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.  

Preaching In Shades of Gray

In my freshman year in Bible college, one of my professors told a class of eager preacher-wanna-be’s that the church lives or dies by its preaching.  He went on to say that before every great move of God in history God sent out a preacher.  Before the Flood, the Exodus, the coming of the Messiah there was a preacher.  The church began with twelve preachers on the day of Pentecost. The Reformation waited on the preacher.  You get the idea.  This dear old saint poured his life and heart into teaching us how to be good preachers.  But that begs the question, “What is good preaching?”

Is good preaching stylistic?  Is it the conveyance of theological truth?  Is it the ability to hold the attention of the audience?  I have been told that good preaching is the preaching that makes people feel good on Sunday, after a long Saturday night.  My own struggles with effective homiletic practices are well known to those who hear me speak.  But I have never met a preacher that didn’t want to improve his craft.  And most preachers believe they are good public speakers. 

Rather than address a whole range of homiletics, let’s focus on one key area of preaching where there is a profound shade of gray.  It is a place where the shades of gray are a weekly struggle in many of our sermons.
Preaching to the lowest common denominator
On one end of the spectrum the sermons ought to be simple and basic and ought to be understandable for persons who have no Christian understanding or context. Sermons should be very attractional with an intentional focus on style and content that will attract the un-churched to the worship of the church and inspire them to return each week. Often these sermons offer practical help in the struggles of life.  They present how the Christian life is the best choice.  These sermons are positive and upbeat; they focus on the good and if bad news is presented, it is done so in such a way that emphasis is on a quick easy fix.  As one preacher said, “I don’t allow any stinking thinking”. 

There is the danger that the preaching time degenerates into positive, mental attitude, Oprah-ish, self-help and results in telling people what they want to hear.
Preaching ought to move toward depth
At the other end of the continuum, preaching is focused on teaching Biblical and theological truths and leading the hearers to personal challenge and growth. Preaching of this sort tends to require much more of the listener and will not be as entertaining.  The hearers must have some theological or religious background to comprehend the concepts.  The language can become exclusive and only understood by those with the correct knowledge base.  Style is relatively unimportant so long as the precise nature of the doctrinal position is articulated.  By its very nature, it assumes the purpose of preaching is not so much evangelistic as edifying.

Taken to an extreme it becomes a theological lecture that may seem unrelated to daily living.  While effective to challenge and help mature left-brain Christians, it may leave half of the congregation waiting for the sermon to end or looking for a different church.

No preacher is ever and always at one extreme or the other.  We generally preach in the way that challenges and moves us.  Generally, finding the right place on the continuum is sole responsibility of the preaching minister. While he has that responsibility, he is wise and helped by a system of feed back concerning his sermons that helps him gain the perspective of people in the pews.

Prayers in the Aftermath of the Dallas Massacre

Another week and we have witnessed another horrific and logically foolish tragedy.  In an effort to prove that the lives of black people matter, domestic terrorists murdered five police officers.  As I listen to the rhetoric from both sides of the political spectrum, I would occasionally catch a glimmer of hope, but it was only an echo bouncing off the walls of our cities.  I heard from the left the warning that violence only begets violence and that non-violence is the only path for real change.  That is true.  From the right I heard the lament that the break down of society began with the break down of the home.  Again it is hard to argue against that conclusion.

What I did not hear was a single word about repentance, about the need for our nation to apologize to God for the sins that, having now been born, are bringing about death, both spiritually, literally and figuratively.  I heard about the need to learn to understand others; I didn’t hear a word about understanding that we are sinners both in corrupted nature and individual acts.  I heard about controlling guns and the police, but never a hint about the complete inability of a spiritual dead man to control his sinful nature.

America was intended to be a theocracy, but she was conceived and born with and into a Christian world-view.  Not all of the founders were orthodox Christians, but from the core of her being to the surface of her daily life, America thought in terms of right and wrong as defined by the Scriptures.   Over the last 70 years or so, we have actively removed that Christian core from our soul.  Now the veneer of a civil society based on Biblical tolerance, love for enemy, and value of all those created in God’s image is cracking.  Beneath that veneer we see a society of hate, injustice, greed, violence, and rampant selfishness. 

A few weeks ago I told a friend, “This nation is coming apart at the seams.”  It seems that I have, this week, more evidence to support my predictions.  Furthermore, no one in the public square has offered any real solutions.  This rush to self-destruction will not be averted by another conference, study, dialogue or election.  Neither Clinton nor Trump can implement solutions that will help us avert our demise.  As we choke to death on the forbidden fruit of sin there is no solution by which we can perform a self-rescue. 

A century and a half ago two nations, both driven by greed, pride and a lust for power, engaged in a fratricidal war that claimed between 620,000 an 850,000 lives.  In the south, 25% of men between the ages of 18-44 died in that war.  This week I have heard rumblings of a call for another war.  In terms of percentage of population, a similar war today would claim about seven million lives. There is but one solution: pray for revival of the church of our nation and of our lives.  To quote a prayer request from that earlier war:

Knowing that intercessory prayer is our mightiest weapon and the supreme call for all Christians today, I pleadingly urge our people everywhere to pray.  Believing that prayer is the greatest contribution that our people can make in this critical hour, I humbly urge that we take time to pray- to really pray.

            Let there be prayer at sunup, at noonday, at sundown, at midnight – all through the day.  Let us pray for our children, our youth, our aged, our pastors, our homes.  Let us pray for our churches.

            Let us pray for ourselves, that we may not lose the word “concern” out of our Christian vocabulary.  Let us pray for our nation.  Let us pray for those who have never known Jesus Christ and redeeming love, for moral forces everywhere, for our national leaders.  Let prayer be our passion. Let prayer be our practice.

            Robert E. Lee

Reflections on the Fourth of July

The noted historian Alfred Edersheim wrote:

“Absolute right in Rome did not exist, might had become right.  The social relations exhibited, if possible, an even deeper corruption.  The sanctity of marriage had ceased; female dissipation and general dissoluteness lead at last to an almost entire cessation of marriage.  Abortion and the exposure and murder of newly born children were common and tolerated.  Un-natural vices which even the greatest philosophers practiced if not advocated obtained proportions which defied description.”

In addition to the moral decline of society, Rome was openly hostile to the faith. Toward the end of the first century the persecution of the church had shifted from the spasmodic, disorganized efforts of a mob to a systematic, methodical program of the Roman Empire.  At that time, Clement of Rome, in his first letter to the Corinthian Christians, offered this prayer for the rulers and governors, “Grant them, Lord, health, peace, harmony, and stability, so that they may give no offense in administering the government you have given them.”

Our problem is not on the outside, but on the inside.  In answer to the question, “What is wrong with our nation?”  my answer is “Me!”

Our problem is not that we have a secular state, but that we have a secular church.

Our problem is not that we have unholy leaders, but that we have unholy Christians.

Our problem not that we cannot have Christian prayer at a school board meeting, but that Christians have not prayed for the school board. 

Our problem is not that we have removed the nativity scene from the courthouse, but that Christ is not incarnate in the church.

Our problem is not that the men and women in the halls of power do not pray to our God, but that the people of God do not pray for the men and women in the halls of power. 

Our problem is not that we are restrained from expressing our faith in public, but that we are unwilling to share our faith in private.

Our problem is not that our society is deteriorating fast, but that the church has not taken time to fast and pray for our society. 

Our problem is not that some want to remove the tokens of America’s Christian heritage, but that the American Christians are often little more than a token of faith.

Our problem is not that some leaders will not endorse a national day of prayer, but that Christians seem only able to pray for their leaders on one day.

Our problem is not that there is an absence of God in the functions of government, but that there is an absence of God in the functions of the Church.

Our problem is not that the government is full of self seeking, greedy, and controlling people, but that the church is full of people seeking their own agenda, protecting their religious turf, and unconcerned with the world at large. 

I am the problem, and the only answer is repentance and turning from self to love and serve God and man.