Some Thoughts from a Survivor of the Young Adult Church Massacre

I’m not engaged enough to keep up with all the popular Christian blogs, but I do follow Rachel Held Evans, and recently I’ve seen several posts there (and elsewhere; this is not a new phenomenon) relating to the masses of young people who are disillusioned with the church. What got me writing was a spate of “time to leave the church” kinds of posts. Though, as a pastor, I clearly have a dog in this fight, I’m not criticizing those who have taken that position in one form or another. There are times to leave churches, and they are invariably painful times. So here I am, simply adding more words to the discussion.

I grew up in a Bible Belt church that did not seem (in my eyes) to value asking the hard questions, which did not sit well with my upbringing to parents who, thankfully, cared a great deal about asking those sorts of questions. Emotional response to “the Spirit,” who “moved” predictably in time with the music, was what mattered in my home church, though it’s certainly possible that I wasn’t paying attention when the harder questions were dealt with. Once when I taught a Sunday School lesson that challenged us to consider that heaven, biblically speaking, pointed us more toward resurrection and the union of heaven and earth than disembodied harp-playing on clouds at the pearly gates, I was tersely accused of misusing Scripture. End of discussion. And yet I came to faith in Christ in that church, and I am eternally grateful for the people who sacrificed to share their own imperfect understanding of God with me.

I languished in undiagnosed introverted agony for four years at a major Christian college while I consistently heard the message that I was somehow malformed because I lacked the “passion” for God that was expected, a passion that manifested itself in swinging from weepy-eyed “I just, like, just love Jesus so much!” moments to manic “Yay ra Jesus!” outbursts (at the appropriate times, of course, and usually in front of total strangers). I took a vicious delight in predicting the point in the Jesus ballads in chapel when most people would raise their hands in spontaneous, non-manipulated adoration of God. Ten years later, I can still name the worship leaders and chapel deans I hold responsible for nearly destroying my faith (that is not an exaggeration), but learning to show them grace is just as much a part of my healing as has been growing beyond them. And I still ache from the times when people I cared about and respected asked me, seriously, how I could be called to pastoral ministry when I was such an introvert.

Now I am the thirtysomething co-pastor (with my wife) of a small, un-hip Wesleyan church in the Poconos, an area that is desperately convinced that it is still rural, when in fact it became quite suburban (and even urban) several years ago. I loved our worship last Sunday, in which we sang along with Paul Baloche songs projected on the screen, then sang a Twila Paris chorus from 1982 played on the Hammond organ, then heard a twangy, old-style country duet sung by an eighty-some-year-old couple whose accompaniment was played from a muffled cassette tape. We are not cool, but I love us. Our combination of eighties-era wood paneling, seventies-era gold shag pew upholstery, and sixties-era faded red carpeting is, shall we say, not likely to make a magazine cover. And I, as a co-pastor, am likewise uncool. I do not have gel in my hair, which I crop military-short rather than letting it grow long and cool. I do not have cool thick-rimmed glasses. I do not wear cool graphic tees (or are ironic vintage tees the cool thing now? I’m not even cool enough to keep up). I do not have a cool soul patch. I do not have a cool tattoo, not because I think tattoos are evil, but because I can’t think of anything I like enough to want to have it stuck on my body for the next fifty years. I grew up in rural Indiana, for crying out loud, so I don’t even have a cool backstory. I wear a tie, I tie it properly, and I don’t apologize for it. As a preacher, I am so uncool that I refuse to use video clips from Christian skits and popular movies in my sermons, not because I want to be countercultural, but because I think they almost always hinder effective communication.

We are not perfect, but I still love us. I have cringed with shame when my parishioners have spouted the most backward, überconservative drivel, but I have also beamed with pride when they unexpectedly “got it” and showed love and grace to someone who absolutely did not deserve it. I could name the people who have left our church during the five years my wife and I have pastored here, and I know that some of them have been hurt, and I know that some of them would blame me. Some of them are right to do so, while others are not. I grieve the loss of those people. There have been days — quite a few, really — in my five years of pastoral ministry when I’ve been this close to stomping off into the woods to live as a hermit in a cave (again, not an exaggeration). And yet I still love us, because Jesus still loves us and claims us as His bride, and because I am surrounded by other Christians (especially my ever-patient wife) who gently bring me back, and because I think it lies at the heart of the gospel to insist on loving people who are so different than you that you can sometimes barely stand them.

If you are struggling in your relationship with the church or have left the church but still like Jesus, I’m not going to accuse you of being selfish and needy and write you off as being the real problem here. It is very true that in many cases, the church has evolved to perpetuate its own institution, and many (far too many) pastors lack the theological grounding needed to really be the church. As with most things, you are the problem, I am the problem, “The Man” is the problem… And yet while I am certainly not a Catholic, I recognize much truth in the claim that there is no salvation outside the church.  It’s not technically true, of course, but there is still truth in that claim. I sense in this generation that there is a desire to have Jesus while rejecting the church, and you simply can’t do that. The church is the continuation of Jesus’ mission; we’re a package deal. You might reject the institution, but you can’t reject the community of God’s people, and it’s only natural that even the most spontaneous expression of community will seek to perpetuate itself through gradual institutionalization. You will never find a perfect church, and I think that’s kind of the point: the redemption of the world requires a collision between a holy God and a sinful world. Not only the repentant sinners that Jesus encountered and healed, but the blind, self-righteous sinners, too. Hypocrites, Judaizers, legalists, gossips, and just plain mean people are not a new addition to the church. Not at all.

I am not writing to chastise those who have either left the church or are desperately seeking some non-church church alternative. I don’t claim to know your story, but I do know mine, and I know that there is hope. Do not give up on the church. Do not give in to church-bashing. This ugly, sometimes smelly, unlovable mess of a bride is still the bride of Christ. Take a deep breath, re-read Ephesians 1, remember that Paul is talking about the church in those beautiful words about the mysteries of God, and decide that you’re going to love the church just like you decide to love your spouse even when they’re as unlovable as they can sometimes be. And then go on to read Ephesians 2, where Paul hints at some of the stupid problems the Ephesian Christians were having, and tells them that God has built them together like two walls of his house anyway.

Yes, the church is a mess. Yes, in many cases it is hostile to the things younger generations are facing today. I could tell stories that would leave you picking your jaw up off the floor; I’m under no delusion about how the church works. But the beauty of God’s kingdom is that He loves her anyway.

A Beautiful Mess

Reading: 1 Samuel 3:1-10; Romans 12:3-8

This week's sermon is a little out of the ordinary since I preached it as part of a pulpit exchange with Pocono Lake United Methodist Church. This is the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, and so we decided to switch preachers for one Sunday in recognition of our unity in Christ. I'm afraid I therefore don't have the recording, but if I gain access to it I'll post it later.

Click here to view a manuscript of this sermon (.pdf).

Preached on January 15, 2012 at Pocono Lake United Methodist Church.

Another response to Dr. Jim Garlow, this time regarding Newt Gingrich. Sigh.

It is not my intent to start a feud with Dr. Garlow. As I said the last time I responded to his statements, he is my brother in Christ and I embrace him as such. I have no personal dislike for him, and in fact I've never met him. And normally I try to avoid getting too political in this forum unless it's required by a sermon; there are plenty of other better (and worse) sources for political discourse these days. However, Dr. Garlow is a very public figure in both the secular media/political world and the Wesleyan Church, so his statements have a pretty direct impact on my little corner of the church. Specifically, he has come to articulate a political and theological position which, while it is hardly unique these days, is the exact opposite direction from the one I hope the Wesleyan Church will take. There are no shortage of churches making sacrifices at the altar of American 21st-century conservatism, but it is my fervent prayer that the Wesleyan Church will not join them any more than it already has. Our unique theological tradition puts us in a position to offer the world a desperately needed alternative to the civil religion championed by most Republicans on the national stage, and I hope that my denomination will choose this alternative rather than the course chosen by Dr. Garlow.

In case I have not been clear enough: the theology put forward by Dr. Garlow in his recent letter regarding his support of Newt Gingrich is, I believe, a direct threat to the work of the kingdom of God. This is not simply a difference of opinion, this is a matter that strikes at the heart of the gospel.

Dr. Garlow's letter is intended to articulate a defense of his endorsement of Newt Gingrich as a presidential candidate, but it is not actually Newt Gingrich that I intend to discuss. Dr. Garlow is entitled to vote for whatever candidate he chooses. The beauty of the American voting system is that you get to vote for your candidate and I get to vote for mine, and we're each entitled to our politics. I hope that more people will vote for someone other than Gingrich than will vote for him, and clearly Dr. Garlow hopes the opposite. That's fine. The problem comes in how Dr. Garlow defends his choice: he rests on a dangerous, flawed, unbiblical ecclesiology (that is, theology of the church), an old and toxic lie that threatens to unravel the church in the United States.

Since the problem lies in the theology underlying Dr. Garlow's position rather than the specific points he makes, I will respond to only a couple of points from the letter that illustrate the theology itself.

The church and power

First, during a section in which Dr. Garlow discusses Mr. Gingrich's conversion to Catholicism:

But those reasons are not the most compelling reasons for his conversion, in my opinion.  His conversion to the Catholic Church is based on his love of the “church militant,” to the fact that the church of the Middle Ages “got it.”  They knew the enemies of the faith, and they went on the offensive.  He sees – as did the church of the Middle Ages – that the enemies of the church, both then and now, was and is radical Islam.  Islamicists threaten the entire globe.  When he reads history, he sees a church that was willing to confront the most terrifying force of the time.  That compels him, and well it should.  

Mr. Gingrich is right when he sees the dual dangers of radical secularism and radical Islam.  Few seem to grasp it.  But he does.  And so should the American church.  The one church that seemed to “get it” (at least as it related to Islam) was the church of the Middle Ages. 

He would never defend the excesses or sinful aspects of the Middle Age Church.    Nor would I.   For example, I would not defend the brutalities of the Crusades.  Those are wrong. 

Yet, I refuse to fall into the politically correct, historical revisionism that fails to see that Christians in the Middle Ages were forced to defend themselves against the onslaughts of Islam that came to kill in the name of Allah.  And in that sense, there is a direct “connecting of the dots” that can be made between Christians fighting for their lives then, and those who do not want to succumb to radical Islamicists today.

I confess that I have never before seen a Protestant claim that the church of the Middle Ages was an example for us today of a time when we "got it." Yes, there are certainly many examples of the church serving as the witness to the kingdom of God during that time, and there are many examples of saints and communities of faith honoring Jesus Christ. But the church of the Middle Ages was institutionally corrupt in its compromises with the governments of Europe.  It had appropriated power for itself in a way that was entirely contradictory to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Reformation happened for lots of reasons, but most of them came down to that issue of power.

I find it interesting that Dr. Garlow is politically correct enough to distance himself from the Crusades, yet the Crusades are absolutely critical to understanding how the church operated in that time period. You cannot claim that the church "got it" while rejecting its use of violence. The violence was a necessary result of the model the church accepted. The church had so compromised with the temporal powers in the world that she saw herself as one of them: the princes of Europe were blessed by the pope, the church held vast tracts of property, and it was assumed that God had chosen to act through the political-spiritual entity of the institution in Rome. The result was that a threat to the church was a threat to the state and vice versa, and the church thought it was appropriate to use the sword of the state to deal with those threats. This is why it was acceptable, in their eyes, to fight the Crusades, as well as burn dissidents at the stake.

Almost without exception, bad things have happened as a result of the church making an alliance with the state (or segments of the political establishment). Either the state begins using religious language to justify atrocities committed against an unwanted minority or large parts of the church are led astray from their genuine witness of Christ (as is happening and has happened in the United States). When the church begins to think that it can advance the agenda of the kingdom by wielding political power, the witness of Christ will inevitably be damaged.

This is why the Bible is almost universally suspicious of temporal governments. There are a few exceptions, but they are noteworthy only as exceptions. More often, the kingdom of God works against or in spite of human governments and wisdom. The judges were seen as ineffective at preventing "everyone doing what was right in their own eyes," the prophets regularly criticized the corruption of the monarchy, Jesus was opposed and executed by the corrupt powers-that-be, the Apostles expected persecution at the hands of the government, and John the Revelator saw governments as being in league with the Beast. When the people were saved through governments, it was because God was fighting to save them.

The compromise of the church with Republican politics that Dr. Garlow advocates is directly contradictory to the kingdom of God, in other words. The church of Jesus Christ does not go on the offensive against her enemies, as Dr. Garlow says, because Jesus explicitly forbade this:

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:27-31)

There's also this:

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:25-28)

In other words, for the church to be a faithful witness to the kingdom of God, she must explicitly reject the power of coercion as Jesus did. If the church thinks she can wield political power as she did during the Middle Ages (and as Dr. Garlow advocates today), she will be an embarrassment to her Lord.

American Exceptionalism

Here's a second quote that illustrates Dr. Garlow's toxic ecclesiology, when he is listing the qualities he sees in Mr. Gingrich:

A superb grasp of the correct definition of American Exceptionalism.  In short, there are nearly 200 nations with constitutions.  A few of them mention God in the preamble.  Only one nation has sacred documents that specifically state that our rights are given “by their (that is, our) Creator” (Declaration of Independence) to “We The People” (opening large font in the US Constitution) with us as “the People” temporarily loaning the power to elected officials.  That is, based on all the constitutions of the other nations of the world, an “exception,” thus the appropriate phrase “American Exceptionalism.”   Mr. Gingrich is able to articulate this considerably better than any elected official I have ever heard. 

Let me be clear: no minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ should ever advocate American Exceptionalism. This view is not only historically and logically absurd, it is also repugnant to the gospel.

It is absurd because it is meaningless and patently untrue. What does it even mean? What does it imply about our history? Is American Exceptionalism suggesting that this socio-political entity is somehow favored by history? Because many empires throughout history have been wealthy and powerful. Is it suggesting that we are morally superior to other nations? Shall I list the atrocities in our history? Two will do, I think: remember that this nation was born through the systematic extermination of one people (First Nations) and the brutal enslavement of another (Africans). I need not mention the fact that we currently ignore our own supposedly sacrosanct principles at Guantanamo Bay.

It is also repugnant to the gospel to suggest that this nation is somehow accorded a higher status spiritually because of our founding documents. God does not favor the United States over other nations; to suggest otherwise is verging on blasphemy. The Apostle Paul had, shall we say, some strong words to say on the subject: the Epistle to the Galatians is written against those who would insist that certain groups are more "in" the kingdom than others. Ephesians and Philemon (and others) very clearly lay out the theology that all peoples are offered the opportunity to become co-heirs with Christ in Christ; God is building a new people out of all the nations founded on Jesus. No nation has privileged status, and Paul shouts that those who disagree with him should perform *ahem* radical surgery.

The fact that we have included some platitudes about God in our documents is as meaningless as insisting that the clerk at the grocery wish you a Merry Christmas. It does nothing to reflect or witness to the kingdom of God. Is there anything in our Constitution or Declaration of Independence that uniquely references the Sermon on the Mount? And these Republican candidates who proclaim their righteousness from the street corners by going to prayer conventions and reciting the line, "Jesus is my personal Lord and savior:" can they articulate how the Beatitudes will inform their public policy?

Dr. Garlow says this at one point: "We are in a war, a war that will determine whether America, as she was conceived, will survive." And why, exactly, should this concern the church? America as a political entity in no way overlaps with the kingdom of God. I certainly appreciate the privileges of American citizenship, but that citizenship does not dictate the terms of my citizenship in Christ's kingdom. The work of God will not be any more hindered by the collapse of America than it has been by the collapse of any other empire. If we are in Christ, we are citizens of His kingdom. All other kingdoms pass away.

What are the main things?

Dr. Garlow writes about many other things, most of which fall predictably in line with the platform of the Republican party. The three issues that seem foremost in his letter are gay marriage, abortion, and fiscal conservatism. These are indeed serious issues that need to be handled carefully, but I am confused at what biblical justification Dr. Garlow uses to single out these particular issues. I would wager that the Bible has at least as much to say about the evils of greed as it does in favor of personal industry and fiscal responsibility; in fact the Bible frequently assumes that the rich have gained their wealth on the backs of the poor. And I'm pretty sure that the Bible has far more to say about taking care of the poor than it does about the evils of homosexuality. And I know that the biblical instruction is to do good in response to evil and fight using only the armor of God; the weapons of the world are forbidden us. It is unacceptable to focus on those parts of the Bible that convict other people but agree with my politics while ignoring the clear commands of Christ that convict me, too.

If I have said some harsh things, it is out of love for the church of Christ and zeal for her future. I bear no ill will for Dr. Garlow, and I know that God has done many great things through him. I hope, however, that he will reevaluate his understanding of the church's role in the world to bring it more in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Two Sermons: "The Importance of Family" and "God's Word is Beautiful"

Last week was our Vacation Bible School at PLWC, which is why I didn't get around to posting a sermon then. The first sermon below was preached on Father's Day, and of course family is a pretty important concept in the Bible (though not really in the way today's "family values" crowd thinks). The second sermon was used in our Sunday worship following VBS, in which we celebrated what God had done in the previous week and remembered the focus on God's word that we had been teaching about all through the week.

"The Importance of Family"
Preached on June 20, 2010 at PLWC.
Reading: Colossians 3:1-17, 4:2-18
Click here to view a manuscript of this sermon.

"God's Word is Beautiful"
Preached on June 27, 2010 at PLWC.
Reading: Psalm 119
Click here to view a manuscript of this sermon.

The Story of the Church

Reading: Acts 1:1-11, 2:1-6, 14-21

This week was the last in our series of sermons focusing on specific people changed by an encounter with the resurrected Jesus. We looked at the birth of the church this week (it was Pentecost Sunday, after all), in preparation for a week of prayer we have coming up in June. We want to be people who are changed by our prayer and by the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Click here to view a manuscript of this sermon.

Preached on May 23, 2010 at PLWC.

Living Through the Prism

Reading: John 17:11-24

No sermon for January 17 because we had missionaries with us during the morning service. Carey preached during our morning service last Sunday, but we had the honor of hosting the churches of our local ecumenical council for our evening (afternoon, really) service of Christian unity. This sermon is therefore very ecumenical in its flavor and was addressed to the specific churches we had represented at our service.

Click here to view a manuscript of this sermon.

Preached on January 24, 2010 at PLWC.

A Gathering of Strangers

Preached on May 4, 2008 at PLWC.

Reading: Ephesians 4

Continuing our theme of some of the most basic gifts God offers to all who follow him, this Sunday we saw how the church, a gathering of strangers, is one of God's gifts for making us holy.

Click here to view a manuscript of this sermon.

The Dysfunctional Family of God

Preached on May 13, 2007 at PLWC.

Reading: 1 Samuel 1:1-11; Ephesians 1:11-12, 5:1-5

It's Mother's Day, of course, and rather than preach a sermon about mothers like too many other preachers do -- I've actually heard hymns sung to mothers in some churches, believe it or not -- we decided to focus on the church as the family of God for this week. Family imagery is all over the place in the Bible, and Ephesians is no exception. Fortunately for us, God's family is no "ordinary" family.

Click here to view a manuscript of this sermon.

Between the Head and the Feet

Preached at PLWC on May 6, 2007.

Reading: Ephesians 1:15-2:5, 6:10-18; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17

Sorry it took me a while to post this sermon; last week got away from me. We celebrated communion together on the 6th, and so that seemed like an ideal time to talk about how the church is the body of Christ. It's a common enough way of describing the church, but when we push a little harder on what Paul is saying in Ephesians, we see that the church-as-body image is even deeper than it's usually given credit for.

Click here to view a manuscript of this sermon.

Mysteries and Solutions

Preached on April 29, 2007 at PLWC.

Reading: Genesis 32:22-30; Hosea 2:21-23; Ephesians 1:7-10, 3:2-6

Suffice it to say that Paul had some pretty profound things to say about what God did when he created the church. This week, we're looking at what it means when Paul says that the church is the revelation of God's wisdom.

Click here to view a manuscript of this sermon.

Plan A

Preached on April 22, 2007 at PLWC.

Reading: Genesis 18:16-23; Ephesians 1:3-6

The book of Ephesians is a good place to begin if you want to learn more about what the church is supposed to do and be. We're going to spend the next few weeks working out of Ephesians, then, because it's important that we learn how we as a community are expected to live after Easter.

Click here to view a manuscript of this sermon.