TILL HE COMES Blog

William Barclay, in his commentary on the Gospel of Luke (1975:42-44), records three temptations that pastors face which are parallel to the three temptations of Jesus. Pastors are tempted:

1. To bribe people with meeting their physical needs.
2. To compromise for pragmatism – the end justifies the means.
3. To give people sensations and shows.

I agree that all three are temptations in pastoral ministry, and many churches and pastors around the world have succumbed to such temptations.

I would however, slightly change the first. Jesus wasn’t tempted to make bread for others, but for Himself. It was a temptation to meet His own physical needs. Pastors face this temptation all the time. How many of us have heard this whispered in our ear: “Your private life doesn’t matter. Image is everything. Do what you want behind closed doors. Nobody is going to see.  What you do in private does not effect who you are in public.”

Or, we assert our personal rights: “I have a right to eat and take care of myself. I prove my manhood by my rights. As a leader, I have rights to certain privileges, a certain salary, a certain level of respect.” Such things are not wrong; but they are not rights either.  

So those are some of the temptations that pastors face. The way we combat them is by recognizing that as followers of Jesus, we have no rights. He surrendured His rights, and in following Him, we surrender ours as well.

This post was based on the Grace Commentary for Luke 4:1-13.

No Comments »

This Post is based on the Grace Commentary for Luke 1:8-10.

It is difficult to know why they all showed up. One of them, Zack, was there because it was his duty. But more than that, it was also his privilege. Nevertheless, he most likely carried it out with great fear and trembling. After all, some had died doing what he was about to do.  

A few probably came out of genuine desires and pure motives. But others came only because it was what they had always done. It was tradition. On this day, for an hour or two, they came and performed their duty.

But many came because of the rumors. Zack, it was rumored, was going to die today, and everybody wanted to be there when it happened. He had been chosen and he wasn’t ready. He thought he was ready, but everyone knew he wasn’t. It was so obvious.

So when he went in, everybody held their breath…and waited…

——————-

If you have already read the commentary on Luke 1:8-10, you know that I am talking about Zacharias going into the Temple to make the daily offering. Luke makes a point of stating that multitudes were outside waiting, and he has already pointed out that Zacharias and Elizabeth were childless. In Jewish culture, this implies they were cursed.

I’m speculating that maybe some of the people in the crowd that day were there with something less than pure religious motives. They’re not there to worship God, but to see Zack get fried.

At this point, as a “pastor in search of an application”, I am supposed to ask, “So, why do you go to church? Is it worship God, or just to see a good show?” Because if you want a good show, churches that provide one are a dime a dozen. (Actually, they are about $12-$20 million a dozen. The greatest show on earth doesn’t come cheap. But that’s a different point. )

And that is the way I used to preach this passage. In fact, I think when I first preached this passage, that truly is the way I preached it. I tried to put a guilt trip on people who maybe didn’t have the best motives for coming to church.

Today, I don’t care why people come to church, as long as they tithe. After all, I have to feed my kids and pay for the new education wing.

I’m joking.

Here’s the way I would preach this passage today: This passage truly is about the greatest show on earth, and that show is this: One man, going humbly before His God to worship and to pray. He doesn’t care what people think of him. He doesn’t care what people say about him. He only cares about the supreme privilege of meeting one-on-one with God.

Certainly, he went with fear and trembling, maybe wondering if he was wrong. But live or die, this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. And besides, even if God did strike him dead, what a way to go! Who else had a story like that!

Maybe Zacharias wasn’t thinking that last part, but the point is this: What Zacharias was able to do only once in his entire life, we can do every single day if we want. But how few of us do.

You want to be part of the greatest show on earth — the one that even angels watch with amazement? Just come to God in worship. I don’t care how, where, or when. Sure, it could be at “church.” But don’t limit yourself! Worship God in the forest, worship him at work. Worship Him while you play tennis, paint a picture, or study. Worship for an hour, or a few seconds while gazing at the stars.

Live a life of worship. Be like Zacharias. Be the greatest show on earth.

No Comments »

I watched Bill Maher’s documentary Religulous over the weekend. I don’t recommend it…but not for the reasons you might guess.

First, a summary. The documentary is entertaining, and he makes several points that will cause you to think, but overall, the documentary has one goal: to make fun of everything religious. The documentary attacks several different religions. Along with Christianity, he also makes fun of Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, and Mormons.  Oh, and don’t forget “The Church of Marijuana.” Maher’s conclusion is that religion is the cause of nearly everything that is wrong with the world, and the sooner we rid the world of religion, the better off the human race will be.

Ironically, I kind of agree of him, and I speak from the viewpoint of someone “on the inside.” All day long, every day, I deal with the beliefs and practices of various religions. And while I wouldn’t say that religion is the main cause of all that is wrong with the world, I definitely put it in the top five. (The reason I stay and work in a religious setting is that I hope to  redeem it, and the people trapped in it.)

As I watched the documentary, I found myself agreeing with Maher on point after point. Many of his complaints and criticisms are my complaints and criticisms. Some of these criticisms I have written about over the past couple of years on this blog. For example, at one point, Maher voices his opinion that modern “Christianity,” with pastors wearing expensive suits and watches, driving fancy cars, and preaching in giant buildings, cannot be what Jesus wanted for His future followers. (See, for example, this post.)

So why don’t I recommend the movie? Well, for one, there is some profanity, and a mild sex scene (between the Holy Spirit and Mary???). But aside from that, the movie is too disjointed. Not only does he jump from religion to religion, he jumps from issue to issue. Yes, there are issues with religions, but Maher doesn’t seem to desire logical, coherent discussion about the issues, and instead likes to lob in one bomb after another, gleefully watching his target (the person he is interviewing) run around dodging shrapnel. He never really allows any person he is interviewing to finish a point they are making before he switches subjects and asks another loaded question. The one person who was able to make his point was a Jewish Rabbi who, every time Maher tried to change the subject, kept saying “Let me finish.” Maher finally gave up on that interview. Although, I must admit that the Rabbi was not making much sense.

If Maher really is seeking truth (which he claims to be at the beginning of the documentary), rational, respectful, logically-ordered dialogue is the best approach. Maher does none of these things. But then, what can you expect from a comedian? So it’s not truth Maher wants; it’s laughs. And I guess viewed from that perspective, the documentary is a success. It’s not a helpful contribution to the ongoing upheaval in theology and ecclesiology, but it is funny.

So, if you want to laugh at religion (and there’s lots to laugh at!), I guess I recommend the movie after all. If we can’t laugh at ourselves, we have more serious problems in our theology than any of the issues raised by Maher.

6 Comments »

“Go to church and sin!
    Attend Bible studies and multiply your sins!
Volunteer to clean the church.
   Faithfully tithe your 10%.
Praise Jesus for all He has given you.
   Thank God for your many blessings.
For these are the things, Oh Christian, you love to do,”
    says the Lord God.  

“I hate your pot lucks.
    Nor do I delight in your Christian concerts.
Though you give generously to support the building fund,
   And donate faithfully to the Christian organizations,
I will not even look at these many gifts.

“Cease your many sermons,
    Stop writing your faithful blog.
Get out of your pew,
   Put away all your Christian books.

“When you fast, I will not listen.
   Though you cry out, I will not hear.
I will not accept your offerings
   And sacrifices of praise.

“Take away from me the noise of your many songs,
   Your numerous prayers are an abomination!
Quit playing the guitars, banging on the drums, 
   And raising your hands in praise.
Stop trampling the parking lots 
   In your eagerness to get to church.

“Sunday morning, Sunday night.
    Wednesday evening, Friday morning.
I hate all your meetings.
   I despise your numerous studies.
They are all evil in my sight.

“Instead, let justice roll down like a waterfall,
    And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
I desire mercy, not sacrifice.
   I want you do justice, love kindness,
And walk humbly with your God.”

———————————

Offended? Try these:
Isaiah 1:12-13
Amos 4:4-5
Amos 5:21-24
Jeremiah 14:12
Hosea 6:6
Micah 6:6-8

6 Comments »

This post concludes my “What if…” series. I am sure I will have more questions in the future as I try to seek answers to those already asked, but that’s what this process of reimagining church is all about.

I know that most of these questions will come back to haunt me in the future….

What if Prayer were different?

What if when we prayed for something, we concluded every prayer by asking, “How can we ourselves be an answer to our prayer?”

What if we didn’t feel the need to bow our heads, close our eyes, and fold our hands when we pray?

What if prayer was more like a conversation with God than a strange, wordy, repetitive incantation?

What if we stopped saying “Father” after every phrase? (I thank you, Father, for this beautiful day, Father, and for the opportunity to be here, Father….). He knows we’re talking to Him. He doesn’t need the constant reminder.

What if we didn’t backtrack on our prayers of faith with the statement “…if it’s your will”? (I know Jesus prayed this way once, but that’s a subject for a different study.) 

What if we stopped using prayer as an excuse for gossip?

What if strategies for getting money were different?

What if we didn’t pass tithe plates?

What if, when someone wanted to give a large sum of money to the church, we had them sign a document saying that they understood this did not entitle them to any sort of recognition in the church, or any power or say over where/how the money was used?

What if we didn’t take “special offerings” multiple times until we got the amount we were “praying” for?

What if we didn’t pressure people into giving “10%” (which is a misunderstanding and misapplication of the Old Testament principle of tithing)?

What if fellowship were different?

What if believers actually cared for each other?

What if we wanted to spend time together? How would we encourage this to happen?

What if we were more interested in loving and serving each other than in being served?  But HOW?

1 Comment »

Here is Part 3 of my imaginations about ways to reinvent church. This post deals with leadership in the church. I know that various congregations around the country are already practicing several of these ideas, and so there is really not much new here.

What if leadership structure, requirements, and functions were different?

What if we didn’t promote people into leadership just because they had letters after their name, or lots of donations in the tithe plate?

What if elder’s meetings were more about prayer for the people and ministries of the church than discussing the myriad and minute problems and issues of the church?

What if leaders didn’t have to “dress up” in order to show they were the leaders?

What if, when a new person visited our gathering, it wasn’t immediately obvious who the leader was? Would this be possible?

What if decisions were made, not based on what other churches or doing, not based on what the church has always done, not based on what the numerous church policies say, but instead only made after people had sought the truth of God through Scripture, the timing of God through prayer, and the leading of God through reliance on the Holy Spirit?

What if leaders were chosen, not based on who gave the most money, who was the most vocal complainer or critic, who had been at the church the longest, but on the spiritual characteristics of humility, teachability, servant hearted, and had respect for authority?

What if we didn’t have committees?

What if people didn’t need permission from the pastor or a committee to go serve and meet a need?

What if leaders were chosen from within the current fellowship, rather than being recruited or hired from outside?

What if all local churches were autonomous…meaning they were not part of a denomination?

What if all local churches were part of a denomination?

———-

Feel free to answer these below or provide questions of your own.

7 Comments »

Following the theme of my last post, I want to take several posts and simply raise questions. You don’t reinvent the wheel by setting out to reinvent the wheel. The first step is to simply raise questions about the current model, and dream about what could be. In the next few posts, I will share some of the questions I have been asking myself.

Since in years past, I saw “preaching” as the central function of the church, I will begin by questioning it. Please understand that my questions are NOT statements of what should be, but simply “What if?” questions…what would happen if…?

What if Preaching and Teaching were Different?

What if we didn’t preach…at all? This is near heresy for some of us (it was for me a few years ago), but really, what would happen? I imagine at first, all those people who are used to showing up on Sunday to hear a 45 minute sermon would sit around staring at each other, asking, “What are we supposed to do now?” Exactly. If we didn’t spend 30-45 minutes on a Sunday with the sermon, what would we do instead? On a related note, what if we stopped telling people how important it is for them to read the Bible daily? It wasn’t until about 500 years ago that people even had the option, and even then, it wasn’t until about 100 years ago that there was widespread literacy. I’m not suggesting we jettison preaching and Bible reading from our churches. The opposite in fact. But I wonder what would happen in our churches if we fasted from gorging ourselves on Scripture for a while?

What if, when we did preach, instead of trying to be funny and cute in three easy-to-remember points, we simply taught the Word of God? What if we didn’t mask what we were doing by changing a book series into a topical series (calling Preaching through Psalms, “How to Praise God.”), or trying to be more “relevant” by speaking to people’s needs, or mask that we preaching a text by giving lots of illustrations, stories, and images? What if we just said, “Today we going to study Ephesians 1:1-10.” What if, in doing so, we taught as long as it took to adequately explain the text, whether 10 minutes or two hours? Would this be a wise use of time? Would this be an effective way to teach Scripture? Who would it be for? All people or just some? Who gets to decide what “adequately explain the text” means?

What if we didn’t apologize for biblical terminology, but used it and explained it? Are simpler translations of Scripture actually better? Or do they tend to dumb us down?

What if the preaching/teaching was more dialogue/interactive than monologue? Would this depend on group size?

What if we used movies and art and music to teach from, and bridges with culture to direct us to Scripture? What if instead of condemning movies and art and music, we looked for ways to redeem them?

What if the teaching and preaching was not done only by those with seminary degrees and formal education? Who else would do it?

What if we stopped trying to make sure a person was “orthodox” (by our standards) before we let them teach? If the argument is that we need to protect our churches from false teaching, just look at our churches. Can we honestly say that preaching and teaching only by the “seminar-trained and ordained” has kept false teaching at bay? Would allowing “untrained lay persons” the opportunity to teach really introduce heresy (by our definition) or would it open up more streams for dialogue? Would doing this be too dangerous in some settings? Would it make a difference if the teaching setting was set up as a dialogue instead of a monologue?

What if, after every time we opened the Bible to read and study it, we wouldn’t move on until we had asked “What is this passage telling us to do, and how can we as a church do it?” What if we didn’t move on to the next passage until, as a community, we obeyed the first passage? Week 1: Teach. Week 2: Obey. What if obedience and service were built in to the teaching aspect of the church?

What if, as we taught, we added humility to everything we said? Everything. What if, rather than say, “This is the way it is” we said, “This is my current understanding”? Do people really learn better from teachers who are certain of their beliefs, or do all the conflicting certainties from various teachers just confuse them further?

What if we refused to draw lines of orthodoxy about which people were in and which people were out?

What if in our teaching, we refused to judge a group of people unless/until we actually were friends with some people from that group? Would this keep us from judging them? Is that wise?

————————

Feel free to offer suggestions to the questions above, or to ask a few questions of your own below.

4 Comments »

When it comes to church, I can’t tell you how often I’ve heard people tell me, “Don’t reinvent the wheel.”

I imagine back in cave-man history when they had square wheels, a certain caveman— we’ll call him Firestone—noticed that square wheels didn’t roll too well, and so started asking some “What if” questions. His first was probably, “Square wheels are easy to make, but those corners sure cause problems. What if we rounded them off?”

Probably the other cavemen came around and, through a series of grunts and club beatings, told Firestone, “Don’t reinvent the wheel.” He especially got grief from the wheel cutters, because they had been making wheels like this since their great, great grandfathers developed opposable thumbs. “Besides,” the stone cutters said, “if we have to round off the corners, it will take us a lot more time to make wheels. Right now, we can cut two square wheels a day. If we have to round off the corners, we can only make one wheel a day.”

For a while, Firestone was a little discouraged. But then one day, he came across a wheel cutter named Michelin who shared similar ideas. They sat for long hours into the night, talking about round wheels, and that even if it took longer to cut round wheels, it would save everybody a lot of time, because now the wheels could actually be used. “Why doesn’t everybody see this?” they wondered.

So one day, they stopped talking about it, and actually made a round wheel. At first, people made fun of them. Firestone and Michelin were scoffed at and ridiculed. “A round wheel,” they were told, “doesn’t look right on a square cart.” But then people noticed that the carts were actually moving and transporting things, and so the criticism shifted. ”All that rolling,” they were told, “will cause the wheel to crack. Square wheels are better because they don’t roll, and so don’t crack.”

But Firestone and Michelin just kept making round wheels. After a while, they even had a few disagreements with each other on how to make the best wheel, and so agreed to go their separate ways. At first, the naysayers cheered, and said things like, “I won’t say ‘I told you so’” even though “I told you so” was exactly what they were saying. However, wheel production actually increased. Instead of one group making round wheels, there were now two. And the competition caused both cutters to continually refine and redesign their wheels.

Today, both Firestone and Michelin continue to “reinvent” the wheel, adding treading that sloughs off rain, traction that handles curves better, and studs for driving on ice and snow. A day may come when they will reinvent the wheel again, so that all of us can do life faster, smoother, and more efficiently. Maybe, eventually, they will get rid of wheels altogether, and we will ride on air.

I want to reinvent church. Why? A lot of it has become square and isn’t going anywhere. People come week after week, and work, and serve, and sweat, and teach, and give, and pray, and the church doesn’t go anywhere. There’s lots of lights and big, white-toothed smiles, warm handshakes, and media glitz, but the people aren’t going anywhere.

Don’t reinvent the wheel? Sorry. It needs to be reinvented.

3 Comments »

I have a confession to make.

I just finished reading a book by Brian McLaren.

Yes, yes, I know. Many of my old friends and acquaintances have long thought that I was sliding into apostasy, and now their suspicions are confirmed.

So since there is no chance of persuading them otherwise, let me go further and make another confession: I not only read the book; I enjoyed it.

As long as I’m making confessions (this feels good to get some of this off my chest), I might as well come out with all of it. I read the book, I enjoyed the book, and (gasp) I agreed with much of what McLaren said! I even cried at one point, and reread the chapter – out loud – to my wife!

Oh, and I guess that leads me to another confession, this one directed to Brian. I am sorry that in the past, I condemned you and your writings as “heresy” without ever actually reading or listening to anything you wrote or said, or trying to understand your views. That was wrong of me. I am planning on obtaining and reading more of your books, because even though I may not agree with everything, I like to read books that challenge me to think. Your books certainly do that.

The book I read was Adventures in Missing the Point by Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo. The book contains individual chapters on various topics, such as salvation, the Bible, evangelism, seminary, homosexuality, environmentalism, worship, sin, and postmodernism. Brian and Tony argue that many of us Christians approach these topics in the wrong way, and are therefore neutering the gospel of much of it’s redemptive power.

Aside from the fact that the book makes you think about these topics, one nice feature of the book is that the authors give you permission to disagree with them. They want the reader to think through the traditional views on these topics in a new light, so that we hold our views more lightly, with humility and grace. They help the reader do this through the format of the book. Each topic is assigned to one author, but the chapter concludes with a response from the other author. On nearly every topic, the two authors disagree with each other in some way, but they do so with gentleness and respect.

Christians are never going to universally agree on how to approach the “hot topics.” Personally, I am not sure that in this life, 100% agreement would be glorifying to God. What if God purposefully left things vague in Scripture and in life for a purpose? Maybe if we can learn to disagree in love, to maintain unity despite differences of opinion, to discuss tough issues with humility and grace, then we will no longer be “missing the point.”

2 Comments »

I took a “church Planter’s Assessment” test a while back and failed. But I didn’t like the way some of the questions were worded, and so I decided the problem was with the test, not with me. So I took a different assessment, and failed that one too. But again, my complaint was that the questions seemed to be…weighted in a particular direction.

For example, on both “tests” many of the questions seemed to be geared toward leading lots of people, raising lots of funds, and getting lots of conversions. It seemed to me that the creators of the test were only testing for one certain kind of church – the rapidly growing megachurch.

So I did some research into how the tests were developed. It turns out they interviewed and sent personality inventories to some of the pastors of the fastest growing megachurches in the country. Then, based on the results, tests were created to help find people who had similar traits and characteristics as these megachurch pastors.

Does anyone else see a problem with this?

How about the fact that fewer and fewer people are finding spiritual fulfillment in the “megachurch experience”?

How about the fact that the megachurch model is, for the most part, does an incredibly poor job of helping people come to faith in Jesus (most megachurch numerical growth is transfer growth from smaller churches).  

How about the fact that the megachurch model generally does a rather poor job of helping people develop close, interpersonal relationships, and leading them down the path of discipleship?

How about the fact that the megachurch model is primarily a western, 20th century, logical-extreme c0nsequence of the “church growth movement” experiment, which was itself based on business models and Christendom-style thinking?

How about the fact that the vast majority of mega-church pastors have Type-A personalities, who–while good at leading large organizations, and generating a lot of excitement and publicity–are not so good at many of the “shepherding” aspects of pastoral ministry such as interpersonal relationships, tenderness, compassion, humility and patience?

I could go on (and on). I am not trying to bash megachurches or their pastors. I think that both are accomplishing some good things for the kingdom of God, and both have helped a lot of people. The only thing I am tired of is this idea that the megachurch mentality, structure, and systems are the only right way to “do church” (whatever that means). I am tired of being told that unless I can raise $100,000 to blow through in a year on radio ads, billboards, and door hangers, I can’t plant a church.

Somebody needs to write a book called “How to Plant a Church on less than $100 a Month.” I know it can be done, because I am beginning to do it. Are you ever going to hear about this church? Probably not - I’m planning on not even naming it. (When and why did we start naming churches, anyway?) Will I ever get a book deal out of it? If I did, who would read it? Will President Obama invite me to the White House for a luncheon? Not a chance. Will I get asked to speak at a church growth conference? The idea is laughable.

But I think Jesus is pleased with the direction I am headed, and that’s all that matters–even if I did fail two “church Planter’s Assessments.”

10 Comments »