Purge Sundays

From Christian Week (via Jordon Cooper)

The Meeting House, a Brethren In Christ multi-site congregation that calls itself a “church for people who aren’t into church,” regularly invites those who don’t want to “get in” to their church by making a demonstrable commitment, to “get out.”

Known to church staff by the tongue-in-cheek label “purge Sundays,” the invitation “to get in or get out” is viewed as a mechanism to address “Christian tourism.”

Teaching pastor Bruxy Cavey admits “purge Sundays” were his idea. “Evangelical Christians can be a trendy bunch, always looking for the good deal and where the action is,” he explains. “The more we have grown as a church, the more we have attracted tourists who come to check us out and will attend for some time, but never consider The Meeting House their home church. We don’t think that’s healthy for them — to be a voyeur on church life, rather than a healthy, active, committed participant in church life.

“So we started to ask them to leave.”

Started in 1986, The Meeting House began to experience rapid growth in 1998. Development pastor Rich Birch told ChristianWeek last fall that thousands of new people visit the church each year. Birch said at the time that over half of the congregation of 2,000 (spread over four sites) was made up of people who had not yet committed themselves to Christ, or who had done so only within the last two years.

Since Cavey arrived in 1996, “purge Sundays” have been held once or twice a year, devoting the teaching time to challenging people to turn from being church “consumers” to being “contributors.” A typical purge sermon (or mini-series of two to three sermons) walks listeners through the biblical basis of what normative Christian life in community should look like.

Alexander Hamilton

I’ve started listening to an Alexander Hamilton biography. Early on Chernow states that Hamilton was the most influential founding father never elected president and far more influential than many that were. What was so special about him? I’m not sure yet. I’m only about three hours into a 36 hour recording.

Can You Market God/The Gospel?

Something Sam said over on his blog reminded me of something McLaren said in an interview with Church Marketing Sucks:

Can you market God?

I think that’s a complicated question. I’m sure you have some good opinions on that. To some degree all that marketing means is communication. If we’re communicating in public, I suppose that could be called marketing. Is it being done intentionally, or accidentally, wisely or foolishly? The fact that when a non-Christian in America hears ‘Christian’ their first thought is anti-homosexual, that’s not a mistake. A very successful conservative Christian effort helped create that brand identity.

One of the things I’m interested in doing is saying those people don’t represent what I understand to be a follower of Jesus. Whatever you think about homosexuality, that shouldn’t be the first thing people think of when they think of Christians. Sadly, when the brand identity suggests Christians are judgmental, too often that’s accurate. That’s a consequence of our communication. We taught people to be judgmental.

In the book I talk about radio orthodoxy. Religious radio is really what creates that brand, and what I think informs the general Christian community in America an awful lot. Somebody might go to Willow Creek and listen to Bill Hybels on Sunday, but Monday through Friday they’re listening to James Dobson and Jerry Falwell, etc. and so their effect is very pervasive.

I don?t want to sound too negative, I think when James Dobson talks about being good parents and all the rest, raising children, he has a lot of expertise, it helps people. It helped us when we had little babies. But I don?t think a lot of these folks realize-radio preachers can give good leadership on parenting and misguided leadership in engaging in culture wars. So they’re willing to sacrifice our brand identity, to use marketing language, in the short run in order to win a culture war in the long run, or at least that’s how I perceive it.

A maxim from communication theory is that you cannot not communicate. Everything we do communicates something, whether we intend for it to or not. If I say that I’m planting a church that refuses to market the gospel, then that is our marketing slogan. We’re marketing ourselves to those who don’t like churches who market the gospel.

So as Sam and McLaren both point out: all Christians/churches are marketing/communicating something about the gospel. Maybe we’re marketing that the gospel is the solution to our biggest problems. Maybe we’re marketing that the gospel will satisfy our deepest needs. Maybe we’re marketing that the gospel is a boon for consumers. Maybe we’re marketing that the gospel is an invitation to a revolutionary way to life. Maybe we’re marketing that the gospel is the only way we can keep from being burned to a crisp in hell by a vengeful, wrathful God. We’re all marketing/communicating something about God and His gospel. Fair enough?

Again comes the question: do our marketing choices alter the meaning of what we are hoping to communicate? I believe they do. If that’s true, then we have to be critically aware of how our marketing strategy is shaping the message of the gospel and portraying the God who is its source. Is a marketing strategy that reinforces my identity as a consumer of goods and services, religious or otherwise, an appropriate way to communicate the gospel. I do not believe that it is. Nor do I endorse a marketing strategy that communicates to “sinners” that they have to become “Christians” (in the cultural sense of the word) in order to become Christ-followers.

There is something missing in most all of our approaches. I think I know what it is. I think we’re all talking about the gospel from a human point of view. This is what “I” get out of it. This is how “we” do it.

What if we changed the focus of our questions a bit?

What is the gospel from God’s point of view? What does God get out of the gospel? How does God do the gospel? How would God define or describe the gospel if he were given the chance? What was God’s purpose for kicking off his gospel project in the first place?

Consumers or Investors?

Yesterday I spent several hours with our leadership team talking about emerging church stuff. We used Kimball’s book as a starting point. During the discussion, one of our shepherds had the insight that instead of treating the folks who walk through our doors on Sunday mornings as consumers of religious goods and services, we should treat them as investors of time, talent, and energy. He comes from a financial services background and so this metaphor was obvious to him. When he meets with a potential client, he is meeting with an investor, not a consumer. I wonder if that’s the same mindset the average person has when they walk through the door of a church. Are they thinking, “What do you have to offer me in terms of good worship and solid programs for me and my family?” Or are they thinking, “Is this the kind of church into which I want to invest my life?”

My guess is that here in Tulsa there are more consumers than investors in most churches. My hunch is that most leaders spend far too much time trying to please the consumers and not enough time working with the investors.

Mall Mania Part 4 (Remixed Peterson Style)

Here are a few excerpts from an interview with Eugene Peterson.

You make spirituality sound so mundane.
I don’t want to suggest that those of us who are following Jesus don’t have any fun, that there’s no joy, no exuberance, no ecstasy. They’re just not what the consumer thinks they are. When we advertise the gospel in terms of the world’s values, we lie to people. We lie to them, because this is a new life. It involves following Jesus. It involves the Cross. It involves death, an acceptable sacrifice. We give up our lives.

The Gospel of Mark is so graphic this way. The first half of the Gospel is Jesus showing people how to live. He’s healing everybody. Then right in the middle, he shifts. He starts showing people how to die: “Now that you’ve got a life, I’m going to show you how to give it up.” That’s the whole spiritual life. It’s learning how to die. And as you learn how to die, you start losing all your illusions, and you start being capable now of true intimacy and love.

It involves a kind of learned passivity, so that our primary mode of relationship is receiving, submitting, instead of giving and getting and doing. We don’t do that very well. We’re trained to be assertive, to get, to apply, or to consume and to perform.

Repentance, dying to self, submission-these are not very attractive hooks to draw people into the faith.
I think the minute you put the issue that way you’re in trouble. Because then we join the consumer world, and everything then becomes product designed to give you something. We don’t need something more. We don’t need something better. We’re after life. We’re learning how to live.

I think people are fed up with consumer approaches, even though they’re addicted to them. But if we cast the evangel in terms of benefits, we’re setting people up for disappointment. We’re telling them lies.

This is not the way our Scriptures are written. This is not the way Jesus came among us. It’s not the way Paul preached. Where do we get all this stuff? We have a textbook. We have these Scriptures and most of the time they’re saying, “You’re going the wrong way. Turn around. The culture is poisoning.”

Do we realize how almost exactly the Baal culture of Canaan is reproduced in American church culture? Baal religion is about what makes you feel good. Baal worship is a total immersion in what I can get out of it. And of course, it was incredibly successful. The Baal priests could gather crowds that outnumbered followers of Yahweh 20 to 1. There was sex, there was excitement, there was music, there was ecstasy, there was dance. “We got girls over here, friends. We got statues, girls, and festivals.” This was great stuff. And what did the Hebrews have to offer in response? The Word. What’s the Word? Well, Hebrews had festivals, at least!

Still, the one big hook or benefit to Christian faith is salvation, no? “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” Is this not something we can use to legitimately attract listeners?
It’s the biggest word we have-salvation, being saved. We are saved from a way of life in which there was no resurrection. And we’re being saved from ourselves. One way to define spiritual life is getting so tired and fed up with yourself you go on to something better, which is following Jesus.

But the minute we start advertising the faith in terms of benefits, we’re just exacerbating the self problem. “With Christ, you’re better, stronger, more likeable, you enjoy some ecstasy.” But it’s just more self. Instead, we want to get people bored with themselves so they can start looking at Jesus.

We’ve all met a certain type of spiritual person. She’s a wonderful person. She loves the Lord. She prays and reads the Bible all the time. But all she thinks about is herself. She’s not a selfish person. But she’s always at the center of everything she’s doing. “How can I witness better? How can I do this better? How can I take care of this person’s problem better?” It’s me, me, me disguised in a way that is difficult to see because her spiritual talk disarms us.

So how should we visualize the Christian life?
In church last Sunday, there was a couple in front of us with two bratty kids. Two pews behind us there was another couple with their two bratty kids making a lot of noise. This is mostly an older congregation. So these people are set in their ways. Their kids have been gone a long time. And so it wasn’t a very nice service; it was just not very good worship. But afterwards I saw half a dozen of these elderly people come up and put their arms around the mother, touch the kids, sympathize with her. They could have been irritated.

Now why do people go to a church like that when they can go to a church that has a nursery, is air conditioned, and all the rest? Well, because they’re Lutherans. They don’t mind being miserable! Norwegian Lutherans!

And this same church recently welcomed a young woman with a baby and a three-year-old boy. The children were baptized a few weeks ago. But there was no man with her. She’s never married; each of the kids has a different father. She shows up at church and wants her children baptized. She’s a Christian and wants to follow in the Christian way. So a couple from the church acted as godparents. Now there are three or four couples in the church who every Sunday try to get together with her.

Now, where is the “joy” in that church? These are dour Norwegians! But there’s a lot of joy. There’s an abundant life going, but it’s not abundant in the way a non-Christian would think. I think there’s a lot more going on in churches like this; they’re just totally anticultural. They’re full of joy and faithfulness and obedience and care. But you sure wouldn’t know it by reading the literature of church growth, would you?

But many pastors see people suffering in bad marriages, with drug addiction, with greed. And so they rightly want to help them now, by whatever method will work.
Yes, except something backfires on you when you’re impatient. How do we meet the need? Do we do it in Jesus’ way or do we do it the Wal-Mart way?

What if we were to frame this not in terms of needs but relevance? Many Christians hope to speak to generation X or Y or postmoderns, or some subgroup, like cowboys or bikers-people for whom the typical church seems irrelevant.
When you start tailoring the gospel to the culture, whether it’s a youth culture, a generation culture or any other kind of culture, you have taken the guts out of the gospel. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not the kingdom of this world. It’s a different kingdom.

. . . I think relevance is a crock. I don’t think people care a whole lot about what kind of music you have or how you shape the service. They want a place where God is taken seriously, where they’re taken seriously, where there is no manipulation of their emotions or their consumer needs.

Why did we get captured by this advertising, publicity mindset? I think it’s destroying our church.

. . . And if we present a rendition of the faith in which all the mystery is removed, and there’s no reverence, how are people ever going to know there’s something more than just their own emotions, their own needs? There’s something a lot bigger than my needs that’s going on. How do I ever get to that if the church service and worship program is all centered on my needs?

Some people would argue that it’s important to have a worship service in which people feel comfortable so they can hear the gospel.

I think they’re wrong. Take the story I told you about this family in front of us on Sunday. Nobody was comfortable. The whole church was miserable.

And yet, they might have experienced more gospel in going up and putting their arms around that poor mother, who was embarrassed to death.

How do we know when they have moved from merely adapting ministry to the culture to sacrificing the gospel?
One test I think is this: Am I working out of the Jesus story, the Jesus methods, the Jesus way? Am I sacrificing relationship, personal attention, personal relationship for a shortcut, a program so I can get stuff done? You can’t do Jesus’ work in a non-Jesus way and get by with it-although you can be very “successful.”