Liberal Christians Want You to Pray to Plants?

In Christian news lately, Union Theological Seminary (UTS), a seminary in New York, recently posted a picture of a group of people seated near plants. The caption that went along with the picture read:

Today in chapel, we confessed to plants. Together, we held our grief, joy, regret, hope, guilt and sorrow in prayer; offering them to the beings who sustain us but whose gift we too often fail to honor. What do you confess to the plants in your life?

Christian social media went nuts, with many people calling Union’s practice strange, odd, or even pagan. I also found the photo and the caption to be quite amusing, and my brain easily was coming up with quips that mocked the worship experience. With such a huge backlash from Christian social media, UTS put out a follow-up statement, a very lengthy defense of their practice. Without making jokes about the plant liturgy, allow me to take their defense bit by bit and address why I have a genuine problem with offering our grief, joy, hope, guilt, and sorrow in prayer “to the beings who sustain us but whose gift we too often fail to honor.”

The defense from UTS is in red, my response is in black.

We’ve had many questions about yesterday’s chapel, conducted as part of @ccarvalhaes‘ class, “Extractivism: A Ritual/Liturgical Response.” In worship, our community confessed the harm we’ve done to plants, speaking directly in repentance. This is a beautiful ritual.

At the outset, I have no issue with Union’s defense. Taking a look at the world around us, I see easily that humanity has done harm to the environment and ecosystem which God has tasked us to oversee. Bible-believing Christians must admit that creation is a gift from God, and God’s gift he declared good.

“And God said, ‘Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.’ And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.” (Genesis 1:11-13)

When God makes humanity, he gives us a task:

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth…. And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.” (Genesis 1:26, 29)

There you have it, our God-given appointment to care for the earth BUT ALSO to utilize the plants and fruit for our food. When we confess that we haven’t done a great job caring for God’s creation, though, our confession shouldn’t be to the food but to the ONE who created the earth and set us to task. Union has a point in the confession and repentance, but they fail in their understanding of to whom they repent and confess.

Their defense continues:

We are in the throes of a climate emergency, a crisis created by humanity’s arrogance, our disregard for Creation. Far too often, we see the natural world only as resources to be extracted for our use, not divinely created in their own right—worthy of honor, thanks and care.

Union is close, but they aren’t there. The climate emergency created by human disregard for creation is a serious issue, and I agree that Christians OUGHT to lead the charge in caring for the planet – it is our God-given role! I disagree, however, with the idea that plants are worthy of thanks. They are merely plants, and plants have no being or essence that makes them special. Yes, yes, I know this defies the teaching of Master Yoda and Obi-wan Kenobi, who tell Luke that the Force flows through all things. From a Christian perspective, however, plants are designed by God as food. If anyone is worthy of thanks, thank the God who created the earth and gave us the food, but don’t thank the bushes!

But their defense goes on:

We need to unlearn habits of sin and death. And part of that work must be building new bridges to the natural world. And that means creating new spiritual and intellectual frameworks by which we understand and relate to the plants and animals with whom we share the planet. Churches have a huge role to play in this endeavor. Theologies that encourage humans to dominate and master the Earth have played a deplorable role in degrading God’s creation. We must birth new theology, new liturgy to heal and sow, replacing ones that reap and destroy. When Robin Wall Kimmerer spoke at Union last year, she concluded her lecture by tasking us—and all faith communities—to develop new liturgies by which to mourn, grieve, heal and change in response to our climate emergency. We couldn’t be prouder to participate in this work.

To these points, Union and I are in total agreement. Churches SHOULD play a huge role in taking care of the creation God left in our care, a role that means we strive to cease destroying species of animal and plant life, actively seeking to protect and nurture God’s creative activity.

Please go on, Union:

And here’s the thing: At first, this work will seem weird. It won’t feel normal. It won’t look like how we’re used to worship looking and sounding. And that’s exactly the point. We don’t just need new wine, we need new wineskins. But it’s also important to note that this isn’t, really, that radical a break from tradition. Many faiths and denoms have liturgy through which we express and atone for the harm we’ve caused. No one would have blinked if our chapel featured students apologizing to each other. What’s different (and the source of so much derision) is that we’re treating plants as fully created beings, divine Creation in its own right—not just something to be consumed. Because plants aren’t capable of verbal response, does that mean we shouldn’t engage with them?

Aaaand they are off the rails again. Treating plants as fully created beings? No. Nope. No way. They’re plants. Out of all of God’s creative work, only humanity bears the divine image.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it….’” (Genesis 1:27-28)

While plants are a part of God’s created order, plants do NOT bear the Imago Dei (Image of God). Humanity stands alone in this regard. We apologize when we sin against other humans because we’re apologizing to beings that are also divine image bearers. I consider myself a dog lover. I have been my entire life. As much joy as pups bring me, they are still not on the same level as other humans. Respect the creation, sure, but recognize that the Creator has made plants and animals different than the Creator made people. Scripture says that humanity is created to have dominion over every animal and to have the plants for food. They are not equal beings.

Union finishes up:

So, if you’re poking fun, we’d ask only that you also spend a couple moments asking: Do I treat plants and animals as divinely created beings? What harm do I cause without thinking? How can I enter into new relationship with the natural world? Change isn’t easy: It’s no simple business to break free from comfortable habits and thoughts. But if we do not change, we will perish. And so will plants and animals God created and called “good.” We must lean into this discomfort; God waits for us there.

On a final note, I do believe that Union’s questions are worth asking. Do we treat plants and animals as divinely created beings? No, nor should we. They were created for humanity, not as equal to humanity. It IS valid to ask how we cause harm to the created order, how our carelessness can consumerism actually works to destroy what God placed under our care. Because all of creation IS good, and because God specifically tasked us with overseeing his creation, we have a responsibility to treat well the earth and everything upon it.

And lastly, if you like to talk to tomatoes…

have I got a show for you.

Closing the Church

Hopper-CoC-5-25-10While I’m an active duty Chaplain assigned to a ship, I have the wonderful opportunity to attend worship services as a participant with my family (as opposed to a pastor). When we moved to the Jacksonville area, we found a local church that the whole family liked a lot. The preaching is biblically sound, service style is similar to our background, and there are places for kids, adults, marrieds, and singles to plug in. So we committed ourselves to being part of the church as long as the Navy has us in the area.

But while I was deployed, my wife told me that the church was selling its facility and would be meeting in a school until a new permanent facility could be found. This wasn’t a problem or an issue for my wife and me. We had been part of “mobile church” that met in a school when we were in ministry in California. The people in that church are dear friends and we still keep in touch with many of them, even though thousands of miles and a decade have passed since those days.

Other people in our Jacksonville church, though, are not so cool with the change. There are many people who are plugged into the idea of the church facility being their home. I understand the feeling. It’s easy to get comfortable in a location and get to the place where your location is part of your identity. In the Bible, Lot and his wife had to pull up stakes and leave their home when God was about to cleanse the city. But, while God told them to leave and not look back, Lot’s wife couldn’t help herself and turned back. The Bible says that she “became a pillar of salt.” (see Genesis 19)

This is how a lot of people feel when it comes to church facilities. The attachment to the facility becomes more important than one’s place within the community. This hit our family this morning as my wife and I were trying to explain the concept to our 9 and seven year olds. They had heard that we were no longer at the old familiar building and thought we were going to be attending a new church. We had to help them understand that we are still part of the same church even though the building has changed. It’s the long-preached concept that the people ARE the Church while the building is merely a location for the Church to meet.

Our younger kids are slowly starting to grasp that concept, but it doesn’t come easy. Church as people is more abstract than church as building. While it’s understandable for kids to wrestle with this abstraction, it’s disappointing when adults refuse to embrace the idea. We get so locked into location that our very identities become enmeshed with the spaces our bodies occupy. This is MY church. This is MY pew. This is MY…

But that is not God’s concept of church. It’s disappointing when people who worship alongside you week after week say, “We’re choosing to leave the Church because it won’t be at this location anymore.”

If your religion is tied to one particular building, your god is too small.

If you look up the word church in the English Standard Version of the Bible, you’ll find 113 references in the New Testament. Each one refers to the group of people gathered to worship, not to the facility where they meet. The early church met in homes, in catacombs, and in Jewish synagogues. We didn’t really start to have stand-alone buildings until post-Constantine. This is why the Bible is so big on maintaining healthy relationships among Christians. There weren’t 10 church buildings in a given town where you could pack up and find a new option when you were unhappy with your current church leaders/service. The Church is the people, and people are more important that things and buildings.

I don’t expect to change adult minds at this point – most of us are too set in our ways to learn new ways of doing things (unless God grabs a hold of us and changes us), but I do hope to pass on to my kids the understanding that God shows up where believers show up to worship regardless of location. I hope to pass on to my kids the concept of remaining loyal to our local congregation regardless of changes that we may or may not agree with. I hope to pass on to my kids the notion that God is bigger than our buildings.


What do you think? Leave a comment and share experiences you’ve had with church as buildings vs. church as people. And then go ahead and share the blog post on social media. 😉

A Christian Singer Didn’t Express Hard-line Anti-Gay Theology and You’ll Never Guess What Happened Next…Okay, Maybe You Will

Perhaps you’ve heard about it by now. On a radio interview, the host asked Christian singer Lauren Daigle about her opinion on the sinfulness of homosexuality since she had recently performed on The Ellen Show. Lauren’s response?

I can’t honestly answer on that. In a sense, I have too many people that I love that they are homosexual. I don’t know. I actually had a conversation with someone last night about it. I can’t say one way or the other. I’m not God. So when people ask questions like that…that’s what my go to is. I just say read the Bible and find out for yourself. And when you find out let me know, because I’m learning too.

Sure, it was a wishy-washy non-answer. But now the Evangelical community is up in arms because this Christian pop singer didn’t confront their #1 go-to sin (well, maybe tied with abortion) head on.

You see, that’s what the Evangelical community (my community, folks – I’m not an outsider) has become. We look at specific sin-indicators – SINDICATORS, if you will, as single-issue make-or-break support-or-shun dilemmas. I’ve seen people online rail against Ms. Daigle. I’m sure some are calling for a boycott.

unicorn shun

But I’ve got a couple problems with this. First, Ms. Daigle is a pop singer. She’s not an evangelist. She’s not a preacher. She’s not a theologian. She’s a pop singer. Is it her place to take a nuanced public theological position about every issue we believe?

No.

Second, our SINDICATORS are not good data points for gauging salvation. The Bible says that belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is the prerequisite for salvation. After that, God’s working on all of us in our spiritual journeys.

Or do we not REALLY believe in grace?

‘Cause if we DO, that means heaven will be filled with saved people who are drunkards, adulterers, slanderers, and those who have same-sex attraction. Yes, I know the words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Many Christians use this passage to beat up on sinners who fall into these categories. But Paul doesn’t give a black and white cut-off. In fact, he clearly indicates that coming to Jesus results in a transformation away from sinful behavior. But he doesn’t give a timeline of how fast the transformation takes.

It’s easier to live in a black and white world where we condemn everyone who isn’t like us and we shun all artists who disagree with our theology. But there are far too many stones being thrown – not just at the sinners, but at Christians like Lauren Daigle – and I know that you stone-throwers are not without sin.

Evangelicalism’s Golden Calf

There’s a sound of discontent among Christians this week. Oh, come on – we’re ALWAYS discontent about something. So what is it this time? This time it’s because of First Baptist Church in Dallas. They held a “Celebrate Freedom Rally” during 4th of July weekend.

And during this 2-hour glut fest of raw patriotism and nationalism, the choir unveiled a new anthem called “Make America Great Again.” That’s really not what has people so upset – churches do patriotic services ALL THE TIME. I think what really got people’s knickers in a twist was how fast the song was copyrighted and listed on CCLI (Christian Copyright Licensing International), the organization that “provides information and resources for churches and copyright owners around the world, relating to copyrights of Christian worship songs” (THEIR WORDS, NOT MINE).

Their launch screen is all about worship!

CCLI Home Screen

Worship planning starts here? Really? But “Make America Great Again” is not about God.

Like, not at all. It’s only about the country and restoring its greatness and glory.

MAGA

In a word, it’s idolatry. Any time you elevate something and worship it as equal to or in place of God you’re committing idolatry. Sure, it wasn’t a “worship service.” Well, it was, just not a worship service where God was the object of worship. Evangelicals have a bad habit of conflating patriotism and faith. Loving America does NOT make us better Christians. Loving God does NOT mean we’re going to love America (otherwise, Christians all over the world in foreign countries are in for a WORLD of disappointment when they reach heaven).

America has become our Golden Calf.

And, sadly, this is not new. A quick search for the word “America” on CCLI and I have a results list of 192 songs.

Really? This is supposed to be our worship archive, guys! The Bible is pretty clear that our worship belongs to God and God alone. He got pretty ticked with that whole calf in the wilderness incident. And if this idolatry has become the norm for Evangelicalism, then I am ready to call American Evangelicalism a dead religion. I’m done with it and all of the garbage that comes with it.

Jesus transcends nations. His worship demands WE transcend nations. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be patriotic. I’m saying we’ve lost the ability to see the line between patriotism and idolatry.

And that’s not okay.

golden-calf

Hymnals? We don’t need no stinkin’ hymnals!

A couple days ago I read a blog post from Tim Challies called, “What We Lost When We Lost Our Hymnals.” Mr. Challies is quick to point out that he is not advocating a return to hymnals, but wants us to consider what happens when we switch media in the church. With no malice or animosity, I wanted to take a brief moment to respond to his article. He writes:

We lost an established body of songs. Hymnals communicated that a church had an established collection of songs. This, in turn, communicated that its songs were vetted carefully and added to its repertoire only after careful consideration. After all, great songs are not written every day and their worth is proven only over time.

True, a book of songs is quite restrictive on a congregation’s musical repertoire.  The idea that all of the songs in a given hymnal were vetted carefully and after careful consideration is not quite true. Have you ever gone through a hymnal? I have. I have a copy of the hymnal my church used when I was growing up. And lemme tell ya, THEY AREN’T ALL GEMS!

Sure, there are the greats that we all know and love. But my 50 year old hymnal has 504 songs! That means that, within our musical canon, there was a functional canon of songs we always did and songs that we NEVER did. Many of those we never did are not great music. they aren’t memorable nor are they especially inspired. I’m not even going to mention the patriotic songs that wound up in many hymnals. 😦

Finally, the Bible never calls us to an “established” body of songs. Psalm 96 encourages us:

Oh sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth!

SOMEONE’S gotta write the new songs. And when the Apostle encourages us to singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, there’s no mention of the old standards which were appropriate for use. Since God is a Living God who is actively involved in the lives of believers, it seems perfectly normal that our worship can reflect what God is doing here and now. Hymns of old? Great! Songs extolling the ongoing work of God in the world? Wonderful!

Mr. Challies continues:

We lost a deep knowledge of our songs. When we removed the hymnal, we gained the ability to add new songs to our repertoire whenever we encounter one we deem worthy. This reduces our familiarity with our songs so that today we have far fewer of them fixed in our minds and hearts.

Sure, we don’t remember the songs of old any more. But they aren’t Scripture – there’s nothing sacred about one generation’s worship music. There are powerful songs written today that are rich with good theology and musicality. They aren’t any less wonderful just because they were written 150 years too late. This kind of ageism says that “older is better” when it isn’t. Older is older. We venerate the songs that were powerful when we had a tremendous religious experience and we look down on songs from other people’s experience. But radio, Spotify, YouTube, and iTunes has give people a wide variety of options to fix wonderful music in our minds and hearts.

We lost the ability to do harmonies. Hymnody grew up at a time when instrumentation took a back seat to the voice. Hymns were most often written so they could be sung a cappella or with minimal instrumentation. For that reason, hymnals almost invariably included the music for both melody and harmonies and congregations learned to sing the parts. The loss of the hymnal and the associated rise of the worship band has reduced our ability to harmonize and, in that way, to sing to the fullest of our abilities.

Okay, this is just bunk. I’ve been part of hymnal-using churches, and some of them were simply awful with no ability to harmonize. Since most people cannot read music, having notated music means nothing. Churches that utilized hymnals would have a couple people who could harmonize, and others would follow the examples of others to learn voice parts.

This can STILL happen with worship bands. Many modern worship bands have 2-3 part harmonies. People in the church simply have to follow the vocalist that fits their range. But please continue, Mr. Challies.

We lost the ability to sing skillfully. As congregations have lost their knowledge of their songs, they have lost the ability to sing them well. We tend to compensate for our poorly-sung songs by cranking up the volume of the musical accompaniment.

Again, just because a church uses a hymnal does not mean anything about the skill and ability of the church. I know of many worship bands that spend a lot of time practicing so that they can be skillful and lead people skillfully. Perhaps Mr. Challies hasn’t spent enough time with the hymnal-using churches that sound like dying cats, but trust me – they’re out there!

We lost the ability to have the songs in our homes. Hymnals usually lived at the church, resting from Monday to Saturday in the little pockets on the back of the pews. But people also bought their own and took them home so the family could have that established body of songs there as well. Families would often sing together as part of their family worship. It is easy to imagine a family singing “It Is Well With My Soul” after eating dinner together, but almost impossible to imagine them singing, “Oceans.”

oceansAh, there it is – the crack against “Oceans.” It seems to be a common theme among Reformed believers. This comes across and being petty and merely personal opinion. I know for a fact that families can sing “Oceans” together because I have witnessed my wife doing it with our children. We utilize Spotify and YouTube to bring worship music into the house. Our kids are growing up around it, and the music they hear at the church is reflected in the home. The issues is not so much about hymnals versus modern media as it is about Christian parenting, and it’s less than honest to blame media for parenting failure.

Mr. Challies finishes his article with this line:

That little change from book to screen changed nearly everything.

overhead-projectorI really don’t think it did. Before the PowerPoint revolution, churches decades ago made the switch from hymnal to using overhead projectors and transparency pages.

The hymns of old and the “new” choruses of the 70s-80s were printed on the overhead transparencies and one poor soul was designated to change the overheads, making sure to slide the page up or down so that the words were never cut off! HAHA – good times! And people complained then. I heard one octogenarian refer to the choruses from the 80s as “ding-dong-ditties.” HE HATED THEM! But people have always been complaining against new songs and media in worship.

But isn’t God bigger than a hymnal? Isn’t God bigger than your favorite 150 year old song (that used to be one of them new-fangled worship songs all those kids are singing)? Instead of lamenting the loss of old forms of worship, let’s embrace new ways to worship an unchanging God.


How about you? What’s your favorite hymn? What’s your favorite non-hymn worship song?

Andy Stanley Thinks His Church is a Better Parent Than You Are

Some churches are big.

stadium-1082235_1920REALLY big.

Like, “fill a soccer stadium on a Sunday” big.

Still, most churches are not.

And, like it or not, there is often a rift between the small churches and the mega-churches. The big churches have more money and more ability to reach the masses. Smaller churches promote the idea that they are more able to impact lives on an individual level, helping mature people in genuine Christian discipleship.

So you can imagine the hubbub in church circles when mega-church pastor Andy Stanley said in a sermon:

When I hear adults say, “Well I don’t like a big church, I like about 200, I want to be able to know everybody,” I say, “You are so stinking selfish. You care nothing about the next generation. All you care about is you and your five friends. You don’t care about your kids [or] anybody else’s kids” … If you don’t go to a church large enough where you can have enough middle schoolers and high schoolers to separate them so they can have small groups and grow up the local church, you are a selfish adult. Get over it. Find yourself a big old church where your kids can connect with a bunch of people and grow up and love the local church.

There was a large outcry from ministers and ministry workers across the country. To his credit, Stanley apologized and said:

“The negative reaction to the clip from last weekend’s message is entirely justified. Heck, even I was offended by what I said! I apologize.”

But he went on to explain that he was so proud of his church’s youth ministry reaching 4,600 teens. Just imagine if every teen could experience that kind of connection!

Sure, reaching teens is great. And I appreciate Stanley’s attempt to pacify the little guys, those of us who minister to groups of fewer than 100 people, but his apology doesn’t realy do much for me. It’s an “apology but….” He’s sorry to offend, but if you really understood his heart then you would see why he said it.

I call shenanigans.

In a nutshell, Stanley believes that his church and their teen outreach can do a better job of parenting than Christian parents can. He said:

You drag your kids to a church they hate, and then they grow up and hate the local church.

Did you catch that? If we can’t give kids an incredible, big-church experience then they’ll grow up hating the church. You owe it to your children to attend a mega-church with the mega-church resources so that they don’t hate the little church that can’t provide as much.

Barf.

baby-17342_1920I don’t believe parents ought to relegate the spiritual development of their children to the church (mega 0r small). Parents ought to be the PRIMARY source of spiritual development for children. And when children are raised seeing their parents engage in authentic Christian community, they will grow up belonging TO that community. What Stanley is really saying is that his church is full of parents who have abdicated their responsibility to spiritually lead and direct their children.

But what about the Bible? What does the Bible say?

Actually, it doesn’t say anything about church size. There are no directives, just examples. The example set in the Bible is that outreach and evangelism events have HUGE reach (in the thousands) but that the local church was small enough to fit in homes and local synagogues (the early church was made up of Jewish converts, so the synagogue was the natural place to meet).

The church is about Christian community. Acts tells us that they got together daily in homes to eat, worship, and listen to the apostles teach about Jesus. I get the sense that kids would have been part of this early community.

No youth ministry.

No separate area where parents allowed others to do their jobs for them. The family was involved in worship together.

Since the Bible doesn’t say anything about church size I won’t condemn mega-churches. They do a lot of good work. but Stanley is WAY off-base in his beliefs and comments. Stop worrying about the church raising kids. How’s about the church worries about making authentic disciples of the entire family unit? How can we raise mature parents in the faith so that they in turn can rear godly children?

And this is something that any sized church can do.

————————————————-

How about you? What size church do you attend? What are the merits of the small church? Of the large church?

Searching For Sunday: A Review of Rachel Held Evans’s Book

Rachel Held Evans I’ll admit it; I’ve got a love/hate relationship with Rachel Held Evans. Not that she knows it – we’ve never met. But I read her blog and her stuff on social media.

Some of the questions she has for and about how the church behaves are right on. I’ve wrestled with some of the same issues myself. At the same time, she gets a lot of it wrong, goes too far on some issues, and completely misses it on other issues. She has a tendency to get tunnel vision – she’s got her couple core issues that get played on repeat over, and over, and over, and…well, you get it.

Searching for Sunday
So when I heard she had a new book out about “loving, leaving, and finding the church,” I thought I’d give it a read. Before even reading it I’d seen liberals praising it and conservative lambasting it. So I read it for myself.

Ms. Evans divides her book into a prologue and 7 sections, following the sacraments of the Church: Baptism, Confession, Holy Orders, Communion, Confirmation, Anointing of the Sick, and Marriage. Since she wrote in this order, my review will take one section at a time in the same order. Here’s my take on it.

Prologue:

Ms. Evans begins laying the groundwork for the rest of the book, setting the stage for her own journey away from the evangelical church. As I expected, she starts right in by bringing up her pet peeves with evangelical faith: biblical interpretation, religious pluralism, sexuality (feminism and LGBTQ issues), racial reconciliation, and social justice. These issues come as no surprise, for they are the resounding gong of all of her work.

The problem for me comes a few pages into the prologue where she writes:

The truth is, I don’t even bother getting out of bed many Sunday mornings, especially on days when I’m not sure I believe in God or when there’s an interesting guest on Meet the Press.

She finishes the prologue with similar words:

It’s about why, even on days when I suspect all this talk of Jesus and resurrection and life everlasting is a bunch of bunk designed to coddle us through an essentially meaningless existence, I should still like to be buried with my feet facing the rising sun. Just in case.

This is the problem. The entire rest of the book isn’t coming from a place of faith. It’s coming from a place of un-faith (yes, I know that’s not a real word). I’m not against asking God questions – even difficult questions. I firmly believe that God is big enough to handle any questions we may have. But we’re not talking about mere questions here. We’re talking about lack of faith.

People like Ms. Evans like to use the example from the Gospels when a Jesus has a conversation with a man (see Mark 9):

Jesus: All things are possible to him who believes.
Man: Lord, I believe, help my unbelief!”

But this case is different. The man comes from a place of belief and is asking help to get the rest of the way. Ms. Evans admittedly approaches much of her life beginning with unbelief.

If you spend much time doubting the resurrection actually happened can you really consider yourself a Christian? Ms. Evans seems to like the IDEA of church when it works to serve people and the issues she cares about, but she doesn’t seem to like the faith that is the FOUNDATION of that church. While some of her criticisms may have validity, it is difficult for me to receive criticisms from someone who doubts in the resurrection or the existence of God.

I don’t judge her for her lack of faith. I don’t judge anyone who is a non-believer. But I think Ms. Evans is fooling herself to say she doubts the existence of God and the resurrection yet still makes a claim to be Christian. She seems to fit better in the category (I know she hates labels, but they help us make sense of the world) of agnostic.

My other problem with the prologue is that Ms. Evans claims:

My aim in employing these seven sacraments is not theological or ecclesiological, but rather literary.

Yet the book IS theological and ecclesiological. My problem is not that she claims not to but then does write on theology and ecclesiology (theology as applied to the nature and structure of the Christian Church) but that I think she gets some of the theology wrong. So here we go…

Baptism: Baptism

From the get-go I don’t think Ms. Evans has the right view of baptism. As she tells her own story she lists various baptism traditions that could have been had she not been born to an evangelical family. But among the list of baptismal traditions she mentions the Mormon tradition. It’s mixed right in there with evangelicals, Orthodox, Catholic, and Presbyterian.

But Mormonism is NOT a branch of Christianity. The fact that she includes Mormonism is another indicator that she falls under the agnostic column more than the Christian.

Mormonism notwithstanding, Ms. Evans and I disagree with the nature and significance of baptism. She writes:

In the ritual of baptism, our ancestors acted out the bizarre truth of the Christian identity: We are people who stand totally exposed before evil and death and declare then powerless against love.

While I agree that baptism is about identity, her language about love doesn’t sit right with me. Baptism ISN’T about declaring evil and death powerless against love. Baptism is about sin, repentance, death, and resurrection. John the Baptist was baptizing people before Jesus even came on the scene, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (see Mark 1:4). In our baptism we are putting to death our old identity and emerging from the water with a new identity. Love beating evil and death is too generic, too “new age-y.”

Baptism says, “I have a new life as a follower of the risen Christ.”

Of course, nothing from Ms. Evans would be complete without vocal support of the LGBTQ community, so she includes a chapter dedicated to the baptism story of a gay young man. She concludes the section with the statement:

…baptism is done at the beginning of your faith journey, not the middle or the end. You don’t have to have everything together to be baptized.

She is absolutely right on this point. You DON’T have to have it together to be baptized. The problem with many who fall in the liberal camp is that they have no expectation of spiritual growth and development post-baptism. God accepts us the way we are. That doesn’t mean God is content we STAY the way we are.

Finally, Ms. Evans uses this section to blast evangelicals on a couple points. She presents her criticisms as though they are universally representative of evangelical churches, but they are not. I was raised in the Assemblies of God my entire life (though I am now non-denominational). Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) was never banned in my church or home. The King James Version was not the only allowed Bible. I was allowed to watch movies and television. I never once heard women’s breasts referred to as “stumbling blocks” (an expression Ms. Evans uses a couple of times). My church tradition ordains women (my own mother is ordained) and recognizes their place in ministry.

Since my evangelical story is vastly different from hers, I suggest Ms. Evans refine her definitions and terminology and stop leveling generic accusations that don’t hold water across the evangelical spectrum.

Confession: Confession

In the section on confession, Ms. Evans seems to be confessing her own story – why she really started turning away from the Christian Church. Part of her split is due to the role of women in the church. Her background is in a church where she felt relegated to baby showers and ladies’ teas when she wanted to be leading a Bible study or theological discussion. Not to beat a dead horse, but she levels accusations at evangelicalism that aren’t true across the board. My wife has led Bible studies and has NEVER constructed a diaper cake. But these peripheral issues seem to be simply excuses for the real issue – a loss of faith. She writes:

I couldn’t pretend to believe things I didn’t believe anymore.

So she talks about singing “Great Is Thy Faithfulness” with an unraveled faith (even though the “shadow of turning” line in the song isn’t about OUR faith but about GOD’S faithfulness through it all). Still, she gets it right when she talks about the practice of confession.

The practice of confession gives us the chance to admit to one another that we’re not okay, and then to seek healing and reconciliation together, in community.

The contemporary American evangelical church does NOT do a good job with confession. We’re too busy pretending we’ve got it all together. Heaven forbid we admit to each other that we’re struggling with something. Heave forbid our pastors show flaws or weaknesses! Ms. Evans is right when she notes that our churches feel more like country clubs than Alcoholics Anonymous. Church ought to be the place where we are free to be broken with one another.

But then she devolves from a good conversation about confession into a litany of historical grievances against Christians, beginning with the Crusades and including Western empire building (although that was political behavior behind a veneer of religion, not religious behavior). I don’t agree with the liberal re-interpretation of the history, and I won’t spend time arguing about that here. It just seems out of place in this book and wasn’t tied into the larger story being developed.

She ends the section with the liberal call to stop judging people and to love them instead. Not surprising. I happen to think the Bible calls us to love people AND to judge them. We can point out sin without being unloving. And just because we wrestle with our own sin doesn’t mean we must shut up about talking about other sins.

Holy Orders: Holy Orders

Ms. Evans uses the sacrament of holy orders to talk about her experience being part of a church plant. Most of the section is personal narrative of her experience with planting a church. It’s tough to be part of a church plant, which she and her husband experienced first-hand. Ministry is difficult in ANY setting.

She is right that all Christians share the same calling. We are kingdom of priests and should be serving and ministering to one another. What amazes me is that she would even attempt to be part of a ministry team and a faith leader when she admittedly lacks faith.

Communion: Communion

Ms. Evans is big on doing as opposed to believing. The mainstay of evangelical churches is belief. She believes we miss the mark because we prefer to believe rather than do. When it comes to communion writes:

‘Do this,’ he said–not believe this but do this–in remembrance of me.

But what she misses is that the doing was a result OF the believing. Jesus said DO this to remember me. Without the believing communion is simply shared meal time. Even in the early church gatherings, the communal meal wasn’t the totality of the gathering. They gathered for the apostles’ teaching (doctrine and belief) and to prayer (elements of faith and belief). It was BECAUSE of their belief that they continued to meet together. You cannot separate believing and doing. Indeed, believing must precede the doing, or else we’re just Boy Scouts looking to do good deeds for others.

Ms. Evans seems to relegate communion to the act of feeding one another and table fellowship. She writes:

Certainly nonbelievers can care for one another and make one another food. But it is Christians who recognize this act as sacrament, as holy.

NO! Communion isn’t about caring for one another and making food for each other. It’s about the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross, giving up his body and blood to pay a price we couldn’t afford to pay. She de-theologizes communion when she makes it about food rather than the work of Christ on the cross. Because she makes it about table fellowship rather than Christ’s substitutionary work, she can talk about welcoming all to the table.

“Welcome! There’s bread and wine. Come eat with us and talk.” This isn’t a kingdom for the worthy; it’s a kingdom for the hungry.

While we will never be worthy (which is why we couldn’t pay the price for our sins ourselves), communion is about Jesus paying the price for us. When we come to faith we begin a shift, though, and cannot remain the same. The Church that should be welcoming to all still needs to be the Church that quotes God, “Be holy as I am holy.”

Confirmation: Confirmation

Now addressing the issue of denominations within Protestantism, Ms. Evans notes:

…our various traditions seem a sweet and necessary grace.

Well…not ALL of them. Not the denominations that go against what she holds near and dear to her heart, namely women’s ordination and exclusion of the LGBTQ community from communion. But other than those groups, a sweet and necessary grace.

And so Ms. Evans clings to the Apostles’ Creed as the end-all of Christianity. To an extent, I agree. I think that there are more things that unite Christians than divide us. We like to get bogged down in the differences, but the basic elements of faith are identical from group to group.

But there is more to faith than the ancient creeds – things like sin lists and virtue lists (both in the Bible in multiple places). Christianity is more than reciting a creed. It’s about a faith that leads us to be more Christ-like. But what happens when you don’t have that faith? As she puts it, when you’re

swallowing down the bread and wine, not believing a word of it.

Not a word.

Then all you have is a creed. Dead words that mean nothing in the grand scheme of eternity.

Anointing of the Sick: Anointing of the Sick

This is another point where I think Ms. Evans gets it completely wrong. She makes a distinction between healing and curing. We’re called to heal, not to cure. She says:

The thing about healing, as opposed to curing, is that it is relationship. It takes time.

I don’t know where she’s coming up with this stuff, but it isn’t biblical. When Jesus sends his disciples out with his authority to preach and heal, the disciples HEALED THE SICK and cast out demons. It wasn’t relationship. It was about the power of God breaking through to our reality. It was a sign that the kingdom of God is HERE! In the New Testament we see other examples of the church laying on hands and praying for healing – for people to be cured of what ailed them. It is dishonest to the Bible to pretend that there is a difference between healing and curing.

While God doesn’t always answer prayer the way we’d like, we cannot pretend that biblical healing is anything other than God changing and repairing physical bodies. Can healing take place emotionally and relationally? Yes. But don’t downplay the power of God and what the Bible says about healing. Otherwise you turn God’s healing power into one big Kumbaya sing-along where we end up crying and hugging each other.

Marriage: Marriage

Here again I find myself agreeing with Ms. Evans. Following Jesus is a group activity and wasn’t ever intended to be a solo event. But it goes beyond that. The Church is called the Bride of Christ. Turning from Jesus is infidelity. There is no other way to the Father. The Church is His, and those who believe are called to be a part of it.

She gets it right when she says:

And the church universal is sacramental when it knows no geographic boundaries, no political parties, no single language or culture, and when it advances not through power and might, but through acts of love, joy, and peace and missions of mercy, kindness, humility.

So, yes.

THIS is what the church is supposed to look like in the world.

All said and done, the book can give you a good insight into what a lot of young people go through when they realize that the faith of their parents is not their own. The book will help you see Christianity from a liberal vantage point. In the end, I think the vantage point is hollow, substituting social action for genuine faith.

The local church will always be flawed because humans are flawed. That doesn’t mean the institution is flawed or that faith is lost. The Church belongs to Jesus, and we should do our best to be faithful to him and His Church.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
It has not been my intention to misrepresent the views or writings of Rachel Held Evans in any way. This has simply been my interpretation and response to what I read.

I welcome all discussion, just keep it civil and polite. If this post resonates with you in any way, please share it on Facebook, Twitter, or email!

What Christians Can Learn from the Seattle Seahawks

Super Bowl 49

Like millions of other people around the world, I was watching the Super Bowl Sunday night as the Seattle Seahawks took on the New England Patriots.

Of course the entire world is talking about the final Seahawks play of the game. With mere feet to the endzone and a renowned running back, the Seahawks opted to throw the ball rather than run it. What looked like a sure score and Super Bowl victory turned out, well, disappointing for the Seahawks.

For the last couple of days I’ve heard lots of criticism and jokes made at the expense of the Seahawks coaching staff. But it’s easy to be an armchair quarterback – to criticize things from the outside looking in – even though we have never (and will never) spend a second playing in the big game.

There are others who point to the fact that the play call was NOT, actually, a bad call. The New York Times posted an article looking at the Super Bowl through Game Theory and posited that the call was actually the smart move.

Fox Sports said something very similar:

So what’s the lesson Christians can learn from this whole debacle? Cross-apply the principle of armchair quarterbacks to armchair church members and the lesson is this:

We shouldn’t be so quick to criticize play calls made by Christian leaders.

It’s easy to be removed from the situation and criticize the play calls and the ones making the calls. I see this kind of behavior on social media and in real life. People are quick to criticize the decisions made by pastors, elders, or ministry leaders. It’s easy to stand back and, in hindsight, say, “That was a terrible decision! You should’ve done it differently!”

But in the middle of living life we don’t get to make decisions with the luxury of hindsight. Sometimes a play can be a perfectly viable play and still go horribly wrong. If the Seahawks had made the play and scored, Pete Carroll would have been a hero instead of a goat and the brunt of internet jokes:

Pete Carroll

Yes, I know that the coach, pastor, leader (whatever) takes the heat for bad calls. It’s the reason why the project manager of the losing team usually gets fired by Donald Trump in The Apprentice. But Christians can act with grace, knowing that sometimes people can make viable decisions that have poor results. It doesn’t make the leader a bad leader. Sometimes it just means that the other team’s defense stepped up and made a better play.

Instead of blaming church leaders every time we perceive a bad call, let’s act with love and grace.

‘Cause that’s kind of how the Bible calls us to act.

When the Pastor is a Glory Hog

I’m sure there are pastors who really are glory hogs. A lot of guys want to be “THE guy” – the one the church depends on and looks to as the supreme religious leader. The church becomes a personality cult around this kind of pastor.

Glory Hog

On the flip side there are churches that actually expect and demand that the pastor be the go-to guy for all things religious and spiritual. Some church members find it unacceptable to be visited or called on by anyone other than the senior pastor.

I remember one time as a pastor I tried to create a pastoral care & visitation team, The idea was to help others who had a gifting and calling for this kind of ministry assist the clergy. I was accused of trying to pass the buck and shirk pastoral responsibility. One person even told me,

“It’s fine to be visited by others, but people really want the big dog.”

But this idea of a clergy-based ministry isn’t biblical. In fact, the Bible shows us that healthy ministry is carried out be everyone. When there was a need that wasn’t being met, the 12 Apostles (the first church leaders and preachers), said, “We can’t be distracted from our God-calling. Let’s find other godly people to assist.” Thus the early church appointed its first deacon team. We read about in Acts 6:1-7 ~

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.

The Apostle Paul talks about the Church being like a body. It’s made up of many parts, but each part needs to function well for the whole body to be healthy.

If you have never taken a spiritual gifts inventory, it is a good place to start asking how God might have gifted you to serve and minister (it’s not the end-all, just a starting place). Try this one

As Christians we’re all in this together. We are co-ministers for Jesus. Though we all have different roles to play, everyone should play a part. So step up to the gift God has given you and begin serving!

Dear Pastor, Why Do You Hate Church?!

angry man

Actually, I don’t.

In fact, I love the church. But ever since I started out on a new ministry idea I’ve been asked that question by other Christians.

This new ministry idea? It’s a digital ministry. The concept is fairly simple: provide a church community to people who are not able or are not willing to step into a traditional church building. Feel free to check out the description and vision.

But some people are uncomfortable with the idea.

Some have asked: How do you respond to the Bible’s exhortation to not give up meeting together (Hebrews 10:25)?

But the Bible doesn’t say what that meeting has to look like. The early church ever had any inkling that people would be connecting and meeting globally thanks to technology. Businesses do it. Friends and family do it. Now it’s time for the church to do it.

We have the ability to connect with people like never before.

Some have asked: How can you be a real church without giving the sacraments of baptism and communion?

Put simply, it doesn’t take a church building to do baptisms and communion. I was baptized in a hot tub at a church member’s home. And if we take the Bible seriously when it calls us a kingdom of priests, then we understand that it doesn’t take ordained clergy to administer baptism and communion. It’s something all Christians can participate in WHEREVER they are.

Additionally, we need to be honest about baptism and communion not being a prerequisite for entrance to heaven.

WHAT?!?

Simmer down, now! Think about the crucifixion story. The thief beside Jesus asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into his kingdom. Jesus answered:

“I assure you: Today you will be with Me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43)

No baptism. No communion. Just a promise of eternity in the presence of God because of his faith.

At The Church Plant our desire is to bring the message of Jesus to all of the God-friendly but un-churched people online.

Recent stats say that 80% of un-churched people would consider going to church if invited by a friend. Unfortunately, only 2% of Christians EVER invite someone to church. We’re missing a HUGE opportunity to reach people who are open to the idea of God.

So here I am. It’s new. It’s a little terrifying. I’m not sure how God is going to use this ministry or where it will go. It’s kind of a work in progress. 🙂

But I’ll follow the path God has laid out, and we’d love for you to walk with us.

You know people who have been burned by a church and never want to return. You know people who are open to the idea of God but don’t want to step foot in church. You know people who are house-bound and CAN’T make it to a church.

Tell them about The Church Plant – there’s a community waiting to welcome them and share the love of Jesus in a digital way.


%d bloggers like this: