Trendiness

In the past few years, I have had opportunity to visit many churches in the area where I live. Part of this was due to my position at the Rescue Mission, but part was also as pulpit supply (and just when you thought that the Sunday morning service couldn’t get any more tragic). I have noticed that many of these congregations are feeling the pressure to become “trendy.” We’ve moved beyond the contemporary stage – trendiness is now what we seek. Trendiness goes with the flow of culture and catches the waves of the newest look, feel, and practice. In order to move away from a stogy traditionalist look and flavor, churches have adopted styles they consider to be a departure from the old and outmoded rituals of yesterday.

If your church is stuck in a rut, if it unthinkingly follows patterns of the way people “do church,” I would suggest the following radical measures:

• Ditch the pulpit for a small table to hold your bottle of water or travel coffee mug. Make sure there is room to set a Bible on it (in some places this is optional)
• By all means, put away the suit and tie. For the maximum coolness effect, wear a plaid shirt, untucked. For extreme coolness, a ball cap is the right touch.
• 2 words: Praise band
• Don’t forget the coffee. If you are brewing espresso drinks in the lobby, you are approaching the pinnacle of relevance.
• Tats. The more the better – on everyone.
• Remove the “holy hardware” from the church and decorate the “stage” (because it can no longer be called a platform or altar) with wood from used pallets.
• And the pews; lose the pews. They are so 1960.

These are but a few of the things that I have seen that cause churches to consider themselves to be “on the cutting edge.”  Here’s the thing: does anyone else notice that these features have become more or less standardized and have become the accepted way of “doing church?” Those who follow this path do so, in part, as a way of breaking the traditional mold. Yet, in so doing, they have established a newer, more contemporary, but still just as normative, set of expectations as the ones they were trying to escape. When I was younger, people were wrongly criticized for not wearing proper church clothes to church on Sunday. That was wrong. I know someone who wore a shirt and tie (without a jacket) to church and was criticized because he was trying to dress above the rest of the people. So now, jeans, tee shirts and flip flops are proper church attire? I am not advocating dress codes, but it is amazing how we become what we are trying to escape.

Caffeinated Ramblings

Recently I have been thinking about coffee. You may think that strange, but there are people who are obsessed with coffee – and even some who lose sleep over coffee (pun intended). Second only to crude oil, coffee is the most traded commodity in the world. Entire economies rely upon coffee trading for their well-being. So, if I spend some time poring over (pun intended) this fantastic brew, it should not be surprising.

I am by no means a coffee aficionado. But I do like good coffee. When dining out, I have occasionally chosen a restaurant based on the quality of the coffee they serve instead of the food menu. My wife is not always in total agreement with my choices, but she is a forgiving woman.

Coffee entered my life when I was in the first grade. Back then, we would walk home from school during lunch and on cold days, my mother would make a “glass” of coffee with plenty of milk and sugar served in one of those colorful aluminum tumblers that were popular in the 50’s (the 1950’s that is). I can honestly say that the well-worn caveats about coffee that were then popular proved to be urban legends. It did not stunt my growth nor did it put hair on my chest (all theoretical methods of accomplishing that feat have proven to be unsuccessful).

In those early days, coffee was brewed in a stainless steel drip coffee maker; the water was brought to a near boil and then poured over the grounds.  In our home, mom would change between that and the stove top stainless steel percolator.  Coffee is still made this way for large functions in large electric percolators. There is something nostalgic (and awful) about boiled coffee. I call it “church basement coffee.” The advent of the Pyrex percolator helped a little by removing the metallic flavor, but it is still boiled coffee. Mr. Coffee (the coffee maker, not Joe DiMaggio) came on the scene and revolutionized home coffee brewing. Describing making coffee before Mr. Coffee is like describing record players to Millennials.

Fast forward to the present. Coffee choices are legion. Never would I have imagined that fast food restaurants and gas stations would compete over specialty coffees. The term “gas station” hardly describes the combination of fuel stop/convenience store/fast food restaurant that we know today (I know; “gas station” shows my age). One local establishment advertises a pumpkin spice and caramel macchiato. I have no idea what this is.

Now there are places that specialize in coffee only – espressos, cold brews, pour overs, and other unique ways of extracting the flavor from freshly roasted and ground coffee. And churches are getting in on this too. In my wildest dreams, I never would have thought that churches would make their pitch based on the existence or the quality of their coffee bars. Of course, a coffee bar must be baptized and sanctified if it is located in a church. If the musicians in the band (and I don’t care what they’re called – it’s a band) are called the “Praise Team,” then maybe an appropriate name for the coffee service would be, I don’t know, maybe “mocha ministry?” I actually saw a church bulletin asking for volunteers to be part of the Sunday morning “coffee ministry.” I’m sure that barista is somewhere listed among the spiritual gifts necessary for the building up of the body. Maybe I need a new translation.  

Phobia

According the Oxford Dictionary (online edition), a phobia is an “extreme or irrational fear or aversion to something.” Oxford Living Dictionary gives a list of phobias. As I read these, I find that I possess several:

• Zoophobia – a fear of animals. I’m not sure that my aversion to animals counts as a phobia, but I am not one to run up to a dog to pet it (technically cynophobia); when a bat comes in the house I run screaming like a little girl (sorry if that phrase is sexist); I would never want to sit on a park bench and feed the pigeons (which is technically orithophobia).
• Electrophobia – a fear of electricity. I suffer from this big time. On those rare occasions when I replace a light switch, I pull the main circuit and cut off the power to the entire house. This is much easier than trying to get the electric company disconnect my service from the utility pole.
• Acrophobia – a fear of high places. This is ironic, since the word derives from the Greek word akron, meaning summit, and I am from Akron, Ohio in Summit County. Actually, my fear is not of heights as much as it is falling from them.

I am surprised to see how many things have a phobia attached to them: touch, poverty, metal, Italian/German/ Scottish people, vomiting, and a list of others (pinaciphobia is a fear of lists). When I think of the things about which I am phobic, I realize that they are irrational. Much of the fear stems from a failure to understand the nature of the thing. For example, those who understand and work with electricity know how it works and work around it with ease. I do not understand these people.

Unfortunately, we tend to use words without paying close attention to their meanings. A phobia is an extreme and irrational fear. This describes how I feel about high places and roller coasters – extreme and irrational. Now, however, the word is used in our culture as a label for those who may hold differing opinions about hot button issues. One of the most misused words in this context is homophobic. That word appears on the list in the Oxford Dictionary as a “fear of homosexuals.” I imagine that there are some who have an irrational fear of anyone who is homosexual, transgender, or whatever happens to be the preferred descriptive initial.  But I object to labeling people as “phobic” because they disagree based on either moral or religious convictions. If I – as likely the majority of people in our country – believe that gender is binary, or that one’s sexuality is defined by gender, does that make me phobic? I realize that we live in a culture that allows free expression, even if that expression is in ways that I would not endorse. Does my lack of endorsement equate to an irrational fear? Call me unenlightened if you will, consider me hopelessly out of touch if it suits you, but don’t call me phobic. I certainly do not endorse, agree with, or support many things that our political leaders are doing – some of whom I voted for and some I did not. Does that make me politicphobic (a real phobia, by the way)?

Please allow for rational disagreement and discussion about such a powerful issue as same sex attraction without reverting to pejorative epithets, regardless of your position.  I have had rational (I hope) conversations with people about these matters. They haven’t usually ended with consensus, but I don’t consider those who disapprove of my position as heterophobic. Neither of us is phobic. Just stop it.

Anxiety

I don't know if there is a gene for worry. If there is, I inherited that tendency from my mother. Probably, it is not genetic, other than the sinful nature that I have inherited from Adam. There are times when I think that I may have a legitimate cause to worry about something. However, for me, it quite quickly degrades into anxiety. There are those times when I feel as though I am inching ever so closely to the abyss of complete despair. I don't like this personality flaw within me, but it is part of what I deal with as I try to bring "every thought captive" (2 Cor. 10:5). Some people get angry; I get fardeiget.

Tim Challies posted a brief article today on this topic. I found it help, encouraging and convicting at the same time. He ends the article referencing 1 Pet. 5:6-7: 

Rather, we are to "humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt us, casting all our anxieties upon him because he cares for us" (1 Peter 5:6-7). His care, not our anxiety, is our refuge. When we hand it all to him, we can be truly be anxious for nothing. We can care deeply without worrying for as much as a moment.

From my struggles with this malady, I would add verse 8; "Be sober; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." It is not accidental that this text is embedded in this context. One of Satan's tools to cripple us is anxiety. When we are devoured by anxiety, we are paralyzed and ineffective. We become a drain on those around us, even those we love and who love us the most. Instead of being an encourager; instead of having words of grace on our lips; instead of the high praises of God in our mouths, we are consumed by and with the anxiety that we allow to live rent free in our heads. And the lion licks his chops. 

Culture Wars

For decades we have heard about the culture wars. This speaks of a contest to define which values will dominate the American culture. It describes competing worldviews that influence the political agenda of our nation, usually aligning in 2 major camps: traditionalists and conservatives versus those of a more liberal and progressive viewpoint. There are many issues that are flashpoints in this conflict: gender identity, abortion, marriage and sexuality, and women’s rights to name but a few.

Certainly these are important issues. There seems to be, in my opinion, an unfortunate consequence in this struggle, particularly where Christians and the gospel are concerned. Regardless of one’s position, it appears to have developed to the point that those who hold opposing views see their counterparts as enemy combatants. After all, it is a war. The enemy must be destroyed at all costs. For the conservative, the voices of the “secular humanist,” left-wing, gay-rights affirming, abortion loving proponents must be silenced. If that means destroying their mouthpiece, the “liberal media,” then so be it. Send those godless commies back to Russia where they belong. For the liberal or progressive,  those Bible thumping fundamentalist, chocolate chip cookie baking “stand by your man,” homeschooling  women, gun owning and loving conservatives, and “fill-in-the-blank phobic” people must be eliminated from modern society – or lobotomized, if that is easier.

We are way beyond the place for intelligent dialogue. There is very little discussion and a whole lot of rhetoric, verbal abuse, and propaganda from all sides. For those who profess allegiance to Christ, our attitude must be different. Certainly, we desire to stand for truth and the propositional statements of Scripture. But we often forget the one whom we claim to represent.  Richard Phillips posted these words on the blog for the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Though he was commenting in a slightly different context, his words started me thinking about the culture wars and the Christian’s place in it.

Far too many evangelical Christians look upon their political opposites as culture war "enemies" rather than as neighbors to be loved, served, and evangelized. If, for instance, proponents of sexual perversity and gender confusion are perceived as our enemies, then Jesus has told us what to do: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:44-45). Unlike tax collectors and Gentiles, who love only their own, let us heartily welcome perceived enemies as neighbors who need to hear about our gracious God and his gospel.

The words of Jesus are difficult to read. Are we to love those who denigrate the biblical values and truths we treasure? Are we to love those who may wish us ill or worse? The cultural context of the New Testament was one of totalitarian rule, religious idolatry, moral perversity on a scale that would make the Motion Picture Rating Committee members blush, and institutional hostility toward Christianity. Yet, they influenced their culture by speaking truth to power (see Paul’s testimony before King Agrippa in Acts 25:24), loving “not their lives, even to death” (Rev. 12:11 ), and by diligently living out Jesus’ teaching from the Sermon on the Mount. Apparently, we have discovered a better way to influence culture.

Book Review: The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers

Abner Chou has produced a valuable contribution to the field of hermeneutics in The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret Scripture from the Prophets and Apostles. The issue of the New Testament writers’ use of the Old Testament has been an ongoing discussion, particularly in the context of eschatology. For those who hold to a strictly literal interpretation of Scripture, the way the New Testament writers use the Old Testament appears to be fast and free. For those who are fond of allegorical interpretations, these same references seem to vindicate their position. While he does not specifically address the hermeneutical distinctions of the different approaches to eschatology, Chou has something to say to all sides of the discussion.

In this work, Chou holds that the Old Testament writers were masterful theologians and capable interpreters of the revelation in their possession.  His emphasis on intertextuality demonstrates that the Old Testament prophets based their pronouncements on antecedent revelation and were aware of the textual links between their contemporary pronouncements and what had been previously revealed. When the New Testament writers quoted their Old Testament forebears, they were likewise aware of this intertextuality. They used the Old Testament in much the same way that the prophets who produced it used the unfolding volume of revelation.

This is not a casual read, but well worth the time and effort necessary to digest it. It seems like there is more to say on this, especially in relation to how one’s eschatology might be influenced by Chou’s conclusions. A follow-up volume would be most valuable.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Kregel Publishers as part of their Blogger Review Program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255: "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising."

Carry the Cross

In Luke 14:27, Jesus says that bearing a cross is a key component to discipleship. In this discourse, delivered to a random group of people who followed him – termed “great crowds” – Jesus gave 3 features of discipleship: prioritizing Christ over all other relationships (14:26), carrying a cross (14:27), and renouncing all that one has (14:33). I have heard this passage expounded as call to a fuller commitment to Jesus (called discipleship) that differs from entry –level Christianity. If one becomes a Christian one may (or may not) opt for the discipleship commitment. However, a casual reading of this passage shows that Jesus makes no distinction between following him and being a disciple. And this message is not given to a group of people debating the issue of a deeper commitment. These are random people who were accompanying Jesus: some seeking another free meal, some intrigued about his teaching, and some merely out of curiosity. “A crowd draws a crowd,” as the saying goes.

 I think we would be wrong to imagine that this great crowd consisted of people who were hungry to hear what Jesus had to say; those who wanted to know more about him and wanted to follow him more closely. In fact, the message he gives them seems to indicate this. He almost discourages people from following. Using masterful hyperbole, he places before them the fact that no other relationship, regardless how good and wholesome and pure it is, can take priority over him. No love can be greater and no allegiance can be stronger.

The point I want to make concerns the issue of cross bearing. We have trivialized the idea by using the phrase to refer to rather minor inconveniences that we must tolerate on a regular basis. But the initial readers knew what this meant. Those who carried a cross were not those who were suffering under a temporary inconvenience. They were on the way to crucifixion, one of the most sadistic forms of execution ever devised. And it was a one-way trip. Those who carried the cross to the place of crucifixion usually met with the scorn and jeering from a crowd that more often than not, heartily approved of the whole affair. Followers of Christ are called to carry a cross – to endure the scorn and hostility that comes with allegiance to Christ and his gospel.

We have conveniently avoided the call to bear this cross. We embrace the Bible’s call to “deny ungodliness and worldly lusts (Titus 2:12 KJV) and rightly so. It is too easy to tolerate the sinful habits and values of the world around us. The sin that remains within each of us gravitates toward it with very little encouragement. But our attempts at separation often aim to protect us from the harsh realities of cross-bearing.  The scene on that Good Friday is all too familiar. On the one hand, we see our Lord Jesus embracing the cross, “bearing shame and scoffing rude.” On the other, we see 11 disciples scattering to avoid capture and identification with this Savior. For us, it is easier to run and avoid bearing a cross. Better yet, don’t even get into a situation that might require one to take up a cross.

Cross bearing is not pleasant. It is not intended to be. But, as followers of Christ, we are called to this. As Jesus told the large crowd in Luke 14, the can be no rivals (v. 26) and no refusals (v.27).

"It's Not Religion, It's a Relationship"

“It’s not religion, it’s a relationship.” I cannot count the number of times that I have heard this phrase. Recently, I attended an event where a young lady led the group in worship (by that, she meant music – another venue for a rant, but I will refrain for now) and remarked, “We don’t want to do “religiousy things here; we just want to do Jesus.” I get the sentiment behind this. For too long, many have substituted an association with a church or a religious organization for a vital union with Christ. I have met people for whom their church membership and affiliation is more important than the truth about Christ, the authority of Scripture, or the urgencies of repentance and faith. But to throw out the idea of religion because of how others have misused the concept is unwise.

I find it amusing that those who seek to distance themselves from an “organized religion” (what is the alternative, disorganized religion?) seem to fall into a pattern that looks a lot like, well, religion. In our area we have a church that advertised itself on billboards in the community as “the church for people who don’t like church.” Think about that for a minute. If I don’t like church, why would I want a church substitute? For example, I despise liver and onions (actually, I like caramelized onions; I think liver profanes them).  I’m not looking for something that I can enjoy that is similar to it. I’ve never gone to a restaurant and asked the server if they have something like liver for people like me who don’t like liver. My policy is to stay as far away from it as I can. I met the pastor of this church who was quick to point out that his quirky hair style, earrings and tattoos “scared off religious people.” Ironically, this “anti-church” met on Sunday morning. And to add to the irony, this individual referred to himself in decidedly religious people terms; he was the “pastor.” My intent is not to be critical of this church, but merely to point out that even those who distance themselves from what they call religion tend to do so in very religious ways. By the way, I would guess that many of the same ones who have the “relationship not religion” bumper sticker on their cars came to faith through some ministry, outreach, or small group that was sponsored or instituted by a church. Some of the people that I have heard speak this catch phrase are well-intentioned, faithful members of a church.  

Instead of demeaning religion why don’t we redeem it? Religion is simply the structure that we use to express our devotion, a “particular system of faith and worship.” Do people place church before Christ? Yes, some do. Are people attached to their denomination or church in the same way that some are mindlessly attached to a political party? Yes, some are.  So the answer is to fix it, not forsake it. If our “particular system of faith and worship” draws us to Christ, then I see no problem with that. The issue arises when the means takes the priority over the ends.