The church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord;
She is his new creation by water and the Word.
From heaven he came and sought her to be his holy bride;
With his own blood he bought her, and for her life he died.
Would that it were so.
There is only one true foundation for the church of Jesus Christ – Jesus Christ, the cornerstone. The Spirit of God brought Jews and Gentiles together in one Body, breaking down the social prejudices and barriers that held them apart in the culture at large. Slave and free partook of the same bread and wine, as did men and women in a culture that kept them separate. There were so many things that would tear the church apart, but they were bound together in Christ and in the service of his kingdom!
It is my belief that this is no longer so in the church today. The foundation of much of modern American Christianity is not Christ, but culture. Why do we have such a divide between young and old? Because America has changed drastically in the last 50 to 75 years, and there is a gigantic cultural rift between the young and the old. Many churches were built as much on traditional American culture as they were on scriptural principles. Young people rejected many of those cultural norms and replaced them with their own cultural traditions. In the guise of more “authentic worship” they have simply substituted youth culture for traditional culture.
And the church is divided.
It has been observed (accurately, I fear) that the church hour on Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week. There are a few churches out there that are truly integrated, but most of our churches are white churches or black churches (with a few other ethnicities thrown in the mix).
Southern Hills Baptist Church is a white church. Why is that? We are welcoming to black people whenever they worship with us. Many mixed race children are part of our fellowship and we have had black members and a black deacon. But most of the African American Christians in Sioux City choose to worship in churches primarily comprised of other African Americans. It is not that we exclude anyone, but we are a white church and while we make every effort to be a biblical church, we are also a traditional, culturally conservative, white church.
I do not know of any of the black churches in Sioux City that make whites feel unwelcome either, but most white people choose to worship in white churches.
The problem, as I see it, is not so much that we are filled with prejudice or that we desire to exclude anyone, but we are products of our culture – whatever that is – and we want our churches to sanctify our cultures and make us feel comfortable in them. White collar folks want white collar churches and blue collar folks want blue collar churches. Young folks want a youth oriented church and older folks want a more traditional church. White people feel comfortable in a church that reflects their culture, as do black people.
It is all very normal, natural and human. But I am wondering if it is godly, divine or spiritually productive.
The church growth movement made much of the homogeneous unit principle – targeting churches toward people of like interests and culture. And it makes sense. Older people feel comfortable in churches that sing from hymnals accompanied by piano and organ with a preacher wearing a tie and coat, and they tend to think that is the way God meant it to be. Young people like less structure and formality, a freer style of worship, with drums and guitars and a preacher in jeans. And if you get right at the heart of it, most young hipsters feel their worship style is more authentic than the traditional forms. It is often not hostile, but both sides have a deep, inner sense that their style is just a little bit superior to others; more pleasing to God. If there is a skateboarder culture, why not a skateboarders’ church. Or a cowboy church? Or a death metal church?
Too often, the foundation of the church is cultural, not Christological. It is not the Savior who unites us, but our human commonality, our politics and preferences.
About Southern Hills Baptist Church
We have two services on Sunday morning. The early service is a very traditional service – hymns from the hymnbook! Frankly, many of the evangelical churches in Sioux City have gone “all-in” on contemporary style and have made those who like a traditional style feel like dinosaurs – unwanted ones at that. Many of them have migrated to Southern Hills both because of the startlingly handsome pastor and the fact that we offer a traditional worships style.
Our second service is a mildly contemporary service. In reality, it is a traditional worship service style, with music led by a praise team instead of a song leader. It is generally the larger of our two services, but the numbers are fairly close.
But there is a segment of culture we are not really reaching, the youth culture. I am considering trying to start a third service, not so much for numerical reasons, but simply to reach a group of people we are not currently reaching. It would be a contemporary style church – one that would not appeal in any way to traditionalists, as the traditional service does not appeal to these younger folks. We would have a band (I’d likely need earplugs) and an informal feel, with small groups instead of Sunday School classes – you get the picture.
I think it would be a good thing – reaching a group of people we are not currently reaching.
The Question
But I wonder if it is just one more concession to human culture rather than maintaining the divine ideal. My thesis is this:
Human culture divides; Christ unites. The more a church is based on human culture, the more it will be exclusive – black vs. white, rich vs. poor, young vs. old. The more we found the church on Christ, the less these human factors matter and the more the Spirit of God will make us one.
But there is another side to that. We still live in this world and can often reach people better by making them comfortable in a church setting that appeals to their cultural norms.
So, should I continue to add services to appeal to different cultural traditions, so that we might reach more people? Or should I hold out for the divine ideal, try to strip away human and cultural preferences so that we can aspire to be one body in Christ?
I have been struggling with this for nearly 8 years, since I have been pastor of this church. I’ve gone back and forth on the issues. Right now, I’m leaning to the “all things to all men” side, but I am feeling like I am compromising a spiritual ideal (united in Christ, not human culture) in the process.
What say you?
So, should we try to have a lot of boats in the water, with different styles appealing to different people, or should we try to strip our churches of cultural divides and try to be one body – breaking down the walls that divide.
Too often, what we say is, “Break down the walls, come and worship our style!”
This is probably the most consistently troubling issue I have to deal with.
Dave,
I sense you are in a bit of a quandary. I often feel this way these days. In fact, I just prayed about this at our “traditional Wednesday Night Prayer Meeting” yesterday.
I have observed that there are dozens of churches in my city with dozens of worship styles. But we all seem to have one thing in common: the culture is pretty much ignoring us. We trade sheep around, but not much new birth.
So it appears to me that all the emphasis we put on “who likes what” doesn’t translate to reaching the particular “who.” It might work for a while, but in the long run, stagnation seems to set in. Now, some are stagnant at one hundred, others at a thousand or more, but all seem to hit a plateau.
I don’t think I’ve contributed anything to the “answer,” but I am raising a question: are we putting the emphasis on the wrong syllable?
Unfortunately, we have the same questions, and perhaps the same paucity of answers.
Dave,
I think you are right.
My quandary comes from being thoroughly trained in Church Growth Theology (I never met McGavern, but Win Arn and C. Peter Wagner were part of my academic teaching team).
The movement showed great promise, but I think the Crystal Cathedral is perhaps metaphoric.
I think it is perhaps ironic that the key principle, and the principle most protested, of that movement is the subject of this post–the homogeneous principle.
As much as I appreciated the Church Growth Movement, this principle has always set a bit sideways with me.
I think there is no question that it works on a human level. We like to be around people who are like us, whom we are comfortable with.
But I can’t get past Paul’s teachings, especially in Ephesians 2:11-22.
Dave,
That’s always been a rub for me, too.
Does it really “work” if it does not produce the kind of fellowship that God would like to see? It is the old dilemma of “quality versus quantity” in a way I suspect.
Is a bigger crowd a better crowd, or is a better crowd enough?
I know this presents a bifurcation that I am not quite comfortable with. It is not so easy to set in the tone of either/or.
Thanks for the post. I think it addresses an important issue.
We are a church trying to recover from cultural Christianity. We still have pews filled with people who joined the local club – er, I mean – the church, because it was the cultural thing to do. All good people were church members, so if you wanted to be known as a good person, you join the church.
But it is like a club in that we join and want it to make us feel comfortable and welcome. if it doesn’t we move our membership to a different club – I mean, church. So if we don’t want to lose all of our members to other churches, we have to accommodate everyone. The method then becomes the message – church is where the minister is supposed to make the church comfortable for everyone in the city so they will come and join it.
Biblically, on the other hand, Paul was all things to all people for the purpose of evangelism. But when it came around to meshing different groups, he wanted the different cultures to follow the one culture of the cross.
In Corinth they at least seemed to be all in the same congregation. They weren’t getting along very well, but at least they were together. In Rome, there were different factions separated along lines of Jewish and non-Jewish, but it doesn’t seem like they were necessarily together for worship. So Paul wrote them to unify them with the goal of using them as a unified base of operations for reaching Spain. Once again, the central point was the culture of the cross.
It’s fine to have elements of our culture that we are familiar with. We have certain freedom to do so. But we are called to be unified. That means that we have to give up some familiar trappings for the sake of the unity of Christians in our town. We’re not good at doing that.
If one church does it and the rest don’t, there are two things that will happen. That one church will either lose most of its club membership to the other clubs in town, or it will become attractive to the many genuine Christians in town. Probably a little of both. Good luck getting multiple churches to agree on it.
she speaks English, but also a dialect spoken in the Ukraine;
she makes the sign of the cross differently than I do;
she is a person of simple faith who gives money to many different denominations who are on television, as she is now a shut-in, having been badly injured while picking up cans off the highway to sell for a few pennies for the missions, a job she assigned herself and faithfully performed for many years, out of love for God;
she says ‘ my job now is to pray, that’s what I do’, she is no stranger to prayer, and her prayers are very often answered,
she sits by her fire place wrapped in a Ukrainian style shawl and drinks samovar tea brewed with spices, and speaks of the goodness of God
she is my god-mother whose ‘culture’ in religion is Byzantine by tradition, a contrast to mine which is Latin (Western);
we share the same faith, but the diversity expressed in both our traditions is something we can celebrate among ourselves
Among people unified in their faith around Christ, diversity doesn’t ‘divide’. It just expands the forms of expression of faith with varied ways of praying, types of music, languages of worship, and customs treasured and passed down through the generations. If ‘diversity’ ‘divides’, then it is not the diversity intended to be celebrated within the Body of Christ, no.
But when it is the real thing, it’s expression enhances ‘who we are’ in Christ with a feeling of respect for those differences that make Christians all the more representative of peoples from many lands and many cultures.
Ah, Dave, there you go again. Stirring up the dirt and causing people to think, biblically, preferrably. We are so comfortable in our culture. Why bring the Bible into it? That is one thing I love about you Dave. Always stirring the pot. Not just for the fun of it, but to cause us to think and look at our Bibles and what we do and see how all that matches up. Persky thing to do, but I am glad you do it. One thing I must contest. Who is this stunningly handsome pastor you speak of. I thought he pastored here.
Mark, get real, dude.
Is there anything inherently wrong with worshiping where you are most comfortable doing so? I really can’t say I think there is.
I had a client some years ago who owned a restaurant in Hueytown. He happened to be black, a Christian, and we discussed just what you’re exploring in this post. He said, and I think these were his words almost verbatim; “The church will never see itself as non-racist until it realizes there’s nothing racist about being more comfortable worshiping with people of your own race”.
I know it’s possible to get to the point where that factor fades completely from one’s consciousness, in some scenarios, as that’s the case when we worship at Red Hills Baptist Church outside Kingston, Jamaica. We’ve been there enough that the thought simply never enters my mind. And those experiences have made a world of difference here in the USA when we’ve been in all- or mostly-black churches, too. And also when we’ve worshiped in other countries like St. Maarten or St. Thomas.
It can be done. If we just do it. But I’m not sure we need to, unless we adopt that same attitude and approach in all our life.
My question, Bob, is whether the Christologically-focused church, which is ideal, is possible in reality.
Probably not until several more generations of us who were raised when we were raised, die off.
Bob,
I’m going to surprise you but I don’t believe that your generation is the problem.
I think the problem comes when any generation feels that their cultural or generational baggage is more godly than another generation’s cultural and generational baggage.
I am trying to picture Dave Miller with a shaved head and a beard wearing skater shorts and a lime green jacket preaching on Romans 12:2
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
It may work in Iowa but I do not see this playing in California.
The lime green jacket works ANYWHERE!
And a beautiful lime green color it is I am told. Maybe you could bring in a young Joshua Breland type person to pull off the shaved head with a beard wearing overalls to do the Contemporary service.
Joshua Breland is an unshaven hippie!
Yea but so was Christ according to Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper.
Yeah, but Leonardo was a mutant turtle – what does he know?
Hey I am just trying to get the hippie a job. Last thing we need is him signing up for another degree.
John,
I’m banned from preaching in 3 states. Iowa may be one of them.
Dave,
Keep hiding your beard envy behind your hurtful words. A beard would have gone nicely with that blizzard yall received.
The blizzard just shaved us to the South. (Pun intended)
Agreed. I got something for him. watch what happens in January.
But I think you get to an interesting point, John. I know a lot of younger folks who are somewhat dissatisfied with the “cultural focus” of the older, traditionalist church.
But, they are not doing away with culture, most of the time, but just replacing a traditionalist culture with a more modern one.
I’m convinced both can be honoring to God, neither is superior to the other, and both can be dangerous if they become too much the focus.
I agree that cultural preference and our tendency to confuse cultural traditions with correct Christian faith and practice is a problem. And I really appreciate your admonition that the Church should be united. The cultural differences are both horizontal (ethnic) and vertical (generational). But it isn’t just styles of music, it is also how we react and interact as the Word is preached. Some of us are reserved and reflective, while others are very verbally interactive, and of course these different styles are not binary but represented by a cline. How do you solve that?
The older members of my church have been remarkably accommodating with regard to the transformation from traditional hymnals to one “blended” service and one contemporary service. In fact they are both very contemporary services with the primary difference being choir/praise band whether the song leader wears close-toed shoes (only slightly exaggerating). Still, we are very white.
We get along very well with the black Baptist church in town but we are a reflective bunch that quietly listens and ponders what the preacher is saying. That is no doubt dreadfully dull to the point of distraction to people who expect a lot of “amen’s” and other verbal encouragement during a sermon. Neither is right or wrong and I suspect the different inclinations are two parts learned and one part hard-wired behaviors tracing their roots back many centuries to our respective old countries and our respective pagan ancestors.
So how do we fix it? I guess we could sequester a focus representing all sub-cultures and agree on the Christian essentials when it comes to corporate worship. What must we do to worship “right”? Do we do that and no more? It is a tough nut to crack and I admit I am not wise enough to solve this in our multi-cultural community.
Ultimately, Ed, I have gone with the cafeteria concept because I have not yet figured out exactly what that culture-free church will look like.
I applaud your efforts in trying to reach various facets of society and culture with the Gospel. By having multiple services are you in essence creating three little churches within a church? If you try to appeal to everyone, before long you would have a multiplicity of services, it may not be a bad thing but how effective would you really be?
Terry, I have said for years (and from the pulpit) that I am the pastor of two churches. When you have two services with two styles (which started long before I got there) you have, in essence, two churches.
Our two churches get along very well, but often do not understand the other.
Serious question for discussion.
Anyone have an idea what a culture-free, Christocentric church would actually look like in America today?
Darrin Patrick and Journey Church.
I know little about that church. Can you elaborate?
I assumed you meant “Free Culture” Christocentric (or with my dyslexia I read it as Free Culture) although with your exchange with CB I may have assumed incorrectly. I know of nothing void of culture or as you put it Culture Free dealing with man.
But incase you were asking about Free Culture:
The free culture movement is a social movement that promotes the freedom to distribute creative works in the form of free content by using the Internet and other forms of media.
Your original post has a statement of “It has been observed (accurately, I fear) that the church hour on Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week.” Now as it sounds like you know Darrin started out seeking to establish a Singles church, and started with a ratio of about 80% singles and 80% youth but as his church has grown it has changed ratios to about 50% singles and the age ratio has grown significantly some due to the original congregation getting older and married. Along with new members being sought out due to the value of elderly being mentors to the older who then mentor to the youth being encouraged.
Within the church we have encouraged age segregation to the detriment of the church as we have instituted “Age appropriate Programs” so as a boy turns 20 something he seeks an age appropriate church just as he has been taught in the church.
Now back to Darrin Patrick, as the church has grown he saw that he needed elder members to mentor the older members who would mentor the youth. He even sought mentorship for himself within the community.
Now it sounds like your church has the opposite issue, so knowing the geographical location you are to each other, and your ability to reverse engineer a solution for the issues you face I Pointed you to look at and maybe consider a talk with Darrin Patrick and the Journey Church. So there is my elaborated explanation that probably has nothing to do with your original question.
You need a bigger web presence and hair gel.
Dave,
Do you believe a culture-free, Christocentric local church has ever existed since the Ascension?
In other words, do you believe a culture-free Christocentric local assembly has ever existed at any time in the history of the Church?
Not sure. I think it is kinda like inborn sin. It’s always there but we always have to fight it.
Yes, I agree. We are all of a culture. Even those who seek total rebellion against their culture of environmental origins develops by their resistance develops or embraces a culture.
Of course, there are individuals who can navigate various cultures with more ease than others. That in and of itself comes from cultural development.
Obviously, the biggest problem comes when we sanctify our particular culture. If we start to view traditionalist Baptist culture of the 50s and 60s as somehow divinely ordained and superior, or in the oppositive, view youth culture as more “real” and genuine, we err.
Again, I agree.
Old guys can think they are the foundational stock because they have read. Young guys can think the foundational stock began when they learned to read.
The fact that Jews and Gentiles came together in the Early Church is perhaps the greatest example of the anti-homogeneous principle.
The Early Church did navigate culture to a degree. Yet, Paul’s letter to the Ephesians reveals a tension between cultures within that church or churches as the case may well be.
We certainly know that the melding of Jew and Gentile in the Early church was not without its ups and downs.
I wish we knew more about the church at Antioch. It seems that maturity about inherent cultural differences were navigated in that church better than some of the others, such as the Church of God at Corinth.
Jeff Iorg is writing a book about the church at Antioch. Sounds like it will be a good one.
Thanks for the heads-up on that. Who is the publisher? When will it be out?
I have read one of Dr. Iorg’s books about leadership. It is a keeper.
I really have no details, he talked about it at the Baptist Convention of Iowa annual meeting.
Hi Dave,
Culture-free is not possible. The minute you have human beings, you have culture.
The real question is this: is it possible to allow the culture of the intra-trinitarian divine life to so permeate the culture of the church that it transcends the human culture in which it is situated? I believe the answer is yes. But in order to do so, the church must collectively begin to think as God does and fully love the world (in a redeeming, saving kind of way) as God does. We all have theological and practical hang-ups that prevent this. In my opinion, a good place to start to turn things around is a good, in-depth study of the doctrine of the Trinity (minus all of the eternal-subordination nonsense that has corrupted a good bit of SBC academic life). I think it is as good a place to start as any.
Jim G.
It would look like a persecuted church.
I mean real, sharp, dangerous persecution, not just ideological opposition. Culturalism would be an afterthought.
Yeah. I think you are right.
I don’t know if it was here or Facebook or Twitter (or a combo), but I saw a comment (which I am paraphrasing):
If it would not matter in a persecuted church, it ought not matter much to us.
Dave, you ask the question “whether the Christologically-focused church, which is ideal, is possible in reality.” I would ask, is the ideal ever possible in reality, considering we are not “ideal” (but rather sinners saved by grace)? Does the impossibility of reaching the ideal in other areas keep us from striving for it (or justify us not striving for it)? Should it in this one?
I think we intuitively know the answer, but possibly don’t think it will work. For example, how would we feel about a church that has two separate services, one for white members and one for black members. Now, that would sound a lot like old South segregation, and yet we justify it on a lot of other levels.
The idea of becoming “all things to all” often weighs too heavily on us, and in a way that Paul did not mean in the context. In the broad context in which that statement was made he was talking about setting aside his own rights or liberties in such a way as to not hinder the gospel, rather than developing kinds of methodologies.
Finally, do we not perhaps put far too much emphasis on developing ways to get people to decide to come to church services so we can “reach” them rather than equipping the church to go out where they are and reach them?
Good thoughts, sir.
And I am not really talking about evangelistic churches here – trying to bring the world in. I’m talking about the culture of the church that believers bring into their fellowship.
Dave, I understand that you were talking about the culture of the church that believers bring into their fellowship. I realize my last paragraph doesn’t directly address that, but let me flesh it out a bit to demonstrate some of the connection (at least in my mind).
Back 40 to 50 years ago in our area most pro-missionary Baptists of whatever stripe were very much alike. Sure, some were more and some less progressive; some might have parsonages and more business-like systems of church finance; but most of what all of them did revolved around preaching, teaching, singing, praying and giving. Then programs or things that would be more entertaining began to be added. If anyone grumbled someone would note that “if we get them here we can preach to them” (or something like that). Very few people would argue with that. But one of the unintended consequences of adding these things was getting people from other churches who found that “culture” more entertaining or inviting. This is not based on research, but my experience, but I think that this helped lay the foundation for was would come later — building churches by making them “user friendly” to professed believers. So have we not somewhat transferred the concept of getting unbelievers to come so we can preach to them to getting believers to come so we can do whatever it is we think we are doing?
To some extent, then, it is not just what believers bring into their fellowship, but what churches are trying to appeal to in order to get more believers in their fellowship (or keep them).
You are right, we do a lot of things that have unintended consequences.
David: We are creatures of custom and habit. What we are use to is what we like, When Blacks and Whites separated at the end of the Civil War, their practices of worship began to diverge, probably due to felt or perceived needs taht developed in the years that followed. Each group had its own desires and needs which caused divergences, while the doctrines remained essentially the same except for the introductions of teachings brought about by agents from without. What we have lacked in the past century or so is a Divine visitation which has a wonderful way of bringing unity and the wherewithal to see our way through extraneous factors that don’t amount to a hill of beans. I remember visiting a church in Brooklyn in 1971, a small church with two deacons. One was named Mr. Black, and the other was named Mr. White. They were infectiously hilarious about the fact that Mr. Black was White, and Mr. White was Black. Their pastor was a Scotch Canadian from Nova Scotia. He had attended Rochester Divinity School, had heard A.H. Strong give chapel talks, sat under Rauschenbush. had Billy Sunday preach in his church in Brooklyn, took his church out of the old Northern Baptist Convention after Harry E. Fosdick made his famous Virgin Birth Speech,helped to found the General Assn. of Regular Baptists, and the Conservative Baptist Assn. Both of the latter kicked him and his church out of their fellowships due to his being an Amillenialist. He was like our traditionalists, inclined to Arminianism. At the age of about 86, being legally blind, he paid me a great honor. He came by subway from Brooklyn to upper manhattan to hear me deliver a lecture in Black History in an afternoon lecture series at Columbia Univ. My researches in church history suggest that God can abide the cultural differences, and we have to learn to do the same. Some elements in the cultural differences have to change, but not all of them. While the Lord desires the end of those differences that are a threat to life or degrading to anyone, He desires very much that they still reflect their cultures and backgrounds. Let us not beat up ourselves or others for these variations, but, rather, accept and incorporate them as much as we can…as long as they are not inconsistent with the ethics of the Gospel.
I really doubt that it’ll ever happen .. when we are willing to divide over administration and eligibility of communion, the exact sequence of regeneration in the salvation process, and a myriad of other relatively “unseen” differences, I doubt we’ll ever be united as we should when there are obvious cultural, ethnic, or socio-economic differences of any nature.
But that certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be working at it. We should.
Yep.
Dave,
Love your thesis:
I too have struggled with the question of cultural accommodation. The fundamental problem is that we live in a splintered, post-modern culture which lacks focus and direction. And it is radically self-absorbed. How do we establish the beach-head of a Christocentric Church in the face of the withering fire of self-centered post-modernity?
I am convinced we can have such churches, and the Apostle Paul gives us a clear pattern for doing so in Ephesians 4. This worked with moderate success in the first church I was privileged to pastor, and is yielding promising early results in my second church. Following is a bare-bones synopsis of:
Paul’s Practical Prescription for Christ-centeredness
Walk Worthy
Every member is called to walk worthy of our calling in Christ. This means we love Him supremely and serve Him self-sacrificially. And we love and serve one another in the same manner. “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.”
Walk Humbly
Humility is the antidote for division. Gentleness diffuses wrath. Patience engenders affection. Love bears all things. Every member is called to walk in humility, gentleness, patience and love. Pastors, it is our responsibility to model and lead in these graces.
Walk in Unity
One body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God….Get it? Every member is called to eagerly seek the unity and resultant peace that is the unique privilege of the Church. The world doesn’t have unity or peace. When the Church has it, She becomes irresistibly attractive to those whom God is calling. Conversely, when we sacrifice unity for the sake of cultural accommodation we become just like the pluralistic world we are trying to speak into.
Walk in Christ’s Gifts
When Christ gifts His Church with a pastor(s), he will be grounded in the Apostles doctrine, he will be a prophet, he will be an able evangelist, he will be an attentive shepherd, and he will be a competent teacher. Every member is called to walk in the light of that gift and submit to him/them joyfully, for he/they watch for your soul.
Walk Equipped
See why the pastor(s) must be well-rounded? Every member is in need of being equipped to minister. The Church is not about what we get. It is not there to “accommodate” its members, but it is there to equip them for giving themselves to the work of ministering to others. Pastors, when we equip the body we won’t have to worry about “building” the Church. The Church will build itself through the gifts Christ places in Her.
Walk Toward Maturity
Every member is called to maturity and unity in “the faith” that was once delivered to the saints. Every member is called to maturity in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, no exceptions. If a member isn’t growing, however imperceptibly it might be, something is wrong with that member. Find out what it is. Pastors, that is why they are to pass under your shepherd’s hook regularly. If you are entrusted with too many souls to do this alone, ordain or call another qualified pastor. A maturing Church will be a growing Church.
Walk Under the Headship of Christ
Did you notice that? Every member, joined to the Head, supplies a part of the total need of the entire Body, no exceptions. Pastor, does every member of Christ’s Church know what they are supposed to be supplying? If not, you are gifted by Christ with the ability to lead them to understand what they are to be supplying. And don’t miss the sweetest part: When we lead our Churches to walk thus, Christ, the Head, causes the growth of the Body.
*****************************
Brothers, that’s not cultural accommodation. It is counter-cultural. Live it, pray it, preach it, teach it, shepherd it…until the Chief Shepherd appears.
Let me guess, a sermon?
Good one.
Dave,
Probably more like an adapted thumb-nail sketch of three for four sermons.
I know my response may be viewed as simplistic or even idealistic, but I am irrevocably convinced that the answer to our ecclesiastic questions are all right in front of us in the Scripture. But that doesn’t get much traction these days…
Honestly, though, if the Church is to be light in darkness and salt in degradation, we must resist cultural influences. Our culture has become pluralistic, fragmented, and directionless to the point of absurdity.
A Church unified in Christ, rallying around the pure Word, worshiping the Triune God in the beauty of holiness, fellowshipping in “the Way,” and serving one another and the community is blazing light and potent salt in this dark, depraved world. That is powerfully attractive to anyone truly seeking God, and it is radically confrontational to those who are not seeking Him.
I’m convinced that such an ideal is worthy of exhaustive pursuit.
Really interesting question and challenging too. How hard it is to separate our preferences rooted in culture from our biblical mandates.
Might we do better if we changed our measurements of success. After all, pragmatism, will drive us to what people like. Numbers of attendees and growth focus seems to carry us to pursue being attractive to the culture as a primary goal.
What is our measurement of success were leading people to Christ not attracting someone else’s sheep to our fold or keeping ” our sheep” in the pen?
At the risk of being cliche, too many churches where I live, including my own, are all about attracting people to come and listen in rows. We are not incarnational, we don’t live among the people we say we would like to reach, but prefer that they see our ad or read the marquee and come to us.
I wonder if the real problem is that you are not identifying the real cultural issue? You have identified race, generation, music style, governance style but the real issue is so close you can’t see it!
As leaders of American churches- even I when I was a pastor- we confuse the Kingdom with our own 501 C3 registered organization. The debate here is not how can the Kingdom permeate the culture we are in but rather, can I get the multicultural communities around me into my building? My answer is that you should not. It is not important that everyone go to your organization. It is very important that Christ impact every community. We should not change our churches to make everyone welcome. We should have churches that fit our own community and we should all work together to make sure that there is Gospel witness in every community. When someone comes to faith in another community we should not extract them out and extinguish the new light in that community. We should see the church established in that community and leave it where it is. We are hand wringing over the fact that not everyone will come to our building when we should be working tirelessly to get the Gospel into every community around us. It is not about our organization – that is culturally ours as it should be, must be- we should be seeing Jesus established in all communities until all have the light they need to walk in. That is what I do as a Church Planter here in Middle Earth and I believe it must happen in the West if we are to truly have impact for Christ. If we truly go down this road then unity, mutual love, and encouragement will come among all of us.
Strider, you bring up an interesting direction to this discussion. If there is no church in the other sub-cultural community, then what you say is true. If there is another church there, then the question becomes, “Are they preaching the gospel?” If they are preaching the gospel, I think this is where Dave’s article comes in: “Should we be content to have no interaction with them?”
But this begs the question as to how homogenous our communities and cultures are. Even today we still have neighborhoods that are predominantly one ethnicity. This is mitigated by a couple of facts. One is that this trend has been slowly changing. There are plenty of mixed communities these days.
The other is that most people don’t attend the church nearest to them, even of the same denomination. I pass a couple of big-box SBC churches on the way to my big-box SBC church. It’s easy when we have several within a radius of only a few miles.
But with all these churches so close together, there are still unreached neighborhoods in my small town. There are pockets of Muslims, Hmong, Hispanics, etc, that few people know anything about. An attitude of cultural insularity will never breed church members who will be inclined to reach them with the gospel. So the question comes back to how we get our culturally insulated church members out of their cultural comfort zones.
I get what you are saying, Strider, but I am a pastor of a local church and so my concern is primarily for what the local church which I pastor needs to do to be what we need to be.
My concern is not just “getting them in the building”, but in how we can reach them.
If you get what I am saying then you know what I would say as to how to reach them. Don’t invite them to your church. Disciple the people in your church to go to ‘them’. Then, share the Gospel in that community and leave it there. The challenge is to disciple all of the people in the church to use all of their talents, time, resources to walk into the next community or communities Jesus is calling us to. We fail here. We have not trained our people, we therefore don’t trust our people, our people don’t trust themselves either! and then we take the shortcut. The person of peace that God has prepared to reach that community appears, we chicken out, invite him to our group and we either fail to communicate the Gospel in a way he understands it or we see him won to Christ but pull him out of his community so he can stack chairs in our building. The end result is his discipleship is dwarfed as he never becomes what God called him to be and his community remains in the darkness.
I hope this makes sense in your context, but more than that I hope the situation changes.
Dave,
Here is a suggestion.
Find a different type church, say one where there are people of different skin color, and talk with the pastors of those churches until you find one that also laments the segregation on Sunday morning and start interfacing.
Trade choirs, pulpits, Sunday School teachers.
Send delegations [groups of families] back and forth, say once a month.
Do community events together. Picnics. Pair up in an outreach program. Sponsor missionaries.
Get to know them and them you.
Start with a black church. Then those two add another type, say Korean.
Doesn’t have to be permanent.
Then you guys each find another ‘partner’ church, expand.
Dave,
I have always been a strong believer that Christ unites, man divides.
In your church, can all the people fit into the building at once for one service? If so, I don’t think there should be two culturally different
church services, this is where man comes into the picture and divides.
No matter how you look at it, there is a division. The division may have went too far and too long to do anything about it now. A change at this point can and probably will make matters worse. The sheep may scatter.
There are no easy answers. I remember you saying you inherited this situation. My suggestion would be to leave it alone. The splinter will fester soon enough all by itself.
What Black man who had ever sit on a pew in front of the late Brother
E.V. Hill would ever want to attend a white church. Brother Hill could sure deliver a sermon in the power of the Holy Spirit.