And later, we'll take a look at Acts 7:48-49

Today, we'll have a discussion of church building architecture, entitled "A Lesson in Extremes."

First, we have Crystal Cathedral in California. An embodiment of light and space, grandeur and intimacy, the glass structure is recognized the world over as an architectural treasure. It was featured recently alongside the Hagia Sofia, Notre Dame, St. Peter's Cathedral, and Barcelona's Segrada Familia in The History Channel's documentary "Building in the name of God."



Lovely!


Next, we'll take a look at the Church Under the Bridge, under I-35 and 4th Street, in Waco, Texas.



It's, uh, a bunch of people. Under a bridge.

Both are places people can go to worship God. Both teach and proclaim Christianity, although I imagine they are probably two slightly divergent "flavors" of Christianity.

Can two immensely opposite "institutions" truly stand for the same God? What say ye?

The Slow Death of Pews, Sermons, and "Ministries"

The "functional" aspect of the American church continues to distress me.

The hallmark of the early Church was "see how they love one another." Not "see how efficiently they work together" or "see what a fantastic show they put on." Yet we still have SUCH a hard time picturing a shift in focus from ministries, functions, and Sunday mornings towards a community of "love-relationships" -- building each other up and helping each other live a better life for Christ.

In a late-night conversation many of us briefly had on a recent Saturday night, we were discussing how statistics show 20-30 year olds very interested in Jesus, yet running from the church like the plague. Why is that, we wonder. How do we get those people into our local churches?

Some might suggest trendier services on Sunday mornings. Being more seeker-sensitive. Louder music, some hipper clothes on the preacher. A fancier website.

I say all that is like polishing the brass on the Titanic. It looks nice, but it's all going down.

Societal changes in the past 30-40 years have been vast. Society has changed a lot in a short time, in a way that it didn't for hundreds and hundreds of years previously. We went from a "Christian" society (not that everyone was a Christian, but it was the expected thing to be, and there was an environment of Christianity surrounding people) to whatever you want to call it now. Post-modern. Post-Christian. Post-Church. Biblical Christianity is NOT normal now. Most people are NOT surrounded by a Christian environment.

And even more so, people are NOT interested in "the church." We've presented the church to them as a place to go on Sunday mornings, rather than a community of Jesus-followers that love each other. To society, a big Protestant church looks like a huge fancy building with a bunch of paid staff. And it does the following: A) produces a nice show to watch on Sunday mornings, B) has a bunch of "ministries" you can "serve in" to keep the gears turning, depending upon your demographic, and C) exists pretty much to get other people to attend on Sunday mornings. To add more people serving in ministries, plus of course more money in the offering to pay the bills.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see the church keeping up with society in the 21st century. That doesn't mean it needs to change its Biblical understanding or water down the message of Jesus (not that the church has necessarily done a stellar job of teaching the message of Jesus in the first place). But I do think we need to open up our minds to radical changes that are bigger than just changing up a Sunday morning service or adding additional "ministries" to the mix. I think it needs to, somehow, completely back off from the Sunday morning-centric focus, and begin putting time, people, and resources into forming a COMMUNITY of love. I think people are drawn to love, and people are drawn to community. Even the 20-something crowd.

That probably doesn't mean one big community of 1000 or 5000 people. It's nearly impossible to have a true love-community that big. You'd have to have a number of smaller communities. They've got to commit to one another.

We're a nation that is ruled by functionality. We think of ourselves in terms of our jobs, our careers, and the tasks that we do. And Christians, nay, church-goers, think of themselves by the ministry-tasks that they do. They'll say, I run sound at church. I play some guitar with the praise band. I help out in the nursery. I'm a greeter at the front door. I'm an usher and I pass the communion trays.

There is nothing wrong with any of those tasks. But we need to radically rethink our focus. The "church" is dying.

The Code

In this week of Easter, in this time that we ponder and celebrate the death and resurrection of Yeshua as a sacrifice for His church, I think it's time to discuss something really important.

The dress code.

On Easter Sunday, all sorts of people will show up at church. A lot of people that aren't normally there. And people will dress up. The men will wear a suit, or maybe a tie. The women will wear bright yellow dresses and maybe even a big weird hat. Kids will be in uncomfortable clothing that makes playing on the floor practically impossible.

That's fine. It doesn't matter much to me what people wear to church. A suit is fine, shorts and tennis shoes are fine. I'm not terribly concerned either way.

It does become more of a problem when people get upset about what OTHER PEOPLE wear to church.

This is quite common, and it comes in many forms. First of all, you have the people who claim that we must "dress up" to show our respect for God. If you aren't wearing the appropriate clothing, God apparently isn't going to be pleased with your worship.

God likes his ties silk, by the way. No cheap imitations.

But worst of all is the Cleavage Police. These are the folks that believe that if women wear anything too tight, too short, too cute, or too provocative, that it's not at all appropriate. The reasoning for this generally seems to be that men can't control themselves in the sight of attractive females.

Evidently, if a pretty girl has a skirt on that doesn't go below the knee, all the men's minds will be filled with lust and they won't be able to listen to the sermon without visualizing themselves in an all-out pew orgy.

These rules seem to have a certain pecking order in churches:

1. They only apply to women,
2. They only apply to attractive young women, and
3. They especially apply to attractive young women on stage.

This means that if you are an attractive woman who is a singer, or in drama, or in choir, or maybe up front to give the announcements (or preaching)... Please wear multiple turtlenecks, lest the men in the congregation try to molest you when you step off the platform.

Men. They're animals, I tell ya.

I've never understood these arguments, because they don't seem to give Christian men any credit whatsoever. They imply that 1) women need to cover up attractiveness, as if being cute isn't "reverent," and 2) men have no self-control over their sexual thoughts.

Never mind the fact that we're seeing women's legs and arms the other six and a half days of the week. That two hours a week on Sunday morning might just send me over the edge.

In I Timothy 2, Paul asks women "to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God."

I understand that women are to keep in mind reverence for God when they are choosing clothing. They shouldn't be putting stuff on merely to attract an eye of admiration, or to show off. It's something men should keep in mind too, but for some reason, all of the church "clothing rules" only seem to apply to women.

This is, admittedly, a silly topic. But it's also one that I know a lot of people have strong feelings about, and that's why I'm posting it. What do you think? How far do we go, as a church, in policing the clothing choices of people in attendance and people that are "up front"?

And you thought ecclesiology was just about the important issues.

Seeking a New Approach To Church

Ever wonder if our 21st-century approach to church is entirely wrong?

I have conversations with many people that are rather disgruntled at the state of "the church." And they don't always know if the problem lies with the leadership, or the congregants. After all, a good portion of many church-goers are once-a-week attendees that really have no community with the church body. They come, they enjoy a nice show, they are spoon-fed some sermon points, and they go home and go on with their lives. They have nothing invested whatsoever.

It's a cycle, really. The more that people expect to be Sunday morning consumers, the more the church provides it on a Sunday morning. The more they provide it, the more consumers show up. And to an extent, if we're talking about numbers, it's a great way to grow a church. A church can grow into a megachurch 10 miles wide. And two inches deep.

We talk about what the root cause might be, and whether it's theological, or a problem with vision, or leadership, or just 21st-century consumer culture. But I have another suggestion.

Perhaps the seeker-sensitive church approach is entirely backwards.

Let me explain. All of my life, I've heard from other churchgoers about how they need to invite non-Christians to church. After all, if they come to church on a Sunday morning, they'll listen to some nice songs, and they'll hear about Jesus! Then they'll become a Christian! It happens all the time!

Technically, that might be true. It does happen occasionally. People go to a Sunday-morning service, hear about God, and they become Christians. And then they come back the next Sunday morning, and the next, and they are spoon-fed every week. In fact, they'll continue to hear about Jesus for years without ever needing to DO anything.

Instead, try this: Don't invite people to church. Build a relationship with them and tell them about Jesus. Tell them about Jesus' life, death on the cross, and resurrection. Tell them about how you are a new creation, and how God has worked in your life.

If the spirit tugs on that person, and that person understands, you know what?

He or she may very well become part of the church. Right there. Then, it might be a good opportunity to tell them about a group of Christians that gets together in your house on Monday nights for small group. Or Wednesday nights for a meal. Or Sunday mornings for a celebration service. Invite them to come along.

A church that caters almost exclusively to non-Christians, or even nominal Christians, might be nice for evangelism. But it's not really The Church. The Church is made up of Christian brothers and sisters, and they are living, working, learning, and serving together. If you try to make everything about the church "sensitive to the non-believer," what's going to happen?

The people that ARE new converts are never going to grow past that two-inch thickness. The possibility will always exist that they'll remain Sunday-morning consumers for years. They were spoon-fed a show, and that's what inspired them to come forward and accept Jesus in the first place... So isn't THAT what Christianity is? A Sunday-morning show?

Well, we say, the Sunday morning service can be seeker-sensitive, because if people want to grow deeper, they need to get involved in Sunday School classes and other areas.

Seriously? Why would they need to get involved anywhere else? We've shown them that all they need to do to be saved is to come to a Sunday morning service and hear about God.

Relational evangelism is SO important, and it's so much more than inviting someone to church. I'm starting to seriously question a "seeker-sensitive" approach to church. Are WE, the people of God, to be "seeker-sensitive" when building relationships? Of course we are. But are church services supposed to always be "seeker-sensitive"?

I'm starting to think that's a bad idea.


What say you, random blog readers?

Subculture or Counterculture: Is Church Relevant?

...This raises the missional question as to whether the church exists simply as a subculture or a counterculture or whether it can become truly cross-cultural in the sense of crossing into the broader culture through proclaiming the good news within that cultural context. [From Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures, by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K Bolger.]

We KNOW that the gospel is relevant. Jesus is still relevant. But are most modern churches relevant to society?

Sometimes we get the two confused. We think Obviously, all our churches are relevant. Because Jesus is still relevant!

Jesus immersed himself in first century Jewish society. He took on the culture and practices -- he became accessible, he became one of us. Yet sometimes we believe that our churches should stand totally apart from the culture. Should they? Should churches really be countercultural?

I haven't read much of the book that I quoted above, honestly. But some of the parts I've skimmed have made me think. Missionaries immerse themselves in the societies in which they live. Yet sometimes we criticize local churches that become too much "like the world." We like our traditions. We think that just because the world is in a constant state of change, the church doesn't necessarily need to change the way it functions.

This book mentions that the church occupied a central position within Western societies for more than 1600 years. But that has recently changed. Within the last 100 years, cultural shifts have created a post-Christian society. "The church as an institution has lost its privileged position and increasingly occupies a place on the margins of society alongside other recreational and non-profit organizations."

Most people don't go to church anymore.

And, though this is a big assumption, I believe that the vast majority of the minority that DOES go to church, does just that. They go to church. They don't go to WORSHIP. They don't consider themselves to really be the church. It's a building to go to on Sunday mornings.

The message of Jesus doesn't need to change. Our need for God doesn't change. But that doesn't mean that what church IS, and how church is done, can't change.

So how should it change?

We use the word community a lot to talk about what we think the church needs to be. Most of us truly believe that people long for relationships -- they long for an intimate community. The thing is, on the surface, that's not always true. People isolate themselves in their suburban homes because they want to. They avoid seeking out those relationships because, sometimes, it can be uncomfortable.

I talked to someone the other day who said she hated when people talked to her that she didn't know. Friendly people bothered her. She just wanted to be left alone, because she thought that any stranger that talked to her was going to be full of fake, insincere bullsh**.

So that takes us to the next set of words we like to use. Honesty. Vulnerability. Transparency. The church needs to rid itself of the faux smiles we automatically put on when we walk in the door. It needs to get real.

Are these things true? I don't know. Probably. An intimate community of honest people is nice. But that's not the gospel. That's not the message of Jesus. That's a self-help group, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid.

Obviously we need to show the love of Jesus. We need to be more outwardly-focused, yet at the same time developing true relationships within. Maybe the church DOES need to be countercultural. Surely, it needs to be different. Yet it still needs to understand our society, and be willing to change.

Once again, I have more questions than answers.

Should the church cross into the broader culture? How? Does the church need to change its "business model"?

More on Christian Community

When you stay up talking outside of Starbucks until 2:30 AM on a Monday night, it really sucks away your ability to be awake enough to write anything compelling on a blog the rest of the week.

I'll give it a go anyway.

Many of us are aware that "church" is not just a building or a worship service, but it's a group of people. Christians. Followers of Jesus.

At least that's what we *SAY*. However, a lifetime of preconceived notions about "church" are quite difficult to transform. Regardless of how much I talk about the "community of believers," it is still amazingly hard to back out of my "church" paradigm.

For instance, I think of my small group as just that -- a "small group." It's a subset of my "church." The group of guys that stay up talking late into the night at Starbucks is still, often in my mind, a subset of my "church."

We identify our churches by name. Even if we avoid the term "church" and ask someone, "Where do you go to worship?", we are still wanting to know which specific church they attend -- it's nothing more than semantics.

By putting a name with a church, we generally know a denomination, or at least something about that church's belief structure. I could look up an address, a phone number, a web page. Maybe even find a mission statement or a vision.

The problem with this paradigm is that, while it's handy and efficient when I want to classify and categorize things, it often does very little to foster and create a real Christian community.

You know what? My small group is a church. We're a group of people that care about one another, and we often get together at predetermined times to meet, to eat, to pray, to laugh, to talk, or to study scriptures. At least in our case, there's no real bureaucracy in which we must report our activities up to "the church."

House churches are a fascinating topic. I think it's easy for many of us (me included) to write off some house churches as fringe groups, meeting in somebody's living room, led by some crazy guy who has little to no understanding of the Bible. We look at many of the big churches -- the Church Growth Model megachurches, the House of Hybels and Warren -- and we think, Well, they must be doing something right. Look how many people go there each week!

Many of the megachurches are preaching the gospel, I'm sure. But we cannot look at Sunday morning attendance as a metric of "church success." If 3000 people show up for a Sunday morning service, how many of them are truly experiencing Christian community the rest of the week?

For that matter, how many of them are even experiencing Christian community on Sunday morning?

The idea of some form of communal living continues to intrigue me. Not just for economical and efficiency reasons, but because I believe that in the right context it would be something more. Many of us are looking for something more. Something deeper. Something above and beyond Sunday-morning-centric Christianity.

A way to grow and commune with friends.

A way to grow and know God more deeply.

A way to befriend and reach other people that don't know Jesus.

I look at so many modern churches, and I think, Is this really what God had in mind? I see good things, yes, but I also see so much... fluff. So much stuff. Random ministries that are sucking the life out of volunteers that got pulled into something they had no heart for in the first place. Worship services that require a cast of literally hundreds to produce the show. And then hundreds that attend to watch the show, before leaving with a heart that hasn't been changed in the least.

In the meantime, the Christians that are looking to be fed, the Christians looking for a sense of community, wander about like a boat with no anchor.

They feel at times purposeless and powerless.

Perhaps only within smaller groups, smaller "churches," can we feel that community. That sense of purpose.

Maybe it's just something that you can't foist upon people. Maybe people just have to find it themselves.

Can large churches have true "community"? If so, how do they do it?

WHAT is a worship service?

Joe wrote some very interesting things in his comment on the last post. It deserves some discussion if only because it said some things much more clearly than I did.

He pointed out that a list such as this one comes across as being nit-picky. True. But he also pointed out that it is clear that there is a single problem at the root of it all. The central question, then, is this:

"WHAT is a worship service? Why do we have these things at all -- just what is it we are DOING?

If he doesn't mind, I'm going to copy most of his comment here, as it makes for an excellent post.

Historically the heart of corporate worship a la King is COMMUNION, the eucharist. This is what Jesus instituted as his family Feast of Remembrance, a celebration of The People of God, this nation of kings and priests. "They will be mine" says YHWH "in the day when I assemble my treasure." [Mal 3:17, JoeBV]

Everything about "formal" assembly of The People should emanate from that central fact. It seems to me that "the gathering" should last about the whole day, and include cooking, cleaning up, distributing goods, planning, deciding, singing and praying and constantly reconciling differences thru cooperation in all these processes. Most of all, it's not a mere abstraction, it's real life. Not something on a stage.

So I say those 15 scathing theses are about 80 short of a reformation. I say one must start over from scratch and reconceive corporate worship entirely. The Jesus feast these days is reduced to a vestige from which most meaning is stripped. We forget that everything from Jn 13-17 happens AT the Lord's table: footwashing, prophesying, kingdom scheming, and theologizing. And it is all on a personal scale, not a mass production. The way we do it nowadays--a presentation that 90% of the people just come and watch--is a pretty bizarre notion of how to celebrate God's Gathering of the Select People (the ekklesia, the Church.)

Dare I say it? We need to quit going to worship and start going to CHURCH!

The central theme here is community. Actually, that's been a central theme within our little "circle of friends" for years now. How can the church get back to being a community? Is it even possible in our 21st century, suburbian lifestyles?

Many of the things within a normal "worship service" are good things. Singing to God, the reading of scripture, preaching and teaching, the rememberance of Christ through communion. So, on the surface, things don't look half bad. But where is the community? How do we do all of this on a personal scale, and not as a mass production?

I love to listen to Darin and Joe talk about these things, but too often we talk in vague and abstract terms. Sure, we are idealists. We may know what we WANT.

But my main question, each time, is HOW. How do we accomplish this? How do we get there?

The Wittenburg Church Door

Okay, so we've had many discussions on what church should be, and what church seems to be lacking.

We know we want action. In fact, I *feel* a call to action. A call to do something concrete, rather than just the bitching and moaning we've been doing for the past many weeks months years.

Wait, can I say "bitching" on a family-friendly blog?

Too late.

So I think it's time for some specifics. If something is wrong, what is wrong? And if something needs fixed, how can we fix it? What do I *desire* to see out of a church?

I THINK IT'S TIME FOR A LIST.

Bloggers love lists. Martin Luther loved lists. Have you seen High Fidelity? John Cusack. Good flick. His character loved lists.

Let's begin, shall we? This list will be fluid, as these are all up for discussion, debate, and editing. I doubt I'll come up with 95, but it's a start. Please feel free to add your own or argue some of these.

1. Church is a community of believers, and much of the focus of "church" should be on that community.
2. Obviously, the focus of a worship "service" should be on God.
3. The purpose of "church" should NOT be to get people to sit in a pew on a Sunday morning. A church that is too "Sunday morning-centric" is not healthy for the church as a whole or Christians individually, as it fosters institutional thinking within the church and a "once-a-week" mentality within Christians.
4. A worship service should be careful not to fall into a routine. If it lacks creativity or any discernable change on a week-by-week basis, it becomes problematic (we may need to explore the "why" here some more).
5. A worship service should be careful not to be performance-based. When it becomes a production, when it becomes all about excellence, then it becomes less about God and the Holy Spirit.
6. The Gospel of Christ, of love, of His kingdom... All those things should be preached. There is nothing wrong with "seeker-sensitive" worship services, but psychological self-help, chicken-soup-for-the-soul type of sermons are a problem.
7. The church is smart enough to follow a sermon without needing blanks to fill in.
8. Giving the Holy Spirit room to maneuver during a worship service means that occasionally, things may not go as planned. We should allow this.
9. God doesn't care if there is feedback, or if a screen flickers, or if a microphone doesn't work.
10. Along the lines of #4 and #8, worship services could be drastically different from week to week. That could mean a week of all singing and scripture reading. That could mean a week of drama and prayer. That could mean people coming forward to give testimonies.
11. Other teachers could be raised up to preach on occasion. These don't even have to be paid staff or elders or someone with a PhD.
12. A church needs a common vision, something to work towards and bring people together, moreso than just a generic mission statement. (This one is up for debate, as one could argue that the New Testament church did not have a specific "vision" beyond Jesus' call to make disciples of all nations.)
13. Honesty and vulnerability is tantamount in a church. If the church is in a major financial bind, the congregation needs to be aware of that. If Sunday morning worship services are the main meeting time for the congregation, it is obvious that during a Sunday morning worship service, honest talk of finances is vital.
14. The "success" of a church is not measured by its weekly worship service attendance in numbers, or by its "growth" in numbers from year to year. If numbers must be used to measure real "growth," then small groups, Sunday School classes, and other specific ministries are probably the best way to quantify.
15. Along with #13, vulnerability and openness within a church needs to be fostered from the ministry staff. REAL vulnerability and openness, including sin and repentance.

That's only 15, but I don't want to hog all of these. Any thoughts on these 15, or additional ideas?