I have become, over the last couple of years, a bit of a student, an observer, of contemporary, attractional, seeker-sensitive ecclesiology. Many of my posts are biased in that direction of interest.  My engagement of a handful of seeker-sensitive churches in my community, churches that I think are reflective of the movement as a whole, leads to my first overarching observation, one that points to a profound and errant human-centricity in the attractional church model, the seeker-sensitives, a phenomena that I believe transcends any traditional Calvinism/Arminian categories.  The focus  of churches that engage attractional methodologies is primarily on the congregates, the audience.  Further, and without regard to the sometimes overly simplified orthodoxy of statements of faith, in practice and teaching, many of these churches are at best semi-Pelagian. One finds the content of the teaching to be primarily focused on the self.  One finds sermons on building self-esteem.   One hears sermons on enhancing leadership potential.  One hears pragmatic life-skills coaching, at the end of which those in the audience are presented with a Jesus that will help you achieve, it is inferred, those aforementioned felt needs if you accept Him as your Saviour.  What one finds, sometimes,  is a truncated, weakened version of the false prosperity gospel.

What I have come to understand is that what is being preached is sometimes bereft of the Gospel, but is, as I have said before, more a legalism lite.  This attitude manifests itself with the ubiquitous proclamation that churchgoers do not need more teaching, they need to do more, often quoting John Maxwell’s ubiquitous pseudo-pietistic dictum that most Christians are educated beyond their obedience.  The inferred solution by many of the stars in the seeker-sensitive movement apparently is to withhold the full council of Scripture. There is also a disdain for the traditional and Biblical  label of Christian.  The inference is that we are to be referred to as Christ-followers.  However, and not to put too fine a point on it, what happens is we are now defined as a state of doing rather than a state of being, a state of grace.  One is defined as a worker for a cause rather than as the Biblical metaphor of an adopted child.  As an imperfect, but workable analogy, one may work hard to further the election of the candidate of a political party, for example, but who is it that will take the president’s name?  It will be his wife and his children, not his followers.  It is understood, too, that his family should work, albeit often imperfectly, for his agenda. It is also inferred by leaders of the movement that one’s depth, one’s passion for the Evangel is measured by, for example, one’s  tithing records and by one’s involvement in the churches’ volunteer ministries, by works of the Law, essentially.  Often congregates, sheep of the flock, are scolded by the leadership for a wanting more substantive diet.  It is often inferred that the ones requesting better food must not be keeping the Law well enough to deserve better food.   It is important to know that the definition of disciple is ‘one who learns.’  Parenthetically, remember that Judas could have been, until his betrayal of the Messiah, defined on some level as a Christ-follower.

We, especially in the west, are wired for meritocracy (an anti-thesis to the Gospel?).  We want metrics to measure performance.  We want benchmarks against which we can compare ourselves to others in the business.  We want to engage marketing strategies that gives us market share.  We want to brand our image, our organization, to differentiate it from others in the market.  We take the pulse of the market with surveys to find what it is that consumers want.  This is all fine and well if you want to sell a widget or a consumer service, but is this how the church of Christ is to be managed?  Apparently the answer is, sadly, a resounding yes for much of the American church.  I have commented before on the reading habits of much of the leadership of the movement.  Often the leaders and CEOs, labels they often choose for themselves either as an adjunct or replacement for the label of pastor, will list the books they are reading on their blogs.  The vast majority of the books seem to be of a business or marketing focus.  Rarely do you find a substantive work of theology in their reading lists.  Nothing wrong with books on business and leadership, but the seeming lack of substantive theological reading for a church leader is disconcerting.  The fallout from years, decades, of marketing church seems at times to be a softening of the hard message of the Gospel.  What is found is sometimes a weakening of the nature of sin by defining it as mistakes that hurt our lives in the here and now, a sharp contrast to sin being Biblically defined as an open rebellion to a holy Triune God.  This subtle redefining of the nature of  sin as something debilitating we do to ourselves points to a need for a therapeutic Gospel, a Gospel where the Cross is the place to go to get your relationships fixed, a second chance to get things right and erase mistakes.  That is what people want to hear, that is  what the market bears. The Cross is ultimately not about second chances, though.  If it is just a second chance, I will, left to my own devices, ruin the do-over, too.  I think a reading of Peter’s less-than-seeker sensitive sermon found in Acts chapter 2 would be of value in defining how the Gospel is presented in the New Testament.

The problem with the business-centric benchmarks used on the attractional church is that market-share, numbers, becomes the measure of success rather than fidelity to the Biblical texts.  Those growing numbers can, and sometimes does, breed ugly hubris in those that cultivated them.  As I have mentioned before, it is interesting that, as far as I have been able to tell,  nowhere in Biblical texts are churches and persons ever commended or condemned for the number of, or lack of, converts.  God builds His kingdom through His ordained ways and means.  He does not need clever marketing schemes and bait and switch tactics.  He can use the weak and foolish to confound the strong and wise and that so that all glory belongs to Him alone.  Therein I find hope.

What is sometimes obscured in these churches with their disdain for deeper Biblical knowledge is the clear picture of the Triune God’s grand meta-narrative of redemptive history revealed in the Bible, the true story of the Triune God intervening, working and moving sovereignly in time and space, a narrative of creation,  of the Fall,  of the promise of a coming Redeemer in Genesis chapter three, shown in the types and shadows in the prophets and the Law, with the Kingdom inaugurated by Christ’s birth, death, burial, and resurrection and culminating with His triumphant, physical return in glory. Rather we are all to often primarily presented with the Bible as being a source of moral examples to live up to and tips on living better lives.  God is often  presented as One Who exists to help us fulfill our dreams and assist us in living up to our potential.  It errantly turns the focus inward to us.  Too, what is all-too-often substituted for a substantive Biblical diet, the non-subjective Gospel truth of the five Solas, is a serving of entertainment.  Quite frankly, I find little humor in the Bible.  One may find sarcasm at times, but not much humor.  While humor, theater, and skits, and a rocking praise band may draw a crowd, you will find, as others has said, that what you draw people with is what you draw them to, and what you draw them with is what you keep them with.

I will probably refrain from blogging for awhile. I even toyed with the idea of deleting this blog, but decided not to do so, at least for the time being.  I increasingly think myself to be utterly unqualified to speak on weighty things. I also do not want to entertain any narcissism,and blogging, for me, can provide a temptingly fertile soil for such.  You see, I am a not very good Christian.   I am at times self-righteous and and prone to be an idolater.  I am often foolish in speech and action and prone to be self-absorbed.  I often beat myself up over my sin and shortcomings.  But I am redeemed by my Saviour, Christ Jesus.  In the end, that is all I got.  That is absolutely all I got to cling to, and I have to preach that to myself daily.  All I have is the fact that I can stand before my Maker because my Redeemer took upon Himself my sin.  He lived a sinless and obedient life for me and took my sins upon Himself on the cross.  He rose again, in time and space, in history, and defeated death.  Simul Iustus et Peccator (simultaneously sinner and saint) , I am not living my best life now.  That comes later.  What I am learning, thought, is that I have a great High Priest who intercedes for me.   I was dead in my trespasses, but my Redeemer breathed life into me, brought me to faith, to belief, to a trust that He is sufficient.  When I am weak, He is magnified.  If Christ uses the weak and foolish to confound the strong and wise of the world, then I hope I am His man.

Here are a few thoughts with which to give either the closing punctuation this blog or at least a pause:

• Are we more weighed down by the sins done to us than by the sins we have done to others, or for more importantly, against God? Do we truly ponder the gravity of of our rebellion, even as redeemed saints, in light of a holy, sovereign and righteous God? Without a heart broken and contrite over one’s sin, piety can be hollow and may be followed and fueled by a cold, self-righteous moralism. Each and every one of us is to varying degree a recovering Pharisee with a propensity towards  self-pity, self-righteousness,  and self-agrandization.

• No matter how bad we think our circumstances, in light of our innate fallen nature, we deserve no better. Why do we Christians complain about our supervisor at work, about our job, our financial worries, our relational issues, our health when each breath is a gift? To do so is to proclaim to God, “I deserve better than what you have given me!” And I am guilty. The lines do not always fall into pleasant places, and God is still sovereign, good, holy, righteous, and merciful. Our Redeemer knows we are made of but dust and our life is but a vapor. He knows, in His absolute sovereignty,  how we feel and what we are going through.  The Triune God uses trials mold us as a potter’s hand molds a lump of clay.  And He gives us good gifts and joy, too.

• Sometimes we have truly been wronged by others and the consequences linger for longer that we think necessary or fair. And sometimes our thoughts linger over such longer than necessary.  Grace does not abound in those places.

• When we long for righteousness, when we groan over sin, both ours and that of others, and I hope that is something no saint ever grows beyond experiencing, we know that He is near to a broken and contrite heart. The Messiah, the Word through Whom all things hold together, intercedes for us to the Father. He does not break the bent reed nor extinguish the smoldering wick.

• The one who is forgiven much, loves much.

• I do not think people often meet the Jesus they most profoundly need when all they are presented with is a Redeemer who’s overarching goal seems to be meeting all our felt needs and making sure we are happy and make good decisions..  Sadly, many are satisfied with that misrepresentation of Jesus who has a ‘wonderful plan for your life’. Sadly, I think this is the Jesus presented in many American churches.

• Expanding on that previous bullet point, I just  recently listened to three sermons from rather influential pastors.  Two of the sermons were on tapping into some inferred, innate leadership ability that resides in all of us. In a nutshell, the sermons go thusly: because we all know Jesus was a great leader, great insight into leadership principles can be gleaned from examining His methods.  We need to discover and apply those leadership lessons to our lives as our lives intersect with others.

• (Warning: engaging rant mode) Without exception, in each of the sermons, the pastor spent most of his time elaborating on personal anecdotes and experience as well as referencing secular books on leadership principles. Without exception, and like most every thematic sermon on felt needs, each pastor started off with a pet project and with good intention and then twisted and distorted whatever Scripture was used out of its intended use and context. I am no genius, but I do know how to read. I see when context is ignored. What I see in each of these sermons is a grand adventure in missing the point of the text and jumping off onto pet projects of felt needs, of reducing the grand narrative of the Bible, the story of Creation, Fall, and Redemption through Christ, into a self-help manual.

• Here, too, is a portion of a sermon I listened  to  from on of the guys who  gave the leadership seminar/sermon:

Your God is so great that when Moses asked Him in Exodus 3:14 what’s Your name and who shall I tell the Israelites who sent me, God could not confine Himself to a particular description so he announced His presence by saying “I AM who I AM.”  I love that! You can’t box Me in. I AM who I AM. The old King James versions says, I AM that I AM. I think that a good interpretation of that statement into into a modern translation would be…”What ever you need, thats what I AM.” “I AM that. That’s what I am.”

This section of the sermon goes on a bit about how God is there to meet your financial, emotional, and relational needs and then concludes thusly:

“He is. He simply is so maybe we should just say today…God is…. fill in the blank. What do you need. Thats what He is.“

Now, the rest of the sermon was not completely without merit or without Gospel implications, but to say the that God’s ontological disclosure of I AM who I AM means ‘I AM whatever you need me to be’ tends to reduce God to a servant to our felt needs, a God who seems to exist  to make us feel good, to make us happy.  God is not as concerned about our happiness as much as we are.  He is more concerned about our sanctification.  I think broad swaths of the church makes much of God making much over us almost as much as they make much of God.  Whew…..

I would really love to hear these guys try to exegete the book of Jeremiah.  If they did, it would  probably end up being a sermon on finances. leadership, sex, or marriage  Yea, I know I am being a bit cynical, but the only time I heard hard things from these guys is when they preach their ubiquitous messages on tithing, and even then, the message usually ends up massaging a felt need, a desire for financial blessing.  Also, what stood out in stark relief for me is how much these guys talk about themselves on stage. Perhaps more than half of each sermon consisted of humorous  stories of their childhood or some personal anecdote that was somehow used in sometimes tenuous ways to segue into the theme of the speech. And if they are not talking about their life experience, they often talk about their church and its history. I remember listening to a pastor state that he was going to preach on a passage of Scripture from the Sermon on the Mount, but God told him to preach on the history of his church instead. That was not God, but ego,  speaking to the pastor and instructing him that His word is to be trumped by a narrative on the  pastors empire.

Without conscious intent, what happens in a purpose driven and market driven church is it ends up personality driven. They often reduce the objective truth of Gospel to a personal, subjective narrative of some nebulous ‘life change.’ And you know what, these pastors seem like truly nice guys. I believe treat their friends and family well.  They are kind to animals and pay their taxes.  They are well-intentioned.  And sometimes God uses such men in spite of their error.

And I am finished listening to bad sermons.  I do not know why I subject myself to such other than to practice discernment.  I guess too, I am more deeply nourished by and thankful for sermons of substance after having imbibed sugary sermons that in the end do not satisfy.

by David Wells:

Across much of evangelicalism, but especially in the market-driven churches, one therefore sees a new kind of leadership among pastors now. Gone is the older model of the scholar-saint, one who was as comfortable with books and learning as with the aches of the soul. This was the shepherd who knew the flock, knew how to tend it, and Sunday by Sunday took that flock into the treasures of God’s Word. This has changed. In its placed is the new ‘celebrity’ style. What we typically see now, Nancy Pearcey suggests, is the leader who works by manipulating the feelings of the audience, enhancing his own image with personal anecdotes, modeling himself after the CEO, and adopting a domineering management style. He (usually) is completely results-oriented, pragmatic, happy to employ and technique from the secular world that will produce the desired results. And this leader has to be magnetic, entertaining, and light on the screen up front. (pg. 40)

I am so thankful for the pastors, the scholar-saints, the under-shephards, that remain faithful to the Biblical mandate and calling to feed the sheep.

Perhaps now, after so many posts on ecclesiastic issues, I will move to and graze in other topical pastures in this ‘blogging’ venture…..

…..on leadership, relevance, and the contemporary American church

• I am all for good leadership, both within and outside the church (and I know the following will be misunderstood or considered unreasonably judgmental by by some), but in reading the blogs of more than a few church planters, pastors, and church “CEOs” of ‘relevant’, attractional churches, I perceive something of a leadership ‘fetish’. Sometimes, I will mentally remove any mention or implication of the the Gospel from the blogs and posts of some of these church leaders, and, sadly, very little is changed in the content their published thoughts. Sometimes, all I find among the ubiquitous calls to engage boundless creativity, bold leadership, and cultural relevance is the occasional exhortation to ‘make Jesus famous.’ Many church leaders publish a ‘what I am reading’ list, and it honestly grieves me that most of the titles being read seem to be secular, trendy, ‘flavor of the day’ books on on leadership principles, business practices, and marketing strategies. It would be refreshing, given we are talking about the reading habits of pastors, to see a bit of John Piper, Jonathan Edwards, or Spurgeon, an occasional systematic theology put into the mix. When something of a spiritual nature is listed, it is often a title of questionable theology like The Shack, or Wild at Heart. Too, is there perhaps a bit, a hint, of self-aggrandizement, of unrighteous pride in self and methods, in this hyper-focus on leadership skills? As an aside, I recall reading a post on a web log of a pastor/CEO (his claimed title) of a church I once attended wherein he briefly comments on and unpacks some passages from Romans through, and I quote, ‘the eyes of a leader’. Nice to see something from Romans on his web log, but are the ‘eyes of a leader’ the correct lens through which to filter the inspired words of Paul to the church at Rome? Perhaps the eyes of a repentant sinner, humbled by the Cross, would be a more correct lens. Nothing wrong with leadership per se, but in engaging biblical leadership, it must be affirmed that the church is not a business. Our benchmarks and measurables are not those of the world; faithfulness is not a quantifiable commodity. The Gospel is not a product to be marketed. The first will be last and the last will be first. Christ is not dependent on our skills, but we are dependent on His sufficiency in all things.

• Related to the above bullet point (and I have addressed this subject ad nausea before), I find so many church planters, pastors, and leaders stating that it is their job to lead the flock rather than ‘feed’ the flock. Also stated by some of these leaders is that a leader should not have to feed his staff. In all honesty, my heart is broken and grieves over this unbiblical redefinition of the role of an under-shepherd. The flock needs, I need, a pastor, not a vision caster! The pastors first responsibility is to the flock, not the world. His mandate is to prepare the flock to go into the world, to ‘lead’ his flock into Christ-likeness. I recently spent some time on another post on this subject of pastoral responsibility (or lack thereof) and ’sheep feeding’, but had second thoughts about publishing it. I opted to keep it private. Still struggling with a polemic attitude and perhaps a hyper-focus on my part regarding this subject.

• Relevance, the clarion call of many a ‘contemporary’ church……… This is, in a very broad sense, what the mainline denominations engaged in accommodating the Gospel to the modernists of the previous century or so. Where are those churches now? They abandoned orthodoxy and engaged apostasy and are in death throes. Today, those who seek cultural relevancy are often unwittingly abandoning orthopraxy (and orthodoxy at times, too) to make the church ‘experience’ more palatable to (post-) modern tastes; all to often, many churches, in the quest for relevancy, unwittingly engage strange fire. Corporate worship becomes horizontally focused rather than vertical. Though I do not know enough about him to make any kind of overarching endorsement, I do like this quote by Dean William Inge of St Paul’s Cathedral in London: “Those churches who marry the spirit of the age become the widow of the next.” So many churches will find themselves chasing after wind in their pursuit of relevance, and what they do manage to grasp will eventually turn to dust. Only the Word will remain. Build on that foundation alone. Could have ended here, but one last thought on relevance experienced…….Out of curiosity, I recently listened to a bit (thirty minutes of part one) of a sermon series, from an evangelical community church, titled ‘Theologgins for Your Noggins’ (HT: Pyromanics) wherein the pastor exegeted (more truthfully, as one Pyro commenter stated, engaged in eisegesis of Horton Hears a Who or whatever it was) the works of Dr. Suess for spiritual truths. I am sure the pastor and leadership of the church are nice, agreeable people who act from good motives, but I do not have words to describe the anger (especially during minutes 15.30-21.30) that washed over me as I listened to Dr Suess being mined from the stage/pulpit for spiritual insight. Ultimately, what we find in such stunts is a lack of confidence it the power of the Word faithfully expounded. What we also sometimes find, too, is the bride admiring herself in the mirror and exalting her creativity and relevance while the Bridegroom waits in the adjacent room.

It seems I have taken a somewhat contrarian path over the last few posts, and I am going to be quite repetitive on a few points with this one. That all being said, I cannot ignore my compulsion to speak and warn against what I feel is a dangerous strain of shallow ecclesiology; I am jealous over the church of Christ. I am jealous over the Gospel.

I recently ran across a post by a pastor and church planter from Canton, Georgia. As mentioned in an earlier post, I have listened to him speak as a guest pastor at a church I once attended. Also, I have listened to a sermon or two by this pastor. Too, I gather that his church was mentored to a degree by my former church.

His post revolves around the theft of a church trailer that contained things critical to the functioning of the pastor’s church. There is no denying that this theft is a horrible thing. Let me state some things clearly and perhaps digress and ramble a bit before I continue with my thoughts on the aforementioned post.

It is not my intent to hurt, but to warn. Also, I do not intend to infer the attitude exhibited by the referenced post is universal amongst the seeker sensitive church movement; it is just that his church is one of the more extreme manifestations, and this church is not without influence. That being said…..

The Gospel is simple, but it is not shallow. The call of much of the church growth movement, though, is to decry the deeper things of the faith. Over and over and over, I hear these pastors state that it is not their job to feed the flock, but to create self-feeders. To a small extent, there is an element of truth to that exhortation in that we are all to feast on the infallible, inspired, authoritative Word of God, the canon of scripture. However, I have heard enough of these calls to ’self-feed’ to know that there is more lurking behind this call than to encourage the flock to read the Bible for themselves. There is, first and foremost, a shallow, feel-good legalism. ‘Rather than go deeper, get out there and do things’ is the false dichotomy offered by more than a few of these seeker-sensitive church leaders. There is also an element of arrogant disdain these pastors hold for those who cry to their pastors for more food. I think, too, there is perhaps a laziness or inability on the part of many of these pastors to do the hard work and study required to preach the deeper things of Christ. Rather, there is a desire to be edgy, to be hip, to be relevant, to make the church more appealing to the world. The competition to the church is perceived to be Hollywood and Las Vegas. The thought is that the church needs to do the things Hollywood and Las Vegas does in terms of promoting the message of the Gospel. Much more could be said, but ultimately what this attitude represents is a contempt for the power of the Word faithfully exposited.

Alright, back to the pastors post. Again, the church trailer was stolen. Not good. Here are some quotes from the pastors blog regarding the theft:

First let me say, God loves you. Second let me say we forgive you. We really don’t want to forgive you, but God says we should so we do. Third of all I want you to know that I think you are scum bags. I think you are lowlife degenerates who need a good butt kicking. Matter of fact I feel so strongly about the fact that you need a good butt kicking that I am volunteering to do it. I hope you believe in God because you should get on your knees and cry out to Him like never before because if we find you, I can promise we will kick the crap out of you. It won’t be pretty, it won’t be over quickly, and it will be very painful. I know that doesn’t sound very nice but I feel pretty strongly that is what you need.

We are probably the only church you have ever heard of that will honestly break your legs once you are found.

Get that trailer out of the county QUICK. As soon as I hit publish on this blog post a church of about 1000 crazy people will know that our black, children’s trailer has been stolen and I can promise they will be on the lookout for it. You would much rather me find you then one of them.

A lovely image the pastor paints…..better that the pastor beats the mess out of the sinner before his crazy church of 1000 gets hold of the thief. Try to harmonize the pastor’s desire for vengeance with the Sermon on the Mount if you dare. The pastor’s attitude seems to be more aligned with radical Islam. I find irony, too, in this pastors often stated disdain for ‘Pharisees’ and ‘religious’ people found in his rhetoric.

Unlike much of the errant neo-liberalism and overly generous ‘orthodoxy’ of the Emergent Church, the seeker sensitives proclaim an orthodoxy in their mission and belief statements. Where they sometimes err is in their ecclesiology. They are orthodox in their beliefs, but they engage in heteropraxy, in errant practice. The bitter fruits are sometimes shallowness and arrogance. In the post by Gary Lamb, we find such fruit. What we find is a theft that transcends the stealing of property from a church. What we find stolen from the church of Christ, if such a thing were possible, is the blessedness of a humble, broken, and contrite heart. What we find stolen by this church, if such a thing were possible, is the sense that but for the grace, forgiveness, and mercy of Christ, you and I are condemned sinners, no less so than the trailer thief, fully deserving the wrath of God. Rather, we find a ‘lets go break the legs of sinners’ attitude. One has to ask this pastor and his church of 1000, which of you will cast the first stone that breaks the legs of the thief when you finally run him down?

In closure and to further cement my concern, here is a response from another blog to Gary’s post:

• “I follow these guys a lot and think they are doing an incredible work for Jesus! It’s nice to see they have a little bite to their bark! Click below to read what happened…”

The heart grieves and mourns for a large swath of the American church. Alright, rant mode off………