Pastor and author Carey Nieuwhof wrote this recently, “Much of the church’s outreach over the last 60 years has been based on a few assumptions that are less and less true every year.” He lists three assumptions that are no longer true. They illustrate what it looks like as we move from an era of Christendom to a post-Christian society.
o Young adults will return to church when they have kids. First of all, they're having fewer kids (or none at all). Second, when they do have kids, church is one activity among many (soccer, dance, tutoring, etc.). o People will turn to God when they hit a crisis. If they hit a crisis, they might turn to God. And if they do turn to God, they don't look to the church. Among younger generations especially, there is a distinct separation between the church and God. o Most people will come back to what they left when they were young. We now have people who are 2nd or 3rd generation unchurched. They have nothing to go back to because they were never there. For decades, we've built our church programming around these assumptions. What happens when these assumptions are no longer true? Are we building ministry around a people who no longer exist (or are a rare minority)? What does it look like to build ministry around the existing reality?
1 Comment
For the first time in U.S. history, there were more recorded deaths than births among white Americans in 2012, according to a new analysis of Census Bureau data. The difference was tiny - 12,400 more deaths among non-Hispanic whites than births - but marked a demographic turning point, as the white population shrinks. A man once asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?" (Luke 10:29). For us Americans, the answer is a tapestry of color and culture. Our country is far from a monolithic demographic. On the one hand, there is great challenge to living out Jesus' Great Commandment in our diverse society. On the other hand it's simple, for love transcends color and culture.
One question is, "Who is my neighbor?" Another question is, "Who isn't?" Someone recently asked me, "What makes for a happy life?" The very question itself bothered me. I've always been agitated by the "pursuit of happiness." I know that sounds un-American, but is our life's end all about being happy? Am I a boring curmudgeon or a Debbie Downer for not being a fan of "happiness?"
I felt vindicated upon reading this article from The Atlantic Monthly by Emily Esfahani Smith. She highlights a prominent Jewish psychiatrist and concentration camp survivor Viktor Frankl and his emphasis on meaning as opposed to happiness. "His emphasis on meaning, the value of suffering, and responsibility to something greater than the self - this seems to be at odds with our culture, which is more interested in the pursuit of individual happiness." I often hear the phrase, "I just want to be happy." Frankl writes, "Happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason to 'be happy.'" In other words, happiness is an outcome of a meaningful life, not something that life should pursue. A recent study done by psychological scientists tracked the difference between happiness and meaning. One of the great findings was that from a social perspective, "the pursuit of happiness is associated with selfish behavior - being a 'taker' rather than a 'giver.'" Wanting to "be happy" implies selfish things - lavish vacations, buying toys for yourself, etc. By contrast, "meaning" finds significance in doing meaningful work that affects other people. A teacher's job is not always "happy," a but a teacher finds meaning in helping young people learn and grow. I have to tread lightly here, but I contend that marriage isn’t meant to make you happy, nor does it ensure happiness. The goals I have for my marriage have nothing to do with happiness, but with meaning and significance that come from love. Happiness is tied to emotions, which come and go. Happiness can be an outcome of love, but it’s never the pursuit. Love, unlike emotions, doesn’t ebb and flow. It must remain constant, even proving itself in suffering, pain, and hardship. In fact, love is proven precisely in the “unhappy” times. Scripture never really talks about "happiness." It talks about meaning found in God-given identity. It reveals joy found in grace. It shows the deep value of love-centered service to others. A biblical doctrine of vocation, or calling, tells us that we all have value in the God-given things He has for us to do. Loving our neighbor - as a friend, family member, spouse, employee, classmate, etc. - is not about being happy. Rather it gives us the deep meaning of knowing that God called us to this important work. Am I Debbie Downer? I hope not. In this Lenten season, we see that Good Friday was not “happy,” but it means that there is a deeper love than I could ever pursue. More than happiness, this fact gives me meaningful joy. I came across some excerpts from a book called Habits of the Heart by Robert Bellah in which he talks about "expressive individualism." He observes that Americans have created a culture where individual choice and expression have become so valued that there is no longer any shared life, no commanding truths that tie us together. He writes:
"We are moving to an ever greater validation of the sacredness of the individual person, but our capacity to imagine a social fabric that would hold individuals together is vanishing . . . The sacredness of the individual is not balanced by any sense of the whole or concern for the common good." Personal freedom, choice, and happiness have taken god-like qualities that trump all other values. So you do "what makes you happy." Or you make choices based on what will make you successful. Or "If it feels good, it must be right." Credit cards and fast food are examples of how we have tailored life to gratify the "individual person." This may all sound fine to you, and you might be thinking I'm being a prude. But I have a hard time finding "freedom of choice," "individual expression," and "being happy" in the Bible. Instead, Biblical faith trends toward the communal instead of the individual. It points to faithfulness and righteousness over "being happy." "Loving your neighbor as yourself" won't always make you happy, but you will be fulfilled. So one more word from Bellah. He proposes a return to "the idea of work as a contribution to the good of all and not merely as a means to one's own advancement." In this New Year, in what direction are your endeavors oriented? Financial success? Personal happiness? Career advancement? Or is your work directed outward, "a contribution to the good of all"? As we celebrate the birth of a child 2,000 ago, consider the diminishing birthrate in the United States. "More babies, please," says Ross Douthat in the New York Times. A new study by the Pew Research Center found that the U.S. birthrate in 2011 was the lowest ever recorded, with only 63 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. In 1990 that number was 71.
An obvious reason for this is the economic downturn. There's something that agitates me about the question, "Can we afford to have a baby?" With three small children consuming my resources, I certainly understand the necessity to provide. (My 5-year-old finished my Honey Nut Cheerios this morning!). I would not advocate irresponsibility. But should finances be the driving force in my family? Should money be the determining factor in how many children we have? Will our family be "missing" someone because we couldn't afford it? Is my standard of living too high? Should we take fewer vacations and drive an older car so we can bring another child into the world? There is a risk with bringing any child into the world. In 2012, one risk is the increasing demand on the family budget. Costly health care and college savings have become necessities. In the Great Depression, it was simply food and a roof. The basic question of provision plays an important role in growing a family. So how many children should a family have? I won't even go there. Every couple must prayerfully consider their own context when discussing family size. I do know that my children have taught me selflessness. Their existence has required me to sacrifice, and I'm a better man because of it. There was a child born to a teenage mother in Bethlehem. She and her husband had meager resources. For a while, they lived in Africa as refugees because of a tyrant king. Yet God's provision was enough for this family. In fact, his provision in the manger has spilled over into abundance 2,000 years later. Throughout Advent, our congregation is tracing the theme of “hopes and fears,” echoing the line from “O Little Town of Bethlehem”: “The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight.” We are identifying specific fears and then confronting them with our hope in the Christ child. This past Sunday, we began with the fear of scarcity.
Scarcity is the fear that there is not enough. We’re afraid we won't have enough, and we're afraid that we'll lose the little that we do have. Hear are some examples:
I was inspired by an article by Walter Brueggemann published in the Christian Century in 1999 titled, “The Liturgy of Abundance, The Myth of Scarcity.” In the article, Brueggemann identifies the great fear of scarcity that drove Hitler. He writes of a young German pastor who met Hitler: Martin Nieimoller, the German pastor who heroically opposed Adolf Hitler, was a young man when, as part of a delegation of leaders of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, he met with Hitler in 1933. Niemoller stood at the back of the room and looked and listened. He didn't say anything. When he went home, his wife asked him what he had learned that day. Niemöller replied, "I discovered that Herr Hitler is a terribly frightened man.” Hitler was afraid that there wasn’t enough. So he had to get more. Because he is fearful, he is ruthless. In Luke chapter one, Mary could be the picture of scarcity. This teenage girl in first century Judea does not have enough. She is engaged, but not yet married. She’s still in her father’s house until the wedding day. In and of herself, she has no resources. Her survival lies entirely with her father and her future husband. Gabriel's news could absolutely ruin Mary (Luke 1:31). The angel's message makes her a pregnant teenager. She could well be expelled and ostracized. We are familiar with the stigmas and statistics in our own society. Life for a single, teenage mother is challenging at best. Yet in the midst of this scarcity, Gabriel declares royalty (1:32). "The Son of the Most High." "His throne." "Reign." "Kingdom." Gabriel is declaring an astounding reality. God comes to scarcity with abundance. Abundant power. An abundant plan. Abundant mercy. Scarcity means “not enough.” Abundance means “more than enough.” The contrast is remarkable. Here is a teenager whose life is fragile and tenuous. To her comes a King of worldwide supremacy. Mary is a girl of humble means. Her son is a Savior of abundance. Recognizing the abundance of God in her scarcity, she does NOT respond with fear, but with faith: “I’m here. I trust. Let it be with me as you say" (1:38). And she goes on to sing a song that has survived the ages. Humble and lowly are given abundance. The proud and powerful are brought down and made scarce. Fear of scarcity asks, "Will it be enough? How can I get more? What if I lose what I have?" But the hope of abundance believes there is no limit to what God might do, even with the lowest of means. With this God, there are no limits and there is no ceiling. The scarcity of Good Friday led to abundance on Easter Sunday. The fear of death is obliterated by the King born to a teenage mother. It’s often those who have the least who see God’s abundance the most. God grant us vision beyond the horizon of scarcity. May we see his abundance, even in the scarcest of situations. We have a remarkable young man at our church who is currently studying abroad this year in Ecuador as a junior at St. Louis University. Sito is immersed in the Spanish language, South American culture, and a unique religious context. As a young man considering pastoral ministry, his worldview has been stretched.
Sito and I Skype from time to time and last night we chatted for over an hour. (Are you reading this, Sito?) One thing he has observed this far is the fact that he is a complete outsider. He is American. His Spanish comes with an accent. And being Lutheran, he is a religious anomaly. Much of South America is obviously rooted in Catholicism. But there is also a powerful charismatic insurgence throughout the region. Lutheran Christians enjoy cult status. In the U.S., Sito is a natural leader. Personable, smart, and gifted. In Ecuador, he is "at the bottom" - a learner of the culture, language, and customs. He has occasionally wondered, "Does anyone here really know me as a person?" Not just as the novel exchange student, or the foreigner. Cross cultural experiences always make me take note of the outsider. In all my life's vocations, I am a leader, one who influences, the consummate insider. But what does it look like from the other side? The visitor who timidly enters the back door of my church and quietly leaves through the same door. The neighbor whose life experience is vastly different than mine. The foreigner in my community who has limited access to all the things that are open to me. Sito mentioned an appreciation for Romans 12:15: "Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep." Take on the cause of the other. Enter into the life of your neighbor. Really know them "as a person." Join them in their status as "outsider." Check out Sito's blog. “I, __________, in the presence of God and these witnesses, take you, __________, to be my wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until death parts us, and I pledge you my faithfulness.” Love requires law. This statement sounds backwards in our modern society. It sounds odd because we typically associate love with free and spontaneous passion. When you bring “laws” to love, then it would seem restrictive and stifling. Law, rules, and duty seem to be the antithesis of love’s passion. The biblical nature of covenant gives us a picture of how “law” actually makes for deeper, more intimate love. In the Bible, God makes a binding promise to his people (Gen. 17:1-14; Psalm 105:8-11). In spite of their unfaithfulness and failings, he binds himself in a legal and contractual format called a covenant. Most contracts are quid pro quo, this for that. But God’s covenant with his people is different. While there are obligations for his people, God’s love for them is not predicated on their obedience. His love is the foundation. His covenant is proof of that love, and a call for them to respond in obedience. Marriage gives permanence to love by linking love with law. In marriage, you aren’t just saying, “I love you.” You’ve probably done that already. In marriage, you are cementing that love, binding yourselves together by vows. The "law" of the vows is done first and foremost before God. Second, the vows are binding before those gathered to witness your public declaration. Third, they exist as legally binding before the state. Tim Keller writes, “Real love desires permanence . . . So the ‘law’ of vows and promises fits our deepest passions at the present. But it is also something the love of our heart needs in order to have security about the future.” The law ensures safety and security. The binding law of wedding vows offer love a safe and secure place. Bound by this law, I can show my wife my deepest vulnerabilities, insecurities, and scars. And after she has seen the worst of me, I know she won’t leave. Her love has proven itself in vows. The binding “law” of vows makes marriage far more significant than “dating” or “living together.” The “law” of marriage makes love tangible and concrete. Marriage is a binding promise that shows love at a deeper level. Together, love and law make something far more durable, binding, and unconditional. There is a new administration, and it is neither Obama/Biden nor Romney/Ryan. Since the first century, Christians have held the conviction that the Kingdom of God is a present reality. The reign and rule of the Risen Christ transcends every president or king, every ideology or politic. I’ve devoted myself to studying Mark’s gospel with particular focus on the theme of the “Kingdom of God.” A few observations:
An Introduction to Mark Mark’s gospel is believed to have been written somewhere between 45 and 60 AD (some scholars put it as late as 70AD). Mark wrote to a people during a time of persecution for the church. He is credited with penning the eyewitness account of the apostle Peter. Tradition holds that Peter was ruthlessly crucified upside down in Rome. And Rome is likely where the first readers of this gospel were from. These Christians were a seen as a fringe religious group in the most prominent and powerful city in the world. They struggled to defend their belief in a king who was shamefully executed in Jerusalem a couple decades earlier. The Gospel Mark’s gospel begins with an explosive first sentence. A sentence that should not be read over tea and scones: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God.” The word gospel comes from the Old Testament word for “declaring victory.” It refers to a messenger who would be the first to return from battle, and upon the reaching the city, he declared the royal announcement of victory. “WE WON! THE KING IS COMING BACK, AND WE WON!” The first century social and political climate was volatile in Palestine. The Jewish people were under the occupation of the most powerful force in the world, the Roman government. So it is no accident that Mark goes right to the prophet Isaiah for some ammunition, “Behold I send my messenger before your face who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness; Prepare the way of the Lord.” Isaiah 40 is all about how the Creator God will establish his worldwide rule. In Isaiah 40, God is the Chief Executive and Supreme Ruler of the universe. So Mark chapter one, in the hands of a persecuted group of Roman citizens, could be dangerous. What has gotten Christians killed for centuries is NOT the belief that Jesus was a nice guy, or a great philosopher. It was NOT his teaching on love or compassion that got them killed. No one ever got killed for following Mr. Rodgers. What got Christians killed is that they believed the title above his head on the cross was true: KING. In Jesus, God is King over the entire world. The Kingdom of God in Mark The first time Jesus speaks in Mark he says, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.” “At hand” means that the Kingdom is near and close enough to touch. The Kingdom is here because the King is here. This term has been often been misunderstood and defined inaccurately. Typically, Christians have associated the Kingdom of God with heaven, namely a far-away and distant place in the clouds that we enter upon death. The other extreme is that the Kingdom of God is associated with particular nations, ei. Israel or America. For the record, the Kingdom of God is neither of these. It helps to have a working definition of the Kingdom. Here’s a brief one: The Kingdom of God is the reign and rule of God. In Mark 1:15, Jesus is claiming that the reign and rule of God has come in a person, namely himself. A few points on the Kingdom of God:
In the frantic activity of this political season, I believe a faithful perspective of the Kingdom of God is transformative. While civic involvement is important, obsession over politics is not helpful. The reign and rule of God allows us the peculiar Christian trait of quiet confidence. We are neither too concerned nor are we unconcerned about the election process. Some will disagree with me on this point, but I believe that our quiet confidence distinguishes us from the rabid political rhetoric (most of which violates the 8th commandment). During this election season, I am free from fear and from anger. I can see above the rhetoric of party conventions, FOX News, CNN, or MSNBC. Because I happen to believe that at this very moment, Jesus “sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.” He is the Chief Executive and Supreme Head of a “New Administration.” Have you ever found an old piece of technology and simply laughed at its archaic form? A few days ago, I pulled a CD walkman out of a drawer. These portable devices had ESP, or "electronic skip protection." It started out that three or four second ESP was revolutionary. If your CD skipped, the device would already have read the information ahead three seconds and provide you with seamless listening. The particular walkman I found in my drawer had 60 second ESP! I was amused at how absolutely obsolete this device is today. The CD walkman could play one CD at a time, for a total of 10-12 songs. I have an ipod that holds days worth of music and "skipping" is not an issue. In addition to a whole library of music, I have news, e-mail, pictures, video, and other apps for things I didn't even know I needed to do. When I looked at the bottom of the walkman I saw a sticker that read "manufactured in 2006." In only 6 years, this device has become essentially useless! One of the prized values of our age is the ability to change. It is almost the creed of our modern time. It is espoused in education, politics, technology, business, and religion. The world is changing with exponential rapidity. In fact, we may be living amidst the most blistering pace of change the world has ever known. You have to keep up or be left behind. There is a great fear that we will be rendered obsolete. No one wants to be a portable CD player manufactured in 2006. The pace of life will only continue to increase with intensity. While the ability to change is important, I believe there will also be an increasing desire for changeless things. Already, I sense among many people a longing for security, stability, and simplicity. Staring at a CD walkman or a record player, one might wonder, "What is it that doesn't change?" There are things like "faith, hope, and love." And of course, there is the One who "is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8). |
JOIN My Tribe
|