Looking Down: Clarification

Okay, so someone out there is at least reading this blog, which is great fun for me! But I don't seem to have been clear in my post entitled "Looking Down." I got quite a few responses saying that age isn't the factor, but the truth and authenticity of the man and the message are. I thought that was exactly what I was saying in the blog!

However, I am still thinking through the idea that different venues might use different cultural languages to bring the one truth of Bible to bear on different cultures. Of course this would hold true for different language groups, but might it not also be true for different cultural groups?

I don't intend to change what I am doing, nor will we change where and how I am doing it. But, it probably also makes sense to find a way to bring the Bible to bear on those whose cultural language (read: preferences in terms of style, "feel", and other cultural elements) is different than the one we have in our large, and rather traditional auditorium. For me, it works. And for hundreds every week it works. But, for a bunch of others, it is not a place they would "feel" like they know what to do, how to respond, etc.

Here's the deal, flat out: It is the message of the Bible - the Gospel in its largest sense - that is to be proclaimed in purity, no compromise. The story of God's rescue in Jesus Christ must not be shaped by culture, or changed by the church. But, the size of the room where the church gathers, the chairs they sit on, the time of day they gather, the music they choose to hear, play and sing, and a whole host of other accessories to corporate worship can - and should! - be carefully selected so as to create an environment devoid of as many obstacles to learning and worship as possible. My sense is that, given our great diversity of cultural languages today, it may not be possible to do it all in one service for all cultural groups. We would do well to see if having different venues that all brought the same biblical message would allow diversity where there is no biblical prohibition and unity in the one area that matters: the truth.

Of course, this presents another set of challenges. Foremost is the recognition that if you divide groups down too finely you end up with services suited to selfishness. And that is not glorifying to God. Yet, we can take a cue from missiology, where missionaries have known for years that to reach a culture, you first must understand it, and bring the eternally relevant message of the eternal God to bear in - and on - that culture. When Hudson Taylor went to China, he first grew a que so that he could be recognized as one who was "of the culture." And where cultural relevance can be a help, and is not a compromise of God's truth, it should be sought for. (Note: But, where cultural relevance is really cultural compromise, it must be eschewed!).So, when ministering to large cultural groups, it is appropriate to create settings where those attending do not have to fight through cultural elements that are foreign to them. The key must be to center on the Gospel and the mission. Our mission is not to get people to like us because we are relevant and provide a comfortable place for them. Rather, we are to provide whatever environment is necessary so that the Gospel is "adorned" (Titus 2:10). Admittedly, there will be great differences of opinion in this area. Those who believe a classic hymn is the best way to adorn the Gospel will find it hard to believe that a very contemporary praise chorus (with good theology!) can accomplish the same objective in the minds of a younger culture. And so, we will battle with the selfishness that we all have when we think that the "cultural language" that has meant so much to us in our journey with Christ must be the best one for everyone.

Another huge problem is that of unity among different venues, different "congregations." Consider this scenario: On a Saturday night, one venue only does soft, acoustic music with guitar, and the message is followed by an hour of dialogue with the audience. On Sunday morning one venue features a choir, and a "blended" style of music, with a traditional sermon and all the regular elements of our current services. At the same time, in another venue, a contemporary band leads the music, and the preacher uses a much more relational style, taking advantage of the intimacy a much smaller room provides. Then Sunday night, still another venue finds a traditional, piano-led hymn sing followed by an expositional 30 minute message. A prayer time follows.

While the above scenario is fresh from my brain, I could see it being the "multi-cultural language" offering of a church that was serious about reaching and training a whole spectrum of people from the community. But, how to keep them prizing the unity of the Body? That is a huge question, and not one that is easily solved. However, the key would be to have each venue cheering for the others, recognizing that all were involved in the same mission: building complete people through the teaching and application of God's Word. It would also help if all the preachers worked together to make sure that they were teaching the passages the same way in each venue. Lastly, rotating preachers, rotating musicians occasionally, and holding combined services from time to time would make sure that all the venues realized that God was at work in the other venues.

This model is being used in many places, but my thoughts on this are just forming. Most use video for the various venues, but I don't think a video sermon is the way to go. Rather, I would work to form a good preaching team - with each man having his own venue. I would keep doing what I'm doing, work very hard to keep all the preachers on the same page, preaching through the same book or series together.

Lastly, let me stress that these are just my thoughts. I am thankful for "push back." I value the comments many of you have given me, and my thinking continues to adjust as my study of the Word, and the thoughts of God's people are brought to bear on my ideas. But, let me leave you with this: We don't want to be Jonah! Let me explain:

Jonah is a two-sided model of what we must not be today. On the one hand, Jonah didn't want to do what God specifically told him to do. And while God doesn't speak audibly to us today, there are still many, many things we are commanded to do. Not to do them is to be a Jonah, and we all know what God thought of his disobedience! God has commanded us to take the Gospel to all peoples. That is not limited just to other language groups or people groups in foreign lands. We actually have numerous "cultural groups" in our own communities, and our task is not just to ignore the fact that they are living apart from God, and marching to a tragic eternity. We are told to bring them the story of God's rescue in Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, we all too often think the job of "taking the Gospel to our world" is being done if we hold a service and wait for the world to walk through the doors.

Secondly, Jonah thought he should have some say as to who God decided to save. Make no mistake, Jonah hated the Ninevites! They were pagans, enemies, wicked, trash! They were "beneath" Jonah. And Jonah had to learn the lesson we all must constantly learn: Salvation belongs to God, and He doles it out to whomsoever He chooses. He asks us to be the delivery system, not determine who gets grace.

So, I refuse to be a Jonah. I refuse to decide that, if God is going to save the postmodern generation, He'll just have to do it without us. No. What I do determine is that I will keep doing what I am doing, preaching the Word I am preaching, the way I am doing it, in the place He has planted me. And, I will try to raise up others around me who can preach what I am preaching, faithful to the Word of God in every respect, but in conjunction with biblically-allowable cultural styles and "languages" that adorn that Word among those who are being shaped by cultural stresses and forces I don't easily recognize or understand. But then again, I don't have to understand them. God does, and salvation belongs to Him.

Hope this helps,

David

So, now that I know some are actually reading this ... what do you thi

God and Caesar

I am always amazed at how up-to-date the Bible is. Recently, while studying through the Gospel of Luke, I came to the section in chapter 20 where the religious elite of Jerusalem were trying to trap Jesus in a chargeable offense. They even sent spies who pretended to be righteous to ask Him trick questions.

One of the questions was about whether it was right for a pious, law-following Jew to pay the required tax to the Roman government ... to Caesar. And you all know how Jesus "out-clevered" them by showing that they were already in league with Rome since they all carried Roman coins in their pockets, and used the exchange system to make a profit. (Turns out, they charged folks high fees to "exchange" Roman and Greek coins for the Temple half-shekel used to pay for Temple sacrificial items and the Temple tax.) While appearing to be against the Roman occupation of Palestine, these hypocrites were actually making bank out of the situation.

But Jesus, knowing their deceitful plan, silences them with the magisterial statement: "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." And we've all heard what that means: we owe certain attitudes and actions - like paying taxes - to the government, and we owe certain attitudes and actions to God as well.

To the government, we owe obedience, and honor, and intentional service to make our community better, and - I believe - informed participation in the political system. As Christ-followers, we ought to be the best citizens.

To God we owe authentic worship and service, and we spend our lives becoming more and more deeply in love with God through Jesus Christ our Savior. These are things we all know.

But ... have you ever thought about the opportunity you may one day have to "give to God what used to be Caesar's"? Have you ever thought about how great it would be if the government (Caesar) came up with a way to fund the work of God, and they decided to do it through you and me?

Well, in my mind, that is exactly what will happen this May, '07. Most of us are going to get a check for $600 or $1200 or more from the government. Now, while I am sure we could all find a way to spend it, in reality it is money we never expected, and most of us don't really, really need. If the government had not decided to give us some of our money back, we all would have gone on with our lives and none of us would have awakened one morning to say "how come the Congress isn't giving me $600 this month?" So, I have a great idea!

Here's my idea: Take what Caesar gives you and give it to God. Give your money away, to your church, or to some organization that is truly engaged in Gospel work. Just think of yourselves as the middle man through which Caesar is "giving back to God what is actually His!"

Now I know some of you are deeply in debt, and perhaps you need to take that money and pay off some bills, or at least pay then down. My fear though, is that those who should use it to pay off debt will use it to buy more stuff they don't need, or even worse, use it as a down payment on that entertainment system they don't need, and can't afford! So, just give it away! And if you can't give it all, give half.

We've decided at our house that we're giving it all to the work of the Kingdom at Northpoint (our congregation). And we can hardly wait to take advantage of this "once in a life time opportunity." Imagine, Caesar giving to God what is actually His, and letting me be the middle man. Now that's a government program I can fully endorse.

Hope this helps,

David

Free Time

Occasionaly, I am asked by someone who thinks it is a great question, what I do in my free time. And being a bit of a snob about words, I lately have begun wondering just what the modifier "free" is supposed to mean in regard to time. I suppose I could go off on all the possible uses of "free" but that clearly would only lengthen this post but not get us anywhere useful. So, I am proposing that when someone uses "free" to designate some time, they are suggesting that it is time that is not bound by any restrictions, outside expectations, or relational obligations. That is, "free" time is time that no one gets to spend, or define how it is going to be spent ... but me. It isn't my bosses time, or my family's time, or my weekly chores' time. It is time that is mine to spend as I choose.

So, here's the deal. Turns out I don't have any free time. Oh, I have time when I do what I want to do, but technically, God actually has a vested interest in that too. And I would have to admit that often, when I do what I want to do with my time, I look back and believe that I could have used it better. This is especially true when I look at my life through the lens of Paul's call to "redeem the time" because the days in which we live are so evil. Given the evil that abounds, and the opportunity Christ-followers have to be - and do - good, it only makes sense that we use all of our time in a way that pleases God.

So, if "free" time is time that carries no expectations from outside ourselves, those who have taken Christ's call seriously - "deny yourself, take up the cross, and follow Me" - have to admit that they don't have any. What we do have is "following" time. That is, all of our time is to be spent following Christ, whether it's on the job, or in the market, or on the ball field or golf course, or in the home or even taking a nap (a much needed piece of Sabbath rest lost in most lives!). We've been set free from the bondage of sin, but not so we can have "free" time. No, our times are in His hands, and He graciously grants us life and breath so we can honor him ... all the time.

Hope this helps,

David

Looking down

It hit me hard I must admit, though I think I kept my face from giving away the fact that my world slipped out of orbit more than I cared to let on. We had finished lunch, and our church staff were discussing church stuff. As often happens these days, the topic turned to the gnawing sense we have that a huge part of our community is becoming increasingly ambivalent to all things "church." We've looked around and seen that our growth among the almost retired set is faster than among the 25-35 year-old group. And so, after hearing some of my staff offer the same old critiques, I decided to hit it straight on.

"So" I demanded, "what would you do to make Northpoint (our church!) more attractive to younger folks?" One of my staff friends looked at me, trying hard to figure out if he really wanted to venture out on the limb that his answer demanded. Finally, after pleading with his eyes that I not retaliate, he offered this: "We'd need younger preachers."

There it was! A blast that rocked my world. Fortunately, another staff guy came to my rescue, scooped the puddle of my heart off the floor, and carefully poured it back into me when he said "I think the age of the preacher isn't the thing that matters, only the Gospel being well represented and authentically declared." Okay, I'm alright now, really.

The next day the first guy asked if he'd hurt my feelings. Of course I lied. "No, I really enjoyed hearing your ideas!" But the truth is that it really hurt even though he wasn't in anyway suggesting that I am too old to be effective as a preacher and herald of God's truth. What he was trying to say is just a new twist on the old adage that "congregations tend to end up looking like their preacher." And what really hurt the most was that I think - in part - he was right. But before I explain what I mean, let me take a rabbit trail that is worth remembering.

Rabbit Trail: It struck me after the lunch conversation that things have really changed. In 1 Timothy 4:12, the old Apostle Paul - at the height of his apostolic effectiveness! - has to encourage Timothy not to let his youthfulness stand in the way of his ministry to the people of Ephesus. "Don't let anyone look down on your youth! Rather, use your youth to your advantage and show the world that Christ can transform the follies of youth into exemplary, spiritual character"(Hegg paraphrase!). Crazy as it may seem, in that day, youthfulness (and Tim was probably a robust 35!) was seen as a detriment, an obstacle to effectiveness.

Today, Timothy would be doing the writing: "Paul, hey look ... I know you're getting into your late 40's - or is it 50's? - but, dude ... don't give up! I know you're being told to die your hair black, and grow that soul patch, and expand your collection of tee shirts, but man ... don't let anyone look down on your age-fullness! Rather, use your oldness to your advantage! Show the world that Christ can keep life worth living even through the 'age of colonoscopy', and the creaking bones, and the Metamucil! Be an example of what years of experience and spiritual maturity can bring to a church community!"

So, I hope you get the point: IT NEVER WAS ABOUT AGE! Not in Timothy's day, and not in ours. What it is about is the extent to which the life is overflowing with Christ. And here's why: Christ is eternally relevant; when a life leads with Christ ... when the character and compassion and wisdom of Christ ooze out of a person, he/she will be useable by the Spirit of God regardless of their chronological position.

So back now to the primary trail. My staff friend was on to something. I'm not sure that what I am about to suggest is what he was thinking, but his boldness turned on the motor of my mind, and I think I've come to some ministry-defining conclusions.

But first, we go backward, all the way back to the fundamental ideas of communicating the Gospel. And by communicating, I am talking here about the corporate activity of a gathered people who come together, under the leadership of a few appointed ministers, to celebrate God, appreciate one another authentically, and consecrate themselves to the service of the Gospel. The simple word for this is "worship." We gather to "worship." The challenge here is so much greater than the challenge of personal worship. Gathered worship demands that we use tools - we might call them elements - to keep a large group of hearts and minds focused on the same thing, moving in the same direction, intent on elevating Christ Jesus and His truth above our own desires. These "tools" include songs, and prayers, and sermons, and readings, and creeds, and all sorts of other things we normally don't include, like lights, and chairs, and air conditioning. All of these, to a lesser or greater extent, remove distractions and/or provide a type of "herding" force to keep a group of diverse people moving in the same direction, down the same path, to engage with God. The purpose of our singing, our praying, our everything is to bring unity to diversity, focus to chaos, and intentional engagement with God to those who have entered the room filled with myriad different feelings, opinions, hurts, needs, experiences, and so much more. As I write this I come even more to understand how difficult corporate worship really is! No wonder so few achieve lasting success!

And so, if we take this further, and combine my lunchtime findings, we come to see that different types of "tools" work better to direct and focus different kinds of people, even groups or categories of people. A young preacher, using the tool of his style may just be better at directing the attention of a young audience.

Imagine the challenge: people aren't just different in terms of their ethnicities, and ages, but also in terms of the way they process information, the ways they respond emotionally, their preferences, their maturity, their sinfulness, their selfishness, and a whole bunch of other things! So, how in the world do we ever think that we can successfully herd a bunch of people to engage with God unless, by the tools we choose to use we self-limit the kinds of people who will come through the doors in the first place?

Let me explain further. I have come to lean toward perhaps suggesting cautiously (what boldness!) the idea that it is good to have different venues where the one message of the Gospel story (the Bible, and all of its commands, consequences, and delights) is preached, but that the set of tools selected in each venue are those that best herd a recognized group of people. I am not talking about just playing to the selfishness of every group, but of recognizing, from among the large number of godly, biblically-aligned tools available, which ones best "herd" which people, and then using them without the guilt of having to provide a service that benefits every type or group.

You may respond to my "herding" idea with less than full enthusiasm, so let me go further. All we can do is herd. We can't force anyone to worship. All we can do is lead them to the water of heaven, but drinking is up to them. We can put enticements before them, offer elements to move the heart and mind to engage with God, but ultimately, worship must be the action of an individual's will. He/She must abandon themselves to God. Just as all politics is local, all worship is essentially personal, even when we are in a crowd of worshipers.

Of course, like me, some of you are saying "but different venues threaten the unity of the Body!" And yes, we're right, but all that means is that we have to find ways to keep that from happening. And, if we stop and think about it for a minute, we'll realize that those "people" we are trying to reach are either 1) not gathering anywhere to engage with God, or 2) are more than likely gathering in a place where they have a kickin' band, and a pitiful Gospel. So, if the tools we use are God-honoring, and biblically-aligned, and the Gospel message is pure, where is the frown of God? And besides, if those in different venues are pulled together in service for the community, or taught to prize "team" wins (where venues applaud one another for using resources well to further the mission), then an authentic unity of the Body is not going to be any more elusive than it is in a single-venue congregation.

So, lunch was great, the conversation was hard, and the end-result is that I have a whole new set of dreams. Chuck Swindoll once said, in speaking to preachers, that when your memories are better than your dreams, you're through, and you ought to find someone to take your place. Well, my dreams actually have grown as a result of someone suggesting that others take my place ... and I couldn't be more excited about it!
There is more energy in putting mission first than in making sure "me" is getting taken care of. I think Jesus lived that way, and He's calling us all to follow Him .. closely. And O yeah, I'm not giving up preaching just yet!

Hope this helps; it sure helped me,

David