A Consumer Friendly Church? - What we can, and can't learn from the business world.

An important trait for businesses, of all kinds, is to be consumer friendly.  If those intended to purchase the goods or services provided by the company are turned off by their interactions with the company, especially those unrelated to the product itself, they will be less likely to continue to be consumers of that company's products even if they like the goods/services provided by the company.  For example: If the place that makes a decent burger down the street is habitually unclean with rude employees, won't you go someplace else?  If your doctor's office is conveniently located, staffed by friendly people, and appointments take place on time, as long as your doctor is competent, won't you continue to go to that doctor?
In business, these things are obvious, and companies that ignore them do so at their own peril, if competition exists in their market, they will lose customers until they make the experience of their customers more user friendly.  Those who fail to take customer relations seriously end up in bankruptcy sooner or later.
But what about the Church?  Is the Church supposed to be user friendly?  That really depends on what you mean by that.  It is important for a church to have a decent website, convenient parking, handicap accessibility, competent and safe childcare, proper lighting and sound in the sanctuary, service times that work for the community they are in, and other such similar things which are positive, not negative, factors in the relationship between a church and its congregation and potential new members.  Are there churches that ignore these things, making it more difficult than it has to be for people to be a part of that church?  Certainly, and everything else being equal, they will lose congregants to similar "competing" churches, and tragically some people who experienced that less than friendly interaction with a church will cease to go to church anywhere.
Where the discussion gets sticky, and controversial, is when the desire to make church user friendly spills over into the core functions of the church itself: worship, proclamation of God's Word, discipleship, and outreach to the unsaved and those in need.  If the church in question molds these areas into what their consumers (congregants) want, are at least the church thinks that they want, they risk creating a man-centered experience that puts the emphasis on pleasing people not God.  Whatever they build, even if it is wildly popular, won't stand the test of time nor will it please our Heavenly Father, for the Church gathers together to honor God, not please ourselves.  On the other hand, if the church in question sticks rigidly to their way of doing things, ignoring what their consumers (congregants) want, or even purposefully working against it, they risk emptying out the place and leaving themselves with a remnant who actually like the way things are, but no real potential for bringing in anybody new.  Both extremes are not hard to find in the wider Church today.  There are plenty of churches whose ministry feels an awful lot like they're trying to entertain people more than they are to transform people, and there are a lot of churches where the "its our way or the highway" approach has them on life-support.
This is, like so many things in society, a modern phenomenon.  Our ancestors by and large went to the local parish church that was nearest to their home (transportation being so much of a bigger deal back then).  That church was in almost every aspect a mirror image of its neighboring churches in how they did things, thus the experience for the consumer (congregant) would have been almost the same even if they had traveled further.  Today, it is not uncommon for most people who attend church to drive past a few, if not dozens, of churches on their way to the one they attend.  With denominational loyalty at all-time lows, churches feel pressured to be "attractive" to potential new members.
What is needed, as in so many things in our lives as Christians and as the Church, is balance.  Balance between what the people want and what they need, between doing things the same old way, and following the latest trends.  A spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down, perhaps, but not a cup full, and not a "eat it, its good for you!!" approach.  If we remain in balance, we can focus upon doing what we do, as a church, in a way that honors and pleases God, and we can do so knowing that it is ok to tweak how we do what we do, as long as we keep honoring and pleasing God as the reason why we do what we do.
Should your church update its music to be more user friendly?  Perhaps, music changes over time, we're not still using Gregorian Chant are we?  Should your church consider using a translation of the Bible that is easier for people to understand?  It might help, as long as the preaching remains centered in God's Word no matter which translation is used.  Should your church start a new poverty relief program, update the way it does discipleship, or consider a new approach to evangelism?  If things are not working well now, it is certainly worth studying to see what else you could do, there isn't any virtue in continuing to do things in a way that is failing.
In the end, the Church exists to make disciples of Jesus Christ, it is our one "product" our one indispensable "service", something that we must always do with honor, truthfulness, integrity, and dedication to serving others.  How we do that very thing is open to change, different approaches work better in different locations, and at different times, but we have nothing else to offer, so if we aren't doing that, whatever else we're doing won't make up for it.
Should the Church be friendly?  Absolutely.  Easy to approach and join?  You'd better believe it.  More concerned with what the people think than what God requires?  Not at all.  Willing to compromise our core beliefs to give people what they want?  Sorry, no.  We have one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, regardless of whatever else may change over time, that must always remain the same.  So go ahead, be more user friendly, just do so in a way that is in balance, that honorably maintains the Gospel of the Apostles, no matter how it is packaged.

Sermon Video: Don't Rob God - Malachi 3:7-12

What do we owe God?  That seems like a rather important question.  The prophet Malachi warned the people of Israel that they were under a curse for failing to fulfill their covenant obligations to give the tithe that was used to support the Levites (the ministry at the temple and beyond) as well as the vulnerable in society (immigrants, widows, and orphans).  The Mosaic Covenant stipulated what the people of God were obligated to give, and they were in violation of that requirement.
As an incentive, God promises to Israel through Malachi that he will richly bless them if they act in obedience to the covenant, turning their land into a blessed place.  It is unclear if the people of Israel ever took God up on that offer, it seems as if there were always some who held back from obedience.  The promise given here is one of the blessings of the Mosaic (Old) Covenant, and contrary to the teachings of those following the Prosperity Gospel (among others) it is not transferable to the Church, and certainly not to America.  The Church is not Israel, and neither is the U.S.A.  God's promises to Abraham's descendants are eternal, cannot be revoked, and cannot be transferred to others.  And yet, those who falsely teach that the Church (or America) have been promised material blessings for obedience make that assumption, reading Old Testament covenant promises to Israel, in particular regarding the promised land and the people as a nation, as if those promises have also been made to us.  What did Jesus promise his followers?  Trouble, persecution, hardship, and spiritual blessings in abundance.  The Gospel's purpose is not for you to be healthy, wealthy, and happy, but to create disciples who will serve the kingdom of God as they grow ever more Christ-like through self-sacrifice.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: "I the LORD do not change" - Malachi 3:1-6

The physical realm that we inhabit is in a state of constant change, everything we know changes, with only one exception.  There is only one thing that doesn't change: God.  The prophet Malachi, in response to the complaint of the people that God's justice was absent, responds by speaking of the messenger to come who would prepare the way for God himself to come among his people.  This dramatic change, for us, does not harbinger a change within God, for Jesus the Son of God was still one with the Father, even while taken upon himself humanity.

What does it mean that God does not change?  It allows for humanity a sure foundation for morality and ethics, for they can be built upon the changeless character of God, and it provides hope and security for we know that the promises of God will never falter, for God does not change.  In the end, it is the changeless nature of God which allows his people to exist, for despite their ample shortcomings in conforming to his holiness, they are not destroyed, for God has promised to redeem them and make them into a holy people, and God does not change.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

 

The Reformation - How We Got Here

            Unity has always been a concept that it was easier for the Church to proclaim than to actualize.  When the Apostle John wrote his first epistle, as the first generation of Christianity came to a close and the second non-eyewitness generation came to the fore, it was already necessary for him to counter the heretical claims of the Gnostics by reaffirming the humanity of Jesus, both before and after the resurrection, as the one, “we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched.”  Three centuries later, the Arians would put forth the heresy that Jesus was less than God, the Church, now the official religion of Rome after remarkable growth from humble beginnings, responded under the leadership of men like Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, ultimately leading to the councils of Nicea and Calcedon where the theology of the person of Christ; handed down from the Apostles, was codified.  From that point forward, only fringe groups would challenge the humanity and deity of Christ, but even with theological unity regarding Jesus, division was still coming, developing along cultural lines as the Latin West drifted away from the Greek East.  The Emperor Diocletian had already administratively split the Roman Empire in half in A.D. 284, after the fall of the empire in the West in the 5^th century, the Latin Western Church and the Easter Greek Church grew more and more estranged.

          The Protestant Reformation, which began 500 years ago on October 31^st, 1517, was not the first major division within the Church, that occurred formally in A.D. 1054, and is known as the Great Schism.  In 1054, the functional East-West divide was made formal when the legate of Pope Leo IX excommunicated the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius (Keroularios), who in return excommunicated the representative of the Pope.  There were theological and cultural issues that divided the two sides, but the proximate cause of the split was a dispute over power; Leo IX was seeking to assert universal papal authority, the bishops of the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople in particular, refused to accept that claim.

          While the Eastern and Western Churches went their own way, struggling to make a unified response to the rise of Islam and deepening their animosity when the army of the 4^th Crusade turned under Venetian prompting from Jerusalem to sack Constantinople, new issues of theology and politics developed in the West that would lead toward the spirit of reform which Martin Luther inherited.  The West had never been politically unified after the fall of Rome.  In the East, the Emperor of Constantinople held authority over the Patriarch, but in the West the authority of the bishop of Rome had been challenged by Charlemagne and his successors, the Holy Roman Emperors.  Dynastic feuds kept Christian vs. Christian warfare in the West at endemic levels as families vied for power, and the various kings claimed the right to choose their own bishops, typically choosing a family relative regardless of qualifications, as an extension of those power struggles.  On multiple occasions, the right to install a bishop was asserted against the claims of kings, by a Pope, leading to episodes like the excommunication of the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV in the 11^th century, who in response led his army over the Alps to besiege Rome, seeking to depose Gregory VII and replace him with a Pope who would do his bidding.

          The Fall of Constantinople in 1453 caused a flood of Greek speaking refugees to head west, sparking a renewed interest in the original Greek of the New Testament.  The Dutch priest, Desiderius Erasmus published his Greek New Testament in 1516, spurring on those who desired the Scriptures in the vernacular, for only the educated few could read Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.  In the 16^th century, ideas spread much more rapidly than in the past thanks to the invention of a workable printing press by Johannes Gutenberg in 1455; by 1500, 10 million books had been printed in Europe.

          Add to this mix of political turmoil and warfare, and ongoing struggles for power between kings and popes, a series of would-be reformers like the Englishmen John Wycliffe and the Czech Jan Hus.  Reforms did occur within the Church, but the pressure was building for more substantial changes, and that pressure burst forth when a young German priest named Martin Luther issued a call for debate concerning issues that troubled him regarding salvation theology.  Luther had been inspired by his readings of Saint Augustine, as well as Erasmus’ Greek edition at Romans 1:17 where the Vulgate’s Latin read “Justitia”, but the Greek read “dikaios”, that is righteousness rather than justice.  This translational nuance spoke to Martin Luther, leading him to issue his challenge by posting his 95 objections on the Castle Church door in Wittenberg on October 31^st, 1517.

          At this point, Martin Luther was no revolutionary in intent or spirit, merely a reformer, like many within the Western Church.  One hundred years prior, Jan Hus had been promised safe conduct to discuss his proposed reforms, by the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund himself, but had been burned at the stake anyway as a heretic.  Knowing this, Martin Luther still came to Worms to meet with the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and Pope Leo X’s representative, Johann Eck.  Asked by Eck to recant his writings, Luther refused saying, “Unless I am convinced by testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason, I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.  I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against my conscience.  May God help me.  Amen.”

          The tribunal then issued the Edict of Worms, declaring Martin Luther to be a heretic and outlaw and excommunicating him.  Luther would have ended like Jan Hus, but several German princes, opposed to Charles V and seeking to curb his authority over them, sheltered Martin Luther, allowing him time to translate the Bible into German, and time for the spark which he had inadvertently lit, to fan into flame and turn from reform to Reformation, leading quickly toward conflict and war as Luther’s ideas spread throughout northern Europe, dividing the Western Church along roughly north-south lines. 

          How did we get here, how did the Church become divided, east-west, and then 500 years later, north-south too?  Theology was a necessary part of it, interpretation and application of Scripture being a task that often leads to disagreement, even among otherwise like-minded people.  Cultural and linguistic differences were also a part, when the fault lines did occur, there was a reason why they split so neatly where differences already existed.  But in the end, the one avoidable factor, the one factor that should have been absent within the Church, was the pursuit of power.  Fallible people lead the Church, they always have, and they are not immune to the siren’s call of power.  On all sides men made choices tainted by their own greed for power, and in the end, it was the unity of the Church of Jesus Christ which paid the price.

          Let us, then, recognize our theological and cultural differences, welcoming honest and respectful study, dialogue, and debate as we together attempt to be what the bride of Christ ought to be, but let us fully reject as folly unbecoming of servants in the kingdom of God, the desire for power which led our ancestors in the faith toward division, and ultimately toward violence and war amongst themselves; for regardless of what they did, and what we here do today, “God’s truth abideth still: His kingdom is forever.”

Commercialism and Politics interrupt worship at a Baptist Church

It saddens me that some of the most head-shaking things that happen within the "church" in America today happen at Baptist Churches.  On one hand you have the screeching hate/conspiracy theories coming out of Westboro Baptist in Topeka, Kansas whose website is primarily dedicated to the things they're currently yelling about, and with them you can place Steven Anderson's Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona, who at least puts forth a normal website, but a quick Youtube search will find plenty of videos of his favorite targets for yelling.  Contrasting those in the us vs. the world camp, are those who have embraced the power that this world offers, going so far as to carve out time during Sunday's worship service to bring in a TV political celebrity to advocate for a new movie and of course promote the latest book from the famous pastor who himself regularly goes on the TV show of the famous guest.  Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Pastor Jeffress interviews Sean Hannity during the worship service

First Baptist Church of Dallas, with Dr. Robert Jeffress as pastor of the mega-church, interviewed Fox News host Sean Hannity this past Sunday for fourteen minutes, at the end of which pastor Jeffress encouraged his audience to go see the movie that Hannity was there to promote.  Hannity received a standing ovation from the congregation (or is audience the right word here?).  This wouldn't be the first time that I've warned about the danger of how readily Pastor Jeffress is mixing politics with the Church, (blog post: Assassination, Pastor Jeffress, and Romans 13) as he has made quite a name for himself since the start of the 2016 election cycle, appearing on TV thousands of times and becoming a regular contributor to Fox News. 

At one point Hannity said, "I don't like liberals", which earned laughter and applause from the audience, then said, "I'm in the right church" as Jeffress laughingly said, "Hannity country right here".

At the end, as Jeffress indicated that his producers were telling him to wrap it up, Hannity joked, "We haven't even talked about Trump yet", leading Pastor Jeffress to chuckle and respond, "That's another sermon".

Perhaps this doesn't seem wrong to you, maybe you applaud the melding together of Fox News and First Baptist Church of Dallas, if so you probably won't be swayed by the mountain of historical evidence that shows the danger to the Church of getting in bed with political power, money, and fame.

At what point is the attention turned from the worship of God and the edification of his people onto the things of man, the pursuit of wealth and power?  If this isn't too far, how far can it possibly go, during a worship service, before you think it is a problem?  Will it be too far when they have commercial breaks during the service??

At what point does a pastor stop being a shepherd and start becoming a celebrity?  Is it not a problem when a pastor hocks products and helps people make money instead of leading people in worship of Jesus?  Whatever came before or after this point in the service, these 15 minutes were not in service to the Gospel.


If only Jesus had a book to sell, or was running for office...