Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Are We Doing This?
I caught this story on the wire a week ago and was waiting for someone to cover it more extensively. (Leave it to ESPN to produce a tear-jerker.) On the surface, it's an amazing example of true integrity and character. But beyond the Hallmark moment, I think every pastor will see a picture of what the church can be when we work in unity for kingdom purposes rather than for our own agendas or glory. Although that usually involves sacrificing personal victories and dreams, when we opt for this higher ground—as this story shows—the end result is always more powerful and life-changing.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
The Great Debate
While running down my list of blogs I read daily, I followed a slight rabbit trail and stumbled upon this slice of modern American church. Ignore the main post and just read the comments not for entertainment's sake, but for a pure example of the pointless battles we wage so passionately in Christendom today—against our own brothers and sisters! In this case, it's Tim Stevens, a pastor at a well-known yet typical community megachurch in Indiana, who gets the brunt of the acerbic responses. He recently wrote a book, Pop Goes the Church, that says we should—how dare he!—engage the culture by using relevant language. But as you'll see in the postings, he quickly becomes the emblem for an entire church movement.
Call it "seeker-sensitive," "community," nondenominational," "interdenominational" ... the decripts for this movement all seem to mesh into a similar form. Essentially, it's the "new" church of the past 20-plus years continuing to redefine itself today, trying to reach people via a cultural relevancy that has been declared absent in the church at large. On the other end, of course, lies those who remain dedicated not so much to tradition (although some would argue that) but to the purity of a gospel that should stand alone. In the words of one commenter, it believes you don't need to "prop Jesus up" with thematic messages, slick packaging and rock 'n' roll introductions. Both movements are multifaceted and represent a myriad of styles, methodologies and fundamental principles. Yet we continue to argue which is, for lack of a more precise measurement, better.
For some, the argument is over whether the church is actually broken. For others, it's a dispute over methodology. For those honest enough to admit their personal bias, it's a preference issue. But I encourage you to take a step back from whatever you feel is right and simply assess the heated reactions we often bring to the discussion table. Rather than truly discuss matters and search for truth, we're quick to fire our preloaded guns—once again, at our own brothers and sisters. The comments at the above link show we are at the point—and have been for years—of absurdity. Does this really matter in the grand scheme of things?
I'll admit, I still struggle with the debate between "seeker-sensitive" (I realize I'm over-generalizing here) and the more traditional (note: not necessarily antiquated). I've experienced the positives and negatives of both firsthand, and I've heard years' worth of impassioned arguments for and against each. I am part of an extended family that often derides the seeker-sensitive church's stigma of a watered-down gospel, lack of discipleship and entertainment-based services. This family believes whole-heartedly that a full dose of God's glory and His Spirit's powerful movement is what essentially transforms individuals—not styles or methods, although both play a role in church life. At the same time, my natural family is deeply steeped in a thriving movement that continues to expand. Lives are being changed. Those who have tossed church aside are being reignited with a newfound relevancy of what it means to be a Christian. While this family admits it struggles at times with the maturation of true disciples, it cannot deny that its methods are changing individuals, families and communities.
So where do I land? Most leaders have an opinion. I'll be honest enough to admit I'm still not there yet. At times I wonder if we've missed the boat—on both sides of the lake. I question this new church in America and its lasting effectiveness, just as I question the "old" church and its supposedly waning effectiveness. Both seem to pale when I look at some of the rising, revolutionary churches I see abroad. Yet all of them, at least in intent, aim for the ultimate goal of establishing God's kingdom on earth through the hearts of people. And to me, that makes the bigger issue not how we're "doing" church but whether we're actually being the church—which starts with our fervent love for God and one another.
Call it "seeker-sensitive," "community," nondenominational," "interdenominational" ... the decripts for this movement all seem to mesh into a similar form. Essentially, it's the "new" church of the past 20-plus years continuing to redefine itself today, trying to reach people via a cultural relevancy that has been declared absent in the church at large. On the other end, of course, lies those who remain dedicated not so much to tradition (although some would argue that) but to the purity of a gospel that should stand alone. In the words of one commenter, it believes you don't need to "prop Jesus up" with thematic messages, slick packaging and rock 'n' roll introductions. Both movements are multifaceted and represent a myriad of styles, methodologies and fundamental principles. Yet we continue to argue which is, for lack of a more precise measurement, better.
For some, the argument is over whether the church is actually broken. For others, it's a dispute over methodology. For those honest enough to admit their personal bias, it's a preference issue. But I encourage you to take a step back from whatever you feel is right and simply assess the heated reactions we often bring to the discussion table. Rather than truly discuss matters and search for truth, we're quick to fire our preloaded guns—once again, at our own brothers and sisters. The comments at the above link show we are at the point—and have been for years—of absurdity. Does this really matter in the grand scheme of things?
I'll admit, I still struggle with the debate between "seeker-sensitive" (I realize I'm over-generalizing here) and the more traditional (note: not necessarily antiquated). I've experienced the positives and negatives of both firsthand, and I've heard years' worth of impassioned arguments for and against each. I am part of an extended family that often derides the seeker-sensitive church's stigma of a watered-down gospel, lack of discipleship and entertainment-based services. This family believes whole-heartedly that a full dose of God's glory and His Spirit's powerful movement is what essentially transforms individuals—not styles or methods, although both play a role in church life. At the same time, my natural family is deeply steeped in a thriving movement that continues to expand. Lives are being changed. Those who have tossed church aside are being reignited with a newfound relevancy of what it means to be a Christian. While this family admits it struggles at times with the maturation of true disciples, it cannot deny that its methods are changing individuals, families and communities.
So where do I land? Most leaders have an opinion. I'll be honest enough to admit I'm still not there yet. At times I wonder if we've missed the boat—on both sides of the lake. I question this new church in America and its lasting effectiveness, just as I question the "old" church and its supposedly waning effectiveness. Both seem to pale when I look at some of the rising, revolutionary churches I see abroad. Yet all of them, at least in intent, aim for the ultimate goal of establishing God's kingdom on earth through the hearts of people. And to me, that makes the bigger issue not how we're "doing" church but whether we're actually being the church—which starts with our fervent love for God and one another.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
What's Happening in Lakeland?
re·viv·al (rĭ-vī'vəl) n.
1. The act or an instance of reviving.
2. The condition of being revived.
3. A time of reawakened interest in religion.
4. A meeting or series of meetings for the purpose of reawakening religious faith, often characterized by impassioned preaching and public testimony.
The word revival is used a little too flippantly among Christians, yet the intent is usually pure. We want to see the Holy Spirit changing lives. We want to see Him healing bodies, hearts and lives to the point that people are never the same. Obviously, our desire is to have this happen as part of our daily lives—to walk as Jesus did, following the Father's lead and leaving a trail of signs, wonders and miracles. Yet when this happens in a remarkable fashion, for a remarkable length of time, we label it as a revival.
That same element of time will tell whether what's going on in Lakeland, Fla., is a revival. One thing is clear, though: God is moving. Check out the on-the-scene reports from my coworkers at Charisma and from the local media. GOD TV has been broadcasting the evening services live, and you can watch archived streaming videos here. I'm sure I'll blog more about what's been dubbed as the "Florida Healing Revival" or the "Lakeland Healing Outpouring" as or if it continues. But for now I'll simply echo the phrase used countless times during my days with the Vineyard movement (which also knew a thing or two about revival): "More, Lord!"
1. The act or an instance of reviving.
2. The condition of being revived.
3. A time of reawakened interest in religion.
4. A meeting or series of meetings for the purpose of reawakening religious faith, often characterized by impassioned preaching and public testimony.
The word revival is used a little too flippantly among Christians, yet the intent is usually pure. We want to see the Holy Spirit changing lives. We want to see Him healing bodies, hearts and lives to the point that people are never the same. Obviously, our desire is to have this happen as part of our daily lives—to walk as Jesus did, following the Father's lead and leaving a trail of signs, wonders and miracles. Yet when this happens in a remarkable fashion, for a remarkable length of time, we label it as a revival.
That same element of time will tell whether what's going on in Lakeland, Fla., is a revival. One thing is clear, though: God is moving. Check out the on-the-scene reports from my coworkers at Charisma and from the local media. GOD TV has been broadcasting the evening services live, and you can watch archived streaming videos here. I'm sure I'll blog more about what's been dubbed as the "Florida Healing Revival" or the "Lakeland Healing Outpouring" as or if it continues. But for now I'll simply echo the phrase used countless times during my days with the Vineyard movement (which also knew a thing or two about revival): "More, Lord!"
Monday, April 07, 2008
Building Better?
LifeWay Research released a fascinating survey today on church buildings that may come as bad news to many pastors. Turns out the "unchurched" don't necessarily go for churches turning contemporary—at least not when it comes to architectural style.
Researchers showed 1,684 adults—all of whom essentially hadn't been to church in the previous six months—four pictures of church buildings with various architectural styles. By more than a two-to-one ratio, participants opted for the Gothic cathedral building over more contemporary options. Just as surprising was that the unchurched repeated this preference for the traditional in choosing among various foyers and worship centers. In fact, the run-of-the-mill contemporary sanctuary with multiple projection screens and stadium seating actually came in dead-last, as did the wide-open, family friendly foyer.
Obviously, this is both startling and a little upsetting for thousands of pastors who have ridden the wave of church design and construction that says a less "churchy" building is a bigger draw. But before all you old-timers start saying "I told you so," let's dig a little deeper on both the research and the results:
Researchers showed 1,684 adults—all of whom essentially hadn't been to church in the previous six months—four pictures of church buildings with various architectural styles. By more than a two-to-one ratio, participants opted for the Gothic cathedral building over more contemporary options. Just as surprising was that the unchurched repeated this preference for the traditional in choosing among various foyers and worship centers. In fact, the run-of-the-mill contemporary sanctuary with multiple projection screens and stadium seating actually came in dead-last, as did the wide-open, family friendly foyer.
Obviously, this is both startling and a little upsetting for thousands of pastors who have ridden the wave of church design and construction that says a less "churchy" building is a bigger draw. But before all you old-timers start saying "I told you so," let's dig a little deeper on both the research and the results:
- Consider the exterior options. Aside from the cathedral, the other three church buildings presented were not (in my opinion) necessarily cutting edge or wildly contemporary. None were refurbished warehouses, I.M. Pei lookalikes or emblems of innovation. Given the selection, I'm not sure I would've voted for any of these three either. To a degree, they reek of mass production rather than the artistry so often shown in a cathedral.
- At the same time, this speaks volumes about our cultural and spiritual climate. Through all the mile-long shopping malls, Super-Duper Wal-Marts, and megachurches, people are still hungry for intimacy and community, even as it's reflected in architecture. One respondent even mentioned wanting an "intimacy that's transcendent." Isn't it interested how the tables have seemingly turned? What was previously considered a cold, detached worship environment may now be seen as a warm, inviting locale for tight-knit communion.
- Remember, these are unchurched adults. Just because they prefer the look of a church building doesn't mean they're more likely to actually show up in that building. I'm not trying to be a complete cynic here, but the reality is church buildings rarely draw people. Sure, they can facilitate a connection, and they can certainly make for a smoother transition (i.e., not be a detraction). But even LifeWay's survey found that 36 percent—the largest segment—of respondents said the design of a church building makes no difference in how much they enjoy their time there. It's an eternal truth: The church is people.
One of the keys to this study was the underlying question asked by Cornerstone Knowledge Network (CKN), the company that solicited LifeWay Research. Here's what one CKN representative had to say: "Despite billions being spent on church buildings, there was an overall decline in church attendance in the 1990s. This led CKN to ask, 'As church builders what can we do to help church leaders be more intentional about reaching people who don't go to church?'"
We would do well to continue asking similar questions, even when the results aren't what we'd hoped for. Especially when they're not what we hoped for.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Church MythBusters
My brother-in-law is fascinated with urban legends. His DVR is loaded with every episode of MythBusters ever made. He's always finding new sites on the Internet that reveal the absolute truth behind some far-fetched tale. So I'm guessing he would get a kick out of two statistics released this week, and how they shed light on a couple of church myths.
Myth #1: 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce, whether you're a Christian or not.
False, and false again. How many of us have heard a pastor use this in a sermon/rant about how bad things have become? Maybe you've even used it too. I've heard this all of my adult life, and not until the past few years (after a little digging) did I discovered how badly skewed this morbid statistic is. I won't go into all the details, but somewhere along the line—probably in the late 1970s, when the overall number of divorces really started booming—this urban legend got started. Some explanations account for the fact that when you look at the sheer number of marriages and divorces in a single year, there's a virtual two-to-one ratio. The problem is, however, this doesn't factor in all the millions of marriages still existing. Bad stat.
The Barna Group's latest study echoes this with a relatively small sampling of 5,000-plus Americans. Thirty-three percent of those polled had been divorced at least once. Among born-again Christians, that rate essentially remained the same (32 percent), while for evangelicals it dipped slightly (26 percent). Is this difference enough to prove that a walk with God automatically makes you divorce-proof? Of course not. But it also echoes the fact that significantly less—about half, in fact—people are getting divorced than what you hear.
Myth #2: Muslims are taking over the world.
OK, maybe I'm exaggerating this myth a bit, but it's the sense you get once again from many misinformed pulpits. There is some definite truth to the feeling that the Muslim world is expanding. It is, and at a rate that should prompt every Christian to a renewed level of awareness and action. You know something's going on when even the Vatican is announcing that it is "no longer at the top" and that "Muslims have overtaken us." It should be clarified that by "us," Monsignor Vittorio Formenti means Catholics, who comprise 17.4 percent of the world's population. His big announcement was that Muslims have now surpassed that mark, making up 19.2 percent of the world.
Once again, let's keep some perspective on things. Although there are an estimated 1.3 billion Islamic believers worldwide, this still ranks second to Christianity at large, which, factoring in the multitude of various denominations and groupings, tops the 2 billion mark. That's about 33 percent of the earth's population. Again, I don't mean to downplay the impressive growth of Muslims in the past several years, but I also don't want to see another "wow" statistic misinterpreted.
Bottom line: Put on an investigator's hat before spouting a startling and oh-so-sexy pass-along statistic. That's hard as a pastor, given the limited time you usually have to do such research. It's much easier to just echo everyone else's latest shock tool, and it's certainly more effective in hammering home a point about the need for Jesus, revival, social revolution, etc. But given our statistic-frenzied culture, the real revolution may start with telling the truth rather than skewing it.
Myth #1: 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce, whether you're a Christian or not.
False, and false again. How many of us have heard a pastor use this in a sermon/rant about how bad things have become? Maybe you've even used it too. I've heard this all of my adult life, and not until the past few years (after a little digging) did I discovered how badly skewed this morbid statistic is. I won't go into all the details, but somewhere along the line—probably in the late 1970s, when the overall number of divorces really started booming—this urban legend got started. Some explanations account for the fact that when you look at the sheer number of marriages and divorces in a single year, there's a virtual two-to-one ratio. The problem is, however, this doesn't factor in all the millions of marriages still existing. Bad stat.
The Barna Group's latest study echoes this with a relatively small sampling of 5,000-plus Americans. Thirty-three percent of those polled had been divorced at least once. Among born-again Christians, that rate essentially remained the same (32 percent), while for evangelicals it dipped slightly (26 percent). Is this difference enough to prove that a walk with God automatically makes you divorce-proof? Of course not. But it also echoes the fact that significantly less—about half, in fact—people are getting divorced than what you hear.
Myth #2: Muslims are taking over the world.
OK, maybe I'm exaggerating this myth a bit, but it's the sense you get once again from many misinformed pulpits. There is some definite truth to the feeling that the Muslim world is expanding. It is, and at a rate that should prompt every Christian to a renewed level of awareness and action. You know something's going on when even the Vatican is announcing that it is "no longer at the top" and that "Muslims have overtaken us." It should be clarified that by "us," Monsignor Vittorio Formenti means Catholics, who comprise 17.4 percent of the world's population. His big announcement was that Muslims have now surpassed that mark, making up 19.2 percent of the world.
Once again, let's keep some perspective on things. Although there are an estimated 1.3 billion Islamic believers worldwide, this still ranks second to Christianity at large, which, factoring in the multitude of various denominations and groupings, tops the 2 billion mark. That's about 33 percent of the earth's population. Again, I don't mean to downplay the impressive growth of Muslims in the past several years, but I also don't want to see another "wow" statistic misinterpreted.
Bottom line: Put on an investigator's hat before spouting a startling and oh-so-sexy pass-along statistic. That's hard as a pastor, given the limited time you usually have to do such research. It's much easier to just echo everyone else's latest shock tool, and it's certainly more effective in hammering home a point about the need for Jesus, revival, social revolution, etc. But given our statistic-frenzied culture, the real revolution may start with telling the truth rather than skewing it.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
From the 'Miscellaneous' Folder
It's time to unleash a few links still sitting in my "Miscellaneous" folder ...
- Who knew we were the ones defining what can and can't send us to hell?
- I just gotta know ... how in the world do you misplace a $1 million donation?! Not lose a million, mind you, but actually give it to the wrong organization. Do you know how much paperwork has to be filed to see a grant through? Wow. I feel bad for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who's getting all the blame.
- I know there are other issues besides what's presented in this article about an Asheville, N.C., house church getting the boot. Regardless, it's still a sad, tough situation. I love the beautiful simplicity of "pastor" Amy Cantrell's reponse: "We're expecting God will provide." Right on.
- Looks like Fort Worth's Broadway Baptist Church finally has some closure after months of a public battle that put the pastor's job on the line. Only problem is, what happens when your church lets you stay—by a mere a two-thirds vote?
- Finally ... normally I wouldn't bother posting something like this since it usually just fuels friendly fire, name-calling and disunity. But I found the clip below of Faithful Word Baptist Church pastor Steven Anderson intriguing, funny, disturbing enlightening, pitiful and challenging—all at the same time. I have a hard time believing this guy isn't just acting. (After digging around a little, it appears he's not.)
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Pastors for Presidents
Don’t think it’s by chance that pastors are playing a huge role in this year’s upcoming presidential elections. People seem to forget that they’ve long been at the heart of our nation’s political process—and will continue to be.
It was impossible for the mainstream media to ignore the pastors-and-politics connection when Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist pastor and denominational leader, stepped into the ring—then befuddled everyone by sticking around. Then came the hubbub over Barack Obama’s relationship with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, who just happened to be a longtime supporter of Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan. And as the apparent next contestant in the “Who’s Your Pastor?” political game show, John McCain recently found an endorsement from San Antonio pastor John Hagee to cause more of a stir than he’d hoped.
By now it’s obvious that the evangelical vote, no matter how fragmented, is still a hot ticket. What else explains the smiles among candidates as the roll call of Christianity’s biggest names—and their valued endorsements—continues? There’s an interesting shift that has taken place, however, in this wild electoral season. Call it the “new evangelical vote,” the “rising vote of social justice-based believers”—however you dub this development, it boils down to an age-old scenario that’s been a cornerstone of American politics since the Founding Fathers: a local pastor preaching his heart out on biblical values—values that, yes, connect directly with how we vote and just might line up with a particular candidate.
This used to be called “normal”; now it’s called into question. Such is the vacuum created when generations of pastors resigned from the political arena and allowed their sheep to fall prey to a “separation of church and state” agenda. (After all, when pastors don’t speak, someone else always will.)
I invite you, dear pastor, to find a place in history when pastors have ever been excluded from the American political process. You are, and always have been, the key to declaring God’s truth among the people—in every arena of life. That doesn’t mean you’re endorsing Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul or anyone else for that matter; it means you’re urging people to vote as followers of Christ, just as you’ve always done.
On that note … I’ll probably be plugging these again in the future, but I can’t think of a better time to promote two articles we’ll be running in upcoming issues of Ministry Today. If you’re a pastor and unsure what you can and can’t say from the pulpit in regards to politics, you won’t want to miss Mat Staver’s article “Pastors, Pulpits & Politics” in our May/June issue. If, on the other hand, you subscribe to the belief that pastors shouldn’t be part of the political process, I strongly urge you to check out David Barton’s piece in the following issue.
It was impossible for the mainstream media to ignore the pastors-and-politics connection when Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist pastor and denominational leader, stepped into the ring—then befuddled everyone by sticking around. Then came the hubbub over Barack Obama’s relationship with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, who just happened to be a longtime supporter of Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan. And as the apparent next contestant in the “Who’s Your Pastor?” political game show, John McCain recently found an endorsement from San Antonio pastor John Hagee to cause more of a stir than he’d hoped.
By now it’s obvious that the evangelical vote, no matter how fragmented, is still a hot ticket. What else explains the smiles among candidates as the roll call of Christianity’s biggest names—and their valued endorsements—continues? There’s an interesting shift that has taken place, however, in this wild electoral season. Call it the “new evangelical vote,” the “rising vote of social justice-based believers”—however you dub this development, it boils down to an age-old scenario that’s been a cornerstone of American politics since the Founding Fathers: a local pastor preaching his heart out on biblical values—values that, yes, connect directly with how we vote and just might line up with a particular candidate.
This used to be called “normal”; now it’s called into question. Such is the vacuum created when generations of pastors resigned from the political arena and allowed their sheep to fall prey to a “separation of church and state” agenda. (After all, when pastors don’t speak, someone else always will.)
I invite you, dear pastor, to find a place in history when pastors have ever been excluded from the American political process. You are, and always have been, the key to declaring God’s truth among the people—in every arena of life. That doesn’t mean you’re endorsing Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul or anyone else for that matter; it means you’re urging people to vote as followers of Christ, just as you’ve always done.
On that note … I’ll probably be plugging these again in the future, but I can’t think of a better time to promote two articles we’ll be running in upcoming issues of Ministry Today. If you’re a pastor and unsure what you can and can’t say from the pulpit in regards to politics, you won’t want to miss Mat Staver’s article “Pastors, Pulpits & Politics” in our May/June issue. If, on the other hand, you subscribe to the belief that pastors shouldn’t be part of the political process, I strongly urge you to check out David Barton’s piece in the following issue.
