How Do You Get That Title?

I just got a flyer advertising a conference to be held at "One of America's Most Exciting Churches." I was disappointed. I thought we were in the running for it, but apparently we missed out by a hair. I am not sure I have the strength to go on now. The worst thing that they did not even notify me that we were not "One of America's Most Exciting Churches."

Seriously folks, who decided that this church was "One of America's Most Exciting Churches"? What kind of arrogance does it take to proclaim yourself "One of America's Most Exciting Churches"? I might be able to understand declaring yourself to be one of the most exciting churches on your block. I might even grasp the idea of declaring yourself to be one of the most exciting churches in your neighborhood? Declaring yourself to be one of the most exciting churches in your city is a big stretch. And going statewide is absurd. But national? Please. Tell me you did not take the time to study all the churches in America so you could declare yourself to be among the most exciting. And please tell me you did not just declare yourself that without actually knowing it to be true.

But more importantly, why does it matter? Is the church about excitement?

Hey, I have an idea. Maybe the answer to weak churchianity is coming up with tiers of excitement in churches. Then you could have first tier churches and second tier churches, and so on.

Perhaps we could even have a National Excitement Award for the top of the top tier churches. Perhaps a Adrenaline Rush Award for the church that managed to jump the most tiers in one years. Perhaps we should add in a Biggest Compromiser Award for the churches that fall the most tiers in one year. Hey, how about a T.O. Award, for the church that creates the most excitement while denying that you actually tried to kill yourself by taking sleeping pills. That way you can get national press for Jesus, and get Bill Parcells upset at answering "I don't know" to the same question fifty different times. The possibilities are endless. And we could have an Excitement Conference to pass the awards out. Maybe someone would even bring "the chair" to see who could fill it. Maybe a "pack the chair" contest to see how many bus kids you can get in "the chair." My mind is racing ... Remind me to drink decaffeinated coffee.

The irony is that the conference is the "National Old Paths Bible Conference." Do you really think the "old paths" were about excitement? Somehow, I have a hard time seeing the church in the New Testament in this light.

Perhaps rather than having tiers of churches, we should have tears for churches.

Consumerism

Consumers demand options, but this poses a problem. Formation into the likeness of Christ is not accomplished by always getting what we want. In ages past, choice was not heralded as a Christian's right. In fact, relinquishing our choices by submitting to a spiritual mentor or community was prerequisite to growth in Christ. Believers were guided through formative and corrective disciplines—most being activities we would never choose if left to our desires. But surrendering control ensured we received what we needed to mature in Christ, not simply what we wanted.

In consumer Christianity, however, church leaders function as religious baristas, supplying spiritual goods for people to choose from based on their preferences. Our concern becomes not whether people are growing, but whether they are satisfied. An unhappy member, like an unhappy customer, will find satisfaction elsewhere. As one pastor enthusiastically said, "The problem with blended services is that half the people are happy half the time. With a video venue, you can say, 'If you don't like this service style, try another one!'"

From iChurch: All We Like Sheep in Christianity Today. This is an article with some interesting insights.

Ironically, CT has a poll on the topic of why people choose a particular church.

Even more ironic is the location of the poll: Humor>Fun and Games.

Which is probably true for many. Church finding has become a game of finding fun.

The results are interesting.

52% say doctrine and philosophy are most important.
16% say pastor and preaching.
11% say it just feels right.
7% say worship style.

I wonder if this poll (and others like it) consider other issues. For example, how many of that 52% would find another church if their contemporary worship became traditional? How many of the 16% would dislike the pastor and preaching if the band was exchanged for an organ?

Do we really believe that Saddleback would be 25,000 people with a piano, organ, and choir? Even with Warren preaching in shorts and hawaiian shirts? Would Willow Creek be 15,000 people with a string orchestra and traditional hymns?

This poll, incidentally, is similar to one Thom Rainer has in his book Surprising Insights from the Unchurched. I think a major difference is that Rainer's book allowed people to choose more than one option, while this poll allows only one.

So while I find the poll interesting, I also find it virtually useless. Which leads me to wonder why I have spent time thinking about it?

Looking for that Special Goodbye??

Looking for that special way to say good bye to a friend or loved one? Frustrated by funeral homes with the myriads of choices? Bothered by walking through the casket room trying to pick the final resting place?

Skip it. Have them with you forever thanks to Lifegem. You can take your loved one to your favorite jeweler and have them wrapped around your finger forever.

And That Too???

This morning I was reading an article on C. S. Lewis that was attempting to show that Lewis was not a Christian. I am not a big Lewis fan. My experience with Lewis started with four or five of the Chronicles of Narnia when I was in Junior High (which I did not understand to be any kind of allegory, much less spiritual), Mere Christianity (which I found less than interesting), and The Great Divorce (which I found to be just wierd). I guess my imagination is not well-enough developed or something.

There are certainly some questions about Lewis' orthodoxy. To call him a Christian is more than I am willing to do, but I admittedly am no expert on it.

Back to the article. The author, after detailing a number of the his concerns with Lewis, closes with this bombshell: "C.S. Lewis, who never stopped smoking his tobacco-filled pipes, had earlier been an actual witch, illuminist, and member of the coven known as the Thelemic Order of the Golden Dawn."

"Never stopped smoking his tobacco-filled pipes"???

First, what other kind of "filling" is there for pipes? Perhaps I am naive since I am not up on pipe-smoking. I tried to call Pastor Spurgeon this morning to ask him, but his secretary said he was out and she didn't know when he would be back. But I assume that "smoking pipes" would include filling them with tobacco.

Second, if what the author says about Lewis is true, his pipe-smoking and former associations with the occult are the least of his worries.

Which leads me to wonder: Why do people include absolutely non-contributive information in an article like this? This seems an attempt by the author to lay a fall back position. In case you do not agree with him about Lewis' theology, you can certainly condemn for his "smoking his tobacco-filled pipes." And then we get him either way.

Which leads me to conclude: Write better articles, and omit the ad hominem attacks. I am not a smoker. I find it pretty disgusting. I am not a fan of Lewis. I find him pretty boring. But most of all, I am not a fan of this kind of writing that tacks on an irrelevant piece of information in an attempt to shore up an article. I find it pretty weak.

At the Diner

I was having my usual three eggs over easy with white toast and coffee this morning, while reading, listening, and learning. In fact, I don't even order anymore. When I come in, Donna brings my coffee and water and puts my order in. That's the price of predictability I suppose.

I finished a book entitled a.k.a. Lost,by Jim Henderson (The link is to the newly revised and retitled edition). I quoted from it a couple of weeks ago. It is a fairly short book (152 pages), filled mostly with observations about ordinary evangelism. It is an interesting read, with some good insights (and some bad ones). The forward by Brian McLaren will give a little insight as to where the author and book are coming from. But it still contains some useful challenges. If you can get it cheap, it might be worth an hour or so to read. Or perhaps someone will loan it to you (like they did to me).

Perhaps more than any thought in the book, the general impression I come away with is that we need to spend more time listening ... actually listening. Ask people questions and then see what they say. Avoid pat answers and cliches. Avoid arm twisting and manipulation. Be real. Avoid, at least at the outset, questions designed to get a particular response.

Too often our typical approach to evangelism is preset, molded to fit a particular situation. And our evangelistic approach is to manipulate the conversation so we can get situated to insert our preformed discussions. Lack of flexibility and creativity actually harm the process. Listening to people rather than forcefeeding Jesus to them will help build trust and a relationship in which Jesus naturally comes into focus.

As with all books, exercise due caution and discernment. And don't blame me for the bad stuff. I am only recommending the good stuff in it.

While I was reading, the normal morning conversation was going on in the background. There were complaints about the local school system (a.k.a total failure central). One lady complained that a particular child she knew was now on her second four day suspension of the year. (I quickly did the math. School has only been in session for eight days.) Her basic complaint was that the school was being too hard on children. My thought was that the parents have not been hard enough on children. Here's how you know I was never suspended from school: I am still alive.

The other general topic of conversation was actually more interesting to me. It was about men and women. Of course, the women were talking about the men. One lady commented that men were only good for two things: sex and paying the bills. Another lady complained that her husband just went to work (about half the time, she surmised), and then came home and did nothing ... didn't carry out the trash, clean up the kitchen, do the housework, or anything else. She had to get him up for work, and even lay out his clothes on the bed. Another lady said, "You know why he won't do those things? Because you always do it."

The men, of course, were talking about women. One single man (his wife died a few years ago) is always talking about finding a woman. Today, he said he wanted a woman who would stay home and not talk. A few minutes later he said he wanted a woman who would go to work and not say anything. One lady pointed out that he said he wanted a woman who would both stay home and work. He said he didn't care as long as she didn't talk.

Another man commented that he heard someone once say that if you treat a woman like (insert common four letter expletive for body waste), she will come back for me; if you treat her like a queen, she will leave you. He is probably right, to at least some degree, especially on the first.

What this long summary reminds me of is this: We live in a broken world. Sinfulness has killed our relationships. The marriage relationship, designed by God to be the closest human relationship, is probably the relationship most affected by sin. Men look at women wrongly; women return the favor. Until we begin to regain a basic civil recognition that both men and women are in the image of God, while also recognizing the depths of sin that affects our relationships, we will never recognize that the only real hope for marriages is redemption found only in Christ. That is why Ephesians 5 says marriage is a redemption issue. Love your wives like Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. Submit to your husbands like the church submits to Christ. Only when we have experienced redemption in Christ can we truly recognized what it means to have a good marriage. And even then it will be hard. Until then, we are simply shoring up a shaky house with toothpicks. If you use enough, and walk very softly, you can keep it from falling in. But you can never make it stronger.

Most marriages seem to consist of two people who use each other until they find something better. They should consist of two people who serve each other because they found Jesus, or rather Jesus found them.

Until we learn to ask the question, we will always have bad marriages, or at least marriages that aren't what they should be. What is the question? "How can I serve you?" Or "How can I help you?" Or "How can I make your life better?" Learn it ... ask it ... act on it.