Cultural Relevancy and Gussing up the Old Gal

This is not all I ultimately intend to say on this topic.  I will leave a great deal unstated.  I’ll likely sound harsh, traditional, and not very evangelistic.  In the name of brevity I’ll skip the moderating remarks that may absolve me of these charges and rely upon the reader’s good graces to not assign ill thoughts to me based upon the few words that follow.  So, here goes:

Evangelism is a salient topic.  The Christian Chronicle has aptly documented the decline in numbers within churches of Christ.  The Barna group has tracked similar trends for American Christianity at large (with some notable exceptions).  A few years ago I read Jim and Casper go to Church.  Recently, an acquaintance forwarded along an article via Facebook on the topic of these depressing numbers.    

In many discussions of evangelism, a similar tendency emerges.  Step 1:  Our numbers are low.  Step 2:  Identify cultural trends that are especially relevant to young people.  Step 3:  Point out the shortcomings in the church to meet those needs in the face of the aforementioned cultural trends.  Step 4:  Make a case for how addressing the social trend is actually consistent with scripture and ancient Christianity.  Step 5:  Encourage the church to adapt to address this need.  Step 6:  Wait for the pews to fill up. 

So, we hand wring.  We read.  We plan.  We discuss.  We make some changes.  We try.  We go to a conference.  We wait and…..  The pews rarely fill up.  I’m being over-simplistic, “mea culpa!”  But what if this unstated paradigm is wrong?  The paradigm that says the church is the bride of Christ, but sometimes we need to “gussy up” the old gal with lipstick and a new hairdo so as to allure unbelievers.  We go for a modern and stylish look.  Then once we get possible converts in our midst we have a quandary.  Are we free to wipe off the make-up and allow the radiance of natural beauty to pour forth?  Or are we obligated to add 6 inch stilettos and a chic black skirt to the ensemble so as to ward off boredom with Christ’s bride with our new friends? 

I’m of course being facetious.  I say this not to jar you, but myself.  I sometimes fall into this unconscious pattern of thinking that ascribes noble virtues to unbelievers.  I think if I can just get the church to be “relevant, non-judgmental, and non-hypocritical” then finally we would be worthy for all these people to enter through our doors and into our lives and fill our pews, lifegroups, and bible classes.  Subconsciously, we who are all too familiar with the church’s shortcomings admire those that have not yet joined.  Because after all, why join such a miserable lot like us?  “Hold out for something better!  I sure wish I had,” our thinking may go.  I nearly assign spiritual maturity to unbelievers for holding out for a “real church” that is free of the hang-ups that seem to plague all of us believers that joined before somebody figured out how to do church the “right way.”  Scripture does not ascribe such noble labels to unbelievers as my unconscious routinely supplies. 

The Pharisees believed in purifying Israel to bring about the arrival of the Messiah.  Today, sometimes we try to purify the church in order to bring about a flood of new converts.  Here is the pivotal question:  do we seek transformational change within the church to please God or please the culture and thus become more inviting to unbelievers?  Now that’s a false dichotomy.  I know.  But it gets us in right room of the house to ask the right questions. 

Our faith has always been two legs of a triangle:  Personal devotion to God and a communal devotion to one another.  A neglect of either is detrimental to the other.  In my humble opinion, living faithfully to God and in loving community with others is the most effective evangelistic strategy available to the church.  We can build websites, knock doors, use twitter, serve fair trade coffee, and build elaborate programs, but ultimately life is lived walking with God in community with others.  If we are unfaithful to the cross of Christ, then what have we accomplished in our cultural relevancy?  If in fear and insecurity we insulate ourselves from others, then we don’t really understand the gospel, even if we faithfully carry out the external traditions. 

I’m not concerned if Taylor St. is culturally relevant.  I’m concerned that Taylor St. is relevant to hurting people that want to follow Jesus and do so in a loving community full of sinners that rely on God's grace daily.  I know that our worship services will never match what the world has to offer in the way of entertainment, but I believe that strongholds are defeated and the heavens open up each moment we lift our hearts in song.  Kim Kardashian is culturally relevant so is social media, Lexus, Lady GaGa, Justin Beiber, the NFL, and LeBron James.  Build your church around those icons and see how relevant and faithful you remain over any stretch of time.  People come to Christ fleeing the world, not because they are so enamored of this world!  I don't want to hitch my spiritual wagon to any cultural icon, not even Tim Tebow, Kirk Cameron, or Duck Dynasty.

We may build better outreach tools.  But ultimately we are calling people into community with us.  No program, no schedule of time and place, just authentic community in living rooms, around tables, and on road trips.  There are programs that may fan this flame, but there is no substitute.  We seek to form two interconnected relationships:  1) God, 2) others, period. 

Here is what I really believe:  around those tables and in those living rooms, "social trends” are neutered.  They don’t matter near as much.  When I talk with people about their challenges at work or about their families and their spiritual struggles, it doesn’t matter what is trending on twitter or what is on the front page of the Drudge Report.  What matters is that two human beings are overcoming the brokenness of human relations experienced in the Garden.  Two human beings defiantly stick a thumb in Satan’s eye and risk the pain involved with all human intimacy.  What is more relevant than sticking it to Satan, drawing near to God, and nearer to one another? 

“Hit LIKE if you love God.  Repost on Twitter if you care about saving souls and forward to everyone in your address if you want to receive a special blessing from God!” 

I have to go get my “YOLO” tattoo and listen to Mumford and Son on repeat.  Follow me on Twitter!

P.S.

If you took the last two sentences seriously, go back and reread the piece.  You clearly didn’t understand it the first time. 

What do we Reward?

Upon leaving ministry the first time I was encouraged by a trusted well-schooled friend to pursue high levels of education because “it will change you.”  I’m still not entirely sure what it meant to the speaker, but well into a master’s program I can cite one major change in my way of thinking.  Speech-language pathology is what is known as an evidenced-based practice or EBP for short.  In a nut shell EBP demands that clinical decisions should be made in light of the best possible evidence.  The gold-standard of evidence is multiple randomized controlled trials from a published journal.  The lowest level of evidence is “expert opinion” (meaning it lacks research data) or clinical judgment.  I’ve over simplified EBP, but you probably get the idea.  Those three little letters written with a question mark in the margin in red ink on a clinical report can ruin your entire day.  Even worse, during a conference your supervisor may interrupt you with the simple question:  “what’s your EBP?” 

EBP has a grounding effect on thinking.  It is easy to become carried away in two directions:  1) doing what’s easy or 2) choosing a treatment that “sounds interesting.”  EBP limits both tendencies.  The clinician is neither rewarded for tradition nor innovation solely for tradition or innovation’s sake.  In principle, the clinician is rewarded for performance.  Oh, I forgot to mention.  Not only does EBP demand data in choosing treatment, but data is tracked on every session to determine the efficacy of treatment.  

I read plenty of ministry books and blogs.  I listen to a lot of sermons on iTunes.  Here is what I’ve noticed.  Ministers are rewarded (with our praise, attention, positive feedback etc…) for being interesting.  They are rewarded for agreeing with our pet philosophies.  Perversely, they are even rewarded for criticizing the church in some instances.  Probably because when we blame “the church” it relieves the individual of short comings.  But mostly, preachers are rewarded for eliciting our emotions.

I stand guilty.  I’ve told sad stories from the pulpit.  Tragic stories: stories difficult to repeat.  I think I was honoring God in making a larger point.  I’ve also used humor; stories from the past or refashioned jokes as ice-breakers.  Hopefully, it served a greater end, but I also enjoyed the rhetorical mileage along the way.  The best preacher/teacher I’ve ever encountered at incorporating illustrations with a larger message is Rick Atchley.  Granted, I don’t think Rick is fixing the office copier or making hospital rounds like the average non-mega church preacher, but the man uses illustrations effectively and not merely as filler or to emotionally manipulate his audience. 

Most ministers are highly educated.  Their opinions are respected near universally with everyone within their bubble.  Maybe long ago, in our restoration heritage we were in the habit of asking for “book-chapter-verse.”  But, even that system is rife with the corruption of proof-texting and manipulation.  Today, more missionally-minded brethren will use buzz words like “imagination” and “story” as modern day proof-texts when passing off opinion as scripture.

I don’t bring this up to “go after” anybody and I don’t for a second think that we need less interesting or less-emotional sermons (ok, some youth speakers are flat out manipulative and should use less emotion, including myself).  But, we need to label our ideas for what they are.  Opinions are just that, opinions.  Scripture is scripture and anecdotal experience is just that as well.  Sometime ago a blogger noted a “trend line” within churches.  I asked for the data points of said trend line.  I was told there aren’t any data points on the trend line.  Hmmmm, a practitioner of EBP pulls out their last hair while screaming, “am I on crazy pills?”    

I recently finished Heaven on Earth by Joshua Graves and Chris Seidman.  It’s a light read checking in at just over 100 pages.  These are two incredibly thoughtful men.  I was moved to tears during one of the early chapters (Joshua Graves can write).  In the end, I fear I missed something (I did read the book with Kip and Callie in the same room, so it could be reader inattention).  Maybe the book didn’t intend to be rhetorically rewarding in the first place.  But when I read the last chapter I felt like I may as well have read a Chicken Soup for the Soul book.  One chapter in particular was virtually all illustration and nearly zero substance (the one on blessed are the pure in heart).  After every book/blog/sermon I inventory what I added to my bag of knowledge/truth/wisdom/empathy/edification.  Maybe I’m jaded, but I seem to be adding fewer items of one sort and more and more of another sort.  Possibly I’m guilty of applying some heart/mind dualism that doesn’t exist in scripture.  It just seems that so much preaching/teaching consists of too much sizzle (emotional illustration/anecdote/opinion) and not enough steak (truth/facts/scripture, etc…).  Perhaps that is a poor analogy.  Let’s say good preaching/teaching is lemonade.  It requires the sweetness of sugar and the cutting strength of lemon.  In a prior time many may have erred more on the side of too much lemon.  In our time, I at least, feel sugar bloated. 

Ministry exclusively deals in non-quantifiable goods.  I appreciate that.  It’s difficult to measure the “efficacy of intervention.”  Jonah was disobedient and had a hard heart, but I’m unlikely to encounter anyone with more convert “notches on the belt” than Jonah.  So, I don’t advocate for ministry moving to a non-spiritualized clinical practice of pragmatics and statistics.  However, I do ask for more humility and discernment from all parties involved in cutting through saccharine emotion, tribal rhetoric, over generalized anecdotes, and favored ideologies.  We will all be better off for it and have both full and well-balanced bags. 

As Kip and Callie say after every book:  THE END