Stop Going to Church

No, really. Try not going to church for a month. Stop program involvement, stop weekly committee meetings, whatever it is that promotes busyness at church, try not doing it and see where God leads you. We often stress the importance of our spiritual leaders needing a sabbatical yet we ourselves have a difficult time stepping back and looking at why we do what we do for the church. It's easy to look at outsiders who are trying to fill a void in their life with alcohol, sex, career or money. But it's much more difficult to look at the church and see people doing the same thing all in the name of a good cause. Maybe even, all in the name of Jesus. The Bible says that Jesus would be a stumbling block for some to experience the kingdom of God. But for others, the stumbling block is the church. The modern church has become a place where a person can invest in their entire life and still never really know God...Church becomes a hobby.
Here's a simple test to take. Ask yourself these questions. Have I been transformed? Not, do I know more about the Bible then I did a year ago. Not, am I living a more moral life than I was a year ago. Do you know Jesus better? Do you live a life led by the spirit and not by selfish impulses? Do you go to church week after week, involved in every activity possible, and see no change in your life? I'm not saying to forsake the assembly. I'm simply asking if the church is accomplishing it's purpose in your life-to facilitate spiritual growth. If not, stop going. Stop pretending. Seek God...not the church.

Baptism or Belief?

The community church says that baptism is a public showing of one's belief in Christ. The Churches of Christ say that baptism is the way by which one is saved. The community church makes a fairly big deal about believing in Christ, and makes baptism out to be a fun event that has sign ups (this is obviously a generalization). The Churches of Christ build baptism up to be the end all, and don't talk much about the belief aspect of salvation. What I would like to argue is that "belief" in and of itself, is just as important and necessary as the act of baptism.
When the scriptures are examined, "belief" is accompanied by baptism with few exceptions. In fact, one could argue that Jesus dealt more with belief than he did baptism. The roman centurion wanting Jesus to heal his daughter-Jesus says this, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." The leper, the woman who touched Jesus garment, the men who lowered their friend through the roof to be healed-there are many accounts where people "believed" and were healed! Also, be mindful of the fact that in the first century it was blasphemous to "believe" in a king other than Caesar. That to "believe" in Christ was to risk one's life. To proclaim a personal belief, to change lifestyles to mesh with a certain belief system, to evangelize friends, was to say the Roman government was wrong. Baptism or belief? Both are indispensable equals in talking about salvation.

Addicted to a Rule Book, or Abuser of Grace?

My pride often gets in the way of my own ability to read the scriptures as they are intended-as a change agent for my heart.  So often I read the bible to find some fact there I didn't know or just to appease my conscience.  Here are two major problems with the way many have viewed scripture (including myself).  

First, is the idea that the bible is only a story.  This idea rings true with the younger generation.  It's a compilation of good people, stories, good morals, and a good man.  None of this really means anything however, since we are saved by grace, and seeing how it is only as story, one can live however they please.  Further, we can love Jesus without really adhering to the style of life he calls us to or belonging to a church.  

Conversely, the second, stems from viewing the scriptures themselves as being the thing that saves us.  This view includes all the stories, but puts much more emphasis on the what the words say and how exactly they say it. Further, if we adhere to each one of the laws in the bible properly, we are saved through moral living.

Neither one of these views are correct on their own.  It is only when we view the bible as a story of God's redemptive love (one that knows what's best for us) for his people, both of these views begin to align themselves.  The abusers of God's grace begin to see he has standards, and those addicted to the law begin to see his grace.  When these views align themselves, the word of God truly sets us free.  Free from judgement of others, free from slavery to sin, and free to experience the teachable grace of God.  

7 Things the Church of Christ Needs to Talk More About

1. The Holy Spirit (being more open to its leadership/understanding its functions)
2. Suffering (how to suffer righteously and the proper mindset)
3. Pacifism (examining what Jesus said about war and violence)
4. Apologetics (why we believe what we believe)
5. Nationalism (we are citizens of a kingdom before a nation)
6. Homosexuality (how to deal with/respond to it)
7. Religiousness/Religiosity as an Idol (making church involvement a replacement for spiritual growth)

10 Idols the Church of Christ Needs to Denounce

1. Moral living as holiness
2. Form of our faith is more important than what our faith stands for
3. Attendance to service times held up as a spiritual living standard (as in, only the truly spiritually mature attend every service).
4. Holding up the Bible as a lawbook instead of a story book
5. Physical age equals spiritual maturity
6. Church is the endpoint not Jesus
7. Sunday morning service is somehow different and more important than other meeting times
8. When we say "the church" It doesn't only mean the church of Christ
9. The elitist idea that we are the only ones completely right (as in, some other churches have some parts right but not all)
10. Our church buildings are our property and are some sacred place

Has the Church of Christ Doctrine Become an Idol?

Have we made or been guilty of making right doctrine our idol? Not only right doctrine, but the bible itself?  Has the bible itself, become a law book weighing us down, instead of Good news and a story of redemption? One might not blatantly say that right doctrine is more important that Jesus Christ dying for our sins, but many act as if this holds true.  If we find our identity in the fact that church of christ doctrine is most right, we have made it our idol.  Imagine your faith as a brick wall (Thanks to Rob Bell for the illustration).  Each part of what you believe is a brick.  What if, one of those bricks were taken out?  What if one of those bricks were proved to be untrue?  Your entire wall would crumble.  Instead, our faith should look much more like a trampoline; stretching, bending, changing, expanding, and contracting.  When we make our denominational beliefs ultimate, they become an idol just as disgusting as if it were a physical god that we bow down to.  The only thing that should be ultimate in our lives, and the only thing we should find our identity in, is the fact that Jesus Christ died and saved us, so that we wouldn't have to try and save ourselves (Because God knew we couldn't.  He tried that with Israel and it didn't work).  So the next time you feel a judgmental spirit creeping up inside of you towards another denomination or set of beliefs, ask yourself, "Has being right become my idol?". 

Point Man Leadership: A Shift Towards Trust

Point man leadership will hardly survive in the current paradigm of the church of Christ. With such a high rate of turnover among ministers, congregations being used to the elders controlling everything, and point man leadership being a really big shift in how the current church of Christ operates , it would be a difficult sell to any established church. That being said, it would have to be implemented in a younger church both in physical age of the members and years of establishment. Or, it could be implemented in a "Breakout Church" (as described in Tom Rainer's book, Breakout Churches).

One reason I think appointment leadership would work, is that it puts much of the decision making capability into the hands of the most informed people. Instead of the elders having to spend so much of their excess time, many who have jobs, dealing with issues the staff talks about every day, why not let the staff make the decision? Think about it this way. The church staff is paid to think about logistics issues for 40 hours a week. What happens when the elders must make a logistics decision, is the staff must correctly communicate the pros and cons of said decision to the elders so that they can make the decision. Conversely, point man leadership would require that the elders have complete trust and faith in the preacher they hired to make the right decision. Sure this may seem like a lot of power given to one man, but when there are proper accountability systems in place, this shouldn't be a problem.

Think about all the examples of point man leadership in the Bible. Abraham, Moses, David, Paul... Just to name a few of the big ones. Sure they screwed up, sure they had their fair share of selfish decisions, but God always redeemed them for his purposes. Instead of being "better safe than sorry", let's take some risks and see where God leads the church.

Point-man Leadership

One of the ways we can start thinking about leadership differently in the church of Christ is described as point man leadership. Now, I want to clarify that I am solely dealing with the larger corporate body when I speak of how point man leadership is supposed to work.

Here's the current paradigm (remember, there are always exceptions to every rule). The church hires a preacher and the preacher dictates which programs are implemented and gets a general say it in the vision of the church. The elders are often the main proponent behind the vision of the church, who is hired and fired, and how the finances of the church ultimately work. If you talk to most ministers they would say that change comes very slow in the church of Christ model, and I believe this is one reason why. Anytime a group consists of more than four or five people, coming to a consensus on anything can be a difficult task. Especially, when a matter of doctrine may be at hand. Instead of elders having to deal with program changes, finances, staff hiring and firing, and capital campaigns wouldn't it be much more efficient for the elders to focus solely on relationships and shepherding the church?

So, here's the new paradigm. The preacher is the point man for all leadership decisions. He hires and fires (as he would know the needs of the staff the best), ultimately has a say in where the finances go (specifically dealing with programs), decides whether or not they need a new building, and is responsible for most logistics issues the church deals with. Think about how much time this would free up for the elders of the congregation to work on shepherding the flock. Instead of elders having meetings about whether to spend their money on a new sign, the air conditioning, a new building, a new program, that decision would solely rest with the preacher. Hence, point man leadership. So, in the new paradigm, the elders would still be the leaders of the church shepherding the flock, but they would not have to deal with many of the logistics issues which pull them away from really leading.

What problems, if any, do you see with this?

Baptists and Church of Christ working together...nahhh

Learning from and partnering with other churches outside of our own faith heritage would teach all of us a great lesson in unity (let alone inside our own faith heritage). Sure you might know of a church that partnered with another church to accomplish one or two service projects, or have a 4th of July bash together. However, how many churches do you know that have partnered with another church on a similar mission to accomplish the same goals in their community? Of course some might say it's hard enough as it is to organize one church around a similar goal. But if this succeeded, how much faster could you, say, alleviate poverty in a certain community? Sure you might disagree theologically on different issues, but aren't we all ultimately fighting for the same thing? It was Jesus who said, "For the one who is not against you is for you". If this was truly lived out it could have so many benefits for members of both churches and larger implications for the community.

What initial problems do you see with this? Are the logistical issues just to great or is it just pride?

Suffering for a Different Purpose

For some people suffering is pain.  Notice I didn’t say suffering is painful.  No – for most people suffering is pain. However, most people don’t recognize what they already know and believe.  I say that because the focus of suffering is not pain or any other feeling or emotion.  Rather, the feelings experienced in suffering point beyond the circumstance to something deeper.  At the core of suffering is the loss of something; most people just don’t know that they know this.    

Think about it.  Sickness is the loss of health and suffering enters the equation when the person realizes they have lost the ability to function as they once did.  The suffering is not the sickness; it’s the loss of health that bothers them. Divorce is the loss of a spouse.  Death is the loss of a loved one.  Getting laid off is the loss of financial stability.  Or even simpler, reaching for something in a cabinet when your fingernail catches on the edge of the wood and bends backward till it bleeds is the loss of physical comfort.  Truly, at the core of suffering is a loss of something, either physical, emotional or both. 

Despite all this I believe suffering goes even deeper than the loss of something.  It’s the realization that the control a person thought they had was all a perception.  As a result, suffering becomes not only the loss of something, but, the recognition that you never truly had anything in the first place.  Additionally, no one truly understands suffering or its source or purpose in its entirety and this truth for many leads to a life or cynicism or suicide.  Suffering reminds us that we are victims of whatever life inflicts upon us, whether we invite it or not.  We aren’t really in control.    

Control is a word that carries with it a connotation that is more comforting than true.  Control is a child’s blanket that he must have with him at all times in order to feel secure.  The blanket will not save him from pain or death or illness, but, it’s the illusion of comfort the blanket brings that the child is so attached to.  As a matter of fact, if while the child is wrapped up in his blanket I smash him flat with a sledge hammer wouldn’t the cleanup be easier?  I don’t know – you decide; pray for me and the kid’s family while you’re deciding.  The point I’m making is that worldly comfort is often times a product of the illusion of control.  Suffering reminds us of the very real and disturbing fact that we not only losecontrol, but, that perhaps we never had it in the first place.  Sounds like Paul meant it when he said we’re “destined for suffering.” 

In many ways, humans in general are destined for suffering regardless of who they belong to (themselves or God); we’re all destined to die physically.  Paul however, is settling the possible suspicion that choosing the gospel lifestyle means worldly comforts.  Quite the opposite, choosing Christ means suffering on the earth for those who follow.  How humbling that choosing the gospel lifestyle actually welcomes suffering as well as the constant reminder that the true disciple, as a result of the path chosen, is under the control of the will of God regardless of what His will deems appropriate for their life.  Could God be showing mercy by sending suffering?

Acapella Music...it's so 2007

The last few years, the term "seeker sensitive" has floated around evangelical Christianity.  Essentially, the term refers to the church's ability to accommodate outsiders' feelings, emotions, and basic expectations (about how church is supposed to be).  So, these could be things such as purposefully funny announcements, messages crafted with ultimate care so the non-believer is not offended, secular songs played as an intro to make outsiders feel less out of place, or serving popcorn and coke during service to make you feel like you are at a movie...I think you get the idea.  Now, if you are an active member of the Church of Christ, these are things that you probably aren't to familiar with.  One example of this for us however, is found in the form of our worship-acapella singing.  Here's a few bones I have to pick.

1.  Acapella music is not the only way to worship God...and that's okay.  I love good acapella singing just as much as the next guy, let's just stop making it an issue.  It's getting old.  We're over it.
2.  Stop trying to entice to people into worship by telling them the worship sounds awesome.  What if you're at a congregation full of bad singers or where the worship sounds bad?  Seriously though.  If we put all this weight and importance into worship being a main part of how outsiders experience God, and they never experience God through worship...what then?  "Oops?  God wasn't here today?"  (Side note: Worship is extremely important and is one of the ways I personally experience/connect with a part of God.  However, there are plenty of people that don't connect through God this way.)
3.  I'm all for making worship sound good (praise team, no praise team, band, no band, congregational, buying a nicer sound system,), because when it doesn't, it is distracting to the worshiper.  Who cares if sounds bad to an outsider?  That's not the point.  I hope worship isn't the only avenue we provide for outsiders to connect with/experience/see God's presence in their lives.

Instead of trying to be seeker sensitive in everything we do during corporate worship times, we shouldn't have to apologize for the traditions our faith heritage has chosen to follow.  I realize these thoughts may not change how your Sunday morning service looks at all.  I just hope the church begins to realize that worship of God is for God’s people.  I believe this is a big part of why there are so many nominal Christians in the church.  We have sold people on the idea that inviting your neighbor to church is your only basic duty as a Christian.  What if inviting your neighbor to church was actually the last step in the evangelism process?  Instead of inviting them to church and hoping they have some magical experience, we should learn better how to share our lives with them.

What do you think?  Is there value to be found in being "seeker sensitive" in everything the church does?  

Changing the Conversation

“So, now what?”  “What does all this mean?”  “Where do we go from here?”  I’m not sure this blog is going to answer all of your questions or to give you some sort of road map with step by step instructions as to how I think the church is supposed to look.  What I hope these posts do, is force you to question the long-standing (many man-made) traditions and structure the modern Church has become so comfortable with.  Further, I hope it changes the conversations we are having inside the church.  Many of which are rooted in selfishness, and are petty arguments just to make sure we are more right than the other church down the road. Let's stop worrying about the church and worry about the Kingdom. These next few posts I will give some suggestions that might help us re-examine our ecclesiology.

Body or not...you decide

        I was recently listening to a podcast put on by a Presbyterian seminary.  One of the statements (made of the Presbyterian denomination) that resonated most loudly with me was, “We are a branch of the body of Christ.  Not only do we believe that the we are accountable to one another, we believe churches are accountable to one another.”  How have I never thought of that?  Or anyone else before me for that matter?!  Churches being accountable to one another?  Brilliant!  I learned in high school that the Churches of Christ were not a denomination and were therefore autonomous (meaning we don’t have a central governing body).  Further, I was taught simultaneously that we as individuals needed accountability and that each of us was one part of the body of Christ.  So If each Church of Christ is autonomous, that is, acting on it’s own, how is it that we are a connected body?  It seems to me if you carried the metaphor out, we don’t actually have a head (of course the argument is, that God is the head of each church).  In fact, each church is it’s own head.  So then, you have a body with a bunch of limbs, organs, and muscles each with their own head!  If the parts of your body acted independently from one another, you could still call it a body, but it definitely wouldn’t be a united one.  If each part of your body acted on it’s own, it would not be possible for your body to be used in its full capacity.  It could only do what each part was capable of.

What if each church’s eldership actually benefited from each other?  What if they met once a quarter and prayed for each other?  What if elderships actually held the other accountable to shepherding the congregation instead of micromanaging it?  What if congregations shared prayer requests?  What if churches actually learned from each others mistakes?  What if we lifted each other up in victories and mourned in loss?  All of this sounds great, but it all requires churches to swallow their pride and take a dose of their own medicine.  Preaching accountability from the pulpit becomes a double-edged sword.  Accountability not only for personal growth, but for the entire kingdom.  The autonomy of the churches of Christ has been a blessing just as much as it has a curse.  Only when churches can stop judging others for not having a praise team or having one, band or no band, women serving communion or not, only then can they start actually caring about being one united body.  Obviously this is a generalization and there are plenty of people not bothered by these issues. But, it is often the critics and negative voices who are heard most loudly.  The church of Christ must begin to be characterized by what Christ’s church should stand for...loving God and loving others (Instead of acapella music and petty arguments).  

Missional Renaisance 3 (Re-post)

Here is the third and final shift-A shift from church-based leadership to kingdom-based leadership. This is what I am product of. My mind set recently has been to teach leaders how to lead small groups, get people involved in small groups, and make sure other ministries have enough people to function. All of those things are not bad but when I have neglected teaching them how to be real, spiritual, leaders, I have missed the point. Reggie uses the analogy of a movie director and producer. "Hollywood directors are project managers. They work with all phases and components of filmmaking to produce a movie. They are on the set during every scene. They are in the film lab during editing. They are everywhere. Producers play a different role. They find great stores, recruit talent, raise capital, negotiate with studios, and hire directors to bring ideas to life." You can clearly see the difference. This quote sums it up great. "Directors coach people into church roles to star in the movies the church leaders are making. Producers release missionaries into the movement by helping them create and star in their own movies." We have made church programs the point. Not all church programs are bad. But, when getting the most amount of people involved just to boost our involvement numbers is the point, we have missed the boat. The church needs to become more intentional in training spiritual leaders, not church people organizers. The way the current system functions, we are hoping that people become good spiritual leaders on their own. The church must be intentional about growing spiritual leaders for the kingdom. This requires being held accountable in a number of different ways, being honest about your own personal relationship with Christ and being open with other believers. I'm definitely not saying I have all the answers but I am excited to see where God takes the church in this next season. God bless us as we strive to be his bride.

Missional Renaissance 2 (Re-post)

Shift number 2 is similar to the first one but a bit more specific-Program development to People Development. In my opinion, this may be the most important of the three. For a long time now the church has thought in this paradigm-"Get the largest amount of people we can to be involved with the most programs possible." Here is where this thought process breaks down...it doesn't work. A slew of research in the last few years is proving this is the case. Just because you are more involved than another member, does not mean...one, you are going to grow spiritually, and two, that you will develop relationships that facilitate said growth. Again, I'm not saying great things aren't happening or being accomplished in our programs and that people aren't growing spiritually. But I could almost bet the people that ARE growing spiritually or have deeper relationships are not doing it because of our programs. I also know, the people that ARE involved are BUSIER than the non-involved member. Most of the time church programs are focused on people inside the building organizing as a group and doing something. But you must remember this is outside of the set 3 hours a week we meet anyways. "Bible classes" are included in programs because, in most cases, a good bible class is based on how much information we can impart. The goal and intention is not spiritual growth. We might think it is, but don't most classes boil down to someone flexing their spiritual muscles for the rest of us? The church is in the business of developing spiritual nerds, not disciples.
Now, I don't want criticize without giving a solution. Here's how the scorecard changes.

-Less time "Bible classing" and more time mentoring.
-Less time using "spiritual" gifts we aren't sure we have, to spending time really finding out what those gifts are.
-Less time studying the word, and more time doing it...in the community, not in our building.
-Less time separating the family (youth group, adult bible classes, etc) and more time spent intentionally teaching the family to be a family.

Yes, this all seems so nebulous and intangible, but that in a nutshell is much of Christianity-intangible. Faith, love, trust, humility...you get the point. It is shocking to think we have kept score using everything tangible we can-attendance, involvement, money in the collection plate, all good things, but when they become the point, we have missed the point. Let's change people's hearts intentionally and stop hoping that a well put together Sunday morning will do it for them.

Missional Renaissance Series (Re-post)

Here is where my heart has been for the last few weeks. This book has changed my perspective on how we think about church. Indeed it has done what the subtitle reads-"Changing the Scorecard for the Church". Not that this book is the "end-all" on "how to do church", but the ideas and principles in this book are bigger than any church marketing or evangelism strategy. I firmly believe this is the direction the modern church must move for it survive. Yes...survive. So this week I would like to share with you a few of the principles in Missional Renaissance and offer some hope for the what church should and could look like in future generations.

There are 3 major "Missional Shifts" he talks about. The first one being a shift from internal to external ministry focus. Now, this sounds simple. And most of us would say, "Duh, that is the point of the church". I would wholeheartedly agree with that. But (and it's a big but), when you look at how the modern functions, more specifically, the way ministry is run inside of our churches, I think our actions show a bit differently.
Just to list a few
-3 hour long meetings a week to learn about the bible. We do this while hoping visitors come in and join our little clubs. Then, and only then, will we gladly welcome them with open arms.
-Most of our ministries and ministry leaders are trained to be focused internally. We have trained our leaders to be organizers OF the people in the church FOR the people in the church. (Baby shower ministry, Fellowship ministry, Men's and Women's ministry). All these are good things, but are they for internal or external purposes.
-Many of our Sunday morning worship times become "Which church has a better one, and who can present the gospel in the most creative way." Many times what happens, or doesn't happen, is dictated by the paying members in the pews (more often than not a few well paying club members at that).

I'm not saying that good isn't happening in our churches. I'm not saying that people aren't growing spiritually. But I am saying the present system that is "The church" is not working. With the time that we spend studying what to do, heaven forbid we carve some of that time out to go and do it! Let's stop worrying about how many people ARE in our pews and focus on how many people AREN'T in our pews. I have a lot more to say on this subject, but i think this post is long enough. More to come.

If You're Going to Market...Market People

Worship, of God, has never been for anyone but God’s people.  Worship, until now, was never used as an attractional tool for outsiders (Kind of odd really. "Come watch us worship our God").  We teach and hear lessons on Jesus wanting our hearts and how outward appearance isn’t the point.  Ironically, think how the church has been functioning the last 10-20 years?  Outward appearance.  “Look how good our building looks, how cool our worship service is and how many different styles of worship and classes we offer.”  When I was a minister, most people I talked to “placed membership” because of the people. Sure there are some "Sunday morning only goers" who only care about the Sunday morning experience.  However, the people who want to be active members, are able to overlook many of their personal preferences.  Why?  It was the people they connected with.  So why not capitalize on this? If you are convinced that marketing the church is the way to go, why market your Sunday morning experience times?  If it really is the people who are going to do the connecting for you, why not market them?

Marketing and the Church

I’m pretty tired of getting mailer after mailer from some new church that has just been planted around the corner.  I can guarantee you, with 95% accuracy, what information the mailer is going to have on it before I even look at.  Let me give it my best shot.  

“Hey! We’re the new church around the corner!  Just an ordinary diverse group of people (insert picture of people with mixed ethnicity on the front) seeking God in a really cool new building!  We have an awesome kids playground, x-box for the teens and hip music (insert picture of playground and kids playing x-box, making sure to reinforce they are doing this at church)!  And they can learn about God (We made sure to put God in the last spot in hopes you don’t read that far down).  We also have a new sermon series called “Insert play on words from hip TV show or movie”.  And for the adults, we have relevant teaching, cool music, and a comfortable atmosphere!  And here are our “experience times” just for your convenience!  Come experience God like you never have before!”  

I don’t doubt for one second that the people starting these churches felt called by God to do so, spent hours in prayer, talked to other church planters and planned strategically for months for the church’s launch.  I have no problem with any of this.  In fact, it is all necessary.  The problem I do have is that many new church plants neglect one critical question.  “Is this the only and most effective way to plant a church?  How churches are being planted right now are directly in line with culture standards.  In fact, the goal of many church’s Sunday morning “experience” is to make people feel as if they aren’t in church at all!  Make them feel comfortable, and then slip some God talk in with their coffee.  Start with a secular song, have a comedian do a short set, have a really energetic guy do announcements (make sure he’s funny) and make the sermon title as culturally relevant as possible.  These aspects accomplish one thing-they make you feel good.  The reality is, I have gone to church my whole life, have attended many of these community churches, and I still feel as uneasy as I imagine many outsiders do.  Not only are many of these new community churches getting their cues directly from culture, they also come from books on church planting which are all based on the models of mega-churches.  The statement of the mega-church model is this: “If you want your church to look like that one (a numerically successful church), then you better have the same elements.”

It’s kind of sickening to me that marketing and the church are synonymous at all.  Here’s my experience with marketing.  Great ads (TV, radio, Internet, etc...) are catchy.  I’ve researched few products based on a catchy ads.  However, that’s all they are-cool, culturally relevant and catchy.  Something that solves a problem or seeks to fill a void in your life that you don’t really need anyway.  Pair this cultural norm with the church and you wreak havoc on the true message of the gospel.  Through the means of marketing, Christianity becomes some watered down, catchy ad.  “If we say just the right thing, or hit just the right nerve with some graphically appealing, thought out mailer, we can get them in the door.”  The church has bought in to the cultural lie of consumerism.  In Sky Jethani’s great book, The Divine Commodity, he says this.
 

Manufacturing experiences and meticulously controlling staged environments become the means for advancing Christ’s mission.  And the role of the pastor, once imagined as a shepherd tending a flock, now conjures images of a circus ringmaster shouting, “Come one, come all, to the greatest show on earth!”  In Consumer Christianity, the shepherd becomes a showman.”

This is what the church is marketing.  Some great experience you will have once you get in the doors where, apparently, God finally shows up.  We’ve watered down the real power of the transformative, personal gospel.  Where the irony is the greatest to me however, is in the fact that many pastors and Christians would agree with much of what I believe.  They say, “Yes it is a personal gospel, one of which everyone is a minister.”  The problem however, lies in how the church continues to be perceived by outsiders-A social club that wants you to drink their Kool-aid.