The greatest culture ever needs the biggest churches! does it?

Every nation, empire, kingdom, racial grouping that has been the most powerful in their time considers itself the best there has ever been, is and will be. As a corollary, its citizens, on top of the world, feel themselves to have relevance and rights that are above the rest of the world. More often than not it is fairly easy to keep to such assumptions as there are perks that come with being on top of the world. These perks include higher standards of living, easier traveling, quicker access to innovation, etc.

A roman citizen could cross the known world secure in the knowledge that his citizenship alone would facilitate all manner of access. An Inca king could communicate with his vast empire much faster and at a greater distance than a Roman emperor as the Inca roads infrastructure was better and more extensive than the Roman empire's. A Spaniard of means in the 1500's could travel to a brand new world the kingdom to which he was a subject ruled. A new world so vast that it's smallest province was nearly twice as big as Spain itself! A British gentleman could boast of the sun never setting on England during its heyday, etc. Each of these and many others, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese, Maya, Aztec, thought themselves the best there has ever been.
We too now think ourselves the best there has ever been, though we have only existed for little more than 200 years! Our entire existence, from official birth to now, is less than half as long as the Spanish empire spent as absolute ruler of most of America, huge swathes of South East Asia, and some of Africa! All of which came after the Spanish defeated a powerful Muslim empire back into Africa after nearly 800 years of fighting! The "decline" of the Roman empire alone took about 100 years longer than we have existed.
Some may say the world has not seen the advances it has through our "tenure" at any other time in History. Then again, that brings us back to the opening of this blog, all influential cultures have felt themselves to be better than anything that has ever existed. I would argue that industrial revolution England would have more than enough merit to dispute our claim as the most diverse and fastest innovators. Then again, comparing the best ever is an exercise in near futility as there will be as many varying opinions as there would be options. Were the Romans better than the Greek in their heyday? Was Egypt better than Mesopotamia? What about China and their technological advances? The Mayan were hundreds of years ahead in Mathematics and agriculture than their invaders who were hundreds of years ahead in the art of war. The Inca road network was so superior to the Roman that an Inca King could get news to his subjects 1000 miles away twice as fast as a Roman emperor could, so on and so fort.

I have given the previous thoughts as a way to provide some context for what I think is at the core of the title sentence in this blog. Many in our churches know with absolute certainty that there has never been any culture, country, as good as the United States. So it follows that our understanding of church must be the most clear and best there has been. We love anything with, best, greatest ever, biggest, most important, most influential, etc. before its name. So when we think of a good church our thoughts often follow this criteria, the biggest, best known churches must be the best, most influential, etc. churches.

At my church we get a fair amount of visitors, probably because our building is big and very visible. But, most of these visitors, who are looking for a church, never come back. The cynic in me attributes that to the fact that our church looks like a church from the inside. Our chancel/altar does not look like the stage of a concert venue. We do not have a full band with sound plastic/glass separators for the drum set so that the drummer can play as loud as he/she wants without overpowering the rest of the band or the carefully mixed sound coming from the state of the art sound system. Our lighting system does not allow us to set different "ambiances" depending on where we are in the service, it consists entirely of on/off switches. When I tell a story during my sermon there are no high definition images floating above me that drive my point with surround sound, I have to make due with words and expression. But that is just the cynic in me, though I think these things are symptoms of our bigger is better mentality. I think all these visitors do not stay because they are not worshiping with hundreds of other people and therefore there must be something wrong with this church. I suppose another difficult part of our church is that it calls us to follow Christ as though Christ was actually in the lead which makes it difficult to be business oriented enough to become "successful."

Of course not all massive, mega churches are bad but how many of them are actually church for the thousands who come? So, is bigger really better? Should we have 5 Mega churches one-upping each other close to the highway out of the city for parking ease? Or should we have 50 smaller ones throughout the neighborhoods, living in the towns, being relevant locally and just as relevant globally through their affiliations with the greater body of Christ?

Of course smaller churches have a host of problems. It is very difficult to hide in small churches. Plus the likelihood of being asked to do something for someone else is exponentially bigger in smaller churches. Whereas in the bigger, mega, kind of church we are more likely to be asked to chose between fun options to "better" ourselves. Sure you can drive to the city and hand out sandwiches, or fly to Guatemala for a week, of which at least two days will be sight seeing and "gift shopping".
Small churches also need their members to give in more substantial ways than their much bigger cousins. Sure financial offerings from individuals matter more in the small church but time, dedication, and leadership are things that matter most. In a small church someone has to volunteer to care for the children during the service. Someone has to head outreach, or discipleship, worship, etc. A small church will probably not be able to hire an extensive staff so that those attending can concentrate only on being fully involved in the feel good service.

A small church is challenging because it puts the faithful close to the needs. It places the Christian in places where Christ would be more likely to visit. Luke 14:12-14.

A small church is challenging because it lives by faith. 1 Cor. 5:1-10 Many people are not comfortable at a church that lives with the reality that it could not make it. But there is freedom in walking by faith. A church that does not have an overabundance that allows for state of the art children program stage does not spend much time looking at theater lighting bids. That church is instead more free to spend time thinking about who is visiting the shut-ins. The small church will not hire a minister of visitation, it will have to ask its members to follow Christ into yet another undesirable place.
A small church in the neighborhood is challenging because the rif-raf and the undesirables tend to knock on its doors. Luke 15:1-7. When we live out our walk with Jesus are we living that walk or are we driving in once a week with food and clothes?

Smaller neighborhood churches are tough and demanding so most people are abandoning them for greener pastures. It is in times like this that I am reminded how our "bigger is better" culture has made us forget that Jesus, in addition to defeating death in a triumphant and deserving of a fancy car way also said, pick up your cross and follow me.

how are we sharing the Gospel?

There is a mission field every bit as foreign and distant from our mainline world as the one our faithful progenitors sought after in their train cars on their trips out west and to the middle of this country early on in the history of our American home missions society. The difference now is that the mission field is no longer geographically distant. Our current mission field is just as distant but in an ideological expanse as far and wide as the plains of the mid west or as endless as the sky of montana must have seemed to those who came before us.

Our call to mission and sharing the Gospel remains and the logistical needs are still there. How do we reach these distant people? They are far from where we are and we must do more than simply shout out from where we are and invite them to come. In fact, the distance is so great that often times our best efforts seem to them as little more than a few crazy people waving their arms and shouting incomprensible things from a distance.
I have dear beloved friends who cannot understand why I don't use more Scripture in my personal facebook page. They say, Doug you are a man of God, why don't you use all that is available to you to spread the Gospel? My response often includes asking them what they think the gospel is? Is quoting Scripture often the only way to share the Gospel? Sadly these discussions end the way most seem to in our current times, everyone assuming the extreme. In other words, if my update status are not at least 50% Scripture I am not sharing the Gospel. When I refuse to constantly quote Scripture I am not speaking against the power of the word of God. I know it is necessary for faith in Christ to hear, read and engage with Scripture. So the issue is not as simple as, use Scripture in Facebook and if you don't you're not sharing the Gospel. I would rather say, choose wisely before presenting the Word of God as hitting someone over the head with Scripture is just as bad as not using it at all.

Sadly, once again, since we live in extremes now, it seems that many in mainline churches are now almost afraid or apologetic about sharing Scripture with the world. I think our problem with growth in mainline denominations isn't that we have no message, or that the message is now irrelevant. The problem is more an issue of our own walk with Christ. How often do we look to culture to help us reach out to the world? How often do we follow this method, or that method, in an endless self help cycle that does little more than perpetuate itself and pay ever growing royalties to the author of the method that is "in". the result is that many of us feel we are bending over backwards for "these" people and they just don't come!

Jesus reminded us that in order to enter the kingdom we must be born again. (John 3:1-21) We now seem to have taken that to mean, we must help the unbelievers come to Christ so they repent and are born again. What I find most interesting about our understanding of being born again is that we seem to miss the fact that Jesus was not talking to an unbeliever about faith in the John passage. Nicodemus was not a "seeker" who was exploring church for the first time. Nicodemus is us, the believer, the one who is honestly doing her/his best to follow God. Some of us Christians try to explain this story as it applies to us away by saying Nicodemus was a pharisee therefore not a Christian, so an unbeliever. I wish I had more time to discuss how wrong that escapist perception is, the Pharisees and Sadducees were the church people, they knew God and were making sure this crazy Jesus person would not lead people astray!
So, Jesus was talking to a knowledgeable faithful person about the way in which he was receiving the Gospel (the Good News). Paul helped us to understand this encounter in a deeper way when he reminded us that we must die so that we may find life and life abundantly. (Galatians 2:20)
Are you willing to let the old you die? Jesus is not talking here about the old, non-christian you, some of us don't even have an old non Christian self if we've been in church all our life! What JESUS is asking is whether we have the willingness to let the christian self we know and love, die for the sake of the gospel! I saw a protest sigh some time ago that has illustrated this very thing for me; "I have contemplated the fact that I may be wrong, have you?" Are you willing to explore your own faith in an honest way to separate the you from the Gospel? As I said before, our problem as mainline churches isn't that our message is no longer life Transforming or relevant. I Think a big part of our problem is that we are often unwilling to consider that the way we know how to share the gospel may just now be wrong. The Gospel has not changed, it has not become irrelevant or obsolete. But the way we share the Good News may have become irrelevant and/or obsolete. This distinction is fundamental as we tend to confuse the questioning of the methods with the questioning of the truth that is so evident in the word of God. It would do us all good to spend time re-encountering that which is life Transforming, and life giving in the Gospel for ourselves. So get back into Scripture, read it, engage with it! After all, the words of your message will be much more effective if the other person can "hear" your love for what you are sharing.

So the mission field is just as distant now as it was one hundred years ago. The difference is that now, in order to share the Gospel with the world our journey needs to begin with a trip deep within so we may fall in love all over again. Only then will we be able to help the world discover the relevance and life giving power of the Gospel once again.

the church we want to be

We are living in stressful times that leave us all with very unsettled feelings. The church in our country seems to be lost. It no longer has the certainties of Modernism nor the wealth and power of the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. so it's grabbing at anything it can to give it a sense of direction. The old modes of worship aren't working as effectively as they used to and some new ones, that ignore the wealth of the history of the body of Christ, are taking off like wild fires. So the place that would normally be a refuge is just as confused and anxious as the society in which we struggle.

As Orlando Costas says in "Christ Outside the Gate"; "the dominant symptoms of this situation of alienation are fear, anxiety and distrust at the personal level, and racism, classism, and sexism at the social level." How is a church to survive in an environment such as this? It seems to me like the churches who are surviving and even thriving in this world are the ones offering extremes.

The first set reminds me of the tall, thick impenetrable walls of the castles of the middle ages. These churches are bastions of a particular class of faith and nothing can shake them! They are guarded by well armed and skilled soldiers who are ever ready for the fight and rarely ever are without their "sword". It should not be very difficult to surmise the appeal of a place such as this in the midst of an uncertain world full of threats and insecurities. So people flock to these places and are willing to agree to tough and clear cut rules in order to live in the shelter provided by these castles. Independent thought is actively discouraged in favor of tried and true strategies that are handled and held by a few leaders who guard their authority jealously. Authority is placed in few individuals and like the aristocracy of the middle ages it is only handed down through familial relations or to those who have shown unflinching loyalty over time. That small group of aristocrats are jealously guarded by their knights who obey without question and keep the status quo.

The second set of churches who are thriving in the midst of all this uncertainty are the ones more akin to city states, these are places where the new takes precedent over the old and "obsolete". These city states are flushed with funds as a result of shrewd business practices and more often than not the charisma of its leader. Like the city states of old they are dominated by a few names that command authority based on their charisma as well as access to seemingly unending funds. They do all in a big way and their "homes" are glittering examples of all that is new and state of the art. They draw people not as a safe refuge with restricting walls but rather they do so as glittery places that offer comfort, entertainment, and an overall sense of escape from the gloomy world outside. Unlike the stern castles these places do not require much beyond regular contributions, which fund the leadership as well as the grandeur of the city.

I may have taken my analogies a bit too far but bear with me, these are the places where people are flocking. It seems like "thriving" church options are either conservative movements unwilling to yield and with very narrow definitions/understanding of the Gospel message, who offer certainty at the price of thought and freedom. Or glittery, fancy, state of the art mega churches that have a feel good message, packaged in unparalleled quality entertainment that require very little from its audience beyond funds.

Both of those sides look at small, local congregations as failures at best or opportunities for additional funds or space at worst. I as a new pastor with the pressures of a struggling church sit facing those two options. I know people from both those sides and they are gracious enough to offer to help me "succeed". Should we take choice away but offer certainty and security in an uncertain world? Should we take away commitment and the tough work of inner transformation but offer feel good experiences and entertainment possibilities such as "missions tourism"?

So far we have resisted both and have decided to steer through the middle. We look for the Shelter God is, in active ways (2 Samuel 22:3). While at the same time we seek to call those who come, to explore their faith in deep,transforming ways by challenging assumptions and exploring Scripture in deeper ways. (Matthew 19:16-26 who is the young ruler?) Our "growth" is not as numerically heavy as "success" would tell us it should be. But I feel we follow the leading of the Spirit best by seeking transformation (Romans 12:2) so that in due time we may become a church that is perhaps not important by current success standards, but certainly one that is relevant to those within its walls, the community that surrounds it and the world at large.

Interesting quote

I was spending time in google reader recently and came across the review of a British book, "The Progressive Patriot: a search for belonging" by Billy Bragg. Below is the quote that grabbed my attention:

Now, more than ever, "we need to challenge the Right's monopoly on patriotism - not by proclaiming our blind loyalty to our country, right or wrong, but by developing a narrative which explains how we all came to be here together in this place".

I too have wondered why it is that it seems like only one side of the immigration argument seems to have taken a near monopoly of the definition of a Patriot. (capitalized intentionally) We've all heard things like, "the real Americans" and other catch phrases that do nothing but create discord and a very small, homogeneous definition of American and especially a "patriotic American". To be in favor of a just, comprehensive immigration legislation is, absolutely, not evidence or proof of one's hate for our country. The vicious attacks from these so called patriots need to to have a reasonable, respectful and loving answer. We must not engage in the same type of vitriolic attacks that are hateful and violent. The cycle of accusations hurled at people who's only wrong doing has been to have an opinion different than yours is counter productive in this conversation. Violence will only create more violence.

So why don't we try conversing with each other? Heated, sure! As long as you are willing to listen, respectfully, to someone state their opposing case as passionately as you have done yourself! Even further than that, perhaps be willing to concede that your interlocutor may be making a reasonable argument that can contribute to the discourse and maybe even the answer to the problem!

response to a question

Anonymous said...
Wouldn't they use the same criteria that the Federal government uses since this just adds more people to enforce the existing law?

Interesting question though It does not acknowledge the "federal/State" jurisdiction question. Some anti-immigration groups try to get around this and the Constitutionality question by claiming the current situation to be an invasion. Someone like Alan Keyes (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=147457) needs to call our current situation an actual invasion as he is citing article I Section 10 of the constitution to defend his position. The problem is that we are not being invaded. There is no intentionally belligerent action against Americans by an invading army. No soldiers have crossed our borders with intent to capture territory and/or overthrow a rightful American government. So, in the absence of Constitutional support for this position it becomes necessary to call what is happening an invasion. Enough of that red herring...

The problem I see as an American Citizen is that this law endangers the basic freedoms of some Americans, which as the Constitution clearly states it is some too many. Article 1 of the 14th amendment states those basic freedoms. So the question revolves around the issue of local enforcement officials being able to tell who is and who is not an illegal immigrant. Even more concerning is the issue of being guilty until proven innocent. Someone who looks like I do in our current society would begin with being guilty! I do not want to live in a country where I could go to jail for forgetting my wallet at home. I've gone out and left my wallet at restaurants, then the next day I have driven back to get it. If I were to be pulled over during my ride back I would be detained, and have my car impounded. Would the town in which this happens be responsible for refunding to me the money I would have to pay the towing company to get my car back? How about the time lost for me and someone I know to come to what ever detention center I am held at with my ID?

First they came for the Jews...

The following is a first draft reaction to news I read about today....

Pastor Martin Niemoller said the following,

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

I am not comparing the current attempts at dealing with our immigration issue in places like Arizona with Nazism. However, I do want to stress the importance of speaking out at the beginning of what can be the initial step of rampant profiling that can and will legitimize abuse. How does one identify an "illegal" person? Can a human being be illegal? What makes a person suspect of being in this country illegally?

I am very curious to see what Arizona develops as their criteria for identifying these people. I for one know that I will not be travelling to Arizona if this law takes effect. Would being lost and trying to find your way around in a strange place be considered suspicious? I would def. not go hiking anywhere in that state! unless a "hispanic" looking guy with water and a backpack is not suspicious enough for authorities to approach and detain.

Of course people may say that I will be fine as long as I have my documentation with me, and they will be correct. Then again, am I free if I have to make sure I have my "papers" with me on pain of detention and Jail! who brings a wallet when running? I love mountain biking, usually I leave my wallet in my car, etc. I cringe at the thought of driving through several different towns and counties in a state with such draconian laws! How long would my journey be if every time I get to a new area there will be a police officer, under pain of a suit if he does not, who could easily find a reason to pull me over (26 on a 25 anyone?)? I will then have to sit there, wait for the second patrol car to get there, hand my license over, have it checked, returned. Never mind if there are other people in my car with me!

friend: hey! haven't seen you in a while. You should come visit, oh! Bring Jose he lives by you, I want to her about your trip to Europe, I wish I'd gone with you guys.

ME: No I can't bring Jose with me and be back the same day! you live 5 towns and two counties away! One of us may get through some of those towns w/out being pulled over, two of us, never!

the previous imaginary situation may seem ridiculous to you but think of it this way; Anyone who looks like me (hispanic/latino) would have to avoid anything that would give any officer a reason to pull one over if one wants to get anywhere within a reasonable amount of time. That means obeying all laws, yeah 25 on a 25, can you remember the last time you did the speed limit for an entire drive anywhere?

I cannot stay silent about this especially since a representative from my state (PA) just introduced legislation like the Arizona one.

Single sided opinions are more often than not disingenuous and deceiving. Rep. Metcalfe rattles off a series of numbers about how much "they" cost our wonderfully free state. However, he does not cite anything about how much they contribute to our economy, where's the balance? by only speaking of the expenses this person places the blame on our immigrant population for the state deficit! As if these people just come here and sit around, taking "OUR" hard earned money! They work, buy stuff (sales taxes) pay for a place to live (property taxes), have payment plans at the hospital paying premium prices for the antibiotics they had to get from the ER because they can't have health insurance, etc.

these totalitarian measures are nothing short of racial profiling and unconstitutional. What is reasonable suspicion of being in this country illegally? Speaking another language? wearing flip flops? looking foreign? looking lost? We have a problem in this country with immigration, totalitarianism is not the answer!

I had a conversation recently,
Me: hey, haven't seen you in a while

friend: I was on vacation. Arizona, it's beautiful there, you should go there!

m: eh, not sure I want to

F: oh right! But wait, you're legal right? so it's cool...

NO WAY IT IS NOT COOL!

It was then than Pastor Martin Niemoller's quote, with which I started this post, came to mind. Freedom is a gift for which we have paid dearly. That freedom has always been for everyone and these laws do not affect just the undocumented, we will all see our freedoms limited by an over reaching state. Interesting how the people proposing these laws are the same ones crying out against an over-reaching state! I guess over-reaching is good as long as it goes along with their opinion. so no I CANNOT STAY SILENT!

One last thing, a while back I was in South Africa. one day I was chatting with one of our hosts who is Indian. He told me a story about his life prior to the end of apartheid. he says that one day he finished work late so he left in a hurry as he couldn't be in town after sundown. In that hurry he left his id card in his jacket in the office. As he was rushing to the bus he was stopped by the police, they had reasonable suspicion since he was in a hurry to get somewhere and not white. as he reached for his papers he realized he had left them in the office. SO, they detained him and he had to spend the night in jail. His family couldn't come get him as it was in town and after dark. He couldn't leave there until his wife could go to his office, retrieve the documents and go to the police station to get him.

I remember thinking how CRAZY that sounded to me and how glad I was to be a US citizen. If this law passes in PA I may find myself with a similar story in 20FREAKIN10, in the land of the free!

Welcoming a a changed friend...

We here at Calvary are in the midst of Regeneration and Reconciliation. We have gone through more changes in the past few years than a lot of other places experience in years, especially churches. I do not need to enumerate for you the feelings that come with living through these times of change here. In some ways our life now makes me think of the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). Most of the time we are preached the prodigal son passage from the perspective of the son returning home. Or perhaps a limited view of the father who welcomes him with love. I say limited because it seems like those times all we hear is the scene where the father sees the child from far away and runs to embrace him, and leave it there. But what about the feelings the father is feeling inside, the brother we often portray as mean even though he is asking reasonable questions?

So, let us look at the prodigal son story from the receiving end. What about that son who remained faithful the whole time, who worked hard, suffered, gave it all for that place? What about those servants who saw the young man take a fortune they will probably never see in their life time and waste it all away, and now they have to serve him!? They are being ordered to give him the best clothes, the biggest rings, the fattest calf! It is in those receiving the estranged son that regeneration and reconciliation become something more than just words. How do those who have remained faithful and worked hard, receive those who have not? How do those who’ve stayed, worked hard, and continue to work hard, simply hand over the fruits of their labors to someone who has not earned it? Reconciliation is tough.
Let’s bring this story bits closer, we here have a kind of returning child with which to contend. There was a time we were deeply involved in this community, people would walk to church. We knew what was going on in the neighborhood, we lived Norristown. We were part of the fourth of July parades, business owners were members here, we had concerts on our porch, children from the community lived here! Then gradually all of that seemed to have trickled away.

How well do we know our surrounding community now? Is Calvary still living and breathing the west end of Norristown? Or do we have a distanced relationship to mend? Some of that community is coming here and we have welcomed it with open arms, amazingly so. But how has it changed? This new west end is still the west end but it has changed in many ways since we knew it. I wonder if the father of the prodigal son experienced something similar. It would be very difficult for someone to live through what the prodigal son lived through and not be changed. I wonder how the father dealt with his changed son? It was probably easy the day of the embrace, or the party etc. But what about later, in the ordinary events of life, when all have started to settle into their new life? Scripture does not take us there, but could it be that the father knew he had chosen reconciliation so the “problems” that I'm sure came were "just part of life", not obstacles that make him doubt his choice?
Where do you see yourself in the process of reconciliation and regeneration? As we, as Calvary, receive the neighborhood again where do you see yourself in the process of reconciliation with this returning, and different child?