A Message for the Friendly Church

Dear Friendly Church,

thank you for the friendly welcome since I literally set foot in the door. From the smiling greeters who insisted I sign in as a guest, to being constantly talked at since sitting down. But hear are a few items I wanted to share with you as a single person coming in alone to visit your church.

First, we are not all social misfits unable to make friends who rely on the intervention of strangers to socialize. I think most of us are well adjusted people who come to church to worship, pray, and to reflect on how to  conduct our lives, as well as seeking grace from our Lord. Not everyone who enters wants constant attention, asked personal questions on their spiritual walk, and their testimony.

Granted, I appreciate the effort you put into it, and know their are some people on the other side of the spectrum that will never come back if they don't make personal friends with half the congregation. It's a noble goal to make people feel recognized and appreciated. It can be a delicate balance, and I know you need to grow as a church, so I suggest an even approach.

Last, let visitors set the agenda. Instead of seeing new people as potential members, try reading people as to what they want to do. People give off hints of when you are doing something uncomfortable. People want genuine friendship and conversation, not forced chatter from an usher because they are supposed to welcome someone from a list of instructions. Sometimes fellowship is best left for the coffee social after church or a small group, not during worship service.

Seeking Grace

There comes a time of reflection, and wanting to right the wrongs you have done to others in life. There may be roadblocks in doing so, such as distance, whether emotional or physical.

An event occurred several years ago where a girl I was in a relationship sat down in a booth across from me in a diner, with nobody else around. It was a perfect opportunity to apologize for the wrongs I had done. What were those things? Well, let's say I was inattentive, and didn't appreciate what I had. When you're twenty years old, you go through a lot of changes and feelings, and distractions happen. Rumors can flourish from people with their own agendas. Nonetheless, I threw the window of asking for forgiveness shut. Instead I just stood up and walked away, embarrassed and a little ashamed after so many years.

In retrospect, maybe I did the right thing. What right did I have to intrude into her life anymore than I did? I had my chance years ago, and instead forgot what was important. Now she moved on in life, and I was a bad memory. In Alcoholics Anonymous, part of their Twelve Steps is to seek the forgiveness of those you have wronged, unless it would cause harm to those by bringing up events in life that caused distress. I don't know if I could have caused more pain by asking for grace, so I took the easier way and left with not saying anything. Now I wonder what might have happened. I like to think she would have said everything was good now between us, but that is left to hope.

Receiving grace is an unequaled gift one hurt person can give another. Perhaps the hardest person to forgive is oneself, because you can blame nobody else.

The Other Side of the Debate

The Other Side of the Debate


The gay marriage debate is seemingly endless, and has taken so much publicity, as it seems a tweet from the most minor of celebrities have to weigh in on it. It would seem that speaking for gay rights is a good career move as a sure way to receive publicity, as well as curry favor with casting powers in Hollywood.

The gay rights crowd, like other groups, have seemingly owned the issue so as to define it so that opposing points are discarded. The left that prides itself on tolerance and civility and is decidedly not when it comes to those that oppose their personal viewpoints. For instance, the term "homophobe" is very presumptuous. Let psychologists diagnose phobias. The Right has played defense too long in apologizing for its beliefs. True, there are many hatemongers who perform acts of violence and spiteful language against homosexuals. But many who oppose homosexuality do so out of legitimate moral and religious reasons, not hatred of any person.

The Evangelical right has been the scapegoat for crimes against gays and unfairly so. Matthew Shepperd, who was violently assaulted and murdered by thugs who were drinking and playing pool, acts not associated with Evangelical Christians. It seems some unscrupulous gay rights activists exploited his death so criticize conservative Christians speaking out against the gay lifestyle would be branded as accomplices in his death. If Christians are responsible for acts of violence against gays because they proclaim it as sinful, are Christians also responsible for murder when a man catches his wife with another man because they spoke against adultery too?

The reason I'm opposed to gay marriage is because it is not an act of privacy in the house. Marriage is a public institution; a endorsement by society that publicly recognizes the union. If homosexuality is another lifestyle, then organizations such as religious adoption agencies who have to provide services to gay couples, businesses would be forced to provide benefits to couples. One Christian who owns a well known dating service is now being forced tho include gays, despite his religious beliefs.

The venerable Boy Scouts of all institutions are under attack. They too have their right as a private organization to associate with who they choose. The Constitution is not just a document of inclusion, but one of individual protection. The Boy Scouts should not have to explain it policies as a private group as if they are accountable to the public. Any school that denies them the right to use their facillities should be considered as disguised blessing, as it could give the churches an opportunity to open their doors to them, and be in an environment of where the Gospel is proclaimed. It is a shame that an institution such as the Boy Scouts has to defend itself, and denied the opportunity to use a public facillity because the officials have the power to deny them due to differing beliefs.

Now politicians in Chicago and Boston are saying Chik Fil A franchises are not welcome in their cities, which is an incredible display of arrogance. Imagine a politician that believes he has the power to grant who can operate a business within the confines of his city just because they exercise their First amendment right sets a dangerous precedent. I'll even say it is un American, something I'm very reluctant to say. To be clear, Chik Fil A does not refuse service to gays. Instead, they contribute money and espouse their religious beliefs, like any other American citizen or institution is entitled to. What's next: denying a business a license because the owner stole the Mayor's girlfriend when they were in high school?

The Judeo-Christian system has traditionally rejected homosexuality as sin. The sacred texts were not written fifty years ago. They predate the Constitution. They were not created by taken by polls of believers. Many Christians oppose homosexuality because the Scriptures say so, not because they wrote the Scriptures. The many Christians who speak against gay marriage are not hatemongers or bigots. That is the language of intolerant liberals who feel they are empowered to define the issue exclusively. Those Christians labeled as intolerant are instead devout, genuine people of faith who love people, but speak against their actions they believe them to be wrong.

The Triumph of Marketing

Christian culture has adapted a new nomenclature to keep up with evolving times, or "being relevant." If a word offends or turns someone off, like any good marketer, we change the name. Just as selling used cars has now become selling "preowned cars,"the savvy church promoter has his own set of buzzwords.

For example: people don't worship in churches; they are now called centers (for that matter, they don't worship either, they have an experience. And Christianity is no longer a religion either: it's now "a relationship," often with an addendum "not about rules." (by the way, if Christianity has no rules, then it's alright to drink and gamble? Well, no, they say, that's not really what we mean). And if it's a relationship instead of a religion, does the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion still apply to Christians? According to the Encarta World English Dictionary, religion is defined as the following:

re·li·gion [ ri líjjən ]   

1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine
3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

Synonyms: faith, belief, creed, conviction.

This attitude extends to church design as well. What ever happened to steeples, bells, and stained glass. Modern churches look so homogeneous and  indistinguishable from YMCAs and malls. It's as if we are trying to hide who we are and our heritage. I know people are wary of churches for various reasons, but the attitudes of the worshipers are what counts. Churches are not called churches anymore in some circles; they're now centers, or given one word names, such as "\Mountain," "Ocean." Denominational churches want to hide their identity, too. In selecting a church, it's good to know if it is Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, or Unitarian. Although  you find out quick once you stepped inside, at least it saves time. And what does a nondenominational church stand for?

Dress is another factor. A very casual dress code has come about over the years that it has made the concept of "Sunday best" obsolete. Camouflage, shorts, tee shirts, and yes, ball caps (during the service no less, but more on that later). Women in dresses and white gloves? That's irrelevant. Today everybody dresses for two hours of comfort. Their is arguments whether Paul meant men should not wear coverings in church, or long hair. "Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.... For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God."
(1 Cor. 11:4, 7). However, Paul argued that when in Rome do as the Romans do, too. It is not legalism to follow basic courtesy and manners. Nothing in the Bible states you must stand when you pledge allegiance to the flag, or holds a door open for a lady. I don't believe God wants to micromanage our lives. People who abide rules of common courtesy should not be considered pharisees. 

Sunday used to be a special day, when men dressed in suits, and women their dresses. People who call wearing fine clothes as stumbling blocks are the sometimes the same people who drive expensive SUVs to church, and not think how a poor family would feel when pulled up in the parking lot. Today, grown men dress like teenagers, and women dress like men, and listen to a man in a Hawaiian shirt on a stage. The magic of Sunday morning is now like a day at the mall.

Selective SIns

I have a pastor friend who got an admonition concerning a supposed violation of the Sabbath. It seems he helping cutting the church's lawn on Sundays, but there's more to the story. The person helping him was a neighbor of the church who was not a member. In fact, he felt he wasn't worthy since he was dealing with certain issues, and Sunday was the best time for him to cut the grass to help the church. My friend obviously wanted to help him, not just out of gratitude for giving of his labor and time for free, but to get a chance to minister to him.

However, word got around, and an elder chastised him in an email about working on the Sabbath. Although he is a pastor, and as a result, always working on the Sabbath, his sin was for appearance's sake. Never mind the neighbor is giving his time (would the people who objected step up and offer to mow the grass in his place?). It is also sad that his authority as spiritual head of the congregation is compromised by this kind of communication.

I believe Jesus answered the question posed by the Pharisees regarding the Sabbath, stating the Sabbath was for man, and not man for the Sabbath. It is ironic when we turn away people in need who volunteer their time because of the letter of the Law, and not its Spirit (including Holy one). As Matthew 12:9-13 states:
"9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
10 And, behold, there was a man which had [his] hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift [it] out?
12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched [it] forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other."

It's strange how selective we are in dealing with sins. We condemn people for going into bars on the premise that weaker brethren might stumble. However, they have no problem serving rich foods full of empty calories and cholesterol inducing deserts around people susceptible to overindulging and heath issues at church dinners. Smoking and drinking is wrong because we are to treat our bodies as temples, but the gluttony of overeating and gossip is often ignored. I wonder if the same people who criticized my friend  for breaking the Sabbath are the same people who cause others to work on Sundays because of their love after church buffets at restaurants?

Confessions of a Pew Warmer

I've heard the term "pew warmer" as a derogatory way of calling people who do not participate in church functions. As someone who can be called that, let me offer my perspective on how to add more "pew warmers".

1. Overload on programs and events with auxiliary duties not related directly to evangelism. Sunday morning. Sunday nights. Wednesday nights. Cook offs. Missionary Tuesdays. Mowing. Nursery duty. Vacation Bible School. And don't forget Saturday morning prayer at 7am.

2. Forget that we don't live in a 1950's culture. A generation or two ago, we had the father work as the breadwinner, and the mother took care of the children. Today, people work more in a service economic sector that requires work at nights and weekends, what with the disappearance of manufacturing jobs. With single parent and dual income households, leisure and family time is at a minimum, and helping your kids with their homework takes precedent over washing dishes at Youth Pastor Appreciation Night.

3. Schedule corporate prayer time at an un Godly hour. I've heard of a couple scheduled at 7am, one by a pastor with no kids to take care of, and wondered why attendance was sluggish. Some people have other priorities, such as being at a job on time. If certain pastors had to punch time clocks, maybe they would appreciate this more (but the Pastor was already at his place of work, so no problem).

4. When people are unable to attend functions and services, use it as a velvet wedge of disapproval. It creates an us versus them: the saints that are present at every church function, and the heathen who only come to church at their convenience. After all, if the widower Jones can make Sunday evening service, it's just too bad that Mary with two kids ages five and three couldn't make it, but I guess she has other things to do besides attending church three times a week, bless her heart. But she is praying for her.

5. Treating visitors special while neglecting regular members. Visitors can be treated very special in churches, Songs sung to them, gifts, handshakes, and dinner invitations. How well do you treat a fellow member? Are they having a hard time? Are they feeling overwhelmed? It's hard to be in Church whenever the doors are open when you have family issues and work two jobs. People going through such issues when judged according to their attendance are eventually called former members. Wouldn't it almost be nice if you could not accept visitors because the church was too full with regular members.

6. Call people "pew warmers." Alienate more people with names and judgment and give them a reason to hate church and not come back.

A New View on Term Limits

Term limits for politicians came into vogue in 1994 with the advent of the "Contract for America," the political marketing plan of the Republicans to take over Congress. I was initially opposed to the idea, thinking it was a lazy way to circumvent citizen involment. After all, every politician is term limited, and must run for reelection when it expires. If voters think he is not doing an adequate job, they should mobilize to displace him come election time. The Republican wanted term limits, until they got elected, and found that staying in office was to their liking, and the term limits pledge quietly drifted away.

But another factor has come to sway my opinion on the matter: seniority. We are all supposed to be equal in the United States. However, in such bodies as the Congress, members with more seniority have more power than their less tenured colleagues. Although the Constitution gives Congress the right to set its own rules, I feel it violates the overall spirit of the Constitution. US Senators have been known to serve for decades, faithfully bringing home the pork because of the number of years served in the institution, not because of the actual need for the project. This in turn puts voters in an uncomfortable position: vote for the candidate with new ideas and energy (and loss of seniority and plum committee assignments), or vote for the multiple termed Senator whose only credentials are how much federal monies he veered to his state. It becomes  a self-perpetuating cycle of reelection and the ensuing pork, and candidates with something new to contribute are therefore shut out and left in the political periphery, and their talents going no further usually than city council and the private sector.

One reason I think we are in such a financial mess we are in is because pet projects ear marked for states and districts, and thereby ensuring reelection. Although many public works need tended to, there are some that are really just not needed for public (such as festivals) use and protection, and at the expense of worthy projects in districts not represented by poiticians with the necessary time in office. These projects are usually named with the incumbent's name attached to it, providing free campaign publicity and making a newcomer's bid that much harder.

Another reason some have against term limits is experience is necessary to properly perform governmental functions. While I don't underestimate the virtueof experience, experience can come from other venues, such as from other elective and appoined offices, working in nonprofit groups and charities, education, as well as critical thinking. Institutional memory is good, but long term staffers can provide that to, as well as advice from former members.

Recently, an incumbant who's been in office since the Carter administration was defeated, and essentially lived in Virginia, a couple thousand miles from the state he was supposed to represent. How involved was he with the daily lives and concerns of his constituants beyond town hall meeting? Another Senator passed away recently with five decades of service, and was known as a king of pork spending. The people who elected him might claim that term limits rob them of their ability to choose who they send to Washington. Perhaps so. But this was a United States Senator, not a state senator. The laws he advocated and wheedeled affected the entire country, not just his state. The money he earmarked were paid by taxpayers of the fifty states, not just his.

Whiule we want politicians to to be accountable to our needs, and it happens when they run for reelection because they want to keep the job, it can sometimes be detrimental as well. Take Medicare and Social Security. These programs are going broke, and the answer is to wait, or let other politicians worry about it when it comes to it, because by then they will be out of office anyway. Social Security is a program based on 1935 demographics and actuarial tables (18 workers to one retiree ratio, and life expectancy of 65 years of age). If Social Secuity will be bankrupt in thirty years, do you want to wait twenty eight years to fix it? Or, in other words in your own case, do you want to wait two years before retirement? With these programs cosidered the third rail of politics, don't wait for career politicians to fix them.