Tag: Christian Church

Has Seeker-Friendly Worship Become Seeker-Unfriendly?

Recently, a gentleman by the name of David Murrow offered a blog post at Patheos entitled “Why Seeker-Friendly Churches are Losing Seekers.” He explains why he believes many so-called “seeker-friendly” churches are seeing a decline in the attendance of unbelievers.

Since I have long thought about, but never followed through on, writing an article about the Willow Creek seeker-targeted church strategy, and the vastly more popular compro mise dubbed seeker-friendly services, I decided to chime in on the subject here rather than procrastinate further.

Unfortunately, Mr. Murrow does not offer any evidence or citation substantiating his claim.  But, for the moment, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and accept his claim.  He does offer some good observations and sound advice.  I recommend the article to anyone involved in a “seeker” ministry.

Mr. Murrow’s puts his finger, perhaps unintentionally, on the fundamental flaws found at the core of so-called seeker-sensitive church services, flaws which have given rise to serious misunderstandings about what it means to be a seeker-driven church.

I attended numerous leadership conferences at Willow Creek in the 1990s.  I always took a team of church leaders with me so we could strategize together about the best ways to transform our church community back home into a church that grew by evangelism.  We wanted to see people come to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and then grow as committed disciples within our church community.

I was raised in a fundamentalist tradition that prized its annual week of Revival Meetings.  Year after year the church brought in a visiting evangelist who spoke every evening for a week as the center piece for our revival meetings.  Church members were strongly encouraged to bring their “lost” friends so that they could hear the Good News and “be saved.”

As I learned about the origins and goals of Willow’s seeker-targeted church strategies, I soon recognized that by following in the long, innovative tradition of Youth for Christ, Young Life and similar evangelical organizations from the 1940s and 50s, Willow Creek had simply devised a new way to conduct old-fashioned revival meetings.  Except these evangelistic meetings happened weekly instead of annually.  The evangelist was the teaching pastor.  Instead of a tent with a sawdust trail, the gathering site was in the church building.

Here is the key:  In a true seeker ministry the Sunday morning seeker-service (or seeker-targeted service) is an evangelistic meeting.

Its primary purpose is to create a place where Christians can bring their non-Christian friends to learn about Jesus Christ and his church.  A seeker-service is not designed for believers.  Let me say that again.  A seeker-service is not designed for believers except as they become evangelists themselves, bringing their friends to hear the pastor/evangelist talk about the real-world relevance of the gospel.

Whenever I wrote seeker-targeted messages I told myself that I was going to talk about life with respect to the Bible.   My seeker messages were typically topical.

Christians who were church shopping often disapproved of our seeker services, saying they weren’t “worshipful” enough.  But, frankly, since the service wasn’t designed with them in mind, I never let those criticisms bother me.

Eventually, seeker-targeted churches must develop a second schedule of services for worship/praise/body-life activities that will meet the spiritual needs of disciples.  Christians need regularly to praise Jesus, glorify their heavenly Father, confess their sins, thank the Lord for answered prayer, and a million-and-one other things besides.

We typically call this a “worship service.”  Seekers can’t worship Jesus Christ because they don’t know him yet.  So, nothing in our worship services was designed specifically for “seekers.”  When I wrote a message for our worship services I told myself that I was going to talk about the Bible with respect to life.   My “worship” messages were typically expository.

Worship services and seeker services are two very, very different beasts.  They have different goals.  They are intended for different audiences.  Seekers don’t/can’t worship God, so don’t ask them to.  Believers, on the other hand, need more than a weekly “revival” meeting, so don’t limit their diet to evangelistic milk.

Leaders at Willow Creek regularly warned us visiting pastors about the challenges waiting to ambush anyone hoping to move their church out of its traditionalism into a seeker-targeted method of ministry.

I cannot recall ever hearing a leader at Willow Creek encourage church leaders purposely to develop a compromise called a seeker-sensitive service.  Such services were described as hybrids, a compromise, or a short-term transitional strategy used by churches having difficulty moving fully to a seeker-targeted ministry.  But I cannot recall ever hearing anyone at Willow encourage leaders to develop seeker-sensitive services for Sunday morning as a permanent part of their strategy.

Sadly, for whatever reasons, it appears that the majority of churches, whether they have ever been to Willow Creek or not, have opted for seeker-sensitive worship services today.  Precious few congregations have made the effort or taken the risks to create both worship services for believers and seeker-targeted services for unbelievers.

Unfortunately, it didn’t take long before people were promoting this compromise by writing books and offering seminars about the benefits of “worship evangelism.”

What a shame.

Too many church leaders have taken the easy road of becoming all things to all people gathered together in the same place at once.  In my experience, that rarely works, and even when it appears to work, it is not in anyone’s best interests.

 Anyone trying to become all things to all people becomes nothing special to no one in particular.

Remember that in the Old Testament, Yahweh spoke to the prophet Balaam through a dumb ass.  But Balaam did not spend the rest of his life loitering around barn yards, waiting to hear his next word from God.

The Lord can certainly use Christian worship to call sinners to Himself.  The Holy Spirit blows where he wills, as he wills, whenever he wills.  I know a woman who surrendered herself to Jesus while listening to me deliver a message about tithing from the book of Leviticus.  But that didn’t cause me to write books about the wonders of “Levitical-Stewardship Evangelism.”  (No. Please. Don’t go there).

The surprising movement of God’s grace is never a sufficient reason to promote new strategies for dumb ass church services.

I am afraid that the fear and half-hearted commitment found at the origins of so many seeker-sensitive services are significant factors in the gross levels of spiritual childishness crippling large swaths of American evangelicalism.

Too many Sunday messages soft-sell the radical demands of Jesus and his gospel, for fear of offending visitors.  (This should never be an issue, not even in seeker-targeted services).

Just as too many offerings of “praise music” make no attempt whatsoever to lead God’s people into the unnerving, overwhelming presence of the Lord Almighty, to whom the angels sing, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord who sits on His throne.”

The real problem is not simply that seeker-friendly churches may lose their appeal to seekers, as Mr. Murrow warns.  These services also consistently fail to produce mature disciples who walk faithfully as citizens of God’s radical, upside-down kingdom on earth.

That’s a spiritual double-whammy from which no church can recover until we come to our senses and abandon the conspiracy of half-measures that make “seeker-sensitive worship” the liturgical monstrosity that it is.

Kierkegaard on Christian Faith — Risking the Improbable and Accepting Failure

Few people understand Christian faith more clearly than Sǿren Kierkegaard.  Here is another section from his book, Judge For Yourself (pages 99-100 in the Hong, Princeton edition).  A few words of explanation may help if you’ve never read Kierkegaard before.

Faith is risking the improbable because (a) it is impossible to prove empirically that you have truly encountered God, and (b) there is no measure of empirical probability that Jesus of Nazareth is God incarnate.

Thus, faith risks the improbable.  A significant challenge for modern folks who insist on evidence.

Some people (Kierkegaard calls them lightweights) claim to venture the risk of faith, but only because they think that anything done “in faith” is guaranteed success; that is, success in earthly terms.  Success as they define success.

Hear the faithful Dane speak to us today (emphasis is mine):

“Here is the infinite difference from the essentially Christian, since Christianly, indeed, even just religiously, the person who never relinquished probability never became involved with God.  All religious, so say nothing of Christian, venturing is on the other side of probability, is by way of relinquishing probability.

 “But then is the essentially Christian utter folly and are the sensible people right – it is intoxication?  No!  Admittedly many a one has thought that he was venturing Christianly when he ventured to relinquish probability, and it was pure and simple folly even according to the view of Christianity.  Christianity has its own characteristic way of restraining…the point to check carefully here is to see whether the venturing actually is in reliance upon God.

 “To connect God’s name with one’s wishes, cravings, and plans is easy, far too easy for the lightweights; but it does not follow that their venturing is in reliance upon God. No, in relinquishing probability in order to venture in reliance upon God, one must admit to oneself the implications of relinquishing probability – that when one then ventures it is just as possible, precisely just as possible, to fail as to succeed…That one ventures in reliance upon God provides no immediate certainty of success; the dubiousness in the lightweights’ venturing in reliance upon God lies precisely in their understanding this to mean that they must be victorious..  But this is not venturing in reliance upon God; this is taking God in vain.”

Entrusting our lives to Jesus Christ ensures a right relationship with our heavenly Father here and now.  It also guarantees an eternity with Him in the world to come.  But neither faith nor Jesus promise to give us whatever we hope and pray for, no matter how “faithful” our intentions or “glorious” we think it might be for God.

So, do we trust in Jesus and follow Him for his own sake?  Or do we have ulterior motives?

When Disobedience is a Virtue, 5 — Principled Individualism Builds Better Community

This final installment of “When Disobedience is a Virtue” is another excerpt from my book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America (Eerdmans, 2018), page 112.

If you know me personally or are a regular reader of this blog, then you know that I am a non-conformist.  Part of this is my personality.  I have always questioned authority and wondered (often out loud) about the real evidence behind public statements of “fact.”

But the greatest influence pushing me further and further into the arms of non-conformity has been my faith in Jesus Christ.  Every true disciple is a non-conformist to the ways of this world.

That includes pushing back against the various ways that this world sets up shop inside the church, selling God’s people worldly rubbish like a rogue sidewalk vender hawking enticing chili dogs without a license.

 “There will never be a sufficient consensus on anything in this life—including biblical interpretation and social activism—to eliminate all of life’s uncertainties. If we act only in the absence of uncertainty, then we will never do anything but wait and invent new excuses for our inactivity. Living a biblically directed life is the only way to deconstruct the false moral universes erected by this world and replace them with the moral universe created by the kingdom of God. Of course, as long as we remain in this world, we are partially blinded and crippled by the misshapen universe we are working to leave behind, so our interpretations and conclusions must be held lightly. But they must be held. Uncertainty never justifies apathy.

 “Second, there comes a time when the individual must act and act alone if necessary, while being prepared to accept the consequences of those actions, whatever they may be. It is no accident that Peter Haas introduces his discussion of Germany’s Christian rescuers by saying: “A common feature of any principled dissent . . . [is] that the rescuers are deviants, people who are misfits in their society. . . . [Their actions] grew out of the rescuer’s experience as social and political outcasts.”  Principled individualism, what the status quo will always condemn as the deviant behavior of misfits and outcasts, is the distinguishing characteristic of Christian faithfulness in this fallen world.

 “Unfortunately, there are many pious voices that want to sedate this brand of individualism by wrapping it up tightly in the maudlin, anesthetic gauze of “community life.” Christian gatherings easily become the most repressive, stultifying crowds that squash the last vestige of creative individualism from its members: Never act alone. Never step out of line. Never speak when others are quiet. Never question authority. Never doubt what everyone else believes. Never question the way it has always been done. Never try to think outside the box. These are the conformist platitudes repeated by the crowd in its self-serving attempts to constrain passionate individuals, preventing them from acting for the sake of conscience.  At times the Christian church has become the most oppressive, do-nothing herd of them all.

 “So we must learn to discern the difference between a fellowship that participates in God’s kingdom and a collective that exists only to replicate carbon copies of the citizens of this world.”

A Faithful Disciple in Rwanda

Brandon Stanton’s Twitter account is called Humans of New York (@humansofny).  Recently, he has been interviewing various people from Africa and telling their stories on his feed.  This is one of them:

This gentleman is a pastor living in Kigali, Rwanda.  When the genocide began in the spring of 1994, many locals fled to this man’s home

A Rwandan Pastor who rescued over 300 lives while risking his own

for protection.  Despite the many threats against himself and his wife, they were prepared to give their lives in protecting others.

They saved over 300 people by hiding them in their church.

Below are a few excerpts from his amazing story:

“That very first evening the militia came to my gate. Some were carrying guns. Others were carrying machetes.  They’d been told that I was hiding people.  They demanded to come inside and search the property. I stood in the doorway and told them they’d have to kill me first.  ‘We’ll be back,’ they said. ‘And thanks for gathering all the cockroaches in one place.’…All of our friends abandoned us. They pretended not to know us.  Only one pastor stood by our side.  He came to me one night and warned me there was a plan to attack the church.  I told the news to my wife and we both agreed we were ready to die.

“The next time the killers came, there were fifty of them. All of them had guns or machetes. They pushed straight past me and entered the pastor’s residence. They began pulling people out of the ceiling. They were kicking us and dragging us along the floor. I knew this was the end…We were put in three lines. We began to say our last prayers. I scanned the mob of killers for recognizable faces. Many of them were Christians. Some were even from my congregation. Every time I recognized a face, I called to him by name. I said, ‘When I die I am going to heaven. Where will you go?’  I then pointed to the next man…and the next…and the next…They began to argue among themselves. Nobody wanted to be the first to kill…And they began to leave, one by one, until all of them had run off.

“…When I look back, I believe the genocide could have been stopped had more pastors taken a stand. We were the ones with influence.  The killers belonged to our congregations. And we could have held them back. But instead we did nothing. And every pastor had a different excuse. Some said they didn’t know things would get so bad. Some said they were too afraid. Some said the government was too powerful to oppose. But when you’re standing aside while people die, every excuse is a lame one.” (emphasis mine)

Naturally, we all love heroic stories.  This man’s actions were truly heroic, though I suspect that he would simply say that he was only doing what Jesus wanted him to do.

I hope that I would be as faithful were I ever to encounter a similar situation.  But I honestly don’t know what I would do.

There were other pastors and priests who tried to hide people inside their

Hundreds were killed while hiding inside this Nyamata church, Rwanda

churches, and they were regularly massacred.  But what about his claim that the genocide could have been stopped if at least a majority of Christian leaders had spoken out in protest, refused to follow tribal orders, disobeyed government demands, and boldly confronted fellow church-goers with Jesus’ radical demands to love everyone and to only  do good to our neighbors?

The majority of church-goers in Rwanda, like the majority of church-goers in Nazi Germany, were a part of the problem, not the solution to Rwandan racism and tribalism.

Given the many despicable things we are witnessing in the United States today, why should anyone imagine that the majority of church-goers in America are any different?

When Disobedience is a Virtue, 4 – The Benefits and Dangers of Community

God has made us for community.  But not all communities are made for us.  That includes “Christian” communities.

Ultimately, we each take the leap of faith to Jesus as individuals.  And it is as individuals that we will stand before God’s throne on Judgment Day.

Today’s excerpt from I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America concerns the blessings and the dangers of finding comfort in a church community.  It comes from pages 109-110.

KKK leaders were typically leaders in the local church

The Holy Spirit does not obliterate our sinful nature, what Paul calls “the flesh.”  It is not unusual for the flesh to show extra panache in flaunting itself throughout Christian communities where the masks of piety and sincerity are worn so easily…and loosely.

“The company we keep is more determinative of personal behavior than many of us suspect, for both good and bad. Most actions become easier with the support of others, especially when those actions are subversive. And when the action means compliance with the status quo, it becomes mindless repetition…

 “It comes as no surprise, then, to learn that the majority of Christian rescuers during World War II were bolstered by a support network of like-minded people, whether in the local church or elsewhere, who all shared in the dangers, encouraging one another along the way. That ancient slave who finally screwed up enough courage to say “No” to her master knew that she was not acting by herself. Although no one else could suffer the master’s beating for her, she was sustained by a family of brothers and sisters in Christ who also believed that her act of civil disobedience was a necessary step in following Jesus. She knew they were praying for her; they loved her and would be there to tend her wounds, take her into their homes, clothe her, and feed her if need be. She could rest in the knowledge that she would not face her owner’s wrath alone.

 “Unfortunately, the dark side of human nature means that there is also a dark side to community, including Christian community. The same group dynamics that support positive transformation can also blind a person to his own gradual corruption if the group is corrupt. Sebastian Haffner’s autobiography, Defying Hitler: A Memoir, is a fascinating testimony to the infectious, corrupting power of a community bound together for evil purposes.  Haffner was staunchly opposed to Hitler, National Socialism, and everything the Third Reich was doing to his country. Yet, as he finished his university law degree, the government imposed a new requirement forcing all graduates to attend a Nazi indoctrination camp before they could take the bar exam. Refusing to attend this camp meant losing the chance to practice law.

 “Haffner was certain that his hatred for Hitler was unshakable. It would serve him well as a protective shield against the Nazi’s ideological bombardment, insulating his true self against any unwanted changes. He would enter the camp an anti-Nazi, and he would exit it the same way. What Haffner had underestimated, however, were the sly and subtle ways in which members of a group conform themselves to one another, whether they intend to or not, whether the group behavior is admirable or not. To his utter horror, Haffner confesses that, by the time the camp had concluded, he was talking, behaving, and thinking like a Nazi. The man who began by hating Hitler was now clicking his boots, shouting “Sieg Heil,” and meaning it. Inch by miserable inch, he had surrendered his scruples to the camaraderie—to the fellowship—of his enforced Nazi community. Toward the close of his memoir, Haffner agonizes: ‘I realized that I was well and truly in a trap. I should never have come to the camp. Now I was in the trap of comradeship. . . . ‘We’ had become a collective entity and with all the intellectual cowardice and dishonesty of a collective being we instinctively ignored or belittled anything that could disturb our collective self-satisfaction.. . . It was remarkable how comradeship actively decomposed all the elements of individualism.’

 “The ethos of fellowship and group support can either elevate the individual to

How few are willing to stand out by standing alone if necessary

stand apart, to think independently, and to act heroically, or it can destroy the individual by pulling her down into the quagmire of conformity, where mindlessly repeating the group’s scripted mantras can pass for brilliance and even earn a PhD.”

What is Christian Worship? Part 3

In part one of our exploration into the meaning of New Testament worship, we did a few word studies of the Greek vocabulary translated by the English word “worship.”  We made an interesting discovery.  The New Testament writers do not like to describe the things that Christians do together in groups as “worship.”

Part two then asked the obvious follow-up question: If Christian gatherings are not described as times of worship in the New Testament, then when and where does worship happen?  We discovered that the New Testament consistently uses worship vocabulary to describe the daily life of obedient discipleship.  Christians worship God as they fulfill the Lord’s calling in their day-to-day lives, doing the things Jesus has sent them into the world to do.

But these observations raise another question.  If Christian gatherings are not “times of worship,” then what are they?  What are New Testament Christians doing when they gather together in groups, large or small?

The answer:  group meetings provide opportunities for mutual encouragement and building up the Body of Christ.

David Peterson hits the perfect note in his excellent book, Engaging with God:

“It is misleading to think of church services as occasions for worship in the sense of prayer and praise.  Paul’s teaching requires us to also recognize the central importance of the concept of edification for the meeting of God’s people…Paul uses the terminology of upbuilding or edification rather than the language worship to indicate the purpose and function of Christian gatherings.” (pages 195-96, 206; emphasis mine)

We shouldn’t miss this important point.  The language of “upbuilding” or “edification” is Paul’s favorite way of describing the different things that happen when followers of Jesus come together.  Here is a selection of New Testament texts describing the wide variety of activities typical of such group meetings.  Check them out and note what is happening in each instance:

  1. Matthew 18:15-20
  2. Acts 2:42-47; 4:24-31; 13:1-3; 20:7-12
  3. I Corinthians 11; 12; 14
  4. Galatians 3:5 (maybe)
  5. Ephesians 5:15-20
  6. Colossians 3:12-17
  7. I Thessalonians 5:16-22
  8. I Timothy 2:1-3:15
  9. Titus 1:7-2:15
  10. Hebrews 10:19-25
  11. James 5:14-18

Let me offer a few general observations:

  • As I mentioned in part one, explicit “worship” vocabulary only occurs in Acts 13.
  • Activities that we would normally associate with “worship” are certainly described; for instance:praise
    adoration
    singing
    hymns
    “spiritual songs”
    corporate prayer
    preaching
    the Lord’s Supper (but, notice, never baptism)

BUT the primary focus of these descriptions is “Body Life” (to use Ray Stedman’s terminology from the 1970s).  In other words, the goal of corporate gatherings is the health of the body of believers in all of its various dimensions

Note the lengthy discussion that Paul gives to the collective operation of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 – 14.  Paul is very clear – without the full-fledged functioning of spiritual gifts, in some way, shape or form, there can be no healthy collection of God’s people.

It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the primary purpose of New Testament gatherings was NOT, first of all, to deepen one’s own personal experience of intimacy with God (even though that may well happen).  Rather, the principle objective is to further develop the overall health and well-being of others believers.

In other words, we come together in order to give ourselves away in service to each other.

Of course, that may happen when a gifted music team leads a time of praise and adoration in song.  But that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Authentically “New Testament-type” gatherings also require intentional moments where people are able to:

  •  share prayer requests
  • hear one another’s stories, both good and bad
  • confess their sins and ask for forgiveness
  • offer personal words of correction
  • teach a lesson from God’s word
  • correct a brother or sister who has gone astray
  • challenge those who have become lackadaisical
  • facilitate personal reconciliation
  • become vulnerable enough to know how to meet each other’s personal needs

Fortunately, the New Testament is not overly rigorous or unbending in requiring a specific model of organizational planning or group structure to accommodate this kind of Body Life.  As long as the leadership ensures that there is always room somewhere for these crucial, communal activities to be happening, the upbuilding and edification of the church will unfold.

And that is the main purpose for gathering together with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Of course, several questions remain to be answered, but I will wait to answer them, as well as offer a few practical suggestions for real-world implementation, in upcoming posts.  Stay tuned!

No. All Lives Don’t Matter, Not in America

Hardly a week goes by without another story appearing about a black citizen, often unarmed, who is killed by the police.

Botham Jean

The latest story concerns the death of Botham Jean.  Mr. Jean was shot in his own apartment by an off-duty police officer, Amber Guyer.

Amber Guyger

According to officer Guyger, who lived in the same apartment complex, she mistakenly entered the Mr. Jean’s apartment after dark.  Seeing a menacing black man standing in what she believed was the front room of her apartment, she shot him.

Pause for a moment and see how many obvious questions that very odd scenario raises in your mind.

A neighbor, however, reports that he heard banging on Mr. Jean’s door and then a conversation between Jean and Guyger.  Ms. Guyger is alleged to have yelled, “let me in.”

The Texas rangers are investigating.

Call me kooky, but forgive me for not trusting the police to police themselves.

Mr. Jean’s mother.

Mr. Jean’s family describes him as a Christian man, active in his local church. He had never been arrested, nor had he ever had a run-in with the police, that is until officer Guyger shot him dead.

Ms. Guyger was arrested briefly and released on her own recognizance after only a few hours.  She seems to have used some of that time to scrub her computer.  I wonder why.  Oddly, she forgot to erase her Pinterest page which contains a good deal of hateful, violent and racist material.

Mr. Jean, on the other hand, has suffered from post-mortem character assassination.  The police quickly obtained a warrant to search his apartment.  Apparently, in Dallas, Texas being the unarmed, black victim of a police shooting — in your own home, no less — is reason enough to be suspected of criminal activity.

The police didn’t discover any weapons but reportedly uncovered a bag of marijuana.

Excuse me again if I take another moment to pause and wonder if that bag was planted by the officers conducting the search.  After all, for some police departments, planting evidence is more common than shooting unarmed people in their homes (see here and here).

Only in the twisted world of Fox News is the ex post facto discovery of a bag of marijuana relevant to the killing of an unarmed man with no criminal record.

But, of course, we can’t forget that Mr. Jean was black.  Neither can we

NYC action in solidarity with Ferguson. Mo, encouraging a boycott of Black Friday Consumerism.

forget that this happened in America.

Several recent studies reveal that black Americans are 2.5 to 2.7 times more likely to be shot by police than are white people. The disparity becomes even more striking when we turn to the shooting of unarmed people.

People of color compose about 37% of the US population, yet they make up 62.7% of the unarmed victims shot by police.

Another study investigating police killings from 2014 to 2015 concluded that:

“The disproportionate killing of black men occurs…because of the institutional and organizational racism in police departments and the criminal justice system’s targeting minority communities with policies—like stop and frisk and the war on drugs—that have more destructive effects.”

Demonstrators march in protest against a grand jury’s decision on Monday not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2014, in New York. The grand jury’s decision has inflamed racial tensions across the U.S. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Obviously, something has gone dangerously wrong in the way America’s police officers are being trained and the atmosphere in which they do their jobs.

All lives do not matter in America today.  All lives are not equal here.  Some lives count more than others.  Mr. Jean’s death and the behavior of the Dallas police department is only the latest evidence.

Many who sneer at the Black Lives Matter movement are moral posers, pretending to a superior moral judgment by pasting “All Lives Matter” (the moral universalists) or “Blue Lives Matter” (the ethical particularists) bumper stickers on their cars. Tragically, such protests simply reveal how very, very deep are the wells of ignorance and incipient racism in white America.

To insist that “all lives matter” is to fain innocence while whispering behind a raised hand that “black lives don’t matter.”

Such reactionary slogans are rhetorically camouflaged “f**k you” bombs, equivalent to the old segregationist signs directing “Negroes to the Back of the Bus.”

Honestly, to insist that “all lives matter” in response to a movement led by African-Americans working to change a society where people who look like them are shot, killed, and arrested by police at wildly disproportionate rates is a stunning display of white privilege in and of itself.

It is a bold-faced lie to say that all lives matter in the United States.

That is why, as a Christian, an evangelical, a disciple of Jesus Christ, a citizen of God’s kingdom on earth, and the grandfather of a precious little black girl, I believe that every follower of Jesus must stand up and say, YES, BLACK LIVES MATTER.

What Is Christian Worship?  Part 1

This post revisits one of my pet peeves:  the misunderstanding and misuse of Biblical vocabulary.  Today I want to begin looking at how we commonly misuse the word “worship.”

OK, I may be a bit like Scrooge, but I wish that Christians would use Biblical language the same way it’s used in the Bible.  Doesn’t that sound sensible to you?  Instead, we often redefine Biblical vocabulary (without realizing it) and then use it in ways that are totally disconnected from its original meaning.

For example, in a previous post I explained how we do this with the word “praise.”  Christians commonly talk about “praising God” when their actions, whether it be clapping and raising their hands, or repeating the words “praise God” over and over again, actually have no connection at all to the Biblical notion of praise.

Language certainly can evolve and change over time.  That is natural.  But for Christians – who have an unchanging, authoritative Book taken as “normative” (in one way or another) in its descriptions of God and human existence – using words from that Book in ways that are unrelated to their original significance becomes very misleading.  It is far too easy for us to import our modern (mis)understanding of those words back into the Bible without understanding the mistake we are making.  Such unconscious habits all but guarantee that we will misunderstand the Scriptures whenever we encounter those misunderstood words.

No one is thinking clearly or understanding Scripture accurately when that sort of linguistic confusion is going on.  Our modern use of worship vocabulary is one more pesky example of this common, Christianese word mangling.

So, I had been planning to write a series of posts about Christian worship for some time, but I was finally pushed over the edge last Sunday morning at church.  The congregation was coming to the end of the final song when the music leader shouted out, “Come on.  Let’s give God some worship.”

The crowd burst into applause.

Oh, my goodness.  I had to pick my eyeballs up off the floor.  I hope I didn’t groan too loudly.

So, let’s begin with a few word studies.  The word study is an important research method that every serious Bible reader needs to keep in his/her tool box, for one simple reason:  Words do not have meanings as much as they have uses.  Words mean what we use them to mean.  And word usage changes over time.  That is why dictionaries are regularly reissued in new, updated editions, because we don’t use all of our words the same way today as we did yesterday.

Ponder the very different ways we have used the English word “gay,” for example.  In 1934, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers made a movie called “The Gay Divorcee.”  Astaire played a randy, young heterosexual male who spends most of the movie chasing after a lovely, young lady – certainly not the plot-line this movie title congers up for theater-goers today.

So, the question becomes:  whose understanding of a word is being read into a text?  And is it an appropriate understanding or not?

Now we need to do something called a word study.  Open a good concordance.  Your concordance will list every appearance of every word in the Bible, verse by verse.  A good English concordance (like the NIV Exhaustive Concordance) has sections to help you deal with the complications created by the different English translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Now, open your Bible and read every instance of the word(s) you want to understand.  Look at the wider context of each sentence.  This may take some time.

Look at how the word is used in its literary context.  As you progress in your research, you will notice that the same word is often used in different ways in different contexts.  That is why dictionaries can often list several different definitions for a single word.  You will also notice that a variety of Greek and Hebrew words can be translated by the same English word.  (This may sound confusing, but it will sort itself out as you become more familiar with your chosen vocabulary.)

The New Testament uses 4 different Greek word groups that can be translated into the English word worship.

First, proskunien/proskunētēs – to bow down, prostrate oneself; to kiss; to do obeisance.

Originally, this word meant to show submission or respect to a superior.  The precise significance of the homage rendered depended upon the status of the one being honored.  For example, at numerous points in the synoptic gospels various people “bow down” before Jesus, not to worship him as divine but to honor him as someone able to do great things (like heal their leprosy, Matthew 8:2).

When the object of such homage is divine, then giving appropriate honor becomes “worship,” as people acknowledge God’s worthiness of honor, submission and obedience (John 4:23; Revelation 7:11).

But, there is something very interesting about this word:  with the sole exception of John 4, the New Testament never uses this particular word to describe what Christians do for God, whether individually or collectively.  In other words, New Testament believers are never described as giving worship (proskunien) to the Lord.  Odd, but true.

The ONE place where Paul uses this word in connection with an earthly gathering of Christians, it describes the response of a visiting unbeliever who is convicted of God’s presence by observing the spiritual gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:25).

We will come back to the importance of this observation later.

Second, latreuein/latreia – to serve.

Originally, in the Greek Old Testament (called the Septuagint, abbreviated as LXX), this word was used as a synonym for the “service” rendered to a master by a servant or slave – service of any sort at all.  Eventually, it became more narrowly applied to “one’s service of God.”  Most often it described the specifically sacrificial service offered by an Israelite worshiper in the temple cult where gifts, offerings, prayers and sacrifices were made.  Such temple service was an act of obedient sacrifice (Luke 2:37; Romans 9:4).

St. Francis worshiping with a congregation of birds.

Let’s note a few developments in this piece of vocabulary.  Worship is made an act of service offered in obedience; to worship God and to serve God become synonymous activities.  Worship is an obedient service, and obedient service can be worship.  Thus, the word could be extended to include the broader life of obedience.  For instance, see Deuteronomy 10:12 (in the Greek text), where the Israelites are told “to serve (latreuein) the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul.”  Here latreuein/worship becomes a lifestyle of faithfulness.

An especially interesting aspect of this particular word in the New Testament, is that – unlike proskunein – latreuein is frequently used to describe Christian activities, but never to describe what Christians do when gathered together.  Hmmmm…

We will need to revisit this important fact about New Testament worship/latreuein before we finish.

Third, leitourgein/leitourgia/leitourgikos/leitourgos – to serve (a particular constituency).  The English word “liturgy” is derived from this Greek word.

Originally, in the Greek Old Testament, it meant “to offer a service” (similar to latreuein), but leitourgein quickly became more specifically applied to the cultic services of the priesthood.  For the Old Testament, leitourgia is the specifically ritual-oriented tasks performed exclusively by priests.

The New Testament retains this sense, for example, in Luke 1:23, “When Zechariah’s time of service/worship was completed, he returned home [from the temple].”  Also, check out Hebrews 10:11, “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties/worship/service.”

Two important points call for our attention in summarizing the New Testament’s use of the leitourgia word group.

One: it is never used for any particular Christian “office” such as apostles, bishops, elders, etc.  In this New Testament era, offering up leitourgia to the Lord is every believer’s privilege.  There is no such thing as a special Christian priesthood, because the New Testament insists on the priesthood of ALL believers.  Everyone who follows Jesus is now a genuine priest standing before God’s throne.  You don’t have to wear a dog collar or fancy vestments.

A Quaker “worship” service

Two:  this word group is often applied to the whole of the Christian life, much like latreuein.   Only once does it (feasibly) describe what Christians do when they are gathered together in a group.  This single exception appears in Acts 13:2, “While they [the church at Antioch] were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’”

Otherwise, the leitourgia word group never describes what Christians do when they gather together in groups.  At the fear of sounding like a broken record (does anyone use that metaphor nowadays?), this is another curious observation that will demand more attention before we finish this study.

Fourth, thrēskeia – religious service, religion, worship.

For the NT, this is the word used when debating the differences between true and/or false religion.  It is most often used to describe false religion (see Acts 26:5, “the strictest sect of our religion”; Colossians 2:18, “the worship of angels”; Colossians 2:23, “self-imposed worship”; James 1:26, “his religion is worthless”).

On one occasion thrēskeia describes true worship in James 1:27, “Religion/worship that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”  This single exception is most likely explained by the context of debate and the word’s previous appearance in verse 26.

So, one last time…let’s notice something very interesting about this word.  As we have noted elsewhere, thrēskeia is never used to describe the things that Christians do together when they gather collectively.  In the only instance where this word is used positively, thrēskeia describes an obedient, holy lifestyle demonstrated by generosity to the poor.

These are the essential puzzle pieces necessary for understanding how the New Testament uses the vocabulary of “worship.”  Now that they are all out on the table, see what you can make of trying to fit them together.

Next time we will begin the process of fitting it all together and synthesizing the New Testament sense of what it means to “worship the Lord Jesus Christ.”

How Do We Choose the Right Church?

This morning I came across an interesting online review in Christian Century discussing Jamie Smith’s book Awaiting the King.  (You can read my review of Jamie’s book here.)

I was particularly struck by the author’s observations  on the depth of political polarity within the American church.  His explanation of this destructive division is the simple sociological observation that people, including Christian people, naturally hang out with others like themselves.  If you are familiar with church-growth literature, you will recognize this as a simple application of the “homogeneous principle.”

Here is the most relevant paragraph:

“People select churches based on the convictions in which the culture has already formed them. Those formed primarily by the liturgy of the flag will choose a Southern Baptist church where they know their values will be mirrored, while those formed primarily by the liturgy of individualism will opt for a mainline church where they know inclusiveness will be a shared value. We choose churches the same way we choose political parties. This is why so many Christians know so few Christians who disagree with them. It’s why our ecclesial culture so neatly replicates the polarization in our wider culture. And it’s why so few mainline pastors thought it odd that, when the Festival of Homi­letics was held in D.C. this year, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker spoke but no Republican politicians did.”

Of course, the author is absolutely correct.  Sadly, he is also making an observation that reveals the immaturity of so many American Christians.  After all, the point of Christianity is not to remain who we are naturally.  Nor is the goal to be comfortable.

Even more sadly, this selection process not only works for individuals selecting a new church, but also for congregations selecting whom they choose to welcome and embrace.  Not only do insiders look for insider churches, but outsiders are regularly rejected by insider congregations.

When Terry and I retired and moved back to Montana we knew that we were immersing ourselves into a rural culture that, by and large, embraced values very different from our own.  I am not a bit surprised to see over-sized pick-up trucks rolling down the street sporting bumper stickers proclaiming “God, Guns and Guts Made America Great! Let’s Keep It That Way”  Montana voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump, the candidate who often encouraged his supporters to punch his nay-sayers in the face, then promising to pay their court fees.

If we were average church-goers we might have prioritized finding a church — probably a very tiny church meeting in someone’s basement after dark (I am joking) — filled with others like us, politically avant-guarde with a progressive social conscience, where we could be socially comfortable.

But this not what we did, not because finding a comfortable church may have been difficult, but because it would have been wrong.

No, we searched for a church that was living out what we believe the church is supposed to be. (For a fuller discussion of what I mean by this, read my book I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America).  Here is a short list of the qualities we looked for:

  1. A preacher/teacher who taught from the Scriptures, both practically and authoritatively, as God’s Word for us today.
  2. A church where the leaders and the congregation were outwardly rather than inwardly focused, where the emphasis was on helping those who are hurting and reaching out to the lost with the good news of Jesus Christ.
  3. A church that was primarily growing because new people were coming into new relationships with Jesus, not because disgruntled church-goers were transferring from neighboring congregations.
  4. A place where we could be involved, use our gifts and make a contribution.
  5. A place where we could confidently bring our friends trusting that they would encounter the Holy Spirit.

We set out in this search knowing full well that we would probably find ourselves surrounded  by folks who would not agree with our politics…and with whom we, too, would seriously disagree.  (Of course, there are necessary limits to such tolerance.  I would never attend a church where I judged the teaching to be an idolatrous Christian nationalism, or racist, or rabidly Zionist.)

In fact, that is exactly how it has worked out.  Thus far, I have disagreed with the politics of almost everyone who has shared their political positions

Members of the community join hands during a Black Lives Matter prayer vigil in front of the First Baptist Church, a predominantly African-American congregation, in Macon, Ga., on Monday, July 11, 2016. The pastors of both First Baptist Churches in Macon are trying to bridge the stubborn divide of race against a painful and tumultuous backdrop: the 2015 massacre at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina; the much-publicized deaths of blacks at the hands of law enforcement; the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, and the sniper killing of white Dallas police officers. (AP Photo/Branden Camp)

with me.  And, unfortunately, a few of them have made it clear that they aren’t especially interested in getting to know more about us after hearing my own thoughts on the issues of the day.  (I have only had one true confrontation when I had to challenge a new friend on his blatant anti-Semitism.)

Yes, I do believe that my fellow worshipers are wrong, and that I am right on these things.  But hanging out with fellow “X” (replace the X with whatever political party you like) is not why I go to church.  The purpose of the Body of Christ is not to provide a safe place (oh…how I have come to dislike those two words) where I will be coddled in my own preconceptions.

The purpose of Christian community, rather, is that we all become transformed into the image of Christ.  And there is one thing I know for certain about Christ’s image — no one on this earth looks exactly like Him yet, including me.

The all-to-common failure to recognize these important distinctions is further evidence of the spiritual immaturity endemic to American Christianity, including evangelicalism.

So, here is the challenge — take a step or two to change this situation in your sphere of influence today.

A Review of “From Here to Maturity” by Thomas Bergler, With Commentary on the National Disaster that is American Evangelicalism

From Here to Maturity: Overcoming the Juvenilization of American Christianity (Eerdmans, 2014) is the sequel to Thomas Bergler’s acclaimed book, The Juvenilization of American Christianity.  (See my review).  In his second book, Bergler offers practical advice for church leaders searching for remedies to the problems of perpetually juvenile congregations.  The goal is to grow churches of maturing disciples not content with permanent states of spiritual adolescence.

Chapter 1, “We’re All Adolescents Now,” briefly reviews the conclusions of Bergler’s extensive historical survey in The Juvenilization of American Christianity.  Once again, he defines juvenilization as “the process by which the religious beliefs, practices, and developmental characteristics of adolescents become accepted – or even celebrated – as appropriate for Christians of all ages” (2).  We should probably add the word indefinitely or forever to this definition.  Everyone is a juvenile at some point, but it should be short-lived, not a permanent condition.

The congregational expression of adolescent faith is a strong preference for “emotionally comforting, self-focused, and intellectually shallow” church services and worship experiences where a person’s connection to Christ is typically described as “falling in love with Jesus.”  The vocabulary of teenage romance becomes normative for all Christian faith among all ages, all the time.

After diagnosing these problems, Bergler provides a good, if brief, survey of maturity vocabulary in the New Testament, highlighting passages that distinguish mature from immature faith and the essential characteristics of mature Christianity (for example, see Hebrews 5:11 – 6:12).  Chapter 2 then elaborates on the New Testament descriptions of how this spiritual growth can be nurtured, including the fact that such development is not optional.  It is not ok to remain content with a juvenile faith.  Mature Christians are described as:

  • knowing “foundational Christian teachings well enough to explain them to others” (38)
  • able to discern the differences between sound and unsound teaching, encouraging the one and opposing the other while putting it into practice
  • embracing suffering and trials, especially for the sake of the gospel, as essential aspects of maturation
  • understanding that they are “being conformed to the death and resurrection of Christ,” especially by their sacrificial service to others (39)
  • devoted to the unity and development of the church, rejecting unloving actions intended to cause division (41)
  • actively “putting off the old self and putting on the new self” while displaying Godly character (42).

The process of spiritual growth requires (1) sound teaching on the importance of Christian maturity and what it looks like within the context of (2) personal relationships where mature believers can serve as “spiritual parents” to newer believers, modeling the maturation process in community.

The remainder of the book explores specific ways for church leaders to become intentional and specific in their promotion of congregational maturity across all age groups.  Chapter 3, “Helping Adults Mature,” grapples with motivating and instructing the current generation of juvenilized adults who have never known anything other than “youth group” Christianity.

One of the greatest challenges to this demographic is the development of mature emotional patterns.  Bergler says, “Among contemporary American Christians, it seems that feelings are too often obstacles rather than resources for spiritual growth…They think that the way to grow closer to God is to seek new and better emotional experiences” (72).  Bergler encourages leaders to adopt Dallas Willard’s useful model of VIM, referring to a strategy for implementing Vision, Intention, and Means.

Chapter 4 elaborates on the need for congregational-wide planning by refocusing on healthy youth group strategies.  Juvenilization is the result of adolescent ministry strategies expanding throughout congregational life and becoming normative for all age levels.  Bergler’s maturation strategy encourages youth ministries to adopt processes of spiritual growth that are transferable throughout the entire congregation.  The road of spiritual influences would be a two-way street, from youth to adults as well as from adults to youth.

This chapter is the lengthiest and most elaborate section of Bergler’s book.  I suspect that many readers will find his suggestions too programmatic and complex for their liking.  It certainly appears overwhelming, at least it did to me.  But Bergler offers a number of practical suggestions for modifying, adapting and customizing this material in ways that keep the Biblical essentials while allowing for flexible implementation.  It is well worth studying the results of his research and then brainstorming with others about the best ways to implement processes for congregational maturity in your church.

Living in a culture that can be very anti-intellectual – within the church, this attitude typically expresses itself in “anti-theological” language; we have all heard it – Bergler emphasizes the importance of leaders teaching sound theology to their congregations.  Good teachers figure out ways to make Christian theology accessible and practical while highlighting its importance.

Allow me to quote at length from Bergler’s conclusions on the centrality of theology:

“First, theology provides the basic truths and principles of discernment that every mature Christian must embrace…Both the biblical and sociological evidence confirm that churches that help people learn, love, and live theology (as opposed to just having uninformed good feelings about God) tend to produce more spiritually mature Christians…

“Second, theological reflection can help church leaders identify the barriers to spiritual maturity in their congregations.  Often it is not the official theology of the church that hinders spiritual maturity; rather, it is the lived theology of the congregation that gets in the way…When churches find it hard to get adults to care about the youth ministry or to get young people to care about the rest of the church, a lived theology of the church that does not challenge American individualism and age segregation may be one of the causes” (112).

Amen.

Bergler’s final chapter, “From Here to Maturity,” links to several diagnostic indices offering tools for congregational assessment.  Understanding a congregation’s current maturity level is a preliminary step in determining the right strategy for moving forward.  Again, some readers will find this chapter too programmatic for their liking.  Leaders who ignore his advice, however, do so at their own peril.  Remember James’ warning that “teachers will be judged more strictly” (3:1).

To illustrate his analysis for the need of remedial leadership, Bergler focuses on congregational worship and the importance of changing the style of music to which so many American church-goers have become accustomed – though he does touch on other issues as well.

Bergler is particularly concerned about “the ways that certain contemporary worship practices mimic pop culture” (127).  And, No, he is not a fighting-fundi condemning rock-and-roll in church.  He is analyzing musical content and the patterns of thought and expression embedded in the lyrics.  A brief but important discussion of research in cognitive psychology explains how musical preferences can “hard-wire” our neural circuitry into “schemas” or mental, neural patterns that “reinforce patterns of thinking and behaving” without our ever realizing the ways in which our brains are being programmed (130).

Bergler focuses on two problems in contemporary worship:

First, a great many contemporary worship songs are me-focused rather than God-focused.  A congregation can easily spend more time referring to themselves, singing about things they are going to do, rather than focusing on our Triune God, declaring the things that He has done.  There is a proper time and place for talking about ourselves – especially as we confess our guilt and sin, repent and ask for forgiveness; rarely performed acts of worship in non-liturgical churches nowadays – but for many congregations singing about oneself is the main course all the time.

Second, a great deal of contemporary church music “draws from the North American culture of romantic love” (126).  The result is that “falling in love” or “being in love” with Jesus becomes the central image of Christian living.  True love becomes the agent of salvation (131), despite the fact that New Testament passages using marriage or marriage feasts as metaphors for Christ’s relationship to the church never tell believers that they should be in love with Jesus (check out the passages listed on page 133).

Allow me to quote Bergler at length one last time:

“Slow dance worship songs are drawing on American cultural scripts about romantic relationships for their emotional impact. Those exposed to a steady diet of this music will be tempted to embrace the Christian life as a kind of romantic infatuation…such Christians may develop a self-centered relationship with Jesus…They will value the way Jesus makes them feel and will be much less concerned about the theological content of the faith.  Too many slow dances with Jesus may reinforce immature forms of the Christian life (132).

“A relationship with Jesus the master involves training and submission, not just emotional comfort…Followers of Jesus give up all claims to their own life and devote themselves to joining him in his kingdom mission…Slow dance worship music does little to grow mature Christian communities.  With its emphasis on the one-on-one relationship between Jesus and the believer (“Jesus I am so in love with you”) it does nothing to counteract the rampant individualism in American society. The particular brand of individualism found in this music emphasizes how God fits into my life and provides me what I need, not how I need to fit into God’s kingdom.  In other words, it reinforces the therapeutic or even narcissistic religion that is rampant in contemporary America” (134-135).

Bergler offers some excellent advice on how to sensibly address these issues and implement much needed changes in church life.  I recommend reading his book for yourself to discover the details of what he suggests.

As I conclude this review, I find myself meditating on the abysmal spiritual condition of American evangelicalism in this era of Trump and wondering to what extent Bergler’s diagnosis of juvenilized Christianity helps to explain the many current, evangelical political behaviors that I find utterly abhorrent, even down-right pagan.  Remember, 81% of self-identified evangelicals voted for this man.  White evangelical support for Trump remains at an all-time high despite his noxious behavior, war-mongering, flagrant disregard for common decency, dehumanizing of others — especially women — immigrants and people of color, pathological lies, misrepresentations and stunning political ineptitude.

It makes perfect sense to me that our malignantly narcissistic, petulant man-child of a president continues to ride the wave of support given to him by equally self-centered, childish, anti-intellectual, evangelical “Christians” who have never learned the value of spiritual discernment, theological acumen, self-denial, or obedience to the kingdom mission of Jesus Christ before every other distraction.

In the book of Revelation, John the Seer warns the church about their need for spiritual maturity if they hope to stand firm until the very End.

“This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints” (Rev. 13:10).

“This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God’s commandments and remain faithful to Jesus” (Rev. 14:12).

Another of history’s many antichrists (see 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7) now sits in the oval office.  Thus far, America’s juvenilized evangelicals remain Trump’s staunchest supporters.  The devotees most lacking in conscience impute to him an almost messianic status as The One sent to us by God.  What further proof is needed of the destructive social consequences born of wholesale, unapologetic childishness among God’s people?

The shepherds who failed to instill maturity throughout their flocks, who never even thought to ask the right questions, will one day be held accountable for their neglect of God’s children.  They will “weep and wail” because of their faithlessness (Jeremiah 25:34-35).

The church is not exempt from divine judgment.  We dare not forget Israel’s own pitiful example:

“Like a woman unfaithful to her husband,

so, you have been unfaithful to me,

O house of Israel,” declares the LORD…

A cry is heard on the barren heights,

the weeping and pleading of the people of Israel,

because they have perverted their ways

and have forgotten the LORD their God.

“Return, faithless people;

I will cure you of your backsliding.”…

Surely the idolatrous commotion on the hills [e.g. Capitol Hill]

and the mountains is a deception;

surely in the LORD our God

is the salvation of Israel.  (Jeremiah 3:20-23)

Am I suggesting that there is a straight line from slow-dancing with Jesus to embracing Donald Trump?  No.  But circuitous, evasive lines full of detours, while trickier to trace out, are no less significant.

And we all know that subtle, hidden connections can be more dangerous than obvious straight lines.