The Christian and Elections (all 4 parts)

 (Note:  This article originally appeared in four parts, but is combined into one full article here) 

I usually don’t spend a lot of time on topics such as this for various reasons.  Perhaps I should spend more for at least two reasons.  First, the Bible does have relevant things to say on this.  Second, this is another opportunity to be salt and light.  I hope this will offer perspective, guidance, and encouragement.

General Theological Considerations: 

There are some things to keep in mind in reflecting biblically on this topic.  

First, the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the world are vastly different entities.  According to the vision in Daniel, the Kingdom of God will put an end to all the kingdoms of the world and will last forever (Dan 2:44-45).  This is a reminder that the Kingdom of our Lord, Jesus Christ, is not of this world (Jn 18:36).  It also reminds us that we cannot serve two masters (Mt 6:24) and that we want to be found squarely in his kingdom when he abolishes all rule, power, and authority and delivers the kingdom of God to the Father (1 Cor 15:24).  Unlike the Kingdom of the world, it is we who have been seated with Christ in the heavenly places (Eph 2:6).  

Second, the purpose of God’s Kingdom on the earth is to bring cosmic harmony in union with Christ through submission to his Lordship (Eph 1:10; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 11:15).  God’s plan for this is through the proclamation of and submission to the Gospel of the Kingdom.  For the Christian, citizenship and nationhood is in the Church that belongs to Christ (Eph 2:18-21).  The Christian nation is the church, and as part of this Christian nation, our purpose is to be ambassadors for Christ through engaging in the ministry of reconciliation through the Gospel (2 Cor 5:18-20).  

Third, we, as citizens of another kingdom (Phil 3:20), are called to respect and honor civil government (1 Pet 2:13-14).  Civil government has always been part of God’s plan for the governance of the world.  God created humans to rule and have dominion over the earth (Gen 1:28).  God intended for man to multiply and fill the earth with culture building, science, and governance for the praise of his glory as part of the Reign of God on the earth.  However, sin created a conflicting kingdom, the Kingdom of the World.  God has been working toward his goal for all creation to once again be in harmony under the lordship of Christ when he returns.  In the meantime, God still has an integral place for civil government in his creation.  Written at a time when Nero was the Roman emperor, the Bible tells Christians to honor and be subject to governing authority because all authority ultimately derives from God and governing authority exists to be “God’s servant” for punishing evil and promoting good (Rom 13:1-7).  In order to fulfill this mandate, governing authority has the right to collect taxes which Christians are to render.  To resist is to resist God.  Of course, if governing authority attempts to force Christians to act contrary to God’s will, Christians are obligated to obey God rather than men, but to do so respectfully (Acts 5:29; 1 Pet 3:15).  

Fourth, as exiles who are not of this world (1 Pet 2:11), we should pray for those who are in authority because this is good and pleasing to God.  When God’s people lived in exile in Babylon, he specifically instructed them to “…seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare (Jer 29:7).  In context, God was telling the craftsmen, farmers, merchants, etc. to be productive in the place they were in exile and seek the welfare of that place.  Similarly, in the New Testament, Christians are urged “that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man[a] Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time” (1 Tim 2:1-6).  This is a reminder that our ultimate purpose is the proclamation of the Gospel which brings salvation.  Everything we do in seeking the welfare of where we live is in service to that goal.  

Fifth, we have the privilege of voting.  This is a privilege God’s people in biblical times did not have.  Paul could appeal to Caesar (Acts 25:11), but he could not vote for a ruler that would make it more conducive to the sharing of the Gospel and serving God.  This offers some perspective on many of the instructions about government in the New Testament, especially in Revelation.  Christians could not and would not participate in much of civil government, military service, etc., because it often involved some sort of oath or commitment to the gods.  However, in this country, we live under a system that has attempted to be founded on a biblical understanding of governance, humanity, the world, and God.  This country has often fallen short of their ideals, but the ideals themselves derive from the almighty creator.  All of the limits the country’s founders have placed on government came from an understanding of the flawed nature of human beings due to sin.  This includes the division of power between branches of government and the states as well as voting for local and national leaders.  Many Christians view voting not only as a privilege, but a responsibility.  It is a way to be salt and light in the world (Mt 5:13-16).  Christian should exercise this responsibility in service to the church’s mission of the proclamation of the Gospel. 

Leadership Considerations:

After consideration of the biblical purpose of the Kingdom of God in the world and what our role is as ambassadors for Christ and exiles in this world, there is the question of how to vote.  From the election of local leaders all the way to national ones, responsible voters should make the effort to be informed and proceed with sound, godly judgment.  The Bible instructs Christians to consider the Lord’s will in everything (James 4:15).  Christians are to take every thought captive to Christ (2 Cor 10:5).  As those who offer themselves up as living sacrifices to God and are not conformed to the world (Rom 12:1-2), Christians regard every aspect of their lives as being under the lordship of Christ.  This includes going to the voting booth.

Here are some of my considerations.  Hopefully, this will help you in your consideration as you go to the voting booth.

1. Promotes Religious Freedom.  Obviously, we would want leaders who will allow Christians to practice Christian discipleship without interference from governing authority.  1 Timothy 2:1-5 reminds us prayers for leaders in government so that we can live a quiet and peaceful life is pleasing to God, who wants all people to be saved through Jesus, our mediator.  Our interaction with governing authority should help to promote the preaching of Jesus, our mediator.  Therefore, a question to ask would include: “Does the candidate support and promote religious freedom while opposing suppression of religious freedom?”

2. Respects and protects human life.  God has ordained governing authority to bear the sword to punish the wrong doer (Rom 13:4).  Governing authority has the obligation to protect its subjects and citizens without partiality.  Man is made in the image of God (Gen 1:27) and therefore has inherent dignity and value, which makes it wrong to take a human life (Gen 9:6).  Questions to ask would be: “Does the candidate protect human life through the passage of policies that support quality law enforcement that can effectively protect human life?  Does the candidate pursue and support policies that promotes the prevention of the taking of human life and punishes those that do?

3. Upholds justice, order, and stability.  When God first instructed man to have dominion over the earth and to rule over it, he had just finished bringing order to the formless and void chaos (Gen 1:2).  Man’s activity was to subdue the earth and rule over it (Gen 1:28).  This is a reflection of God, who ordained governing activity and is not a God of disorder but of harmony and peace (1 Cor 14:33).  The charge to subdue the wild and untamed earth involves establishing and maintaining social and moral order, which brings peace and harmony.  This at times means being hard on the wicked and the wrong doer.  This is why the sage says, “A wise king winnows the wicked and drives the wheel over them” (Prov 20:26).  A good leader will ensure that communities are safe and stable.  Questions to ask would include:  “Does the candidate pursue policies that promote justice, law, and order in social stability?  Does the candidate support quality law enforcement?  Does the candidate work for policies that impede social chaos and lawlessness?

4. Protects the poor and vulnerable.  Part of God’s indictment against his people were that the leaders and judges were not upholding justice, especially for the poor because the poor had no money for bribes.  The people were taking advantage of the poor and the defenseless, who had no legal recourse because rulers and judges were taking bribes from the rich (Mic 3:9-12; Am 5:10-15).  God commanded them to love good, hate evil, and to establish justice so that God could be merciful to them.  The Bible says that “The LORD watches over the sojourners; he upholds the widow and the fatherless, but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin” (Ps 146:9).  It also says that “If a king faithfully judges the poor, his throne will be established forever (Prov 29:14).  Protecting the poor and vulnerable would include taking action against human trafficking, slave labor, unjust labor practices whether here or abroad, and things of this sort.  Therefore, another question to ask would be:  “Does the candidate promote policies and laws that promote the welfare of all citizens without partiality?  Does the candidate work to end practices that take advantage of and trample on the weak and defenseless?  Whether it is children, the aged, those with special needs, the poor, the preborn, or the sojourner, etc., does the candidate work to uphold the value, rights, and dignity of all human life?

5. Displays administrative and ethical wisdom.  This involves both character and skill, each of which are extremely important.  In Proverbs 8:12-16, Wisdom speaks and declares, “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion. The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil.  Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.  I have counsel and sound wisdom; I have insight; I have strength. By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; by me princes rule, and nobles, all who govern justly.”  Proverbs 29:4 says “A king brings stability to a land by justice, but one who exacts tribute tears it down.”  Ecclesiastes 9:17 says, “The words of the wise heard in quiet are better than the shouting of a ruler among fools.”  Passages such as these are a reminder of the need for both administrative skill and wisdom.  They are also a reminder that wisdom is not the same as being slick or efficient.  True wisdom is inseparable from righteousness, character, humility and ability.  Questions to ask would include:  “Does the candidate display leadership skill?  Does the candidate display good ethics in his policies and beliefs?  Is the candidate fair and wise in issues of taxation and policies?  Does the candidate display a willingness to listen to counsel and wisdom? 

6. Stewardship of resources.  This is not only an issue of wisdom but is also connected to the mandate God gave to mankind in the beginning.  When God created man in Genesis, he gave them the task to have dominion over the earth, to rule over it, and to be its keeper or caretaker.  Genesis 2:15 says, that God placed man in his creation to “work it and keep it.”  This, along with the instruction to “have dominion” over the earth in Genesis 1:28, indicates the responsibility that man has.  Ruling activity includes being a caretaker.  This means that scientific activity that learns to harness the resources of the earth for good while managing it wisely is a God-given mandate.  A Question to ask would include:  Does the candidate display a concern for the wise management and stewardship of resources?  

7. Promotes the productivity and welfare of the people.  By design, man was made to be productive and to work.  It is interesting to see how God had instructed Israel to provide for the able poor.  In Leviticus 23, God instructed growers not to harvest all the way to the edges of their fields, but to leave the remainder for the poor.  The idea was that the poor would be able to glean some of the produce.  This was a means not only to provide for the able poor, but to preserve their dignity by allowing them to work.  In fact, 1 Thessalonians 3:6-12 gave explicit instructions to the church concerning lazy people.  If they refused to work, then they were not to get any help.  Questions to ask would include:  “Does the Candidate promote policies that helps created the conditions for the poor to be able to be productive?  Does the candidate help to create an environment where people have opportunity for productivity and progress?  Does the candidate avoid policies that would have a tendency to squash productivity, innovation, and progress?

8. Displays good character.  Proverbs 14:34 says, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”  Obviously, leaders need to display righteousness and good character.  The Bible is replete with examples of the effect of unrighteous leaders.  Questions to ask would include: Does the candidate promote an environment conducive to righteous living?  Does the candidate display good character?

There are many other issues that we consider in candidates.  Some are a matter of preference, and some may be a matter of what is good or bad.  But those in this list are perhaps the most important for the Christian.  

Voting Process Considerations:

After consideration of what the Bible teaches about the difference between the Kingdom of God and the World and what my place is in it, and after reflection on the characteristics in a candidate that I should consider from a biblical standpoint, there are a couple of other things that I keep in mind as I proceed.

First, I consider the information I have.   On the one side, I have the biblical information that I need to think theologically about this.  However, the other side is much harder to navigate.  When it comes to accurate information about the candidates and the issues, some sources are extremely biased and incomplete.  I tend to the sources that give a fuller and more accurate picture.  There have been those who have demonstrated and written about how much of what is called journalism has gotten sloppy, lazy, and sometimes downright misleading.  What is trying to be passed off as information is often propaganda.  It can be designed either to distract or to mislead.

All of this is a reminder to myself to make the extra effort to ensure I am getting good information.  It is a reminder to sift out the chaff from the wheat and to not get distracted from the questions I am considering about the candidates.  I stay focused on the questions I have carefully constructed above to ask about the candidates before I consider anything else.

Some sources of information include:

     1) Website and Printed Material.  Go to the candidate’s own website and publications to see where the candidate says he/she stands on certain policies and issues

     2) The Record.  If a candidate already has a political record as a representative, go to the congressional website to see their voting record on the bills that have come before them.

     3) Speeches and Debates.  Listen carefully to what the candidate says and does not say as well as how forthright the candidate is.  

     4) Other Sources.  Other sources might include something like a voter guide.  The are several Christian organizations that provide voter guides that highlight where candidates stand on certain issues based either on an answered questionnaire sent to the candidate, or on their voting record or published comments.  A couple of places to start would be www.christianvoterguide.com or www.myfaithvotes.org  

Second, I consider what my votes mean and what they do not mean.  For me, a vote does not mean I endorse everything about a candidate or believe that a candidate is a stellar human being.  I am voting for who, out of all of those who are running for a particular office, meets the greatest number of the considerations that I have listed above.  I have never voted for a perfect candidate, and probably never will.  There have been times when I did not care for any candidate.  However, I knew one of those candidates was going to take office whether I voted or not.  Therefore, I voted for the better of the candidates, or as some put it, “the least worst.”  That is all my vote means and nothing more.  This is why I always have found voting preferable over not voting at all.  It is one small way to be the salt of the earth.

Third, I do not become consumed with politics.  Politics are not my life, nor are they the life of the church.  Galatians 3:28 says that in Christ, we are all children of God, and that there is neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male nor Female, we are all one in Christ Jesus.  This means that in Christ we are neither Republican nor Democrat but are one in Christ.  The Bible says that the Kingdom of God will put an end to the Kingdom of this world when the King returns.  We are ambassadors for Christ in his eternal Kingdom.  Our hopes and dreams reside with him, not with the leaders of this world or their parties.  We are “Christians,” which in Greek means, “Of the party of Christ.”  Our platform is the Gospel and our goal is the Eternal Kingdom.  I was reminded of this when I saw the image of one of our presidents on the front page of a magazine after his re-election.  Under his face, the heading read, “Second Coming.”  That so-called “second coming” has now come and went.  The only “Second Coming” I place my hope in is the second coming of our Lord, King, and Savior, Jesus the Messiah.  It is like the song says, “In Christ alone my hope is found.”

What Are We Supposed to Learn?

When a “natural disaster” hits, we are quick to jump to God’s defense with an assertion that God did not cause this.  I can still remember when “natural disasters” were called “acts of God.”  The term, “natural disaster” takes God out of the picture all together.  The word, “natural” fits in nicely with “naturalism,” which is the belief that the world operates without any divine activity because the supernatural does not exist. 

As I read through the scriptures, I get a different picture.  Due to rampant sin or injustice, God would either intervene or withdraw. The results included things like plagues, famines, and enemy invasions.  The prophets pointed out that these were most definitely “acts of God.”  Their purpose was either to motivate the people to repent, or to punish due to lack of repentance.

When some of these things happen today, people call them, “natural disasters” rather than “acts of God.”  We are offended at the suggestion that God would do such things.  Many of the “official prophets” who worked in the kings courts were also offended at the faithful prophets of Yahweh when they issued prophetic warnings and instructions connected to “acts of God” (Jer 26; 38:1-13; Amos 7; Is 30:8-10; 1 Kg 22;13-28)  The false prophets seemed more interested in raising troop morale and comforting the people than speaking God’s word in difficult times.

I have to ask myself, “Do I sound more like the faithful prophets of Yahweh, or the chaplains of the kings court?”  “Am I helping people ask theological questions after a disaster that will lead to a reevaluation of loyalties, ethics, and morals?

Listen to the message of the prophet Joel after a Locust plague destroyed everything, “Yet even now,” declares the Lord, “return to me with all your heart,
with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; and rend your hearts and not your garments.” Return to the Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love; and he relents over disaster. (Joel 2:12-13). 

God’s intervention was not an isolated event.  Notice God’s words to Solomon after he finished building and dedicating the temple, “When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayer that is made in this place” (2 Chr 7:13-15).  

God continues to act for the sake of repentance.  In Revelation, John wrote that after God had sent plagues and disasters, they “still did not repent.” (Rev 9:20,21; 16:9,11).

In Matthew 5, Jesus said, “You are the light of the world.”  I have to ask myself the question, “What does God’s light sound like in a time of darkness?”  Is it, “God had nothing to do with this!  It will be over soon!  Everything will be okay!”? Or, is it, “We don’t know exactly how God is working, but we do know that he wants us to repent and turn to him.  If we do this, then everything will ultimately be okay, because Jesus has overcome the world!”

The Courts In our Lives

I used to watch the People's Court on TV when it came out in the early 80s.  Then there was Judge Judy and a whole bunch of other similar shows that came out.  For awhile, there were so many of these kinds of shows on Television that it was hard to keep track of them all.  It seems as if everyone loved to watch courtroom drama. 

All of these different kinds of "courts" brings to mind a passage that gives an evaluation of different kinds of courts. 

I Corinthians 4:3-4 says, "I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself.  My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent.  It is the Lord who judges me."

The first courts the text mentions are human courts.  Sometimes we refer to the "Court of Public Opinion."  This refers to what the public thinks of certain things, actions, or people.  We also have our official courts of law.  This is where legal decisions are handed down.  The judgement of a court of can order someone to cease and desist, to pay a fine, or even do time in jail.  Both of these are human courts.  This passage makes it clear that human courts are not what ultimately will judge us in the end.  Human courts are not the ultimate standard to judge us.  In fact, human courts are just as fallible as the human beings in them, especially the court of public opinion.

Another "court" is the one in our heads.  Every single one of us has a conscience that either convicts us or excuses us.  When we consider an action, our conscience is our inner guide that tells us whether it is right or wrong.  However, according to this passage, our conscience is not the standard of authority that will ultimately judge us.  In fact, our consciences can be defiled according to Titus 1:15, or seared as with a hot iron, according to 1 Timothy 4:2.  Even if our consciences are clear, this does not make us innocent.  A person's personal conscience is not what ultimately determines what is right or wrong.

The final court is the court of the Lord.  This is ultimately the only court that matters in the end.  It is not the court of public opinion, human courts, or even one's personal conscience that ultimately will judge a person in the end.  It is the Lord who judges.  This means that it is not the word of man, but the word of God that is the standard. 

This is a reminder that popularity does not make something right.  The majority does not make something right.  What is considered right, good, or enlightened by society in today's times does not make something right.  What everyone else is doing does not make something right.  Even if something is legal, this does not necessarily mean it is right.  In fact, Proverbs 14:12 says that there is a way that "appears" to be right, but in the end it leads to death.

This is why it is so important to live in the word of God and let it shape and mold your mind.  Romans 12:2 says "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

Neither the court of public opinion, nor some human court, nor even my personal conscience is what will judge me in the end.  It is the Lord who judges.

Lord, please forgive me for the times that I allowed myself to be more influenced by the world and its values rather than your word.  Father, please grant discernment and wisdom to see things as they really are.  Help me to view things from your perspective.  Help me to evaluate everything according to truth, which comes from you.  Remind me that the pattern of this world is passing away and will be destroyed, but you and your kingdom will endure forever.  May I be conformed to the image of Christ rather than to the pattern of this world. 

White Light and Black Light

It couldn't have happened at a better time. I had just finished preaching a sermon about light and darkness earlier that day. Jesus is the true light who "lightens up" everything (Jn 1:9). There is nothing to do in the darkness except grope and stumble.

And there I was after dark, running across the yard with the dog. Well, running until I stepped in one of his ongoing projects - a hole that he has been digging on. POP! I felt something snap in my angle…and the pain! Never felt pain quite like that. I was completely helpless laying in the yard. I couldn't get up. To top it off, the dog was climbing on me. He is just a puppy, so I don't know whether he thought I was playing or he was concerned.

The world is in darkness, and many do not even realize it. Oh, there is light, but it is not the true light. It will light "some" things up, but not everything. I like to use a blacklight to illustrate this. It will light some things up, but not everything. What it does light up does not appear as it really is because the colors will be off. There will be dangers that do not show up.

Some examples that I can think of include such things as the current way of dating. It seems rather harmless on the surface. A new boyfriend or girlfriend every week? What could be the harm? Everyone is doing it. Yet, I wonder how continuing a pattern of using people until they are used up will affect a person? I wonder how the casual going together followed by break ups desensitize people to the ravages of divorce? Whether it is for popularity, to fit in, or some other reason, is this really a good thing? A better question - is this a godly thing?

Then there is the "faith is private" message so prevalent today. I hear it often these days. "Religion should have nothing to do with public policy." Whether it is the ethics of medical research, the direction of public policies, or the education of our young people, religion no longer has a public place. God has been replaced by science, psychology, sociology, and other things of this nature. The result is voodoo science that no one sees as voodoo science. Whether embryonic stem cell research, abortion, cloning, so called' euthanasia, and other such things, the guiding principle seems to be pragmatics. But is pure pragmatics good? Many of the Hitlers and the Stalins of the world sure seemed to think so. The sad thing is that when Hitler was committing some of his most atrocious acts, much of the religious community did nothing. Faith was a private, not a public matter. In matters of public policy, the church took a hands off policy.

The scary thing is that in our country faith is considered a private matter much more so than in Europe a century ago. Professing Christians often do not see God as a relevant part of their world, only in their religious devotion. That is why you can have contradictory public figures who profess faith in God and the Bible as his word yet hold social and political ideologies that are contrary to the nature and will of God. They have divided truth up into secular truth and religious truth. Secular truth is the truth of science, history, medicine, etc. It is seen as public, objective, universal truth. Religious truth is seen as private, subjective, and personal. This is not "true" light. It is black light.

I have come to realize that "secularism" is an illusion of supposed enlightened minds. The word "secular" is less than 200 years old, so you will not find it in scripture. The concept does not even exist in scripture. Why? According to scripture, God is the creator and sustainer of the world.

"For by Him all things were created, {both} in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Col 1:16-17).

This is God's world, it all belongs to him.

"The earth is the LORD'S, and all it contains, The world, and those who dwell in it" (Ps 24:1).

Many today use a world that comes from the field of anthropology, "World View." In primitive places in the world, they speak of an "animistic worldview" that sees the world and all of it objects as full of spirits who need to be appeased. In our country, there is the secularist world view that divides the world up into religious and secular. But the Biblical world view is that the world and everything belongs to God and is accountable to God.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse" (Rom 1:20).

God was involved in world affairs of people other than Israel. Some more well known examples come from Nineveh through Jonah and Babylon followed by the Persians and the Medes through Daniel. In fact, God refers to Cyrus as his "anointed" (Isa 45:1). Amos 6:2 seems to imply that God had done something among places we know nothing about.

A biblical world-view is a huge subject to tackle. There is a biblical and theological view of everything, whether it is medical ethics, politics, history, science, philosophy, or mathematics. Most classes on these subjects, even in Christian schools, do not begin with God as the foundation of whatever discipline is being studied. There was a time when biblical theology was considered the "Queen of all the sciences." This world view no longer dominates the world of academia.

The question always to ask is this - where is God in this? How does God view this? How does the nature and character of God affect this? If you are not used to thinking this way, then it will be hard. Resist the inclination to try and avoid or explain away uncomfortable conclusions, especially conclusions that suggest you need to do an overhaul in your thinking or practice. If not, then you have blacklight. It may look cool, it may draw more attention, it may be more acceptable. However, at best that will lead you into the potholes rather than the glory of the Kingdom of God. Jesus is the true light, and we need to see our lives, activity, our world through his eyes.

On Principalities and the Spirit of the Age: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Caring Ministries

"In our day and time it is the language of the market that governs the way of the world in Paul's sense of that term. The vocabulary of commerce and the syntax of consumption not only distort our relationship with God and thus with each other, they also miscast the church in the role of retail vendor, trading in spiritual goods and services. Thus the market conforms the member's of Christ's body to its ways precisely at the point where the risen Lord summons them to be transformed." [1]

As I read and ponder this quotation, I am reminded just how subtle culture is. Unless we are on the outside looking into our culture, values and assumptions of the culture will usually go unnoticed. I used to be disturbed by some of the language I used to read in evangelism material and in church growth literature of the 1980's. I had trouble articulating why it bothered me so much, it didn't seem quite right. Terms such as "marketing" the church or "closing the study" or finding "prospects" to have an evangelistic Bible study with all sounded too similar to what salesmen who came to my door did. It had a sales and business feel to it. What could be wrong with that? I remember hearing preachers say we need to learn from the business world. Many businessmen built successful organizations and there is much we can learn from this.

I agree that there are things we can learn from outsiders. However, it can become a problem when kingdom people who are not of this realm uncritically adopt methods and ways of doing things their cultural context. The fundamental problem lies in the values, assumptions, and worldview that underlie the structures and activities that exist in the culture.

The underlying values and assumptions in our culture are connected to individualism and consumerism.

Americans are often called "consumers." We no longer consume to live, but live to consume. Our culture seems to accept this as the way things are without questioning it.

Individualism assumes that people are basically autonomous. The focus in life is on self-actualization or personal fulfillment. Therefore, people will look for ways to improve their lives, raise their self-esteem, and find some sort of meaning in life. This should result in happiness and fulfillment.

On the surface, there seems to be nothing really wrong with any of this. However, it is very self-centered. It seems that individualism and consumerism can have a tendency to turn everything into a commodity, even human relationships and God!

Since the Kingdom of God is not of this realm, then it seems that kingdom people would cease to be kingdom people if they buy into individualism and consumerism. Rather than seeing themselves as part of God's church and inherently as agents of God's mission to engage the world selflessly, Christians may see the church as a place to "meet their needs, whether it is esteem needs, physical needs, or self-actualization. The church becomes the vendor and the people become the consumers. The church becomes an institution to attract people to their products and services, and the people become a means to build the organization.

If this is the paradigm, it is any wonder that many people cannot find happiness even in church? Some "shop around" for churches, until they find the one that suits their needs. A particular church may have better social activities. It might have a better children's program. It may have better singing, or more interesting preaching. And the list goes on and on. As consumers, some church members begin to look to other sources that provide similar services for them to consume. Sometimes it may be a civic organization, a club, or something else. As a vendor, the church works to satisfy its customers. It tries to compete with other churches or organizations. The church as a vendor has a hard time competing in the market with other organizations that provide better entertainment, a wider array of social activities, and greater expertise at what they do.

Is it any wonder that the Church Growth phase is now shriveling? Fuller Theological Seminary, once known for its education in Church Growth principles, has recognized many of the shortcomings in the Church Growth movement and has been transitioning to what people are calling a "Missional" model. Many folks like those at Fuller have recognized the weaknesses of the Church Growth model in our changing culture. The success stories associated with the Church Growth model obscured some of its theological shortcomings that stemmed from a blending of some of the underlying assumptions of the times with Christian faith. But that is another story.

I reflect on all of this as a reminder of the pitfalls of engaging the people around us. We want to meet their needs in the way Christ did, not in the way our consumerist culture does. Our mission is not to vend spiritual goods and services, but to engage the hurting and the broken with the holistic good news of Christ, and invite them into the Reign of God. We do not invite them to become customers or consumers, but to be formed into the image of Christ. It is not really about self-actualization. In fact, the whole concept of self-actualization is a fallacy. Theologically, there is only "God-Actualization," if you can call it that. God-Actualization comes not from individualism, but from communion. It doesn't come from consuming, but from giving. It comes from transformation into the image of Christ and participating in his mission from the same motive and heart as God.

I think that if I understand this, then I will be able to do what I can for the sake of the mission of Christ, for the kingdom without worrying about if it benefits my particular congregations directly. I will not be disheartened when I expend energies and resources to help people and there appears to be little "success." I can be free from high-pressure tactics of evangelism and love people in the way Christ did. I can recognize that being socially conscious and being faithful to the Gospel of the kingdom go hand in hand. Perhaps we would eventually be able to shed the opinion by outsiders that all we are interested is "getting me into your church," and that like God, we are interested in them personally. I believe that understanding God's heart and how it is in conflict with the spirit of the age, I can be free to love authentically and have a credible witness.
____________________

[1] James V. Brownson and others, StormFront: The Good News of God, The Gospel and Our Culture Series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 29.

Church and Culture

Note: This might be unsettling, so before you read on, please understand this is part of my journey of faith, and you many not see or understand the spirit of our age and its affect on us in the same way I do. I am so thankful that God is a gracious God and does not require perfect understanding, but faithfulness. I love my Lord, and I love the church that he love so much that he died for. This is not meant to be conclusive, but I share it here to spark introspection and discussion about what is happening among us.

Nearly all sociologists agree that the Western world is in the midst of a huge cultural shift that began over four decades ago. Just as there was a huge cultural shift two hundred years ago with the enlightenment which in part fueled many revival movements, six hundred years ago with the Renaissance which in part fueled the reformation, and sixteen hundred years ago with the Constantinian system which gave rise to "Christendom," so we are now undergoing another shift. No one quite knows what the next shift will look like in years to come.

The interesting thing is that these shifts enable us to look with a more critical eye with the strengths and weaknesses of the previous paradigms and cultural assumptions. While Christians in the west are still affected by the Christendom and Reformation paradigms, the most recent Enlightenment paradigms has had the most profound effect. In fact, it was the enlightenment paradigm that produced the greatest amount of division among churches in the United States. This was far from the intent of many of the religious leaders of the 18th and 19th centuries. The goal was unity of the Christian church. The enlightenment led to a thought in the west that there was a scientific methodological solution to everything. We only had to investigate and test all the available data to improve the human condition. There was a very positive feeling in the air that gave the West a feeling of destiny and progress. This affected the church deeply. The same scientific mindset was applied to Christianity. Since scientific truth was deemed to be objective and true, what was needed was a scientific study of the scriptures to produce an objective truth to which all Christians could subscribe to, thereby producing unity. The Bible became more of an object to be analyzed and dissected. If rational logic and science produced advances in other disciplines, it was thought that the same would apply in Biblical studies. Not only would enlightenment ways of thinking with its rational thought, logic, and scientific outlook improve the human condition, it promised to improve the religious condition as well. The assumption that humans were capable of much led to little need for the power of the Spirit or of grace. The inherent sinfulness of man and the need for grace and faith that dominated reformation thought melted away in the enlightenment years. Many Christians believed that their effort to improve the human condition and religious condition was going to usher in the millennial reign of God. Many today call this "post-millennialism," which dominated most religious movements, including churches of Christ. This belief was heavily affected, like so many others, by the spirit of the age. Due to the civil war and two world wars, we don't hear much about post-millennialism any more. It has given way to the more pessimistic pre-millennialism, which believes things will get worse rather than better, as post-millennial thought did.

In part, the project failed. Instead of unity, more division resulted. Various religious groups used the same scientific, objective mindset in approaching the scriptures and believed they found a blueprint for true Christianity and for the church. Some codified them in the form of creedal statements and "confessions of faith," others merely propagated them in journals, which many people regarded as almost authoritative. There arose a certain dogmatism among many religious groups. They arrived at their "truth" using commonly accepted methods, yet not everyone arrived at the same conclusions. The result was that many churches began to emphasize aspects of them that were different than everyone else. In other words, they defined themselves in terms of other churches whom they deemed as incorrect, or even apostate. Their focus was on their distinctiveness in relation to other churches rather than in relation to the Bible or of the world at large. In all of this, there was not a big push for missions or evangelism. The revivals of this period were in part a reaction to all of this. The church began more and more fragmented. Using the same framework, how could so many come up with various conclusions?

This highlights some of the shortcomings of human reason, rationality, and the scientific method. Perhaps this is not the way God intended for us to read the Bible. Perhaps the word is supposed to analyze and dissect us rather than the other way around. Perhaps we need to read and meditate rather than merely scrutinize and analyze. Is it up to us to find the key or method in order to understand the Bible? Is it only by our intelligence and enlightened minds that we can apply the "correct" hermeneutic and interpretive principles or have the message of the Bible shut out to us? It is interesting that indigenous cross-cultural churches that have not been indoctrinated with western Christianity do not treat the Bible the same way many westerners do.

All of this can understandably and rightly be very unsettling. This is talking about seeing things in a much different way than we are accustomed to. But this is nothing new. Remember how people reacted when they heard the contention that the universe does not revolve around the earth, but that the earth revolves around the sun? Or how people reacted with the contention that the world was round and not flat? The list can go on and on. Some of the same dynamic is at work. Our paradigm is shifting. As a result, the way we read scripture, how we apply it, and the way that will look is also changing. Many are beginning to realize that the message is not an impersonal blueprint, but the message is a person, Jesus Christ. God didn't endeavor merely to give more scripture, but to produce a human model in Christ. He himself IS the message.

Wouldn't this destroy the church? Will it to lead to further fragmentation and division? Not if we understand the nature of Christian unity. Unity is not based on 100% agreement on all points of doctrine (Rom 14). In fact, you can have different convictions on some things and still be unified according to what Paul says in Romans 14. Paul never emphasizes who is right and who is wrong in Romans 14 because that was not his purpose. His purpose was to unite the church in the love of Christ. In fact, Paul explicitly states that when a person is true to his convictions to the Lord, the Lord accepts him, and we have no right to condemn him who the Lord has accepted. We need to understand that unity is first and foremost the work of God (Eph 2). It is God who unites us all together in Christ. We need to strive to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4). If unity is first and foremost the work of God, then that means we do not create it, we preserve it. Indeed, Paul does not say to "create" unity, but to "preserve" unity.

This is not an easy task. A look at the problem the church had from the very beginning with the Jewish Gentile problem demonstrates this is no easy task. One solution might have been the creation of Gentile churches apart from Jewish churches. Two "denominations" if you will. This was unacceptable to Paul. Even though they had different convictions, if they divided, they would not reflect the body of Christ. We serve one God, not two Gods, a God of the gentiles and a God of the Jews. We had to be one. In fact, Paul emphasizes the oneness of God and therefore the oneness of the body and our faith in Ephesians four. Only one people of God. Is it possible to have people in the one body with different convictions? Paul certainly believed so. Paul explicitly says that the principle underlying the preservation of unity in Romans 14 is love.

What does this mean? It does not mean we dispense with Christ, his atoning work on the cross, or his resurrection. That is anathema and the spirit of the Anti-Christ. It does mean that we need to proceed with love, humility and grace. If we reject someone whom God has accepted because they have differing convictions about certain things, then we are wrong. Jesus was more condemning of the Pharisees and their attitudes than any other people. Many official religious groups have their own traditions of men that they tout as authoritative in a similar way that Pharisees did. It is easy to point a finger at everyone else in this regard, but when you point a finger at someone else, you have three others that are pointing right back at you.

Once again, humility, love, and grace is what we needs to characterize us. If we have this, I believe that we can be much more effective in carrying out the mission of Christ. Instead of focusing on our "distinctiveness" in relation to other churches, we can focus on the mission that Christ has left us with. We can truly begin to walk in his shoes and take his challenges to us seriously. As Jesus left heaven and went to where those in need were, we can leave our distinctive church buildings and go to where the hurting, poor, and oppressed are and invite them into the freedom, peace, and joy found in Christ. We can be a people of peace and joy and love. We can be the city set on a hill. We can engage in what Christ was most passionate about, which were ministries of compassion, which brought good news to the poor, downcast, and the oppressed.

Perhaps the more authentic expression of the Christian faith has more to do with practice than profession.

It is not my intent to be dogmatic about any of this, but merely to attempt to be honest about looking at myself and the tradition in which I was raised. I love Christ, and I love the church that he died for. I am in the process of recommitting myself to the Reign of God and am re-learning what it means to take the challenges and example of Christ seriously and with grace.

Biblical Faithfulness

One of the distinctive traits of Churches of Christ has been its commitment to Biblical faithfulness. This is why we send our men to ministry training schools that have an emphasis on studying the text of the Bible.

As I consider my own experience, I am challenged by a deficiency that I have both witnessed and been a part of. When I was younger, I remember sitting in countless Bible classes learning what was in various books of the Bible. I also remember studying various doctrines of the Bible in various classes. Often the emphasis was on what made us different than other churches. Most of these had to do with worship practices, baptism, and the institutional structure of the church. Eventually, this became how we identified ourselves as being "faithful."

I didn’t realize it at the time, but the "consumerism" of our culture may have been a contributing factor toward this. There were churches all over town with whom we were competing with. With all the choices in the religious marketplace, which one should a person go to? Every aspect of life in our modern culture presents an array of choices. As a result, the producers of these goods "market" their product. Many churches inadvertently followed the same mindset. Every church had a bit of a competitive marketing involved in its outreach. They all emphasized different things, but we emphasized that we were the purest and trust church of all without all the denominational baggage. We didn't have all the "additives." We were "organic," so-to-speak. "Choose us, we are closest to the original first century church." Were we really, or did we fall short of the full picture of what the church is to be like? Were we truly free of "additives" as we claimed to be, or were there other "additives" there that we were not aware of? I have to wonder, if there were no "competition" in the church market, how would we have identified ourselves then? We certainly would not have emphasized out distinctiveness in the same way.

After re-reading the Gospels, I am convinced that the most important aspects of what the Church of our Lord is supposed to look like was missing. In the studies of the doctrine of the church, I remember very little references to the Gospels, except for Peter's confession and Jesus' response when he said "I will build MY church" in Matthew 16:18. This emphasis came from a desire to identify ourselves as distinct from denominations. This is "Christ's" church, not Luther's church, Wesley's church, etc. I remember a few years ago hearing a preacher say that no one wants to preach Matthew 16:18 any more. As the sermon progressed, it became clear that what he was talking about was more of the same distinctive marks that we have emphasized in the past. However, there is so much more in the Gospels about the church than this. In fact, I am beginning to understand that the heart of what the church is supposed to look like comes from the Gospel writers. The instructions from Jesus in the Gospels were not intended to be individualistic, but communal. The individualism that characterizes our culture usually causes us to apply Jesus' instructions on the individual level but miss the significant of the communal level. As God's people, we are to be a kingdom of priests, a light to the nations, a city set on a hill. That can only happen on a communal level. The message of Christ began and ended with the Reign of God as its central motif, and the Reign of God consists of a "community" of believers that collectively demonstrate the Reign of God as a kingdom of priests.

What are the marks of the Reign of God? That is a different question than "How are we distinct from denominations?" The Sermon on the Mount is a good place to start on identifying the marks of the Reign of God. . In fact, the very first Beatitude identifies the Reign of God as consisting of those who are poor in spirit.

Jesus said there that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Keep in mind that the Greek, nomos, "law" is the translation for the Hebrew word, torah. Torah does not merely mean law, as in a code, but means "instruction." In fact, the verb form of the word, torah, means "to instruct." So when God handed down his Torah in Exodus, he was instructing the people on how to live under his reign. As a "kingdom" of priests under God's reign (Ex 19:1-6), they were to embody God's ideal as a light to the nations. However, Israel failed dismally. They thought like and acted like the kingdoms around them.

Jesus came to fulfill Torah, not abolish it. In other words, Jesus is the embodiment of the ideal subject under the reign of God. When God first established his reign in Israel, Israel failed to demonstrate the ideal. So Jesus came to demonstrate what the reign of God looks like. I challenge you to read through it carefully and list the identifying marks of the Reign of God, especially the last couple of sections of the sermon.

Here is the irony. People like that preacher that said we don't like to preach Matthew 16:18 are themselves probably missing what it is all about. The Church of "Christ" is more than institutional structures. The Reign of God is more than Cappella singing. It is about following in Christ's footsteps in every way. Do we really follow in his footsteps in every way?

Here is where the challenge came. We "knew" a lot of scripture. However, Jesus puts the emphasis in the Sermon on the Mount not just on "knowing," but on doing. Many people are on the broad way that leads to destruction. Not everyone who says Lord Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who listen and do the words of the sermon are like a wise man who builds his house on a solid foundation. For those who read and know but do not do….well, does the Reign of God really exist there?

As important as Bible study is, the purpose is not merely to accumulate academic knowledge, but to lean "how to" think, act, and live under God's reign. Knowing AND doing ALL of God's word…that is biblical faithfulness.

The State of the American Church (part 2 of 2)

In the first part of this piece, I gave my reflections on some of the factors that I believe contribute toward the general decline of the Lord's Church. These included:

1) A misunderstanding of what our calling is to be as a church.
2) Misunderstanding of our relationship to Culture, which is changing.
3) A misunderstanding of what our message should be.
4) A weak spirituality.

The point of this was not merely to be critical of our culture or of the Lord's Church as has become fashionable in recent years. Instead, the purpose of this essay is to assist in moving believers toward a more faithful vision of the Lord's mission in today's time.

Deeper Than Method

I have not explicitly mentioned "methods" in any of my reflections here. It seems that a methodological solution may be more a product of our culture than of Biblical reflection. In the modern Western Mindset, there is the thought that there is a scientific methodological solution to every problem. I would not be surprised to find that many disciplines might have been affected by this mindset. In Psychology, that is probably where the "behavior modification" theory came from. In the 1980's, I think one strand of the Church Growth Movement was fueled partly by the same mindset. The thought seemed to be that if the church is not growing, then we need to adjust our methodology in order to fix the problem. Some churches become more market driven, as though they were the dispenser of religious goods and the members were the consumers. Overall, the Church Growth Movement did not deliver what it promised. I think we learned a lot from the Church Growth Movement, one of which is that the solutions go much deeper than method. Part of the problem may have been we have identified the wrong thing as the problem. Dwindling numbers are not the problem. They are the symptom of a deeper problem. The solution has more to do with our sense of God-given identity, who we are, and what we are called to do. The changes in our culture along with dwindling numbers have forced us to re-examine these questions. A cultivation of a deeper spirituality, which helps us to discover God's answers to these questions, is a step in the right direction.

Over all, I believe that when the church is faithful to its calling to be a sent people, and that when it has the correct emphasis in its message and practice, that the mission of God will be carried out. What is encouraging to me is that I am beginning to see more and more people grapple with these sorts of issues with a commitment to be faithful to the mission of God.

But what should it look like in our particular cultural context? How can the church faithfully carry out the mission of God? Obviously, this looks different in African churches than in North American churches. Missiologists have combined a sound theology with insights from social sciences such as cultural anthropology, which gave birth to "Missionary Anthropology." Their insights on how to contextualize the Gospel in order to establish indigenous, healthy churches that can effectively engage their own culture has proven to be a fantastic success in the last three generations. Their understanding of cross-cultural missions has enabled them to better carry out the mission of God in their culture. It seems to me that the mission of God is becoming increasingly "cross-cultural" right here in North America. Our culture is shifting from its Western Christianized roots. This means that it will take wisdom and insight to avoid doing what early missionaries did in places like Africa, which was to infuse the gospel with western culture and convert people not to just Christianity, but to "Westernize" them as well. This did not work well. Just as a tropical plant that is transplanted to a climate that it is not indigenous to will become sickly, the church in Africa was the same way when missionaries indiscriminately mixed western culture with the Gospel. Could it be that this is now an issue in North America? Is it possible that our ineffectiveness might be due in part to trying to promote withering Western ideas that are no longer "indigenous" to America? Is this why Christians are finding it increasingly difficult to share the message of God with a culture that seems to become increasingly alien to them?

I don't have all the answers, but I do believe that in our effort to be faithful to the mission of God, we are going to have to find new ways to communicate the message of God, and it will not be centered around a "building" or an "institution." What is encouraging to me is that I am now seeing this begin to take place around the country as Christians begin to think more outside the box. At this point in our history, the box of western culture will only limit our effectiveness in carrying out the mission of God. The mission of God is about going where the people are and inviting them into the Reign of God, which the Lord offers to those who truly believe, not about building an institution.

The "Reign" of God

Perhaps an answer can be found in a reexamination of what the Reign of God is supposed to look like while being aware of our cultural biases. "Reign" is a better rendering than "kingdom," because "kingdom" implies geographical and political boundaries. The original Hebrew phrase was Malkut Shemayim "Reign/Rule of Heaven," not "kingdom," which is a different Hebrew word. The English word, "kingdom" came from the Greek language, which translated this phrase using the word, basileia. This word can mean either "reign/rule" or "kingdom." Context identifies which meaning is meant in Greek. The context goes back to the Hebraic image of the "Reign of God," which transcends geographical, social, or political boundaries. Indeed, Jesus said that His reign was not of this realm (Jn 18:36). This is why Jesus said that the reign of God is "in you" (Lk 17:21).

In my experience, preachers and teachers rarely looked to the Gospels in their study of the Lord's Church, with the exception of Jesus' words, "I will build my church." This leaves out a very significant portion of the teaching concerning the Lord's church. Jesus' favorite term was the "Reign of God." It was the centerpiece of his teaching. Everything he taught flowed from that concept. The concept of the Reign of God goes all the way back to creation where God instructed mankind to "rule" the earth, which mankind failed at. Jesus, the ultimate son of man (human), and also the Son of God, inaugurated a new Reign of God, which was the fulfillment of God's promises. What does life look like under the Reign of God? What are the identifying marks of the Reign of God? You come away with a very different picture from the Gospels than some of the studies I grew up with that stressed more of the "institutional structures," such as the "plurality of elders" the "Bible as its only constitution," and things of this nature. The Reign of God is subtle yet pervasive. It is quiet yet subversive. It redefines every aspect of thinking, motivation, and actions. For example, the Sermon on the Mount is an exposition of the Reign of God. Like the instructions for kingdom life in Deuteronomy, which spells out the blessing of living under the rule of God, Jesus spells out the blessedness of living under the Reign of God for the Christian in the Sermon on the Mount. A fresh reading of the Gospels with a heart to truly participate in the Reign of God does not allow one to be a "nominal Christian."

What does the Reign of God look like? Jesus' picture of the reign of God looks very different than many of the "institutional" structures we have been passionate about in the past. What is interesting is that Jesus takes many concepts that were taken for granted and turns them on their head. Here are some examples. Jesus was crowned with glory and honor not by conquest, but through suffering. In God's reign, the nobody becomes somebody and the somebody becomes nobody. In the Reign of God, kindness is returned for insults. In the Reign of God, one gives up everything in order to become rich. One gives up his life in order to live. One receives gifts in order to give. In the Reign of God, the greatest thing is to tend to the "least of these." In the Reign of God, those who are persecuted for righteousness are the blessed ones. In the Reign of God, everyone is equal and shares alike. Their hearts, minds, and souls no longer belong to the system of the world, but belongs to the Lord and King. These are the sorts of things Jesus demonstrated as being marks of the Reign of God. Truly, the Reign of God is not of this realm.

Rather than spell it out any more than this, my humble advice is to re-read the Gospels and note the marks of the Reign of God, and compare it to the culture in which we live, and especially to our local congregation. This is an important exercise because it causes to re-evaluate everything. I once read that, "We do not know who discovered water, but we are pretty sure it wasn't a fish." We live immersed in our culture, which makes us hardly aware of it. This includes both our national culture, and even the subculture of our own congregation which has been shaped by the larger culture. Many of the subtle values of the system of this world we accept and are hardly aware of it.

Ultimately, the challenging and humbling question that should arise from all of this is this: What marks of the Reign of God do are evident in our lives? What will it take for us to be faithful to the mission of God?

The State of the American Church (part 1 of 2)

I recently read a couple of articles in the "Currents" section of the Christian Chronicle that dealt with the current condition of the Lord's Church in America. Overall the church appears to have leveled off in growth, and shows signs of declining in some places. I began to do my own reflection on state of the church, and I will share them here. This is a two part series, the first deals with what I see as challenges, the second part deals with moving in the direction of solutions.

Most congregations that I know of are declining, and the members they have are aging. Overall, it seems to me that the church is sick. I believe that this has been the case for some time, but it has only become recently apparent due to dropping numbers. From my perspective, it seems that it boils down to basically these elements.

1) A misunderstanding of what our calling is to be as a church.

Our love affair with our church buildings along with an institutional mindset contributed to the church building paradigm for Christianity. Many believe our mission and purpose is to manage the organization. Missions, outreach, evangelism, and a number of other activities take a back burner to building centered activities. Our budgets are also a reflection of this mindset. The majority goes toward maintaining the building and building related activities, and if there is not enough left over, missions and outreach get cut. Even though it is not stated this way, this practice seems to demonstrate that the building is primary and things such as missions, evangelism, outreach, etc. are optional.

We are influenced by our culture's view of "institution." We have similar language and practices as those who belong to an "institution." We often speak of "going to church" as one might go to a board meeting. We speak of being a "member" as one might be a member of a lodge. In theory, church membership is much more than this. But in practice, membership is primarily expressed by attending meetings in the building. Staff and leaders are managers and CEOs of the institution, everyone else are members, consumers, and attenders. The result is a nominal Christianity that for many may not be a whole lot different than membership in some other institution. In this way, the church has accepted as "normal" what can only truly be characterized as "nominal" Christianity, while it views what the Bible characterizes as "normal" Christianity as something "extraordinary."

With our institutional mindset, we have lost the biblical emphasis that the church is the body of Christ. The emphasis has typically been that we are the "one and only body." What has been missing is the biblical emphasis that the church is the body of Christ, and therefore represents Christ in the world and his mission. The church's mission is not to send people, but to be a sent people. We are his hands, feet, and mouth to carry on the mission of Christ. Christ did not come to establish church buildings, but to establish the reign of God in the hearts of people. Often our priorities are backwards. Outreach, missions, etc. should be first and foremost. Anything we construct or do should support that mission and not the other way around. If, as the body of Christ we are to be ambassadors of Christ, representing his mission, it must be more than maintaining a meeting place.

From my perspective, I see a positive trend all over the world with the Lord's church. This mindset is slowly changing. It has been painful but positive. We are reexamining many of our dearly held pre-suppositions and are slowly becoming better equipped to engage the world incarnationally as Christ did.

2) Misunderstanding of our relationship to Culture, which is changing.

As I understand it, much of our emphasis over the last 100 years has been on doctrinal purity and the "distinctiveness" of the church. That distinctiveness was usually defined in terms of how we are different than the denominations rather than how we are set apart for Christ. This seemed to work well in a culture that was saturated with Christian ideas, symbolism, and language. I am not sure that the emphasis was so much on Christ as it was that we were the one true correct church. It seems that many were winning people to the church rather than to Christ. This was a reflection of our culture's emphasis on various "institutions," which affected us in ways we didn't realize. Much of our literature printed during this time period demonstrates this emphasis. Many articles and books concerning salvation approached it in terms of an idealized and oversimplified version of church history that highlighted the divisions in Christianity and our plea for unity with a call to become a member of "the one true church," namely, our church, through baptism. The church seemed to receive more emphasis than Christ. As a result of this cultural influence, the church as an institution remained squarely at the center of evangelistic writing. This mindset with its language seemed to resonate with a Western, Christianized culture. Our "Christianized" culture held institutions in high regard and was full of denominations and sects, and we engaged it head on.

However, since the culture has become increasingly secular, many of the ways we identified ourselves culturally are now lost to the citizen who has not been "Christianized." The fact is, we do not know how to engage a culture that has become increasingly secular. We do not realize that we have been shaped by our culture and that many of our practices are an expression of our culture as much as it is an expression of our faith. We have trouble separating the two, not realizing that Christianity stands above culture and therefore is translatable to many cultures, whether it be African, South American, or our North American Culture, which is currently undergoing huge changes. Like more recent missionaries who recognize the need to import the Gospel but not Western Culture, we need to recognize that our efforts in our own back yard need to be the same. Some of what we promote and hand on to is probably a form of Western Culture that is antiquated and passing away. Western Culture is not Christianity as the Bible defines it. Some of the ideas and values of Western Culture squarely contradicts the ideas and values of the Reign/Kingdom of God. If we are coming across as "irrelevant," it may be that we are promoting an older, dying form of Western Culture more than the Reign of God. This is why I believe we need to think like missionaries in our own back yard. According to statistics, there are now more Christians in Africa then there are in North America. Africa can no longer be called the "Dark Continent" as it was 100 years ago. We are (and have always been) a mission, therefore we need to think missionally.

3) A misunderstanding of what our message should be.

Since our way of doing things and our message was shaped by our culture, we speak a language that is stranger than ever to the "Un-Christianized" person. Even when we are able to communicate it in a way that can be understood, it seems irrelevant. Indeed, it often is. I believe that this is because we have not kept a biblical emphasis. While the church is important and biblical, it is not what the early church emphasized in its preaching to those outside. As I see it, themes such as the Fulfillment of the Reign of God, the Gospel, The Return of Christ, The Holy Spirit, and a Call to Faith and Repentance were all part of the Apostolic preaching of the cross. These are not themes that we have typically emphasized. Some of these themes as the Bible portrays it are foreign to us. Our emphasis has often been to highlight what makes us different than the denominations. Whether it was baptism, Communion every first day of the week, instrumental music, denominationalism, multiple elders, etc., we emphasized those things that made us correct in comparison to the denominations. As a result, many people were won to a form rather than to a person. In a culture where a positive institutional loyalty still existed, the church appeared to thrive in numbers with this emphasis.

However, institutional loyalty no longer characterizes our culture. In fact, the general feeling in our culture now is a general distrust of institutions. In the past, the church has operated as an "institution" with all of the many of the same institutional structures and mindset, which worked well when there was a positive view of institutions. However, people do not want to be converted to an institution anymore. Indeed, God does not want anyone to be converted to an institution either! We are called to Christ, not an institution. Historically, when the "institution" was overemphasized in the church, all kinds of problems followed. There are numerous examples of this in the medieval church with all of its institutional forms.

4) A weak spirituality.

There is a mystical element to the Christian faith. That makes many of us in North America very uncomfortable even though African, Asian, and South American Christians do not have a problem with this. The reason is that we have been shaped by Western Culture along with its rationalism and empiricism. We have a tendency to reject anything that cannot be observed, tested, and explained. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the power of the word of God and things of this nature are usually de-emphasized or reinterpreted to mean nothing more than a rational exercise of our mind and will informed by a reading of the Bible. There is little mystery in the daily life of a Christian and little emphasis on the disciplines that create the right conditions for spiritual growth. For some, Bible study is not a whole lot different than reading a philosopher and becoming his "student." Much of faith is very academic in nature and a personal relationship with the Lord is little more than knowing correct doctrine. Religion is reduced to a set of rules and preaching often becomes moralizing on certain topics. There is little need for fasting. Praying is a duty rather than an expression of love and desire for God. Bible reading, if it takes place at all, is for the purpose of knowing the Bible rather than knowing God. Spirituality is where we may be the weakest of all. While we often speak of spiritual growth, we often cannot define what that means. Rather than defining spiritual growth as learning to grow in our love for God in all things, it is usually defined more in terms of the amount of Bible reading one does, the service one renders, or then number of events one attends. All of these are good, but are secondary to loving God.

This weak spirituality, I believe, lies at the foundation of the other three items I mentioned above. A weak spirituality probably leads to the difficulty for seeing the world as it really is and our assigned place in it. Without this clearer vision of our identity, we find it a very difficult challenge to know how to engage our world with the mission of Christ.

Non-Conformist Conformity

I am currently reading a book by Gordon MacDonald entitled, Ordering Your Private World. Over the next few weeks, I am going to reflect on what I believe is the key statement in the book:

"I believe that one of the great battlegrounds of our age is the private world of the individual."

I think that this is a significant observation. Yet I do not think many of us realize it. The Adversary's tactic is one of diversion: placing the scene of the battle where it truly is not. MacDonald talks about sinkholes in our inner lives, which can give way when we accumulate more and more on the surface. It reminded me of my Dad and his garage.

My Dad has a garage behind his house that began to crack and lean. The ground had begun to wash away beneath it. At one point you could actually crawl beneath the garage. I will tell you what Dad didn't do. He didn't repaint it. He didn't try to restructure it to where it looked level. He hired someone to straighten the building, repair the foundation and fill in the gaps.

How easy it is to miss what lies underneath has been slowing eroding and washing away. After all, it is what is beneath the surface that no one notices. In fact, it can be ignored for a large amount of time without any apparent consequence. They fill the garage full of nice cars. They paint it and decorate it and keep accumulating more things in it. Cracks can be merely filled in and painted over to where they are out of sight. It isn't until the something breaks or collapses that you realize how serious a problem there is. The ignored inner life simply cannot withstand.

I have observed that this is the culture in which we live. Our culture prizes the accumulation of success and the symbols of success, such as the fancy cars, the big houses, the designer clothes, and things of this nature. This focus on externals leaves a gaping hole that can often collapse under stress. In fact, I remember reading an article that stated that stress is the number one killer in America. According to this article, 70-80% of all illnesses in medical practice are either caused by or made worse by stress.

I believe that people in general recognize that there is a void in their lives. I have observed that things of a "spiritual" nature have become very popular in the last couple of decades. People have consumed movies, books, items to wear, workshops, and a host of other things of a spiritual nature out of a hunger for something many of them cannot articulate. New Age bookstores and Buddhism have become attractive to many westerners.

One of the things I found strange is that when unbelievers began to crave something spiritual and something transcendent, they didn't go to church. After seeing the wave of books, workshops and classes on spiritual formation in Christian circles in the last five years, I began to understand why. Even believers were craving something deeper than their surface Christian veneer. The emptiness of accumulating more must have plagued Christians, their churches, and their ministers along with the unbelievers around them. Building mega-churches, marketing style ministry, multiple programs and services, the drive and pride of tangible results, and the pressure of the expectation of the minister as C.E.O. produced a large gaping hole beneath the surface of many ministers, churches, and ministries. Many ministers and church leaders were burning out and suffering stress related illnesses just like the unbelievers in the world around them. Marriages in churches were seeing the same divorce rates as the unbelievers in the neighborhoods around them. People in the church were suffering from the same stress related illnesses as people out of the church. Is it any wonder why seekers didn't go to churches? Many churches did not look a whole lot different that what they were trying to escape from, only it was in Christian dress. The veneer was different, but underneath, it seemed to be the same.

No wonder Paul said, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Rom 12:2). What that means for me is that I need to be transformed inwardly. I need to order my inner self in such a way that I will exert influence on the world around me and not the other way around. I need to spend time on my inner self with God. I like Eugene Peterson's Paraphrase of Romans 12:2 in The Message: "Don't become so well-adjusted to your culture that you fit into it without even thinking. Instead, fix your attention on God. You'll be changed from the inside out."

"The inside out." What does that mean? It has been much easier for me to deal with the outer world. After all, it is what is most visible and measurable. It consists of my work, possessions, accomplishments, and things such as these. It is what is easy to measure and evaluate. But my inner self…. Well, I was not even quite sure what that means. MacDonald says that this is where "choices and values can be determined, where solitude and reflection might be pursued…a place for conducting worship and confession, a quiet spot where the moral and spiritual pollution of the times need not penetrate."

"Need not penetrate"…that is instructive for me. There should be a place that the world cannot touch. This is a place unaffected by the external circumstances and influences of the world. It is a place that is the source of my life: My directions. My aspirations. My decisions. My thoughts. All of these flow from this place within. Painting over the cracks that form from a hollow inner life will only promote the growth of that hollowness. If it is empty, nothing will flow from within. This is what needs to be transformed rather than conformed. This is the most important part of my life that I need to tend to. This is the place from where true life flows.

Perhaps this is what Proverbs 4:23 is all about: "Watch over your heart with all diligence, for from it flow the springs of life."

For me, the key word in this proverb is diligence. I need to beware of the barrenness of a busy life. I need to beware of getting caught up in external things only. I need to ensure that my inner spring is not polluted. The true living water originates with God. As long as the spring is okay, then everything is truly in order. Everything is "okay," regardless of external circumstances. I will not be obsessed over the externals. I will not neglect what is truly important. I will not let the world squeeze me into its mold without me being aware of it.