Let the Children Come to Me

There's a strange phenomena that happens in churches that unites new churches, established churches and mega-churches: a high commitment to childrens ministries. Whether that means a simple "Sunday School" or a more recent approach such as "Children's Church" or "Kidzone"-style separate worship services, childrens ministries are often one of the first areas for any church to create, staff and develop. Missional churches do it as a way to attract the coveted "young family" demographic and established churches do it as a way to keep the young families from leaving or coming back after sowing their wild oats.

Childrens ministry, like youth ministry, often receives imperative treatment - we have to have a program for that, we need to develop that ministry, we can't cancel that program this week - and the classic "I think kids are the future of our church" (which everyone says euphorically, as if they were the first person to think of such a concept). There are various childrens ministries issues that could be discussed, but I'd like to try this one on for size: bus ministries can ruin a community.

Now that I've got your attention, [insert rural evangelical church name with bus here], let me explain. A town to the south of us, where I do a significant amount of work, is spiritually dead. But, its a different kind of spiritually dead than you might find in other places. In this city, folks have been inculturated to think that church is for old people and kids. Like King David, we might look aghast and ask "Who did this?" But like David, the finger is pointing back - it was the churches themselves.

Four churches (three Baptist and one Nazarene, though many more around the country are guilty) own buses or vans and participate in what has become a Sunday ritual known the town-over. At 8:30 AM, as if it was a school day, kids are picked up by the van-load and carted off to churches in the countryside where straight-haired, KJV-reading, suit-and-dress-wearing pietists welcome them in with open arms.

Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Each of these churches have stellar childrens ministries. They teach Scripture. They disciple children. They report hundreds of "decisions" for Christ annually. By 5 year olds.

What is the net effect? This town is FILLED with former bus kids - former children who made "decisions" for Christ. I don't want to quench the power of the Holy Spirit, but almost church in the town has an average attendance age of 70. Q-Tip churches. I have had dozens of conversations with unchurched adults in that community and, to a person, each one has uttered the same words, "My kids really need to go to church. I don't want to take them, though - do you have a bus ministry? Its really important that they go." Ouch.

But, I'm not leaving you out, mega-churches and trendy evangelicals. How many of your current adult attenders went through a Kidzone-style childrens ministry? If you're like most churches, not many. Mega-churches around the world are beginning to ask themselves if worshipping with all ages might not be such a bad idea. Multi-gen ministry is one of the hottest topics in the church world today. The reason? People are inculturated as worshippers. When they're inculturated to consumer-based childrens ministries, its hard to transition to student ministry worship, even if its also consumer-based. And, its hard to transition students into "adult" worship. At each transition, huge numbers are hemorrhaged.

Children are the future of our Church. Really? Then let's start re-evaluating.

To Plant or not to Plant

Lately, I've found myself trapped between two worlds within the Christian scene: the established church and the church planting movement. These worlds might not seem to be at odds at first glance, but once you're stuck in the middle - you'll know it.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that I think one of the keys to future leadership in my home denomination was to stop the herding of leaders into either the church planting track or the established church track. Additionally, seminaries need to stop serving one side or the other exclusively, particularly in the practical parts of education.

The deeper reason that this happens, however, is that churches have separated themlseves into these categories, so putting their future leaders into them is important. From that point, established churches can ensure that their future leaders are people they desire and those who are less desirable can be sent to the church planting realm. In a similar way, since the church planting realm doesn't really want those folks who are "tainted" by the established church, so it works out.

But what of those of us who would not want to write off the established church? I had a recent conversation with a graduated seminarian where we lamented the fact that we've been made to feel somehow guilty for wanting to bring change to established churches that makes them more viable. In some ways, we're guilty for not writing off the established church and going into planning and we're guilty for trying to innovation instead of perpetuating the status quo in the established church.

What gives?

Pretty Positive TV

As I write this blog entry, I'm watching "The Tony Peace Gospel Hour" on TCT. I've found myself strangely drawn to TCT, TBN and EWTN recently, asking myself the simple question: what is it about these stations that feel so wrong to me? In a way I feel guilty - am I simply a product of my GAP-driven, hippie-wannabe generational influence? Have my churches inculturated me to detest people in suits, people raising their hands in worship excessively and giant globes on preaching stages with toll-free numbers running across the screen? Is there anything inherently wrong with Benny Hinn, Robert Schuller, The Signature Sound or even Ed Young's TV presence?

I haven't fully thought through this (so I'd love some thoughts), but here's my best approach to it right now. Watching these stations makes me reflect on a denominational gathering I recently attended where I felt very uneasy in worship. Now, let me tell you that it takes quite a bit for me to be uncomfortable in a worship service - I've worshipped in Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Mennonite, Vineyard and many other church services that were "different". What was different about this service for me was what I can best describe as "inauthenticity". In particular, there was a woman who had a constant smile, a constantly raised hand and a constantly exuberant expression. It was the kind of worship service that makes me see why many people identify the worship genre as "happy clappy". My guess is that there was a time in worship music where folks were simply reacting to a "sad pietism" and reacted by writing happy, upbeat music that was meant as an alternative hymnal to the one in the pew. What resulted was what many rural churches refer to as "praise and worship" time which is meant to be wholly positive.

The problem, of course, with positivism and "happy clappy" theology is that it is a horrible reflection of real life. If someone sees worship service as a "pickup" for the week to aid in the rest of life, the fake positivism is probably the necessary product. If, however, one views a church service as the intersection of daily life and God's presence, it is very difficult to believe that this is an accurate representation of daily life. To me, a worship service should encompass the realities of sadness, anger, disbelief and messiness as well as joy, happiness and smiles.

Of course, there is a certain segment of Christianity that wants a faith that is happy all the time. The problem is that that kind of faith is impossible to find and was never something Christ promised us. So here's where the rubber hits the road: when visitors and children see their 40-something parents in pretty suits and dresses on stage acting like their lives have never had a wrinkle and then meet them during the week, the only result can be disappointment. If your music, if your worship shows no authenticity (the reality of the whole spectrum of emotion), you will lose your chance at most visitors and at most of the next generation.

Take a minute and put yourself in the shoes of an unbeliever. Why, if I were flipping through the channels, would I stop on TCT? Frankly, I like Southern Gospel (I can even appreciate the Gaithers and the Lawrence Welk-style Christian variety hours). Maybe, just maybe if I heard the musical harmonies on the radio, I might stop. But, every person on these stations is pretty. Some are large, some are bald - but all of them are wearing their Sunday-best. What's more, their smiles seem painted on, their eyes never seem to blink and I get the impression I'm tuning into a cult broadcast. I have a grand ecumenical stomach, but this gives me an honest gag reflex.

That brings me back to TCT. As I watch this station, there is a single demographic. It does not indicate a racial divide - there are blacks and whites. It does, however, indicate a generational divide. It makes me wonder, as a viewer at home, if the TCT, TBN or EWTN producers realize that there is hardly anyone in the audience under the age of 35. Strangely enough, at our meeting a month ago, I was also one of a handful of people under the age of 35.

Nice suits, slick haircuts and positivism might sell well to the bankrollers of TCT (which I assume to be Christian retirees), but it makes me uneasy. What's more, I think it damages our witness. Strangely enough - this pretty positivism has a similar effect to the Baptist unbeliever-damning sign in our city: it gives us, as a generation, a hole to work out of - not a baton to carry forward. My generation, and those within ten years of me in either direction have a unique ability - we can spot scams. Even as a believer, this honestly feels like a scam. As if our secular culture did not offer enough hurdles for building the future ministry of the Church, Christian culture gives us even more.

Omission by Commission

This past week, I've gotten two unique perspectives on Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats. The first was a fairly typical approach - highlighting ways in which we should respond to the story by acting in certain ways towards the poor. He highlighted ways we could reach out to the hungry, the thirsty, the sick and those in prison.

The second was a bit different, shared with me by a retired pastor who had a great perspective on the story. He pointed out that the parable of the sheep and the goats was actually highlighting sins of omission versus sins of commission. Jesus, at a point in His ministry where He was giving some of His final instructions, focuses on things that we do not do rather than things that we do. Isn't it interesting that we often view these committed sins as the litmus test for holiness in our Christian lives and in the lives of others?

It got me thinking, if sins of omission were that important to Jesus, it seems to me that it must be important to Him what exactly we are filling our time with that prevents us from not doing what He asks us to. I went to a purely Kuyperian college that taught me to view all of life as spiritual (similar to the "new" ideas of Rob Bell). However, while I agree with that concept at its core, I've also seen the adverse effects of Christian laziness and apathy towards holiness that can come along with a Kuyperian worldview.

Once again, this seems to be an issue of people magnetizing themselves towards the extremes - either they focus on holiness so heavily that they view culture as somehow evil or they focus on the goodness of creation that they forget to focus on holiness. The common denominator to both, however, is they both bear the temptation to fill up their lives with things that hold them back from ministering to the hungry, thirsty, sick and those in prison. The holiness camp fears tainting their purity and the Kuyperian camp doesn't feel the constrictions of Biblical rules or regulations. Feeding the hungry, giving drinks to the thirsty, caring for the sick and visiting those in prison gets relegated to the Christian third way: liberals. Since both holiness folk and Kuyperian folk dislike the concept of theological liberalism, getting near the "least of these" is now given even more stigma.

Kuyperians, you want something to redeem in culture? Redeem serving the poor!

The Pastor's Capacity for Self-Deception

True or False: Pastors have a greater capacity for self-deception than any other profession.

Lately, I've been hearing lots of stories of pastors who have become at-odds with their congregations, pastors who want to teach their congregations a lesson and pastors who cry themselves to sleep every week because they feel unloved or unsuccessful. Let me be clear, there are most definitely those pastors who have gotten a bum rap from their church or those who have simply become victims by no cause of their own, but for today, I'd like to honestly approach the issues which I feel make the above statement true. Obviously, many pastors are very humble, very discerning and very successful, but let's air out some of the temptations.

The God Factor: Let's face it - at the core of most of the issues surrounding the pastor's temptation for self-deception is their "connection" to God. If God is a card to be played, then no one plays it quite as much as those with the collar. Throughout history, pastors have used God to legitimatize all sorts of unimaginable crimes against humanity because of the factors that follow, and the temptation is real to use it yourself.

The Holy Domini: In many traditions, including the one I grew up in, there is a history of reverence for the pastoral office. Pastors were often called "Domini" or "Reverend" as titles that were not to be forgotten. Still, to this day, I hear pastors who insist on people calling them "Rev. Johnson" in all situations, simply to remind the laity that they are not of your stature. In many ways, respect for pastors is not a bad thing - we all appreciate the month of October - but the best pastors have no need for requiring this sort of title recognition, as if it makes one of higher rank in Christ's kingdom.

The Expert Theologian: The previous temptation begs the ultimate question: what is it that sets pastors apart from everyone else in the bench? Depending on the tradition, it might not be very much at all, frankly! Some believe it to be a supernatural call from God, some believe it to be the whimsical decision of the person already holding the position. Still others believe that it is earned through a series of educational or professional stepping stones, as if achieving ordination was some sort of survival run through the drudges of denominationalism. What is common to all, however, is the idea that pastors are gifted with some sort of theological knowledge that is superior to most of the congregation (this seems to be more true the lower on the socio-economic scale the congregation is). Knowing more than others is always a key piece of power. When the pastor can reason away any decision he/she makes from a Biblical/theological proof-texting, they often remain untouchable.

The Scared Porcupine: Pastors often operate from a position of fear. Believe it or not, pastors are often some of the most insecure, fearful people in the world. Some of it because of their circumstances - many churches teeter on the edge of existence and closure, all pastors have people in their churches who want them gone and most pastors, despite the reverance mentioned earlier, go under-appreciated verbally and tangibally. However, some of it is a direct result of the same personality that drives pastors to their positions. Most pastors match one of two personality types - those who are high-intelligence but poor with people or those who are creative people-people but lesser administrators. Without a ready recognition of weaknesses, many pastors are left to react harshly to critique leveled against them. This is why many pastors can be found to be at odds with their congregations when they try to be the authority in every area of the church. Inevitably, they will be weak in their weak areas and, when questioned, may lash out claiming a coup or persecution.

The Great Martyr: There are a great many pastors in the world who see themselves as the ultimate discerners of God's will. Of course they won't admit it - they'll even set up committees to get the opinions of others. However, when their forced ideas don't work, their sermons are only interesting to themselves and they struggle to connect with anyone outside the four walls of their church building, they automatically assume that Satan is lodging an assault against them through culture, innovation and members of their own congregation. What percentage of pastors wake up on Monday morning bemoaning their people, their volunteers, their predecessors, their culture and look for greener pastures when they could be examining their own practices, programs, content and ability to motivate their people and impact their community?

Job Security: How many pastors hold their current positions because it pays for their expenses and fills a need in their stated denomination? If that's your only motivation for ministry, then your vested interest in doing things better will be horribly compromised.

There are really two questions to be answered: How did we get here and how do we get out of a bad situation for many churches and pastors? I have thoughts.......but I'd rather hear yours! God is good.....let the Church arise.

Hello CRC

Well, this is officially my first post as a Seminary graduate and I could not be more pleased to be "out". There were great parts about seminary and bad parts about it, but quite honestly, Calvin Seminary can be a frustrating place for some people who don't fit the mold all of the time, and I'm one of them. But now, as an official "candidate", I can start imagining my role as a Christian Reformed pastor. For my final exam at seminary, my professor posed the question, "what is good pastoral leadership, what issues do you see in the CRC in the next 10 years and what steps must be taken to address them?" Big question, but here is my best stab. There is undoubtedly more to come......

Excerpt

"Day by day, I am more convinced that the key to effective leadership in the Church is humility – a characteristic that is often very lacking in our profession. I have a colleague at the Seminary who wisely says that the only acceptable sin among Christian Reformed pastors is pride. It causes me to reflect on leaders I have known within churches, at seminaries and in other areas of the “Christian” world. I think this is reflective in the servant leadership we have begun to address in the CRC. Some might assume that just because someone becomes a pastor they are naturally prone to servanthood because of what they give up. But we should know better than anyone that this is not always the case. The definition of leadership from the CRC's "Effective Leadership in the Church" booklet says that “good leadership is helping the congregation embody in its corporate life the practices that shape vital Christian life, community and witness in ways that are faithful to Jesus Christ and the gospel and appropriate to the particular group’s setting, resource and purpose.” I think one of the first keys to this definition is “helping” – which I read as synonymous with “equipping”. This attitude of pouring into others before we worry about ourselves is the essential key of leadership. The contextualization of such a stance is addressed in the second part of the definition which references a particular group of people’s (ie, a congregation’s) unique ministry setting. This is precisely the way that Jesus led, matching His leadership style to the people that were around Him – always a servant, but also always cognizant of the situation that He found Himself in. Reformed polity also supports this line of thinking by making the pastor one of the elders – and giving the group of elders ultimate authority in an individual church. Together, as servant leaders, this group is able to meet the felt needs of the community in which they find themselves.

I believe that the gap that must be bridged in the next decade (if it is possible that soon) is to realize that this servant leadership is a principle and our traditions are often matters of selfish longing. I believe that the CRC, from the top to the bottom, needs to realize that its individual churches are in community contexts which are increasingly distant from and abandon the selfish clinging-to of traditions which inhibit local ministries. It is a sad fact that many of our churches are dying and that precious few are even pretending to keep up with population trends. We have sectionalized evangelistic growth to the “Home Missions” crowd instead of finding ways for established churches and new churches to inform one another for the betterment of us all. Denominationally, we have prioritized perpetuation over innovation and failed to reach many of our communities at their own place of need. Instead of encouraging spiritual growth and discipleship, we have fooled ourselves into thinking that one-day-per-week preaching is far and away of most importance and poured our resources into that area. Our buildings are all to often seen as fortified castles rather than ministry launchpads for impacting our communities.

I believe the task of bridging this gap is a enormous, but I think it is, quite frankly, a matter of life and death for the CRC and it all starts with personnel. If we insist on intellectual capabilities as the most important determinant factor in who can become a senior or lead pastor, we will continue to perpetuate these mistakes. If, however, we begin to see leadership as intellect, love, humility, compassion, service, wisdom and self-sacrifice as co-equal capacities of future leaders in our church – starting in our own Seminary – we may see change not in a decade, but in five decades. This needs to start with professors and mentors who also value these capacities equally. Second, we need to stop the new church/established church standoff that currently exists in our denomination. Each has something to say to the other side, but both are slow to listen. If leaders are simply identified as “churchplanters” because they’re innovative or transformative, then we will continue to perpetuate less innovative and less transformative leaders in established churches, which will seal those churches’ fate. Finally, we need key leadership at the denominational level that will guide us into the next century. Financially, we need to harness the stewardship power of baby-boomers to finance the next decades of work towards innovation – not simply into throwing our resources behind churches that perpetuate. If we can accomplish these grand tasks, we will need to live into that booklet’s definition more than what we currently do."

Pointless Perpetuative Preaching

For those of you who "preach" or "teach" on Sundays, do you ever wonder what the point is? Far too often, I hear the comment, "I really liked your message - I actually remember what you said Sunday", as if that's a shocking thing. Don't hear me as saying I get those comments a lot, because I've preached plenty of bombs in my young career, but doesn't it get you to thinking: if people don't remember the message of your message or remember the words of one of the songs you sang, what's it really worth?

I was reflecting on the passage from Isaiah which talks about honoring the Sabbath by not speaking "idle words". How would you define idle words? How about half hour sermons that no one remembers 10 minutes after they're given or that don't give any impact to their lives. How about songs that are comfortable or eradicate our white guilt because they're in a different language? Come to think about it, I've sat through quite a few worship services that were chock full of "idle words" - its why there's some churches (and even the chapel at my own school) I have trouble sitting in, even though I affirm a universal Church. The words just seem so empty, as if they're being said for the sake of the words themselves. And yet, there's a strange normalness to it that reassures you that this is "just how it is". Its also why I'm disillusioned more and more with doing pulpit supply. How can someone coming into an unknown church, picking 5 hymns at random and preaching a "canned" message be anything but idle words?

For Pete's sake: if reading the newspaper is as spiritually transformative as going to church, why are we surprised that people don't want to come?

In being frustrated about sermon-giving and sermon-receiving throughout my lifetime (and especially my seminary career), I've often thought that maybe, just maybe, the redemptive panacea for sermonizing was some sort of combination of dynamism and content. After all, people remember when you suck as a sermon-giver (usually more than if you're marginally talented). And when preachers suck, its usually because they lack dynamism or content. Some preachers lack both, and while that's a topic for another day, just consider the main criteria we look for in future pastors: academic excellence (yes, the same academic excellence most churches could care less about).

However, I think that maybe non-idle preaching (or teaching) is more than just personal dynamism or content and I'd like to propose something new: How about if the words you're about to speak or the words you're about to lead people in singing are not passionate, authentic and transformative, keep them to yourself. Seriously....if it comes down to Sunday morning and you haven't got something that meets that criteria, just don't speak or sing. Would it really alter the course of anyone's spiritual direction? Other than make you look like you're not working your 40 hours, would people's lives be any different than if you would have spoken or sung?

I think what Isaiah is getting at in 58:13 is that God's day is not the time to waste time on our own fruitless measures. It sickens me when preachers preach messages that only benefit themselves. It troubles me when preachers try to impress their congregation by what they have to say or what research they've done. I think its unfortunate that so many preachers stand up on Sunday mornings to deliver a message because its what's supposed to be done to continue their "ministry of maintenance". There are a lot of well-educated, talented orators that just need to get off their high horses (or high pulpits), wake up and realize that their speaking is just noise because the chief beneficiary is the self. That is anti-Sabbath.

I've stopped repeating sermons. I hope if you're reading this, you do, too. Unless you really reshape the sermon to fit the context, you run a very high risk of speaking idle words. Preaching/teaching should always be driven by the unique situation to which you are addressing your words. We're far too often tempted to just do things the way they were done in our home church or in a church where we saw it work or how they told us to in school. The disciples were not charged with perpetuation, they were charged with innovation. They didn't do ministry exactly the way Jesus did it in exactly the same places - they each used their gifts and took the message to transform lives where the Spirit led.

I think we all (as speakers and worship leaders) need to own up to the fact that we've spoken "idle words" - words that are just words - with no power to evoke passion, no power to transform, and with no innovation. There might be times when we need to challenge the perpetuation norm. There might be times when we need to just shut up.

Doing Worship Ministry Poor

There is perhaps nothing in the church that gets me as passionate about ministry as poor, rural churches doing worship ministry well. After all, its where I got my start in ministry and its one of the few areas my brother and I are forcibly harmonious on.

Certainly, worship ministry has become a focus within the last 50 or so years in the Church at large. There are some that would say, and I'm often tempted to be one of them, that worship ministry is currently in an evolutionary pattern, from something that was not sustainable to something that is sustainable for the future growth of the Church. Without getting into that argument's validity, I think its important to point out that churches across the US have positioned themselves at one step along the path from traditional worship to post-modern worship (what I would call post-contemporary worship). Many churches claim to be blended, but blended often only means that you have one foot in two different places on the path or that you can't do anything well at all. That said, one of the main issues in worship ministry today is quality or, as some would put it, excellence. While this might be a commercial/advertising term in many cases, in its purest form, it is attempting to give of our worship "firstfruits" - giving our best, as a congregation, to the Lord.

I've spent my time in several churches over the years that, like all churches, have had their own unique issues in worship music. I've been yelled at, argued with, praised, chided, cheered for, walked out on, gossiped about and about every response you can have in ministry in the short time I've been leading worship. As I stated in the previous post, however, doing ministry in the Greenville/Belding area is often an exercise in the undone - exploring truly new ways of doing things and being resourceful with what you've been given. Once again, these are not all my thoughts, but have been contributed to by fellow worship pastors. To that end, I truly appreciate the thoughts of Dan, Nate, Scott, Jeff, and Paul. This is a journey we traverse together.

As with Youth Ministry, I very much wish somebody would write a book about doing ministry in a poor, rural environment. If that were not possible, I would settle for a book about either a poor or rural environment. In lieu of a book I am not yet experienced enough to write, here are some thoughts specifically about doing worship ministry poor:

• Shallow Talent Pool: For years, I neglected to consider how lucky I was to have not one, but two Christian colleges in my backyard in Orange City. It is truly amazing how many college students, both male and female, are capable of being phenomenal worship talents. If you don't believe me, check out your local Christian college's worship service. In many small communities, this worship service is the best thought-out, well-equipped service to be found for miles around. This isn't a mistake - its because in every Christian college dorm, there are 20 guitar players and vocalists galore. Even if you're nowhere close to a Christian college, however, living in a city provides so much untapped talent. Within a few blocks of your church's campus, my guess is that you can find hoards of talent in local bars, coffee shops, high school talent shows and lots of other artistic venues. That simply is not a luxury that affords itself to rural America. Artists, by their very nature, are driven away from the rural, the uneducated and the rural, "Redneck" poor. You don't see poetry readings or Jack Johnson concerts or hippie hangouts in small rural America. You also don't find loads of musical talent.
• There is Little Appreciation for the Arts: This point is exhibited by the previous point to some extent, but it should be noted that you cannot prepare an urban worship leader for what they will experience in taking the stage in a town like ours. I've often talked with fellow worship leaders (who are far better musicians than I) about the feeling of disgust and disappointment they feel after walking off the stage of their worship gatherings. In places where the arts are appreciated, musicians on stage are blown away by the energy, passion and sound of the crowd. Here, if you play a musically fantastic or musically defunct service, you get the same response - nothing. In short, there is little motivation for playing well, little motivation for giving your musical "firstfruits" to the Lord. Often, our job as rural worship leaders is to build up and compliment our musicians for a job well done because we know that if we rely on the normal complimentary spirit of the congregation, our musicians will burn out because they feel unsupported.
• Artistic Personality + Power = Trouble: There is a truth about those of us with an artistic persuasion that is true - we are moody. I think most artists and musicians would admit to you that they have weak moments of moodiness - depression, elation, rage and passion. This isn't so much a bad thing - its what fuels the beauty of the arts. However, what happens in many small churches is that it provides an opportunity for the worst parts of an artist's personality to become paramount. Think about every small rural church you know of that does not have paid worship personnel; isn't there one person who has taken over the show, bent it to their own needs and desires, driven many other people away and, even though they may be talented, brought the entire worship ministry down with them? Sadly, this is also true in many churches with staffed worship personnel. The sad reality is that any ministry, when there is a leadership void, will produce a leader who exercises control to their own tune over time. When you multiply this reality with the passionate personality of the artist, this is magnified. It is a sad reality that many worship programs - the most visible aspect of a church's ministry - can be and are being done in one or two people.
• Lack of Balance: It is a sad truth in many rural congregations that there is a lack of balance between outreach-driven attractional ministry and inreach-driven self-service. It is a true fact that all churches need dimensions of outreach and all churches need dimensions of inreach, but many churches are unable to find anything close to this balance. Sadly, many err dramatically on the side of inreaching. Many times this is due to an ugly combination of inexpensive and undesirable leadership, uneducated perspective, stubborn mindset, unintegrated Christian lifestyles and a disjointed view of outreach. This may sound judgmental, but last weekend I watched a church bonfire with one attendee, a corner Baptist protest with signs condemning motorists with KJV fire & brimstone, a hip-hop concert called "Summerfest for Jesus" and a ministry year kick-off with roughly one half of the church attending the one Sunday morning service. There are things that happen in the rural, poor church that are inexplicable, personalities that are disgusting and ideas that are horribly ill-formed. Without a system of accountability, many of these activities happen within our church walls and are branded with the name of Christ.
• Irrational Discussions: I've often heard the comment from younger folks who are working for worship change: "Why should I continue to embrace the other side of this discussion when they are simply tolerating us to our faces and gossiping behind our backs?" It is true that there are many irrational discussions that take place behind the scenes and sometimes on the scene of worship ministry based almost completely on personal preferences that have been misidentified as Biblical norms. We've all seen it on both sides. However, in a poor rural culture that believes email forwards about Barack Obama being a Muslim and the starting petitions to stop the government from charging to use your email, its easy to see how irrational arguments can become stubborn shouting matches
• Burnout: It is not surprising that so many people burn out. For the average church musician in a small town, you might be the only drummer or only guitarist your church has access to. In that case, they want you to play every Sunday, every service. For paid worship staff, this means that the grass looks greener in the city with every passing day and the endless cycle of talented ministry staff fleeing for large, suburban churches is perpetuated once again. It is tiring to run a basic worship ministry in your average suburban church - it is maddeningly exhausting to run one in a poor rural church where you are under-appreciated, often-maligned and tormented for shielding what musicians you do have from church persecution.
• Good Leadership is Hard to Find: If you've worked in a poor, rural church you already know about this one. Whereas in many churches, you'd have a quick short list of people who would be good leaders and point people for areas of worship ministry, doing ministry in this kind of a setting is often a one horse parade. You're happy if one of your musicians listens to Christian radio and knows some of the songs. You're happy if your instrumentalists will commit to showing up every two or three weeks. You're happy if you ever can hold a practice with everyone caring enough to show up. However, if you've worked in a suburban church, even a small one, you know that these pleasantries of the rural church are not enough to base a consistent, quality worship ministry on. They're a start, but they're not everything.
• Under-Resourced: When I came to my current church, the entire area of worship ministry had a budget that was just big enough to buy bulletin stock and communion supplies. Even with a good degree of lobbying on my part, we still are working with lots of equipment that either belongs to our musicians or has been donated from our own personal stashes. We cobble-job electronics all the time, we work EBay and Craig's List so we can buy the bare essentials and have some money left over. We have equipment that's not even legal by Federal Government standards and often times violate copyrights out of necessity. And we're a well-resourced worship ministry in this community. It is amazing to hear stories from other churches about shortcuts they've used, laws they've violated and one-man-band-type performances because they were not given the resources to do what was asked of them. Good worship ministry takes money - even bad worship ministry takes money. Don't take it for granted.

As I said in my previous post, many of the aspects of doing ministry poor can be horribly frustrating. Its no surprise that the most talented staff and church attenders with an artistic barometer head for suburban and urban centers. There are services after which (and during which) I would like to break down and cry or just cancel. One of my fellow pastors said to me that he often feels he could be replaced by a musical chimpanzee with cymbals and the congregation wouldn't bat an eye. But perseverance pays off. Our worship ministry is leading the way in our church in terms of growth and accountability. We're plugging in non-Christians who become part of our community of faith. We're resourcing other churches to help give them a step up (check out the free Worship Arts Retreat). We've become an artistic haven for those who, at the very least, can gain energy from other artists even if they don't feel it from the congregation. We're dedicated to not burning out talent, but home-growing it through the involvement of people without compromising our "firstfruit" excellence. And most of all, we're offering our worship to a worthy God who loves the redneck as much as the white collar, the rural as much as the suburban and the farmer as much as the lawyer. Our labor is not in vain.

Doing Youth Ministry Poor

Back to a little blogging before the start of my final few classes which will, undoubtedly, get me riled up enough and leave me bored enough to get back into the blogosphere. So, here is the first of three blog entries about Doing Ministry Poor.

I was thinking back the other day about my Youth Ministry education in college compared to what my youth ministry looks like today. I've further reflected on it in conjunction with two fellow area youth pastors who have had to do ministry amongst the culture shock of post-factory Greenville and Belding, so thanks to Dan and Paul for their thoughts.

What is clear to all of us is that we are in a situation that our youth ministry educations and youth ministry experience did not prepare us for. Its very interesting to me, and rather frustrating, that the vast majority (if not all) of the ministry innovation resources you can pick up at your local Christian bookstore are geared at middle class and higher folks in urban or suburban areas. Don't believe me? Search CBD or Amazon and, other than Tex Sample, you won't find anything under the category "rural" or "blue collar". Theoretically, ministry innovations and models are conceptual, and therefore just need to be applied differently in urban, suburban and rural churches. What we're finding more and more is that it is the very models of youth ministry which must be altered to work in our area.

The one experience which does inform ministry here for me was working in Appalachia. Having known folks working in Martin County, KY (the former poorest county per capita in the country) is consistently similar to working in Montcalm County, MI (the current poorest county per capita).

Many churches have given up. Some churches have given up because they have been backed into a financial corner by their own parishioners or by poor mortgage decisions. Some churches insist on doing white collar ministry in a blue collar community, pinning their hopes on the bank employees, civic leaders and Grand Rapids commuters. One such church recently left our neighborhood and built anew 5 miles outside the city limits. Its really hard to blame them - after all, ministry innovations, resources and concepts are geared for white collar ministry, seminaries train pastors for white collar ministry, white collar ministry is more economically secure and white collar ministry is usually more consistent, with people taking responsibility in areas of volunteerism and leadership.

Other than when I lived in Appalachia, I have always been a part of white collar ministries and it is all I knew. Its all many of us knew before coming here. Its all many of our churches knew before the factories left town. Its all older brothers and sisters of current young people knew and now their younger siblings are left with scaled-back programs and non-staff leaders.

The distinctives of doing "poor" youth ministry, as I see it, are as follows. First of all, events must be low-cost or free. We give away virtually everything and when we do plan the occasional out-of-town trip, we end up covering the entire cost of those kids whose parents can't afford food for their own tables or like to spend the money on themselves. Second, "poor" youth ministry doesn't value the arts or technology like white collar ones do. While kids everywhere still love Guitar Hero and big screen TV's, blogs, big name Christian concerts, contemporary worship services, art shows and the like are out the window. Third, teaching must be more innovative. The brunt facts are that lecturing is not attractional and small groups are hit or miss in terms of effectiveness. Where you go from that depends on how creative you can get. Fourth, good lay leadership is tougher to come by in blue collar churches. This is especially true for anything that happens on a day other than Sunday, but its true for Sundays, too. Fifth, community collaboration is the one of the few rays of hope for smaller churches which can't afford a youth staff position, but that truth is unequivocally hitched to the benevolence of larger churches who are willing to be sacrificial of themselves. Sixth, it occurs to me that "success" in youth ministry might be measured differently in the blue collar community. Whereas in a white collar ministry, success might be students in discipleship programs, individual mission efforts, Christian college attendence or marrying a Christian partner, it seems to me we might be ecstatic about our students not winding up in jail, getting into community college, not getting pregnant before age 21, or, ironically, getting out of town. Finally, in a more immediate way than in an urban, educated area, quality rural churches do not start at ground zero in terms of legitimacy. To put it another way, extremist churches, which often gain a more prevalent voice in less-educated communities, leave level-headed churches with ground to make up, even before being evangelistic or missional in their communities. In short, we need to convince the public that we're not naive idiots before we can even have an audience to share the gospel. If you don't believe me, check out my pictures from our good friends here in town: Liberty Photos.

What occurs to me is that youth ministry here (and in Appalachia) feels like a more needed ministry. Ultimately, in the consumer-driven culture that is youth ministry (maybe the biggest consistency between urban & rural), its sometimes easy to go home at the end of the day and wonder if your presence was really needed - if your youth ministry is even really needed. After all, stats show that kids who graduate from churches with dedicated youth programs fall into moral decay at the same rate as those without them and ultimately spiritually mature parents generally spawn spiritually mature students and vice versa regardless of what we do as youth pastors. However, in an area without hope such as Greenville, Belding or Appalachia - where depression is as much psychological as economic - where entire generations have become non-religious, perhaps doing youth ministry here, no matter how thankless and frustrating, is youth ministry in its very best form.

The Church of God had it Right All Along...

I had a short chat with my senior pastor on Sunday after church that really got me thinking about the future of ecclesiology and the mindsets of Christians within our context and that of my context when I'm his age. We were reflecting on the patterns we've seen in our experiences of the Church and he remarked, "I think the Church in general is moving towards a real Church of God theological perspective, but I don't think the Church of God, or any other denomination, really likes it!"

He really had a pretty good point. As I think about some of the Church of God distinctives, what comes to mind right away are membership, sacraments, ecclesiology and theology.

• Certainly theology sets the Church of God apart. What is strange is that, even though Wesleyan holiness is the main theological vein in the movement, there is a general openness to other theological perspectives that, although limited, is less limited than other traditions. It also leaves room for a theological perspective that is not "sold out" to either one side or the other - neither 100% Calvinistic nor 100% Arminian or another theological perspective. Its rare to find purists like this outside seminaries anymore, and this seems to fit in fine with a Church of God perspective.
  
• Secondly, the Church of God has always seen itself as a movement more than a denomination. Sure, there's denominational tendencies that are inescapable, but the movement has a core value of individual church autonomy and state-by-state autonomy. This is certainly a trend in the Church at large, even in the heavily-centralized traditions such as Methodism or Lutheranism. The focus is less and less on the denomination as a centralized power and more on the denomination as a willing association of churches.
• Thirdly, the overarching feeling in the Church at large on the topic of sacraments seems to be less sacramental than ever in terms of mystery. Certainly, they are still seen as a symbol and as a tangible reflective instrument, but little more.
• Finally, the Church of God's approach to membership at its outset may have been well ahead of its time. Its approach says that all Christians are automatically members of the Church and thus they have no reason for keeping membership data. Free movement between individual churches is not that big of a deal in our movement and all Christians, regardless of where they worship on Sunday morning, are considered full brothers and sisters (communicated most directly through an open table). A recent article in the Grand Rapids Press highlighted the very fact that this is a trend across Christendom and we all have to deal with it. People are no longer swayed by the name on the front of the building.

Now, these are interesting points, but in our estimation, these will be even more interesting in 40 years. For now, there is still a good chunk of the Church that is over 60, many of which who are still loyal to a name on a building or a family's direct history with an individual church. What will all this mean for the Church in 40 years. While some might think this is profoundly scary, I think its profoundly hopeful - pushing the Church to focus on holistic, missional ministry and a community-based approach. Churches who are still relying on their denominational affiliation or a family loyalty will probably close their doors - and that's probably alright. Maybe the Church of God had it right all along...

The Marker

The picture I chose for my new blogger title banner for a purpose. If you saw Rob Bell on tour last summer or have watched the "Everything is Spiritual" DVD, you probably already know where I'm going. Bell has a unique way of looking at things that really fits the way I think about things and often makes me wonder why his approach is so revolutionary.

As part of his long talks last summer, Bell used the illustration of the marker he held in his hand to show the difference between how people see things in three dimensions. He explained that if you look at a marker from the side, it appears to be a rectangle - a square with two long sides and two short sides. However, if you look at it from the front or the back, you see it as a circle. Any cylinder would have the same effect - a pop can or anything else similarly shaped. He asked how you would respond if someone asked you if it that marker was a rectangle or a circle - all you could say would be "Yup." He then made a simple theological example: predestination versus free-will. Is it possible that God looks down on all our bickering about black-and-white theological concepts and just says, "Yup."

Now, I have to be careful since I'm in candidacy limbo in a particular denomination that really likes the "black" of the "black-and-white" distinctions, but I have to say - is he that off base here? How small must our view of God be to say that his dealings with our world happen according to our pithy human philosophical and theological categories? And yet Bell comes away from this looking like a revolutionary....or a heretic.

What kind of micro-structured theological bio-dome have we created for our almighty God to live in? I think God makes sense - I think He's logical. I think we can trust the revelation of God in His word. I also think that you can still say you think that a Reformed or Wesleyan or Catholic way of looking at things is most consistent with God's revelation. But I don't think its out of line to say that, within the wideness of God's nature, there is at least the possibility of fuzzy categories - of individual discernment - of logic that surpasses our own. I think that's a good thing, not a heresy.

Re-Launch

I've decided to relaunch my blog. Part of the reason is that I want to take a slightly different approach to what I write about. I figured I was being far too negative and instead want to emphasize the positive. I'd rather define myself in terms of what I believe instead of what I do not. Its my dream that this is a direction the Church would go, as well. The second reason for re-launch is that I'm in a different stage of my ministry career....post-seminary. Even though I still have two classes yet to finish, I've jumped through all the major hoops and will essentially just be dotting I's and crossing T's next fall. This means I have much more time to focus on my ministry and really begin seeing myself solely as a pastor - not as a pastor/student hybrid. I hope this means I'll blog a lot more....maybe even every other day.

But finally, I want to relaunch because I'm convinced now, more than ever, that missional living is a key for Christianity - throughout time and especially in today's world. Therefore, while I'll keep commenting and keep some semblance of an "edge", I'll also keep a focus on how missional living manifests itself in today's world. So look for the practical, look for the missional, look more often and hopefully you'll not be disappointed.

Labrynthspel - Walking the Line

First of all, my apologies for, once again, taking a month off from blogging. I had a rough end of December/beginning of January that caused me to reflect, but now I'm back on track and no less tantalizing or scintillating than before. Also, as most of my good blogging ideas do, this has come to me paired up with another....so a second blog entry has been written and will be posted shortly.

Now then, when I was younger, we had this game closet which stored all the crappy games my mom had picked up at rummage sales - some busted, others boring, and the occasional cool one. Most confusing to me, however, was one of these monstrosities you'll see on the right, a labrynthspel. "A what?" you might ask. A labrynthspel. Essentially they consist of two floating wooden surfaces controlled by knobs on two connected sides, one to control the north/south movement, if you will, and one to control the east west movement. The idea is to keep the tilt correct enough so that the marble which is sitting on the top of the board doesn't fall in one of the holes, but rather, makes it through the maze to the other corner.

Today, I had a conversation with another student who's having a rough time seeing themselves as Christian Reformed - not because of the theology, but because of the people and because of the practice. I have to admit that this is something I struggle with a lot, even being told point blank, "Mark, you're not CRC!" Maybe I am just embarking on a vocational facade, trying to be a non-CRC pastor in the CRC church. Maybe the only people who "get me" are the fringe home missions-types who challenge the norm. Maybe I should just stick with the Church of God or go non-denom or just find a denomination that isn't so out of character for me.

But my conversation today helped. He was complaining to me that CRC people are just too obsessed with "walking the line" when it comes to our engagement with the culture. You know the line - being in the world, but not of it - engaging and transforming culture rather than sticking our heads in the sand. This is what Dordt College is all about! But his argument went something like this: people in the CRC go too far to the "worldly" side of things - they immerse themselves so much in culture that there is not enough distinguishable difference between Christians and the world. There are just some things that Christians shouldn't do. Porn would be an easy example...but what about television, what about movies (and what kind of movies) - oh, and what about music? You know, even the Christian music market has become dreadfully commercial, so should we boycott that, too? All this is very confusing.

It has been fascinating to work in the Church of God, a holiness denomination, which stresses holy living, perhaps best represented by the commonly heard phrase, "We don't smoke, drink, dance or chew, or hang around with those that do." Many of our older members can quote that off the top of their heads as the common refrain of their parents. My senior pastor recently attended a denominational pastor's retreat where the issue of alcohol use came up among new people applying for ordination, often a common theme in emerging-type churches. While it fascinates me that they can hold to any sort of belief as a non-confessional "movement", it fascinates me even more that they tow the party line on alcohol for no apparent reason. Even my senior pastor, who is a tetoller like myself, admits that there's no real Biblical support for the position, its more of a traditional purist holiness party line. But its a line.

Now, granted, the Church of God or Wesleyans in general might have more lines than the CRC does, but it doesn't line off everything! In fact, it only tends to line things off that are culturally contextual (alcohol is a no-no in the American Church of God, but the German wing drinks). So, in the Church of God, we've got lines, but they're limited in scope and rationality.

What my friend was arguing with me was that, in the CRC, we need more lines. He said that, because we have so much ambiguity and allow for so much Christian freedom in so many areas, fallen people have no real direction to go other than a downward spiral. He argued, like my ethics professor, that Christians can get involved in politics and movies and the like, but the risk of falling into that lifestyle far outweighs the possibility of redeeming it, and especially to what extent it will be redeemed.

This hit me hard as a Dordt College Defender. After all, Luke Schelhaas, writer for "Touched by an Angel" and "Smallville" was touted as the heroic alumni for engaging culture and attempting to redeem it. What about Kuyper describing Christ as shouting over every square inch of creation, "This is mine!"? What about Colson arguing for Christian worldview defining the approach as Christian or secular instead of defining the action as Christian or secular? There might not be Christian art or Christian music, but there sure as heck is a way to do art or music as a Christian in a redemptive way. I actually side with Carl Zylstra on this one....I don't have to go to NC-17 movies to reach my culture for Christ, but I sure as heck better be engaging His good creation.

Still not convinced? How about this. There's really only two extremes here when it comes to "worldly actions" or "worldly amusements" as the CRC has historically called them. On the one hand, you could fully submerge yourself with culture, like a chameleon, unable to tell you apart from your backdrop. The other option is the Amish one - pull yourself completely out of culture and try to be affected by it the least. Anything else is a matter of discernment. Yup, I just said it. Let's take TV as a good example. You've really got three logical options as a Christian. First, you watch whatever you want to, whenever you want to and get sucked in little by little. Second, you don't have a TV at all. Once again, good logical option, especially if you follow my friend's logic. Third, you keep the TV, count technology as a good gift of God's creation and watch TV in a Christian way. That isn't a comment on posture or on which channels or on maximum TV rating - it is an example of starting with a Christian worldview, enjoying God's creation and practicing discernment. What is not logical is dumping cable out of moral precept and keeping the TV for local channels. Half an apple is still apple. So, I would argue that for almost every forseeable action and worldly amusement, there are two Christian approaches: abstain or engage with discernment.

But here's my issue. I don't like drawing lines in the sand where Scripture does not. My Greek professor at Seminary said one thing I actually valued: "Shout what Scripture shouts and whisper what Scripture whispers" - be obnoxious about the obvious things, and tread lightly on things where Scripture goes either way. The CRC is not Mennonite and it is not holiness and its not fundamentalist. What it is is a culturally-engaging denomination. But with privilege comes responsibility. What my friend saw was selling out to culture - a moral decay within the CRC community that was as bad or worse than the one outside it. So we've reached the crux of the matter: if we are going to be a denomination or a Church that walks the line, then we sure as heck better be preaching discernment.

If you're going to throw rocks at culture, throw rocks at culture. If you're going to abstain from culture, abstain from it. But, by all means, if you are going to engage culture for Christ, then you better be constantly practicing discernment. For pastor and leaders in general, it is our responsibility to remind people where they are walking the line. Teach discernment - teach engagement. But pastors must also be thermometers - able to tell if a group is swinging too far in one direction or the other. When you normalize an audio file, you pitch the extremes - the high sounds and the low sounds. We need to realize in which directions we're overstepping the boundaries and swing the crux of the people back to the middle again. The pastor is like the labrynthspel operator, tilting the table back and forth, trying to keep the balance because discerned balance is a commitment of the church he represents.

Especially as a postmodern, blurry lines with boundaries are good - in fact, they're all over in Christianity. But we need to keep reminding ourselves and others that we're walking the line.