If it were laid upon me….

I sat on this post for awhile due to the issues described  here,  internally debating whether or not I should post it. After all, how could I authentically speak to issues of ecclesiology if I struggled with doubts of even belonging to the church militant?  Without regards to such issues, I decided to unveil my thoughts, anyway.

If I ever were to pastor a church, which would only happen if God has a great sense of irony and loves to use the weak, the foolish, those prone to sin and despises it, and those with no leadership or interpersonal skills, these are some things I would insist upon:

• Sundays would not be a polished affair with state-of-the-art audio and visual accouterments. Musical instruments would probably be in the back of the church. Focus is to be on the Word unfolded so as to feed the sheep, not on a musical performance.  I would refuse to play any music that was programmed to draw in people who would not otherwise go to church.

• I would never, never, never, ever lay the burden of the  tithe, an unbiblical practice as taught by the contemporary church,  upon the sheep. I will not pastor over the church of Galatia. There would be relatively few sermons or speeches on financial stewardship. Though important, you don’t need Jesus to teach you to balance your checkbook and save for a rainy day. Plus…I am not so good with money, myself. It just does not mean that much to me as it does others.

• I would probably be bi-vocational.

• There would be no sermons with seven steps to this or five keys to that. Legalism lite leads to Jesus lite. Legalism is a path that leads to Hell

• I would do my best to talk a lot about Christ using few if any personal anecdotes. I want you to learn about the Messiah, not about me. If I cannot teach redemptive Biblical history, the historical and true story of Christ alone, by faith alone, by grace alone, by the authority of the Bible alone, to the glory of God alone without telling stories about me and my life experience (boring thought it would be), I do not need to claim to be a pastor. If I ever become a pastor, which is highly unlikely,  I will not be there to entertain you. When I die, I would just as soon be forgotten then be remembered as having been a charismatic leader.

• I would not ask for your personal testimonies, though you are certainly free to share – but, foremost, tell me Christ’s story in church, not yours. Your changed life, though I am happy for you, is not necessarily the Gospel. Paxil changes lives, AA changes lives, art changes lives, Mormonism has changed lives for the better. The Gospel story is what breaths life into rotten corpses. The apostle Peter probably had many interesting stories, but he told Christ’s story every time, all the time.

• There would never, never, ever be any altar call nor any other crass emotional manipulation of the flock. If Jesus and the apostles did not need them, then neither do I need that extra-biblical and rather recent and often detrimental appendage to the Gospel call. No. Sappy. Music. In. Church. Ever. Too, why do I need to close my eyes and bow my head during altar calls? Seriously….

• I would seek to heal you with the Gospel rather the Law. Too many preachers wield the Law like an anvil against the sheep when a salve of grace is called for.

• Preaching would be mostly expostional. Exceptions to expostional preaching might entail, for example, teaching about the lives and doctrines of the early church fathers and martyrs. I would also like to learn and teach on church history. Doing a class on systematic theology in the evenings would be cool, too. Theology is a fundamental part of the church. If I ever pastored a church, it would be lovingly doctrinal. Doctrine is the spine and immune system of the church.

• I would strongly discourage the turning of hobbies into ministries. You like to golf, hunt, and ride motorcycles. Such is fine with me; just don’t baptize them. Let me know when you want to go for a ride though. It would be fun to join with you.

• The crippled, the poor, the mentally ill and emotionally scarred, those not so articulate would welcomed and embraced.   Along the same lines, introverts are welcome and loved. I understand because I am an introvert, too. If you are uncomfortable in certain social circumstances, we can fellowship, you and me, over a cup of coffee or can of beer where ever you are most comfortable. I personally like sweet tea. Occasionally, a shot or two of Evan Williams is fine. Church is not easy, sometimes, for introverts.

• I would insist that the elders and teachers hold the the Doctrines of Grace. If not, you can be a part of the church, cherished and loved deeply, but never teach.

• No. Skits. Ever. No drama teams, either. You want drama, entertainment, go to a theater. The Word, being potent in and of itself, does not need our help. Drama merely adds extraneous layers. As an aside, it amazes me that people can feel comfortable playing the role of Christ in musical dramas and plays. I recall Peter requesting his body to be crucified upside down because he deemed himself to be unworthy to be crucified in the fashion of the Messiah.

• I would not make too big a deal about secondary issues such as eschatology, though they would not be ignored.

• Communion would be a real meal, I think, not a piece of bread or a plastic shot glass of grape juice. Wine would be available if desired. I also am not wed to the amount of water used in baptisms. Sprinkle or dunk, I can accommodate either. No major problems with either paedo and credo-baptism. I see valid Biblical arguments for either, though I lean towards credo-baptism.

• I would never say, as many do from the stage and pulpit, that I would not sacrifice my family for of the church, though I would hope I would never face such circumstances. Such statements, though common, seem strange and present a hopefully false dichotomy. I would die a thousand times for the church of the Christ. If my wife or children are not with me on this, then they turn their backs on the bride and body of Christ. I would not.

• I will not be a Christian culture warrior, ever. I will not try to dress unregenerate corpses up with the Law when they need the Gospel. You want a moral nation above all, have Utah succeed and move there. They are nice, family-friendly, moral people even without the Gospel delivered by the apostles. I would never preach pure moralism. It is the anti-thesis of grace.

• Children will not have to go to kids church when big people church starts if the family wants their children to be with them. Distractions are OK, to a degree, and a part of life, and a part of the body, a part of families. You hear me on this one Furtick and Noble​? I will not force families to split up when the preaching starts. Shame on you, Furtick, for removing Christ from your service for being a distraction to your show…..as you do the the least of these……

• I would probably not let my church grow much beyond 200 people if I had such control. Should it do so, and this would be a great thing, we split into two sister churches, each with trained and approved elders and pastors. If a pastor cannot at least recognize his sheep, he needs to have others step up to help feed, lead and shelter the flock. Move half of them to another pasture.  Keep growing the flock, and then splitting off to new pastures.

• Naive on my part, perhaps, but I would hope the hypothetical church I fed would not be success oriented with tangible metrics. Leave that for businesses. I would not count salivations. That is no ones job but the Holy Spirits; no one else is qualified to separate wheat from chaff. I would hope we would have an orientation of humility. If the seats are filled, fine. If not, fine. It will be Christ who grows His church, not me.

• I would literally die to protect my sheep from wolves, from bad theology. You will not see Wild At Heart or The Shack as recommended reading the churches library. I would never endorse heretics like TD Jakes as have many nominally orthodox pastors.

• I would never, ever have a fund raiser. If someone is in deep financial need, I would sell my possessions, give up vacations, and work overtime to help you. I hope the flock would do the same. Saddest thing I have seen in a long time is a large, evidently wealthy church holding a bake sale fund raiser for a child needing surgery.

• If you want to volunteer to help in the church, that is great. If not, that is fine with me, too. I know your probably work hard to support your family and need no extra burdens. Quite frankly, when you get rid of all the extraneous parking teams, media teams, creative teams, hospitality teams, volunteer coordination team volunteers, you find you do not need volunteers so much.

• Small groups, meh. I have seen them too often be pools of ignorance to which, not so long ago, I helped make even more deeply ignorant. If we do small groups, it will be elder led and Word focused. They are what you make of them.

• If you want a God of second chances, go to where the Gospel is light and cheap. I will give you a Gospel for dead men and women who float hopeless in the dark waters. They don’t need second chances. I, and they, would mess up the second chance, and the third, and the forth. I will point you to a Savior, to paraphrase Paul Capon, if memory serves, who dives into deep water to breath life into sin infused, rotten corpses, dies in the process, and later appears on the shore alive and waits for you having defeated death and sin.

Enough of my orthopraxic utopianism…

A list of curmudgeonly thoughts

• It annoys me when a pastor tells the congregation to repeat something he just said, usually something amusingly demeaning, to the person sitting next to them. This recitation apparently will help reinforce some point the pastor is trying to make. For example, the pastor will instruct you to tell the person next to you that they “are really screwed up” at the beginning of one of those No Perfect People Allowed sermon series. The more edgy pastor may instruct you to say ‘effed up” rather than “screwed up.” I am not amused.

• I am really bored with the ‘No Perfect People’ tee shirts and sermon series that are ubiquitous in certain ecclesiastical circles. I am not aware of any church that sports “Only Perfect People” tee shirts though I used to attend a church that was, in retrospect, so self-consciously holy that I am surprised that some of the congregants walked rather than hover ethereally a few inches above the ground. On the other extreme, I found this post of April 18, 2011 on pastor Gary Lamb’s blog that takes that NPPA reverse snobbery meme to an extreme:

C3 Church truly is the church where No Perfect People Are Allowed.

We’ve got greeters smelling like alcohol on Sunday mornings.

We’ve got guys who smoke a little wacky weed playing in the band.

We’ve got teenagers who are so consumed with screwing anything that moves, I can’t get them to think about anything else.

We’ve got drug dealers who give financially to the church.

We’ve got homosexual couples who are sold out to our vision.

We’ve people who recently have gotten DUI’s walking around.

We’ve got atheists on our set-up team.

We’ve got a pastor (that would be me) who struggles with insecurity.

We’ve got a volunteer staff full of divorced people.

We’ve got cutters.

We’ve got meth heads.

We’ve got gossips

The only three people who have ever taught on our stage are a former sex addict, a former meth head, and a former cocaine addict.

I could go on and on but you get the point. We’re a church full of imperfect people and we wouldn’t have it any other way!

• I do not like fill in the blank sermon notes. Sometimes, they are too easy to figure out.  HT to Stuff White Christians Like for the following example.
• I do not understand the need to turn hobbies into ministries. Nice people and intentions, but do we really need a motorcycle ministry? Can we just not be a group of Christians that just rides together on occasion for the fun of it. Then you have the infamous pole dancing class ministry that made the news not so long ago

• I ahbor silly church signs. Recent example found locally: “See it. Sow it. Reap it.” Apparently that was the Gospel message for Easter. Another sign recently seen at a church not too far from home: “Free trip to Heaven. Details inside.” 

Digging up bones

I am the king of hyper-focus. I latch on to something the intrigues me, that concerns me, and I cannot let go. Eventually though, I will bury a certain bone in the backyard of my mind, pick up a new bone and gnaw on it for awhile, but eventually something will happen or something will be said that draws me back to that long buried bone.

The bone I am going to dig up is a particularly odious one. It is an attitude found in the written and spoken thoughts of the luminaries of the church growth movement, and their influence is found in those lesser lights that seek to mirror the attitudes and methodologies of these success-driven church growth experts. You hear it in the ubiquitous leadership conferences, you read it in blogs, you hear it in ‘sermons.’

This metaphorical bone is the conceit that it is not the post-modern, seeker-sensitive, purpose-driven  pastors job to feed the sheep. I have written on this subject ad nausea in the past, but in the last couple of weeks, I have heard sermons that absolutely infuriated and grieved me.

Before I continue, let me give you a bit of a back-story, more of which can be found here. I used to attend Perry Nobles gigachurch, NewSpring Community Church, and over the three of four years I spent there, it seems that Perry often mentioned, in an often sarcastic and demeaning fashion, that sheep complaining of  not being fed are lazy and contemptible. I initially did did not give the aforementioned attitude much thought, other than thinking that he was a bit snarky and perhaps unique in his attitude, but I came to see the fruit of this attitude in a more personal way. I was becoming a bit hungry for something above and beyond the constant rotation of sermons on financial stewardship and tithing, on dating, marriage and relationships, and finding my purpose and plan in life. There were other issues as well, and in wanting to meet with someone from the leadership of the church to discuss my desires and concerns, I was grudgingly allowed a phone conversation with an associate pastor.

In naively mentioning that I wanted to hear more about the Jesus that the first Jewish and Gentiles were willing to die for rather than recant their faith as contrasted to the life coaching I was used to hearing (and I was gracious in my request and concern), I was politely told that essentially I was just being selfish in wanting to be fed more than the ‘meals’ that were being served. Quite frankly, to be told by a church that I had poured myself into that I was selfish for wanting to be taught more about Jesus absolutely crushed me. So, you see I have a first hand experience and vested interest in not letting this bone remain buried.

Now, I understand the need for Christians to read the Bible. I also understand Paul’s admonition found in 1 Corinthians 3:1-2. What is interesting with the text is that Paul is not saying that it is not his job to feed his charges meat, indeed he wants to, but that they are developmentally delayed and not yet ready for the spiritual meat that he desires to serve to them.

What is most striking in these declarations of  pastoral abdication of Christ-appointed responsibility to feed the sheep is the sheer arrogance, sneering meanness, and demeaning caricatures in their portrait of starving sheep.

Here is one example featuring Steven Furtick, friend and I suppose ‘student’ of Perry Noble :

If you go to this Fighting for The Faith podcast, from 53 minutes to about 1:07 hours in the podcast, you will here similar attitudes and content from Mark Beeson, lead pastor a Granger Community Church, one the the flagships of the seeker-driven ecclesiastical methodology. What is so sad is the laughter of the audience in both Steven and Mark’s tirade.

The question I have to ask of such ‘pastors’ is this: if it is your Christ-ordained responsibility to be the under-shepherd to the flock, to feed them, and starving sheep come to you for meat as they tire of cotton candy and milk, is it your job to mock them or to feed them something more substantive? I suspect that most of these pastors harbor such an attitude towards starving sheep because they may be incapable of serving a rich, Christ-centric, Word-focused meal. It takes them out of their comfort zone of ‘vision-casting’ and serving their rotation of topical bait-and-switch life-coaching pablum and exposes their weakness and inabilities to deeply, carefully, and contextually exposit the text of the Bible. It exposes the lack of understanding or care for the deeper things of Christ as they often serve a graceless, legalism-lite Moses dressed in a Jesus costume. More could be said on this sad subject, but for now, let me leave you with the following verses:

1 Cor 3:1-2

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able.

Ezekiel 34:2

“Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord GOD: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?
John 21:15-17

(Thinking about all those aforementioned and ubiquitous leadership conferences where the leaders feed leaders meals of secular business methods on how to use the sheep most efficiently)

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.

Nehemiah 8:5-8

5Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people for he was standing above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up. 6Then Ezra blessed the LORD the great God. And all the people answered, “Amen, Amen!” while lifting up their hands; then they bowed low and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground. 7Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, explained the law to the people while the people remained in their place. 8They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.

A Narcissistic Bride

On the often misplaced focus of much of the attractional church

To state the obvious, words matter. They give shape and substance to ideas, and ideas, when put into play, often have far-ranging influence. As an observer of the ecclesiastic landscape of the American church, I find myself grieved and dismayed by the subtly misplaced focus of many in the latest iteration of entrepreneurial church leaders. I think that the root of the problem may be found in the phraseology used to describe those they are attempting to attract. The particular term I have in mind is ‘unchurched.’ In reading the prominent leaders in church growth circles, one finds admirable evangelical admonitions to reach the community, but those that need reaching are most often described as the ‘unchurched’. The clear inference by the terminology, maybe intentional, but maybe not, is that the solution to being unchurched is to get people ‘churched,’ terminology not found in the Bible.

There was at time, not so very long ago, when biblical language was used to describe those to whom the Gospel was to be sent. Those not redeemed by Christ, people who had not heard the good news of a resurrected Savior, were described as lost, as pagans, as a field where the Gospel seed needed to be sowed. Today, the rhetoric is much softer, much less offensive. The ones needing the Gospel are often described as being ‘far from God’ with the inferred task of the Church being that of a guide tasked to lead those far from God near to Him. The biblical language, however, never mirrors the inoffensive language of contemporary evangelism. Rather than being described as far from God, the unregenerate are described as being spiritually dead, as being lost in sins and trespass. Rather than being described as seekers, they are described in the Bible as being rebels, as being hostile the God of the Bible. They may be seeking a god, but the god they look for is not the Triune God revealed in the text of the Old and New Testament. The so-called unchurched do not need church, they need a risen Savior. The redeemed in Christ are the church. The Sunday gatherings are for the redeemed to be fed from the word by an under-shepherd, a pastor.

The world wants to hear what it needs to do to approach a god and what that god will do for them – in the here and now – in return. However, the offense of the Gospel is that you are helpless, that you can do nothing, that it all has been done for you, that it had to be done for you. The offense is that you cannot even choose God if left to your own devices. Unfortunately, in seeking to avoid unnecessary offense, there is an over-reaching that leads to a place where the real and cutting edge of the Gospel is often dulled to make it often impotently palatable to the so-called unchurched.

Further issues seep to the top of this linguistic morass. The very nature of the Church, the bride of Christ is redefined in this evangelical linguistic sleight of hand. If the problem is that many of the community are unchurched, then the solution to the problem, as aforementioned, is to get them involved in church life, to get them churched. To get the unchurched into church requires clever marketing and content relevant to meeting the felt needs of the unchurched, a tactic that may often lead to the eradication of the true offense of the Gospel. The real and present danger is that the church may become, without intention, the de facto savior. The church helps you fix your money problems. The church helps you fix your relational problems. The church helps you overcome your addictions. Jesus is mentioned, but sometimes, and I think without intent, only as one attraction among others. When you listen to video testimonies recorded by many churches, you so often hear people speak of how they found their meaning, their help, their restoration at their church…and Jesus saved them, too. From what they are saved from is not often made clear in these testimonies. I have even heard testimonies where the ones sharing their story actually proclaim that their church saved them.

Rather than preaching, rather than expositing the text of the Bible and tending to the flock as did pastors from the birth of the church, the new breed focuses on their leadership skills, often at the expense of their Biblically mandated pastoral duties. Rather than partaking of a rich biblical meal served up by a scholar/pastor, everyone is exhorted by the CEO/leader to shape up and get with the program. If you expect to get fed by him, shame on you. You need to quit being selfish. You need to get busy and volunteer for this, volunteer for that, get out and shill for the church. Fill up those seats. Get people in the door by giving away prizes, by putting on cheap knock-offs of television shows like ‘Deal Or No Deal’ during the sermon. Start the service by having the band play some twenty year old hair band heavy metal song or some honky-tonk drinking song. I have seen all these antics first hand. With great and unintentional irony, those who wish for more substance in the preaching, who hunger for something beyond the constant rotation of sermons on money and relationships, on how to reach their full potential, are the ones disparaging labeled as consumers. Sometimes sheep are starved and goats are entertained.

As a not so subtle segueway from the previous statement, the interesting thing is that these methods and messages seem work at their intended task of getting people outside the church inside the church. What happens once inside and embedded in this church culture is that you become worker in an organization more than a member of a family. I have heard some in this cadre of leadership state that Jesus has saved you, but the rest is up to you, so get busy! I have also heard these leaders state that their leadership is more important than their preachership, and that is a true statement in context with the newly and errantly redefined church. Rather than sheep that need shepherding, the church attendees are seen as a potential pool of free labor, volunteers that need leadership to enable them to perform efficiently. The internal structure of the organization is not unlike that of any number of successful secular businesses. Too, as a business, these churches are successful. Many have, in leveraging technology to grow multi-site video campuses, become franchises. They market their brand, their pastor, with great acumen. The metrics are easily understood and tracked. It is a game of numbers, both in bodies and money. If both grow, then success is evident. If both do not grow, then the leader tweaks the organizational machine, firing or hiring, so that the output increases. It all becomes performance driven rather than grace driven.

At the end, where does it all lead? I think the answer is found in this post from the influential pastor/CEO Perry Noble of NewSpring Church which ends with this question: “Here comes the BRIDE…is your focus on her?”

If you can, Christian, tell me what is wrong with that question. I will tell you as to where the focus should be: the Bridegroom. Let your mind linger for a while on this image of a bride fascinated with her own beauty as the Bridegroom waits for his bride to tear herself away from the mirror. Behold, He is standing at the door knocking as she becomes lost in her thoughts of finding innovative ways to to market herself to the world.

Addendum 9/18/10
I stumbled upon this video  at FBC Jax Watchdog that validates some of assertions made in this post, especially in the member vs. owner language.  Here you find a mix of core truth and  egregious error.   Much more could be said, but for now, watch and weep…

Grace seems to have taken a holiday from the church…

Addendum….

This post, written upon leaving NewSpring, may be of interest…

…a fill in the blank god…

I mentioned this sermon a number of weeks ago  here .  Recently, I stumbled across a video clip of it.  Herein you find a profound ontological distortion of a Biblical understanding of the trice holy Triune God of the Bible.  Here in this tortured eisegesis of Exodus 3:14 you find a god defined  perhaps exclusively a responder to felt needs, needs that quite frankly can often be met be met without Christ.  Herein you find some truth mixed with an element of error and end up with a human-crafted god; you find idolatry.

I remember listening to a sermon at a mega-church I used to go to wherein they placed a quote on the overhead screens that went something like this: “God is honored to pursue us.”  There is nothing in me, in us, that God would be honored to pursue us.  Such thinking, without intent, represents a diminishing of God, the sovereign Creator, by an errant proclamation of exaltation of the fallen creature by the Creator.  Ask yourself this: did the first martyr, Steven, die for this message of a god who lets us define him by our temporal desires?  Did Paul die for this human-centered proclamation of ‘I AM what ever you need me to be?’  Was Peter crucified upside-down for a Christ that allows you to define Him by a “fill in the blank’ survey of felt needs?  Do you pick up your cross to die daily for this lite version of the heretical prosperity gospel?  It should come as no surprise to know that  Steven Furtick embraces the message of Joel Osteen and holds him in high regard.  Apparently, too, Steven Furtick, one who speaks at conferences on church growth, seems to be conflicted and confused in his thinking about Bereans .

(Addendum of 1-17-10: Listened to a recent sermon by Furtick, and he seems seems to be moving in a very positive, less human-centric direction.)

…perhaps concluding with one of my ubiquitous rants…

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.

It would be funny if it were not true…

From The Sacred Sandwich..

A timeless quote by Spurgeon

“The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them…providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the church…the need is for Biblical doctrine, so understood and felt that it sets men aflame.”

- CH Spurgeon

HT: Life Song

Any commentary or elaboration on the quote would be superfluous.

Finished with Christless Christianity

Almost immediately after writing it, I am struck by the irony of the title of this post.  Usually, I compose the content of a post, then come up with a supposedly catchy, provocative title

Today, I started with the title. The initial purpose of the title of this post was to declare that I have finished reading Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church by Michael Horton thereby setting the stage for the content of the post, my thoughts on said book.  The secondary purpose, though at first unintended, informs that I have seen, experienced much of what Horton describes.

I ran through this book rather quickly and will probably read it again sooner rather than later.  From this first quick read, here are a few things I take away: Horton diagnoses certain  ills that infect the body of the American church, and two main themes seem to dominate. First, there is a strong element of Pelagianism that permeates much of the church.  Secondly, there is a strain of Gnosticism that parallels the Pelagianism.  This Pelagianism often takes on the form of a ‘legalism lite’ while the Gnosticism arrives in the form of the subtle primacy of subjective religious, emotional,self-focused experience over the objective authority of Scripture.   His diagnosis is not unique to either of the broad, polar extremes of ecclesiology, the liberal and conservative branches; there is an overarching  human-centricity that permeates both.  He also points out the ironic commonality of the ‘deeds, not creeds’ mindset that has been so firmly ensconced in liberal Christianity and now boldly infects much of the church growth movement as well as the neo-liberal Emergents. Before continuing, Horton does not argue that the church, as a whole, has necessarily arrived at a Christless Christianity, but that signs are evident that the church is well on its way to that state.  He argues that what is being engaged is not so much heresy, but more silliness, lightness, and self-focus.  Almost gone are the days where the flock comes to church to be ministered to and taught, fed,  truths of Scripture and have the sacraments administered.  Some pastors no longer see their role as being one who feeds the flock and regularly administers the sacraments, but rather view church as the place where they cast vision and give marching orders to the flock.  These marching orders can range from calls to engage those Joel Osteenesque steps to having a better life now to an exhortation to the flock to get out there and ‘be the Gospel’ without ever really and carefully explaining what the Gospel is, the proclamation of Good News given and offered to us more than something we ‘do’ or ‘are’.  Think again on that ‘deeds, not creeds’ mentality previously mentioned.

Horton, with much clarity, traces the pragmatic methods of Charles Finney, quite frankly Pelagian in his theology, to the formulas used by contemporary church growth experts today.  The fallout from this pragmaticism is often an unintended devaluing of the supremacy of Christ in both corporate worship and evangelism.  Rather, church is to be an entertaining event to draw crowds wherein the Gospel (hopefully)  may be found on a table filled with personal anecdotes and calls to moralism by self-effort without a clear expounding of the absolutely astounding nature of grace through faith found in Christ, God incarnate, in light of our sin nature, our total depravity. We end up, sadly, with a de-clawed  Gospel,  that  ‘therapeutic, moralistic deism’ mentioned in a quote in the book.  Even more sad, so many are content with just that.  What is often engaged in that often  ill-defined call to a personal relationship with Jesus, is a narcissism, a salvation solely focused on self rather than one lived out in covenant community.  I have been guilty…

All in all, a sobering read, clear and concise. Another good book in the same vein is The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World by David Wells. Next on the list to read, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology, also by Horton.

Hey! It dawns on me…this is my first book review ever.  It dawns on me, too, how hard it is to be objective when you are close to the subject matter of the book being reviewed.

More than a pet peeve

I return briefly to the predominate theme that I often pursued on this blog, and I will allow to go dormant again.

I listen, when time allows, to sermons from different churches, different pastors.  Many are quite edifying and Christ exalting.  Others, I sadly find less so.  I come away with some overarching  observations, some quite disturbing, based not so much on any one individual sermon, but more on an overarching methodology that gives birth to some common themes.

I recently listened to a substantial portion of a sermon by Perry Noble wherein he stated repeatedly that “God is trying…” and that “God tries….”  In the context of this particular sermon, this rhetoric was used to describe God’s ‘attempts’ to get peoples attention, specifically Herod’s in the case of the aforementioned sermon, so as to draw them to Himself.  I appreciate and applaud the evangelical zeal found in the sermon (even though the pastor did not correctly interpret the text and read his own ideas into it), but I have extreme reservations over a pastor, or anyone for that matter, saying ‘God tries’ .

My reservations are not a case of putting too fine a point on peripheral or merely illustrative rhetoric.  When we talk about our Redeemer, about God almighty, we need to be careful and accurate about the words we use out of reverence to a Holy God.  We need to thoughtfully weigh our words and thoughts about God in light of Biblical revelation, especially when one is an under-shepherd charged, along with the elders in the church, with guarding and feeding the flock, the body of Christ.

What then is the problem with saying “God tries?” To try infers potential of failure.  To say that God tries is to infer potential of failure in God almighty, that His will may be thwarted.   If such were true, then His will could be stunted and I can have no absolute confidence in that God.  That truncated God, a God who tries, (and apparently failed in Herod’s case in the context of the sermon) is not the sovereign God of Biblical revelation.

Again, I make specific reference to a particular sermon, but I have heard this same rhetoric, this – I hope unintended – reference to a limited God, on other occasions and by various individuals.   Where does this conceit come from, this idea that God is somehow limited by our choices?  It goes back to a humanistic theology, a strain of Christianity that permeates much of the landscape of American ecclesiology.  Beyond the errant inferred limitations placed on God, I find sometimes a subtle redefinition of the Gospel.  Before I continue, I want to make something perfectly clear.  I am not calling into question motivations or authenticity of faith of any particular personality.  I am not going to bash any particular individual.  However, I will not shy away from bringing the hammer down on what I strongly believe is theologically dangerous methodology.

What of this subtle distortion of the Gospel I mentioned? It is a distortion that comes on the heels of a confusion between felt needs and true spiritual need. It is a blurring of two aspects, the simple proclamation of the faith delivered by the apostles, repent and believe in Christ for the forgiveness of sin and the perceived benefits of salvation which is the meeting of the felt need for significance, the felt need for purpose, the felt need for happiness. I could go on, but I think the point is clear that there are many felt needs we all would want to write in on the sign-up sheet for salvation. The danger in pandering to felt needs is this: our felt needs are not necessarily reflective of our true need before a holy and righteous God. We may, based upon certain evangelical exhortations, approach God and request transformation so that our felt needs for self-esteem, security, and significance are met, for example, but quite miss the real need for forgiveness of sin. So many evangelical calls offer forgiveness along with the thinly veiled and inferred promise that God will fix all your problems and meet all the felt needs of an unregenerate heart, but often what is missing is a clearly defined call to repentance.

What also I find at times offered is a devalued grace, a devalued Gospel.  A friend  told me of an evangelical outreach to which he was invited to participate.  This outreach was aimed at sharing the Gospel with disadvantaged kids.  It involved taking these kids hunting and then sharing the Gospel with them afterwords.  I appreciate and applaud the hearts desire to share the Gospel.  However, one of the things  these kids were told was that Christianity was the easiest club in the world to join.  Further, I have heard on numerous occasions that I need to try Jesus because He is the best deal going .  I have heard Christ offered as a sixty day challenge.   The lost, the unregenerate, are apparently invited to try this Gospel thing out, kick the tires and take it around the block a few times.  If it doesn’t work for you, you can drop it off where you found it.  The Gospel has been reduced to a product that is marketed to consumers.  I have read time and time again people in ministry, church planters and pastors,  affirm that the church has the best product in the world, but we just are not marketing it as effectively as Disney markets their product.  Quite frankly and without regard to the good intent of those who engage it, that methodology, that reduction of the Gospel to a product to be marketed, to a pill freely dispensed, makes me want to vomit.   What is missing from these bold, creative evangelical marketing ploys and vision casting is a robust theology of the Cross.  The cost of the Cross is rarely given it’s due.  Showing clips from The Passion of the Christ or Braveheart from huge screens suspended over an enthralled audience is not a replacement for faithfully proclaiming the Gospel of repent and believe.  What kind of Gospel are people being drawn to when the church feels it needs to compete with Hollywood to make the Cross attractive?  The Cross is not, nor has ever been, a pill easy to swallow.  But you know what, God in His mercy and grace, and in spite of well-intentioned, but often confused methodologies, will draw the lost, the unregenerate to Himself and redeem them by His blood that all glory, all honor, and all praise be to Him.  Christ will build His church.