Debating Church Membership

You know those couples that find a way to get into arguments about things of little consequence? You listen to them fight and the whole time thinking "who cares"? Well I am part of an institution that loves these fights.

The latest instance of this is over church membership. There is an amendment to the Methodist "constitution" that would allow anyone to be a member of the Methodist church (of course,the issue is not this black and white but that is not the point).

Here is why I am thinking "who cares" through this whole thing. Membership in the UMC means absolutely nothing! Seriously. I attend a church with over 7,000 on the membership roles. This number would be lower if the UMC didn't make it so dadgum difficult to take people off the membership roles (you basically have to be dead or asked to be taken off, there is almost no other way without the church jumping through some significant hoops). So, we have over 7,000 on our membership roles but only about 3,700 in attendance despite the fact that part of the membership vows are to be in attendance. Also, the amount of people regularly giving to the church falls well below the 7,000 despite the fact that supporting the church with gifts is part of the membership vows (and for those of you that define this as serving in the church, the level of involvement there is not 7,000 either). I can't know for sure but I am guessing that we don't have 7,000 regularly praying for our church, again despite the fact that it is part of the membership vows. VOWS, you know those things you say at your wedding. Should carry more weight than they do. I am not a legalist, but what does membership mean? I stand on my case that it means nothing.

On the other hand, we have "non-members" that I know are fulfilling the membership vows. Some might ask, "Well, why don't they just join then?" And I would ask, "Why should they if it doesn't mean anything to anyone else?"

So, my question is, "Why are we fighting this battle?" Why aren't we spending our time asking ourselves, "Why isn't our membership living up to their vows?" and "How can we challenge and help our membership to do so?"

And, instead of spending so much time making it easier for people to get on our membership rolls, why don't we spend some time making it easier for churches to take people off membership rolls? That would at least give those rolls a shot at integrity and meaning.

I'm Quitting Morality . . .

That's right, I am quitting morality! Truth is, I have been trying to quit for about 10 years now.

Sometime around my graduation from college I began to realize that almost all of my life choices had been self-serving. There are many people that graduate from college and begin to realize this (and there are many that never learn this lesson), but most of them are repenting from their partying, drinking, casual sex, and living for the moment. I, on the other hand, made it through college without a drink or drunkenness (which is easy because I think beer is nasty!) and without falling into the trap of sex before marriage. My decisions were based on a list of rules for right living. I knew that if I broke these rules that I would just be creating trouble for myself. My morality was primarily self-serving.

During the season immediately following graduation I decided to make a change. I decided I would quit morality. This didn't mean that I began consuming massive amounts of beer in order to get drunk, nor did it mean that I began racking up numbers of sexual encounters. What it did mean is that I traded the selfish motivation of my morality for a selfless motivation. I quit morality in favor of worship.

For the past 10 years I have been trying to live the everyday life and make the everyday decisions motivated by the opportunity to bring glory to God. I have learned that I don't have to earn God's favor or his forgiveness, that has been freely given. And, because of that, I have been freed to make my life decisions motivated by His glory and not my own. Every decision is an opportunity to bring glory to God or to rob him of his glory in favor of my own. At times this is a heavy weight to carry, but the joy I find in bringing him glory as I follow his way of life is more satisfying than anything else!

Redemption Lost?

LOST is a multi-layered show. The idea of being lost has a literal layer (so, there was this plane crash . . . ) but it also has a metaphorical layer. Each of the main characters on the show have lost their way. Locke and Jack both have lost their identity walking in the shadows of their fathers. Kate grew up with daddy issues as well and her and Sawyer are linked together by their killings of vengeance. Hurley lost who he was after finding the winning lottery numbers. Sayid seems to wrestle with the desire to be good and the necessity of being evil. Jin wrestled with the same thing as Sayid and seems to have come out as a good guy but now his wife seems to be filling the role of evil by necessity. Much of the show has been about these characters finding redemption.

But, redemption seems to be a dead end at this point. I can't get my head around there being any hope for deliverance. Those who had been lost returned home only to find out that home wasn't what they were looking for. So, now they have returned back to the island. So, if home isn't deliverance then what is? To this point, the only character that I know of that has found redemption was Charlie and he died sacrificially. (Interestingly enough, sacrificial death worked for Charlie but it doesn't seem like it has for Locke).

If redemption is found on the island, then what does that mean for the "others"? Unless there is a way for the "others" and the "losties" to live together then I don't see hope for deliverance. And, what part does the Dharma initiative play? We have three groups of people who have all at times seemed evil and at others innocent. I can see one (maybe two) groups being found to be good, but not all three. How could three groups of innocent people be so diametrically opposed to one another? As I watch LOST I gotta think redemption is going to have to come from someone or something other than the characters involved.

It may seem like I am putting way too much thought into a TV show (but then again, it is not just a TV show :)). However, I think art (and I count LOST as pop-art) is a reflection of real life. Here is the thing. As confusing and grey as all the characters and groups of people in LOST are, I think it is an accurate reflection of reality. I mean, as we look at world affairs how do we determine who the good players are and who the bad players are? Like the different groups in LOST the different nations have hints of innocence and evil. The reason for this is the humanity that makes up these different nations. As I look at the world, I am convinced that if we are to hope for redemption it will have to come from someone or something other than the characters involved.

Where are the attacks on Easter . . . oh, there it is.

So, I was thinking earlier this week that this year has seen a drought in books and news stories attacking Easter. You know, books or stories on the Gospel of Judas or the James Ossuary. It seems that every year around this time someone is looking to capitalize on Easter from a secular perspective (of course, there are plenty of Christian books that do the same but you would expect that). I am not so much bothered by the books themselves nor am I threatened by them. I know there are people that have differing viewpoints. The timing of their release is what bothers me. I understand it, it is just either annoying or obnoxious.

In terms of this trend, this year has seemed eerily quiet.

Then I ran across a book by Bart Ehrman just this week in Barnes and Noble. The title caught my eye (and of course it was on a display table because of Easter). The book is called Jesus Interrupted. I picked it up just long enough to roll my eyes (again, not because of the subject or perspective but because of the timing).

Well, Bart was on Colbert last night. Colbert, for those of you who don't know, has taught Sunday School at his church (Catholic if my memory serves me correctly. and, correct me if I am wrong). Anyway, here is the video:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bart Ehrman
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

Ben Witherington has a good review/critique of the book (long) that can be found here and here.

ID Part 1

Paul's letter to the Colossians is one of my favorite letters found in the New Testament. This letter is underappreciated in my opinion. For me, this letter addresses some of the toughest challenges we have as Christians in our western culture. The letter addresses gnosticism (been around forever, but repackaged recently as The Secret), our identity (why don't we talk about this in the church?), and religion as idol.

One of the main themes (if not the main theme) in this letter is defining who Christ is, who we are in light of who Christ is and how we are to live in light of who we are in Christ. Some might claim this is actually three themes, but I would argue that these three are parts of a whole that can't be separated.

Too often, we approach the Bible looking for the "what". What am I supposed to do? What am I not supposed to do? When we do this we minimize our faith to a legalistic morality. I am not sure how you can take the Bible as a whole and imagine that this is the primary message God wants to communicate through His Word.

Instead, we must begin with the "why". Why should I live the way the Bible instructs me to live? What is my motivation? Colossians (and the Bible as a whole) begins with who God is and then defines who we are (identity) in relation to who God is and only then does it move on to discuss the implications of this. Think about the stories of Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, Peter, Paul, and yes, even Mary.

The NIV has headlined Colossians chapter 3 as "Rules for Holy Living". I believe this is evidence of our tendency to jump to the question of "what am I supposed to do" instead of starting with the motivation or who we are in relation to who God is. I believe a more accurate title for this chapter would be "Characteristics of a Holy Life". This reflects the importance of God's redeeming and sanctifying work in our lives as opposed to the idolatrous idea that somehow we can make ourselves holy buy following a list of rules.

The Future of the UMC

Here is a pretty good article on the future of the Methodist Church. While I think my tolerance for the bureaucracy of the denomination is not as high as the author's I think he makes some good arguments.

http://www.genxrising.com/2009/03/denomination-in-dock.html

The question I have is, "how do these changes take place when the leadership of the denomination seems focused on keeping the status quo and whenever anyone challenges it/them they are written off as 'jumping ship' or 'not a team player'?"

Thoughts?

Great Post

Tim Stevens is a pastor at Granger Community Church (a United Methodist Church). He posts this response to the Christian Science Monitor article that I briefly referenced a couple of posts ago. Check this post out at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permalink/m386YV2CNSD51Y.

Pathetically Accurate Quote

I take three magazines by subscription. Relevant, FASTCOMPANY and Entertainment Weekly. I only get one magazine by subscription. For some reason FASTCOMPANY and Relevant either can't keep up their part of the bargain, the US Postal service just wants to make me crazy, or two said magazines just plain don't like me.

Anyway, there is a great quote in Mark Harris' column about the whole ugliness that is Chris Brown and Rhianna. The part of the quote I was drawn to wasn't really about this situation, but rather a commentary on our American culture. In describing Rhianna's path to fame Harris writes,

"She lived the American Idol dream and didn't even have to stand before the judges and make that most creepily self-absorbed of all American Idol arguments--the one that goes, I deserve this more than the next guy because I want it sooooo much. That line of reasoning, by the way, probably deserves to be inscribed on the tombstone of this decade as it limps toward its internment."

Too true. So how do we, as the church and individual followers of Christ, lead in writing the inscription on the tombstone of the next decade differently?

Commentary vs. "What Am I Going To Do About It?"

So, there have been a couple of posts that I have thought about writing the last couple of weeks. One about my thoughts on the recent secession of a quickly growing, 700 member church from the UM denomination (probably guaranteeing them more effective ministry and envious complaining by the UM pastors in the area) and another about the fact that there has been a 15% drop of self-professed Christians in the last decade (which the author seems to be willing to make huge leaps in logic to attribute to the rise of mega-churches, that apparently are all built on consumerism by definition). I have a lot more I could say on both of these. And, I have made the mistake of over simplifying the issues and my response to both; a mistake that will cause some readers to respond harshly. Fine, my fault.

Here is the thing, though. Why? Why should I spend an afternoon pontificating, pointing fingers, taking side and then defending my position? Does that really do anyone any good? If I have to choose between engaging in social commentary or doing ministry, I am going to choose reaching out and serving others. Some people don't have to make this choice. They have time to do both (and I am not patronizing here; many people don't have two kids at home, other hobbies, etc). It's not that I don't want to engage the conversation. In fact, I stick my toes in the water from time to time (sometimes motivated by curiosity and sometimes motivated by my own ego). However, every time I do I have to deal with the conviction that I am not using my time faithfully (just to be clear, this is a personal issue; I am not accusing anyone else of being unfaithful for engaging these conversations).

Action is the bottom line. When the structure of the Methodist church becomes too big of a barrier for fulfilling my calling, I will leave (not out of the realm of possibilities). If I think the state of the church is in bad shape (and it may be), then I am going to do everything I can to be faithful in being a part of the church that I think we as Christians are called to be.

Do I have opinions on these issues (and others)? If you know me, you know I do! But until I feel lead that my opinions will make a bigger difference then my actions....well, you get the picture.

Communication Lessons from the 2009 Election

As I watched the election last year I couldn't help but notice a huge disparity between the practices of the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign. I have read a book called Tribes by Seth Godin the influenced my observations. If you are leading a group of people (even if you do so without positional influence) it is a great read. I think churches have a lot to learn from observing these two campaigns.

Let's face it, Obama had a lot going for him in building his campaign. However, I am not sure he would have been successful if he hadn't done the following things (remember he was unknown before this past campaign). Those of us who are church leaders should be asking ourselves which campaign most reflects the way we are leading our movements. Look past the politics here. This post has nothing to do with that!

1. Message--The Obama campaign found a central message of hope and transformation that captured the hearts of its supporters. The McCain campaign never found a message.

This should be the easy part for churches, but for whatever reason it is not. We go off message way too often (ironically we often times we play politics instead of church). The church must keep the transformational message of hope that is the Biblical story as its central (if not only) message. And, we must preach as such! The Gospel message is not burdensome, it is freeing and hopeful. We must quit pointing out how hopeless the world is and individuals are if we are not going to point them to the power of Christ to transform.

2. Movement--Obama's campaign was built around the idea of a movement. McCain's campaign was built around the idea of a government. I think most people would recognize this. However, pinpointing the things that made the difference might be hard to do. Obama was certainly the leader of this movement, but the thing that made it a movement was that Obama invited others to participate and took the steps to communicate that those at the grassroots level were making a difference.

The church needs to re-energize our people in the movement that is the church. We have to break out of our institutionalism. (As one of our staff members said yesterday, "We got to get our people off their duffs"). We have to re-engage our people in the idea that it is their calling to make a difference in the world with the message of Jesus (spoken and lived).

3. Masses--Obama's campaign involved the masses. The McCain campaign involved the elites. Now, some may argue with this. I have a friend that worked for the McCain campaign in New Mexico and she was certainly not working with the elites. McCain's campaign (primarily the VP candidate) talked at length about the average Joe, but it seemed talk. On the other hand, the Obama campaign went to great lengths to communicate the importance of the masses (and by the masses I mean the regular guy) not just through word but in every form of presentation. Everytime Obama spoke there was a crowd of people standing behind him. McCain usually had a banner. Obama's crowd was always excited. When McCain did have people behind him it looked like death (seriously). No one was excited. The event that really motivated me to highlight these differences was the results night. McCain had an invite only results party (you may say he just knew he wasn't going to win, but this had been his MO the entire campaign). Obama did all he could to accomodate everyone who would show up on results night (this was his MO, remember the convention being held at Bronco stadium? brilliant!). McCain built his finances on large donors. Obama built his finances on many people giving little amounts. Now I don't have the numbers to prove this, but this is certainly the way these campaigns were presented and that is the perception that the public had of both campaigns.

Churches have to figure out how to break free from the 20-80 rule (20% of the people doing 80% of the work). Often times I think this has to do with the way we communicate and represent the things the church is doing. We have to get the cameras off the leadership and get it on the congregation. We also have to quit targeting the "elite" only because they have the most to offer individually and start targeting the crowd because they have too much to offer collectively.

4. Communication/Use of Technology--Obama's campaing successfully used the new forms of communication (and consequently the new forms of community). McCain's campaign stuck with the tried and true. The statistics on Obama's following on the web, social networking, text messaging, youtube etc. vs. that of McCain is mind boggling. Click here to see some of the data. Obama harnessed the power of peer to peer influence that occurs through these mediums. McCain relied on mediums of communication that are becoming increasingly antiquated. This use of mediums also contributed to the tribe mentality. This occured because Obama announced things (like his VP candidate) through text-messaging, etc. Those that subscribed were thus "in", concreting their place in the tribe.

Churches are so far behind this curve it is painful. We are still investing so much money in print-and-mail materials that people have been ignoring for years. We can do this so much cheaper through email, web, etc. People may still ignore it but at least were sinking WAY less money in it. Even better would be to communicate to our people through invitation/subscription means. The congregant subscribes to the updates/announcements/news they want to hear and aren't bothered with all the other noise. In terms of reaching out to others, we don't do this from a centralized voice. Instead we equip our people (the masses, the movement) with the tools to communicate to their friends. They know better than a central figure what their friends need and will respond to. E-cards, social networking, text messaging, etc are all tools that we should be building and equipping our people with.

5. Presentation--Obama's campaign did production extremely well. McCain's campaign production look amateurish. If you watched the McCain campaign at all, this was painfully obvious. The transitions of music, speakers, mic's being on/off, sound levels, etc were all awful. At the announcement of McCain's VP candidate (the climax of that campaign for most people) the timing was way off. They played the same video twice to try to fill time (making the video and announcement totally anticlimatic). The announcement was made and McCain and Palin were both late taking the stage (again, anticlimatic). Obama on the other hand not only knocked most of his speeches out of the park, but so did his production team. Like it or not production is part of the message (and not just the delivery of the message). Presentation matters.

Just like in communication, many churches are way behind the curve here. Many churches think this is superficial. You can debate that all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it matters. The thing is, many of the churches that might claim this is superficial are doing it really well and that is the traditional churches. They know who they are and do traditional very well. This is good! I commend them for this (now there are many traditional churches that don't do this well). The thing is, when churches that are doing more progressive forms of church and worship and talk about the importance of presentation the traditionalists have to recognize that presentation has been important for them as well, it has just looked different.Presentation may be superficial (I don't agree with this, but this argument may not matter), but presentation still matters (and this is really the point).


So, I have been intending to write this post for four months now. In my tardiness there have been a couple of other people that have written on the subject. You can see them here and here. For some real research on this check out the link in item number 4.

What would you add to this list? What would you disagree with (remember, I don't want to discuss politics here, that is not the point)?

Church Relevance or Accessibility

Its no longer a fad to talk about the relevance of a particular church this has now become a mainline "sport". I have had these conversations and I am not ashamed of them to be honest. However, I wonder if our language isn't a bit misplaced here.

Usually when we are talking about the relevance of a church we are talking about music style, presentation in building, print and media. However, is this really what makes a church relevant? I don't think it is. What makes a church relevant is it's message and the way that message is lived out. Should a church's relevance be judged by anything other than the amount of transformation taking place (both within the church internally and through the church externally).

What we are really talking about when we have these conversations about style, presentation, etc. is the accessibility of a church. Granted, this may have an impact on the relevance of the church but these are not how we should judge the relevance of the church. There may be transformation taking place, it just may not be very accessible.

The bonus of making this distinction is that it may help us lead up to older generations. Our communication styles, print and media presentation are important not because it makes the message relevant (it is if it is the Gospel) but because it makes that message accessible. Language matters!

The What and The Why

So, this week we are reading through Ephesians 2:8-10 as a congregation. Many of you know Ephesians 2:8-9 which states,
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

This part of salvation is the part that we hear about all the time. For whatever reason when we talk about salvation it is always in terms of being saved from something. We have been saved from sin, saved from regret, saved from our past, etc. . . . All of this is of course important, but that is not all there is! If that was all there really was to salvation, then why doesn’t our life on earth end as soon as we confess faith in Jesus? If this life is all about “getting saved” then why on earth am I still here? Have you ever wondered that? Are we just biding our time waiting to die?

This past week has been interesting watching the transition of presidents. There are so many stories that have occurred over the past couple of weeks. Politics aside, I have found it interesting watching the excitement and passion of Obama and the plans and dreams he is pursuing. This is juxtaposed to Bush who I am guessing is very ready to be done with all of it! Eight years ago he approached his inauguration with the same passion and zeal that Obama is now. But, somewhere in the last couple of months that desire for action waned considerably and he seemed to just hit a point where he was just biding his time until the next person stepped in. Now, don’t get caught up in accusing me of claiming Bush is bad and Obama is good. My guess is Obama will find himself in the same place in either 4 or 8 years. My point is that there comes a time when a president is just biding his time.

I think many of us get stuck in this same place. The excitement and freshness of being a new Christian begins to wear off and we become overly familiar with our new faith and new life. And, before long we find ourselves just biding our time. We have accepted God’s grace, made sure our eternity is secured. We’re good.

Here is the thing. We have been saved for a reason. We have a tendency to focus on the what and forget about the why. What: you have been saved by grace through faith . . . . but Why? Well, verse 10 of Ephesians covers this and I think communicates the greatest treasure of our salvation!

10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

We were saved, because we were created to do good works!! There is a reason for the life we live! Are you bored in your faith? My guess is it is because you have not been living the abundant life you were saved to live! This part of salvation is often ignored and I think it is possibly the best part! In his book Wild Goose Chase (which was just given to me, and I have only started) Mark Batterson writes, “We need to quit living as if the purpose of life is to arrive safely at death”.

So, here is the thing. What is it that God is calling you to do? If you don’t know, maybe you should spend some time in quiet prayer. I am not talking about the “when I grow up I am going to. . . . “ things. I am talking about the daily things. Who in your life has a need that you can fill? What needs are in your dorm, house, class, etc? It may be very simple. I would encourage you to spend 5 or 10 minutes just contemplating some needs that you can respond to. Write them down, let them bother you and then do something about it. Don’t make excuses. Remember, this is what you were saved to do.

If you want to share your lists or stories I would love to hear them!

Some Great Thoughts from Farmstrong

JD Walt has some great thoughts on how we approach Scripture here and here. Read them!

Get on Your Boots-Review

So, U2 has a new single out. This is something that I have been looking forward to around that time the Vertigo tour ended. Anyone, who knows me knows I am a fan.

I divide U2's songs into two categories. Fun and meaningful. I prefer the meaningful. The music is always good. U2 is at their best when the lyrics are on par with the music. I happen to love the Zooropa and Pop albums for this reason. My least favorite songs are the ones that just aim for fun. Think Wild Honey.

The odd thing about U2's music is that there are many songs that I hear once or twice and think the band was just having fun. However, after hearing the songs multiple times and living with them I begin to recognize there is actually a lot of depth to the song. This was the case with Vertigo.

Get on Your Boots begins with a guitar riff that feels lifted straight from Vertigo. In fact the beginning of the song sounds like Vertigo on speed. The song then takes a couple of twists. Sometimes it sounds like The White Stripes (I recently heard that Edge had been playing with Jack), others it seems to have the flavor of a 60's go go song. The more I listen to this song the more I enjoy it musically.

On the other hand, I am not sure that Bono can keep up with the speed of the music lyrically. his writing seems to come together better with a slower pace. It seems that the song is made up of a string of disconnected thoughts; the beginning of good ideas that were never developed or leftover from other songs and then just strung together.

If this is just to be a fun song, then it is what it is. I can live with that and will look forward to the rest of the album. On the other hand, every first single from an album since Achtung Baby has proven to be better than I at first thought; The Fly, Dischoteque, Beautiful Day (OK, that is a classic) and Vertigo. Hearing these songsin the context of the rest of the album or, more importanly live, gives them a new life. It is very possible Get on Your Boots will follow in those footsteps. With Eno, Lanois and U2 working together, expectations are high.

I'm Back Baby!!

Alright, after a long hiatus I will be back to blogging starting tomorrow! I am writing this so that I have no choice but to post.

I also note that my last post (nearly a year ago) left things on a bit of a downer so we need to fix that.