The Great Debate

Tonight in class we addressed the question of "is the use of instrumental music in worship wrong?" The class is called Got Questions and the format is such that people anonymously
submitted questions at the first of the year and we've tried to answer one each week. The way we decided to tackle this question was by having an actual debate. I took the position that it's wrong (even though I don't actually believe it is) and one of our Shepherds took the position that it is not wrong. We both studied up on our positions, loaded up on Scripture, and let it fly!

Now that's it over I feel very awkward. I didn't like arguing with my brother, even though it was only pretend arguing. It still made me uncomfortable. My attack plan was to throw out as much Scripture as possible, make broad generalizations and absolute statements, and accuse him of being all kinds of things (heretic, apostate, hypocrite, false teacher, etc.) So I did. But I didn't like it. I was surprised at how saying those things made me feel. Even though they weren't real, they felt real. I felt like a heel for taking such a caustic approach. At the end of class I made the disclaimer that I was simply playing a role and that I actually agreed with my opponent. But I still felt like I'd given Christianity a bad name.

The sad reality is that I based my style on many of the articles/sermons I read in preparation for the debate. There has to be a better way to talk about this topic! And that was the main lesson I took from the class. Regardless of your position you MUST find a way to talk about it in a loving, humble way. The way of Christ demands no less.

Identity Crisis?

This month the Christian Chronicle asks is there an identity crisis in the Churches of Christ today? As Bobby Ross Jr. writes . . .

Big Macs. Chicken McNuggets. Filet-O-Fish Sandwiches. Walk into most any McDonald’s and you have a good idea what’s on the menu. In a manner of speaking, Churches of Christ used to be that picca. “We were a franchise church,” said Steve Sandifer, pastoral care minister at the Southwest Central church in Houston. “If someone said song 728b, you knew what that meant. The order of worship was very similar. We had our own unwritten liturgy that showed up in prayers. Even many of the buildings came from the same plans. ”Visit one of the nation’s nearly 13,000 a cappella congregations today, though, and you might not know if the church sings from shaped notes in a hymnal or words flashed on a big screen. Men only might pass the communion trays, or women might join them. The King James Bible might be preferred, or Scripture could be read from The Message. In the past, Churches of Christ were distinguished by belief in church autonomy, baptism for forgiveness of sins, weekly Lord’s Supper on Sunday, public male leadership, plurality of elders and a cappella singing, said David Duncan, pulpit minister at the Memorial church in Houston. “Now, some congregations have given up most, if not almost all, these distinctive characteristics,” Duncan said.
(see full article and online responses).

I agree that there is tremendous diversity in the churches of Christ today, but I'm not ready to call it an "identity crisis." Although I would say that our diversity does have a whole lot to do with our identity! For example, the original identity of the churches of Christ was to practice non-denominational Christianity. That means we have independent, self-governing churches; we claim Christ alone as our head; we accept the Bible as our only creed; and we encourage everyone to read & interpret the Bible for themselves. In my opinion, diversity is the natural progression of such an identity.

If we really wanted everyone to look, act, and think the same then we should have written down our creed and formalized our church government. But thank God that we did neither! That's what I love about the churches of Christ. The freedom for every generation to go back to the Bible and allow it to shape our beliefs and practices. Our identity created that freedom. The great irony is that many of the people who bemoan our diversity are the same ones that taught us the principles that lead to that diversity.

Rubbing Elbows with Gospel Greats

Today my wife called the office about 1:00 pm to tell me that she had just attended a luncheon at ZCA where Guy Penrod spoke! He's the lead singer with the Gaither Vocal Band.

"That's interesting," I said, "because I just attended a Rotary luncheon where David Phelps was the speaker!" He's the former tenor of the Gaither Vocal Band and is now pursuing a solo career.

Both are huge players in the world of gospel music. Outstanding voices and outstanding people. What's the likelihood that both of these guys would be speaking on the same day and Jenny and I would just happen to be there? Better yet, what's the likelihood that both of these guys would settle in Columbia, TN?

-----

Speaking of Christian music, check out the line-up that Zion has coming to help them celebrate their 200th anniversary. I would love to see Michael Card next Wednesday, but I have teaching commitments at our church. Ironically, I'm teaching on instrumental music . . .

In Matters of Opinion . . .

I wouldn't call this my favorite quote, but I certainly use it more than any other . . .

"in matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; and in all things, love."

It's one of the core operating values of our church, although we've never formally stated it as such. I often find myself quoting it when asked to explain what makes Maury Hills unique. A question I get often. My short answer is that when something is a matter of faith, we seek and desire unity with all who share that conviction (even those outside the normal bounds of our fellowship). When something is a matter of opinion, we try our hardest to give people the freedom to hold thier own views (even when they differ from our traditional understandings). And regardless of faith or opinion, we strive to love each other with the same love that God has for us (one that's patient, kind, humble, forgiving, etc.)

That all sounds good, but let me assure you, it's not easy! For one, no matter how much you profess love & liberty, those are hard principles to put into practice. When disagreements arise is very difficult to say "I love you and you are free to have your own opinion." I'd rather say "What's the matter with you, you ignorant buffoon-head? Can't you see that my opinion is the only logical conclusion?"

Two, no matter how much you read and study the Bible, there will always be disagreements over what constitutes a matter of faith and what constitutes a matter of opinion. I read it and conclude that a matter of faith is anything dealing with the core message of the Bible (namely Jesus). Others read it and conclude that a matter of faith is anything and everything. Thus, unity cannot be achieved until you look, act, and think like me.

None of this is easy and that's what makes church so fun, interesting, frustrating, and draining.

Polygamists That Don't Polyg

There's been quite a bit of buzz about Mitt Romney entering the presidential race and most of its been focused on his religion. Romney is Mormon. Surprisingly, in the "open and unbiased" culture of the 21st century, 35% of Americans still say that could not vote for a Mormon. Analysts attribute this to the religion's past association with polygamy. I'm still not sure what I think, but columnist Mark Shields has made some good points recently . . .

First, in today's Herald:
What makes this interesting is that among them, the three other Republican front-runners — former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Arizona Sen. John McCain — have been married eight times, while Romney is the only one of the quartet still married to his first and only wife.

Then, from last week's Herald:
In 1903, Republican Reed Smoot of Utah became the first member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Mormon, ever elected to the U.S. Senate. The public hostility to Smoot’s religious faith and its earlier practice of polygamy (which the church had formally outlawed in 1890) was so intense that for four years, the Senate refused to seat him. Smoot was finally able to assume his office after the personal intervention on his behalf by President Teddy Roosevelt and after one of his Senate colleagues, citing Smoot’s one marriage to one woman, observed memorably, “I’d rather serve with a polygamist who doesn’t polyg than a monogamist who doesn’t monog.”

Interesting huh? Christians are comfortable voting in evangelicals who aren't really serious about their faith (see Bill Clinton), but uncomfortable voting in Mormons who are. Romney still hasn't won my vote, but I'm watching with a little more interest. What do you think? How will his religion affect your vote?

Starting Again!

Today I actually ran 3 miles! That's no big feat in and of itself, but considering my 6 week layoff, it's a big step. I'm hoping it broke my recent running apathy and got me back on the right track. I only have 10 weeks left to get ready for the Nashville Half and I'm supposed to be following a 12 week training regime! My friend Shump got me motivated this morning. He posted on Sunday's blog and that sent me to his blog. He's lost 97.6 pounds in 12 weeks and gone from a size 52 to a size 38. Great job Shump!!

If you come to Maury Hills then you've heard about my 4 year quest to fit into a size 34. (if not, here it is). I'm even keeping those 34 jeans in my office as motivation, but it's not working too well. Since making my bold declaration I've gone backwards--gaining instead of losing. But all of that changes today. I'll keep you updated on my progress from time to time. Right now I'm weighing in at 205. My target is 185.

Calling for Snow Again

For the fourth time this year they're predicting snow and for the third time this year, they missed it. Of course the grocery stores didn't miss out and neither did the taxpayers. Every time they forecast snow, the county pre-treats the roads with some type of solution. I understand the reasoning, but how much does this stuff cost? And much does it cost to apply it (labor, equipment, etc)? With a 1-3 record on forecasting snow wouldn't it be cheaper just to wait until it actually snows to treat the roads? I've thought about calling the county with that question, but right now I don't have the time. I have to go to the grocery store and stock up on bread & milk.

Church Branching

From the Washington Post . . .

With 13,000 worshippers, a $93 million campus and multimillion-dollar budget, can McLean Bible Church--the Christian colossus in Tysons Corner, VA--possibly get any bigger? Yes it can.

The evangelical mega-church, one of the country's largest and fastest growing, is launching an ambitious expansion. In a suburb of Washington near the Beltway, the congregation plans to build a "spiritual beltway" around the region by opening nine satellite locations to bring tens of thousands more into its fold. Through televised broadcasts, congregants at each location would see and hear portions of the same service at the same time.

Unlike the traditional church-growth strategy, where houses of worship spun off--or "planted"--independent entities, an increasing number of large churches are growing by opening multiple locations under the same name and considering themselves one church.

Nationwide, one in four megachurches, those with more than 2,000 worshippers, hold services at satellite locations, up from 5 percent in 2000. The number of megachurches with multiple sites is expected to double in the next few years, according to Scott Thumma, a professor of sociology of religion at the Hartford Institute for Religion Research.

But skeptics wonder if the multi-site trend is more about bolstering egos than spreading the message. By focusing on spreading their own name and brand, rather than assisting the formation of independent churches, megachurches get even bigger and their head pastors become even more famous, according to Thumma, who studies the growth of large churches . . . (read the rest here)

Although I appreciate the vision of these megachurches, I find myself siding with the skeptics on this one. I favor "church planting" over "church branching." For one, I think that planting independent churches is the model that Paul followed on his missionary journeys. He entered new communities, lead people to belief in Christ, launched a church, and then appointed local elders/pastors to teach and lead those young churches. He still provided direction and guidance, but for the most part he left the leadership in the hands of others. You might say his focus was more on leadership development rather than centralized control.

Two, I worry the megachurch trend is moving us back towards the idea that only a few people (the well-educated, well-spoken, etc) are qualified to teach the Bible. One of the most powerful ideas of the Restoration Movement is the idea that the Bible is for all people! You don't need a pope/bishop/pastor/minister to tell you what it says. You can read it for yourself! I fear the the "branching" movement may serve to supplant that idea by creating too much dependence on a single pastor. It also may create a leadership gap in the future. Who will lead once these big names are gone? Doesn't the church have a responsibility to create and develop leaders in God's Kingdom? Absolutely. And in my opinion, the church "planting" movement lends itself more to that activity.

Third, and most importantly, I despise watching preachers via satellite. If I can't sit and listen to him face to face, just send me the DVD and I'll watch it at home. I wonder if the apostle Paul ever wished he could skip the letters and just broadcast his messages "live via satellite" from Jersusalem?

Don't get me wrong. I do support the effort of megachurches to bring more people to Christ, I just wish they would do it by launching independent churches rather than spreading their brand.

Church Planting Quiz

From Stan Granberg with Kairos Church Planting . . .

Here's a short quiz for you (answers at the bottom of the page, but don't peek yet):

1. What western country has more unchurched people in it than any other?[1]

2. Which is the larger number: the number of new churches starting in America each year or the number which close their doors?[2]

3. What was the net gain of new Churches of Christ in America from 1990-2000? (Hint: our total number of congregations is just over 13,000)[3]
a. Over 1,000
b. 150-200
c. Less than 100
d. Minus 70

4. Which age of church tends to reach more unchurched people for Jesus than any other age?[4]
a. Churches older than 25 years
b. Churches between 16 and 25 years old
c. Churches between 3 and 15 years old
d. Churches under 3 years old

[1] America with 195 million unchurched people. See Justice Anderson, in Missiology: An Introduction to the Foundations, History and Strategies of Word Missions, and Thom Rainer, The Unchurched Next Door.

[2] Warren and Clegg, Lost in America, quote a 1995 report from Win Arn that as many as 3,750 churches close each year while about 1,300 are opening.

[3] According to the figures published by the Glenmary Research Institute in 2002 the answer is d, minus 70.

[4] While we do not have stats for all the categories, churches over 15 years of age win an average of only 3 people to Christ per year for every 100 church members. Churches 3 years to 15 years old win an average of 5 people to Christ per year for every 100 church members, but churches under 3 years of age win an average of 10 people to Christ per year for every 100 church members. C. Peter Wagner, Church Planting for a Greater Harvest.

How did you do? For more information on the work of Stan and Kairos Church Planting visit http://www.kairoschurchplanting.org/. They are currently launching seven new churches across the country.

How Many Churches are Too Many?

According to my unofficial count in the Yellow Pages there are 151 churches in Maury County. That means if you don't like something at your current congregation there are 150 other options! Is that a good thing? Are all of these churches providing needed service & outreach to our community or are we merely competing for a shrinking number of believers?

I struggle with that question, especially as one of the newer churches in the county. If we're merely competing for believers then I'm convinced there are too many churches. Having so many options tends to weaken the idea of committing to membership. If you experience discomfort or disagreement then you can just head down the street. No need to wrestle with all those passages about unity or bearing with one another in love. However, if we're engaging the community and bringing people to Christ, then we don't have enough churches. Think about it. If all 76,000 people in Maury County decided to attend a church this Sunday would we have the room? Or a better question, if all 151 churches truly began meeting the needs of our community would we have the resources?

Those in existing churches tend to argue the former. They point out that we don't need another church because we're not filling the ones we have now. Besides that, if new churches are filled with people from old churches then what's the point? Those in newer churches tend to argue the latter. They point out that that we do need new churches because we need more and more people engaged in fulfilling the mission of Jesus and reaching our community. They acknowledge that there are people in their churches that "moved" from existing churches, but they also point to many new believers and to many restored believers. Most of whom had given up on church.

I'm guessing you know where I stand. I think that new churches and church plants are a good thing. I think they draw people that existing churches can't reach. But perhaps our planting efforts are a little too concentrated in certain areas (middle Tennessee to name one). God bless those who are willing to step out on faith and plant churches in areas without such heavy concentrations of Christians. More about that tomorrow. . .

Facing the Giants

A friend of mine has been trying to get me to see this movie since it came out. I've hesitated. Primarily because of time, but also because I'm a little leery of low-budget Christian films (bad acting and hokie storylines). However, I finally broke down and bought the DVD yesterday. It was much better than I expected!! Yes, you can tell that the actors are not professionals (all of them are members of the church that produced the film) but after about 10 minutes it didn't matter. The power of the story carries it from there. I was very moved by its message and the way it portrayed Biblical truths. I even ended up watching the special 30 minute documentary on how the movie was made. That in itself is a powerful story. In short, watch the movie! You won't regret it.

English Only

This week the Metro Council passed a bill that makes English the official language of Nashville. When I first heard the story I thought "what language were we speaking before this bill?" That's been my typical reaction to the "English only" movement that's sweeping the country. It seems a little unnecessary. What other laws are we going to make that enforce what the majority of people are already doing? How about "cars are now the official mode of transportation" or "all homes must be heated and cooled."

Of course I understand the debate runs a little deeper than that. It's one of many ways that our country is trying to respond to our illegal immigration problem. But I'm not sure that these types of bills are the answer. To be honest, I'm not real sure what the answer should be. My political beliefs say that we should build a wall and keep everybody out. My Christian beliefs say that we should welcome the poor and do whatever we can to assist them. So where does that leave me? Where does that leave the church?

What should the church's response be towards illegal immigration? Do we stand on the side of justice and seek ways to uphold of the law of the land or do we stand on the side of mercy and seek ways to help the downtrodden? Is there a way to do both?

It's Good Being a Know-It-All

This morning on the way to the truck, Lilly (my 7 year old) said she didn't want to go to school today. In an effort to encourage her I said, "Well I do. I love school!" She rolled her eyes and said, "Of course you do because you already know everything."

Isn't it nice to have at least one person that thinks you know it all?
I wonder if she'll think the same way about me when she's 16?

Progressive or Conservative?

Many people consider the Maury Hills Church to be a "progressive" church. That's one of the more kinder labels I've heard attached to our name. Of course that term's relative. Compared to all of Christendom we're far from progressive. If anything we're squarely on the conservative side of things. I've always thought the opposite was true when compared to our own fellowship (the churches of Christ), but I'm starting to wonder. Take a look at what Richard Hughes says as he describes the move within the churches of Christ to re-think our theology.

Many in the younger generation, well educated and driven by the social agenda of the period, found the traditional concerns of twentieth-century Churches of Christ inadequate and irrelevant to the world in which they lived. As a result, they seriously questioned almost every aspect of their tradition, from the Baconian hermeneutic [a scientific reading of the Scriptures that attempts to unlock truths with precision] to the way church leaders had formulated the restoration vision.

At the same time, these youthful critics often revealed themselves to be authentic children of the restorationist heritage. Nowhere was this more apparent than in their strong allegiance to the Bible. But they differed significantly from their parents in the way they read the Bible. They declined to take it as a blueprint that lined out in detail the forms and structures of the primitive church, for example. They believed it spoke more about compassion than about true doctrine, that it taught more about the Holy Spirit than about forms of worship, and that it addressed the ethical issues of the 1960s head-on.

The third great battle of the twentieth century was directly related to the two previous battles. Churches of Christ had progressively made their peace with the values of the larger culture first by systematically destroying their apocalyptic heritage in the 1920s and 1930s and then by institutionalizing themselves into a middle-class southern denomination in the 1950s; their behavior in the 1960s revealed how completely they had accommodated themselves to the culture in which they lived. Confronted by the pressing social issues of the 1960s, Churches of Christ came down, in almost every instance, on the side of the cultural status quo. To a significant extent, the third great battle was a matter of youthful protesters among Churches of Christ rejecting precisely that accommodation.

Putting this in terms of the argument I have developed thus far in this book, mainstream Churches of Christ had evolved, by the 1960s, into a full-fledged denomination. In reacting against this development, the younger generation essentially worked to recover the sectarian vision [an emphasis on the kingdom of God that stressed the ideals of non-denominational Christianity] that had prevailed before the move to denominational status. Therein lies the final irony of the tradition: the older generation characterized the younger generation as deviant, liberal, and subversive when in fact the younger generation upheld many of the sectarian ideals of the nineteenth century, especially the ideals that had descended from the Stone-Lipscomb tradition that their parents had rejected. Judged by standards of the nineteenth century Churches of Christ, the mainstream leadership had become liberal, and their children were the true conservatives.

I have a shepherd that's been making this argument for quite a while. Who are the real restorationists? Those who allow tradition to dictate their understanding of Scripture or those who allow Scripture to dictate their understanding of tradition?

Counseling Lessons

Last week I had a meeting with someone who was struggling with several different situations. I knew they were going through a really rough spot and I was at a loss for what to say. I confess that counseling is not my greatest strength and I always feel very inadequate in these situations. So I emailed our shepherds before the meeting to ask for prayers and some advice about what to say/do. One of the shepherds recommended that I go back to the basics--encourage them to reengage with God through prayer, worship, and reading his Word.

When I first read that advice I thought it sounded a little too simplistic. As a matter fact, I had to re-read the email to see if he was kidding or being serious. Could I really tell someone struggling with complex problems to simply pray & read their Bible? That sounded cliche and perhaps a little naive. But the more I thought about the advice the more it made sense to me. I began asking myself the question--"do I really believe that God has the power to change people?" If I do, then pointing people back to Him is exactly what I should be doing. After all people are coming to me for "pastoral" counseling, not "professional" counseling. There is a place for both but I often blur the lines.

So I decided that maybe I needed to stop trying to find the right words and simply let God speak. In the course of our conversation we looked at passages like Romans 7-8 and 2nd Corinthians 12. Passages that focus on our weaknesses and God's strengths. We also spent some time in prayer. At the end I still felt inadequate, but I realized that if anything was going to change it would be by God's power, not my own.

Misc Thoughts

Have you heard of the term "bridge" church? According to one website it's a church where spouses of differing Christian backgrounds can find common ground. Shouldn't all churches be "bridge" churches? At least on some level.
----------
Super Bowl predication . . . I have to go with the Colts. 1) I admire Dungy. 2) Peyton was a Vol. Although I have to admit I've liked the Bears since the Super Bowl Shuffle.
----------
For my Maury Hills family . . . we have our speaker for our 6th anniversary!! Chris Seidman of the Farmer's Branch Church will be joining us this October. He'll be here for the weekend so we're looking at doing some stuff Saturday night as well.

That's all for now. Man vs. Wild is coming on. This guy is unbelievable!

Snow! Snow! Snow!

Halle Jane (my 3 year old) had a very sincere, heartfelt prayer last night. She said, "Dear God, I wished it would snow. Amen." It did. But not very much. By Northern standings we received a light dusting. By Southern standards it was a virtual blizzard. The grocery stores have sold out of milk and the schools are shut down for the next two days. I even cranked up my old 4x4 to make it into work today. It handled the one ice patch I encountered very well.