Shades of gray in the church week.

When Jesus was left at the temple he said that he had to be about His Father’s business.  That should also be true for the church, but exactly what does that mean?    If the church is the body of Christ on earth, what does it look like when the church is about the Father’s business?  For the purposes of this essay we are not going to discuss what is the Father’s business, rather, how does the church best carry out that business.  Here again there are two ends of the continuum and the church needs to find itself somewhere in the middle.

The Church as doing

For the church to be about the Father’s business it means that the church is active in serving the lost, the community, and the local congregation.  As the church discovers either a felt or a real need, the church, to the best of its ability, develops a program or ministry lead by passionate and gifted people to meet that need.  The church develops a bias towards action-constantly discovering the felt needs of the community, then developing ministries to apply the good news of life via those felt needs.  If the community lacks recreational activities, the church will develop a ministry by which to reach the community with an athletics league or sports ministry.  If the community has a number of disconnected moms, the church will find a way to connect those moms in a program or ministry.   From newborns to senior citizens, the church is on the look out for ways to serve the community.  Such a church places an emphasis on the word “Go” in the great commission.  The church presumes that behind and beneath every felt need there is a ministry opportunity to be exploited.  As the number of ministries grows, so will the church.  The evidence of the church as doing is a church calendar filled with highly visible needs-focused ministry.  There is always something going on; the church is very active.

The Church as being

If the church is to grow in wisdom and stature as Jesus did, the church focuses its life and energy on developing its character so as to be like that of the Father.  It is the holiness of the body and the love for the saints that are the real power of ministry.  In such a church, there is a profound realization that those who have been rescued from the power of evil still carry many hurts, scars, and habits that will need healing.  The healing of the wounded soul did not occur completely at the point of salvation.  The new young Christian will have much to learn about the ways of the Savior.  They will have to learn to forgive, love, and accept the grace in which they now live.  The disciplines of discipleship will not occur simply just because the new life has begun; rather, they will need to be mentored and taught.  The church must focus on teaching the believer that grace is not an excuse to sin, but a delightful reason not to sin based on the acceptance of the Father and His love for the returning child.  There will be in the lives of many new Christians, places where the demonic might find a strong hold; therefore, there will need to be teaching about spiritual warfare and the authority of the believer.  Acts of service and love for the lost world will grow naturally from a relationship with God and fellowman.  Sheep that are healthy naturally reproduce.  The witness of the changed lives of converts will be the best and most effective tool for evangelism and church growth. 

Taken to either extreme the church is likely to be misled.  If the church focuses on doing, it can become a program-driven machine in which it is easy to forget why things are being done.  It becomes easy for the church to pay attention to the wrong score card, focusing on numbers of participants, volunteer hours given, or activities offered as being the true measure of success. 

But tip the scales too far in the other direction and the church can become self-absorbed in finding a state of Christian “Nirvana” in which the objective of personal wholeness and healing points worshipers toward the idol of self.   Attention on sanctification, inner healing, and holiness edge out the call of service until some undesignated point in the future.  The church and the Christian become so “heavenly minded, it is no earthly good”.

Shades of Gray with the Community

What is the proper response of the church to the moral decay in our culture or community?  We might find that a simple answer is not so easy.  It is entirely possible for two godly leaders working in the same context, community, and time to come up with two very different answers to that question. 

In post-exilic Jerusalem, two leaders received news of the same moral failure, but they reacted very differently.  The problem was the Jewish people were intermarrying with the heathen population in Canaan.   Note the two radically different reactions of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ezra 9:3: When I heard about this matter, I tore my garment and my robe, and pulled some of the hair from my head and my beard, and sat down appalled.

Nehemiah 13:23&25:  In those days I also saw that the Jews had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab….So, I contended with them and cursed them and struck some of them and pulled out their hair.

In the same situation these two leaders had radically different reactions to the same sin.  Ezra the tenderhearted teacher begins by expressing repentance on behalf of the people.  Nehemiah the dynamic civic leader begins with a less pastoral approach.

This continuum is not so much about life in the church as it is how the church relates, responds, and reacts to the local community.  Not every unchurched person in the community will visit the church, but the church is still a witness to those people.  So, non-engagement is not an option; we must be involved.  The church must, therefore, intentionally think about its role in its community and how it relates to that community, specifically, in regard to sin.  The correct location on this continuum may be a most difficult position to find.  And in our politically correct age, even the most ideal position will likely not be popular.   Additionally, there is no one location on the spectrum that will equally serve the church on every issue the church will have to face.  Let’s consider the two ends of this spectrum. 

The Church as the conscience of the community

The church’s role in the community is to offer a prophetic warning to the community about the consequences of their sins.  The church confronts the sins of the community with clear and direct teaching of Scripture, bringing clarity and truth to confused people.  As the conscience, the church will be a source of discomfort for an immoral society.  It should expect opposition.  The church can, and in some cases ought to, become engaged in the arena of political action as far as allowed by law.  The church should take a highly active and visible stand on the moral issues in the local community, offering the warning of God’s wrath should people fail to repent.

The Church as the witness of healing in the community

The church’s role in the community is to bring the healing of grace to broken and hurting people.  People trapped in sin are the victims of the attacks of the evil one and are in need of loving-kindness.  The church must never forget that the sinners are first and foremost victims of both their fallen nature and their fallen world.  The church’s role is to bring mercy to those suffering the consequences of sin.  As the only agent of God’s grace and mercy, the church brings comfort and, thereby, bears witness to the Savior.  Confrontation of the individual is contrary to the needs of the victims or sin.  They need council, inner healing, and sympathy. 

If taken to one terminus, it is possible for the church to become a symbol of angry and unloving protest, even violence.  This is equally a problem for churches on all points of the theological spectrum.  On the left and the right, extremists can come across as hate-filled radicals, being the opposite of what Jesus called His church to be.   It matters little if the angry voice mimics those of Westboro Baptist Church leader Fred Phelps or a Liberation theologian like Ernesto Cardenal.  When the church begins to focus its energy and message primarily on the real or imagined ills of society, it enviably drifts away from the gospel of grace and its mission. 

The church is capable of drifting to the extreme in the other direction.  If the church is unwilling to confront sin, it will lose its ability to have any impact beyond that of a social services agency.  Without a moral compass of biblical righteousness the church will be lead only by the emotions generated by circumstances.  It may feel terrible about the misery caused by sin, but will be incapable of addressing the root cause of the misery.  Inner, emotional, or personal healing can deteriorate into the shared bemoaning of wrongs suffered without a call to repentance.  The “Law of the Lord” quickly degenerates into the “suggestion of the big guy”. 

Somewhere between acts of terror attempting to end some form of evil and the other extreme in which sufferers are coddled and any behavior is justified by their victim status, the church must find her place in some shade of gray.  There must be both a public and a private call for repentance.  There must be both a public and a private expression of compassion and mercy and hope in the power of the cross. 

For a final illustration:  It is equally ineffective to yell at an alcoholic, tell them they are destroying themselves and are going to hell, as it is to tell them they are the victim of a world that simply never cared for them while offering them a beer.  But remember, when working with an alcoholic, finding the perfect response is no guarantee of success.  We must warn and we must love, but we must not assume that we will always succeed. 

We see in this continuum, as in the others, the answer is somewhere in the vast middle.

The power of free coffee

A Coffee Reception

Last week, we looked at the “Shades of Gray in Follow-Up Contact” with guests who visit our services.  The challenge is to be warm, receptive, and express our interest in our guests while not being creepy or coming across as a stalker.  That balance depends a great deal on our community and context of ministry.  One of the tools that I used that was effective, was a monthly coffee reception. 

Our context was a university city with a population of about 125,000 and total county population of about twice that.  This was a community with plenty of student housing, some gated communities, and schedules that were fairly unpredictable.  This meant that a weekly calling night was almost totally useless.  Calling without appointments was difficult and getting appointments was almost impossible.  Before hosting a coffee reception, I would often connect with less than 5% of the people I attempted to visit.  Calling was a waste of time and a major frustration.  In desperation, I started hosting coffee receptions.

How it worked.

Each Sunday during the announcements, I asked guests for their contact information.  I promised them no one would stalk them, come to visit them, or put their name on a mailing list.  I told them I simply wanted to send a thank you note for their attendance.  Sunday afternoon I wrote each guest a short thank you.  On some occasions it was an email and on others it was a hand written note delivered by the US Post Office.  If their contact information were a phone number, I would call on Monday afternoon.  In this thank you I included an invitation to a monthly coffee reception at a local coffee shop.  I assured them it was my treat and they could come and go at anytime between 5 and 7 pm.  The guest who visited again before the coffee reception I made a point of speaking to and inviting personally.  If I didn’t have a mailing address, I would ask if I could mail them a reminder.  Rarely did anyone say, “No”.  The week before the coffee reception I sent a post card reminding them that I wanted to buy them a cup of coffee and get a chance to visit.  I would arrive 20 minutes early and hang out waiting for our guests.  At these coffee receptions I tried to have other church leaders or members with us.  If I knew that some of the guests were singles, I would ask our singles ministry leader to attend.  If the guest had an existing relationship with a member, I tried to secure the presence of his/her friend for that night.  I always kept the conversations light, general about family, work or sports, with the intention of building friendship and connections.  I did not do evangelism, but instead, tried to earn the right to speak into their lives by caring about them.

Why it worked

The coffee reception was the place where we could begin to transition people from being guests to becoming acquaintances and moving toward friendship.  The coffee reception was a place where guests felt safe and where they controlled the schedule.  They could leave anytime they wanted, rather than hoping an unwanted caller at their home would leave.  It was also a chance to see that the minister was not some untouchable, distant figure that lived in a world of theology and vague spirituality.  I make a point of cutting up and joking with members present.  I was the fan of a rival football team and engaged in good-natured teasing about sports.  I paid, and never asked for reimbursement and refused if any were offered.  Many un-churched people have never had the church or any agent of the church give to them.   We have all heard the cliché, “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”  While a cup of coffee and a visit doesn’t prove a great heart, it is at least a beginning and it set the tone for the on going relationship. 

Principles and Methods

These monthly receptions were well attended and over a five-year period we never failed to have a guest show up.  While I did not keep specific track of first contact with the decisions made, I would guess that over 80% of the people who either placed their membership with us or became Christ-followers, began their relationship with our congregation at a coffee reception.  Elmer Towns says, “Methods are many; Principles are few.  Methods may change, but principles never do.”  A coffee reception is a method that may or may not work for you, but behind it is the principle of loving people, of developing friendships and of showing them you care. 

How aggressively should we pursue our guest?

Shades of gray in follow-up Contact

Once upon a time, especially in the Bible belt, it was assumed that if a person visited a church they wanted to be noticed.  In fact, some folks were down right offended if you didn’t recognize them from the pulpit.  One preacher’s kid I know of would fill out fictitious visitor’s cards so his dad could recognize them at the end of the service.  It was great fun till his dad learned that the church had not been visited by, Alice Cooper, Molly Hatchet or any of a number of rock musicians.  Later, we were taught that guests needed to be visited within 24 hours of attending services.  The chances of their returning to visit increased dramatically if church members bearing cookies visited them. 

Then came seeker sensitivity services and many churches became reluctant to make any contact with visitors.  Churches promised potential visitors that they could remain completely anonymous.  The responsibility for initiating contact with the church lay entirely with the guest.  A guest could literally attend such a church their whole lives and never be contacted by the church.

With gated communities, hectic schedules, and the resistance of many people to leave contact information, the way follow-up with guests is done has changed.  Somewhere between the extremes of a church stalking a guest and completely ignoring them, we need to find a sound philosophy of contact.

The un-churched are allowed to remain anonymous
On the one hand, it can be argued that the growth of the church ought to occur in terms of natural growth via relationships with the un-churched.   As individual members invite their friends to worship, the guest will be inclined to become part of what they experience.  There is no need to attempt to identify or contact guests. Guests set the pace of their involvement and contact with the church. Guests are not contacted or visited at their home or work place. Invitations to guest specific events or receptions are either in a general public form or via the personal relationship the guest already has.

There are a number of merits to this hands-off approach; especially, when the guest tends toward being an introvert.  However, and forgive me for being blunt, some church leaders prefer this approach because it requires less work than old fashioned calling.  

Prospects are aggressively sought and follow-up is highly intentional
At the other extreme, the church seeks contact with lost people by every means feasible.  Contact information about guests is intentionally requested and done in such a way as to be most effective, be that visitor cards, guest registry role-call tablets on each pew, or roll of seats.    Prospects are to be identified, visited, and tracked. There is an attempt to learn of their church and spiritual background and to arrange appropriate visits either for evangelism or membership. There is a disciplined theory of progression toward conversion and church membership.  This is the system that served the church for a generation and is especially useful if you want to look busy. 

There is likely no place where finding the correct course for each congregation is more critical.  On one extreme, people could be lost because they perceive the church as non-caring.  On the other extreme, people could be lost because they are made to feel like projects and objects of manipulation.

Somewhere on this spectrum, we need to establish the role of social media.  If you have a name and the name of a few friends, you can likely find a person on some social media platform.  But for a minister to pop up on someone’s Facebook page may come across as stalking.  While a private message via Facebook might work great for a Baby Boomer, it may go unnoticed by a Millennial.  No one doubts that a church needs a strong web presence, but even the greatest of advocates of social media admit it is not the same as being there. 

When a guest walks into our public worship services, we have a sacred responsibility to love them and reach out to them in a way that effectively expresses the love of the Savior.  

Godless Conservatives and Liberals

I took a week off from the blog to celebrate a birthday, the birth of my grand daughter and to participate in a funeral.  I hoped you missed this blog.  If not I will have to work harder.

Do you remember Jack Ryan?  Not the Tom Clancy novel character Jack Ryan, nor his portrayal in the film Hunt for Red October. The Jack Ryan I am talking about is the one that launched Barak Obama to a national platform.  Had there been no Jack Ryan there may not have been a President Obama.

Jack Ryan was an investment banker and won a widely contested Republican primary for a US Senate seat.  With eight candidates, Ryan won 35% of the vote and was preparing to face off against the Democratic Senate candidate Barak Obama.  The polls opened for this election with Obama in the lead.  But it was not an insurmountable lead. 

The problem was that Jack Ryan was a godless conservative.  He may have held the right positions to attach the religious right voters but he had skeletons.  Once upon a time he was married to an actress.  During their divorce and custody hearings she revealed that he had expressed a sexual fantasy of having sex with his wife in front of other people at a sex club in Paris.   They never did this, but he wanted to-she didn’t.

Some have argued that she brought up these issues as a way of getting more out of the divorce.  Some have painted her as a conniving woman who wanted to blackmail her husband for better terms of the divorce.  That is actually irrelevant. 

This information came out during the election and as a result Jack Ryan withdrew from the contest.  Allan Keyes stepped in and Barak Obama won in a landslide.  Four years later, he became president and the rest, as they say, is history.

Some time later in discussing looking into the divorces of political leaders Ryan stated: "Let me be the only person this has happened to. Don’t ask for Ted Kennedy’s.  Don’t ask for John McCain’s.  Don’t ask for Joe Lieberman’s.  Just stop. This is not a good precedent for American society if you really want the best and brightest to run.”

My problem is the last line.  Ryan makes the mistake of assuming that the superficial character traits are what will make a person a good leader.  By superficial I mean things such as intelligence, education, and work experience.  Ryan looked like a pretty good candidate until the ugly truth was revealed.  What Ryan lacked and what American needs is character. 

I will not advise you how to vote in the up coming election.  I wonder about the character of both major party candidates.  What I do want to point out is that a small lack of character in a critical moment can have a monumental impact.  So, politics a side, how is the character factor of your life doing?  We are all deeply flawed in character.  What we must become are people whose flawed character leads us to repentance.