Restoring Kingdom Builders

Last Sunday was Easter.

My wife and I arose before dawn and left the house at 6:20 am so we could arrive early for the 7:00 service at a local megachurch.

The service ended around 8:10, and as we got in the car to go out for breakfast, I wondered, “What just happened in that service?”

There was nothing heretical … nothing sensational … nothing offensive … nothing unusual … but nothing memorable, either.  In fact, the message – on Easter – barely touched on Christ’s resurrection.

I’m a pastor’s kid.  I grew up in churches that had the same order of service every week.  The hymn titles and the pastor’s message title changed from week to week, but that was about it.

Services were entirely predictable.  We sang all the stanzas of every hymn.  The pastoral prayer was around ten minutes long.  The choir sang an anthem while dressed in robes.  A public invitation ended every service.

I don’t want to return to that kind of service … but right now, I’m wondering why the worship in all too many churches has become stale … boring … and even predictable.

I sense by voicing my thoughts that I’m on somewhat dangerous ground, but I’ll forge ahead anyway … and I am not aiming this article at any church in particular because where I live, most churches are doing the exact same kind of service.

I have four questions about contemporary worship as I see it practiced in a great majority of churches today:

First, why do most contemporary worship services consist only of praise songs and preaching?

There is a strain of thinking practiced among Christian churches today that says that worship = music.

Want proof?

We call the staff member who leads the singing of praise music the “worship director.”

And when the worship director is standing before the congregation, he will often say something like, “Now let’s worship God.”  And then we’re all expected to sing … and only sing.

Where do we find this thinking in the New Testament?

The Four Gospels record only one incident where Jesus and His disciples sang: after the Last Supper.

Jesus didn’t hold any worship workshops … encourage His disciples to close their eyes and sing to the Father … or even teach them how to sing.

In fact, Jesus never emphasized singing at all.

And when Jesus told the woman at the well that “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), do you think that Jesus was referring to singing praise songs when He mentioned “worship?”

I don’t think so … but that’s how we use the term today.

In fact, we don’t have even one example of a Sunday morning worship service in the New Testament, and the only service that’s mentioned occurs in Acts 20:7-12 when Paul visited Troas.

That text mentions a service held in the evening … featuring the Lord’s Supper … a long sermon by Paul … and the resuscitation of Eutychus … but nothing about singing.

I’m sure they did sing, but it certainly wasn’t emphasized by Luke.

Another text that mentions worship elements in the New Testament is 1 Corinthians 14:26, where Paul writes, “When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.  All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.”

Paul does mention music … and I’m glad he does … but he also mentions other service elements … and intimates that many members of the congregation brought their own experiences about the Lord to share during their worship times.

I miss service elements like Scripture reading … a pastoral prayer … participatory praying … personal testimonies … performance music … and even creative videos.

My wife and I attended an impactful church in the Phoenix area several years ago, and they changed the elements and order every service.  Sometimes we had a live or video testimony.  Sometimes the pastor interviewed an expert on an issue.  Sometimes a group in the church gave a special report about a mission trip they had just taken.

And we almost always had one or two performance songs every Sunday.

But in most churches, it’s like someone took a giant broom and swept every other element out of our services … except congregational singing and preaching.

When was that vote taken?

Second, why must we sing certain songs over and over and over again?

My guess is that I’m in the minority with what I’m about to write, but I’ll say it anyway.

I am weary of singing praise and worship songs seven times … or for ten minutes … as if singing the same words repeatedly somehow brings us closer to God.

Where in Scripture do we find this idea?

When I grew up in church, we sang three, four, or five stanzas of some hymns … often with a chorus tacked on at the end … but we finished those songs in two or three minutes.

But now, the trend is to see how long we can squeeze the life out of each song … which is, in my view, why so many believers aren’t singing anymore.

I remember when the praise songs from Calvary Chapel were first introduced into churches back in the 1970s.  We’d sing a chorus like “Behold, Bless Ye the Lord” twice, and some people would complain we were guilty of “vain repetition.”

What would they think now?

What is to be gained by singing a song multiple times?

Is it guaranteed to bring us closer to God?  Obviously not.

Are we singing until we “feel” something that we equate with God’s presence?

Probably.

I know this repetition works with some people … but it doesn’t work with everybody.

But why is it that only singing will produce the desired effect?

Wouldn’t reading Scripture also make us feel closer to God?

Wouldn’t longer prayers also make us feel closer to God?

Why have we elevated singing to a place that it doesn’t seem have in the New Testament?

Let me ask another question:

Why must the singing time go so long … often for at least thirty minutes?

My wife and I sang several hymns in the car on our way home from last Sunday’s service, and after several minutes, I couldn’t sing anymore because I was straining my voice.

My guess is that many believers feel like I did.  They would like to sing for an extended period of time, but their voice just can’t handle it.

But how often does the worship leader notice that the great majority of the people aren’t singing?

He doesn’t notice because his eyes are closed.  And this leads me to ask …

Third, why does the worship leader close his eyes during all or most of the “worship set?”

I have never understood this.

If you close your eyes while singing, does that mean you’re singing just for God … that you’re blocking out everything around you?

This is how many people view singing in church.  You can sense God’s presence better with your eyes closed.

That’s fine if you’re sitting in a pew.  But what if you’re the worship leader?

Imagine that your pastor gets up to preach and closes his eyes during his sermon.  When asked why he does that, he says that it helps him to become closer to God.

But if a pastor preaches with his eyes shut, how can he adjust his message to the needs of his hearers?

What if some aren’t listening?  What if they’re nodding off?  Shouldn’t he know that and accelerate his pace … or cut out some material … or tell a story … or do something to get people to listen better?

By the same token, how can a worship leader make adjustments during a time of singing if he’s not aware of what’s going on with the congregation?

Last Sunday, the worship leader at the church I attended for Easter never opened his eyes for 30 minutes … unless he was peeking.

How did he know we were singing without looking at our mouths?  With a monitor in his ear, I’m not sure that he knew one way or the other … but he was going to plow ahead regardless.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t close our eyes from time to time during singing.  It’s a great way to block out the world around us and focus on God.

But if you’re the worship leader, isn’t your job to mediate worship between the congregation and the Lord?  How can you do that if your eyes are continually closed?

Finally, why have so many churches given worship leaders so much power?

Many years ago, I was on the staff of a church, and a young man from the congregation came home from seminary and asked if he could preach.  The pastor said yes … he could preach on a Sunday evening.

The young man stood in front of the congregation where he grew up and blasted the people because he now knew how to worship … and they did not.

He came off as ungrateful … arrogant … condescending … and self-righteous.

I see this same attitude in all too many “worship leaders” today: they know how to worship … and most of the congregation does not.

So it’s their job to teach them.  This includes:

*Singing for at least 30 minutes

*Singing with your eyes closed

*Singing the same song over and over

*Singing until you feel “something”

But in the process, these worship leaders equate worship almost exclusively with music and avoid using elements other than music during the “worship time.”

For example, why should we sing for thirty minutes rather than sing for ten … pray for ten … and read Scripture for ten?

Why fill the entire 30 minutes with music?

And why do we all need to stand during those 30 minutes?  (That’s fine when you’re younger, but as people age, it’s harder and harder to stand still for long periods of time … especially when you’re expected to stand with your eyes closed!)

And in many churches, why is the music volume so loud?  If the worship time is for God … as many worship leaders claim … does the Lord have a hearing problem?

Could it be that the worship director has been given 30 minutes to fill and that he would prefer to fill it with just music?

And let me ask the most subversive question of all:

Since the New Testament is filled with sermons … and prayers … and exhortations to prayer … but says little about music except in the Book of Revelation (when the singing is confined to heaven) … why do so many churches sing for 29 minutes and pray for just one?

The cynical part of me believes that pastors hire “worship” directors so the pastor can delegate those first 30 minutes to someone without having to be involved in the planning himself.  “You take the first 30 minutes; I’ll handle the sermon.”

But the even more cynical part of me believes that those worship directors want to justify their importance by making everyone sing for those entire 30 minutes … because music sells better than prayers and other elements … because many people want to “feel” something during the service … and maybe, in some cases, because the singing time puts the worship director front and center.

But while many people may indeed feel something during today’s worship services, I remain unconvinced that those feelings are resulting in lives of greater holiness and service.

I once knew a young man who led an immoral lifestyle.  He came to our church and tried to hit on various women.  He left before we ordered him off the campus.  One night, I started watching a time of singing from a local megachurch on television, and guess who was in the front row … with his eyes closed and hands raised to heaven?

He may have looked spiritual, but he was anything but.

After 36 years in church ministry as a pastor, maybe I’ve become cranky.  I certainly hope not.

But now that I’m no longer planning worship services or preaching, I’m looking at matters through more objective eyes, and my mind is filled with all kinds of questions.

Where am I going right?  Where am I wrong?

I value your thoughts.

Read Full Post »

My heart hurts … and it’s hurt for some time.

Over what?

Over the increasingly rare teaching about holiness in Christian churches.

Holiness is a major theme in Scripture.  1 Peter 1:15-16 puts it succinctly:

“But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do, for it is written, ‘Be holy, because I am holy.'”

I resonate with the praise song that says, “Holiness, holiness, is what I long for; holiness is what I need …”

In fact, the holiness of God is essential, because it’s the basis for Christian morality … and happiness.

The argument goes like this:

*There is only one God.

*The character of that one God is holy, meaning He is set apart from sin and too pure to look upon evil.

*God’s holiness demands that He punish sin, but Jesus took our place on the cross and paid for our sins.

*When an unbeliever receives Jesus, that person is given the gift of God’s Holy Spirit.

*The Spirit’s job is to transform an unholy person into a holy person, a process called sanctification.

*To become sanctified, a believer needs The Holy Bible, The Holy Spirit, and The Holy Church … all gifts from The Holy Trinity.

For a follower of Jesus, the basis for morality is not my parents … my friends … my school … my television … my music … my Twitter … my feelings … or my culture.

The basis for morality for a Christian is the holy character of God.

God’s character is unchangeable.

God’s requirements are unchangeable.

God’s expectations are unchangeable.

Even when my parents … friends … social media … feelings … and culture change, God doesn’t change.

And because God doesn’t change, my behavior needs to conform to His holy character, not to the culture around me.

But from what I’m hearing and reading these days, most Christians cannot answer this simple question:

What is the basis of morality for a Christian?

The most common answer would probably be, “The Bible,” but that’s not the best answer.

The basis for morality is God’s holy character as revealed in Scripture.

So Christian morality is rooted in God’s holiness as taught in His Word.

But when is the last time you heard that truth preached?

As I visit Christian churches, I’m hard pressed to hear the words “holy” or “holiness” mentioned anymore.

We no longer say “Holy Bible” … only “The Bible” or “The Word.”

We increasingly refer to “The Spirit” rather than “The Holy Spirit.”  (But isn’t the primary job of the Holy Spirit to make God’s people holy?)

We rarely say “Holy Communion” anymore … just “The Lord’s Supper.”

The word “holy” is slowly being dropped from Christian vocabulary.  Is it intentional?

It may be for some, but I believe that most Christians now think that the whole idea of holiness has become irrelevant.

Most pastors love to emphasize that God is love … so we should be loving, too … but find it difficult to say that God is also holy … and that means we need to be holy as well.

But He’s not just loving or holy … He’s both.

And God’s people need to be both loving and holy as well.

Why the de-emphasis on God’s holy character and our holy living?

Because it doesn’t sell anymore.  Pastors know that if they stress God’s love, people may continue to attend churches, but if pastors highlight God’s holiness, many will walk out the back door and never return.

But isn’t this really the problem?

Last Sunday, I heard an excellent message from John 12:37-50 at the church that my son and his family attend.

John 12:42 says that many of the Pharisees believed in Jesus privately, but they didn’t want to make their belief public “for they loved praise from men more than praise from God” (John 12:43).

Like the Pharisees, pastors like praise from men, but Jesus’ church needs pastors who desire praise from God even more … and that means dealing with unpopular issues in a loving but truthful manner.

There were times as a pastor when I got up to preach and knew that my message would not be well-received.  Those were usually the times when I was preaching on an issue where biblical teaching clearly clashed with cultural preferences.

But it wasn’t my job to take a poll, see how people felt about an issue, and then tell them what they wanted to hear.  No, it was my job to faithfully exegete God’s Word, explain it clearly, and relate it to contemporary life even if people left the church.  (But they rarely did.)

Let me briefly illustrate what happens in churches when pastors preach God’s holiness faithfully.

I grew up in a church where I had two different male Sunday School teachers in ninth grade.  As it turned out, both men slept with the same married woman, and when it was discovered, three families left the church.

Only later did I discover that the church was full of sexual immorality among the adults.

How could this happen in a fundamentalist, Bible-believing church?

In my view, it’s because the church’s founding pastor … whose marriage was rocky … slept with multiple women over time.

There were so many women involved that the news of his exploits was bound to get around the church … quite possibly “giving permission” for others to emulate his behavior.

But besides that pastor’s poor example, I never heard him preach on sexual issues.  He didn’t tell us what Scripture said about sex (good or bad) … he didn’t tell us anything about sexual boundaries … and he never discussed the consequences of sex outside of marriage.

So even though we had a Bible-believing church, the congregation was not receiving biblical teaching on sexual behavior … so everyone did what was right in their own eyes.

I have never been in a church that was so full of perversions.

This is where many Christian churches are at today.  In an attempt to keep people coming … and giving … all too many pastors are either avoiding what Scripture is saying about sexual matters, or they are redefining what is right and what is wrong.  (And maybe, just maybe, they’re avoiding certain issues due to their own personal struggles.)

In the process, are our churches becoming more holy or less holy?

I certainly don’t think they’re becoming more holy.

By contrast, let me share what happened to me the last time I preached on a sexual issue.

I was preaching on sex inside marriage from 1 Corinthians 7:1-5.  I emphasized that sex was a good gift from a gracious God but that God commanded that sex only be practiced inside a monogamous heterosexual relationship.

In the process, I emphasized some practices that would enhance a married couple’s sex life, and some practices that would harm their sex life.  It was all very PG stuff.

Several people whose opinions I valued commended me for my strong words after the service, but one of the seniors called and told me that the entire seniors group would be boycotting the rest of the series because they didn’t like what I said about sex inside marriage!

Of course, I didn’t want the seniors or anybody else to boycott my preaching, but I felt then … and still feel now … that we pastors need to be specific about what God expects from His people in Scripture.

But after visiting scores of churches over the past few years, I’m just not hearing much … if any … emphasis on holy living.

To test my theory, I asked my wife several days ago, “Can you tell me the last time you heard a pastor say that Scripture says that sex before marriage is wrong?”

She couldn’t recall a single instance.

Because I was listening for it, I did.  The last time I heard a pastor say that sex before marriage is wrong … which includes couples who live together … was more than three years ago at a church we attended near Phoenix.  (And the church was growing like crazy.)

Because pastors are avoiding the tough topics … especially involving sex … people are being instructed almost exclusively by the culture, and many of our cultural spokesmen believe that “anyone can have sex with anyone at any time for any reason.”

I don’t mean to harp on sexual practices alone while discussing holiness.  I could make a similar case for the immorality of lying and stealing and other misbehaviors.

But please do me a favor.  Over the next few weeks (and next week is widely known in Christian circles as Holy Week), please listen to your pastor preach … and listen for the words “holy,” “holiness,” and any other terms that convey the same meaning.

Write and let me know what you’re hearing … or not hearing.

Because I hope I’m wrong.

Read Full Post »

Last Sunday, when I listened to the Word of God being preached, I felt nothing.

Before you judge me as a heartless heretic, let me explain.

My wife and I decided to visit a nearby church that met in a school just to check it out.  The pastor was away and someone spoke in his place.

The speaker based his message on Psalm 78 and talked about the importance of passing our Christian faith onto the next generation.  Well and good.

During his entire 50-minute sermon, he spoke positively … pleasantly … and peacefully.  He smiled a lot, and kept encouraging us to read our Bibles.

But something about his message was missing, and I couldn’t put my finger on it.

After the service, as my wife and I were walking to our car, it hit me.

I remembered a story that the great Welsh preacher D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones once told.  He was attending a conference where various preachers were expounding the Word of God.  During one message, the person sitting next to Lloyd-Jones leaned over to him and said, “Heat without light.”  During the next message, that same person observed, “Light without heat.”

Some preachers excel in producing “heat without light.”  They get all worked up during their sermon but offer little insight about Scripture or life.

But to me, the great majority of preachers that I hear today fall into the “light without heat” category.  Even if they have something important and insightful to say, they just don’t seem to be very passionate about it.

If the preacher isn’t moved by the truth, then how can the congregation be moved?

Maybe I’m wrong, but all too often, the preaching I hear in my community is devoid of emotion.

Let me offer three examples:

I’d love to hear preachers demonstrate more righteous anger.  There is so much in the world and in the church that’s wrong, and sometimes I think I’m the only person around who becomes vexed by corrupt politicians or deceitful clergy.  While I know I’m not the only believer who feels strongly about corporate and personal wrongdoing, I would welcome hearing stronger words directed against the destructive effects of sinfulness … not careless condemnations, but careful warnings.

Jesus certainly exhibited righteous anger when He taught, especially when He was dealing with the Pharisees, who gave Him a lot of material to work with.  Jesus wasn’t always a nice guy when He spoke, and I seriously doubt if the Christian faith would have spread throughout the ancient world if His message could be reduced to, “Let’s be nice to everybody.”

Sometimes when I preached, I’d feel a surge of righteous anger come upon me when I was expounding a specific text, and I had to make a split-second judgment call as to whether I was going to restrain that urge or unleash it.  If I did let it fly, most of the time, those brief rants ended up being the most impactful – and memorable – part of the message.

Maybe it’s just me, but from time-to-time, a pastor’s preaching needs to be a bit edgy.  It’s good for the soul.

I’d love to hear preachers demonstrate genuine sadness.  I grew up listening to preachers who seemed to be able to manufacture tears on a dime, and I promised myself that I was never going to manipulate a congregation by crying all the time.  But looking back, I could have … and probably should have … let the tears flow once in a while.

Jesus publicly wept outside the tomb of Lazarus.  He lamented the coming destruction of Jerusalem within earshot of His disciples.  Even though He was the Son of God, Jesus didn’t cover up His humanity while ministering in public.  He let the tears come.

I’m sure that I’ve shed tears during one of the multitude of sermons I’ve heard over the past few years … but I can’t remember any specific occasion … which speaks volumes about how rare it is to hear a preacher shed tears anymore.

And this makes me wonder: how much does the preacher really care?

I’d love to hear preachers demonstrate more vulnerability.  Have you ever watched Star Trek: The Next Generation?  (I missed watching the original Star Trek so this example will have to do.)  Data, the android, looks human but is incapable of feeling human emotions.  His inability to feel means that he often can’t connect with the humans he works with.

Sometimes I wonder why so many preachers just don’t connect with their listeners.

Many of us … myself included … connect best with preachers who are vulnerable … who don’t just tell us what that they’re thinking but how they’re feeling … even if those feelings aren’t always EC (ecclesiastically correct).

I don’t want to hear an android or an angel preach.

I want to hear a sinner saved by God’s grace who lets us know that he’s been tempted … battered … doubtful … depressed … betrayed … abandoned … and weary … yet continually relies upon the grace of God to see him through.

Several years ago, my wife and I attended a worship service at a large church we passed all the time.  The church’s practices made us a bit uncomfortable that Sunday, but I loved the pastor’s message.

Near the end, he openly questioned whether he should tell us his story, then decided to drop his mask and tell us that he had left the mission field in Africa because of severe depression … and it took a long time for him to recover.

It was moving.  It was real.  It connected.  He had our full attention.

And thank God, we knew that we were alive because we could feel something during the sermon.

There is an ethos among too many Christian leaders that says, “Hide your emotions.  Never show anger.  Hold the tears back.  Always appear strong.  Give them the Word … just don’t give them yourself.”

I hate that ethos.

Especially when it comes to preaching.

Read Full Post »

Imagine that you have a friend who is married and has two kids.

She’s been struggling with her marriage, and one day, she tells you that she and her husband have separated.

She proceeds to tell you – in great detail – why her husband is 100% to blame for their failed relationship and why she has done everything right … and nothing wrong.

You want to support your friend … to listen to her pain, and be a safe person, and gently offer her advice … but you also know that she’s responsible for at least some of the problems in her marriage.

Here’s your dilemma:

Do you become so empathetic that you side with her completely?  (“You should never have married him, he’s a selfish pig, and you deserve full custody of the children.”)

Or do you share with her biblical principles of marriage?  (“Marriage is for life, you lack biblical grounds for divorce, and the right counselor could help you both rekindle your old flame.”)

As a pastor, I actually relished most forms of counseling … all except marriage counseling.  I discovered that:

*I rarely sensed I was getting the real story from either partner until the third or fifth or seventh session … by which time one or both of them had already quit.   

*I couldn’t watch their real-life interaction at home (like Jo, the British nanny, did with parent-child situations on TV).

*I sometimes suspected that one partner was mostly responsible for the mess … until I spoke with the other partner. 

*I couldn’t form an alliance with either one … I had to be on the side of their marriage instead.

Now let’s apply these ideas to conflicts at church.

*It’s hard to get the real story about a conflict at times.  If you talk to the pastor, you’ll get one story … and if you talk to the pastor’s detractors, you’ll hear another story.

It’s okay to remain friends with one or both parties during a conflict.  Just realize that if you only hear one side, you’ve chosen friends over principles … and when you do that, you’ve lost all objectivity.

*It’s unlikely you’ll be able to watch any real life interaction between the pastor and his detractors.  Most conflicts happen behind closed doors during board meetings or staff meetings … or after those meetings in parking lots or corners of the church campus. 

Most people – especially church leaders – are on their best behavior in public.

Because you can’t witness any conflicts yourself, be careful about publicly taking sides just because one party is a better friend than the other.  You can’t be 100% certain you know what’s happening.

*Be careful about blaming everything on one party … usually the one you like least. 

This is a trap.

I have been a Los Angeles Lakers fan for almost 50 years.  While I deplore their recent trend toward thuggery, I remain a loyal adherent of the team.

Sometimes I’ll watch a game, and I’ll see a player on the Lakers take an elbow or a punch from an opposing player … and my first reaction is, “Throw that guy out, ref!”

Then the TV people show the replay, and I’ll notice that my guy threw the first elbow, or pushed his opponent hard, or was guilty of a flagrant foul … or flopped unnecessarily.

I love my team, but come on … sometimes both parties are guilty … although one may bear more responsibility than the other.

Wouldn’t it be great to have instant replay in church settings?

*Instead of backing one party 100%, isn’t it better to be on the side of truth and righteousness?

So let’s say you’re in a church, and a conflict breaks out between the pastor and a small group of detractors.

Resolve that:

*because you don’t know the full story, and …

*you can’t witness their interactions (or lack thereof) …

*you won’t blame the conflict totally on one party, and …

*you will lobby for the truth to emerge and for righteousness to prevail.

If someone tries to draft you to be on their side in a conflict, simply state:

“I love all the parties involved and wish them well.  But I really don’t know the full truth about this conflict, so I’m not going to take sides at this time.  Instead, I will take the side of truth and righteousness, and I will suspend final judgment until I have all the facts.”

We all want to be loyal companions, but sometimes … as Jesus reminds us … we need to risk appearing disloyal to our loved ones so we can be loyal to greater principles.

I once witnessed a major conflict involving a pastor where sides were quickly chosen up.  You were either for the pastor or against him … there was no middle ground. 

I did my best to point people to biblical truth during the whole sad situation.  While I had feelings about what was happening, I tried to be an advocate for higher principles … even though some of my friends wanted me to take their side.

Once we choose sides, we want to win … and we want the other side to lose.

There are times when one side is clearly in the wrong and the other is clearly in the right … but even then, we want to make decisions on the basis of principles, not personalities.

How do you feel about this issue?

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Three little boys were arguing over whose father was the richest.  The first boy said, “My dad is the richest because he owns the biggest farm in the county.”  The second boy said, “That’s nothing!  My dad is the richest because he owns the biggest bank in town.”  Then they both turned to the third boy and said, “Bet your dad doesn’t own anything because he’s a pastor.”  The minister’s son replied, “Oh yeah?  My dad owns something bigger than a farm or a bank.  He owns hell.”  The other boys laughed and said, “That’s crazy!  How do you know your dad owns hell?”  The PK replied, “When my dad came home from church last night,  I heard him tell Mom that the board gave him hell!”

Just like that pastor’s kid, most churchgoers have no idea what really goes on behind-the-scenes at the average church.  What really happens in meetings of the board and staff?  How many decisions are really made on the basis of Scripture and prayer?  How do the key leaders really behave when they’re immersed in a crisis?

When I first joined a church staff – and later when I became a pastor – I was horrified at how many decisions in a church were made on the basis of politics, pure and simple.  I was shocked because I thought Christian leaders would make spiritual decisions rather than political ones.  While I have been in churches where the leaders truly “walked the walk” in every situation, I have also been in churches where the leaders seem to forget they’re in a church.

The best illustration in the Bible of politics in action occurs when the Sanhedrin sent Jesus to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor.  Let me share with you five political strategies that Pilate used that I have seen used in local churches:

First, politicians succumb to outside pressure.  When Jesus was first brought before Pilate, the Jewish leaders accused Him of “subverting our nation.  He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king” (Luke 23:2).  In other words, Jesus was accused of trying to overthrow Rome.  But after Pilate initially questioned Jesus, he told His accusers, “I find no basis for a charge against this man” (Luke 23:4).  And yet, when Jesus’ countrymen continued to accuse Him of stirring up the people, Pilate lost his nerve and backed down.

In my first pastorate, the board chairman asked me to take action over a theological issue involving two of his family members.  After I researched the issue, I presented relevant materials to the board in a three-hour meeting, after which we made a unanimous decision.  When I tried to explain our decision to the family members, they threatened to leave the church and demanded a personal apology.  When I asked the board for support, they flipped on me and told me to apologize, but I refused.  (I’d like to say it’s because of divine courage but it could also be because of my stubborn Germany ancestry.)  I reminded them that we had made a decision together based on Scripture, but that didn’t matter to them. 

While politicians wilt when pressured, spiritual leaders stand strong.  

Second, politicians avoid the tough calls.  Dr. Luke tells us that when Pilate heard that Jesus was a Galilean, he sent Jesus to see the ruler of Galilee, King Herod, who was visiting the Holy City for Passover.  Pilate hoped that Herod would make a decision about Jesus’ fate that would take the Roman governor off the hook, but Herod merely ridiculed Jesus and sent him back to Pilate.

I once stumbled upon some inappropriate material on the social networking site of an important  person in my church.  I consulted with that person’s supervisor who promised to address the issue, but months later, the objectionable material was still there. 

While a politician prefers not to confront a friend, a spiritual leader seeks that person’s repentance and restoration. 

Third, politicians scapegoat innocent people.  Which crimes had Jesus commited against Rome?  He hadn’t committed any.  Pilate twice confessed that Jesus was innocent of all the charges hurled His way (Luke 23:4, 14), but instead of exonerating and then releasing Him, Pilate decided to punish Jesus (by beating) before releasing Him.  Why?  This is what His vocal constituents demanded even though Jesus was blameless before the law.  Rather than declaring Jesus completely innocent, Pilate declared Jesus partly innocent.

I’ll write more about this story another time, but I know a church where the pastor resigned because a member of his family was accused of a crime they didn’t commit.  No one in that church moved a finger to right the wrong – until the new pastor came.  When he heard the truth, he arranged for the former pastor to return to the church.  In public, those who falsely accused the pastor admitted their error, the church asked his forgiveness for permitting a grave injustice, and the pastor and church experienced a liberating reconciliation that allowed both parties to move on with God’s blessing. 

While politicians apportion blame for conflicts indiscriminately, spiritual leaders apportion blame accurately. 

Fourth, politicians don’t seek divine wisdom.  With the Sanhedrin breathing down his neck, Pilate did not seek guidance from Scripture, or a prophet, or prayer.  God tried to speak to him through a dream that He gave Pilate’s wife (Matthew 27:19), but Pilate brushed off the message.  He was used to making unilateral decisions based on Roman interests + common sense, but both of those touchstones failed him at this juncture.  Had he only looked above instead of around … history might have judged him differently.

You might not like this, but I have been in scores of board meetings where the board members – who have been chosen primarily because of their walk with God – never even consider consulting God when they get stuck on an issue.  They don’t quote Scripture or turn to key passages.  They don’t stop the meeting to consult with the Lord in prayer.  I have even been in meetings where the meeting wasn’t opened with prayer.  It’s like the Lord isn’t even there.  Board members just discuss issues using worldly wisdom but never truly seek the Lord’s mind on anything. 

While politicians consult exclusively with their peers or constituents, spiritual leaders initially seek the Lord’s face on everything.

Finally, politicians want to look good.  They care more about their image than their character.  They care more about how they appear to others than how they appear to God.  John makes a profound statement about many of the Jewish leaders who believed in Jesus but would not confess Him openly: “For they loved praise from men more than praise from God” (John 12:43).  

Stuart Briscoe from Elmbrook Church in Wisconsin is one of my all-time favorite preachers.  I once heard him make this simple but profound observation: “Most people want to feel good and look good.  They don’t want to be good and do good.” 

While politicians are primarily concerned with feeling good and looking good so they can be re-elected, spiritual leaders care more about being good and doing good – even if that means they’re one-termers. 

If we’re serious about wanting God’s blessing on our churches, if we truly wish to obey God’s Word, if we want to impact our communities for Jesus, if we want to see revival in our time – then we need to stop making decisions in our churches purely on the basis of politics and start making decisions on the basis of righteousness.

I dare you to try it.  In fact, I double dog dare you.

Read Full Post »