Nonconformist Chronicles

Who Wants a Christian Nation?

The United States is not, and was never intended to be, a “Christian” nation. In fact, our Founding Fathers went to great lengths to insure this would not happen. They had seen enough “state-run” denominations and the corruption that ensues when the church has too much power over the state and vice versa.

Wars had been fought over religion, dissenters had been persecuted, and some even burned at the stake. That isn't the kind of nation our forefathers envisioned. They endorsed religious freedom and even the freedom to not be religious.

Colonial America had continued the tradition of state run religion. Virginians were to belong to the Anglican Church. Two consecutive absences from worship could mean either a fining or a whipping. In a “Christian nation” whose version of “Christianity” shall be bound?

While the intent was to never have a Christian nation, nor did our forefathers intend a wholly secular nation. While they never intended for one religion to be nationally endorsed, they nevertheless intended that religion play a vital role in society. They expected religion to be the conscience of the nation.

In the book American Gospel, Jon Meacham finds middle ground between extremes. On the one hand are those who want an entirely secular America. They would love to see God taken off the money and out of the pledge. They would love it if the President would stop saying “God bless America.”

But this would also violate the intent of our Founding Fathers. They could distinguish between what Meacham calls “public religion” and “private religion.” America has, from the beginning, practiced a public religion. References in the Declaration of Independence to our Creator, Nature's God, and Divine Providence, clearly show that the intent was never to leave God entirely out of the picture.

But no specific God was named. It was intentional that God remain “generic” in the political sphere. In a free society, people are free to define God as they understand him.

Yet outside the founding documents, men like Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams wrote of their definite preference for the morality of the Christian religion. But that is where “private” religion comes in. One's private religion is what one chooses to practice. It's expected that one's private religion will influence one's public decisions, even if one holds public office. Voters decide if that person should be in office.

The United States is somewhat analogous to the Boy Scouts of America. The Boy Scouts is not a “Christian” organization, but a “religious” organization. The United States has not historically been a “Christian” nation, but a religious nation and a reverent nation. While the Founding Fathers did not envision one religion reigning supreme, nor could they have imagined the public irreverence and indecency that is prevalent in our society. As religious people, we should continue to be the conscience of our nation.

Can We Take the Bible Literally?

Can a person, in all intellectual honesty, believe that the events of the Bible are literally true? Was the world created in six literal days, did the Red Sea literally turn to blood, and was Jesus bodily raised from the dead? Retired Bishop John Shelby Spong says "no" to all of the above. He cites the "intellectual revolution" from Copernicus to Einstein as having made it impossible for educated people to view the Bible as literally true.

Spong argues that the biblical miracles cannot be true since Newton showed that the universe operates according to fixed natural laws. Moreover, Darwin surely disproved that humans are a special creation made in God's image. According to Spong, "there has never been a human perfection from which we have fallen away. There has been rather only the evolution of higher consciousness..." (Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes ). Spong further maintains that Einstein has "demonstrated the relativity of all articulated truth." 

The biblical narratives, written within a pre-modern framework, can simply not be taken literally by the intellectually honest post-modern thinker. Yet Spong refers to himself as a Christian and to Jesus as his Lord. Spong hopes for a time in which the church will not consider literal understandings of Scripture to be the litmus test of orthodoxy. He envisions a church in which those who cannot intellectually force themselves to believe in a bodily resurrection of Jesus can still be embraced as Christians. He puts himself in this category, also rejecting such foundational doctrines as the virgin birth and the ascension.  

It sounds to me as if Spong is saying that we have simply outgrown a literal reading of the "myths and legends" of Scripture. We have become too sophisticated to believe all that and any thinking person who does has intellectually compromised. At least that's how I understand Spong. 

I have agreed with much of what Spong says in his book which has been the launching pad for my last several posts. He certainly caused me to think. I cannot overemphasize the book's significance for articulating the New Testament's use of the Old. I've been trying to communicate much of this to the church for years and I now have the means to do so even more adequately.  

But I disagree when Spong asserts that the Gospel authors did not intend their works to be taken literally. He surely overstates the case when he says that "Jewish people did not relate to sacred history as if it were an objective description of reality." Even if we grant that to be occasionally true, it seems that for Spong "Jewish" consistently equals "non-literal." I think it's a stretch to imply that Jewish authors of antiquity were never concerned about literal history or objective reality. 

Spong is correct in that reading the Scriptures through a Jewish lens will open up a whole new world for us. But I'm not convinced that reading the Bible through a Jewish lens will always imply a non-literal reading. Spong attempts to form too solid a link between the Jewishness of a work and its "supposed" non-literal intent.   

While I know that Spong is a champion of human rights and rails against Anti-Semitism, some of his arguments about what makes a book Jewish are almost reminiscent of some of the original motive behind the Documentary Hypothesis. German theologians dissected Jewish Scriptures, assigning the Pentateuch to various authors, believing the Semitic mind to be too irrational to recognize all the "contradictions." Spong, likewise, has not painted the Jews of antiquity in a very rational light. But in all fairness, I'm sure he meant to show that what a modern Westerner considers "rational" would not even occur to an ancient Jew. While this is true to an extent, I don't think it's true to the extent Spong believes.     

Spong believes that thinking Christians must work to deliver the gospel from "literal distortions" or else it will die. But does the gospel really need us to save it? And is there really a gospel if there is no bodily resurrection of Jesus? What does it mean to believe in the resurrection?

What if someone in our church family decides to stop taking the resurrection literally? Do we excommunicate them or do we say, "Well, that's okay. We admire your intellectual honesty. So just stay on board and help the rest of us make the world a better place"? What do you think?

More on the resurrection in my next post.              

Coping with the Stress of Transition

Transitions in life can take you beyond your stress thresh-hold. In Roy Oswald's book New Beginnings: A Pastorate Start Up Workbook part of his advice to ministers in a new work regards coping with the stress of transition. While some of the advice may be unique to ministers, much of it can apply to anyone.

In addition to moving, injury, and changes in job, financial status, or living conditions, stress is also produced by changes in marital status, the death of a loved one, retirement, celebration of holidays, a new addition to the family, or even by an outstanding personal achievement. You might need some coping strategies if any of this has been among your recent experience.

So what follows are coping strategies from Oswald, embellished by Yours Truly, and in no particular order: 

1) Don't make more radical changes. Having just been through a major transition, this is not a good time to start a new diet, change your sleeping patterns, or enroll for a university course. Give yourself some recovery time before launching into anything new. 

2) Be good to yourself. Now there is a difference between being good to yourself and self-indulgence. The latter can destroy your health, while the former can preserve your sanity. So take in a movie, have a favorite desert, or read for recreation. 

3) Stabilize the Family Structure. Follow up a major transition by spending more and not less time with family. You will not not function well if they have difficulty adjusting. Family rituals are one way to help with stability. In our family, we observe a weekly "popcorn-and-a-movie" night. It's usually Friday, but is sometimes made up on Saturday. Each week we watch something "family friendly." It might be Don Knotts, Shirley Temple, Roy Rogers, or Jerry Lewis. But we do this religiously even if we're in a motel with a portable DVD player and microwave popcorn. 

4) Exercise. Having a foot in two towns I've fallen down on this one, but I've taken some small steps lately. I recently stopped by Wal-Mart and bought a basketball. While I could spend my work breaks indulging in more caffeine, I now go out to the church parking lot and take a "hoops break." It's a real stress reliever. A two mile walk in the evening doesn't hurt either. 

5) Have a Support System. Keep up with friends by e-mail or telephone. Find some members of the church family in whom you can confide. With ministers it is often safer if those support systems are out-of-town (at least at first). I once heard a wise man compare a preacher who expects his needs to be met by the congregation to a doctor who expects his needs to be met by his patients. While some mutual ministry will likely happen, a minister is not there so the church can minister to him. He is there to minister to the church.

6) Ease into things. As Oswald states, it is tempting to bust a gut in the first six months of ministry until you settle into a routine. Avoid this temptation. Your first order of business is to get to know the members of the congregation. Know their needs. Know where they live. Visit them on their own turf, invite people over, and have lunch with the heads of the households. If I had past ministries to do over, I would have done far more of this sooner as I am doing now.  

Oswald states that in the first few months you are little more than lover and historian. It is not the time to initiate new programs or make sweeping reforms. Get to know folks individually and learn how the congregation functions as a group. 

7) Spend your first Sunday in the pew as a visitor. My current position is the only church where I have been able to do that. It gave me an opportunity to view the congregation through the eyes of a visitor. And I'm glad I did since I heard a great sermon on Habakkuk and just what I needed at the time. 

8) If possible, take some time between transitions. It was healthy for me to take a vacation between my ministries in Illinois and Kansas. And it was healthy to have time off from the ministry before beginning my latest job. Preaching a farewell sermon one Sunday and a sermon at your new congregation the next does not allow any recovery time.      

So there you are. Preacher or not, I hope some of this is helpful.           

The Changing Values of the Church # 8

The Value of Preaching, Part Two

I do appreciate the comments on my previous post and I regret that I have not been able to respond. Perhaps I'll integrate some responses into this and other posts.

I'll again say that my concern is not sermon length per se. My concern is a low view of preaching and a general intolerance for the exposition of the Word. This seeming intolerance may be reflected in today's increasing demand for shorter sermons.

I don't think the issue has anything to do with attention spans. We live in an increasingly educated society where a greater number than ever are continuing their education. This means sitting through hours of lectures for a number of years. People can do it if they're convinced that it will improve their lives.

I'm always bothered by the sentiment that it doesn't matter how a minister preaches as long as he's good with people. While I agree that a preacher should work hard to build relationships, he also needs to be a good preacher. So why might some have a low view of preaching? 

1) In our church culture, I think worship is increasingly viewed as being participatory. This is a good corrective to some extremes. Worship is not about being a passive observer. But I think some worship leaders are now accentuating the areas they feel are most participatory (i.e., singing and communion), possibly to the neglect of more Word-oriented activities. Some fail to realize that active listening is also participatory.

2) Some may have a low view of preaching because they've mostly been exposed to mediocre preaching. They haven't heard real biblical exposition that makes Scripture accessible and that connects with everyday life. They've heard soap boxes, rants, doctrinal lectures, denominational defenses, history lessons, and stand-up routines.

Now I don't claim to be the best preacher on earth and no one consistently bats a thousand. But I'm passionate about preaching and forever working toward the goal of perfecting the craft. I've come a long way, but I'm not where I eventually envision myself to be. I work as hard as I do because I see myself as a steward of God's treasure. I view preaching as a sacred trust, not to be handled flippantly or haphazardly.

3) Many are of the view that since preaching isn't what draws people to a church, or keeps them there, then it must not be too important. But who says that preaching makes no difference in drawing or keeping people? Many are starving for the Word.

I'll admit that I've been a member at churches where the preaching had nothing to do with why I was there. I was there because of relationships with the people, or because I felt needed, or because the worship was inspiring. So I admit that preaching isn't the whole package. But there have been at least two churches I've attended because I was drawn by the preaching. The sermons spoke to me so personally that I wondered if the preacher had access to my life on hidden camera. The sermon was the shot in the arm I needed each week. Preaching was not the only reason I stayed, but it was the reason I came.

And we must remember that people are wired differently. While we all need preaching, communion, and to sing songs of praise, there are different aspects of worship that speak to different people according to who they are and where they are. While the preaching is what's always done it for me, I'm not the only one in the congregation. And while preaching may not be what does it for you, it may be what keeps someone else encouraged.                     

The Changing Values of the Church # 7

The Value of Preaching

A few months ago my friend, Frank Bellizzi, did a few posts on his blog in regard to a gospel meeting conducted by Evangelist T. B. Larrimore in Sherman, Texas in 1894. (Frank's posts can be found here, and here, and here). For five months, Larrimore would speak every day, twice a day, and three times on Sunday. Over 250 people were baptized at this meeting.

One Brother Earnest Hildebrand, a member at Sherman, wrote to Gospel Advocate about the meeting reporting that "Still, nobody seems tired, and no one seems willing to entertain the thought of closing the meeting...There has never been the slightest inclination of even a probable decline in interest, or in the mental, physical, or heart-power of any one engaged or interested in the work."

Larrimore later wrote to Gospel Advocate editor David Lipscomb, stating that the average length of sermons for this meeting was fifty minutes and the entire service lasted around seventy minutes. Lipscomb states his reason for reporting this meeting as the basis of an appeal to preachers and churches everywhere to do more preaching.

My purpose here is not to simply rehash what Frank has already said well enough. But since his posts, I've thought about this a lot and I've re-read those posts often. What strikes me is how far we've come in our church culture over the last century.

Now this isn't a total lament. I'm not advocating a return to fifty minute sermons. Absolutely not! But am I amiss to sense yet another swinging of the pendulum in our church culture? Not only did the church once seem to place a higher premium on the assembly and on Scripture, but it seems that we once had a higher view of preaching.   

During my recent job search, I contacted one church whose leadership demanded that sermons be kept to about fifteen minutes. I told them I would be hard pressed to do that. I had my rejection letter within the week. Now just for the record, I try to keep my sermons to about twenty minutes. I sometimes go into twenty five minutes, but rarely thirty. It took years to learn how to say something worthwhile in twenty minutes.   

The point of this post is not sermon length. But what I'm out to demonstrate is the low view that so many have of preaching these days. Some in a movement that once tolerated fifty minute sermons are now demanding that preaching be kept to fifteen minutes. In time, I wonder if sermons will be held to ten minutes or if some of our churches will dispense with preaching in worship altogether.

I've no doubt that Larrimore's meeting was successful in his time because it was a different time. In an era before the gradual shift from modernism to post-modernism began, rational argument and logical deduction were very persuasive. Now we're told that we preach to a sound bite generation who are accustomed to commerical breaks, audio-visual technology, and emotional appeal. We're told that we must connect with the culture, be more interactive, appeal to more senses than just the sense of hearing. We must persuade the heart and not just the head.

I agree to an extent, but my concern is that we might have underestimated the power of the spoken Word. The timeless Scriptures seem to maintain a very high view of preaching.

• While the world considers the preaching of the cross to be foolishness, the saved know that it is the power of God (1 Cor. 1:23-25).
• Faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom. 10:17).
• The Word, like the rain, always accomplishes its purpose and does not return to God void (Isa. 55:10-11).

So just how much do we accomodate our preaching to a supposedly post-modern culture that doesn't seem as persuaded by logic and explanation? Where is the line between accomodating the message and dumbing it down?  Where is the line between accomodation and entertainment?

Have we lost confidence in the power of God's Word to do its work? Might we have insulted the masses by judging them too shallow to handle biblical exposition? What do you think?      

The Changing Values of the Church, # 6

The Value of the Word, Part Two

• We do Bible things in Bible ways and call Bible things by Bible names.
• We speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent.
• The Bible is our only authority in religious matters.
• We have no book but the Bible.
• Let's go back to the Bible.

The above points are slogans, or variations of such, that grew out of the Restoration Movement. There is no doubt that churches of that movement have held the Bible in high esteem. We've sang songs like "Give me the Bible." Instead of "church camp" we've had "Bible camp." We've competed in Bible bowls. When confronted with a new idea we've demanded book, chapter, and verse as proof.

You would think that people with such a high regard for the Bible would be the most loving, united, and Spirit-filled people on the planet. But has that been the prevailing reputation among those of the Restoration heritage (or of those affiliated with the most conservative stream of that movement known as churches of Christ)? We've too often been labeled as argumentative, sectarian, or legalistic. And too often, the labels have fit.

The problem has been adequately diagnosed as "bibliolatry." While holding a book in high esteem, some have failed to discern the spirit within the text. The text is a means to an end that the influence and application of that text might form Christ in us. When religion becomes all about a book, it can cease to be about a person.

When this happens, knowing the "right answers" displaces a relationship with Jesus as the litmus test for identifying faithfulness. We can become more concerned with being right than with being righteous. We can become more concerned with memorization than with transformation. We can become more concerned with knowing facts than with living faith.

At first glance, it would seem that previous generations were more interested in the Scripture. They came to hear it taught and preached whenever the church doors were opened. One to two week Gospel Meetings were well enough attended to justify one every Spring and another every Fall.

I have no doubt that many of those previous generations were faithful and sincere. But for others the motives were less sincere and more legalistic. Some of that attitude still exists. In more conservative congregations members still speak the rhetoric which insists that they hold the Bible in high esteem. But while some have the rhetoric down, it is evident that they've not been transformed. Haven't we all known people who defend dogma while defaming their brothers?

I've been concerned about the church. My previous posts have lamented the lackadaisical attitude that many of this generation have toward worship attendance. They don't even come to class, much less anything extra. Any excuse to miss will do. What that says to me is that people lack the passion they should have for studying the Word, being among the family of God, or praising the Lord. It's easy to underestimate the power of the assembly to transform if you're in a dead church. But let's not let our experience get in the way of biblical theology. The assembly has a very significant role in the lives of believers.

Please don't hear my concern as some legalistic argument that equates the assembly as the end-all litmus test of faithfulness, on par with loving your neighbor as yourself. That is not my point. Nor am I saying that it's always a sin to "miss church." As a new Christian, my job forced me to miss every Sunday morning.

But what concerns me is that the pendulum seems to have swung from viewing the assembly as important (perhaps too important) to hearing my generation routinely dis the assembly: "Going to church is not Christianity;" "We don't go to church. We are the church." These seem to be the slogans of this new generation. But are we throwing the baby out with the bath water?

By comparing this generation to previous ones, I am not calling us back to some golden era in which everyone had it together. I even suspect that in a movement typified by legalistic sectarianism our motives weren't always that pure (with notable exceptions acknowledged). Did previous generations go to church all the time because they were serious about transformation or because they were afraid not to go? I think quite a few were more concerned with punching their ticket than with loving their neighbor. We did have a mandate, after all, to study to show ourselves approved. If we didn't study, we must not be approved.

But in spite of all that study and church-going we still had the reputation of sectarian judgmentalism. How did that happen? Just holding the Bible in high esteem did not make us biblical. I'll close with this quote from Eugene Peterson's Eat This Book:

Once the Bible became a reverend authority it became possible to treat it as a thing, an impersonal authority, to use it to define or damn others, and to avoid dealing with God's Word in a personal, relational, and obedient way. It didn't take long for people to start using the Bible as a cover, as a front, by honoring it, praising it as a verbal artifact, defending it as the truth against all comers...But the words of Scripture are not primarily words, however impressive, that label or define or prove, but words that mean, that reveal, that shape the soul...

Having and defending and celebrating the Bible instead of receiving, submitting to, and praying the Bible, masks an enormous amount of non-reading.

Sound like anybody we know?            

An Uncle Again and Blogging Again

Some of you may recall a prayer request I made several months ago. My sister and her husband were expecting their second child, twenty years after the birth of their first one. Their second one was a total surprise after having been told that they would never have children again.

Well, my niece, Emma, was born on December 7, 2007. Her mom turned 40 on the 24th, but this was not on her list of forty things to do before turning forty. In fact, some of those things have been postponed. While little Emma was being born, her sister, Amber, was taking a college final.

So thank you to everyone who prayed. Things went well and Emma is healthy and happy.

On another note, I appreciate all who read this and I apologize for not always responding to comments and for the long hiatuses between some posts over the last six or eight months. I'm still learning the ropes of a new ministry, new place, new everything. We're gaining on the transitional business, but don't quite have it all done yet. And now it's getting to be tax time. ARRGGGH! We also have some personal challenges that have been frustrating, but I'm optimistic.

So from here on I do intend to blog more. Can that be a New Year's resolution or with most people is blogging one of the addictions they want to cut back on? But here are some of my good intentions:

• Post at least once a week, if not more often
• Respond to comments more frequently
• Keep up with my reading of others' blogs and post occasional comments
• Intersperse some lighter and more personal posts with the other stuff

In addition to blogging, I hope to settle back into some other regimens now that the holidays are behind us and we've been in Ohio for six months. My reading has been very sporadic over the past year, so I hope to make it through more books in 2008. I usually try to balance my reading among topics that will help me to grow personally, professionally, and intellectually. I'll share what I'm currently reading in a near future post.

In congregational ministry, my mission for 2008 is to get connected, with the priority being connection with the congregation. Not that I haven't done any of that and I've done more than most of our members could know since no one sees me all the time. But in addition to my reading regimen, I'll be getting back to a visiting regime that kind of fell by the wayside over the holidays. Not many want visits between Thanksgiving and New Years. Since some are so busy, formal visits aren't always possible with everyone. So I'll have to be creative about how to connect with young and busy families.

But for the record, I am very happy to be in my current location. It has not been a disappointment by any means. This is a rare kind of loving and accepting congregation that few ministers (or members) ever manage to find. Gretchen and I were just talking today about what this congregation has to offer:

• When we come away from worship we feel like we've really worshiped enthusiastically as a body.
• We are confident that newcomers to this congregation will be accepted and not needlessly offended.
• We have no doubt that we are loved.

We are blessed.

The Changing Values of the Church # 5

The Value of the Word, Part One

It's mind-boggling to consider the amount of money some people will spend, the lines in which they will stand, and the inconvenience they will endure, all in the name of sports. This year I attended my first Ohio State football game. As we approached the stadium, fans weren't hard to spot because so many were wearing team colors. Many were having tail gate parties, some of which began as early as five in the morning. Outside the stadium some without tickets were in tents, with generators set up to power their TVs and satellite dishes on tripods. It reminded me of worshipers gathered in the Court of the Gentiles because they couldn't get into the inner courts of the temple.

Hold on a minute! Did I say worshipers? Is sports a religion? With some, yes. One's God, or idol, is whatever one makes a priority. It's been said that the easiest way to identify your object of worship is to examine your check book register and your day planner. Wherever your discretionary time and money goes, that is your religion. Now I'm not saying all sports fans are idolaters or that there is anything wrong with being a sports fan. But some are excessive.

There aren't too many revivals, gosepl meetings, or seminars on Scripture anymore. Some churches have canceled Sunday and/or Wednesday night meetings because the people just won't come out.

• Some could not possibly make it through a weekly one hour Bible class, but they're parked in front of the TV three hours straight to watch football.
• Some are unable to locate key Scriptures, but they can cite sports statistics .
• Some are simply too busy to volunteer for church programs, but they can make tremendous sacrifice for their kids' sports programs.
• Some make contributions to the church that by no means reflect their prosperity, but they can somehow afford to be season ticket holders.
• Some will endure all kinds of weather to watch sports, but they won't drive to church in a snow flurry.
• Some will unashamedly walk out in the middle of a worship assembly to attend a sporting event, but how many will leave before a game is over to attend a church event?
• Some would never travel for a church retreat and would never dream of using vacation time to attend a lectureship or worship conference, but they will travel for sporting events and tournaments.

Each year parents shell out hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to keep their kids in sports. It's common for folks to make an early exit from the assembly due to sports commitments. It's common for folks to miss an entire season of Sunday worship while a sports season is going on.

Now sports season isn't all that people get excited about. I saw people literally camped out on the sidewalk of Target when Playstation 3 came out. People lined up in bookstores at midnight for the Harry Potter books. On the day after Thanksgiving, the first official shopping day of the Christmas season, people were out at four in the morning standing in lines 150 yards long.

• But who would stand in line to hear the Word of God preached?
• Who would adjust their personal budget to generously support those who preach the gospel?
• Who, these days, would tolerate a sermon that runs the length of their favorite sitcom?
• Who would sit outside enduring the elements (as they do at ballgames) to hear a sermon?
• Who would travel to hear Scripture taught?

Paul charged Timothy with preaching the Word. He told him to be prepared in season and out of season (2 Timothy 4:2). As I write this it is football season, deer season, and the holiday season. But in our current church climate, is Scripture in season or out of season?  

The Changing Values of the Church # 4

The Value of Attendance, Part Four

Many of my in-laws' generation prioritized corporate worship. Nothing stood in the way of this commitment. Today's generation doesn't seem to share that commitment and there are a number of reasons. There are the modern idols of individualism, family, and sports. There are those who've given up on lifeless assemblies that are mostly an exercise in irrelevance. Some congregations bear part of the blame for being too lazy or stubborn to connect with today's culture.

But there are more complex issues surrounding the contrast between the previous generations' commitment and the current generation's lax attitude toward church. I think many of the previous generation were committed for all the right reasons. But others went to extremes and still do. I've known of people sliding to worship during a blizzard and showing up on Wednesday night under a green tinted sky while tornado sirens were blowing. I do believe one can be too committed to attendance. There is such a thing as making too close an association between attendance and faithfulness.

I think one reason some have been committed to attendance is because they've been  afraid not to be. It's been drilled into them that God is not pleased with those who "miss services." Hebrews 10:25 has been the standard proof text for never missing an assembly. Never mind that the text was originally deterring Jewish Christians from leaving the church altogether for the synagogue.

Now I do believe there is a correlation between corporate worship and spiritual growth. We need the assembly. The assembly is intended to be transformative. I am troubled that the pendulum seems to have swung from making attendance the litmus test of faithfulness to viewing the assembly as negotiable. Neither extreme is healthy.

A reason for the swing is that people aren't afraid anymore. They've learned about grace (or think they have) and decided that they just might not go to hell for missing worship. In a comment on the second post of this series, my friend Darin summed it up well. He said,

...I think we told people they were legally bound to come whenever the doors were opened. Then they discovered that it wasn't a law, well, they were trained in legalism well enough to know that if you don't legally have to be there then legally it is okay to stay home. So grace for many has become nothing more than legalism lite and they don't even know it.

The problem is that legalistic motives have not been replaced by better reasons for commitment to corporate assembly. The problem is an anemic ecclesiology. In our individualistic culture church is considered negotiable which leads to attendance being viewed as negotiable.

A lack of commitment to the assembly is not fundamentally an attendance problem. It's a lack of theological understanding in regard to why church is vital to our spiritual walk. Many have not made the connection between the church and the gospel or between the church and Jesus. Church leaders have the task of helping connect these dots.

A previous generation may have taught that the church is an institution that we're commanded to be a part of simply because God said so. Jettisoning legalism has left a void that needs to be filled with a healthy theology of church. So what is church, really? As cliche as it sounds, we need to go back to the Bible and ask these questions anew.           

The Changing Values of the Church # 3

The Value of Attendance, Part Three

My previous post identified some idols of Western culture that keep people from the assembly. But this isn't all that keeps folks away. Believe it or not, some assemblies are indeed boring. When you step across the threshold into some assemblies it's like you've stepped into a time machine back into the 1950s. Nothing has changed.

The songs are antiquated. The preaching may be an irrelevant tirade against denominationalism or change agents. It may be a rattling of many chain references (out-of-context) to defend whatever sacred cow the preacher has selected for this week. But nothing too helpful for life out in the trenches.

The seats are hard and the surroundings dull. The brown auditorium paneling has not been updated since the seventies. The cinder block classrooms are as inviting as the walls of the county jail. The children's classes assume that every child is wired with the same learning style. Crossword puzzles, worksheets, and memorization rule. Nothing too hands-on. 

There are no pictures, banners, or images--certainly no crosses. In some churches there is still no multi-media unless you count a microphone. Mothers wrestle their preschoolers, missing most of the sermon because the church refuses to do a children's program or to even have an attended nursery. Visitors are sometimes confronted by the dress code police.

And we expect the people of this generation to come out for that? Yet many churches refuse to change. The disinterested are simply written off as those who don't love the truth. Any who plead for change are simply accused of wanting to "entertain" or to compete with those churches down the street.

There is nothing wrong with church being relevant or even contemporary. We simply must speak the language of contemporary people if we want to reach them and keep them. And yes, you can dumb things down to the point that there is no substance left. And no, some people still won't come no matter what you do. But why intentionally drive people away? Perhaps more would value attendance if they felt a connection to real life and to the world they live in. Perhaps more would be interested if the church addressed their felt needs (sounds like what Jesus would do).

We are told that worship is all about God and not about us. It's our duty to be there without always asking, "What's in it for me?" That is true to some extent. There were mornings I've had to drag myself to even the most relevant churches. I just wasn't in the mood to be there, but it was the right thing to do. But when duty is consistently the only motivation, it's hard to stay motivated.

It's the responsibility of churches and their leaders to show the relevance of the gospel to everyday life. While worship is, in a sense, all about God, it is also to be transformative. God needs nothing from us, but we need to worship. We need the regular reminder of who should be at the center of our universe. Worship that speaks to who and where we are is indeed transformative.