magnify His glory

Jolie Britt is one of our college kids (freshman, excuse me SOPHOMORE at OSU). I would encourage you to read her latest blog. An excerpt:

This whole week I have been thinking about God's glory, and what it means to fully respond to it. To use an illustration of one of my favorite teachers, John Piper, God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him. He describes God's glory as so great and so wonderful, that our human, finite, time-driven minds cannot fully comprehend it. All of human life is spent reaching for His glory, striving for His passion.

Our response should be one of trying to reveal the little bit of glory that we can comprehend now, to the rest of the world. In short, we are to magnify his glory to the world. Now there are two ways to magnify something. You can use a microscope or a telescope. A microscope is used to make something that is really small bigger.

As a church, we cannot try to magnify God in this way. If we do, essentially we are saying, "Oh God, you need our help. You are far too small. These people can't see your work everywhere on this planet, in their DNA, in their daily living. Let me help you, for God you are too small." In saying this, we make ourselves above God, an reduce Christianity to a spritualized version of secular humanism. However, there is another approach.

One can also use a telescope to magnify something. When one uses a telescope to look at the stars, one does not see an amplified version of a small thing. One sees more clearly what the stars truly are. HUGE THINGS that we cannot see unless the images are reflected and refracted into our finite understanding of them. If magnify God to the world as a telescope, we will essentially let others see God's HUGENESS and MAJESTY in a way that is applicable to their lives. And when they look through us to see God's hugeness, we fade away. And only Christ is there. Overwhelmingly loving and purposeful and righteous.

Good stuff Jolie.

reflections on the weekend with dr. scott caroll

Our time with historcial antiquities professor and archeologist Dr. Scott Caroll this weekend was priceless. There are very few people who could hold a couple of thousand people spellbound for hours at a time, Scott is such a man. His command of historical data from around 1,000 B.C. to about 400 A.D. is nothing short of astounding. I certainly wish our entire congregation could have made all 7 sessions we had with him.

Of course, his props weren't bad either. Dr. Caroll lectured (up and down the aisles of our worship center) with a large display of ancient manuscripts and priceless biblical texts laid out behind him on long tables across the front of the auditorium. We did not just benefit from his dynamic lectures, but were able to personally interact with ancient biblical materials. In making points about how biblical material was preserved, he would simply run to the table and pick up a artifact as an example. I have never been a part of a learning experience quite like it.

I do not think any of us will soon forget what we experienced. My 15 year old son remarked plainly when we said goodbye to Scott and his crew on Sunday night, "I am sad to see him go..." A remarkable statement from a teenager about an antiquities professor!

Here are just a few nuggets I picked up from this weekend:

1. The "Da Vinci Code" is not just a gross misrepresentation of actual historical Christian history, it also grossly misrepresents Gnosticism. The Gnostics, for instance, did not have a high view of women (despite the claims of Da Vinci Code).

2. The historicity and wide acceptance of the four gospels (and no other accounts) were already ancient history by the time of the 325 Council of Nicea. Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of John the beloved wrote, "There are four gospels as sure as there are four winds".

3. The deity and humanity of Jesus was already accepted doctrine and therefore only affirmed by the 325 Council of Nicea.

4. Brown claims in Da Vinci Code that around 400 A.D., "thousands of documents chronicled Jesus life as mortal man." He also claims that because Constantine wanted to change the religion, he had documents destroyed; and that before that time, Jesus followers saw him not as deity but as a mortal prophet. There is ABSOLUTELY no proof of this in history. In fact, the earliest followers of Jesus are well documented on this and their historical veracity is unquestioned. Polycarp, Irenaeus, Turtellian, Eusibius all never questioned either Jesus' deity or His humanity (they championed the Christian docrtine that Jesus is all-God and all-man). There are NO documents that predate the early Christian documents that make the incredible claim that early Christians thought of Jesus as merely a mortal prophet.

5. The actual heresy (Arianism) dealt with at the Council questioned the humanity of Jesus, not His deity! His deity was a given. Further, Gnostics believed that anything material was evil, so they could not perceive that Jesus had ever been a man!

6. By the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., the makeup of the New Testament was already a foregone conclusion. The Council merely gathered to confirm what had been accepted for hundreds of years.

7. The so called evidence from earlier followers who did not believe Jesus was deity came from the Gnostic gospels. These documents were discovered in Nag Hammadi in central Egypt (thousands of miles from Jerusalem) in 1946. They were written in Coptic (not Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic). They date to 250-350 A.D.

8. When you challenge someone who believes this wild theory about the early church as to why there has not been a single document found before the 3rd or 4th century, they will typically respond "you Christians destroyed them all". Caroll's response, "I was too busy trying not to be fed to the lions to hunt you down and destroy your evidence!" At this time in church history, Christians were weak politically; poor, despised and marginalized by the Roman empire. How convenient to be able to say that my lack of evidence is evidence. Dr. Caroll makes this observation, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It is not evidence of anything.

9. The fact that most of this stuff was made up by Dan Brown and presented as historical conspiracy in his popular novel has not stopped many Christians from believing it. 40% of evangelicals who have read this book have said that they were influenced by it. Great line from Caroll, "Christians are so gullable, you don't see Buddhist WWF or Hindu Nascar. It's only Christians who do that kind of stuff."

10. The church is in worse shape today than at any time in history to deal with this kind of heresy.

having intelligent conversations about da vinci code

On May 19 the wildly successful book "The Da Vinci Code" will be translated into film. The book is a variation of the old Lilith myth. Historian and archeologist Dr. Scott Caroll will be in our church this weekend to lead a number of seminars related to this subject. Here are some examples from Mark D. Roberts of how this movie runs amok:

Whereas orthodox (traditional belief) Christians believe that the kingship of Jesus was not about royal blood and earthly government, in The Da Vinci Code the ultimate significance of Jesus is precisely about these things.

Whereas orthodox Christians believe that Jesus remained single throughout his life, The Da Vinci Code reveals that He was in fact married to Mary Magdalene.

Whereas orthodox Christians believe that Jesus's death and resurrection were the center of His earthly mission, The Da Vinci Code sees His chief contribution as fathering a child by His wife, Mary.

Whereas orthodox Christians believe that the Bible, though written by human beings, is divinely inspired, The Da Vinci Code reveals that it is merely a human invention.

Whereas orthodox Christians believe that the New Testament gospels are reliable sources of information about Jesus, in The Da Vinci Code, the trustworthy gospels come from other collections, like The Dead Sea Scrolls or the Gnostic library from Nag Hammadi.

Whereas orthodox Christians believe that Jesus was fully God and fully human, The Da Vinci Code shows that Jesus was in fact a mere mortal, and that His deity was invented in order to augment the power of the fourth-century Roman emperor Constantine.

Keep in mind that Gnostic heresy is nothing new in Christianity. It raises up in consistent regularity only to be squashed like a bug by the force of accurate history and scholarship. The church has long been inoculated by these kinds of rants. Brown has found the ultimate money maker- but his book will not move history one iota. There will be some no doubt who will buy his logic hook line and sinker (according to belief.net, 27% of the people who watch the movie believe Jesus married Mary Magdalene!)

As the movies creators Tom Hanks and Ron Howard are two of the most powerful and popular icons in Hollywood, the film will likely be very successful. The result is that this book and film will explode into the lives of our children, our friends and our church.

What is our reponse?

1. Get informed. This is a great reminder that we must KNOW what we believe and WHY. There are good resources here and here. There are also many good books out there such as James L. Garlow’s The Da Vinci CodeBreaker.

2. Have good informed respectful conversations. "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15). Believe me, A LOT of people will see this movie. (If you don't know people who see and like and maybe even believe this movie, you don't have enough people in your life who don't think like you!) Christians who act defensive and ugly without entering into intelligent logical discussions come across as whiny and shallow. Informed people come across as gentle and respectful. I see this as a great opportunity to talk to others about Jesus. After all, we have the TRUTH. People will respect our conviction and understanding of history. They will not respect insults and pettiness.

3. If you read the book, check it out from a library, if you see the movie, rent it. I wouldn't want to vote for Dan Brown or Ron Howard. The movie is a fantastic lie and is insulting to Christianity. They don't need my vote. But at the same time, if you are to enter into conversations, people will not listen if you don't know what you are talking about.

4. Come to the seminar this weekend. This is a great opportunity for us to learn about early Christianity and the great story of how we got our scriptures. The true account may not be a scandalous as Dan Browns fiction, but it is an incredible one nonetheless.

5. Invite your friends. Say to them, "Hey, before you see the movie, come and learn about Christian history!

joining the church part three

Over the past two years as an IMB trustee, I have observed our policies regarding church planting with great interest. I have sometimes been concerned that we have tried to force international churches into our American church contextual model.

But is the American church one to be envied? Is our version of the local church the one we want to plant?

While we wrestle with the splinter issues of private prayer language and keeping "Baptist" in the name and who baptizes who and whether the hand of the administrator of baptism is as important as the heart of the believer, I believe we may have missed the plank in our own American church's eye.

The deeper question for the American church, I believe, is "have we become so anxious in putting people on our roles and bodies in our seats, that somewhere along the way we have lost the idea of genuine biblical community and regenerate membership?"

More than knowing WHO baptized our new member, I want to know IF they know Jesus and if they have demonstratable spiritual fruit from that conversion. Baptism is of course a part of that fruit, but it is not all, it seems to me.

In my two previous posts on "joining the church", I have been struggling with the idea of church membership. Is the way we do it biblical? Has the combined pressure of pragmatism and existentialism redefined church membership? I have shown how in just 2 centuries (in the American evangelical church), we have moved from meaningful church membership where the bar was high and members lived out their faith and mission within the context of biblical community to a situation today where many churches don't even know who their members are, much less whether or not they love Jesus. We may have a letter in our hands that says they have been baptized correctly, but what about the testimony of the life they have lived?

When church membership outnumbers worship attendance and Sunday School attendance two to one in the American church, something is wrong.

As one pastor said to me, "the FBI couldn't find half my members".

When I was at Southwestern Seminary years ago, one professor taught our class the three reasons to drop members (I am not kidding by the way):

1. If they die and you go to the funeral; or
2. If they move and you help them move; or
3. They join another church and you are there when they join.

All of this begs questions:

1. Why would we want members on our roll we can't find? And
2. Why would we want members on our roll who don't want to be?
3. Or maybe more important, why would we want members of our churches who aren't member of THE CHURCH?

I fear the answer to this has more to do with pragmatism than with biblical instruction. In seminary we were taught the growth spiral. But I am wondering now 20 years later, "where is all of this spiraling?"

Consider the latest research:

* The number of Americans who identify themselves as "Christian" has fallen below 80% for the first time in history.

* If the trend continues, more Americans will be non-Christian than Christian within 40 years.

* The number of teenagers who identify themselves as "born again" has declined to just 4%. (This percentage has declined dramatically in the past 40 years. We are losing our teenagers at alarming pace).

* By a three to one margin, Christians believe that truth is relative.

* In a typical week, a Mormon is more likely to read his Bible than either a protestant or catholic.

Commenting on this latest Barna research, Michael Horton observes:

(This research tells us) we are only replacing the dead, that the evangelical body is not growing. Churches are growing by the rearranging of the saints. Evangelicals are simply playing 'musical churches', moving around to more exciting, larger churches. The megachurch's feeder system is the smaller church and disgruntled believers who have quit their churches. What's going to happen when that feeder system dries up? What we are not doing is penetrating our world for Christ. Real evangelism, real discipleship, real outreach is simply not taking place on any serious level, as the cold facts plainly illustrate. Church growth has not happened, and instead of church growth principles replacing evangelism, they have merely succeeded in undermining it by placing success in the hands of technicians instead of the believing community as it discharges its duties in bearing witness to the gospel.

The megachurch has increased a hundred fold in the past 50 years, but my contention is that the church is less healthy today as a result of a humanistic, me-centered church corporation mindset. The result of the needs based market driven Wal Mart church is that we have created churches full of consumers who are not challenged in their faith. As we have made it easier for people to join our churches, members have found it easier to not take teaching seriously. Commitment to church discipline has declined in proportion to the demands and accountability of membership.

But it is not just slick programming and needs meeting that makes consumer driven religion attractive. It is also anonymity. One can become a member of a church without being under any spiritual authority or be involved in actual biblical community.

The result is that members of churches today do not feel challenged in any community sense, because there is no community. They do not read their Bibles, they do not share their faith, they do not take their faith seriously. They don't even believe in absolute truth. They want entertainment, and "feel good" existentially satisfying religion. They do not crave or understand biblical community. I am not conjecturing here, I am just reading the data.

How did we get in this situation? I believe it is because we have redefined church membership. Church membership today is less meaningful than joining a country club. Imagine a country club retaining members who do not pay their dues or meet any requirements of membership. You can't do it at the club, but you can in the church.

It only stands to reason that if the meaning of membership in churches has undergone such a dramatic downgrade, that the meaning of the disciplines of the faith would also not be taken seriously.

So, let's ask the 4th question, "Is this approach to church membership even biblical?" Is this the scriptural vision for the local church?

Consider:

In 1 Corinthians 3 Paul scolds the local church for building the church on a worldly pattern, building it out of the material of gold, silver and human invention. He says plainly:

"Do not deceive yourselves. If anyone thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a fool so that he may become wise."

This is fascinating instruction to the church. It was not, "Hey guys, look at what the world does, and become wise in the techniques, inventions and strategies of the culture around you and apply that wisdom to the church.

No, he actually says something like this, "the gospel is foolishness. The church is foolish business- just admit that and forget the standards of the flesh. The world has superstars and super personalities; but you, Corinthian church, you should not be like that. What do you think you are doing following the personality cults of Apollis on the one hand and Paul on the other? Don't you know you can't build a church the way the world builds it's institutions with it's superstars and slick strategy? If you build a church by the worlds standards, who would want to be a part of that?"

What kind of teaching is this for the church! He addresses all kinds of issues in the Corinthian church- unity, the Lord's Supper, orderly worship, sexual immorality, lawsuits, marriage, food sacrificed to idols, spiritual gifts, giving. He doesn't once mention growth strategy or advice on how to get more people into the church.

In fact, he really only gives advice on how to get people OUT of the church. He deals with the subject of spiritual discipline and proper behavior and accountability within the church, but nothing about how to grow the church numerically.

I have had pastors suggest to me (and there was a time when I bought into this) that our number one priority should to increase numbers. That it is God's will for the church to grow numerically. The standard is NUMERICAL growth. So all of our strategic initiatives and energy must go gather people into the building on Sunday m0rning.

By this we do not mean THE church, we mean THIS church.

On the surface this seems to make sense. When you buy into the landmarkist logic that the local church is the Kingdom of God and that there is no such thing as an invisible church, you will naturally be more interested in building that local church as big as you can get it. Because if the local church is not growing, the Kingdom is not growing.

The irony is that most churches that are growing numerically today are really only gathering bodies from other churches. SO, follow the logic. "Our church is growing numerically, we must be blessed by God." Of course FBC Small Church down the road has just given you some members so they must now be out of God's blessing?

What happens when your church determines to start a church and sends out a hundred members? Are you out of God's will if you decline? What happens when you clean up your roles to actually reflect the true church- is that God's will? What happens when the members you do have learn to love and serve one another and actually get in each other's lives and live in biblical community?

What happens when your church reaches a saturation point? What happens when the law of diminishing returns kicks in? Are you then out of God's will? Is the church out of God's will? Does the advancement of the Kingdom depend on your gold and silver hay and stubble? Is it up to you Paul? To you Apollis?

Do you see how when we follow the logic, this kind of strategy puts us in a very difficult unscriptural position?

I think this is a mistaken interpretation of scripture. I believe scripture teaches not only that the church must grow numerically (this will often be the natural outcome), but that everyone in the church must live in genuine authentic biblical community. I believe that it is God's will for the church to be the church. For members of the church to actually love Jesus and serve Jesus and share their love for Him with others.

I believe that when the church is the church God meant it to be, the result will be that people will be saved, discipled, and brought into the natural biblical community that forms out of the church. I believe the result will be that churches will sometimes grow dramatically, sometimes they will help start other churches and sometimes they will stall while growing deeper in their love for Christ and His work. But the result will be the advancement of the Kingdom- the invisible church and His rule in their lives.

Paul wrote the book of 1 Corinthians primarily for correction and discipline and to tell the church who they should REMOVE from the roll.

In the book of Acts Annanais and Saphira ended up leaving the church feet first after lying about their tithe.

In fact, Paul repeated this same theme of church discipline and accountability in the church in every letter he wrote to the churches. Try to find one that does no mention the responsibilities of being the church and living your faith.

In 2 Thessalonians 3, he goes as far as to say that if anyone does not follow his teaching, meaning the instructions of scripture, they should be disassociated from the church: "Do not associate with him, that he may feel ashamed." (v. 14)

And why should these people be defellowshipped from the church? - because they don't work hard enough and provide for their families.

Try that on as a church growth strategy.

The truth is, if our biggest value is simply high attendance and big impressive numbers added to our local physical church, then we are often put in the awkward position of actually not obeying scripture's teaching on discipline and genuine biblical community and membership.

Here is what is clear in scripture:

1. The Bible in fact teaches church membership. You cannot be taken out of a body unless you were first part of a body. You cannot discipline one another if you don't know who is who.

2. Church members must be known. Scripture does not envision a church where people don't attend.

3. Church members are in biblical community. They pray for each other, love each other, eat with each other and bear each others burdens. They also confront one another when they sin.

4. The church is valued as the bride of Christ and community of Grace. There is no such thing as Christians who are not committed to the church.

So, how are we to insure that our church holds on to these values and lives up to the standard of scripture?

That will be my last post on this subject next week. But my next post will be on the Davinci Code.

the sin of not noticing God's glory in others

In today's post, I will let C.S. Lewis speak:

"It may be possible for each to think too much of his own potential glory hereafter; it is hardly possible for him to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbor. The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbor's glory should be laid on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken.

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you say it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations.

It is in the light of these overwhelming responsibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal.

Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations – these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit – immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.

This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously – no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner – no mere tolerance, or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holist object presented to your sense.

If he is your Christ neighbor, he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat – the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden.”

From “The Weight of Glory,” C.S. Lewis

joining the church part two

In my last post I asserted that the church today is up against certain realities which in my opinion greatly impact the way we receive members. I stated that I believe the pressure of new definitions of success in the church as well as the ramifications of those new measures has had the affect of lowering the bar somewhat on the meaning of membership.

Churches are often run by implementing a "management by objectives" approach. Staff members feel pressure to perform according to predetermined objectives that relate more to those things that are easiest to measure. "What is the bottom line?" we want to know, and by that we mean worship attendance, budget giving, new members and baptism. Tom Ascol is offering a resolution at this years convention calling churches to accuracy in reporting numbers. The fact that many would call for such a resolution speaks for itself.

Someone will object that if churches do not care about results then they are like the bad steward in the parable of Jesus. They have taken his talent and squandered it. Why would we make excuses for our lack of success in carrying out the gospel?

This is the dilemma that most of us in leadership in ministry wrestle with. How or even should we measure our progress? Is this necessary? How do we keep track of our effectiveness in accomplishing those things we believe honor God?

My answer is absolutely yes we should have measures and that they are necessary and biblical. My argument in these posts is that somewhere on our way to the 21st century we changed our values for measurement. And that this change has resulted in an unhealthy tendency to major on minors and ignore essentials.

The Wisdom of History

There was a time when membership counted for something different. The measure for true membership used to be that a person demonstrated a love for Christ, an understanding of true doctrine and a lifestyle that backed up his or her faith.

But sadly, today it is easier to join a church than it is just about any other social organization.

Consider that in the 19th century Baptist churches in America defellowshipped about 2% of their church congregation each year for various disciplinary reasons. Membership was a privilege that was taken seriously. The monthly business meeting was normally a place where people would confess their sins to one another and concerns about how church members who were not faithfully in worship were addressed. The pastor would regularly meet with church members who were falling away from fellowship and who were not in worship regularly.

Now of course I am not suggesting that we look around for people to excommunicate! I am simply illustrating for us how far we have strayed from what was the normal practice of the American church before the 20th century. Think about it- if we were to expel from membership everyone who did not attend worship regularly- I don't have to tell you how deeply we would cut into our church records! The numbers speak for themselves. Our church is typical of most Baptist churches in America- only about 40% of our total membership actively attend our worship.

This would have been unheard of in past centuries. I am not calling for us to return to our colonial past, but to simply learn from the wisdom of our long history. There is something to learn from the way early Baptists in America "did church".

The effects of this kind of discipline, for instance, and the high bar set for membership had some obvious positive effects.

For starters, it created an environment of genuine community. People were in each others lives. They kept up with each other and asked the hard questions. The church community itself served as effective accountability. When there is community pressure to live a certain way, and to meet biblical standards, there is more of a sense of responsibility to live according to your faith. (Some will rightly point out that the Puritan society of stocks and scarlet letters is not to be envied- of course the biblical call of bearing with one another in love and speaking the truth in love is also a discipline of biblical community).

Another positive impact was the health of the church. Some of this was quite obvious. Consider the observation of Gregory Wills from Southern Seminary writing about church discipline of the 19th century:

In large part the discipline worked. It promoted unity and purity. Baptists had their differences in the nineteenth century. But they defined the essential areas in which unity was necessary for maintaining fellowship. They did not tolerate departures from those standards of belief and behavior which they deemed essential. In essentials they were united and discipline protected this unity. Their churches generally achieved the purity they believed that Christ required of them, for they did not retain members who strayed from it.

God apparently blessed it—the churches experienced the greatest revivals in the period in which they practiced church discipline. Between 1790 and 1860 Baptists in America kept up strict discipline and grew at twice the rate of the population

Rights and Responsibility

In any community or institutional system we are influenced by both responsibility to that community on the one hand and our rights within that community on the other. In our culture, we tend to emphasize our rights above our responsibility. People don't litigate to prove their responsibility. This is as I stated before the result of being immersed in a humanistic, me centered ethos. People do not naturally ask, "what is my RESPONSIBILITY?" in this situation. We are way to selfish for that. We naturally ask, "what is in it for ME?" Can you imagine what would happen if we applied the same standard for membership on our 21st century congregation? We would probably be labeled a cult. But scripture rarely speaks of our rights but instead speaks almost exclusively of our responsibility.

Church and Culture: Who's Influencing Who?

No man thinks completely independent of either his history or his surrounding worldview. We are a part of it and therefore it is perfectly natural for us to include it's standard when we apply biblical teaching to our life or to our church. The pre-modernistic understanding of biblical responsibility to church membership was erodedd at almost exactly the same pace as modernism took over our education, entertainment and industry. Charles Finney (1792-1875) introduced the emotional appeal of the invitation at the end of the 19th century. (Many Baptists are surprised to learn that before Finney, churches did not extend "invitations". Click here for an assessment of Finney's theology).

Finney's emphasis on man centered emotionalism coincides with the rise of Darwin (1809-1882) in economics, Marx (1818-1883) in politics and Freud (1856-1939) in psychology (I am not trying to associate Finney to these, I am only demonstrating the context).

William Jennings Bryant (1860-1925), a flamboyant orator and fundamentalist Christian who was twice the Democratic nominee for president also rose to prominance during this time. Ironically, many credit Bryant for transforming the Democrats into a socially liberal party. His emotional oration and revivalistic appeal was his greatest strength. The Republicans roll out a young flamboyant of their own- Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919). Either one of them could have extended invitations at the end of their train tours with many converts.

In April of 1906 the Azusa Street revival launches the pentecostal movement and entire denominations arise out of an emphasis on emotion and the "movement" of the Holy Spirit. The gift of tongues is seen as a mystical ability to speak in the language of the Holy Spirit while bypassing the mind.

At the turn of the 20th century the industrial age cranks out many new inventions that impact the church. The church finds that by providing electricity in their buildings they can draw a crowd on Sunday nights. Thus Sunday night worship becomes an evangelistic tool that attracts the seeker. People from all over the county will come to a night worship in a lighted, air conditioned building. What novelty it was! The first seeker targeted worship, in other words, was not inspired by Warren or Hybels, but by the light bulb. There was a heavy emphasis on "calling your sinners" at these Sunday night worship events.

The Fastest Man in Baseball

Vaudeville rose to prominance at about the time Billy Sunday (1862-1935) became the voice for evangelical Christianity.

Vaudeville was no match.

I once read an old article entitled, "why women love Billy Sunday." The premise was that he reminded them of a vaudeville style traveling show.

His entertaining sermons and spectacular stage antics drew crowds by the thousands. This ex professional baseball player (Chicago Whitestockings- he set the record for the fastest time around the bases at 14 seconds) became the standard by which many evangelical preachers measured themselves. It was not unusual to see the advertisements for a Billy Sunday crusade along side Sears Roebuck and Company and Dooleys Yeast Powder.

One historian wrote:

Careful planning went into the crusades, and teamwork was essential. A Sunday campaign resembled a vaudeville show as much as a mission; advance men promoted the coming attraction, secretaries made local arrangements, and bands and choirs were hired to provide entertainment. In 1909, Homer A. Rodeheaver, a song leader and trombone player, joined Sunday's troupe, and the tabernacle rang with music and excitement in the build-up to Sunday's explosive sermons.

His marketing strategy would have made Barna proud. I make this point to help us to see that our generation was not the first to borrow heavily from culture in order to accomplish our goals. Nor are we the first generation to be swept up to humanistic standards in measuring that success.

My own grandfather, who was a pastor for over 50 years beginning in the early 1900s, used to quote Billy Sunday, "set yourself on fire, and people will come watch you burn."

One New York crusade Sunday drew 1.5 million people with 100,000 recorded conversions. But it is not known if any of them ever actually joined a church. Billy Sunday rarely taught the necessity of church membership.

Connect the Dots

Of course the legacy of Billy Sunday was much more than just slick marketing. His influence on culture was positive, and there is no question that many came to Christ through his crusades. A long line of effective evangelists count Sunday as their spiritual mentor (including to some degree Billy Graham). There are many more examples of this kind of approach to evangelism that emerged during this time. Billy Sunday just happens to be the most spectacular one.

This is a sloppy way for me to connect the dots- I know. But I am only attempting to illustrate in kind of hellicopter flyover fashion how easy it was to move from a disciplined emphasis on doctrine and responsibilities of membership in the 18th and 19th centuries to an emphasis on human emotion and pragmatism in the early 20th. The importance of belonging and living in church life in spiritual community began to give way to an emphasis on large numbers of people down an aisle and into the baptistry. For the first time churches became concerned with how to keep members. The back door was often as big as the front. The number of people on the church membership roll began to greatly outnumber actual worship and Sunday School attendance.

The reconstructionist south was a very difficult place to live. Churches became the center of community life and associations formed. Many were anxious to get back on their feet and to see God work in spectacular ways. It was fertile ground for wholesale change within the church. There is much to be treasured and valued in that tradition and there were many positive changes in missions emphasis and Sunday School growth. Some of our greatest hymns came out of this time periods as well- God works through difficult times in profound effeciency.

But this was also the culture from which emerged our emphasis on emotionalism and pragmatism. In our enthusiasm for spectacular results, we often neglected our disciplines as incumberances and inconvenience. Perhaps we should hear the words of Jesus: "These you should have done and not left the other undone." (Matt. 23:23). We must somehow balance our enthusiasm for numbers and market success with genuine body life issues such as spiritual discipline, doctrine and accountability.

Back to the Future

Our solution of course is to move away from a tendency toward consumerism in the church and back to biblical missiology. We must rediscover the joy and discipline of biblical community. In response to my last post, Jayme Thompson wrote:

Failing to love individual people and care about individual stories births all kinds of trouble including consumer-driven, Wal-mart-church, marketing craziness. If we don’t “Love God and love people” we can’t obey or get right the other things God requires. We ask the wrong questions. Thinking of people theoretically and en masse is cold. It’s radically different from loving real people whose names we know. It’s also a temptation we all face. It’s so much easier for me to tithe and even give to the church in order to check off my “service” box than it is to tithe, give, and then pay the electric bill for the family next door that’s fallen behind and baby-sit their kids complete with snotty noses and bad manners.

Agreed. Real New Testament church is messy stuff. But I sense that this is the kind of thing that people long for today.

Many years ago I preached a youth revival at the "First Baptist Church of the South," FBC Charleston South Carolina. I have to admit- it was not an exciting church at the time- but what a past!

It was indeed the very first Baptist church in the south. But interestingly it did not have it's beginning in South Carolina, but in Kittery Maine! The ENTIRE CONGREGATION emmigrated from Maine to South Carlolina to start the church. The church later started missions all over South Carolina, began training young ministers and eventually was instrumental in the starting of Furman University.

The membership roll of this one church after 10 years of toil: 98.

Talk about missional.

Imagine me standing up next week and saying, "Hey church, we have decided that there are enough churches here in OKC. They don't have enough in Nevada, so... we are all going to pack up and move our church there.

Baptist historians today credit this one church for being a HUGE influence in starting churches across the south. We trace our heritage back to this one church. How is it that one congregation could have so much impact? How is it that their membership could be so committed to the cause of Christ that they would be willing to relocate their families to the swamps of South Carolina and give so much to spread the gospel to pioneering lands (like Georgia)?

The answer is that membership MATTERED. The people who joined did not think of the church as a club. They were not drawn to the church by emotional man centered appeal, but by genuine conviction and transformation by the Holy Spirit. They were taught and understood the doctrines of the faith and "the apostles teaching." Membership was not the result of a show or an act nor was it simply an emotional appeal at the end of worship. It was a commitment. The bar was high and the expectations were clearly understood. Members were expected to learn the meaninig of membership and the responsibilities and disicplines of fellowship.

Is there a way for us to reclaim this historical value of meaningful membership? I think there is. Although I am not calling for us to return to 19th century church methodology, I am suggesting that we can achieve a 21st century version of it.

What does scripture teach us?

That will be a later post.

joining the body as opposed to joining the club

How should someone enter into the fellowship of our church?

This is a question I and others have been giving a lot of thought lately. What is the meaning of membership? Is there really even a need for membership in a church?

I have good friends from other denominations who do not keep a membership list (One pastor friend told me his church keeps a "picnic list", not a membership list). Why should we? Is it biblical? Is it necessary? Certainly the current debate in international missions regarding the nature of the church also provokes the question.

What exactly constitutes a church? To approach the question let's begin by looking at a couple of current realities. In future posts, I will look at some historical background and the teaching of scripture.

It Hasn't Always Been Like This

Reality number one: The church has changed it's measure for success. In the past century, there has been a movement in the American church to emphasize numbers above all other measures. This accelerated after WW2 with the advent of the "mega church". Historically, huge churches in huge buildings is an anomaly.

But the phenomenon has spawned a growing tendency to put more impetus on numerical growth, while downplaying and even scorning the churches that do not move through the "growth barriers". By growth here we do not mean discipleship, we mean numbers.

Because I was raised in this environment, it has taken many years for me to open my eyes to it's shortcomings. Scripture has done that for me: We know about the churches in Ephesus, Collosae, Philippi, Galatia and Corinth.

But why don't we know their average attendance? No baptism report from Paul? How odd.

No, these churches in Paul's writings were assessed and measured by how they stacked up to Christ.

Oh, I know- we have the baptism numbers in the church in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts. But that was an account of the beginning of the church and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. It was not an exact count on worship attendance or even baptism- it was a statement of how the Spirit had moved.

I am not knocking keeping records- we certainly must. I am only making the point that if we are to expend so much energy and time and resources on this particular focus, we should at the very least see it valued in scripture to the same degree that we obsess over it.

The Challenge of Consumerism

Let's put it on the table- consumerism defines the American way of life. Our economy is fueled by our consumption. American business marketing is geared to convince you how unhappy you are.

This has driven our business and political philosophy for over a century, resulting in a new consciousness about human value and self worth. In the pre-modern age of scripture, people defined themselves by their place in society and their sense of duty and responsibility. It is only in modern times and in the emerging post-modernism that people seek fulfillment not in responsibility or by their contribution to society, but in their sense of independence and self fulfillment.

We value the right to choose and to decide our own sense of truth above objective empirical truth and reality. We value our individualism and will wear the carefully marketed mass produced symbols of independence to prove it.

Truth today is not seen as objective reality, but only one's take on the truth. "If it is truth for you, fine, but it may not be truth to me," the reasoning goes. Reality begins with me.

Humanisms absorption of our culture is total.

The results of this reality are many.

First, the church has become more market and consumer driven as our measure of success has shifted away from a focus on the objective truth of scripture and toward our new perception of truth based more on business models than on biblical instruction. So this is how we arrive at the perception that if it feels successful, it must be. I feel good about the church. The church is growing numerically. More people are coming and they seem to feel good to...success.

I feel therefore I am.

Every pastor knows this reality all too well. We are judged by our statistics, much the same as a CEO of a public company is measured by his or her stockholders.

When we get together for fellowship with other pastors, the issue of numbers is dangling above every conversation, although it is rarely addressed directly. "Tell me about your church". Translation: "how many do you have in worship?" Or more specifically, "how big a boy are you, anyway?"

The challenge is how to humbly say to your brothers "my house is bigger than your house" without seeming too proud, too arrogant.

Pastors check out each others numbers like opposing football teams check out each others height and weight in the program. The big dog is the one with the biggest congregation. He's the alpha male. He is the starting middle linebacker who walks taller than anyone else on to the field.

I recently had a conversation with some pastors I had not met before. They played the game masterfully in casual conversation. The subject quickly turned to the "what pastors do you know?" routine. It was interesting HOW they talked about their pastor friends. I noticed that after the pastors name they would insert his statistics. "So and so, he pastors a church of about 10,000..."

That's a big ole boy.

Another result of this reality is that our churches are filled with consumers instead of missionaries. Churches have said for years, "we will meet your needs". Which is another way of saying, "its all about you".

This philosophy is great for Wal-Mart, horrible for the church.

But I have to admit- it is successful. One can fill a church if he meets enough needs. And it will not be easy to change such a philosophy in a consumer driven culture.

The People Problem

Reality number two: As the church becomes more numbers driven, people in the church seem less like people. If the (unspoken) highest value of the church is the statistic, then the result will be a seeping depersonalization within the body.

"I love pastoring, it's just people I don't like." I have heard this statement more than once from pastors. I believe this is the natural result of coming into ministry in a church growth culture.

Many pastors are hooked on the ego rush one gets from defining his success pragmatically. We have X numbers, X baptisms, X budget. There I am. I can prove me statistically.

The problem is that you can't leave it at that. Each number represents a person. And if you have sold that person on a consumer model, they will quickly go somewhere else to consume if you don't continue to meet their needs. One of my mentors, Wendell Estep, used to say, "If you sell em on the circus, they will leave as soon as a bigger circus comes to town". How true.

So if you exist in this model, how do you deal with the revolving door? How are you to keep all those people happy? (Notice we are now asking the same question as the CEO). The answer, unfortunately, is that you make it easier for them to join, and you make it easier for them to stay.

In other words, you reduce your ministry objectives down to the least common denominator. Easy membership- easy requirements. It is the classic market approach. Success is found where the supply meets the demand.

One of our pastors is a former executive for Fleming Foods. He tells me that Wal Mart slays the competition because they are so accessible. They make it hard NOT to go to Wal Mart.

That has become the working objective of the business model church. The church that buys into this method makes it hard not to be a part of the church.

Join the Club

So if we are not careful our pragmatism will guide our strategy. Mmembership for many is not unlike joining a club. Just sign the card and pay the dues. The church that panders to consumers is soon reproached for poor service or lack of relevance or "not meeting my needs" etc. Pastors are pressured to stay up with the times and to learn the new approach rather than their original calling of loving Jesus, His Word and His church. In the words of Piper, "Brothers, we are not professionals."

The result: there is much talk today about the problem of "unregenerate membership".

I know. I am a recovering marketdrivenseekertargetedpurposedrivenfroginthekettleaholic. It has not been an easy recovery. I have been forced to admit that I don't know how our members are doing- really. I don't like that. As their pastor I will be accountable for that one day.

Sobering.

Sobriety as in any recovery has come from making the hard admissions, I came to recognize that I was powerless.

This is His bride. We must do it His way.

A second hard admission is that we have a lot of people in our churches today who simply do not know Jesus. They have joined the club and signed the card. What we are unclear about is what we should be most clear about- we don't know if they ever actually met Jesus.

We take their word for it, but is that enough?

Several months ago two events involving two different members converged in one week that brought this issue clearly into focus for me. One was a confrontation our staff had with a church member who had fallen into terrible sin. The nature of his sin was uncharacteristic of anyone who loves Jesus, much less knows Him.

The other involved a church member who tried to take advantage of the church in his billing method. In digging into his situation, we discovered that he was living in another city, and was not giving to our church and had not been active in many years. He was still on our role, but hardly qualified as a member.

And yet- that is how we had him classified. He even pulled out the "member card" in his attempt to twist our arm to pay his unsubstantiated bill.

These two examples are not unique to our church. And it is not that we have been lax in accepting members relative to other churches. In both of these cases, we discovered that these guys had walked the aisle and had been through our interview process. Because they had all the right answers, they were granted membership.

But we have to ask is this process adequate in determining who is qualified to be a part of the body? Is the bar high enough?

In future blogs I will explore this question by looking at both our history as Baptists and the teaching of scripture.