Entertained by the world?

I saw an article recently that examined whether Christians should watch the movie Deadpool. I don’t know much about Deadpool and certainly won’t be watching, but in the article, John Piper asked wether Christians should be watching movies with graphic nudity. The fact that this question is even being asked shows how little discernment many Christians have regarding what they watch. I find no biblical justification whatsoever for watching these kinds of movies, and I find many biblical reasons not to watch (Philippians 4:8, 2 Timothy 2:22, Titus 2:12-14, 1 Corinthians 6:18, 1 Peter 1:15, Matthew 5:27-30).

My TV viewing habits have changed over the years. I have come to realize that so much of what I watched was promoting ungodliness, glorifying sin, and encouraging all manner of evil and immoral thoughts. I realize that Christians will disagree over where the line should be drawn, but here are two questions I use to try to discern what should and should not be a part of my entertainment.

1. Does this glorify sin?
2. Does this normalize sin?

It could be any manner of sin: sexual immorality, fits of rage, revenge, selfish ambition or greed, drunkeness or lewdness. Why would we watch something that glorifies sins for which Christ died. Countless movies and TV shows for decades have centered on glorifying or making light of sin. To use the example of drunkeness or intoxication, think of all the movies that treat this sin as funny, from Dude Where’s My Car? when I was younger to the Hangover movies today. The basic principle of these movies seems to be the apparent humor that can come from drunkeness and intoxication. As Christians, why would we find such immorality funny?

Movies and TV shows have so normalized sexual immorality that what is sinful has become the norm, and many Christians have continued to find this immorality entertaining. We think this is a new phenomenon, but look back a few decades. How many shows from prior years glorified and normalized sexual immorality? How many Christians cheered when Ross and Rachel finally “hooked up”? Or how many thought Jerry and Elaine’s “deal” was humorous? I know I was watching when the West Wing tried to find something noble in the fornication of a White House staffer and a call girl. I know these examples will only hit certain generations, but the larger point is that for decades now, TV and movies have been normalizing what is clearly in violation of biblical commands.

Let me give one more example to try to demonstrate the point of how much TV glorifies ungodliness. One of the shows we recently stopped watching in our house is Garfield. Our kids sometimes watch cartoons on Netflix, and I have a certain nostalgia for shows that were around when I was a kid. So why would we turn off Garfield? Listen to how Garfield is described on wikipedia: “In addition to being portrayed as lazy and fat, Garfield is also pessimistic, narcissistic, sadistic, cynical, sarcastic, sardonic, negative, and a bit obnoxious. He enjoys destroying things, mauling the mailman, tormenting Odie, and kicking Odie off the table; he also makes snide comments, usually about Jon’s inability to get a date.” And Garfield is a cartoon meant for kids.

We should not be surprised when our kids copy the immorality they see on TV when we have exposed them to so much that glorifies what the Bible clearly condemns as sin. We should not be surprised when they are fighting and belittling each other when we have put before them these activities as entertainment. When we copy, glorify, and are entertained by the patterns of the world,we should not be surprised when the results are disorder and every evil practice (James 3:14-16).

I believe that that in many ways Christians and churches have developed patterns of copying the world around us rather than living according to the truth of God’s Word, and we have often fooled ourselves into thinking that we are living more biblical than we really are. The viewing habits of many professing Christians, I think, are a clear demonstration of this truth. I do not think you can find any sound biblical justification for exposing yourself to these kinds of immorality. The only reason we do so is that we uncritically copy what the world around us is doing. The time has come for us to stop doing what everyone around us is doing, and instead to seek carefully and prayerfully the things of God. Why should we continue to entertain and amuse ourselves with what God has clearly told us is sinful? When we do this, many in the world, and some in the church, will ridicule us and call us prudes (or worse). But when this happens, will we seek the approval of the world around us, or will we seek to be holy as our God is holy?

Copying the world or living the Word?

Are we copying the world or living the Word? I am becoming convinced that many Christians and many churches are being conformed to the world in ways that we don’t even understand. We simply copy the world, even if what we do violates God’s Word. I want to use two examples to demonstrate this point.

The Discipleship of Children

For the average child in a Christian home, their primary Bible teacher is a Sunday School teacher, children’s worker, or youth worker. Many Christian parents are not regularly teaching their kids the Bible or how to follow Jesus. Why? Mostly because they have copied the educational principles of the world. We are not the primary ones to teach our kids math or science, so why do we have to be their primary Bible teachers?

The Bible commands fathers to do otherwise, to bring up their children in the training and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). So the father who is not actively discipling his children is copying the educational patterns of the world instead of living the commands of the Word. And we wonder why each generation seems less and less biblically literate when we have taken our cues from the world rather than the Word.

Church Discipline

I am convinced that the average church today will not exercise biblical church discipline. Most churches have many members who are living in the sinful pattern of complete disassociation from the church. Matthew 18:15-17 sets a clear pattern for handling this problem. We should approach these people privately and rebuke them. This means that we should confront them and prove to them from the Scriptures that what they are doing is wrong. If they won’t listen to us, we should bring another person or two with us as witnesses. If they still won’t listen, we should take the matter before the church. If they won’t listen to the church, we should remove them from church membership.

But most churches refuse to follow this pattern. Why? Because we follow a worldly wisdom instead of a godly wisdom. This worldly wisdom tells us that it is unloving to enact church discipline. This worldly wisdom tells us that doing so will disturb the peace in the church, lead to division, and drive people farther from God. And so we don’t do what the Scripture clearly teaches because we have bought into a false wisdom from the world about what is loving and peaceful.

I could give other examples, but the point is this: we cannot follow God according to the wisdom of this world. As James says, the wisdom of this world does not come down from God but is earthly, unspiritual, and of the devil (3:15). I have a deep concern for the church today. I am afraid that in many instances we are unable to ground what we do in the Scriptures, and too often this is because we have conformed ourselves to the world instead of being transformed to live according to the Word. If it’s true in these two areas, how many other areas might we be living out the patterns of the world instead of the commands of God?

So what do we need to do? James says that true wisdom from God is open to reason or submissive (3:17) and that God gives wisdom generously to those who ask in faith (1:5-6). We will not ask for what we think we already have. The first step is to humble ourselves and admit that the problem is real. Only then can we begin to seek God’s wisdom and evaluate all we do in light of Scripture, striving to make sure that we are being transformed through a godly repentance and renewal, rather than a conformity to the patterns of this world.

The testing of our faith

One reason we as Christians can rejoice during our trials is that trials lead to the maturing of our faith (James 1:2-4). We rejoice in the midst of discomfort because we know that God is making us more like Him through our struggles. So our greatest times of growth as Christians often come when we are most uncomfortable, most challenged, or most ill at ease.

Many churches today have turned this principle on its head. They are catering their churches to people’s comforts, and they are surprised when the result is immature Christians. We cater music to people’s preferences, and we put people in groups with only those who make them comfortable, and then we are caught of guard when they seem unwilling to look to the interests of others or to consider others as better than themselves (Philippians 2:3-4).

The example of music can demonstrate how much we think of people’s comfort in the church,  rather than their growth. We think that we sing the older hymns for the older people and the newer choruses for the younger people, so both groups feel comfortable as we worship. But could it be that we need to sing the older hymns for the younger people, to give them grounding in their faith, and the newer choruses for the older people, to stretch them in their faith? Like parents with their kids, the church must not be driven by giving people what they want, but we must learn to give them what they need.

For example, if you ask about the best way to get people to come to Sunday School, you might create classes with everyone alike, where people feel comfortable with others just like them. If you asked how best to disciple people, you would put people with others not like them. You would put the young newly weds with an older married couple to teach them how to stick to their marriage. You would put the rich with the poor to teach them humility. When we cater the church to people’s comforts, we get comfortable Christians.  When we center the church on Scripture, we get biblical Christians.

The church in America desperately needs to hear a word from James 1:2-4. Trials and difficulties are not always to be avoided. True wisdom (James 1:5) teaches us that our struggles are for our benefit, for the maturing of our faith. Christian maturity comes through trials. Consequently, the church that seeks to remove the difficulties of being a part of the body of Christ will never yield the kind of disciples that flow from the fiery ordeals that we must all endure from time to time (1 Peter 4:12-13).

Overcoming segregation in the church

I have had the privilege in the last few months of meeting with a group of pastors from both black and white churches across the Mississippi Gulf Coast. We gathered with the recognition that Sunday morning is still the most segregated time in our country, and I have been pleased to find that the heart of these men is not for more black or white churches, but for churches that reflect the diversity of God’s kingdom.

At the end of our meeting this afternoon, I was struck by what a profound shift this would be for most of our churches. Why? Because we have valued segregation as a means to church growth for so long. While we have not generally valued racial segregation as a church growth principle (certainly not publicly at least), we have segregated ourselves in a myriad of other ways in the name of church growth and for the sake of the comfort of both unbelievers and members.

For years, Sunday School was the primary evangelistic arm of the church. And what did we do? We segregated Sunday School. Many times we did this by age, but often we segregated by marital status, parental status, etc. The problem is not that it is never okay for younger people or older people to gather to study the Bible. The problem is that we were trying to reach people and disciple people by appealing to their comfort and creating groups of people who were just like them. We were segregating people with the aim of reaching them to a Christ who made both Jew and Gentile one by tearing down the dividing wall of hostility between the two groups (Ephesians 2:14-15).

Now, the worship service is the primary evangelistic arm of most churches. So what do we do? We divide our worship times along many of the same lines that we divided our Sunday School classes. And we are surprised that the church is not unified! The problem we have now with integrating our churches is not just racism, but to integrate our churches we have to go against the model of appealing to people’s comforts and their desire to fit in. Worship with people who are not like you is not always comfortable. Studying the Bible with people who have a different perspective from yours is not always comfortable. But both are a valuable part of what being a part of a body of believers should provide.

So ridding ourselves of the racial division in our churches is not just a problem of racism; it is a problem of how we do church. We already have people leaving our churches because they don’t like the music (to use one example). And this is when most of the people in the church are of the same race, roughly the same socio-economic status, and were raised in generally similar cultures. Imagine what will happen if we begin to worship with people of different races and cultures who worship to styles of music far different than the styles that people are already leaving our churches over.

I don’t mean this to be discouraging but to try to be realistic about the problem. The racial divide in our country is hard enough to overcome, but I don’t think we will be able to overcome that divide in our churches until we stop appealing to people’s comfort in order to get them in our buildings. I don’t think the cause is hopeless. I believe the Spirit of God can unite his people. I just don’t think it does us any good to proceed thinking that racist and prejudicial attitudes are the only obstacles to be overcome.

The Pressures of Easter

I ran across a blog recently called “11 Reasons Pastors Struggle on Easter.” I resonated with a lot of the points made, like the business of Easter weekend and the pressures that come with increased expectations during the Easter season. But one of the given reasons that pastors struggle on Easter just made me sad: “Pastors get a glimpse of what the church could be… but typically isn’t.” The explanation given was, “Parking lot attendants are ready, and they even arrive early. Greeters are well dressed and easily identified. The best musicians and singers are enlisted. The sermon is well rehearsed. The church gives its best for this one day – but then returns to mediocrity the following week. That’s frustrating.” What makes me sad is my sense that for many of our churches, this is our vision of what a great church looks like: well-dressed greeters, talented musicians, and a flawlessly delivered sermon. But how close to a biblical picture of the church is this? You can have all of these elements and still not have something that can biblically be called a church. I am burdened for the church because I think that we are losing ourselves in the struggle for a well-oiled Sunday spectacular, and we are forgetting what it really means to be a church. Church is not an event, a time of the week, or a place, but a group of people. The success of the church is not measured by how professional we appear on Sunday morning but by the content of our proclamation and the character of our lives. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:4-5, “My speech and my proclamation were not with persuasive words of wisdom but with a powerful demonstration by the Spirit,  so that your faith might not be based on men’s wisdom but on God’s power” (HCSB). One of my fears for the church is that we are getting so caught up in putting our best foot forward that we are in danger of leading people to trust in us: the persuasiveness of our words, the talent of our leaders, and the grandeur of facilities. The real test of a believer though is not whether they will come to our services, but whether they have been changed by the gospel and gifted with the Spirit of God. So what happens when life hits hard and the dynamic speaker is nowhere to be found, the well-dressed greeters aren’t there to point the way, and the lighting show isn’t there to illuminate us in our time of despair. What are we left with? We are left with the truth that we have learned, the Spirit that we have been given, and the believers that have become our family to walk alongside us. What we need in our worship services is not more of us and our talents, but what we need is a demonstration of the power of the Spirit of God. I am not arguing for laziness in worship or in the preaching of the Word. But giving our best has less to do with elevating to prominence the most talented and presentable among us, and it has more to do with proclaiming and trusting in the one who changed us, believing that he can change others too. In other words, do people leave our services thinking much of us, our talents, our capabilities, and our achievements, or do they leave thinking much of our God? Do they leave trusting in our might, or do they leave trusting in Almighty God?

Individual Disciples or a People for God

Church leaders, including myself, often bemoan the individualism of our American culture, and we lament how this individualistic spirit has invaded the church. I attended a conference on discipleship this week, and as I left the conference, I began to reflect on how individualism has affected even our thoughts on discipleship. As I look back on the last few days, I am struck by how individualistic our conversations about discipleship were. We began with the Great Commission to make disciples and then asked what a disciple looks like. From there, we tried to formulate plans or processes for making this kind of disciple. This process was helpful, and while we regularly focused on how disciples would have to be part of a group of believers, we still approached the question from an individualistic slant. What does a disciple look like? While we acknowledged that a disciple must be involved in corporate activities, we still focused heavily on building individual disciples.

The problem I have with this process is that God never intended to make individual disciples. Jesus did tell his disciples to make disciples, but long before that, God made clear that his ultimate aim was a people for himself. When God chose Abraham, God did so to make Abraham into a nation (Genesis 12:2). God promised his people that if they obeyed, he would establish them as his holy people so that all the nations of the earth would see that his people were called by his name (Deuteronomy 28:9-10). In the New Testament, Paul stated that Christ died to purify for himself a people that are his own (Titus 2:14). As Peter called his audience to holiness, he reminded them that they were a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his possession (1 Peter 2:9). In the new creation, God will dwell among the people that he has made for himself. He will be their God, and they will be his people (Revelation 21:3).

So perhaps the discipleship questions we ask should be corporate rather than individualistic. Instead of starting with what a disciple looks like, perhaps we should ask what the people of God should look like. This shift might seem insignificant, but some characteristics of God’s people cannot be reflected in individual disciples. For example, individual disciples cannot be intergenerational, while we know that God’s people are made up of many generations. God’s people are interracial, made up of people from many tribes, tongues, and nations, while individual disciples do not have to reflect this characteristic. Currently many churches form groups revolving around the individual: a small group for young adults, a church for horse people, a worship service for those who like traditional music. But if we began with the people rather than the individual, our churches might look vastly different. We might begin to  look more like the diverse families of faith that God created us to be.

Is everyone welcome at your church?

I talk often about how much words matter, particularly words like “church” (and the related “God’s house”), and perhaps sometimes the use of these words borders on being a pet peeve for me. But I think the way we use words matters. I don’t think we can deny that the word “church” has come to be used to refer more frequently to a building than to a group of people. While most Christians would agree that biblically “church” refers to a group of people and not to a building, we continue to use the word “church” to refer to the building where the church meets. It may come across to some like I’m being too picky on this issue, but I’d liked to suggest one reason why the way we use this term matters.

“We welcome everybody at our church.” This simple statement seems uncontroversial, loving, and Christ-like. Such a statement makes us seem loving to those who would accuse us of being close-minded and intolerant. When we are accused of being hateful for standing for biblical truths (or for calling sin sin), we can respond by saying that we welcome everybody at our church. After all, shouldn’t we welcome all people with open arms? But what do we really mean when we say this?

What I think that most churches mean is that everyone is welcome to come into their building and be a part of their worship service, or any of the various activities of the church. Even the little word “at” implies that we are open to people coming to a certain location. So if we mean that we are open to anyone coming to hear the gospel proclaimed, to hear biblical truth taught, and to see God’s people as they worship him corporately, that’s one thing. As we open our doors to our buildings in that way, hopefully people will be convicted, called to account, fall on their faces in worship of God, and declare that God truly is among this body of believers (1 Corinthians 14:24-25).

But do we really welcome everyone into our church, not into our building but into our fellowship, into our family of faith? This is after all how the question of whether we welcome everyone into our “church” should be framed. Hopefully we do not. To give just one example, we don’t welcome into our faith family those who believe that they have access to God apart from Jesus Christ. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians, division should exist in the church to show those who are recognized and approved as part of the church (11:19), and consequently those who are not. Some divisions have no place in the church, divisions along the lines of race, wealth, age, etc. Fractures along these lines are contrary to the truth of the gospel message and those who cause division along these lines should be rebuked and called to repentance. However, and this is a big however, division is actually necessary in the church. For example, those living in unrepentant sexual immorality should be separated from the church (1 Corinthians 5:13). We should not welcome such people into our church family unless they repent of their sinfulness. And if members of our church fall into sexual sin, we should separate ourselves from them if they refuse to repent.

So do we really welcome everybody at our church? Considering that the church is a people and not a location, the question should really be do we welcome everybody into our church? Hopefully the answer to this question is yes, if. We welcome anyone who will believe the gospel and repent of their sins, no matter what. But we reject anyone as a part of our church family who does not believe and will not repent. We may be called intolerant when we do so, but better to be called intolerant than to reject biblical truth and give people false assurance of their salvation.

Many of our churches have become too accepting. Perhaps our intentions have been noble, a desire to see the church grow and for all to be saved. But these noble intentions are no excuse for ignoring biblical truth. As Mark Dever wrote in Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, “If we really want to see our churches grow, we need to make it harder to join and we need to be better at excluding people. We need to be able to show that there is a distinction between the church and the world—that it means something to be a Christian.” While we don’t want to set up false barriers to the gospel or to church membership, we do want people to know that faith and repentance are necessary to be included in the family of God. While we can keep our buildings open to anyone, we should not keep our church open to everyone. And the difference between the two is crucial.

The seeker-sensitive church within

As a seminary student I mocked the “seeker-sensitive” church, churches that give away door prizes on Easter or turn worship into a concert and sermons into five helpful tips, all in an effort to keep people coming back. Pedaling to the felt needs of the masses seemed like cheapening of what the church was supposed to be. And I  knew that I  would never stoop so low.

Until I discovered that we are often a low-budget version of the churches that I used to ridicule. We have recently been considering how we can get people to come back for services on Sunday night. What can we offer  that will bring people in and get our Sunday night attendance where it used to be? The more conversations like this I have, the more I feel that we are what I once derided.

Perhaps we make Sunday School classes for every perceivable class of people. You’re a recently divorced woman in your 40s with two kids and you drive a sedan. We’ve got a class for people just like you! You’re into hunting? Great, but do you like to fish too? No, then head through door number two. Or perhaps more seriously, you feel more comfortable around people your age, and you don’t like to be annoyed by the grumblings of the older generation (or you don’t like to be pestered by those young whippersnappers), then you’re going to love this class.

We may not be able to give away a car on Easter, but we can give away door prizes at our block party. We may not be able to draw crowds with our elaborate sets, but we can download video clips that will serve the same purpose. We may not be able to offer a multimillion dollar children’s center, but we can do our best to get  kids begging to come back for more fun games and trips to the zoo.

The real question is not whether we are a seeker-sensitive church, because I believe most of us have bought into that mentality; the real question is whether we should be. Most would not label anything I’ve mentioned so far as inherently bad: targeted Sunday School classes, fun times for kids, or high quality worship performances. But when we build our church around what will get people to come, how do we show them the necessity of selflessness in the body of Christ? If we spend our time catering to people’s felt needs, how do we get them to look to the interests of others and not to their own selfish desires (Philippians 2:3-4)?

Unfortunately I have more questions than answers. But at the very least I think we need to be honest enough to admit what we really are. If a church feels that being seeker-sensitive is the way to go, that’s one thing. But let’s not mock those who openly promote a system that we simply refuse to admit we’ve embraced.

Reflections on SBC12

I have taken a long break from blogging, but I thought I would return to offer some of my thoughts on the recent Southern Baptist Convention. I left this convention with very mixed feelings. The high point of the convention was certainly the election of Dr. Luter as President, while the low point was probably the apparent division in our convention. I may post my thoughts on other issues later, but I will start by addressing the issue that most directly affects the church I pastor.

The divide in the convention right now is supposedly a theological divide between Calvinists and Traditionalists (or non-Calvinists). But as I listened to the discussion, both during and after the convention, I am not sure the debate is completely a theological debate, or that the question is as simple as how we are saved. I think an underlying question behind the divide is where are we as a convention.

From what I have seen from the “spokesmen” of these groups, the Traditionalists tend to think that we have been largely successful as a convention and as churches. They highlight numbers of baptisms and professions of faith, rightful causes of celebration for followers of Jesus. The general consensus from Traditionalist spokesmen seems to be that we are on the right path as a convention (or at least that we were on the right path). If we continue to press forward with our traditional methods of evangelism and discipleship, we will see the resurgence needed in our convention. In this sense, the title of traditionalists is apt.

Many of the supposed New Calvinists seem to take a different approach. Their spokesmen tend to emphasize the number of people who profess Christ and later leave the church or the number of professing Christians who lack a basic biblical worldview. The consensus from this group seems to be that we need a redirection as a convention and as churches; we need to refocus ourselves and our discipleship and missions efforts. In this sense, the title of reformers would perhaps be more apt than the term Calvinists.

A few caveats are important here. First, I don’t pretend that the theological divide is fictitious or unimportant. There are theological differences, but I don’t think the theological differences are the only factors in the debate. Second, when you try to differentiate  between two groups, the lines get muddled and sometimes certain labels prove unhelpful. Not all Calvinists are non-traditionalists in this sense of the word, nor are all Traditionalists (or non-Calvinists) traditionalists in that sense of the word. But the traditionalist/reformer debate appears alive and well on many issues in our convention from what we call ourselves to how we designate and spend our money. In fact, one of my overwhelming impressions after leaving the convention was that while theologically I am a Traditionalist, I found myself much more sympathetic to the arguments of the Calvinist speakers, I think because of the underlying tendency toward being reformers.

Calvinism is a non-issue at our church, but the divide between traditionalists and reformers is prevalent. We have those who would call for us to stay the course and solidify what we have done in the past, and we have those who would call for a “reformation” of how we do church and make disciples. I think this same debate is at least as big a factor at the convention level as is the theological debate. I don’t think the theological debate is a bad debate to have if done in love, but I’m actually much more interested in the traditionalist/reformer debate. I think it’s time for a sober assessment of our churches and of our convention. We need to face the numbers. I am beginning to sense that the number of young adults in South Mississippi with a biblical worldview is shockingly small (even among those who consider themselves Southern Baptist). Theological debates among ourselves will not change that number, but perhaps a reformation of how we make disciples and how we do church will.

The Prodigal Son and Foster Children

A while ago our Bible story for the night was on the Prodigal Son. Lisa was reading the story, which gave me time to reflect on the interesting nature of teaching the story of the Prodigal Son to a foster child. What about the child who wants to go back to his father but can’t? How do they hear the story? The story is about a loving father who gladly welcomes his child when he comes back to his father’s house. Not everyone is so lucky to have a father like that.

Reading the story tonight reminded me of two things. First, I am grateful that I have a father that loves me like my Father does (I am grateful that I have a mother who loves me in that same way too- Hi mom!). What a blessing to see God’s love expressed in human form. Not everyone is so fortunate. It must be so much easier for a child with a loving father to understand the Father’s love. I hope I never take that advantage for granted.

Second, I am grateful that everyone has a Father like the father in the story. Maybe some will have a harder time understanding that kind of love, but God’s love for them is no less real, and no less available. I pray that our little one will see in me His Father’s love for him. But more than anything I pray that he will run into the arms of his Father.