Why are we Shocked?

Don't forget, we live in Babylon. And Babylon isn't Jerusalem - never has been, never will be (in fact, earthly Jerusalem ain't no Jerusalem either).
 
In two stages, Israel was taken into exile. First, the Northern Kingdom was conquered carried into exile to the Assyrian empire in 722BC. The Southern Kingdom of Judah help off exile for more than a century, but finally fell to the Babylonians in 586BC when Jerusalem was sacked and the temple destroyed. For roughly a generation, the people of Israel had to learn how to live as faithful Jews in Babylon. Babylon wasn't Jerusalem - there were other gods, other laws, other peoples, other priorities, and sins that were appalling in Jerusalem were celebrated in Babylon. It was in this context that men like Shadrach Meshach and Abednego, with Daniel and later Esther and uncle Mordechai (in Persia) lived faithfully and served nobly. 

As believers, we share more contextual connectedness with these exiles living in foreign lands than we do with Israelites who lived in the Promised Land. As Peter tells us, we are 'elect exiles of the Dispersion' (1 Peter 1:1). We aren't natural-born residence of this world, our citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20) and we are 'strangers and aliens' or 'sojourners and exiles' in this world (1 Peter 2:11).  This is a truth we tend to forget, or maybe a truth we never fully embraced. There were times when we may have been fooled into thinking we lived in a spiritual city - a Jerusalem - because the mores and norms were superficially Judeo-Christian. But, it was a mirage only.

Let me be clear. We aren't aliens and strangers in America because of cultural decline or unfavorable court decisions. We aren't aliens and strangers because America is a post-Christian society. We are aliens because America (and England, and France, and China, and Yemen, and every other country) is Babylon. This applies to all civilizations through all time (save one). So Calvin, "For, if heaven is our homeland, what else is the earth but our place of exile."

American is no more, no less, Babylon now than it was in the 1950s or the 1770s. The US is no more, no less, Babylon than the UK or China. 

No earthly city corresponds to the heavenly Jerusalem, not even the earthly Jerusalem. All cities, all nations, all powers, are a part of the temporal, temporary, and corrupted Babylon. 

And in Babylon we reside, though only as pilgrims - exiles waiting to go home.

The picture of Babylon is negative, but not wholly so. There are still good things to enjoy and be grateful for. Here in Babylon we, like Israel in its exile, we can

Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare (Jeremiah 29:5-7, ESV).

But, we recognize these good things for what they are - temporary.

And, we recognize the city we live in for what it is - temporary and corrupted. Babylon will never be Jerusalem and we should never expect it to conduct itself like Jerusalem. We shouldn't be shocked or dismayed when sin is celebrated. Sin is the way of the world. Sometimes my social media feeds are flooded with friends expressing outrage over some new manifestation of Babylon being Babylon. Why surprised? It's what we should expect (we expect two-year-olds to get grumpy when they're tired, teenagers to be sleepy in the morning and leopards to have spots).

Expecting it, maybe we can be less shrill - as though our way of life was being threatened. It isn't, because our life is elsewhere. We reside here, but we shouldn't expect Babylon to conform to our mores and norms or be shocked or bitter when it doesn't. It won't, it never has (and when it appeared to, it was superficial at best).

On the other hand, seeking the good of the city means we grieve sin and we want those who are impacted by its devastation to experience the fullness of redemption and restoration. And working for the good of the city might mean we use the tools of the city to better the city (like Joseph, or Daniel) - working with governments to restrain the most egregious evils, to mitigate against the worst of sins effects, alleviate injustice, remedy hurt and pain. 

So, maybe a bit less whining and a bit more hoping and working would serve the evangelical church well. Just sayin.

Evangelicals, we don't want prayer in schools (or why we shouldn't)

Several months ago, sitting in the Indiana Memorial Union with my friend Adam deWeber,  two students approached us and asked if we'd do a quick survey for a class project. We agreed and were given sheets with twenty-five or so questions. One of the questions was 'do you support prayer in schools?'  I asked what they meant by that, but they said the couldn't/wouldn't explain more. As it stood, that's an impossible question for me to answer.

If you mean, should we allow students time to pray privately (emergency prayers before finals will always be needed), or to voluntarily gather in groups to pray together (i.e. See You at the Pole), then yes, I support this.

But I suspect they mean officially sanctioned prayers led by a teacher/administrator with student participation expected or encouraged. This is what most from older generations bemoan losing when Madalyn Murray O'Hair won her lawsuit and school prayers were no more (the historical timeline of prayers in public schools is more complicated than this, I know).

If it is this type of officially sanctioned prayers led by a school official, then I DO NOT WANT PRAYER IN MY KIDS' SCHOOL. That's right, I would oppose this type of prayer in our local public schools. Why? Two big reasons:

First, I don't want my kids learning how to pray in school because it isn't the job of a school official to teach my children how to pray.  It's mine and the church's responsibility. Would I get to choose who leads them in prayer in day and thus teaches them to pray? If so, I'd find a faithful Presbyterian or Evangelical to teach them (if not, then a Lutheran or Catholic could be fine). But I doubt I'll get to choose. What if it's a crazy "health-and-wealth-prosperity-gospel" teacher? What if it's a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness? What if it's some crazy liberal who prays to Mother God or something like that? What kind of prayers would be offered - vague general prayers that are innocuous and unChristian?  I'd rather my kids not pray like that. I don't want civil religion types prayers - I'd rather have no prayer.

Second, if we insist the prayers are truly Christian prayers, in the name of Christ and informed by core Christian doctrines, then what of the sizeable minorities who do not claim to be Christians. What of the Jews in our schools, the Muslims, the atheists. Should we force their children to pray to in Christ's name? What about regions where Christianity is the minority, like Hamtrack, MI or in Jewish neighborhoods in NYC?  Is it the majority that chooses what kind of prayers are offered?  What of the Christian students in these areas - should they be forced to pray to in a Muslim way?

We live in a pluralistic culture. The job of the schools is not to promote religion; they wouldn't be good at it.

J. Gresham Machen, the staunch opponent of liberalism at Princenton who went on to found Westminster Theological Seminary, likewise opposed Bible readings and prayers in school...back in  1933!

Let Justice Roll Down Like Waters

I remember hearing a talk radio host recently warn people that if their church spoke about social justice, they should leave because the church isn't Christian, it's communist. I understand that labels can mean all sorts of things, but I find it hard to be against social justice. If you're against it, are you for social injustice? The Bible does speak about social justice all the time - not necessarily in those words. In fact, maybe we should call it what the Bible calls it - righteousness.

Everyone talks about justice, Democrat and Republican, though they'll use different language to do so. Justice for the unborn. Justice for oppressed. Justice for the immigrant. Justice for those whose convictions go against the cultural tide. And all these groups deserve justice!

But, I don't hear many talking about intergenerational justice - and I think we need to start talking about that in earnest. In a 2011 statement, a group of evangelical thinkers (Evangelical for Social Action with Center for Public Justice) issued a Call for Intergenerational Justice, contending “Intergenerational justice demands that one generation must not benefit or suffer unfairly at the cost of another.”

The issue that sparked the petition was the mounting debt crisis. Unfortunately, this crisis has not gone away, though it is being ignored. The federal budget deficit was $984 billion in 2019 - a 26% increase from the year before. Our national debts is $23 trillion ($23,000,000,000,000).  Obviously, this is not sustainable. It's also unjust! To fix today's problems on tomorrow's dollar keeps snowballing...and the monstrous snowball will destroy our children's economic futures.

And I listen to debates where politicians promise new programs - free this, free that...with no viable way to pay for it - and I think we're selling our kids to the god of mammon, unwilling to sacrifice a modicum of our material prosperity today to help them in the future. Biblically, it is the parent's role to save for their children, not mortgage their children's future (2 Corinthians 12:14, and a lot of wisdom literature).

My small-government Republican friends may like this post so far. You won't if you keep reading...

As unjust as those who rack up massive debt for their children are those who use up all the earth's resources, leaving it polluted and stripped. Some will quibble over the science of climate change. Set it aside. Can we quibble over the loss of 3 billion birds in North America in the last few decades (or are bird watchers and ornithologists also just a tool of 'big solar' - ok, I'm getting a bit sarcastic)?  Shouldn't we all be able to agree that we want clean water (not like what my mom and dad lived with in PA where some of their neighbor's water was flammable)?  Shouldn't we be able to agree that we need clean air - not like people in the LA Basin suffered through a few decades ago? Shouldn't we agree that there are some places of such awe-inspiring beauty that we shouldn't befoul them with oil rigs or mines and ruin them for future generations?

Regulations (that were barely addressing the massive problems to begin with) are being rolled back to make energy cheaper, manufacturing more competitive, etc.  But it is unjust. Biblically, the land (and sea and sky) doesn't belong to us - we are stewards of it for God. And, it's a common good - not just ours to use, but everyone's, including future generations. The Bible has quite a bit to say to those who destroy the earth (i.e. Revelation 11:18, Proverbs 12:10, Deuteronomy 20:19-20).

I am sure there is a myriad of other applications of this concept of generational justice. Let's include this in our dialogue, expect it of our elected officials, and strive together to find solutions for everyone, even those who are yet to be born.

Don't use Dead Christians to Score Political/Rhetorical Points

Over the past few days, I have seen a few disturbing Facebook posts about Christian's slaughtered in Nigeria and the Philippines. Of course, as a Christian and, frankly as a human, I am deeply saddened by this. But, these posts have been rhetorically dishonest and so devalue and dishonor those who have died.

The reports are not usually posted with a simple "this is sad, we should pray and remember Christians who live in hard places and have their lives taken from them." No, instead it's, "the media is falling all over themselves to report the massacre in New Zealand, but nary a word about the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria and the Philippines."  It's a rhetorical trick attempting to demonstrate that the media ("the left wing media") doesn't care about the plight of Christians. Problem is, the facts are very wrong.

First, consider what is being spread regarding the bombing in the Philippines; the following post is an example. This was posted on March 15th, shortly after the New Zealand mosque killings.

Indeed ISIS terrorists did attack two Catholic churches in the Philippines and killing at least twenty, wounding dozens. But this attacked happened in late January (not, as the post implies, in mid-March). And, the tragedy was covered by media when it actually happened, including CNN, Fox, NYTimes, BBC, Reuters and many more.


The killings in Nigeria are different, more complicated. The posts that have been circulating, often referencing a Breitbart headline, claim that Muslim militants have killed more than 120 Christians in Nigeria. Again, this is a mixture of truth and error. The numbers vary from agency to agency, but 120 is very likely. However, this is part of a larger feud between farmers and herders that is raging in Nigeria currently. Muslim nomadic herders (Fulani) have been in conflict with the ethnically Christian Adara people in Nigeria. Many on both sides have been killed. In February, Adara gunmen, in response to an attack by Fulani, targetted Fulani settlements and killed at least 130. In March, yes 120 Christians, or more, were killed as a part of this conflict. It's ugly. It is war. Which makes it categorically different than a white supremacist walking into a mosque and killing fifty, wounding more.  

The Christland shooting has received more attention than either of the other two events. I don't doubt that, but it seems completely understandable too. There is a 'first world bias' to events we read about or hear about from the media. A factory fire that kills 20 in Bangladesh won't make the news. Same fire in Chicago or Londo will. And, this kind of violence isn't expected in New Zealand, but we have become somewhat calloused to it in other parts of the country. A gangland shootout killing three or four people won't make the news if it's in Chicago or LA. If it's on the streets of Cape Cod or in Disneyland it would.

Let me be blunt, misrepresenting these horrific events to make the point that Christians are ignored by the media is dishonest. It is, in terms of the Ten Commandments, bearing false witness. And, it dishonors the dead - they aren't tools to be used in your war against the media. Shaping public opinion by using false data is, at best, manipulative. It feeds the "us vs. them" mentality that is doing so much harm in our nation and across the globe. Please stop.

Why I Cringe When I People Say America Was/Is A Christian Nation

Below is text from one of my 2010 posts. Claims that the U.S. was/is a Christian nation get repeated by the right (when arguing for traditional family values) and the left (i.e. as a Christian nation we ought to welcome refugees)...and it always make me cringe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last night I spoke to a small group of international graduate students on the topic "Is America a Christian Nation?" I asked at the outset if they had been given the impression that America was a Christian nation and they all agreed that they had.

I began by asking what it is that makes an individual a Christian. I outlined three essential things. First, an internal work of God referred to as 'regeneration' or 'being born again'. That is the work of God and the sine qua non of being a Christian - without that work, we are still dead in sin and not a part of the Kingdom. This internal change will be manifested externally in the Fruit of the Spirit, but these externals flow from (necessarily) the internal change and cannot be forced or produced simply by the will of man.

Second, Christians are defined right belief. I asked, "if I told you I was an atheist who believed in God, what would you say?" Rightly they understand that I wouldn't be a real atheist, for atheists are marked by a specific belief, namely in the nonexistence of God. Likewise, real Christians are marked by certain beliefs. John, in his first letter articulates a doctrinal test -those who are truly believers will confess Christ. Those who don't, aren't genuine believers, but antichrists. Paul articulates the importance of right belief in several places, but look specifically at Galatians 1:6-9 and his condemnation of 'another gospel'. The early creeds, accepted by Catholics and Protestants (and with minor disagreement, Orthodox believers) are a wonderful summary of what true Christians have believed for centuries.

Finally, there are certain actions that mark of genuine Christians. Again, I asked, "what makes someone a vegetarian?" Obviously, vegetarians are marked off by certain practices, more so than beliefs. They don't eat meat. So Christians are marked off by certain actions, among them is participation in the sacraments of baptism and communion. The New Testament does not allow for a category of believer that is unbaptized or non-participatory in the sacramental life of the Body of Christ (I know, the exception is the thief on the cross). Likewise, the NT doesn't allow us to conceive of believers who are not connected to the life of the church.

Having established what it means for a person to be a Christian, we moved on the discuss what it means for a nation to be Christian. First, a nation could be officially Christian in that it recognized/supported/regulated a state church. England is officially Anglican. Denmark has the Danish National Church (Lutheran). In a similar way, many states officially support Islam as the state religion (Iran, Kuwait, etc.), and several officially support Buddhism (Cambodia, Thailand, etc.).

Second, a nation could be established explicitly on Christian principles, theology, Scriptures, etc. The charter of the Plymouth Colony(Mayflower Compact) is such a document, stating,

"Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic..."

Third, a nation could be considered Christian if the vast majority of the population is Christian (but, on that, see the discussion above regarding the marks of a true Christian). So, do these apply to America?

Going back to the early 1700's, N.America was controlled by three colonizing powers: France, Great Britain, and Spain. Before the 1700's, other nations, like the Dutch, controlled some portions of N. America, but by 1700, it was those three that controlled the entire N.American continent. Two of the three were Roman Catholic, England was officially Protestant. Of the three groups of settlers (English, Spanish, and French), only one came for explicitly religious reasons. The Pilgrims (Separatists) and the Puritans settled in Massachusetts in hopes of finding freedom from (Anglican) persecution. However, not all British settlers came for religious reasons. Alongside the Dissenters (Pilgrims & Puritans) looking for freedom came good Anglicans who were motivated by the hope of a new life or financial prosperity.

Moving ahead to the time of the Revolution and the founding of the United States as a nation, many Christians look back to our Founding Fathers as pillars of Christian virtue who sought to establish a nation on the Christian principles. There is, however, good reason to question this. (I won't even raise the issue of whether or not rebellion against a sovereign is biblical, I'll just direct your attention to 1 Peter 1:13 and Romans 13:1-7). While it is absolutely true, that many pastors were supportive of the Revolution and that many of the Founding Fathers were good Christians (Patrick Henry, John Witherspoon, and Samuel Adams -who's better known for his beer than his role in founding our nation), that is certainly not the whole story. Among the founders there were quite a few Deists (and heretics). Ben Franklin denied the deity of Christ. John Adams denied the Trinity. Thomas Jefferson took scissors to his Bible and cut out all things supernatural, including the resurrection of Christ. Can such men be considered Christian? The did talk of god, but they eschewed a Christian understanding of God. They're god was sub-Christian. Thomas Paine was worse yet (or maybe better yet). He said, "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." No wonder he was referred to as the 'filthy little atheist'! Moreover, Washington, while being a regular church goer refused communion for his whole adult life. In addition, he was a Grand Master in the Masonic Lodge - something that cannot easily be reconciled with genuine Christian convictions. (Regarding the image: in the words of an author I can't remember, 'Praying doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger.' Ok, the quote is actually, 'going to church doesn't make you a Christian...' but you get the idea.)

Considering all of this, I believe we can say that Christianity was certainly influential, but not exclusively so. Maybe more important than Jesus or Moses were the Enlightenment philosphers in vogue at the time - Kant, Rousseau, etc - and their elevation of autonomous reason over revelation (ie. 'we hold these truth to be self evident').

Moreover, beyond the small circle of founders, the population at large, while certainly thinking of themselves as Christian, could be thought of as only nominally so. Belief in God can be assumed, as well as a general Judeo-Chrsitian ethic; however, it is estimated that only 10-15% of the population attended church regularly. [Interestingly, more people attend church regularly now than when this nation was born, in terms of sheer numbers and also percentage of population. So it could be argued we are more Christian now than then. I don't think most would like that argument.]

In addition, when you look at the founding documents of the United States, you don't see any gospel orientation (not even a specifically Christian orientation like in the Mayflower Compact). Certainly vague talk of God or Creator is there, but Deists could affirm that No mention of Christ or the gospel. There was never an officially sanctioned state church for the nation (though many states supported the church - Anglican or Congregational). In fact, our Constitution distances us from any form of established religion. Our leaders are not subject to any religious test (Article 6.3), and religious liberty (not just of Christians) was articulated in the 1st amendment. Interestingly, Patrick Henry understood this to be grounded in the gospel, writing,"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship." I disagree with him on the first part, but affirm the connection between the gospel and religious freedom in the second part of the quote.

It must be conceded that American's breathed Christian air. The Judeo-Christian ethic was assumed. I've even heard it said that the god atheists disbelieved in was the Christian God (not a Muslim god or Hindu god, etc). However, that is a far cry from saying we were founded on Christian principles.

So, I believe saying America is a Christian nation doesn't do justice to the historical complexities surrounding the birth or our nation. In addition, and more importantly, it doesn't do justice to the nature of genuine Christianity. This is why I cringe when I hear pastors or theologians or lay people saying it. Do we really want that baggage?

First, American civil religion isn't Christianity. Morality isn't Christianity. Christian does come with a moral system, but the moral system, which American did, by and large, embrace, isn't what is essential to Christianity.

Second, looking at the history of our nation, we cannot claim it was a Christian nation and then turn a blind eye to the atrocities we have, as a nation, committed. This is, I believe, very important to own. Slavery. The dispossession of and slaughter of Native Americans. The confinement of Japanese in internment camps. Entrenched racism. And that's the short list. No wonder people in other parts of the world hear America claiming to be a Christian nation, look at our history, and conclude they want nothing to do with Christianity.

Lastly, I think Christians should think long and hard about whether or not the idea of a Christian nation is even biblical. Can a Christian America be squared with Jesus' statements regarding the spiritual nature of his kingdom? I don't think they can be easily reconciled.

I'll conclude with a long quote from Richard Alpert in the Huffington Post:

“Speaking from the heart of the Muslim world in Turkey's Cankaya Palace in April 2009, President Barack Obama answered the question with the nuance that has come to characterize his public statements: America, he declared, is "a predominantly Christian nation" but "we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."

The President's answer seems to strike a discordant tone between reality and self-perception. On the one hand, American has no official church or religion. The United States Constitution expressly forbids a national religion. Yet on the other hand, Christianity is the religion of a substantial supermajority of the American population. According to the latest results of the Pew Research Centre's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, nearly 80 percent of Americans self-identify as Christian.

But there is no contradiction in the President's statement. America is, and indeed always has been, a nation of Christians but it is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian nation.” 

Want more. Watch this short video from Bryan Chapell, President of Covenant Theological Seminary.

Shakespeare and Cats

Imagine with me two actors stepping onto stage to do a scene. One of these actors is dressed in a traditional Elizabethan costume - fine, clean, almost regal. The other actor, is in a Cat costume. They begin delivering their lines, and they are very clearly reading from a different script, with a different setting, different use of language, etc.

That was me. And, it is indicative of many churches and the fundamentalist church culture. We were cats on stage in a Shakespearean play. We were out of place, looked odd, talked funny. I wore shirts that said "His Pain, Your Gain." I listened to different music (Petra, Degarmo and Key, Stryper if I was in a spandex mood), read different books, spent my time in different ways (though we had a weakness for movies, so on that point there was commonality between me and my non church friends).

Looking back, there was benefit to this kind of church culture. It was clear we were to be different; we were living a different story. But it is possible that these kinds of superficial differences between the church and the wider surrounding culture can, I'm afraid, mask points of alikeness - even sinful alikeness. We may listen to different music and wear weird tshirts, but do we still love money, worship power, etc.?

Imagine a different, but similar scenario. Two actors walk onto stage, both wearing the same Elizabethan type costume. Both deliver their lines with the same accent, cadence. It takes a little while because of the similarities, but eventually you realize that they too are reading from different scripts. One is reading from Othello, the other Hamlet. Different stories, but similar in more ways than Shakepeare and Cats.

That, I feel is an appropriate illustration for much of modern evangelicalism. We're similar to the wider culture in many ways - and that is not always inappropriate. One can listen to U2, or even Megadeth on occasion and enjoy the talent of these musicians, even be edified by truths the speak of in their lyrics. I can buy some shirts from Old Navy and not all from Christian bookstores. I can read non Christian novels. I watch many of the same shows and movies (though not all) that my non-church going friends do.  Many similarities. But many very important differences.

The challenge is that these differences are not always easy to notice.  They differences are less superficial and more nuanced, not at the level of fashion or musical preferences, but of loves and priorities. For this reason, it is easy for watchers to think we're reading from the same script, at least for a while.

I think this is true for our kids too; after all, our kids are our biggest watchers. Growing up in a fundamentalist background, we knew we were 'aliens and strangers'. It's not as clear to my kids, I would suspect. The differences aren't as blaring, not as noticeable to the naked eye.

So I, and all parents of kids in evangelical or mainline churches need to be more vigilant, pointing out where the scripts for the Christian and the nonChristian diverge. Our kids need to know that they're living in a different story and a different plot line. It won't be as obvious as when you see a Cat on stage with Romeo, but it's incredibly important. So, we need to be vocal about our loves, motivations, priorities, etc. And, we need to make sure out kids have a firm grip on the central story of God and his people!

We need to do this work of reminding ourselves, and our kids we're in God's story.

I call Bulls--t!

This week I read an article that a friend posted on Facebook. I shouldn’t have, it rarely turns out well. Normally though, it doesn’t produce such rage and almost never the kind of tirade you’ll be reading if you continue.The article was so bad, it has brought me out of blogging retirement.

Sam Eaton begins his article, “12 Reasons Millennials are Over the Church,” by stating he wants to love and be excited by the church, but just can’t. Cool. I guess Jesus would be okay with that right? The church has blemishes and sin. It’s not perfect. What is there to love? At least you want to love it Sam. 

But wait, didn’t Jesus love us when we had blemishes, sin and were generally unlovable! Didn’t Christ command us to love others, though they’re flawed and sinful, just as he loved us in our wretchedness. And, doesn’t Christ love his church – yes HIS CHURCH, his Bride, warts and pimples and all. It seems to be an inescapable conclusion: if we’re Christ followers who love him, we MUST love his church, not just want to love it. And here is my real, big picture problem with Sam and his article – he is justifying a lack of love for the church, giving space for millennials (or anyone really) to feel as if their lack of love for the church is acceptable. IT IS NOT.

I know Sam doesn’t speak for all millennials. I know plenty of them who are engaged with the church, love the church, and serve her not because they’re blind to its faults, but because they know their own, and they know how they contribute to the church’s beauty and mess.

What reasons does Eaton give for not loving the church? Here they are, point by [ridiculous] point (with my thoughts interspersed).

1.      Nobody’s Listening to Us

Sam writes, “Millennials value voice and receptivity above all else.” He bemoans that the church plugs along without listening to the millennials and their concern. I have a stereotype of millennials, and unfortunately Eaton plays right into it. These comments are so self-centered and unaware, as if millennials are the first generation that wanted to be heard. He does know about the 60s, right?!  I want to say to Sam and those whom he speaks for, “Maybe the church heard your concerns and listened to your advice and didn’t take it. Maybe the institutional wisdom borne out of centuries outweighs your feelings and insights, you annoying little brat.” Ok, maybe that truth needs a little more grace seasoned in there, but he sounds like to twelve year old whose parents refuse to let him do whatever he wants and complains that no one understands him and gets him. No, we got you, but you aren’t always going to get what you want.

Eaton offers solutions. I selected a few.

• “Create regular outlets (forums, surveys, meetings) to discover the needs of young adults both inside AND outside the church.”  Hmmm. Maybe, just maybe, we have a book that tells us what millennials need, and boomers and xers and generation-whatever-comes-nexters too!  Really, we need a focus group? Dumb.
• “Invite millennials to serve on leadership teams or advisory boards where they can make a difference.” Again, this is so typically millennial it really is the low hanging fruit. I have something to say, I want to be a leader, I am ENTITLED to lead, so give me a role in leadership. Earn it? No. Give it to me!  But, maybe he has a point. No, no he doesn’t. The church I serve in has lots of millennials as deacons, small group leaders, even elders. I like that. But, I also believe these leadership roles should be guarded, ensuring people who occupy them have shown themselves to be qualified, hold sound doctrine, live upright and godly lives, etc. And, part of that would probably mean not bitchin and moaning that the church doesn’t do things my way. Sam, not been asked to serve as an elder? I think I know why!
• Hire a young adults pastor who has the desire and skill-set to connect with millennials. Ok, so there’s no millennials in the church (he has stats to prove it), but we should hire a pastor to connect with them. What percentage of churches have a budget to hire a full-time pastor to the millennials?  Very few I think. So Sam is likely talking here to about 1% of churches.

2. We’re Sick of Hearing About Values & Mission Statements

Well, on point two, we may agree. I do think the church has overdone it when it comes to adopting business models, including value and mission statements, strategic plans, etc.. Any you know what, that was in response to boomers and their generational paradigm. In a few generations, the youngins will hate hearing about ‘being authentic’ and ‘just serving’.  He writes, “We’re not impressed…with Christianese words on paper. We’re impressed with actions and service.” And there it is…the church exists to impress the millennial. That kind of thinking is often in the background; it makes it easier when it bubbles to the surface.

3. Helping the Poor Isn’t a Priority

Cough, cough, Sam-you’re-an-idiot, cough.  He urges us to “clock the number of hours the average church attender spends in ‘church-type’ activities. Bible studies, meetings, groups, social functions, book clubs, planning meetings, talking about building community, discussing a new mission statement…” and then compare it to the hours spent “serving the least of these.”  His response, “oooo, awkward.”

Jackass. (As you can tell, this point gets me pretty steamed, because it diminished the great work individual Christians and churches have been doing for centuries!) What if a good number of ‘the least of these’ are in our church activities and are being served – physically, socially, emotionally, and, oh yes, what the church is best equipped to do, serve them spiritually! 

Oh, and what about the many Christians who work in vocations where they serve, under the banner of Christ but in secular institutions, the least of these. Can we count their hours?  Like those who, in answer to a call on their lives, teach in impoverished communities, or work with foster families, or are employed by non-profits that feed the hungry. Do they and their hours count?

Oh, and what about all those Rescue Missions that care for the homeless in nearly every city. Who started those? Christians – often fundamentalist Christians!  And the Salvation Army. And Groups like World Vision, IJM…

Oh, the poorest countries. Who goes there? Lots of great organizations – Peace Corps, Red Cross, World Vision…and missionaries, sent by the church. Often the missionaries were the first to go.

Oh, and what about the work of the deacons…in most churches, aren’t they serving the needy?

4. We’re Tired of You Blaming the Culture

Ok, I don’t know what he means by ‘blaming the culture.’  I don’t know how the church blames the culture. We do point out the darkness in the culture, and hopefully celebrate light where we find it. Is this blaming? To point to violence, rampant immorality that is deemed perfectly acceptable, etc., is that blaming culture? If so, how can we “explicitly teach” how to live life differently from the culture, something you explicitly demand of the church, if we don’t point out the sin of our culture.

5.  The “You Can’t Sit With Us” Affect

He complains that there are cliques in church and suggests we seek a kind and more compassionate way to be, different from what people are used to outside.

My response…some people in your church are self-centered jerks if they say or imply that you can’t sit with them. That doesn’t mean my church is clique free. In a sense, we encourage cliques, but call them friendships. We also encourage people to be open and generous with their friendships.

And, please remember, Sam, that churches are made up of sinful people who are striving to get over themselves and their sinful tendencies, including the tendency to exclude others. You have your annoying and sinful traits too. Fixing them doesn’t happen all at one!

His solutions? They are ridiculous.

• “Create authentic communities with a shared purpose centered around service.” Ok, we’ll give that a try. Hadn’t thought of it before, but sounds good. Idiot. You do it – tell me when it’s done. We haven’t sought inauthentic communities, but sometimes they happen. They will in your generation too – maybe people will fake authenticity, then they’ll be inauthentically authentic. Awesome. And service again. What about worship…can we have a group centered around that? Or learning? If everything is serving, where do we get to learn about the one who served us!?
• “Create and train a team of CONNECT people whose purpose is to seek out the outliers on Sunday mornings or during other events.” Ok, don’t add programs. But get a team and train them? Sounds suspiciously like a program to me.
• “Stop placing blame on individuals who struggle to get connected.” He speaks here of the introverts who are overwhelmed by the risk of putting themselves out there. Ok, I’ll agree in part – it’s hard for churches to figure out how to get some connected who won’t venture out, and we may not always do it well. But at some point, you either risk or you lose out. That’s how relationships work. The church maybe ought to do better and reaching out, but that’ll only be a part of the equation.

6. Distrust & Misallocation of Resources

Part of me agrees with Eaton here – we do need to encourage frugality. And, there should be a level of transparency. But the level of transparency he calls for would be soul-crushingly oppressive to those who worked in the church. He writes, “We want pain-staking transparency. We want to see on the church homepage a document where we can track every dollar.”  Holy Crap! Well, there goes massive amounts of time and energy! For someone who wants his money to go provide “food, clean water and shelter for someone in need” this is remarkably short sighted. Do the kind of reports he wants on every church’s homepage generate themselves? No, they take time and energy from people who could be better used serving the church and those outside the church.

Part of his solution: church workers should be “asked to justify each purchase.”  Again, Holy Crap! That’s stupid. Kids need more crayons in the nursery…call a meeting to justify the purchase. The toilet is running constantly in the men’s room, call a plumber. Oh no, wait to a have a meeting to justify to the suspicious why we need to purchase a new flapper. Books for small group…justify it.

In addition, he wants staff to ask constantly, “Could these dollars be used to better serve the kingdom?” Two things: first, does he ask this of every dollar he spends, say on his pumpkin spice lattes? How many homeless people could I feed with my fufu drink purchases in a week?  Second, every staff member I know works hard to make dollars count, often contributing their own funds to make events successful, ministries run, etc. 

AND, serving the church is serving the kingdom. Doesn’t he get this!? 

7. We Want to Be Mentored, Not Preached At

Sam contends, “Preaching just doesn’t reach our generation like our parents and grandparents.” Instead, “Millennials crave relationship, to have someone walking beside them through the muck.” Ok, the sermon portion of Sunday services is now cancelled. In its place, cuddle time for the millennials. Everyone, find yourself a millennial and cuddle up.

They want mentoring?! I thought they wanted to be heard? I thought the older generation’s ways just weren’t working?  

Hey, I value relationships, advocate for intergenerational discipleship, but this is a totally false dichotomy. You need preaching  AND discipleship; you need proclamation of truth AND relationships.

You don’t value preaching. So what! Should we rewrite Paul to accommodate what you value?  “Preach the word, until it’s not connecting and some youngings don’t think it’s valuable. Then, do whatever they think is valuable. That’ll be good.”

8. We Want to Feel Valued

Oh wait, we’re back to this one again. I thought this was point one. Ok, but this time IT’S WORSE!!! For one, his whining makes no sense.

We want to be valued, he says. Churches tend to rely heavily on young adults to serve, he contends. And also, “Millennials are told by this world from the second we wake up to the second we take a sleeping pill that we aren’t good enough. We desperately need the church to tell us we are enough, exactly the way we are. No conditions or expectations.”  What? 1 + 1 = 287?  I smell on non sequitur.

And theologically, it’s bulls--t! Millennials, you aren’t enough exactly the way you are. You are a stinky, smelly bag of sin and other nastiness. And, so am I. We’ll accept you, but with “no conditions or expectations”?  We won’t do that. We can’t. If we did that, we wouldn’t be very loving and we would cease to be ‘the church’!  Being a part of the church means accepting conditions, and it comes with a lot of expectations. Thank God there’s grace, because we all fall short of meeting them. But we can’t set them aside for you or your namby-pamby friends.

9. We Want You to Talk to Us About Controversial Issues (Because No One Is)

Now here I need to recognize that I serve in a church where our motto is “we may not have all the answers, but we’re not afraid of the questions.”  I feel like all we talk about sometimes is controversial issues. So, maybe there are churches that refuse to do so.

My biggest problem with this complaint is how he wants to address it. He acknowledges a sermon series on the nitty-grittys of sex may not be appropriate in a church service with kids, “but we have to create a place where someone older is showing us a better way because these topics are the teaching millennials are starving for.”  This from the guy who said shut down the programs unless they are serving the poor. This is a program…in some churches it might be called a Young Adult Sunday School!  The whining circles back on itself to the point where you think he actually means cut every program in the church except the ones I (and my friends) need.   

10. The Public Perception

Well, here I agree. He writes, “It’s time to focus on changing the public perception of the church within the community. The neighbors, the city and the people around our church buildings should be audibly thankful the congregation is part of their neighborhood. We should be serving the crap out of them.” I would suggest a rewording though…I prefer “serving the spit out of them” – alliteration is cool.

The church does have a public perception problem, especially if you carry the label ‘evangelical’. We should work to overcome this and have a “good reputation with outsiders,” so far as it depends on us. The church has always been maligned, even when serving the bejezers out of the community and rescuing newborns from the streets. But, if we’re honest, we certainly have contributed to our own PR problems of late. 

11. Stop Talking About Us (Unless You’re Actually Going to Do Something)

He writes, “words without follow-up are far worse than ignoring us completely…We are scrutinizing every action that follows what you say (because we’re sick of being ignored and listening to broken promises).”  Here’s my promise – I won’t kowtow to your whining. I won’t jettison preaching because you don’t think it reaches you. I won’t jump on your band wagon of slander directed towards Bride of Christ. I will call you out as a wolf who’s leading sheep to turn their back on the lifeboat of the church. Promises. May God find me faithful to keeping them. 

12. You’re Failing to Adapt

Heard you loud and clear. Here we stand, we can do no other. You want us to cease to be the church, to jettison tradition (that we’re called upon to hand down from one generation to another), to devalue what God values. You are right, this generation is “terrifyingly anti-church” – at least, this generation in the West.  You place the blame ENTIRELY on the church. Admittedly, there is sin in the church – we aren’t all we are called to be. But we’re still beautiful…and still embassy of the kingdom of God. 

Maybe – no, certainly, you are to blame as well, with your "it’s all about us and feeling valued" mentality. Why must the church change…why don’t you change! 

His Conclusion

The condescending attitude of his article reaches a peak in his conclusion. He writes, “You see, church leaders, our generation just isn’t interested in playing church anymore.” So, up to now, or at least for the past generation or two, you Christians are just playing church. Now the millennials are here and we want to show you how to do it right. Sam, you’re an arrogant a--hole (and you need to hear it). 

He continues, “It’s obvious you’re not understanding the gravity of the problem at hand and aren’t nearly as alarmed as you should be about the crossroads we’re at.” Uh, no, we get it. GenXers whined too – doom and gloom (I know, I am a GenXer) and we started new churches and services just for them. And we get it, you don’t like church. More, “You’re complacent, irrelevant and approaching extinction.” Umm. No!  The church, is growing worldwide. Maybe the millennials in the U.S. aren’t around much, but that hardly amounts to a threat to extinction!

You know what, the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, I’m not afraid of a bunch of complacent, wussy whiners like you taking it down. There’s plenty of Biblical millennials who are on board with God’s mission AND the church’s role in it!  You do not speak for your generation you little brat. This is not the end. The church will endure continue its kingdom work until Christ returns.

Want to be a part of it?

Sam, we’re only a couple of years apart. I’m about 5 years too old to be a millennial. But we couldn’t be further from each other. I know I’m an asshole, and can be self-centered. Thing is, I don’t expect the church to change itself to accommodate my every whim. Where do you get this right? Oh, are you entitled to it?

I am so glad I work in the church I do because I know for a fact that Sam doesn't speak for an entire generation. There are plenty of millennials involved, working with, serving, and loving the church!  I get to see it every day. Do they see the flaws? Of course, who doesn't. But they know God's mission and that he has a church for his mission, so they're on board, striving to make it as holy, as effective, and as beautiful as they can...without pissing off everyone who's been a part of it for more than they're the past twenty years or so!

Postlude

Not surprisingly, Eaton has received a lot of backlash from ‘angry Christians’ who just don’t want to listen. Hmmm.  For someone as self-focused (listen to me, accommodate me, do it my way), it’s hard to image someone being so self-unaware at the same time. 

Why may his words have sparked anger?

Because they were an attack on the church.

Because he accused previous generations of ‘playing church’.

Because he insinuates we don’t care about the poor.

Because his words read as a threat – do it our way of we’ll kill you off.

Sam, complaining about the anger you stirred up is like a little kid playing with matches mad he burnt his finger. Sorry. Kinda.

Church, Relevancy, and Race

Last week I read a depressing post my Marc5Solas "Top 10 Reasons our Kids Leave Church." I made reference to Reason #10 in my sermon this Sunday, namely, "The Church is Too Relevant."  I encourage you to read the whole post when you have time (especially if you've got kids/teens in the church). I think he points to something important, yet difficult. What do we mean by 'relevant'. If you mean 'understandable' or 'applicable', then of course I think we should be relevant. We shouldn't speak in King James speak, or hide our light under the bushel of inaccessible theological jargon. And we shouldn't leave these wonderful truths unapplied to the real life concerns of people. So 'relevant' in that way is fine. But, the word 'relevant' is often code speak for 'cool' or 'my style'. That's a problem.

The author of the post asks us to consider what this 'posing' and 'fawning' does to our children. If we're trying to make our faith 'cool', but they soon realize it isn't, will it drive them to leave the church? I agree with the author, trying to interest or re-interest our kids in church by making it cool is a colossal mistake.

There's another angle to take on this. Consider what our desire to be relevant will mean for the church as America continues to fragment into more and more subgroups like crazy.  Think about music for a minute. How confusing are the genre selections on Slacker Radio (which I love)?  Not just Rock, Pop, Country, R&B, Hip Hop, Blues, etc.  Under Alternative (my genre of choice) you've got Alternative, Adult Alternative, Classic Alternative, Alternative Hard Rock, Alternative Chill, Punk and Classic Punk, to name a few). No longer is the youth culture broken down into the jocks, nerds and dirtbags (the taxonomy from my high school days). Now there's all kinds of subgroups ... most I have no idea what they mean (yep, I'm out of touch).

Each time we try to make the church cool, we have to pick a subgroup to be cool for: a genre of worship, a style, a look, an ambiance. Well, what's cool for a jock who likes hard rock will be a turn off for a John Deere driving bumpkin from the country who likes Travis Tritt. Going emo probably won't attract all those baby-boomers out there who like their music light and poppy. Etc. etc.

Just being a little Chicken-Littleish? I don't know, consider what being relevant has done to the church racially (what follows is an edited post I wrote in 2010).

The way we do church in America is bound to continue the strong racial divide in our churches and offers little hope of overcoming it. With few exceptions, the divide is profound and troubling. The authors of Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America cite a study by Lincold and Mamiya:
"Seven major black denominations account for more than 80 percent of black religious affiliation in the United States...Moreover, the remaining 15-20 percent of black Christians are scattered among numerous small black sects, the Roman Catholic Church and the mainline white Protestant denominations. The overwhelming majority of the latter are in predominately black congregations, despite denominational affiliation with white communions." (16).

Why are we still so racially segregated on Sunday mornings? Certainly the tensions of the past has something to do with that (and that will come up in my second point). However, I think it probably has more to do with the approach to church and ministry that has been adopted in evangelical community. Going back at least to the 19th century and the revivals referred to as the Second Great Awakening, and even more so in the ministries of men like DL Moody, there were attempts to make church less 'churchy' and more appealing to the non-religious. Sermons were more entertaining (so Billy Sunday might jump up on a pulpit to keep peoples attention), songs were more common (Ira Sankey's tunes), etc. That trend continued, and intensified, in the 'seeker sensitive' movements of the 80-90s (and today). Now, drama's video clips, and contemporary secular music became regular part of Sunday morning worship. Rick Warren describes how he went door to door asking people what they wanted in a church service before planting Saddleback.

Do you see the problem here? Black and White America have very different tastes when it comes to entertainment. It becomes virtually impossible to appeal to both segments of American society through entertainment. Musical expressions are quite different. TV watching trends are also stunningly different. The authors point out that during the 95-96 viewing season, only two of the top twenty shows watched by black viewers cracked the top twenty shows watched by white viewers - Monday Night Football and ER (which as 20 on the list for black viewers and number one among white viewers). The top three shows among black viewers weren't on the radar of white viewers, coming in at 122nd and tied for 124th. What does that mean for the church? Unless someone is willing to set aside their tastes, preferences, etc., an integrated worship experience isn't going to happen. And, unfortunately, nobody seems very willing to do so - witness the worship wars in which one generation of white church goer was/is unwilling to set aside their preference for hymns or praise and worship for the other.

What's the solution? I don't know. Reading the book, however, I am embarrassed by the churches unwillingness to think deeply about it. Maybe the solution is a return to more historic, liturgical, otherworldly forms of worship that would make blacks and white equally uncomfortable. The feel in many churches today is that of a night club or concert arena. In other words, it feels very much a part of 'this world'. Maybe the solution is to embrace the other worldliness of worship, the heavenliness of it. Certainly that would feel foreign to us, to everyone. But is that a bad thing?