest period of growth is in the first five years. There is a “try it out” attitude that people have. It’s not “old hat” anymore. A church that is being restarted is probably a church that has been around for some time, and been in decline for a variety of reasons. Adopting a new name creates some freshness, even if the building and people are the same.

One of the things I found here was that there were (and still are) a large number of people in our community who are familiar with Grace because their grandma and grandpa or mom and dad went here, and they went here as kids. It is old hat to them. They know what it is (or at least what they think it is), and they are not coming back to try it again.

Changing a name removes that barrier. No one can say they grew up in a church that was started last week, or last month, even if it is a restart.

The downside of changing the name of a church is history. When I started at Grace, we had ninety-five years of history. Now we have almost one hundred and ten years of history. You can’t get that overnight. Theirs is something significant about saying “We have been in this community more than a hundred years.”

Each situation is different, and requires different considerations. Restarting a church (disband and reconstitute) can give new life into an old congregation. And changing the name probably is a wise thing to do in that case.

A church may try to rebuild without restarting. But even in this, a name change may be a good thing, even if the name is similar.

As a side note, restarting a church can also give good and faithful people an gracious exit ramp if they are simply attending church out of a sense of history rather than a sense of mission. Many old-timers feel a sense of commitment to a church, not to a mission, and not to a community. Providing them with a grace-filled way to exit that honors their commitment without guilting them is a valid consideration in some cases.

More to come …

Was It Necessary?

Here’s a series of short articles (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) on the death of ten missionaries in the middle of the 1900s in South America. It is interesting to read this perspective on why these deaths probably were not necessary, but rather a waste. It is probably not a popular view.

Here’s a line that sticks out at me from the third article.

Jim Elliot’s team in Ecuador was afraid of attracting too much attention to their efforts in the jungle, because they thought that too many outsiders would serve to further alienate the Aucas. For this reason, they were extremely secretive with their plans, going so far as to use a code to prevent leaking the details. Unfortunately, this commitment to secrecy kept them from sharing their plan with some of the people that may have guided it to a better end.

And later,

The nail in the coffin was a mission board that prided itself on letting the missionaries do whatever God ‘led’ them to do. From all I can tell, there was virtually no accountability. Three of the missionaries were with a mission board that reminded the missionaries that they were not answerable to any man – only to God.

In missiology and church growth, there is a common belief that the older generation has had their day and their mindset and methods not only no longer work, but that are not even to be considered as having legitimate perspectives on present day ministry.

It is true that the older generation is, at times, a bit stuck in their ways and unwilling to consider the possibility of generational shift. This is (perhaps) one factor in the post I made recently about churches. “We have always done this” becomes the mantra of a church that is slowly dying, or at least only maintaining.

But it is equally true that there is much more to missionary strategy than youthful energy and zeal, with “outside the box” thinking.

Young people would be wise to seek (and actually consider) the input of the “grizzled veterans.” Those lines in their faces and the gray in their heads did not come from vacations at the beach. They came from time served in the trenches.

Your good ideas may simply be recycled nonsense. It may not be. But it won’t hurt you to ask. It may save you a lot of grief if you direct some of your energy toward asking someone who has been there before.

It usually helps to have some experienced eyes to look things over with you.

Just Mail It In

Crank alert. Rant warning. Consider yourself notified.

Ben Wright quotes Mark Driscoll:

Pre-recording 2 sermons today. Allows me to go to Zac’s baseball tourney with my family rather than not seeing them on Father’s Day.

This is, as Ben says, a “minimal and rational step” when you conclude that you don’t need a pastor to preach to an assembly to have a church, though this goes a bit beyond “I can’t be there to preach because I am over here preaching the same message to a different assembly.”

Apparently, preaching on video in order to get to a baseball game is the only way to clear up a few hours to spend with the kids on Father’s Day.

And while I am here, If Driscoll is all about redeeming culture, why not start with little league baseball tournaments? Why not get them moved off of Sundays? 

Listen, I love sports. I played them growing up and I coach them today. I had my 5 year old son over hitting golf balls at the range last week after his swim meet, and took him swimming last night. I was out Sunday night at the ballfield pitching to my son and then chasing him to first base when he hit it. So this is not an anti-kids sports rant. Nonetheless, I remain unconvinced that kids’ sports are a good reason to miss Sunday worship, even occasionally, particularly if you are the pastor.

Furthermore, once we start this where does it end? What are the boundaries? Why not record the preaching video on Saturday when it’s raining so you can take the kids to the lake on Sunday when the sun is shining (cuz you know we need family time, right?)?

Here’s another thing: One of the things Driscoll recently claimed, in his table talk with Dever and MacDonald, is that they (Mars Hill) are raising up all kinds of pastors who can preach.

Apparently all of them were at baseball games or something, too.

Interesting that out of the 10,000+ people at Mars Hill, not a single person with the gift of preaching was going to be able to show up to handle the preaching on Father’s Day.

Which raises the question: Why do you need to train up other preachers if you can just video yourself? I suggest it’s an unhealthy, dare I say ungodly, celebrity culture.

I wonder how Driscoll would respond if those 10,000+ all decided that Father’s Day meant they needed to be somewhere else, so they would just watch the service later online? And fax in their offering checks?

I would say I am speechless, but if you have gotten this far, you know that’s not true.

Seriously, this reminds me that ecclesiology remains a weak subject for the modern church.  

Hyles, Hybels, Driscoll, and Warren (and lots of others) have taught us that all the stops can be pulled out to draw the crowd. And we can pull out a few stops to avoid the crowd if we have a better option.

There is, among these leaders, an admirable goal to reach people. I am challenged by it.

Hybels says something like, “We are not just seeker-driven; we are seeker-obsessed.” I think most of us could stand a little dose of desire to reach the unreached. Hyles had a similar philosophy, as do some others I know of, though for my dollar, I am not sure that the pop music, drama, and stage show at Willow Creek are all that much worse than the live goldfish swallowing, southern gospel music, and stage show at FBC Hammond. The preaching surely can’t be any worse. If I am going to endure some nonsense in the name of evangelism I would just as soon do it at Willow Creek than FBC Hammond. At least I wouldn’t have to wear a tie at Willow Creek.

Of course, some will be offended that I even make that comparison. It won’t bother them that I mentioned Hybels. It will only bother them that I left the “b” out.

But I digress.

I think we need a stronger ecclesiology, one that includes interaction with the question of whether or not the preacher should actually show up to preach.

On the other hand, perhaps Driscoll is on to something here.

I have a lot of friends I could play golf with on Sunday morning. If I video myself, I can go play golf on Sunday mornings, and still get home in time to see my family.

I could even take my wife, and we could call it a date, ‘cuz you know I am pretty busy the other 167 hours during the week and I gotta take care of my marriage.

And besides I need someone to carry my bag.

But don’t worry ‘cuz I tip good.

A Tale of Two Churches

This past week on vacation, I took the opportunity to visit two different churches. I found these two churches to be an interesting contrast.

One church was predominantly young. There were only a few hoary heads in the place, from what I could tell. I felt like an old guy. The other church seemed like at least half, if not more, of the people in attendance were older than me. To be fair, the latter church was a Sunday PM service, so I am not sure what effect that might have had, though I doubt that there is enough young people in the AM service to offset this factor.

So I wonder why this difference.

I think there is some merit to the idea that churches tend to reflect their leadership. One pastor is 30ish, and the other is probably close to 60. It is probably unlikely that the older generation will flock to hear a younger man preach every week. At the same time, the younger generation probably feels a bit disconnected to an older man. Of course, these are generalities. But I know as a pastor, I definitely feel these relational issues.

Let me tell you about these two churches.

Comparing the churches, there was a very distinct difference in the atmosphere of the service. One church had a piano, organ, full orchestra, and a choir. The other had a piano, an organ, a strong lead voice with two backup singers, and a recorder/flute player.

One church sang gospel songs from the early 1900s (including Love Lifted Me, All That Thrills My Soul is Jesus). The other sang a mix of modern hymns, Sovereign Grace, and old hymns (including And Can It Be and Be Thou My Vision).

One church sang songs in succession, with no speaking in between; there was only an instrumental transition. The other church took breaks for some instruction (welcome people on this next verse, ladies sing the second, everyone sing acapella, etc.).

Both churches featured a sermon from an OT text. In one church, the pastor took great lengths to labor in the text (a very difficult text), pointing carefully to words, verses, and constantly referring to the overall argument of the chosen text. In the other church, the pastor gave what seemed a fairly brief and surface overview with some applications that made me uncomfortable in terms of preaching the text faithfully.

In one church, there was a quick mention of Jesus at the end of the message. In the other, there was an more extended discussion of Christ and the gospel towards unbelievers.

Now, two caveats:

1. I realize some could suggest my description is prejudiced. And that may be true. I was asked by a friend at one of the churches to critique the service, and I will send him some thoughts. But I am trying not to be critical. In fact, when he asked me what I thought, I hadn’t thought of anything to say really. He needled me to give him more.

2. Even though my description above is randomized in terms of presentation, I imagine that most of you could put the service together and get all the right pieces in the right church.

So why is one church younger and one older? What are the dynamics and factors of age in church?

I wonder.

Any thoughts?

Around the Horn

Here are a few interesting links.

The Unchurched in Church – I think we need to think about how our corporate gatherings look to people who are not “one of us,” or even people who may have just become “one of us.” In a recent community group, I was reminded that our “church language” doesn’t work well with people who didn’t grow up in church. It was a great reminder to speak in language everyone can understand. This article should help us think about how to connect with people who are not “one of us.” This is anathema to some who consider that any accommodation to unbelievers in church is compromise. It isn’t.

The Dirty in Church – The old saying is that a church should be a hospital for sinners, not a hotel for saints. If your church doesn’t have some dirty laundry, a little ugliness, some broken marriages, some addicts, some profane people, some hurting lives, you should be questioning what kind of gospel you are preaching.

Success in Church – Here is a great reminder that gifting is no substitute for holiness. There is a constant emphasis today on the gospel. And that is great. But we as pastors and leaders must remember that the gospel is not a permission slip that allows us to sin with forgiveness (Romans 6:1-3). It is a call to walk worthy. It is true that we are completely accepted by God because of Christ alone. It is also true that we are to pursue holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Statistics in the Ministry – Thabiti lists a number of statistics concerning pastors. Of course we all know the old lines about statistics. But some of these ring true for me, and no doubt they ring true for some of you. I recently had the opportunity to preach on motivation in pastoral ministry. I took as my text Titus 2:11-15 to encourage us to be motivated by the appearance of God’s grace and appearance of God’s glory. These are things that will never change. They will never let us down. They will help us to not be one of these statistics.

How to Dress for Church

Dress in church is a hot topic for some Christians. I have heard reports of churches that have clothes closets for visitors who come in “inappropriately dressed,” which means all kinds of things. I don’t know if that’s true, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

There are those who think that you should “give God your best” (who never seem to show up in a tuxedo or a formal dress). There are others who think it doesn’t matter (who are pretty easy to spot).

The Bible, so far as I can recall, says two things about dress in church. In 1 Timothy 2, women are told to dress modestly, with a list of what that means. Interestingly, the list does not include plunging necklines or rising hemlines, both of which I oppose in church (and most other places). It actually includes jewelry and personal adornment.

What’s the principle? Do not call attention to yourself.

In James 2, the church is warned about treating people based on the clothes that they wear.

What’s the principle? Do not let clothes be the issue that includes one in the church or excludes one from church.

So how should we dress for church?

I think there are a lot of people who, IMO, try to hard to “dress up” and “look sharp” for church. They make a bigger issue out of it than they should. I think the are others who, IMO, try to hard to “dress down.”

First a disclaimer. I grew up in a suit and tie culture. I learned to tie a tie as a very young child because my dad tied his ties and I wanted to be like my dad. My mom would cut the tie to a length that would work for me but she couldn’t do anything about the width, so think the wide ties of the seventies on a five or six year old … the knot was as big as my head (insert your own joke here). I wore a tie almost everyday from the time I was in 9th grade in 1983 until the day I left my job in retail sales for the last time in June of 1993. I actually did wear a tie two days into my first ministry position until I figured out I didn’t have to. I like ties. I like suits. In church, that is my comfort zone.

Having said that, I don’t wear a suit or tie very often these days. I will wear one to marry you and bury you (in neither occasion will you be thinking about me), and on rare other occasions. Why? Because of my community. I get the sense that the last time most people wore a tie and coat somewhere was their senior prom. And they probably rented that one. 

Do you know the only time I see someone in my community in a tie? Here’s a hint: It is the same guy I see many mornings in the diner. He usually sits about three or four tables away and getting ready to go to his job at City Hall. He’s the judge. I am not sure that is a good model to follow for the people I want to reach.

You see, I think this is a wisdom issue. The Bible gives no directives on the matter, and therefore Christians, in whatever time and place God has providentially placed them, should use their wisdom.

I am persuaded that we should dress in a way that does not stick out in the community among the people we are trying to minister to. Remember the principle of modesty in 1 Timothy 2? Do not call attention to yourself.

In order to do this, you need to understand your culture. You need to know what people in your community are like, what they wear to work and to leisure.

Someone recently asked me what I thought about how SS teachers, ushers, deacons, etc., should dress in church. My response was this:

Since the Bible gives us no directives, it is a wisdom issue for the church, and I really can’t answer that question for a community I don’t live in and don’t know anything about.

I would ask the business owners what kind of dress they require for their public employees (receptionists, salespeople, etc.). I would look at the salesmen, who make a living convincing people to buy something from them. I would look at school teachers who teach everyday for a living. Why? Because these are the kind of people who regularly communicate with others in the community, and they probably dress in a way that makes sense in their community.

These days, I preach on Sunday morning in a pair of dress pants and an open collar during the summer and a sweater during the winter. I could very easily wear a suit and tie. I did for years. But that’s not my community.

As with many things, I think we probably just need to open our eyes, be sensitive to the people God has called us to reach, and be sensible in our thinking

Purity of the Gospel or Purity of the Church

There have been a few recent discussions about whether or not biblical separation is for the purity of the gospel or the purity of the church. Some profess confusion over why others say separation is over the purity of the gospel before it is for the purity of the church.

The reason is actually pretty simple, I think.

Of course, I actually thought about it, which puts me in a small minority of people, particularly of those who blog. But I digress …

The reason is that the gospel, not the church, is the boundary of Christian fellowship. There can be no Christian fellowship with those who are outside the bounds of the gospel. This is a matter of definition. To be a Christian means to be inside the bounds of the gospel.

The church, speaking of the visible church (whether a particular local assembly or those who profess faith in Christ but are not a part of our local assembly), might contain those outside the boundary of the gospel. With these, we have a false fellowship, which is purely surface and indeed is no fellowship at all.

For me, this does not minimize the church. It simply recognizes that a pure church stands on the shoulders of a pure gospel. It is the gospel that marks the boundaries of Christian fellowship. A church will usually have some false professors in it.

The gospel is prior to the church. The gospel creates the church, and establishes the boundary for the church.

The gospel sets the basis for the purity of the church which we guard by guarding the purity of the gospel.

Challenges for a New Generation

I had a great time tonight meeting a new friend and enjoying some great conversation that challenged my thinking. Here are some quick hits, largely undeveloped, of some challenges raised in my mind tonight to which I think we need to give careful consideration.

The challenge of church purpose – By this, I don’t mean disciple-making vs. something else. I mean simply, “What are we going to be about?” Or “What are we here for?” We all know the right answer. But what we need to figure out is the actual answer. The church needs to think seriously and carefully about the roles of authority that it gives to certain demographics. I fear that too many church are content to coddle the malcontent rather than reach people with the gospel. I fear that too many are content to coddle the worldly and unbelieving than to feed the sheep. We need to feed the sheep that we have (and shear them at times) as well as be a midwife that assists in the birth of new sheep.

The challenge of multi-ethnic ministry – Cultural lines of race and ethnicity need to go away. “I have friends who are African-American” is not a sufficient response to racial divides. Churches must strive to look like their community. We cannot control who repents and believes. But we can control the culture of our church that either encourages and models multi-ethnicity or discourages or at best tolerates people who look different than us. Hardly anyone gives the wrong answer to these questions. The question is, “Are we willing to face the challenge of intentional multi-ethnicity that reflects our community?'”

The challenge of cultural relevance – While the word “relevance” is a dirty word to some, it should not be. To be culturally relevant simply means that we need to speak into the world that we live in, applying the truth of the Bible to life as we know it. We need to preach to the people in front of us. We must be answering questions that people are asking, not questions that we already know the answers to. We must learn how to reframe their questions in a way that taps into the revelation of God. There is a fine line between timelessness and timeliness in preaching. A lot of people are nowhere near that line. “Preach to the people in front of you” contains two keys thoughts. By “preach,” I refer to the timelessness of God’s revelation. It is the sole source of authoritative material for preaching. By “the people in front of you” I refer to the timeliness of knowing your congregation and applying the word to their lives. Preaching to people that aren’t there is a useless task. Failing to preach to people that are there is likewise useless.

The challenge of genuine musical worship – This is not about “kicking up” the music (or “reining it in”). It is about singing theology that is intelligible, both in words and musical form. It is far too easy for a pastor (or worse yet a music director) to throw together a few songs haphazardly, chopped up by announcements, inane comments, rustling pages, the offering, and “greeting those around you with a smile.” I would rather we just sing—two or three songs in a row, perhaps interspersed with some relevant Scripture. Create and sustain a flow of thought, a message in and of itself. I don’t think genuine musical worship for contemporary Christians is tied to “contemporary music.” I think it is tied to intentional structure and planning, selecting songs with weight, and planning the flow with minimal distractions and diversions.

The challenge of gospel centrality or gospel foundationalism without gospel solitude – This challenge is easily misunderstood, and part of me hesitates to even suggest it because someone will jump on it. But here goes: The gospel must be central, but the gospel must not be isolated. There are other important things in the Scripture that demand certain responses for certain kinds of fellowship. The existence of “essential doctrine” is patently obvious. But we must ask the question, “Essential for what?” The doctrine essential to be a Christian is different than the doctrine essential to be Baptist. And you can be one without being the other. The doctrine essential to share Christian fellowship is different than the doctrine essential to plant a church together. To paraphrase Ed Stetzer, when you are planting a church and the first baptism comes up, you gotta decide whether you need a cup or a tub. (He and I, like Jesus, need a tub.) A new generation must be convinced that there are things besides the gospel that are important, and the lack of agreement on these things is limiting in some ways. The gospel is all that is needed to be reconciled to God. The gospel is not all that is needed to live obediently in this present age awaiting the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Thanks friend. It was encouraging and challenging.

Opening Lines – Golf and the Church

Just as the church has become more tolerant on certain issues in recent decades, so too is golf equipment letting us get away with more on our mis-hits.

So begins an article entitled “How Forgiving Can an Iron Be and Still Look Like Something You’d Want to Play?” in the October 2010 issue of Golf Digest.

Puritanical title aside,  it strikes me as an odd place to see a church reference, not to mention a not so flattering way to reference a church.

It is true that the church has become more tolerant on certain issues. Depending on which issues are in focus, I am not convinced that is a good thing.

If you know me, you probably know that I play golf from time to time … at least a few times a year. And it’s well known that these days you can buy a better game. To cut that handicap down, you can skip the hours at the driving range and just hit the pro shop.

I am not saying that’s a bad thing in golf. In answer to the title question, based on the clubs I have seen, people show a remarkable ability to overlook ugly stuff if it works, or if they think it will work.

But church?

I think there are a lot of churches who have “bought a better game.” They are bigger, not because they are dedicated to the hard work of being a better disciple-maker but because they have used technology to leverage the show. And some of it is just plain ugly.

People are being entertained, not discipled. Ears are being tickled; worldviews aren’t being transformed.

I am not opposed to technology, design, and modern conveniences in the church. I use them.

And I not condemning everyone who does it differently than I do, nor those who have large churches.

But let’s be careful that we aren’t merely “buying a better” game that is a charade of the real thing.

Ethnicity, Belief about Jesus, and the Makeup of Churches

Consider the following two statements:

1. Jesus died and came back to life.
2. Believing in Jesus makes a positive difference in a person’s life.

Now, consider this:

[20-29 year old] African-Americans have stronger agreement with both statements about Jesus than any other racial or ethnic group. Almost all African-American young adults (98 percent) agree that Jesus died and came back to life, and eight out of nine agree that believing in Jesus makes a positive difference in a person’s life. [My note: That’s over 20 points higher than the average.] On the other hand, only 59 percent of Anglos believe in the resurrection. Hispanics were similar to the total group, as 70 percent agreed that Jesus returned to life. Agreement that believing in Jesus made a positive difference in a person’s life was 75 percent for each of the non-African-American groups (Ed Stetzer, Lost and Found, pp. 28-29).

Here’s my question: Since 98 percent of young African-Americans say that they agree with us on these two very basic and foundational premises of Christianity, why are churches so seemingly underrepresented by young African-Americans?

It would seem that these would be right “in our wheelhouse” so to speak because we do not have to convince them of the truth of the resurrection or the impact of Jesus on a person’s life.

I think there are several reasons for consideration (anecdotal and observational, rather than scientific).

First, there is the influence of culture. African-Americans are typically brought in a more religious setting than non-African-Americans. It is part of their culture. They know the religious terminology. Most of them have grandmothers who took them to church, and talked to them about God. It’s particularly interesting to me to think of the number of people that I have talked to personally who claim to go to church, but don’t know the name of it, or where it is (aside from “that church over there”).

In my experience in my community, most African-Americans that I talk to claim to go to church and can actually identify the church that they claim to go to. Non-African-Americans are less likely to claim to attend church, and much less likely to be able to identify the church that they attend. Nonetheless, African-American culture seems more religiously knowledgeable and inclined than other cultures. 

Second, there is the influence of education. Stetzer reports that among young adult with college experience, “belief in the resurrection drops from 92 percent among the less educated (high school or less) to 63 percent among those with some college or a degree” (p. 31).

If it is true that African-Americans are less likely to have some college experience, it stands to reason that fewer of them have been talked out their received traditions. That is to say that they claim belief, but perhaps only because no one has talked them out of it yet. That’s not intended as any kind of slight. Remember, the percentages of all ethnic groups go down after some college experience. So those who have attended college are more likely to abandon belief in the resurrection, no matter their ethnicity.

It would be interesting to know the numbers broken down by ethnicity and education.

Whatever the case, it strikes me that perhaps at least some of this is our church culture. Before the “progressives” cheer and the “conservatives” tune out, let me say, I am not sure how important that is to worry about.

I think our church culture needs to reflect the gospel in our community. We do not necessarily need to reflect the community in our gospel. We need to understand our community culture, and minister inside of that culture as much as possible.

Of course we should not adapt the sinful elements of culture. But we should remember that we have no cultural mandate. We have a gospel mandate. And therefore, our entire community is our mandate.

Coral Ridge Ending Age-Segmented Worship

So proclaims Out of Ur, citing an unlinked article in The Christian Post.

What are they actually doing? They are actually ending their practice of having a traditional and a contemporary service, something that dates back to the days of D. James Kennedy. Now, Kennedy’s successor Tullian Tchividjian says it’s time to do away with that.

Here’s a quote of interest:

The megachurch pastor also said he doesn't view separate worship services by style or age as any different from racial segregation, except that it's more subtle.

Allowing for the fact that Tchividjian may not have actually said this (there is no link and it’s not a direct quote), this is an interesting ploy that, to me, smacks of silliness.

It seems these days, that whenever someone wants to make a really strong statement on something, they often connected it to race because almost everyone cares about race and virtually no one wants to come down on the wrong side of that.

But how, in the name of anything rational, is having multiple services of different styles similar to racial segregation?

Simple answer: It’s not.

People choose which church they want to attend, and which service they want to attend. They are welcome to sit where they like (unless they get there late and the back seats are already filled). No one looks at their appearance and then funnels them into certain places. I was at Coral Ridge one Sunday, as a relatively young man, and went to the traditional service. No one tried to get me to go somewhere else. It was completely voluntary.

Racial segregation was not. It was enforced, both legally and culturally.

In other words, this argument by Tchividjian is, quite frankly, just a dumb argument. It sounds pious, but it makes no sense. It does injustice to real racial problems, and it doesn’t solve anything.

I am all for having one type of service, and one service rather than multiple services. I think young people should be in at least part of the service with older people because “One generation shall praise your works to another,” which is hard to do when the generations are separate (Psalm 145:4).

But whatever a church does with its services, let’s see through cheap ploys to appeal to people’s sensibilities by playing the race card.

We have enough race problems and worship problems in our churches without confusing the two.