Challenging Evangelical Assumptions, Part 2

Assumption Two: Communion is unimportant.

This is, of course, one that is not written. It is more unconscious.

This comes from the comment that I often heard, "When you take communion all the time (or frequently), it loses its meaning." How does the sacrifice that Jesus made lose its meaning. It is something we should meditate on daily? Communion is a powerful reminder of that. Churches were often scorned when they took communion weekly.

In our little church, we took communion once a quarter (four times yearly), as prescribed by the powers that be in our denomination.

Fortunately, some evangelical churches have foregone this practice and started taking communion once a month. I am glad to see the increase in participation in the Lord's Supper.

One further problem, it is still often left as an add on at the end of the worship service. We sing, we pray, we hear a sermon, and (oh, yeah) we have to take a tiny cracker and tiny cup of grape juice.

Communion needs to be more integrated into the worship experience.

Challenging Evangelical Assumptions, Part 1

I grew up in an evangelical church, the Church of the Nazarene. I was fully educated in the ways of the evangelical church. We were not fundamentalists, but somewhat legalistic. I want to examine some of the assumptions that I grew up with. (I will explore these off and on over the coming weeks, and perhaps months). Some of these assumptions are codified, and some are unspoken, and perhaps a few are even unconscious.

Assumption One: Prayer must be spontaneous to be sincere.

This is one that is not codified, but is certainly unspoken. I recall hearing criticisms of churches that read their prayers. In our church, prayers were sincere because they were spontaneous. We were somehow closer to God because we prayed in an utterly spontaneous way.

Here is the challenge I would issue. Why is spontaneity equated to sincerity? Think back on important moments in your life (proposing to your girlfriend, giving a big speech, taking a test, etc.). Were any of those spontaneous? Did you take a big test without studying? Anything that is important takes preparation. Are we not saying that prayer is unimportant if we "go off the cuff"?

As far as I am concerned, pre-prepared prayers can be very effective in focusing our attention on God. This could be done either through praying the Psalms, using great prayers of the saints, or writing our own.

Another aspect of spontaneous prayer, is that it is usually the same thing every time. Sure the order in which we pray for the missionaries.

I seems that spontaneous prayer is born of laziness rather than sincerity.

If prayer is important, it should take time.

Why We Do What We Do

I have been plowing through Timothy L. Smith's Revivalism and Social Reform this summer. (Smith was a great historian, but his writing style is awfully dry.) Smith's book covers the history of American Protestantism in the middle of the nineteenth century. He argues that holiness (perfectionism) was widespread in urban centers of the northeast United States and that ultimately led to social reforms from slavery to child labor to women's issues.

One thing has grabbed me continuously throughout the book. It really has nothing to do with his arguments, although they are fascinating in their own right. (Perhaps I will write more about that later.) It has more to do with the way that church is done.

First, I need to define something. When I used the term "Evangelical Church," I am referring to churches that are Protestant, outreach oriented (in theory), and generally conservative in theology. I would consider them to be broadly in the following groups: Wesleyan-Holiness churches (Church of the Nazarene, Wesleyan, etc.); Pentecostal/Charismatic churches; and most churches in the Baptist family.

There are numerous sacred cows in the Evangelical Community. I wish to focus on three: Sunday school, the altar, and hymns.

In the form most of us would recognize Sunday school has only existed since the 1780s. (I did a research paper on the early history of Sunday school in college. It is a fascinating study.) Despite what we may think, St. Paul did not attend Sunday school. Martin Luther did not attend it. John Wesley heartily endorsed it, however this was quite late in his life.

In most Evangelical churches, the altar is a centerpiece of the sanctuary. What most evangelicals think of as the "altar" has only existed for about two centuries. Originally, it was called the "mourner's bench." It was used primarily as an easy way for the saints to help seekers. In most "high churches" (Episcopal, Catholic, etc.) the altar is what evangelicals call the communion table. St. Paul never prayed at an altar in the way we think of an altar. John Wesley never did. John Wesley never gave an invitation to come and pray at an altar.

The revered hymns of the church were once contemporary songs. Most of the hymns we sing in the church were written over a period from about the mid-18th century to the early 20th century. St. Paul did not sing "Amazing Grace."

What the point? The point is quite simply that the things we hold dear in the Evangelical church are relatively young in scope of Church history. These things--Sunday school, the altar and hymns--were used to communicate the timeless gospel to a certain group of people at a certain point in time. They are not transcendent tools given by God. Now, I am not anti-Sunday school or anti-altar or anti-hymn. We just need to keep things in perspective. These things are only tools. Some tools were better at some times, but not others. (A chainsaw is great for cutting down a tree, but it will not work for engraving a plaque.)

They've Got It "SDRAWKCAB"

Yes, that is correct. They have it "sdrawkcab"! For those that cannot read in reverse, that is, "They have it backwards." Who does? The Church.

I could spend hours, days or even weeks on many things wrong with the functioning of the Church. Specifically today, I want to discuss church planting. It appears to me that most church leaders (denominational officials, primarily) have not changed their theory of church planting since Lewis and Clark embarked on their transcontinental expedition.

The theory behind church planting was to send a young pastor into a frontier town and say, "Brother, go start a church. God be with you." Then the guy was dropped into this town to fend for himself. It may have worked at one time, perhaps even as late as half a century ago.

This is still in play in many leaders' thinking. Here is the current philosophy: send some poor sap to a faraway place, demand that he find a permanent building and grow a church.

The reality of life today is that it simply does not work. Where the permanent building used to be one of the most important pieces of the puzzle, it is now one of the last things a church planter should worry about. One hundred years ago, building a church building was relatively inexpensive. All one needed was a few walls and pews. Now, one has to contend with building permits, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, fire codes, plumbing codes, electrical codes, building codes, environmental land use laws, etc.

Years ago, church staff was not important. In fact most churches did not have a staff. What staff that existed was voluntary. Unfortunately, that no longer works. Churches need to be staffed from the beginning. The way I see it, a church needs a minimum of four full-time (or nearly full-time) ministers: lead pastor, worship pastor, youth pastor and children's pastor. One would do well to hire a reliable nursery worker on a part-time basis.

The result of this "sdrawkcab" approach to church planting is that churches are doomed from the outset. To put it in business jargon, they are under capitalized. They have great buildings with no ministry. People may show up to see what a new building looks like, but they will not stay with effective ministry. We need to make sure every church has effective plans for ministry before we worry about anything else.

I call all church leaders to reevaluate priorities when seeking to plant churches.

A Fulfilled Prophecy

Election years always bring about questions regarding faith and politics. "How much should faith inform politics?" This really hit me the other day, when I saw footage of John McCain exiting his bus with Rod Parsley nipping at McCain's heels. I have been very uncomfortable with the way the so-called Christian Right has been in bed with the Republican Party. (One could even make the argument that the Christian Left--and it does exist--is in bed with the Democratic Party.)

I have been reading one of the great books of religious history in America. It is Revivalism and Social Reform by Timothy L. Smith. On page 16, Smith writes:

[Fletcher] Harper [of Harper's Weekly] complained that clergymen and laymen alike rejoiced when they could persuade a politician or "some old hero of a general" to "harangue on such utilities before the annual religious gatherings"--as though the testimonies of public men were necessary to vindicate the gospel. He warned that if these aspects of religion continued to be presented as the chief ground of its support, Christianity would cease to serve the republic. Instead of the church evangelizing the world, the world would secularize the church.

I ask: "Is that not were we are today?" The church has sought its legitimacy from famous people--be they politicians, athletes, actors, etc. Does the church need John McCain (or some other famous person) to give Christianity legitimacy? Is not the church's legitimacy in Jesus Christ? He said, "Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).

The reality is that the church winds up secularized.

This is not to say that Christians should abstain from voting or refrain from entering the political arena. The problem comes from when we try to show how legitimate our faith is based on who wins elections.

Gas Prices

Gas prices continue to soar, but people continue to drive. Locally, I do not think anyone has cut back on driving. When I venture out, it seems that the roads are just as full as before. It seems that the gas stations are about as busy as ever.

Personally, we have cut back on driving. We drive to work, church and the kids' sports. Fortunately the grocery store where we shop is close to where I work, so I do the shopping after work.

One thing that does concern me, is the possibility that churches and charitable organizations may feel the pinch. Having pastored a small church with a super-tight budget, every dollar means something.

I would hate to see giving decline to organizations that help the less fortunate.

Cut out eating out or buying the new shoes, and contribute to those in need.

The High Modernist Church

I just finished reading James C. Scott's book Seeing Like a State. In the book, Scott, an anthropologist from Yale, dissects the high modernist view of the world. Essentially high modernism is roughly the time period of the early nineteenth century to mid twentieth century. Your run of the mill high modernist is someone who believes in endless progress of scientific reasoning. It is not so much a belief in science, as in biology, chemistry, physics, etc. It is a belief in the science of reasoning. There is no value of what has come before. In fact it is a hindrance. Scott uses the example of two cities that were highly influenced in their design by high modernist thinking. One is Paris, France. Paris is an old city, and it was difficult to retrofit it to a modernist grid system. The older part of the city was built up with no rhyme or reason, in the view of an outsider. The other city is Brasilia, Brazil. It was totally planned from the ground up by designers with a high modernist view.

Scott details how Brasilia did not turn out the way it was expected. He details many such things: Prussian forestry science, Soviet agricultural collectivization, and others.

He does not mention the church, but I think we can apply some of these lessons to the church. Somewhere in the nineteenth or twentieth century, this sort of thinking permeated through the church world. Everything became cookie-cutter. (I have numerous book in my library that prove this.) Everything was reasoned. Everyone had to have the same salvation/sanctification experience. Every church had to be run the same way. Every church plant had to done to exacting specifications. Every church building had to look the same way. (Not everyone does, of course, but you can almost date the decade in which a church was built by looking at the architecture.)

Centralized church bureaucrats (like centralized bureaucrats in the Soviet Union, or anywhere else) drew up plans for everyone to follow. The problem is that these cookie-cutter plans seldom worked. A church plant in midtown Manhattan, New York City is going look vastly different from a church plant in rural Iowa. The ministries that exist in a mountain community in Washington state are going to look much different from a multi-ethnic church Miami.

I think a good number of people in the church world have come to realize this. What works here will not work there. Just because Pastor Big Shot in Dallas baptizes people at the local water slide does not mean it is going to be effective in anywhere else.

As ministers, we have to know our community better than anyone else. This is one thing I struggled with as we were running our church into the ground. I went back and forth with the district big-wigs (250 miles away, in another universe). I kept trying to tell them what our community was like, but they would not listen. They insisted we do things by their methods. We tried to change, but the money they were supporting us with was taken away.

Every church must be local and meet the needs of its community. I am not a fan of this word, but it must be organic.

A Soulless Continent

In my Twentieth Century European History, we were required to read a book by Mark Mazower called Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century. In the book, Mazower argues that the democratic revolution that swept Europe (the West after World War II, and the East after 1989) was not a forgone conclusion. He contends that democracy was in a fight with communism and fascism/Nazism for which ideology would control the destiny of Europe. I think he is right. It is easy to survey the landscape of history and come the conclusion that whatever happened was inevitable. Nazism seemed to be the wave of the future in the late 1930s and very early 1940s.

One thing has struck me with Europe in the 20th century is the decline of the Church as a force within Europe. We also read several scholarly articles (great cures for insomnia, by the way) in which the authors have noted the decline of the Church as a contributing factor in the rise of totalitarianism.

I think this should sound a warning. A weak, ineffectual church can cause all kinds of problems. I am not speaking of the decline of the church's political influence. In fact, it is that very political influence that led to the church's decline in Europe. The church was more worried about gold than God, more concerned influence over the state than influence over the soul. As a church, our influence should not be over policy or politics, but over hearts and souls of people. We cannot abdicate that responsibility. So, whenever you hear some Christian leader say that our most important duty is to vote and select godly leaders, that is wrong. Those things are important, but our most important duty is accomplished through living relationships, not legislation.

Europe was (and perhaps still is) a continent without a soul. I pray that we, as Americans, do not lose our souls.

Confrontational Christianity

When the word "confrontational" comes up in reference to Christianity, we often think of street preachers who confront passersby with such questions, "If you died tonight would you go to heaven or hell?" Confrontation has, in many circles, come to mean a form of evangelism. Once someone is a Christian, the confrontation stops.

I believe this is backwards. We need to be non-confrontational and non-judgmental with those who are not followers of Christ. Once someone becomes a follower, then we confront them, with love and grace.

This past weekend, my wife and I were out of town for a getaway. We attended a church, where the pastor stepped on numerous toes during the message. He was stepping on the of the church members. He blasted them for gossiping. He did it in a loving and corrective way.

Too many churches seek to coddle the Christian and confront the pre-Christian. When you look at Jesus' ministry he was very confrontational with the religious elite, but with the woman caught in adultery and woman at the well he was not.

Let's confront the problems within the Church, and quit slapping each other on the back with an "I'm-okay-you're-okay." We are not okay. Each of us is a broken person who need Christ daily.

Is this what the gospel is about?

Here is a snippet from an article in the local rag:

Officers were keeping an eye on a group of about five street preachers who were drawing a hostile reaction from some of the crowd.

When one speaker started railing against rap music, drugs and sex, some in the crowd starting throwing cigarette butts and pens at him.

"This is so wrong ... he's a false prophet and needs to get out of the street," said Tristin Pickens, an Elizabeth City State University student who traveled nearly three hours with friends to enjoy the festivities. "He can't say we are going to hell then cuss and call us whores and tell us we are going to die."

A downtown business owner who declined to give his name was upset that police didn't remove the group.

"Right now they are exercising their freedom of speech," Phipps said. "We're not going to let anything escalate ... that's what our guys are here for."

Halloween is a big deal here locally. Downtown is flooded annually by numerous party goers. Apparently some preachers thought it their duty to rail against the revelers.

As ministers of the gospel are we supposed to be so obnoxious that people will not even listen to us? I understand that Jesus said (in John 15:18), "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first." Our message is often one of discomfort, as the Holy Spirit deals with whatever sin exists in someone's life. Is it our job to be the Holy Spirit?

I think one of problems, as a church, is that we try to usurp the role of the Holy Spirit. We are eager to condemn sins in the lives of others (smoking, drinking, dancing, whatever). We often ignore our favorite sins (gluttony, gossip, and whatever). In addition to what Jesus said above, he also said (in Matthew 7:3-5), "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

It's God's job to point out sin in people's lives, not ours.

Knowing Our Century: Part 2

Anymore, it really isn't enough to know our century. It's more like: "Do we know our decade?" I graduated from high school a mere decade and half ago. What worked in youth ministry in my day is met with looks of "Oh, please!" now.

A fellow blogger left this comment on the previous post: "One of my rules for living is 'When form supersedes function, we have lost our purpose.'"

A couple years ago, I went to the Servant Evangelism Conference in Cincinnati hosted by Steve Sjogren. In the early 80s, Sjogren was a missionary to Norway. We was struck one day when the Salvation Army band came marching down the street playing a tune. No one even bothered to look up as they did their duty to God.

In the late 1800s, the Salvation Army found it useful to send a band down the street. People would be curious and follow the band. When people gathered they would share the Gospel with them. That was a fantastic idea, in the late 1800s. No one paid attention any more. The form had outlived its usefulness.

I have been saying for years that there will never be another Billy Graham. Not because Graham was so special, but because his form of evangelism will no longer work.

Do we know our century? Do we know our decade?

Knowing Our Century

I am reading a somewhat interesting on the Reformation of the sixteenth century, entitled Reformation and Society in Sixteenth-Century Europe by A. G. Dickens. Chapter four concludes as follows:

"When Martin Bucer of Strassburg somewhat piggishly urged the Wittenburg theologians to get out into the world and preach [Martin] Luther replied in the pregnant words: 'We do that with our books.' He knew his century."

The printing press was a relatively new invention at the time. Literacy was on the rise even among merchant and laboring classes. People were eager to read. Luther sought to fill the demand by getting his message out. "He knew his century." He operated outside the normal way of getting one's message out.

The question we need to ask ourselves is: "Do we know our century?" Are we communicating the message in a way that our century understands? Are we communicating our message in a way that our generation is eager to receive it?

One of the problems that we often face in ministry is the battle between methods. Do we do what we have always done because it once worked? Or do we try something new to reach a new generation?

Our message must never change, but we often have to alter the way in which it is communicated.

Do we know our century?

Admit One

Yesterday, I was at the car dealership getting my oil changed. I was sitting in the waiting room reading a book. One lady stood up and walked around the small room handing out the tract seen in the picture. She said nothing as she thrust each tract at all four of us sitting there. I politely said, "Thank you," and went back to reading.

When I got home, I looked at it. I was intrigued by the "Admit One" ticket on the front. Is that what our view of salvation is about? Are we only interested in getting people a free ride to heaven? Is that all there is to the Christian life? We get our "Admit One" ticket that we can hand to St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. Then we go around handing out tracts without saying a word. Is that what it's all about?

What about Jesus inviting on an adventure? What about bringing the Kingdom of God to people on earth, here and now? What about relationships? What about relationships with others, including icky sinners? What about a relationship with the King of the Universe? It is all a present reality, not just a future hope.

Take that Dr. Gunter

In April, I went on a three-day rant about the fear that exists in the Church of the Nazarene about the Emerging Church. Here are the links:

Ugh! (4/17/07)
People of the Night (4/18/07)
Revising and Extending My Comments (4/19/07)

Today, I received in the mail my copy of Preacher's Magazine. The article on page 34 roused by interest. In was written by Dr. Henry H. Knight, III of St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City. His article is entitled "John Wesley and the Emerging Church." I do not believe Dr. Knight is Nazarene, but the article is published in an official publication of the Church of the Nazarene. I would like to quote a few lines from the second paragraph. Perhaps Dr. Nina Gunter will read this so as to alleviate her inordinate fear of all things emerging.

"I believe Wesleyans should welcome the emerging church... Wesleyans should support this new movement because the purposes and values emerging churches seek to embody--their vision of discipleship, church, and mission--is highly congruent with those of the Wesleyan tradition."

Wow. I never thought I would read anything so "heretical" in an official publication of a church stuck in 1953.

Legislating Morality

Legislating morality does not work.

Exhibit A: Prohibition.

The holiness movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries focused heavily on the temperance movement. They campaigned for prohibition. Then they won in 1919. The eighteenth amendment to the US Constitution was passed. The sale and traffic of intoxicating beverages was prohibited. The country would be free of alcohol forever.

What happened in the 1920s. As much alcohol as ever was consumed in that decade.

The issue of abortion is much the same. If abortion were banned tomorrow (through constitutional amendment or action of the Supreme Court), abortions would still happen. But, we would feel that something has been accomplished.

Moral issues are not a political or legal matter. Morality is a matter of the heart. As Christians, our job is not to change the law, but to work with the Holy Spirit to change hearts.

Civil Rights have not come so far because of legislation, but because of changing hearts.

We cannot substitute our political victory for spiritual victory. As Cal Thomas once wrote, "Our redemption will not come on Air Force One."

B.A.L.M.

This is an interesting article from B.A.L.M., a ministry based in the UK. It is about ministry burnout. It describes what my wife and I have been dealing with for over a year now. I have wondered if there was a group/ministry with type of focus.

Mr. Bean in Church

Did you ever have one of these Sundays?

Hung Out To Dry Part 2

One thing I have discovered about the sinking of a ministry ship. It seems to be harder are my wife than on me. I have long thought that ministry is tougher on the spouse rather than one "in the ministry." I was paid to worry about the church.

A spouse has to have an outside job, especially if it is a small church. The spouse is usually "required" to do just about everything in the church from playing the piano, teaching Sunday school, leading women's (or men's) ministry, cleaning, or whatever else the parishioners want.

When things go bad, the spouse may face some difficult times. She or he may be attacked by members. She or he may be blamed for failure.

My wife has suffered mightily through our ordeal. She has carried a burden that isn't hers. I have never thought that she had any responsibility in what happened. She was a wonderful help.

To you ministers, protect your spouse.

Hung Out To Dry

Perhaps I am unable to this thing go, but it is still something that I deal with every single day. About a year ago, we shut down the church we had pastored for nearly four years.

Our denominational leadership left out to dry. Our leader told us, at one point, that he had put us on a "sinking ship." Did they help bail water? No. They poured more water into the "ship." They punched more holes into the hull of the ship.

When we arrived, they promised to pay all of our health insurance, which lasted about four months. They continually slashed our assistance. When we offered a plan to restart the church, we were told "no." When we wanted to change locations, so we could get a nicer location, we were told "no." (We did move.)

We were told to keep "anonymous" donors happy. A bunch of old, rich people gave the church money. These people did not attend the church. We had to keep the money happy. Who cares about what is best for the church and community we serve. We had to keep these "anonymous" donors happy. If their names were known, how could they be anonymous?

I just struggle with the way they hung us out to dry. This is something that has bugged me for a long time.

If you are in the ministry, or contemplating going into it, be careful. There are many deceptive leaders out there more concerned with the money than the ministry.

The Politics of Church Government

Recently I was discussing the issue of politics in church with a friend. This is something that has always bugged me. I'm not necessarily talking about politics in the local church, but that can be a problem. I thinking more on the denomination level.

Politics exists there as much as anywhere. For all the talk of praying and seeking the "guidance of the Holy Spirit," there is as much deal-making and arm-twisting. I want to roll on the floor and laugh every time "prayer" is mentioned in connection with "elected" offices of the church.

Most of the time there is no election. Someone either runs unopposed or is just appointed by the powers that be. That is a fine method, so long as we are honest about it.