Christians and the Climate Debate – Is this a fight we want to have?

I read today in the Wall Street Journal (see article here) that the American Values Network was running an ad in eight states supporting climate change legislation. In the ad, a prominent pastor encourages Christians to support a climate bill that "creates jobs, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and especially protects vulnerable families and communities at home and abroad who are most hurt by climate change." The ad ends with the familiar ask, “ Please join the chorus of the faithful by calling 877-88-CLIMATE to learn more and be connected to your Member of Congress.”

Evidently the traditional Christian right is very concerned about this new campaign. Groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council are working with the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation to combat the ads by organizing pastors to carry the message that climate control legislation could cripple the country.

Last year this time left wing Evangelicals were proclaiming that they were a fresh expression of modern evangelical beliefs, now it seems they are just another group pushing the Democratic legislative agenda. Of course my friends on the right aren’t doing any better. Focus and FRC have waded right into the mud with the left and both sides are enlisting pastors to spread the word about their position on the bill.

Can we get one thing straight? The pulpit is a sacred place. The man standing in that spot had better be seeking God’s will in the message he is proclaiming to his congregation – not reading the talking points from political handlers. Sometimes it seems we have forgotten WHO we are dealing with.

I have no doubt God has a message for America . He wants to heal His church. He seeks to reconcile His church – not see it divided by momentary political initiatives. He wants to break the enslaving chains of wealth and indulgence and comfort that make this Church so weak.

He wants to draw all people to HIMSELF. He wants to ignite a passion for knowing HIM in every one of us. He wants us to be compelled into actions of sacrifice for the weak and the poor because of His extravagant love for us. He wants a Church that seeks justice in every corner of society because He is just.

Any sermon or message that seeks any goal other than HIS GOALS is life threatening to the Church and the organizations involved.

If a pastor feels led by God to preach about global warming - pro or con - then fine, but the solution has to be deeper than “now call your Congressman.”

Jesus died to reconcile the world to Himself. The primary purpose of the Church should be reconciliation in itself and with God. If we find ourselves squaring off with each other over political issues maybe those issues aren't central to God's plan on earth.

Here's a company I can get behind.

Yesterday I talked about the fact that I didn't think I could biblically justify a business that is only focused on making a profit. To succeed in God's eyes we have to be focused on expanding His kingdom. As I was visiting Northland Church's website today I ran across this video of one company that gets it. I hope you enjoy.

Storyville and IJM from Northland Media Design on Vimeo.

What's great is this isn't as rare as you think. God is raising up a generation of young business leaders devoted to expanding His kingdom on earth. It's exciting stuff and I'm going to get some Storyville Coffee for sure. You can order the coffee at this website: http://www.storyville.com/

The Pope, the Supply Chain and Christmas Boxers

For most of my political life I’ve been around people who claim to be socially moderate but fiscally conservative. Or socially conservative but fiscally moderate. I’ve always found these sorts of labels amusing. They don’t really describe anything concrete, they just mean what the person or politician or professor wants them to mean. These labels are designed to put you at ease about the politics of that individual. This week we get a chance to see one public figure take an unabashed stance. Pope Benedict sweeps away all our comfortable Americanisms in his new encyclical, Caritas in veritate (Charity in Truth), in which he makes it clear that we cannot separate our social political stances from our fiscal political stances. Consider this paragraph: "Charity demands justice: recognition and respect for the legitimate rights of individuals and peoples," he says. "Justice must be applied to every phase of economic activity, because this is always concerned with man and his needs," he writes. "Locating resources, financing, production, consumption and all the other phases in the economic cycle inevitably have moral implications. Thus every economic decision has a moral consequence." [my emphasis] In America we have gotten very comfortable with the idea that the market decides value, whether it be the value of a shirt or the value of a meal or the value of a man’s labor. We have lengthened the supply chains to the point where the harsh realities at the far edges cannot possibly have anything to do with us. None of this is to denigrate the idea of profit. Nothing is more dignifying to the human creative spirit than the pursuit of and gain or profit. But as Benedict says, "Profit is useful if it serves as a means towards an end . . . once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty." Today there is vast, intransigent poverty gripping over half the planet. This poverty is certainly caused by the corruption, abuse and sin that people poor out on each other and themselves around the globe. But if anyone has the power to change this fact it would be the rich – us. Only we can choose to use less. Shine a light on corrupt practices and stand up to tyrants. Or refuse to deal with those who press labor from the poor for a substandard wage. The other day I heard the story of a guy named Kelsey Timmerman who decided to go to Bangladesh to meet the people who made his fancy Christmas boxer shorts. When he went home with them he was stunned to see how they lived. He said he always figured they would make less than Americans but would make a fair wage for their country. In fact these people barely made enough to stay alive and crawl back to work the next day. I’m scared to death that I might find myself standing before the Lord of Heaven and Earth one day explaining how Adam Smith’s invisible hand and the market means it really wasn’t my fault that I lived off of the abuse of so many for so long. I wonder if Americans would have any interest in a party that: -Believes in hard work for just rewards, -Seeks to foster environments where economies can flourish, but -Also is conscious of the need to protect the weak and create just economic results around the world and here in America . No I don’t . . . I just don’t know of a party willing to take that stance. __ The quotes of Benedict’s work were taken from the Washington Post article where you can learn more about Charity in Truth. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/07/AR2009070700656.html You can learn more about Kelsey Timmerman’s work and writings at: http://whereamiwearing.com/ A good first step to learning more about how people live at the other end of the supply chain would be to listen to the World Vision Report at this website: http://www.worldvisionreport.org/

They're not laughing with us.

Every now and then I hear a so called secular song that so clearly and definitively speaks to human needs or theological realities that I just have to promote it. This week I heard a new song that really touched me because I think it represents a great example of how people who don't follow Jesus perceive us.

The song is called “Laughing With” by Regina Spektor. I don’t know much about this artist but she sounds like a cross between Michelle Branch and Jewell to me. But take a look at these lyrics:

No one laughs at God in a hospital

No one laughs at God in a war

No one’s laughing at God

When they’re starving or freezing or so very poor

No one laughs at God

When the doctor calls after some routine tests

No one’s laughing at God

When it’s gotten real late

And their kid’s not back from the party yet

No one laughs at God

When their airplane start to uncontrollably shake

No one’s laughing at God

When they see the one they love, hand in hand with someone else

And they hope that they’re mistaken

No one laughs at God

When the cops knock on their door

And they say we got some bad news, sir

No one’s laughing at God

When there’s a famine or fire or flood

*Chorus*

But God can be funny

At a cocktail party when listening to a good God-themed joke, or

Or when the crazies say He hates us

And they get so red in the head you think they’re ‘bout to choke

God can be funny,

When told he’ll give you money if you just pray the right way

And when presented like a genie who does magic like Houdini

Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus

God can be so hilarious

Ha ha

Ha ha

It’s a pretty interesting point. No one laughs at God when they face life’s most awful moments. But when things are fine He’s just a joke. This artist is saying that those of us who claim to know God the best are the one’s who make Him seem so funny to people who haven't decided to follow Jesus yet.

I see this song as the lyrical confirmation of the basic point in David Kinnamen and Gabe Lyons' book called “unchristian.” The research in that book basically makes the point that the reputation of the Church has sunk to new lows precisely because we have made Christianity about things that really don’t have anything to do with God’s story of redemption at all. It’s a great read and I’d encourage everyone to give it a look.

Here’s the thing, in spite of all our faults we do have a story to tell about Jesus’ ongoing work on this earth. When Jesus decided it was time to reach out to a town in Samaria He didn’t just go to that town, identify the strategic leaders and give them the good news. Instead, He waited outside the city for a woman who was too ashamed to come to the well when everyone else was there. She got to hear first and then she delivered the message to the town.

He’s doing that with us now, all over the world.

When the people around you are dealing with life’s worst days will the God they see in you tell them how He loves them? Will they know that God is closest in these terrifying moments? Or will they first think they need to change their party affiliation, their taste in clothes, their language or their friends before they can talk to our God?

It actually is funny how God works in this world. He uses imperfect us . . . somehow.

You can learn more about unchristian here: http://www.unchristian.com/default.asp

If you'd like to watch the video of this song it is available on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rov3pV9PsRI

A Christian’s Response to Death

It’s interesting to see how we all feel the need to respond to death, especially deaths of public characters. What’s even more interesting is how shaky our theology gets as we try to find something to say.

Responding to Farrah’s death yesterday, one person said, “There’s another Angel in heaven today.” Hmmm, got a verse for that one? Of course this time she really was an angel, Charlie’s version. But generally that statement doesn’t make sense.

It seems like the more public the death the more critical the American Christian response is. When a family friend dies no one says, “Well now they know wealth and fame mean nothing.” But if it’s a celebrity the gloves come off.

For some reason, anytime a celebrity dies Christians seem to think we should point out that the celebrity died in spite of their fame, power, or wealth. It’s like we think any time someone important dies they died because God’s making a point for us – proving us right. But any time a culturally acceptable person dies it’s another story. No one said Ruth Bell Graham’s death proved that her popularity meant nothing when she died.

We’ve all sat in church and heard the sermon that lists the famous deaths, right? Marilyn Monroe, Jimmy Hendrix, Curt Cobain, John Belushi, and lately we’ve added Heath Ledger, Anna Nicole Smith and maybe even Michael Jackson. It’s no surprise that Christians nudge each other smugly when someone the world regards as important dies. We learned it in church.

But people don’t die to prove us right about anything. Death is the enemy. Jesus came to conquer death. Every time someone dies – every single time – the universe is ripped. Not one of us was created to die. Those people in that list above were unique iterations of God’s creative nature. They were meant to live forever but sin intervened as it will for all of us.

We Christians, of all people, should never be so comfortable with our enemy (Death) as to claim he is doing God’s work. We should never try to explain or minimize the horror of any death. Instead, we should offer the love of the God of Life who has made a way to escape death’s eternal grip.

If the Church wants to impact my city or yours we need to stop lecturing those who grieve and start serving them. What would it look like if Christians were at Jackson ’s home in Gary , Ind. , or on the Walk of Fame in L.A. , or anywhere the grief-stricken have gathered? How different would it be if we were listening to their words, affirming their sadness and offering comfort?

I think it would look like Jesus . . . and it would turn the world upside down . . .

I Wrote A Blog I Couldn’t Post

And it was a really good one too. It was all about the Learning Channel’s Gosselins and Duggars and how similar all of us are to those two families. But for some reason I couldn’t pull the trigger. I showed it to some trusted friends and talked it over with Linda. She encouraged me to hold off.

The problem was we all live in the press cycle now. As the days went by my thoughts became less and less relevant. It was really frustrating.

But this morning it all became clear as I listened to Erwin McManus talk about the story of the blind man in John 9. You know - the one that Jesus put his spit/mud cure all on. As Jesus and the disciples were walking along the disciples asked Jesus why this man was born blind. Was it his sin or the sin of his parents?

Right there I saw it – because Erwin made the point. That’s what was wrong with my blog. The disciples saw the blind man and thought, “Here’s a great opportunity for an abstract spiritual conversation.” Actually they didn’t see this blind man at all. They didn’t know who he was. They didn’t care about him. He was Blind Man, Example #1.

As good as my ideas might have been, I was seeing the Gosselins and Duggars as “Christian Families, Examples #1 and #2.” But I don’t want to reduce people to that. People aren’t just examples to discuss. Like the blind man, each of us illustrate God’s amazing nature and work in our lives - even when we suffer and fail.

We’ve become a world full of analysts, a chattering church clucking along about this issue and that. We talk about people like they are just spiritual illustrations. It’s like we think they exist just to make our points. We come across suffering, point out that this is evidence of worldly sin or churchly failings, and then totter off to make the next point.

That kind of Church won’t change Washington , D.C. or any other city. The world knows what its like to be reduced to a label and they are not surprised when we treat them exactly the way they treat each other. It confirms what they suspect - that we aren’t that different.

But what would it look like if the Church – and I – were more interested in bringing healing to hurting people instead of just making my point?

P.S. If you want to check out Erwin, the sermon I’m referencing was June 21, 2009, titled “Unexplainable: The Seven Wonders of Jesus, Jesus’ Power Over Suffering” at Mosaic in L.A. You can check it out http://mosaic.org/podcast/ or on iTunes. I’m an enthusiastic fan.

Megachurches, part of the problem???

Today I read in the Raleigh News and Observer that there’s a new study on the types of people who attend megachurches in the U.S.  It’s an interesting article but, as usual, I think they are casting the findings in the worst possible light.  I think there is some very good news in this study and some room to grow as well.  If you want to read the article click here - http://www.newsobserver.com/105/story/1562002.html.

 

“Conducted by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research at Hartford Seminary and Leadership Network, the survey of nearly 25,000 people who attend 12 U.S. megachurches was conducted from January through August 2008. It is billed as the largest representative national study of that religious demographic to date.”

 

The study found that 5 million a week attend one of 1300 megachurches.  (Churches with over 2000 attenders.)  They tend to be younger, wealthier and better educated than the numbers you see across the board for Protestants in America.  Also, more of them are single.  Almost a 1/3 are single as compared to 10% in the average congregation. 

 

The bad news is they also tend to give less and volunteer less than people in smaller congregations.  Now that’s going to spark some comments I’m sure.  All my life smaller church advocates have told me that those people at those big churches are just there for the show and are not committed to building the church. 

 

I always find that unusual since I’ve never been in a small church that didn’t have to beg for volunteers.  Instead of suggesting that megachurch attendees aren’t engaged could it be that megachurch attendees are just a different demographic of people. 

 

Almost a 1/3 are single.  Now who is single in America today?  Young people and single parents, that’s who, exactly the kind of people who don’t have lots of money and may be short on time as well. 

 

The study also pointed out that nearly a ¼ were new to or returning to the church after a long time.  Also many other said they were attending more than one church.  These are not people who give and volunteer as they change churches or just try to learn what church is all about.

 

If you really want to gauge the health of a megachurch go and observe their programming.  Are they adequately staffed?  Are they working in inventive ways to reach stated ministry goals?  Are those who are volunteering growing in the Lord?

 

What’s better, 80 beleaguered volunteers struggling to keep open the doors of a church that is no longer reaching the community?  Or 1000 volunteers who are so slammed with new Christians and families in need that they can’t get a breath?  I’m guessing the second one will look and feel more like they are serving a living, active God who is on the move in this Earth today.

 

A few months ago I tried to tell a friend about a great new church in her community.  She stopped me and said they are going to go to Grandma’s church until she died; then her daughter piped in “and after that we aren’t going anywhere!”  That was the end of that conversation.  Obviously this small church was not making its point very well.  I wonder if that pastor gets mad when people head to the new megachurch instead of staying at the burial grounds?

 

I’m going to adopt different viewpoint.  Several Sundays back Perry Noble told his congregation at NewSpring Church in Anderson, SC he hated it when people called NewSpring a megachurch. (NewSpring is one of the fastest growing churches in the state.)  He said there are 2 million people in upstate South Carolina who need to hear the gospel.  As far as he was concerned their church was a microchurch!

 

He’s got the right idea.  Jesus is creating one megachurch here on earth and instead of measuring the haystacks we need to start measuring the fields.