Friday, November 28, 2008

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.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

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!

Thursday, November 20, 2008

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.

Monday, November 17, 2008

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."