Church in the Shades of Gray: Culture

For the last two weeks I have taken this moment to discuss some of the issues related to the Pulse Nightclub Islamic Terrorist attack.  Today, I want to return to the subject of the church in Shades of Gray, specifically, the interface between faith and culture.  This is apropos in view of the terror attack.  The church more than ever seems to need to define its place in the culture proactively, rather than have its place defined for it by the culture, or worse yet, assume a place in culture without giving it any thought. 

The church finds itself in shades of gray when it must establish itself on a continuum between two opposites or nearly opposite points.  We have earlier looked at the difference between Seeker Driven worship as opposed to worship as the act of a Covenant People.  This is not a matter of Right verses Wrong, but where is it wise for the church to position itself; much like the balance of buying a car.  Should we buy a car with the highest fuel mileage or opt for maximum comfort and safety?  While this may not be a moral decision, it can have a profound impact on a congregation.  The mature church leader looks at the continuum and tries to lead the congregation to the place that is a prudent balance. 

At the same time that the church has been shaping its culture, it has been shaped by its culture. That is why the continuum of culture and its impact on the church and vise versa is so important for our consideration. The question is to what degree should the church be a part of the cultural norm.  On either extreme of the continuum there lays folly, but where in the broad middle should we position ourselves?

Cultural relevance/Embracing the culture
On one side, we might say that the church needs to embrace the culture in which it finds itself in order to be able to bear witness to that culture. Paul says, "I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some."  (I Cor. 9:22)  When we evangelize cross-culturally, we are very aware of the host culture, and the need to communicate the gospel in a way that is germane in that culture.  It can be argued that that is true when we evangelize within our own culture. The church needs to remove from its practice the barriers of communication with its own culture and should do so by embracing the culture's arts, style, methods and norms. Some would say that these barriers can include steeples, crosses, and big book Bibles-this list can be endless.  Carried to an extreme, the church becomes identical to the culture so that the non-Christian community loses the message of the Gospel in the background noise of its own culture.

Counter culture/ Intentionally distinct
On the other half of the continuum, we might say, that the church rejects the world, the flesh, and the Devil, at every level.   By its pursuit of holiness and godliness, the church offers a distinctly different cultural norm becoming truly counter-cultural.  I Peter 1:15-16 tells us: "but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY." To the degree that the church adapts itself to the world it separates itself from God and it loses its witness and real power. It is the responsibility of the church to be distinct from the world. Carried to an extreme the church becomes a legalistic body more concerned with keeping rules of its own sub-culture rather than serving the Lord and reaching the lost.

The reality is that we must be, live, and minister in a culture that has shaped us.  Often we are so shaped by our culture that we fail to realize it is there. Like the atmosphere that is around us, we are so accustomed to our culture we are unaware of its presence.  Without a Biblically mandated directive there is no distinctive Christian culture to which we can run. So we must be the salt of the earth while not being “in the world”.  This requires careful deliberation for our own choices and grace toward others.

Questions:

At the intersection of politics and faith, we often find the unique challenge of faith and culture.  How has this intersection been difficult for you personally or within your congregation?

In what ways do you see the subculture of the church getting in the way of the spread of the Gospel?

It has been said there is nothing wrong with a boat being in the water; rather, the problem comes when the water gets in the boat.  In what ways do you feel the waters of our culture have gotten in the boat of the 21^st century church?

The arts are another cultural crossroads of faith and culture.  What are some reasonable steps to engage artistic creativity while maintaining a Christ-like holiness?

In support of the nightclub shooter

The events at the Pulse nightclub have made their predictable transitions from shock and horror of the event to the posturing of all parties to make the most of the opportunity.  Politicians, especially those running for the Presidency, are offering opinions that they hope will garner them support.  Pro-gun and anti-gun groups are using the occasion to ask for support, i.e. donations, to advance their cause.  This is a predictable pattern for any tragedy in a media and money driven democracy.

Outside of Islamic groups such as Isis no one is speaking up in behalf of the shooter.  I actually find this a little inconsistent.  I believe there is one group in America that ought to be speaking up for, or at least recognizing, the legitimacy of what the shooter did.  That group is the committed, atheistic, biological evolutionist.  (Now before you send me hate mail that I don’t understand the good hearts of evolutionists, please place your tongue firmly in your cheek and bite down so as not to smile).  If evolution is true, then we must recognize certain trues.

1.     First, this was determined.  In evolution there is neither right nor wrong.

We have heard a lot of noise this week about how wrong and evil this event was.  But in an evolved world we cannot say something is wrong.  Is it wrong for a lion to kill and eat a zebra?  If it is not, then it is not wrong for one being to kill another, unless you want to address the issue of waste, in which case, this act would have been okay if he had eaten those he killed.

2.     If evolution is true, there is no freewill. 

This shooter was simply responding to the chemical impulses of his central nervous system.  The mechanistic nature of the universe and of evolution itself predetermined this before the first pond slime evolved eyes.  This kind of stuff just happens. 

3.     Third, if Darwin’s disciples are correct this was survival of the fittest. 

Those who died did not deserve to pass on their genes to the next generation.  Not that this kind of thing would happen a lot for people at a gay nightclub.  This event was cold, heartless evolution saying good riddance.  Those who could/should pass on the genes would have survived.  On a side note, those who will not or cannot pass on their genes to improve the species ought to be eliminated anyway.    

4.     Compassion and pity are wasted efforts. 

In an evolutionary universe, compassion is an evolutionary adaptation to help assure the survival of the pack, tribe, related group, or species.  It was/is useful only to make sure that the genetic code would be passed on to the preserved in the species.  If our world is in an evolved universe, compassion is completely useless. The Homosapien has pretty well established itself on the planet and it is unlikely to go extinct anytime soon.   The greatest danger to our species is over population and the over exploitation of limited resources, in which case, the elimination of population is a good, not a bad thing.  We do not have too many mass shooters; we have too few.

5.     Natural selection recognizes no human rights.

Some would argue that a mass shooting is wrong because it violates the human rights of the victims.  If evolution is true there is only one right, the right to struggle.  The right is expressed in the lion and the zebra.  In the struggle, the lion has the right to try to catch a slow zebra and eat it.  The zebra has the right to run and kick the lion (ideally in the jaw, making sure it starves to death so removing the inferior lion for the pride).  In an evolutionarily universe, the victims of the shooter have only the same rights that the bacteria in our body has as it wages war against our white blood cells.

6.     Some might say that the shooter was wrong because he violated the cultural norms of society.

But if right and wrong are determined by culture, or society, or by the power of the ruling class, then we must apologize to the Nazi’s.  As species evolve so must their culture.  In the same way the shooter violated our culture, the allies violated the culture of Nazi Germany.

7.     Pragmatism would argue that random mass shooters are not good. 

Mass shooters introduce chaos and disruption to the happy productive lives of people.  But evolution is only interested in the practical advancement of evolution.  Besides pragmatism is a terrible slave master.  There is no pragmatic reason for love, beauty, art or freedom, for that matter.  Pragmatism is, however, an excellent argument for slavery and even human recycling (taking non productive people and using their bodies for food products and or fertilize). 

While no evolutionist will ever support the action of this or any other mass shooter, neither can a secular world view ever find a solution to the problem of evil.  In a strictly materialist world-view evil is a non-existent category.   Only a society with its roots firmly in a transcendent truth giver can deal with evil. 

Evil is best understood as a violation of the intended purpose of the maker.  Therefore, we can say the action of a shooter is evil only if we can say the Creator’s intended purpose is violated.  This, of course, means we must accept the reality of the Creator and His authority of His creation.  Secular society simply cannot do that.   It is evil to violate the purpose intended by the Creator, whether that is in a nightclub, bedroom, or a womb. 

Basic Response Plan

Last week, I offered to share what our church did in response to a warning from the Office of Public Safety in Gainesville, FL, when the Dove World Outreach Center planned to burn a copy of the Koran. 

Please understand our preparations were very rudimentary and hurried.  They should serve as nothing other than a beginning point for any church wanting to enhance their security precautions.   I also would strongly advise seeking the advice of professional security consultant specializing in church security.  What we did can be summarized in three phases:

·      Communicate with your leaders.

1.     After I received word from the OPS, I contacted the senior leaders of the church.  Developing a security plan is NOT something the minister needs to do alone.  In fact, once the project is begun the minister’s role is minimal.  Unless you went to a very unusual Bible College, you most likely did not take a class in security issues in seminary.

2.     The biggest problem we had to wrestle with was how much to communicate and with whom.  We limited the information about the threat warning to a very small circle which included the elders, then to teachers, deacons, and volunteers on a need to know basis.

·      Upgrade existing systems.

Rather than attempting to install new systems or plans, we began with upgrading our existing services.  Situational awareness was the key of what we wanted to do.

1.     Like most churches we had greeters at the main entrance.  To this we added one of our leaders whose job it was to watch and pay close attention to any first time visitor that seemed ill at ease.  If someone who seemed out of place our leader would attack himself to this individual and offer to guide them around the building and to set with them during the service.

2.     Once services began all entrances to the building were locked so that anyone arriving late had to enter via the main entrance.  This was important to us because the design of our building allowed numerous entry points to areas of children’s ministry. 

3.     We also had a volunteer walk through the parking area during the service.  Again, he was looking for anything that seemed out of place and would react proactively unless there was an obvious threat. 

4.     Our church was in a state and community in which it is not uncommon for citizens to have “concealed carry permits”.  Members with CCP’s were in the loop concerning the threat.  We asked those persons, which included off duty police officers, to carry at church.  They were asked to defend the congregation if necessary. 

We were able to conduct all our services without any interruption to our regular practices. 

·      Construct an action plan.

I am thankful to report that we did not have to take any action in an incident.  However, we did have an action plan in the event that something happened. The best plans cannot prepare for every contingency, but a good plan is better than no plan at all.  Here are the plans we had in place if something were to happen.  In the event of an incident:

1.     We had a team of men designated to go and secure the children’s ministry.  One of our rooms was a secure room with easily blocked access.  In the event of a crisis, all the children would be taken to that room and kept safe till their parents could pick them up. 

2.     In the case of a person brandishing a weapon, armed members were to command the assailant disarm.  In the case of an active shooter, armed members were to engage if they could do so without danger to innocent people.

3.     All leaders not actively engaged in any other capacity were to call 911 for help.

4.     After the moment of crisis had passed, members were to be taken to the fellowship hall, reunited with children and were to be asked to wait for the police to speak with them before leaving. 

5.     Members with medical training would be asked to assist with any injured persons once there was a reasonable sense of security.

6.     One individual was designated to represent the church to the press and that was not to be the minister. 

A trained security expert would no doubt find numerous problems with this plan.  But we did put this together in a matter of a couple of weeks.  I do believe this is a good starting point and is better than no plan at all.

We did not have time for rehearsal or additional training.  We were also short staffed and had occasions in which we had no law enforcement in the congregation.  As Sunday, September 11, approaches, if you have no plan, please begin to prepare for a moment we hope never occurs. 

What if it were a church and not a Gay Night Club.

Quran 9.14- "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people."

When Terry Jones of Dove World Outreach Center planned to burn a copy of the Quran in Gainesville, FL, a few years ago, I was ministering at a church a couple of miles away.  The whole area was in chaos.  Every agency in the Government and every news network seemed to have a presence near the church.  Access to the neighborhood around the church was restricted and if you knew what you were doing you avoided that area of town just because of traffic. 

I received phone calls at the office from people all over the U.S. who confused our church with DWOC.  But the call that was most distressing knew who we were, where we were, and that we were not DWOC.  It came from the city of Gainesville’s office of public safety.  They called to tell us that they had received a credible threat of acts of terror against churches in Gainesville.  We were advised to take appropriate measures.  When I asked for more information about the threat they said that they didn’t have any more information.  When I asked what they suggested that we do they told me that was not their area of expertise. 

We did make plans.  Thankfully, the action plan we put in place was not needed, but it was an exercise that opened my eyes to what an incredibly ‘soft’ target a church would be for a terrorist attack.

Not every Muslim immigrant is a terrorist, but the attack on the Pulse Night Club demonstrates that a lone attacker can be devastating.  This attacker was apparently motivated by a combination of Islamic teaching and homophobic/homohostile convictions.  The probability that an attacker will strike your church is remote.  With about 350,000 churches in America your odds are very low.  However, some where between fear mongering and naivety is prudence.  I am strongly suggesting that you speak with your leadership about a basic response plan to a shooter.  If you like, contact me and I will gladly share with you my experience and the preparations that we made.

To see the article, “The Problem of a Religious Shooter in a Secular Society” go to: http://beyondharan.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-problem-of-religious-shooter-in.html

The Problem of a Religious Shooter in a Secular Society

This past Sunday Morning while most of the nation slept, another mass shooter unleashed a reign of death.   This time the players were a Muslim Terrorist and the patrons of a gay bar hosting Hispanic night.  Within hours the usual talking points were being released from almost all points on the political spectrum.  In President Obama’s Sunday afternoon news conference he mentioned that this was an act of terror and hate, while failing to mention any reference to the Islamic faith of the shooter.  He expressed his opinion that this demonstrates the problem of guns in society.  Candidate Trump called for the President to identify this as an act of Islamic terrorism or resign from the Presidency.  The left and the right will all be trying to make the most of this event and leverage it for power to advance their agenda.

The problem is that a secular society is utterly and totally ill equipped to deal with a mass shooter or, for that matter, any act of evil.  The fact that the shooter reportedly identified himself with I.S.I.S. and was attacking a protected minority leaves our nation asking more question than ever, but demonstrates that complete lack of the ability of a secular society to deal with the mass shooter.

As a secular society, we can’t say something is “wrong” because such a declaration presumes that right and wrong are real categories.  The irony of an attack on a gay bar should not be lost on us.  The individual is sovereign and that sovereignty must be respected, indeed, almost worshiped.   We have, for a very long time, been told to identify what is right individually. What is right for one person is right for them and we must not impose any moral categories on anyone.  We now find that two diametrically opposed positions are in a head on collision.  What was right for the gay men at the bar demanded that the right thing for the Muslim shooter was to kill them.

We cannot define right and wrong without a transcendent authority.  But that is exactly what a secular society wants to do.  I expect that we will be told that it was wrong for the Muslim shooter to kill gay men.  I also expect that any condemnation of homosexuality is equally wrong.  But without a transcendent authority to define right and wrong how can a secular society impose its values on a committed Muslim man?  Any attempt to define behavior as right or wrong without an appeal to some kind of absolute is self-defeating.  Right and wrong, good and evil are moral terms and morality has no place in a secular society. 

There is no way a secular society can say mass shooters are bad and maintain a coherent and logical position.  The best or most that a secular society can say is mass shooters are; that they exist.  A secular society can count the number of dead bodies, the number of rounds fired, and the number of responders involved.  It can only measure things that can be quantified mathematically.  A secular society cannot measure anything of the heart, soul or conscience.  It can speak of violence, but never offer a moral judgment of violence.  Every secular opinion of evil dashes itself to pieces on the opinions of others. 

What a secular society, and more specifically what a politically correct society wants, is a Christian civility without Christian morality.  A tolerant, just, and civil society grows from the worldview that understands we are all evil and guilty and can only be rescued by a merciful God.  We are therefore obligated to treat others with mercy.  Such is the foundation for a society in which widely divergent people can treat each other with civil respect and courtesy while disagreeing passionately. 

We want Christian civility, summed up in the Golden Rule.  Over the next few days pay witness to the many expressions of and appeals for Christian civility.  We are already being asked to pray for the families of those murdered.  A secular society wants a Christian civil society, but it does not want a Christian morality.  A secular society cannot dare say that homosexual behavior is wrong, but it will ask for Christian civility. 

A secular society is free in the same way a car under full throttle with no drive is free or an airplane with no pilot is free or a skydiver with no parachute is free.  A secular society is utterly incapable of dealing with evil.  Into such a world, the light of the gospel shines brightest.  The horrors of these days may be our greatest opportunity.

Shades of Gray in worship

When I was younger life seemed to be more black and white than it is today.  I liked the world a lot more when things were in black and white. The good guys were completely good and the bad guys did not even have a hint of a redeeming quality. In that world it was easy to make choices. Like when we played army as kids, no one wanted to be the Nazis, everyone wanted to be the liberating Americans.

Don’t get me wrong, I still believe that some things are right and righteous and always will be.  I believe that some things are wrong and nothing can ever make them right.  But not everything can be easily and simply identified as wholly one or the other.  Sometimes there is a continuum in which only the extremes need to be avoided.  Our tendency to press everything into categories of right or wrong is unwise and counter productive. 

I have learned, however, that the world is not always so black and white. In many important areas there are legitimate shades of gray and sometimes wisdom is often found somewhere in the middle.  By looking at the polar opposite, we can help understand where on the continuum we are or where we need to be.  I would also suggest that the answer in not a fixed point, but may change from time to time. 

Worship

For example, let us consider the character of worship. Worship wars are nothing new. If we look carefully in church history, we can find conflicts that are merely conflicts over personal preference.  Even the great Johann Sebastian Bach was at the center of musical and liturgical conflict in Leipzig.  We have at the moment seen a decline in the worship wars that were a very large part of the American church in the last years of the 20^th century.  I do not believe that those wars have settled the issue of church music.  The relative quiet we now enjoy may be a lull like what happened between World Wars One and Two.  What a happy thought. 

At a deeper and a more serious level, beyond musical preference, the question needs to be asked: "What is the role of the public worship of the church?"

Worship that is Seeker Driven
At one extreme end of the continuum we find that the worship of the church is designed to facilitate unchurched people in their search for God and truth. The worship of the church is intentionally attractional; it cries out, “Come and see.”  In worship, the church takes on the role of a missionary and begins to learn, adopt, and use the culture of the people it is attempting to reach. An assumption is made that non-Christians, not just non-members, will be in attendance and the worship service needs to be understandable to them.  The public worship of the church is expected to be the primary point of contact between the Kingdom of God and the non-Christian.  Every church that uses an "invitation hymn" or “altar call” is, in a small way, operating under that assumption.

Worship of the covenant People
At the other end of the continuum, the worship of the church is understood as the intellectual, spiritual, and emotional connection between God and the people who are in a covenant relationship with Him.  Worship, by its very nature, cannot be participated in by non-Christians.  How can a person worship a God to whom they have not submitted their lives?  For a non-Christian to participate in an act of worship is, at best, an ignorant parody and, at worst, a blasphemy.  Worship only has meaning in the relationship between Savior and Saved.  Only upon entering the covenant can a person worship.  Any church that offers the Lord's Supper is, in some way, expressing worship as something of the covenant people.

Most church worship services today are neither evangelistic meetings comprised mostly of non-believers, nor closed communions.  In the early church, there was an intermission in the service.  Before that intermission there was reading of scripture, psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.  At the intermission, those who were not yet baptized believers were dismissed, after which the people of the covenant shared Communion with the accompanying prayers and songs.  Unless we are prepared to restore that ancient practice, we need to find our place on the continuum somewhere in the middle.

The challenge is for us to find the place that honors God in every aspect of our gatherings, declares His Glory to the non-believer, and is consistent with our covenant relationship with Him.  Finding that space will not be easy, but the very process of having the discussion will force us to ask and answer important questions.

Questions:

What are the tools that you use to insure that both believers and non-believers are fully engaged in worship?

Does your church tend toward Seeker Driven worship or Covenant People worship?  Why do you think this happened?

What do you think the reaction would be, if, near the end of the service, non-Christians were dismissed to leave?

Is an invitation time at the end of the service a superfluous tradition handed down from the age of the revivalist?  When was the last time someone responded to the invitation without prior teaching or conversation?

Evangelical churches can learn a great deal from liturgical church services, and liturgical churches can learn a great deal from evangelical churches.  Why do you think we never step out of our own traditions?