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.
Showing posts with label Relevance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Relevance. Show all posts
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Monday, December 10, 2007
Postmodern Christianity: Part I
In a recent conversation with a former church planter, we ran into a bit of a impasse about the place of denominational churches in post-modernity, especially in terms of church planting and newly-developed churches. To shed even more light on the topic, the conversation had implications for me as a future pastor of such a church and the flexibility of the CRC or any denomination with a church order to enfold a church plant as an "organized" member. Of course, there are monumental things at stake here: the accountability of individual churches to a denominational body, the theological cohesion of a new church to the church order of all the other member churches, the ability of self-determination within a congregation, the integrity of the church planter and Elisha pastor and the theology of church splits.
The issue centered around this idea: if a newly-developed church has theological convictions or even polity convictions that are contrary to the receiving denomination, the new church should either override its own convictions for the sake of the denomination or find a new denomination. I understand the concept, at least in theory. For one, most church plants are denominational, meaning that they are funded by a denominational body with set governing rules and creedal or confessional statements. In addition, the argument is put out there that people should join a denomination with which they fit theologically. The rules are there; if you don't like them, find another denomination! There's 25 churches in this zip code, after all! This is the "don't-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out" approach. In fact, it might even have a nice ecumenical face: we're all part of the body of Christ, but this part has its own way of doing things.
I have several objections to this argument laid out by my professor. On the one hand, theological congruency is necessary in practice for the sake of unity. However, theological congruency in theory should not be nearly as absolute. If the above concept of "just find another denomination that fits your beliefs" holds, then we should have never experienced any change to church order, no change to confessional standards, and no change to church structure. In fact, we've experienced each of those to such an extent that we can't even publish a hymnal with the RCA because our confessions look so different. To put a face on this issue, take something like women in office. If you hold to the line of thinking that says "try the church up the street", a change should never have happened in the CRC's interpretation of women in office. It did. Why? Because people believed in the denomination enough that they weren't willing to leave it over one non-salvific issue. Now take an issue like infant baptism. You might be inclined to tell a new church that if they want to dedicate infants instead of baptizing them that they should just find a new denomination, the system is not working. There is a system in place where churches or individuals can appeal to governing bodies, both regional and national, to challenge such a non-salvific issue. That these processes are in place is evidence in and of itself that the system was meant to be elastic. Maybe the challenge is denied. Then that church must make a decision to stay and comply or disagree and go.
In reference to my last post, we also differed on what it meant to be ecumenical. In a way, polite denominationalism is a form of ecumenicity. Their definition includes keeping the status quo and shuffling people into pre-existing categories according to theological conviction. My theory on ecumenicity is a communal one, one that that seeks the combination of denominations, however idealistic. In their mind, they were more ecumenical than I was, and in my mind, I was more ecumenical than they were. We were speaking different languages.
What we acknowledged, as well, is that there is a deeper philosophical difference that we had. Both people on the other side of the table from me were 55 or older and here I was as a (new) 24-year-old. Their mindset is logical and denominational. My mindset is post-modern and communal. As one of the men talked with disgust about the tendency of "emerging" churches to gather together and decide on what direction their body should take, I thought to myself how similar this sounded to my own convictions and how similar it sounded to the church language of creating a vision or mission for our churches. Of course, this concept is dangerous for denominationally-planted groups. While, out of the one side of their mouth they say to join the church that fits them theologically, they have to acknowledge that a denominational church planter who does not tow the party line and allows theological or administrative incongruencies is irresponsible and reprehensible. Why? At the heart its all practical. We commissioned this planter and we paid the bills. They have a point.
Many people ask me why I'm still in the CRC, or in a denomination at all. Why subject yourself to three years of onslaught? Why subject yourself to the pains of Greek and Hebrew exegesis? Why subject yourself to the narrow theological viewpoints of the education at Calvin? Why join and pastor in a denomination where you don't completely agree?
Firstly, I love the Church - the holy catholic and apostolic one. Second, the CRC has faults like any other denomination, but it is one heck of a solid product. I mean, from top to bottom, this is a well thought-out, well organized, efficiently run, perspective-laden, quality and faithful organization. Other than the Mennonites, no one can boast a program like CRWRC. No other denomination can pull off the kind of publishing quality that the CRC does. No other denomination can initiate a version of the Bible that replaced the KJV. No other denomination can survive the kind of split the CRC did in the 90's without missing a step.
And I believe this denomination is elastic enough to endure much more change than it already has. I think that the next 25-50 years in the CRC will bring forth an unprecedented rate of change. I think Christian education will decline on a national level, infant dedications will happen within our denomination, strictness in church polity will be abandoned, theological congruency will be held less high, and that homosexuality will prove to be much more of a non-issue than we previously thought. And I would be surprised in 50 years if we had not joined with the RCA.
Elasticity of theological congruency is a post-modern value and will lead to more and more questioning, more and more re-evaluation of things that had previously been accepted at face value. People shouldn't be surprised that I'm a post-modern thinker and remaining in a denomination. People should realize that the only reason I can remain within a denomination is because I am a post-modern thinker.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Experiencing God Diffently in Worship
This past weekend was the General Assembly of the Church of God in Michigan, and I served my role as a delegate. This is my second year going, and so I'm more free to notice things rather than try to remember everyone's names and network with lots of new people.
I had a sort of epiphany during our closing worship service. Our worship leader was an African-American woman who I thought looked like Condoleeza Rice and her TV anchorman husband on the bass guitar. She had lots of energy and was a great worship leader....for her context. I was sitting up in the front corner, so I got a chance to observe almost everyone in the place. First of all, I noticed her own son, with his head on the table, probably napping-clearly uninterested sitting at the table next to me. Next I noticed the large contingent of African-American leaders in the group experiencing worship like they had been all weekend - fists pumping, amen-ing, mmhmm-ing, raising hands, etc. Then I noticed a large contingent of middle-aged white people: a little milder than their African-American cohorts, but still with hands raised, swaying, pointing to heaven, etc. I noticed the few people in my age group (20-30), mostly youth pastors, interacting with the music but not selling out. Finally, I noticed my table, good stone-faced Danish people from my church, similar to the Dutch ones I'd grown up with.
All this got me to thinking: how do I experience God, and do I look down on other people if they experience Him differently? I'm met with this constantly in Detroit at Sinai-Grace Hospital. Often times, the God of the African-American Baptist people I talk with seems so much different than my own that I feel like I have more coherence with my Orthodox Rabbi professor. In that case, it may just be that my Rabbi is used to putting his theology into logical categories, like I am. In worship, I'd probably place myself between the arm-folded Danes and the charismatic middle age types.
I think one of the ways that this really rears its head is worship style. The truth of the matter is that those of us who are worship leaders have all drank the "experiential" kool-aid to some extent. We have to because its undeniable. What's interesting for us as is that our jobs, by their very nature, seem to require us to pander to whatever the current generation is because we're at a point in time where the way people experience God has changed drastically and distinctly in the last 50 years. We still have people in our benches that experience God best through straight-up organ hymns. Then, even though the CRC seems to completely have missed this step, there is an entire generation of "big worship" people. This is the classy-suited-big-haired-mega-church style people who sing all songs that were popular from about 1985-1993 (Majesty & Thy Word are classics and, interestingly, not that dissimilar). There's a surprisingly large amount of these people - they're Wimber's folks - raising hands, yelling amens, but still very skeptical of modern worship or emerging church stuff. Finally, there's this whole generation coming up now that identifies with the emerging style of worship or the Chris-Tomlin-modern style of worship. Add into that a fairly consistent worship African-American gospel style, and you've got 4 different kinds of oil being thrown into water.
So, is it okay to say one way is preferable to another, or do we have to acknowledge all as equally good, in true politically-correct style? Now, I regularly get disgusted when I watch Christian cable television, even though I know many churches in the South that eat that stuff up. I find the theology of many of the patients (and the pastors) I meet in Detroit poorly-formed and illogical (not just because I disagree, but I objectively think its illogical). You can really take this argument a long way. If your experience of God is co-equal with everyone else's (as my CPE program tells me it is), then you have zero basis for questioning an experience that is Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, or Hindu. These are just different experiences of God, be they in other faiths, or in other theologies (ways of talking about God).
Ultimately, someone has to make some sort of qualitative statement, so here goes one try: I think that emerging/modern worship is more seeker-friendly than "big worship" or organ-based hymns. Now that might evoke a "duh" out of you because you know there's no churchplant in any denomination that has ported in a pipe organ in the last 10 years, but really, that's a judgmental statement. Do I think there's a place for other experiences of God? Yes. But I think we have to be realists here. Churches that have not gotten modern, emerging or experiential in their worship have shrunk, as a general rule. Now, there are churches that do traditional worship REALLY well that manage to grow, but I would offer that quality tradition is simply a better prescription for delay of the inevitable than others have found.
So try this on for size: I felt uncomfortable in our GA's worship service today because of all the amen-ing, hand-raising, fist-pumping, liturgical-dancing, and old-people-that-can't-clap-on-the-beat. And, for a while, I felt guilty for being uncomfortable. After all, I'm a worship pastor, I should be able to "get into" all sorts of worship, and usually I can. But I couldn't help thinking to myself: if I took a non-Christian in here right now, they would be scared shitless and think we are crazy. Now, some might say its because the Spirit was moving. But last I checked, the Spirit also empowered mission and God is not in conflict with Himself. I don't have a good answer for this question, but I do know that I can be most faithful to my calling by playing coffee-house-style-white-20-something worship music in my context and its growing the Kingdom. By their fruits shall you know them. Can we be evaluative of people's ways of experiencing God, or is that just politically incorrect?
I had a sort of epiphany during our closing worship service. Our worship leader was an African-American woman who I thought looked like Condoleeza Rice and her TV anchorman husband on the bass guitar. She had lots of energy and was a great worship leader....for her context. I was sitting up in the front corner, so I got a chance to observe almost everyone in the place. First of all, I noticed her own son, with his head on the table, probably napping-clearly uninterested sitting at the table next to me. Next I noticed the large contingent of African-American leaders in the group experiencing worship like they had been all weekend - fists pumping, amen-ing, mmhmm-ing, raising hands, etc. Then I noticed a large contingent of middle-aged white people: a little milder than their African-American cohorts, but still with hands raised, swaying, pointing to heaven, etc. I noticed the few people in my age group (20-30), mostly youth pastors, interacting with the music but not selling out. Finally, I noticed my table, good stone-faced Danish people from my church, similar to the Dutch ones I'd grown up with.
All this got me to thinking: how do I experience God, and do I look down on other people if they experience Him differently? I'm met with this constantly in Detroit at Sinai-Grace Hospital. Often times, the God of the African-American Baptist people I talk with seems so much different than my own that I feel like I have more coherence with my Orthodox Rabbi professor. In that case, it may just be that my Rabbi is used to putting his theology into logical categories, like I am. In worship, I'd probably place myself between the arm-folded Danes and the charismatic middle age types.
I think one of the ways that this really rears its head is worship style. The truth of the matter is that those of us who are worship leaders have all drank the "experiential" kool-aid to some extent. We have to because its undeniable. What's interesting for us as is that our jobs, by their very nature, seem to require us to pander to whatever the current generation is because we're at a point in time where the way people experience God has changed drastically and distinctly in the last 50 years. We still have people in our benches that experience God best through straight-up organ hymns. Then, even though the CRC seems to completely have missed this step, there is an entire generation of "big worship" people. This is the classy-suited-big-haired-mega-church style people who sing all songs that were popular from about 1985-1993 (Majesty & Thy Word are classics and, interestingly, not that dissimilar). There's a surprisingly large amount of these people - they're Wimber's folks - raising hands, yelling amens, but still very skeptical of modern worship or emerging church stuff. Finally, there's this whole generation coming up now that identifies with the emerging style of worship or the Chris-Tomlin-modern style of worship. Add into that a fairly consistent worship African-American gospel style, and you've got 4 different kinds of oil being thrown into water.
So, is it okay to say one way is preferable to another, or do we have to acknowledge all as equally good, in true politically-correct style? Now, I regularly get disgusted when I watch Christian cable television, even though I know many churches in the South that eat that stuff up. I find the theology of many of the patients (and the pastors) I meet in Detroit poorly-formed and illogical (not just because I disagree, but I objectively think its illogical). You can really take this argument a long way. If your experience of God is co-equal with everyone else's (as my CPE program tells me it is), then you have zero basis for questioning an experience that is Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, or Hindu. These are just different experiences of God, be they in other faiths, or in other theologies (ways of talking about God).
Ultimately, someone has to make some sort of qualitative statement, so here goes one try: I think that emerging/modern worship is more seeker-friendly than "big worship" or organ-based hymns. Now that might evoke a "duh" out of you because you know there's no churchplant in any denomination that has ported in a pipe organ in the last 10 years, but really, that's a judgmental statement. Do I think there's a place for other experiences of God? Yes. But I think we have to be realists here. Churches that have not gotten modern, emerging or experiential in their worship have shrunk, as a general rule. Now, there are churches that do traditional worship REALLY well that manage to grow, but I would offer that quality tradition is simply a better prescription for delay of the inevitable than others have found.
So try this on for size: I felt uncomfortable in our GA's worship service today because of all the amen-ing, hand-raising, fist-pumping, liturgical-dancing, and old-people-that-can't-clap-on-the-beat. And, for a while, I felt guilty for being uncomfortable. After all, I'm a worship pastor, I should be able to "get into" all sorts of worship, and usually I can. But I couldn't help thinking to myself: if I took a non-Christian in here right now, they would be scared shitless and think we are crazy. Now, some might say its because the Spirit was moving. But last I checked, the Spirit also empowered mission and God is not in conflict with Himself. I don't have a good answer for this question, but I do know that I can be most faithful to my calling by playing coffee-house-style-white-20-something worship music in my context and its growing the Kingdom. By their fruits shall you know them. Can we be evaluative of people's ways of experiencing God, or is that just politically incorrect?
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Public Apology
Just a memo to all Church outsiders in the world: we're sorry.
Let's face a simple fact here: the way Christianity is presented to the world through many different outlets is idiotic and ridiculous. Sometimes when I make my commute into Grand Rapids, I feel self-conscious if I pass someone going 65 because I'm afraid they'll see the Christian fish on the back of my car and assume all Christians are law-breaking vigilantes. But that doesn't compare to the ridiculousness of the face that Christianity presents to the world in many different ways. If I were an outsider, I would think Christians are the most backward, bigoted people in the whole world.
Of course, this isn't true in all areas. Certainly, there are many churches who present a socially conscious self-respecting message to the world without sacrificing the truths we all stand for. But I think this is even more true in the very places the gospel needs to have more relevance: smalltown America.
For example, we've got a fundamentalist church that is positioned right on the main entrance to town that somehow got their hands on a lighted-up sign. Of course, they use that sign to do the Lord's work, like condemning the NIV, associating tattoos with Satan, associating body piercings with hell and telling everyone who drinks that Jesus would disown them.
Come on.
I went to a rummage sale last week where a nice, well-meaning Christian man sold me an entertainment stand for our youth room for $1. He was selling his possessions from his trailer park home so that he could go on the mission field for two years. Even though he knew I was a pastor, he still handed me a tract. As I was leaving, I overheard him trying to "evangelistically" speak to some Harley bikers in a beat-up pickup truck. When he saw one of them wearing army pants, he used this keen line: "You're in the army, huh? Well I'm in the Lord's army!"
Nice. And our numbers are dropping?
And how about that Christian TV. Strong showing for Christianity there. Whether its poorly produced "extreme sports evangelism" or Biblical "health supplements", somehow we've managed to put our least relevant foot forward as a Christian community. Why is it that the only relevant Christian message on television is spoken by vegetables? I was watching South Park the other night on Comedy Central do a caricature of the 700 Club, and it was probably the most accurate thing I've ever seen. If you want to check it out, its episode #311: Starvin Marvin in Space.
I'm tolerant, I really am. We played church league softball a couple weeks back against a team where all the girls wore skirts during the game. But they're socially adjusted! Good Ghandi. Lets just throw in the towel if we really think talking in old English, condemning piercings, or even clinging to Christian education are the kinds of things we need to cling to so Christianity is Christianity. I'm not one of these argumentative emerging-church-only types. I just don't like it when I work all day long to help my church do legitimate ministry as Christ would and we're simply trumped by the louder, prouder arm of the Church that has lost complete touch with their own culture. Like it or not, marketing is part of evangelism, and we suck at it. Some people just need to be shook.
Or maybe I'll just drive the speed limit.
Let's face a simple fact here: the way Christianity is presented to the world through many different outlets is idiotic and ridiculous. Sometimes when I make my commute into Grand Rapids, I feel self-conscious if I pass someone going 65 because I'm afraid they'll see the Christian fish on the back of my car and assume all Christians are law-breaking vigilantes. But that doesn't compare to the ridiculousness of the face that Christianity presents to the world in many different ways. If I were an outsider, I would think Christians are the most backward, bigoted people in the whole world.
Of course, this isn't true in all areas. Certainly, there are many churches who present a socially conscious self-respecting message to the world without sacrificing the truths we all stand for. But I think this is even more true in the very places the gospel needs to have more relevance: smalltown America.
For example, we've got a fundamentalist church that is positioned right on the main entrance to town that somehow got their hands on a lighted-up sign. Of course, they use that sign to do the Lord's work, like condemning the NIV, associating tattoos with Satan, associating body piercings with hell and telling everyone who drinks that Jesus would disown them.
Come on.
I went to a rummage sale last week where a nice, well-meaning Christian man sold me an entertainment stand for our youth room for $1. He was selling his possessions from his trailer park home so that he could go on the mission field for two years. Even though he knew I was a pastor, he still handed me a tract. As I was leaving, I overheard him trying to "evangelistically" speak to some Harley bikers in a beat-up pickup truck. When he saw one of them wearing army pants, he used this keen line: "You're in the army, huh? Well I'm in the Lord's army!"
Nice. And our numbers are dropping?
And how about that Christian TV. Strong showing for Christianity there. Whether its poorly produced "extreme sports evangelism" or Biblical "health supplements", somehow we've managed to put our least relevant foot forward as a Christian community. Why is it that the only relevant Christian message on television is spoken by vegetables? I was watching South Park the other night on Comedy Central do a caricature of the 700 Club, and it was probably the most accurate thing I've ever seen. If you want to check it out, its episode #311: Starvin Marvin in Space.
I'm tolerant, I really am. We played church league softball a couple weeks back against a team where all the girls wore skirts during the game. But they're socially adjusted! Good Ghandi. Lets just throw in the towel if we really think talking in old English, condemning piercings, or even clinging to Christian education are the kinds of things we need to cling to so Christianity is Christianity. I'm not one of these argumentative emerging-church-only types. I just don't like it when I work all day long to help my church do legitimate ministry as Christ would and we're simply trumped by the louder, prouder arm of the Church that has lost complete touch with their own culture. Like it or not, marketing is part of evangelism, and we suck at it. Some people just need to be shook.
Or maybe I'll just drive the speed limit.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Your Local Christian College: Foreign Misison Field
I recognize that most of the people who read my blog are either college students or recently graduated college students. If you're older, good for you. If this blog causes you to get defensive, good. Maybe it will cause you to question your own college-life spirituality OR maybe it will get you on board with finding ways to reach our college communities. Either way...good luck.
College is a wonderful time in many people's lives. In fact, most people. If you're one of the chosen few who went to a Christian college, its not only a bonus if you have a god experience in college...its expected. You're expected to make friends, you're expected to gain skills, you're expected to become a democrat for six years or so, and you're expected to find a spouse. I've had the privelege of bouncing around visiting several Christian college campuses as well as meeting up with lots of committed Christians fresh out of Christian colleges at Seminary. There are a few common threads, but one of them is not church involvement. In fact, even at the Seminary, it was considered radical to implement a change last year which required students to declare regular attendance at a local church and 20 hours of church involvement during the quarter.
Let me set a context. I attend a church that meets in the chapel of Calvin College, a body of 5,000 or so students. Even though our church is on campus, our average attendance out of that body is roughly five students. Five. So our church is conservative in worship style...that means they're going somewhere else, right? If you've lived in a dorm, you know the answer.
I grew up in Orange City, IA, home of Northwestern College, and a skip and jump from Dordt College. I grew up seeing college kids at the gas station, at restaurants, coffee shops, at Pamida, student-teaching, and across the street from my house. Where did I not see them? Church. Could be a fluke....maybe we couldn't advertise well.
When I chose to go to Dordt, I kept attending my home church. I was one of two kids within four years of graduation from high school that regularly attended. Out of about 60. I thought it was our fault, something we could change. As I moved through college and now talk to people from all over North America, people conclude the exact same thing....the majority of Christian college kids don't go to church.
My church threw out the bible study book. We threw out the "inviting worship" book. We threw out the seek & greet book. We started to give things away. We gave them their own room to have premium coffee in the basement, and hooked them up with free meals.
Sound like a soup kitchen? Sound like a foreign releif effort? Bingo. College kids are not reliable, they're not responsible, and they are horribly self-concerned. Try talking to any college kid without hearing the word "busy". Yes college kid, we know you're busy. Yes college kid, we know you're tired. Yes college kid, we know you're financially strapped (except the rich kids). Yes college kid, we know you prefer contemporary worship at school. Yes college kid, we know we're hypocrites.
WELCOME TO THE CLUB, or as we like to call it - the Church.
That said, we still need to minister to this group. Given the four-eight year cultural considerations I've given, I propose we need to completely throw out the book on how to run a church ministry for a group. We need a new praxis. The soup kitchen mentality is helpful, even if the attendees are wearing Aeropostale and Abercrombie. You will get a few that are willing to be discipled. You might get none. Either way, keeping kids linked with local churches is worth it, if for no other reason than it keeps people in the pews. Most of our local churches are missing the 20-something age group. Unfortunately, eventually the 20 something age group will be the whole church. Or....it might not be the whole church.
College is a wonderful time in many people's lives. In fact, most people. If you're one of the chosen few who went to a Christian college, its not only a bonus if you have a god experience in college...its expected. You're expected to make friends, you're expected to gain skills, you're expected to become a democrat for six years or so, and you're expected to find a spouse. I've had the privelege of bouncing around visiting several Christian college campuses as well as meeting up with lots of committed Christians fresh out of Christian colleges at Seminary. There are a few common threads, but one of them is not church involvement. In fact, even at the Seminary, it was considered radical to implement a change last year which required students to declare regular attendance at a local church and 20 hours of church involvement during the quarter.
Let me set a context. I attend a church that meets in the chapel of Calvin College, a body of 5,000 or so students. Even though our church is on campus, our average attendance out of that body is roughly five students. Five. So our church is conservative in worship style...that means they're going somewhere else, right? If you've lived in a dorm, you know the answer.
I grew up in Orange City, IA, home of Northwestern College, and a skip and jump from Dordt College. I grew up seeing college kids at the gas station, at restaurants, coffee shops, at Pamida, student-teaching, and across the street from my house. Where did I not see them? Church. Could be a fluke....maybe we couldn't advertise well.
When I chose to go to Dordt, I kept attending my home church. I was one of two kids within four years of graduation from high school that regularly attended. Out of about 60. I thought it was our fault, something we could change. As I moved through college and now talk to people from all over North America, people conclude the exact same thing....the majority of Christian college kids don't go to church.
My church threw out the bible study book. We threw out the "inviting worship" book. We threw out the seek & greet book. We started to give things away. We gave them their own room to have premium coffee in the basement, and hooked them up with free meals.
Sound like a soup kitchen? Sound like a foreign releif effort? Bingo. College kids are not reliable, they're not responsible, and they are horribly self-concerned. Try talking to any college kid without hearing the word "busy". Yes college kid, we know you're busy. Yes college kid, we know you're tired. Yes college kid, we know you're financially strapped (except the rich kids). Yes college kid, we know you prefer contemporary worship at school. Yes college kid, we know we're hypocrites.
WELCOME TO THE CLUB, or as we like to call it - the Church.
That said, we still need to minister to this group. Given the four-eight year cultural considerations I've given, I propose we need to completely throw out the book on how to run a church ministry for a group. We need a new praxis. The soup kitchen mentality is helpful, even if the attendees are wearing Aeropostale and Abercrombie. You will get a few that are willing to be discipled. You might get none. Either way, keeping kids linked with local churches is worth it, if for no other reason than it keeps people in the pews. Most of our local churches are missing the 20-something age group. Unfortunately, eventually the 20 something age group will be the whole church. Or....it might not be the whole church.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Christian Reforming
Friday I had the privilege of meeting two of the top dogs in the Christian Reformed Church - the financial director and our new executive director, Jerry Dykstra. Most people who read this blog will be familiar with the CRC, but for those of you who aren't, we're a blip on the Christendom radar. The way I think about it, the CRC is to world Christianity what Pamida is to the retail world.
Granted, the CRC has her strengths to duel with the denominational big boys (see CRWRC), but we'd be kidding ourselves to think that we are a major player with a membership around roughly 275,000. An interesting point to be made is that there are more Catholics in the Grand Rapids area than there are CRC members nationwide.
To me, comparing denominations to retail chains isn't that far of a stretch. The only three entities who are able to saturate major and minor markets to a high level of efficiency are fast food restaurants, retail chains, and churches. The common denominators? Easy duplication of processes, efficient distribution (of products & ideas), strong internal structure and communication of a unified vision. This is why you don't have a chain of Bob's Bars or Sack's Fifth Avenue in every podunk town over 5,000 across the Heartland. But Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and the Catholic Church can pull it off quite well.
That is why it was strangely reassuring to see possibly the two most powerful men in the CRC standing in front of me in business suits with cell phones on their hips. It reminded me precisely of the retail corporate types I'm used to seeing in my own store. Why was this reassuring? Maybe its because I'm too prone to using a business model in the church because of its efficient nature, although Bill Hybels pulls it off quite well. Maybe its because I like having the confidence that the ministry shares which contain my tithes are being well-handled. Maybe its because like most evangelicals, even the Calvinists, I am an Arminian in practice while being a Calvinist in thought because the hands and feet of Calvinism make the least sense to me of the whole scheme.
Dykstra did have some good things to say. He communicated that the CRC needs to minister to this generation. That is a far cry, I'm ashamed to say, from what goes on in the vast majority of CRC's today. That doesn't mean we need to break our backbone or be simply more "hip", but it does mean encountering today's culture where its at instead of waiting for Calvinism to conquer post-modernism like a knight on his steed. Then some good business principles. First, he talked about communicating the vision. In three days, he had been in Albequerque, NM, St. Paul, MN and Grand Rapids, speaking to some 60 pastors about communicating a denominational vision for change. Second, he is realistic about fault lines. Instead of just letting older ladies pray for the church to fix itself, he has real ideas for helping hurting churches. Thirdly, and probably most transformative, he argued for making our ministries "ministries of choice". There is a realization in the denomination that simply labeling ministries CRC does not bring in guilt-laden Dutch people anymore. To that end, our programs must be some of the best out there, our materials must be some of the best out there, and our approach to ministry must be excellent. Whew, what a breath of fresh air!
Does all this limit what power we believe the Holy Spirit to have in growing the church from the inside out? The question is valid. But if we are willing to let the denomination die at the hands of the very culture we are supposed to be reaching, then we haven't done our job. A balloon inflated by the breath of the Holy Spirit does not lose air quickly. I'd like to sit down sometime with Dykstra and just ask him how hard it is to balance a business model growth mentality with a spirit-led growth mentality.
Who knows where the CRC will be in 50 years. Watch out, Wal-Mart.
Granted, the CRC has her strengths to duel with the denominational big boys (see CRWRC), but we'd be kidding ourselves to think that we are a major player with a membership around roughly 275,000. An interesting point to be made is that there are more Catholics in the Grand Rapids area than there are CRC members nationwide.
To me, comparing denominations to retail chains isn't that far of a stretch. The only three entities who are able to saturate major and minor markets to a high level of efficiency are fast food restaurants, retail chains, and churches. The common denominators? Easy duplication of processes, efficient distribution (of products & ideas), strong internal structure and communication of a unified vision. This is why you don't have a chain of Bob's Bars or Sack's Fifth Avenue in every podunk town over 5,000 across the Heartland. But Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and the Catholic Church can pull it off quite well.
That is why it was strangely reassuring to see possibly the two most powerful men in the CRC standing in front of me in business suits with cell phones on their hips. It reminded me precisely of the retail corporate types I'm used to seeing in my own store. Why was this reassuring? Maybe its because I'm too prone to using a business model in the church because of its efficient nature, although Bill Hybels pulls it off quite well. Maybe its because I like having the confidence that the ministry shares which contain my tithes are being well-handled. Maybe its because like most evangelicals, even the Calvinists, I am an Arminian in practice while being a Calvinist in thought because the hands and feet of Calvinism make the least sense to me of the whole scheme.
Dykstra did have some good things to say. He communicated that the CRC needs to minister to this generation. That is a far cry, I'm ashamed to say, from what goes on in the vast majority of CRC's today. That doesn't mean we need to break our backbone or be simply more "hip", but it does mean encountering today's culture where its at instead of waiting for Calvinism to conquer post-modernism like a knight on his steed. Then some good business principles. First, he talked about communicating the vision. In three days, he had been in Albequerque, NM, St. Paul, MN and Grand Rapids, speaking to some 60 pastors about communicating a denominational vision for change. Second, he is realistic about fault lines. Instead of just letting older ladies pray for the church to fix itself, he has real ideas for helping hurting churches. Thirdly, and probably most transformative, he argued for making our ministries "ministries of choice". There is a realization in the denomination that simply labeling ministries CRC does not bring in guilt-laden Dutch people anymore. To that end, our programs must be some of the best out there, our materials must be some of the best out there, and our approach to ministry must be excellent. Whew, what a breath of fresh air!
Does all this limit what power we believe the Holy Spirit to have in growing the church from the inside out? The question is valid. But if we are willing to let the denomination die at the hands of the very culture we are supposed to be reaching, then we haven't done our job. A balloon inflated by the breath of the Holy Spirit does not lose air quickly. I'd like to sit down sometime with Dykstra and just ask him how hard it is to balance a business model growth mentality with a spirit-led growth mentality.
Who knows where the CRC will be in 50 years. Watch out, Wal-Mart.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
One Nation Under NASCAR
Burton has the pole today at the Brickyard in Indy. Stewart won that last year, but his troubles this season and Gordon's ability to win at this track make it highly improbable that Stewart will repeat.
I wouldn't have known any of that three years ago during my freshman year of college. Some of that is because ESPN didn't cover NASCAR then, but some of it is because of my job. As many of you know, I work at Pamida, a small retail store which has taken me all over the country. I've worked at stores in Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Kentucky. While the geographical distance between these stores is great, the socio-economic condition of both the employees and customers that frequent these stores is quite unvaried.
There are two major themes that I have noticed since working at Pamida, which, with the exception of my Orange City store, lies outside the confines of "Christian-ized" society. First, there is an entire culture which has developed on the coattails of urban American society, a sizable group which is largely ignored by mainstream media (except maybe Larry the Cable Guy). The second observation is that the Christian community has largely ignored this segment of the population, which is quickly becoming the majority, either because they consider this group reprobate or because they simply don't know what to do with them.
This group is hard to define. In the past they would be known as "hicks", "blue collar" or "rednecks". They would also be considered in some circles "white trash". The rest of society has always relied on the "drive of the American spirit" to inspire this group to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and let capitalism motivate them to rejoin "real" society or get crushed for the betterment of the gene pool. The change has not occurred in the makeup of this group, but rather, the change has occurred in their mindset. No longer to they feel the need to elevate themselves into "normal" society. Contentedness with and even identification with their current socio-economic level is the important change that has occurred. There are the sterotypical interests of this group: alcohol, cigarettes, sex, motorsports, making enough money to get by, and a sense of entitlement. There is NOT, however, what we "red-blooded" Americans would expect "normal" people to innately have: a driving desire to have a better life, bigger house, better name in the community, strong church affiliation, latest technology, or political action.
Given this, who's life outlook is better? The ratrace American who strives to get the best of everything and constantly improve their lives, or the person who is content with where they are at and would rather enjoy where they are than tirelessly work to get ahead? How can an adult male work at a job where he makes $7 an hour? Because he can. Why isn't a trailer enough? Why isn't relaxing after your 9-5 with a few beers more appealing than killing yourself at work to buy an SUV or lakehome? Who's your senator? How does the internet work? What's the stock market outlook? Its simple: who cares?
In church we hear about the poor in other countries who are content with the little they have. We have a society of post-capitalistic content people living right here in America. This is the very reason welfare doesn't work. Its easier to swallow one's pride than to give up free money and labor again. What's more, while this group may be less politically correct than their white collar counterparts, they are, for the most part, more closely in line with the worldviews of minority groups such as inner city African Americans and immigrant Hispanic working groups. The tendency to prioritize nice trucks and satelite dishes over nice clothes and large homes with picket fences is a foreign concept to many of us.
Newsflash to churches in small communities: this is why your churches are declining in population. Life is easier if you don't care. The Church has always been reliant upon people caring, and hoping for a better future. That's why the Church has historically thrived amongst the poor. The church has died everywhere people see no point in hoping and working for a better future. What is the church to do about post-modern thinkers? The better question might be: what is the Church to do about post-capitalist thinkers? If the church really is an "opiate for the masses", then we've lost because the "masses" have found a few other culturally-acceptable opiates.
I wouldn't have known any of that three years ago during my freshman year of college. Some of that is because ESPN didn't cover NASCAR then, but some of it is because of my job. As many of you know, I work at Pamida, a small retail store which has taken me all over the country. I've worked at stores in Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Kentucky. While the geographical distance between these stores is great, the socio-economic condition of both the employees and customers that frequent these stores is quite unvaried.
There are two major themes that I have noticed since working at Pamida, which, with the exception of my Orange City store, lies outside the confines of "Christian-ized" society. First, there is an entire culture which has developed on the coattails of urban American society, a sizable group which is largely ignored by mainstream media (except maybe Larry the Cable Guy). The second observation is that the Christian community has largely ignored this segment of the population, which is quickly becoming the majority, either because they consider this group reprobate or because they simply don't know what to do with them.
This group is hard to define. In the past they would be known as "hicks", "blue collar" or "rednecks". They would also be considered in some circles "white trash". The rest of society has always relied on the "drive of the American spirit" to inspire this group to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and let capitalism motivate them to rejoin "real" society or get crushed for the betterment of the gene pool. The change has not occurred in the makeup of this group, but rather, the change has occurred in their mindset. No longer to they feel the need to elevate themselves into "normal" society. Contentedness with and even identification with their current socio-economic level is the important change that has occurred. There are the sterotypical interests of this group: alcohol, cigarettes, sex, motorsports, making enough money to get by, and a sense of entitlement. There is NOT, however, what we "red-blooded" Americans would expect "normal" people to innately have: a driving desire to have a better life, bigger house, better name in the community, strong church affiliation, latest technology, or political action.
Given this, who's life outlook is better? The ratrace American who strives to get the best of everything and constantly improve their lives, or the person who is content with where they are at and would rather enjoy where they are than tirelessly work to get ahead? How can an adult male work at a job where he makes $7 an hour? Because he can. Why isn't a trailer enough? Why isn't relaxing after your 9-5 with a few beers more appealing than killing yourself at work to buy an SUV or lakehome? Who's your senator? How does the internet work? What's the stock market outlook? Its simple: who cares?
In church we hear about the poor in other countries who are content with the little they have. We have a society of post-capitalistic content people living right here in America. This is the very reason welfare doesn't work. Its easier to swallow one's pride than to give up free money and labor again. What's more, while this group may be less politically correct than their white collar counterparts, they are, for the most part, more closely in line with the worldviews of minority groups such as inner city African Americans and immigrant Hispanic working groups. The tendency to prioritize nice trucks and satelite dishes over nice clothes and large homes with picket fences is a foreign concept to many of us.
Newsflash to churches in small communities: this is why your churches are declining in population. Life is easier if you don't care. The Church has always been reliant upon people caring, and hoping for a better future. That's why the Church has historically thrived amongst the poor. The church has died everywhere people see no point in hoping and working for a better future. What is the church to do about post-modern thinkers? The better question might be: what is the Church to do about post-capitalist thinkers? If the church really is an "opiate for the masses", then we've lost because the "masses" have found a few other culturally-acceptable opiates.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
