Category: Church (Page 58 of 59)

A young man (anybody younger than me is young) came into my study here last week to ask me some questions about Legacy. This man is going through the final stages of a horrible divorce. He’s lived out in West Texas for several years but is now moving back to DFW. He was born and reared in Dallas. And as he’s shopping for a church here in North Tarrant County, he asks me this question:

“Where is Legacy compared to ___ ___ Church of Christ and ___ ___ Church of Christ?”

And he named two congregations in Dallas, one known throughout our fellowship as being “progressive” or “liberal” and the other labled as “traditional” or “conservative.”

Where is Legacy on that line? Where are you?

Of course, it reminded me of that A-B Line we’re all trying to eradicate from our thinking and our conversations, this linear way of thinking and talking that does our church families and the Kingdom of God much harm. I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago. (You can read it again by clicking here.) And I told this man in my office, “I’m not going to have the conversation this way.”

When we use words like “conservative” or “progressive” or “liberal” or “traditional” we’re really just describing people’s opinions. And discussions that focus on these words and concepts and the issues they invite inevitably turn into political battles for power instead of spiritual searches for the truth.

The truth is nowhere to be found on that line.

Henri Nouwen, in his book In the Name of Jesus, addresses church leaders on the dangers of this type of thinking:

“Christian leaders cannot simply be persons who have well-informed opinions about the burning issues of our time. Their leadership must be rooted in the permanent, intimate relationship with the incarnate Word, Jesus, and they need to find there the source for their words, advice, and guidance.

Dealing with burning issues without being rooted in a deep personal relationship with God easily leads to divisiveness because, before we know it, our sense of self is caught up in our opinion about a given subject. But when we are securely rooted in personal intimacy with the source of life, it will be possible to remain flexible without being relativistic, convinced without being rigid, willing to confront without being offensive, gentle and forgiving without being soft, and true witnesses without being manipulative.”

I explained the A-B Line way of thinking to this young man in my study and he caught on very quickly. He seemed to appreciate my desires to jump off that line in our considerations and conversations to focus on the sanctification and salvation of the souls here at Legacy and the lost in our immediate community. He fell in love with the concept of being guided by the Word of God and his Holy Spirit instead of outside forces such as other churches and that constantly-moving “middle of the road.”

It’s really easy to show people the flaws in the way we think and talk about church and the benefits of the alternative “C” way of doing things. It’s a piece of cake to do that in one-on-one discussions. But how do we communicate this to the entire church body? How do we get everybody to jump off the line? It’s such a radical idea, and so opposite of the way we’ve always thought and talked, I’m afraid teaching this in classrooms or preaching it on Sunday would make things worse instead of better.

Is it even possible to get an entire church body to jump off the A-B Line? How do we do it?

Peace,

Allan

Issues.

Why are we defined by the issues?

Why do we label churches and each other according to the issues?

Why do our language and our attitudes and our thought processes center on the issues?

Why have issues become the heart of Christian leadership?

It seems that in the Church—and it’s been this way for a long, long time—we judge you and your spirituality and your doctrinal soundness on how you feel about this buzz word or how you think about that catch phrase regarding the issues. Or sometimes whether you use those pet words or phrases at all. If I’m having a casual conversation with you and you use the word “brethren” or “missional,” I’m going to label you as being somewhere on an imaginary line between liberal and conservative, between progressive and traditional. And I’m going to assume you’re heading in one direction or the other. If you declare an affection for the King James Version or express a fondness for a “praise team,” I’m going to know everything about your theology and your relationship with God and his Church based on this line between conservative and liberal, between one extreme and the other. I judge your congregation based on whether you do Small Groups or whether you assemble together at the building on Sunday nights. Or whether you meet on Sunday nights at all. When we think along this line between Point A and Point B, there becomes a big difference between a brother or sister who enjoys singing There’s A Stirring and one who prefers A Mighty Fortress. It’s become so ingrained and so absurd in the way we do church business that we draw a hard distinction between a female children’s minister and a female children’s coordinator.

These buzz words and catch phrases are now conversation-enders. If you use one in a discussion you and I are having, our conversation ends. We may still be talking to each other, but I’ve already heard enough to label you. I know exactly where you are and where you’re going based on your use of that word. I know your agenda. So you may still be moving your mouth, but I’m not listening. I already know.

This kind of thinking along the A-B Line and our reactions to the prevailing A-B Line culture in our churches have led to much mistrust and suspicion. This kind of thinking stifles true communication and growth. And it leads to churches being guided by outside forces and church leaders making decisions based on fears.

What would happen if we jumped off the A-B Line?

What if we totally changed the spectrum? What if we adopted a different vision? What if we did things in an alternative way?

What if every conversation in the church and every decision made by church leaders was based purely on the topic at hand on its own merits? What if, instead of being guided by what such-and-such congregation is doing down the road or what so-and-so across town might think, we did things that were best for Legacy and best for the lost of Tarrant County?

What if we found ourselves in a church culture in which a brother could wear a suit and a tie and still read The Message? What if a sister raised her hands while singing Standing On The Promises? What if a group of church leaders decided a praise team isn’t right but it is good for women to pass trays during communion? Can a person clap during worship and still use the small letter “c” in the word “church”?

See how those above scenarios go totally against the A-B Line thinking?

Thinking on that line causes us to believe that the issues or the practices all go along some kind of predetermined order. If a church uses a praise team, it’s only a matter of time before women are preaching from the pulpit. If a church still uses songbooks, it’s obvious they’re going to eventually tear down the kitchen and pull their support from the orphans home.

The alternative is to do what’s best for Legacy according to our understanding of the Scriptures, not according to what somebody might say or think. Or write. It’s to judge each issue and each practice solely on its own merit. It’s to never assume that anybody’s sliding toward or away from anything other than toward God and his will and away from Satan and his. It’s pro-active instead of reactive. It’s being guided by Christ Jesus and his Word, not by outside forces. It’s not a compromised position, it’s a responsible position. It’s not content with trying to stay in the middle (a futile exercise if there ever was one), it’s doing everything possible to be out front.

It requires strong and dedicated leadership, no doubt. And it’s only accomplished with mutual love and trust.

What would happen if we jumped off that line?

Peace,

Allan