Everything is Backwards

I recently came across a blog post that quotes Kevin DeYoung’s book, Why We Love the Church, with some of the typical complaints leveled against the church. We need to love the church, warts and all, because the church is people.

I have tweaked DeYoung’s quote a little into a list of favorite church complaints.

1. The church is lame. The ‘church-is-lame’ crowd hates Constantine and notions of Christendom, but they want the church to be a patron of the arts, and run after-school programs, and bring the world together in peace and love.

2. The church is too-programmatic. This crowd bemoans the over-programmed church, but then think of a hundred complex, resource-hungry things the church should be doing.

3. The church is too hierarchical. This crowd doesn’t like the church because it is too hierarchical, but then they hate it when it has poor leadership.

4. The church needs to be more diverse. They wish the church could be more diverse, but then leave to meet in a coffee shop with other well-educated thirtysomethings who are into film festivals, NPR, and carbon offsets.

5. The church needs to feel more like family. They want more of a family spirit, but too much family and they’ll complain that the church is ‘inbred.’

6. The church needs to be a better witness. They want the church to know that its reputation with outsiders is terrible, but then are critical when the church is too concerned with appearances.

7. The church needs to be more involved in social justice. They chide the church for not doing more to address social problems, but then complain when the church gets too political.

8. The church is too divided. They want church unity and decry all our denominations, but fail to see the irony in the fact that they have left to do their own thing because they can’t find a single church that can satisfy them.

9. The church needs better community.  They are critical of the lack of community in the church, but then want services that allow for individualized worship experiences, or are quick to head for the door when conflict heats up.

10. The church needs visionary leaders. They want leaders with vision, but don’t want anyone to tell them what to do or how to think.

11. The church needs to care for people better. They want a church where the people really know each other and care for each other, but then they complain the church today is an isolated country club, only interested in catering to its own members.

12. The church needs to reconnect with its history. They want to be connected to history, but are sick of the same prayers and same style every week.

13. The church needs to be less judgmental. They call for not judging “the spiritual path of other believers who are dedicated to pleasing God and blessing people,” and then they blast the traditional church in the harshest, most unflattering terms.

I can see myself in a lot of these. What criticisms are you most prone to?

I wonder how many young men would choose to enter the ministry if they knew, from the very beginning, that their churches would never exceed a few dozen people, their salary would always be meager, their church budgets would always be tight, and all their labors would be scarcely noticed by anyone outside of their faithful few?

Carl Trueman writes along these lines at his reformation21 blog in a recent post. In a world that is driven by larger than life celebrity personalities, it is no surprise that the church has a few of its own, leading large churches, writing books, and posting podcasts for listeners around the world.

Trueman notes that these celebrity churches are led by celebrity pastors who have one-in-a-million type gifts and it is unreasonable to try to replicate this into other churches.

Enter new Calvinism. Time Magazine recently pegged new Calvinism as the third most influential idea that is changing the world right now. And many of the celebrity pastors are staunchly Calvinistic, leading very large and influential churches in unlikely places, such as Seattle, NYC, or Minneapolis.

Here is the concern: new Calvinism’s ’success’ can turn it into a church growth fad. As more and more people become disillusioned with the spiritual fluff and high-tech frills of seeker driven ministry, new Calvinism offers depth and Bible meat to chew on.

Trueman writes:

Much has rightly been made by Reformed people of the problem of an understanding of Christianity that is driven by pragmatism as exemplified by the Joel Osteen `be a Christian and be a better you’ mentality; much criticism has also been lodged against the church growth movement because of its tendency…to find out what they like, and how they like it, and let them have it just that way.  But the dangerous thing about pragmatism is that it does not necessarily reject the truth; it merely renders it subordinate to the desired end.

To be precise, pragmatism evaluates means in terms of impact and results; and the implication of this is that even means that are intrinsically true can still be co-opted by pragmatism simply because they seem to be achieving the desired results at some particular point in time.

Now the gospel has always been true, in the good years and the lean; and we need to be certain that the current enthusiasm for Reformed theology is rooted in an acknowledgement of its intrinsic truth, and not simply in the fact that, at this point in time, Calvinism is cool enough to pull in the punters.

Who in the world would have ever thought, in our pluralistic time, that Calvinism would actually become hip enough to be reduced to a church growth strategy? What lies behind its popularity, however, is the power of the gospel which remains hidden in many other church growth strategies that promote self-help and feel good fluff.

There is a disillusioning danger for pastors here. On the surface, it appears that people are just flocking to churches because of the gospel, and to preach it hard and bold only swells the masses. But if Trueman’s observations are true, people may actually be flocking to Christian celebrity personalities who are on the forefront of new Calvinism, while other faithful men who are preaching the gospel faithfully, but lack the star appeal of these celebrities, cannot reproduce the same results.

What we need to pray for and prepare young ministers for is this sobering fact:

In the real world, many, perhaps most,  of us worship and work in churches of 100 people or less; life is not loud and exciting; each Lord’s Day we go through the same routines of worship services, of hearing the gospel proclaimed, of taking the Lord’s Supper, of teaching Sunday School… [We] keep going, giving, and praying as we can; we try to be faithful in the little entrusted to us.  It’s boring, it’s routine, and it’s the same, year in, year out.

Therefore, in a world where excitement, celebrity, and cultural power are the ideal, it is tempting amidst the circumstances of ordinary church life to forget that this, the routine of the ordinary, the boring, the plodding, is actually the norm for church life and has been so throughout most places for most of the history of the church; that mega-whatevers are the exception, not the rule; and that the church has survived throughout the ages not just – or even primarily – because of the high profile firework displays of the great and the good, but because of the day to day faithfulness of the mundane, anonymous, non-descript  people who constitute most of the church, and who do the grunt work and the tedious jobs that need to be done.   History does not generally record their names; but the likelihood is that you worship in a church which owes everything, humanly speaking, to such people.

Amen. Humbling words, these.

My prayer is to be willing to toil away in obscurity, and to be faithful to the end.

George Yancey writes in One Body One Spirit that there are seven characteristics of multi-ethnic churches that are worth noting. Some of these were surprising.

1. Inclusive Worship. Music is so important to people that when they sing to God it needs to take on a form that is culturally meaningful for them. In the Euro-white culture, we have everything from Indie-Rock, to pipe organs, to Coldplay, to acoustic folk in our churches. But others prefer a keyboard and rhythm section driven sound. I suppose in India people would want a Sitar with Ravi Shankar sound. The point is that the musical style of the church must reflect the diversity of the people that come there.

2. Diverse Leadership. Yancey writes, “multiracial leadership is important because members of different racial groups desire to feel represented by the members of the church, especially racial minorities who historically have received a lack of respect for their opinions and perspectives.”

3. An Overarching Goal. Yancey observes that many multi-ethnic churches that he studied did not make racial diversity its highest goal, but rather a necessary component to achieving an even higher goal. He notes that “there is a certain amount of racial fatigue in our society. People are tired of discussing racial issues and trying to solve racial problems. But if members of a church are committed to another and higher goal – such as winning people to Christ or serving the community – then it becomes easier for those members to accept the importance of creating a multiracial environment.” This is right on point.

Another friend of mine who pastors a multi-racial church in Cincinnati recently told me that there is a generational element to this as well. Older people, who have long memories of segregation, bussing, and Jim Crow laws, need to have their racial prejudices more directly addressed. But it is the younger generation who grew up in the “Cosby Show” era and now the “Obama” era that grow fatigued, because they do not have these same experiences that were so difficult for their parents. There should be a sensitivity to where people are. But hopefully the days of addressing race will become less tense and emotionally charged.

In downtown Cincinnati, our goal is to reach the entire area, not just the white population. Thus in my context, we must build a multi-racial church to serve the unique needs of our diverse community.

4. Intentionality. Yancey writes, “it takes work to create and sustain multiracial churches. Their development does not just happen accidentally.” A church needs to know what they are trying to do and work to achieve it. Yancey notes that churches that became multiethnic almost by accident sustained the multiethnic environment by intentionally cultivating it.

5. Personal Skills. Some of this is simply having a well developed social IQ that understands the dynamics of relationships. Pastors especially have to have good personal skills since they are the ones who will be helping people to adjust to a multiethnic environment where conflicts arise from unexpected places. Specifically, Yancey identifies “sensitivity to different needs, patience, the ability to empower others and the ability to relate to those of different races” as key personal skills.

6. Location. You can’t create a multiethnic environment in a neighborhood that is almost completely monolithic. You have to be in a location that already has the diversity in the population. And all white or all black churches in all white or all black neighborhoods shouldn’t be regarded as inferior; they just reflect their neighborhoods.

7. Adaptability. Yancey says that “a monoracial church has only a single culture to adapt to. However, by definition, a multiracial church brings into it individuals from several different cultures. Learning how to blend these cultures together is an important part of adapting to the new social reality caused by the formation of a multiracial church.”

I would say that many of these fall into the biblical category of self-denial (Mk 8:34-35). We have to be willing to die to ourselves and our own cultural preferences and be willing to adopt, to some degree, the values and preferences of other cultures. This is the 1 Corinthians 12:12-15 vision of the church: we don’t merely tolerate one another, we need one another.

To do this not only requires spiritual maturity but it creates it as well.

Tim Chester posted about different types of church communities and how the ethos of the group affects individuals.

Communities of Performance

• People talk about grace, but communicate legalism
• Unbelievers can’t imagine themselves as Christians
• Drive away broken people
• The world is seen as threatening and ‘other’
• Conversion is superficial—people are called to respectable behavior
• People are secretly hurting
• People see faith and repentance as actions that took place at conversion
• The gospel is for unbelievers

Communities of Grace

• People can see grace in action
• Unbelievers feel like they can belong
• Attract broken people
• People are loved as fellow sinners in need of grace
• Conversion is radical—people are called to transformed affections
• People are open about their problems
• People see faith and repentance as daily activities
• The gospel is for both unbelievers and believers

No, racial reconciliation isn’t dead, but perhaps Christians need to talk about the topic differently.

God has put in my heart a dream of a multi-racial church in the heart of downtown Cincinnati. In that previous sentence, there’s about three things that people have told me are foolish ideas. I have been told that (1) Cincinnati is “rough soil” for church planting, and (2) downtown Cincinnati is especially difficult, but to be (3) multi-racial is just plain out of the question.

I believe that God can and will do it, however. And right now, God has answered my prayers of raising up a core group of Christian leaders who want to see the same thing happen downtown in Cincinnati. But I have been beating my head against a wall trying to figure out how to make our group more ethnically diverse.

Yesterday, I met Alvin Sanders, the Chief Diversity Officer for the Evangelical Free denomination. He recommends talking in terms of simply “reconciliation” rather than the more emotionally charged “racial reconciliation.”

He told me that the racial reconciliation conversation is dead. Christians should be talking about how God is in the business of reconciling all things to Himself, not merely races. I agree with him, as I have argued here.

He wrote about this recently:

So let me define racial reconciliation from my perspective. To begin, the Duke Center for Reconciliation defines reconciliation as God’s initiative, restoring a broken world to God’s intentions by reconciling “to Himself all things” through Christ (Colossians 1:20): the relationship between people and God, between people themselves, and between people and God’s created earth.

It is important to note that racial division is but one of many forms of brokenness found in our world that needs to be reconciled. Therefore, reconciliation in any form is the mission of God in our broken world.

The church is the only institution that has been supernaturally commissioned to practice reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:16-21). In fact, Jesus told us that a blessing follows as we engage in bringing peace to divided situations (Matthew 5:9).

The only way reconciliation-whether racial or any other type-will become a priority within a church is if it is viewed as a mark of the gospel. Oftentimes, churches resist stressing reconciliation, offering up the explanation that they are focused on fulfilling the Great Commission.

My response is that it is impossible to fulfill the Great Commission without fulfilling the first and second greatest commandments-which, together, are a call to reconciliation (Matthew 22:37-40). Reconciling brokenness of all forms to a world dominated by political, cultural, racial, and ethnic conflict is a witness to the superiority of the authentic Christian life.

It is ironic that as I type this, many national news outlets are reporting that minorities as a whole will outnumber whites by 2043 within the United States. History has proven that with these demographic changes will come numerous racial incidents and ethnic tensions.

The church must have a uniquely Christian response to these demographic changes that reflects the love of Jesus Christ. Otherwise, we will be viewed as just another powerless institution.

Yeah, we changed the name of the church. I don’t like to backtrack and change decisions already made, but this one needed to happen. We originally named the church “Center City Church,” because it indicated our commitment to downtown and I liked the way it sounded. But this name was assigned even before we lived here, and we didn’t have a feel for the city yet.

Besides, with existing entities in Cincinnati such as “Center City Collision” and “City Center Properties” and “Cincinnati Center City Development Corp.,” it just sounded like a religious version of a name already well worn. Besides, I prefer a name that marks us in some spiritual way rather than a geographic way.

Thus, we have renamed the church “Christ the King Church.” Here’s our main reasons why:

1. It just sounds good.

2. It indicates a strong theological conviction that we share. Jesus is king and he wins.

3. Center City Church is a name with a geographical identity; Christ the King is a name with a theological identity.

4. It is fluid. I informally surveyed a number of people for their reaction to the name. Some thought it sounded Catholic or Lutheran, some thought Pentacostal, some thought African American.

I like that, because it means that people who become a part of this community from various backgrounds can have a church with a name that sounds comfortable and familiar to them.

We have also added the tag line, “a baptist community.” In an era when most church plants are eschewing denominational names, we have chosen to embrace it for a few practical reasons.

1. We are not ashamed of what we believe.

2. We do not want to be embarrassed by those who have generously provided funding to get us started.

3. The baptist tradition is a historically recognized faith tradition. We are not inventing anything new or progressive here. In fact, what we believe is very ancient and full of the beauty of tradition. We inherit the tradition of the English Puritan Baptists.

Ed Stetzer (church planting genius) says that a good church name is not going to get someone to visit your church. But a bad name can keep a person away. Thus a church name may not attract people but it certainly shouldn’t keep people away.

His scientific research has shown that Christians typically think that their denominational name is more negatively perceived by those outside the church than it actually is. After polling people inside and outside a particular faith tradition, he found that far fewer were turned off to the denomination’s name than what people on the inside thought.

Tradition (such as the word baptist indicates) implies stability and longevity. My goal and prayer is that this church would be the community that buries me and my family when we die and continues to have an impact on Cincinnati for centuries.

The first reason why I’m planting a racially diverse church in Cincinnati: it’s biblical.

The second reason is this: The world wants racial reconciliation, but only the gospel can deliver it. Everywhere you look, from corporate advertisements to college promotional materials to fashion magazines, it is clear that people want to see a diversity of faces in the imagery. Martin Luther King, Jr. did our country a great service by helping to expose racial hypocrisy. He was (perhaps naively) convinced that white Christians would rush to his aid but most didn’t.

During the civil rights era, our country has come a long way to give all people of various races equal opportunities for advancement. Everyone is clamoring for it. You can’t watch the evening news without seeing it in the advertisements, or hearing of someone being sentences to probation and “diversity training,” or a story about someone violating political correctness with a “gaffe.” In fact, one of Joe Biden’s most recent gaffes involved referring to Obama as an African American who is “clean” and “articulate.” The world loves racial diversity.

But churches have long remained segregated.

Those who desire true racial reconciliation can only find it in the gospel. Here’s what I mean. The gospel tells us that we are all in desperate need of redemption for our sins. We have a common disease (sin) and a common enemy (Satan). Regardless of race, everyone on planet earth has this problem. Furthermore, we all have, as Pascal famously stated, a “God shaped vacuum” in our hearts that can only be filled by Jesus Christ. Our deepest longings and our highest aspirations are fulfilled in Him.

As such, Paul stated in 2 Corinthians 5 that Christ has given us the “ministry of reconciliation,” where men urge their fellow men to “be reconciled to God.” Our reconciliation to God entails new allegiances, new familial relationships, new identities based on our spiritual commonalities rather than our physical differences. Being reconciled with God should naturally lead to being reconciled to fellow children of God.

Can anything other than Christ deliver this reconciliation? Of course not. Worldly reconciliation can only be achieved through pluralism. “Diversity” becomes an idol we bow to and standards of right and wrong are made to serve this idol. As a result, it doesn’t matter what you think or how you live, as long as you demonstrate “tolerance,” which is code language for pluralism.

The gospel insists that everyone is sinful, and only Christ is worthy of universal honor. Revelation 5 highlights the 7-fold worthiness of Jesus, who is worthy to receive “power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.”

Jesus crushes our common enemy and unites us under his glorious rule. That’s true reconciliation, and only the gospel can deliver it.

When I was in college, I can’t count the number of worship leading gigs I was asked to do. There were at least several dozen different opportunities to lead worship in different venues from churches to college ministries to youth camps to bar mitzvahs. I did it all.

But I wasn’t qualified for much other than to play Guitar Hero.

No one asked me about my character or theology (except for Campus Crusade, for whom I am deeply grateful). Before Passion came around, the only contemporary songs to choose from were the I-love-Jesus-like-I-love-my-girlfriend variety. I didn’t care what the song said, as long as it had a cool sound and interesting melody. I should have been fired.

Most churches just want a guitar guy, not a worship leader, because that’s what the polls and magazines tell them they have to have to survive as a church these days. The problem is, most guitar guys people know are college kids with little interest in theology, just music. But as I argued previously here and here, worship is another tool God uses for the instruction of his people. Worship music is sung theology; it is theology felt. Music is memorable, repetitive, participatory, portable, and reductionistic. It takes complex themes and distills them to their pithy essence for effective internalization.

Why would any church that is serious about instructing its congregation outsource this sober task to a 20-year old guitar guy without any theological training (like I was)?

My point: the worship leader is the chief of musical theology. He should be held accountable for the content of the songs no less than the pastor should be held accountable for the content of his sermons. He is a musical preacher. And his content is more memorable than the preacher’s, usually. While the pastor spends years in seminary to learn to handle languages, church history, biblical and systematic theology, ecclesiology, homiletics (and on and on), most worship leaders earn their mettle from Green Day, John Mayer, Nickelback, or worse yet, Audio Adrenaline and DC Talk.

Yet both are given enormous opportunity to influence God’s people.

So then, the question: What qualifies a person to be a worship leader? There are 5 things a responsible church should consider when choosing their worship leader:

1. He should be a committed student of scripture. This is a lifelong commitment, but should be a commitment nonetheless. He should care more about meaning than music. He should focus more on content than chords. The biblical basis for each song should be unquestionably clear.

In many contemporary worship settings, the focus of the music appears to be primarily self-expression of one’s relationship with God. While there’s nothing wrong with this, I do believe that it is a misplaced priority. I aim to show in this post that worship music in the church is to be primarily for instruction in the truths of scripture and not for self-expression.

Ephesians 5:18ff says this:

And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Ephesians 5 is a great example of the purpose that God assigns to singing in his church. The positive command in 5:18 is to be filled with the Spirit. How, one might ask, is this to be accomplished?