Christian Unity

From time to time, one of my daughters sends me a priceless link. A recent example is this lecture on the changing economy of the American middle-class family. You’ll need about an hour to hear the whole lecture. Believe me, it is worth every minute. The lecturer is not a polished speaker. She is not an extremist nor an alarmist. But her message is alarming. (The main speaker begins about five minutes into the video)

She compares the typical middle class American family (Mom, Dad, two kids) in 1970 to the same type of family in 2005. In 1970, the typical family had one income (Mom stayed home with the kids). If someone had told us in 1970 that by 2005, most families would have two incomes, that women would have made huge advances in education, job opportunities, and salary, we would have expected these families to be affluent, well adjusted, and well prepared for retirement. Boy, would we have been wrong.

In 1970, our typical one-income family saved almost 11% of their gross income, and had very little debt other than home mortage and payments on the single family car. By 2005, our study family had two incomes, a negative savings rate (spending more than they were earning), and $7000 in credit card debt. Not only were they spending the entire second income, but also all the money their parents had been saving, and all the money they had borrowed. And they were continuing to borrow more.

So what were they spending all that money on? Not primarily on essentials like food and clothes. Instead, they were buying a second car (since Mom has to drive to work!) They were paying for child care (their parents never dreamed of that). They were paying for preschool (again, something their parents did not do). They made great effort, at a premium price, to buy a nice house in a “good” school district (not so much of an issue with their parents). The two-income lifestyle was leaving them more financially strapped than their parents’ one-income lifestyle.

Today, the typical family cannot pay their bills without two incomes. That means they have twice the risk of not being able to pay the bills compared to their parents (since there are two workers at risk rather than just one). Sickness, downsizing, injury from a car wreck, a divorce… and suddenly the family is at risk of bankruptcy. In America today, believe it or not, bankruptcy happens even more frequently than divorce. In contrast, the one-income family has a safety net in the form of a second potential worker in the case of an emergency.

Our American churches are no different from our neighbors in these matters. So, for the two-income families among us, are you as debt-free as your parents were? How is that retirement nest egg? Are you always on time with all your bill payments? Do you have some money left over that you can use to help others? How is the two income thing working out for you?

It is very tough to get out of the two-income addiction cycle once you are in it. Dave Ramsey has helped many couples get out of debt, and I recommend his program. For those who are not yet married, or who are early enough in a marriage to still have a chance, I strongly suggest making a commitment to budget to live on a single income. Churches should be teaching these things in premarital counseling. And church leaders should be setting the example by living that way themselves.

Jay Guin has a recent post touching on another aspect of this problem. The busy lives of people in our churches are stifling the work of the church. Two careers, household management, kids booked in every conceivable after-school activity… The fruit is being choked out by thorns. This is a spiritual issue that threatens the future of the church. Will we have the conviction to address it?

A couple of my favorite blogs have been talking about church growth recently. I’ve joined the discussion in a couple of my recent posts.

To talk about church growth, you have to talk about church membership.

Shepherds have a unique perspective on membership. Ezekiel 34 charges shepherds with going after strays — they still belong to the flock. Those whose membership some people question are the very ones at the forefront of the shepherd’s mind. Those are the sheep most needing his care. So the “membership” of the church might vary depending on whom you ask!

In our congregation, counting membership is harder than it should be. I wonder whether other congregations have the same difficulty. We have people moving in, moving out, and moving around. When people move in, we help them find one of our family groups to join. We try to keep track of the membership roll through our family groups. There are two difficulties with that. First, we have people who have been attending for awhile but have not actually joined a family group. Second, people move around between family groups–sometimes resulting in them being counted in two different family groups, and sometimes resulting in people not being counted in either group. And occasionally, we don’t learn about someone leaving the congregation until after the fact, making it impossible to be as thorough as we would like to be as shepherds. We have recently assigned one of our deacons to help with making sure people are connected to one of our family groups, and that we provide a proper welcome and orientation for new arrivals. And we are working to better equip our family group leaders to maintain effective connection with the members of their groups.

From time to time, a few folks leave for one of the other area congregations. Our congregation is racially diverse, but has a higher percentage of African Americans (a little over 50%) than the community. Most often, those who have moved from our congregation to others in the area have been white. We have seen other congregations lose their diversity as a result of people moving around to find a place where they feel more comfortable. We do not want that to happen in our case, but it could happen. The best defense against that, as far as I can tell, is to build family, to make sure people’s spiritual needs are met, to teach about the need for diversity, and to reach out to all segments of the surrounding community. At least we are trying to do those things.

From the old Atlanta Church of Christ, there are at least four groups now meeting in Gwinnett County on Sundays. Members are still moving from group to group. Some of that movement is cultural. Sometimes there is more to it than that. The cause can be something good or something bad. But whatever the cause, the Body of Christ does not lose a member when someone leaves our congregation for another congregation of Christians. It does make it more difficult to care for the sheep due to a lack of continuity.

A dozen or so members of our congregation have moved to one of the other area congregation over the past few months. Obviously I would prefer that these people had been satisfied to stay in our congregation. I can’t speak for the underlying motives of these folks, but some of them have been looking for something and not finding it for several years now. As a shepherd, I’m interested in making sure people who leave our congregation are immediately connected to another congregation where their spiritual needs will be met. I’m also interested to make sure that any problems or issues motivating their move are addressed. The leaders of their new congregation have those same interests.

The Body of Christ neither grows nor shrinks when a Christian moves from one congregation to another. For meaningful numerical growth, we need to be reaching the lost in the community. That is happening once again in our congregation.

Jay Guin has just posted an interesting article discussing the membership decline in Southern Baptists churches. His article prompted me to do a little research. What I’ve learned is not all that surprising, but should concern anyone who seeks the spread of the gospel.

Mainline churches of all types in America are in decline. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, nearly half of American adults [leave] the faith tradition of their upbringing to either switch allegiances or abandon religious affiliation altogether.

On the other hand, non-denominational churches are growing.

From the USA Today:

The 2008 Yearbook of Canadian and American Churches, produced by the New York-based National Council of Churches, recorded growth trends in 224 churches, with a combined membership of 147 million Americans…

Only the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, Mormons, the Assemblies of God (2.8 million) and the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (1.4 million) reported increases; all others either posted declines or flat membership from 2005.

Looking beyond the membership and attendance numbers, baptisms are also down. From Yahoo News:

The number of people baptized in Southern Baptist churches fell for the third straight year in 2007 to the denomination’s lowest level since 1987, and membership dipped slightly as well.

Baptists in 2007 baptized 5.6 people per 100 in attendance (based on 345,941 baptisms, 6.15 million attendance).

Closer to home for us in the Restoration Movement, the independent Christian churches have experienced a reduced growth rate in 2007. The Christian Standard publishes an annual issue with commentary on the state of their largest churches, including all congregations averaging more than 1000 in attendance for the year. The report indicates that in 2007, the megachurches baptized 6.4 per 100 in attendance, down from 7.2 per 100 in 2006.

Churches of Christ have been in decline since the 1990’s, according to statistics gathered by KairosChurchPlanting.org.

These studies provide some troubling facts for church leaders to ponder. And clearly they are pondering. Article after article seeks to identify why the churches are declining, and to propose a solution. Many of the proposals, in one form or another, advocate adopting more of the modern culture in order to relate to more people, especially to the young. Some churches are experimenting with different kinds of music, different worship styles, different kinds of programs. 

Those things can be helpful if done with discretion. But the scriptures call the church to be different from the world (Rom 12:1-2). And history tells us that churches that become like the world decline into irrelevance. If you haven’t read The Churching of America (1776-2005) by Roger Fink and Rodney Stark, now would be a good time to do so. In that book, they present an important lesson of history:

The churching of America was accomplished by aggressive churches committed to vivid otherworldliness.

We need to stop being distracted by the pleasures of this world, and by doctrinal disputes on the fringes of the gospel. Jesus taught that a message of repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached to the world. Maybe he was on to something.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — First Amendement to the Constitution of the United States of America

The recent mess in Texas should make people with minority religious beliefs nervous.

Based on an anonymous phone tip that now appears to have been a hoax, 416 children have been taken into state custody from a polygamous sect known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). While investigating the tip, the law enforcement officers observed pregnant minors in the LDS facility. Based on the apparently pervasive marital practices of this religous group, a decision was made to remove all these children from their homes. At issue are the practice of polygamy, arranged marriages of minor girls, and pregnancy of minors. And yet…

Dr. Bruce Perry, a psychiatrist who has studied children in cults….acknowledged that many adults at the ranch are loving parents and that the boys seemed emotionally healthy. When asked whether the belief system really endangered the older boys or young children, Perry said, “I have lost sleep over that question.”

You wont’ find me defending the practices that are under government scrutiny in this group. But the indiscriminant removal of such a large number of children from their homes (both boys and girls,) without specific evidence of danger in each child’s case, raises serious questions. Just how far can government go to eradicate unpopular religious practices? Did they really think the boys were in danger? If so, on what evidence, and on what legal grounds?

How many of us could go back two or three generations in our own ancestry, and not find that we are descended from a 15 year old mother? Or that we are descended from an arranged marriage? Is that somehow unethical, or un-American?

Of broader concern to me is the ethical issue of government interfering with the practice of religion. Where will this kind of government action take us? Will a church continue to have the right to exclude homosexuals from the ordained ministry? Or, to exclude women from the ministry? Will parents have the right to teach their religion to their children? Or to home school their children? Will the American people consent to their government regulating religious beliefs and practices?

The polygamy issue is complex. Utah has quite a bit more experience in this area than does Texas. These Texas officials are in uncharted territory. They’ve opened Pandora’s box, and they have no idea what is inside. They may find that their cure is worse than the disease.

Today, the issues are religious practices that many (including myself) find bizzarre and repugnant. I wonder whether that will still be true about the issues tomorrow.

I’ll close with a quote I’ve lifted from my daughter’s blog:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
(Pastor Martin Niemöller)

Yesterday, I taught a class on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, on the subject of head coverings. Really.

I cannot remember ever in my life hearing someone else teach this passage. What possible relevance could the subject of head coverings have for a 21st century American church? Why risk the controversy? Why bring up a difficult subject that may confuse a lot of people? And, above all, why teach the congregation that we may have been neglecting a command of scripture for generations?

The reason I taught the class is pretty simple. I am teaching a series on the book of 1 Corinthians. I suppose I could have skipped this topic. But elders are admonished not to shrink from declaring the whole counsel of God to the church. If I choose not to teach this passage, I cannot claim to have taught everything I have been called to teach. God devoted half a chapter in 1 Corinthians to this subject for a reason.

But if I teach a passage of scripture, I have no choice but to teach what I believe it says. So that is what I did.

What kind of reaction would you expect to receive from your congregation from a lesson like that? The response of our congregation was one of keen interest, appreciation, and a desire to study it further. After service, the auditorium was buzzing with conversations on the topic in every aisle. Of particular interest to me, two brothers who are native of other countries came up to me afterward expressing their appreciation that the subject has finally been addressed. They were raised believing this teaching. From their perspective, the American churches have lost their way on the topic of women. We have become saturated with the culture in which we live. The church is becoming more and more like the secular world.

We Americans are like frogs in a pot of water. As the temperature rises to the boiling point, we hardly notice. We don’t realize that the rising temperature will eventually kill us. To us, everything seems normal. But to these two brothers from other countries, the insidiously gradual secularization of the American church is obvious. We need to wake up to what is happening.

Don’t worry, this is still the same blog! I decided it was time for a facelift. This simple setup makes better use of the screen space. And I like the brighter appearance. Now if I can just find time to add the missing series to my Past Series section, and maybe even add some tags to make the archives more useful.

Hope you like the new look!

Unity would be easy if it wasn’t for those pesky convictions.

Through blogging about Christian Unity for the past 30 months, I’ve come in contact with a lot of great folks who share my desire to promote unity among Christians. I’ve found a growing number of Christians (particularly among Restoration Movement groups sharing the same conversion doctrine) who believe we’ve spent too long defending the borders of our various factions. Like me, these folks want to be part of the solution to that problem.

Most of the things dividing churches of Christ are of secondary importance. Communion cups, instrumental music, kitchens, cooperation between congregations, Sunday school classes, Bible translations, and the like are not the central issues of the gospel. (1 Cor 15:1-11) But unity among Christians is of central importance. Jesus prayed for it the night he was betrayed, so that the world would believe. That makes unity among the top priorities for the church. And we must not allow the secondary issues to derail things of higher priority.

Being united does not mean we have to agree on everything. I think it does require that we agree on the core gospel. And it requires that we treat one another with dignity and respect in the areas of disagreement.

I’ve found that a lot of people agree with me on those matters.

However, in a few ways I feel like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. My conviction about gender roles conflicts with the beliefs of the vast majority of people who are with me on the unity topic. I’ve listened to other viewpoints and studied the subject carefully, but I keep coming to the same conclusion. I think the scriptures define different roles for men and women in the church. Most of my fellow unity advocates seem to think otherwise. And often they have a hard time understanding me as a result. How could someone who loves unity believe what I believe about gender roles? I don’t fit the normal mold.

I suspect that many of us are in my position on at least one subject. We want unity, but we have some inconvenient convictions that we can’t deny in good conscience. I have to live by what I believe the scriptures say, whether others agree or not. And as an elder, my conviction affects more people than just myself. That doesn’t mean I can’t have unity with people who disagree with me. It just means both sides have to overlook a few things, and leave it up to God to take care of the differences.

Sitting on this side of the gender issue, I can clearly see that unity will be a lot more likely if people on the other side will at least show some respect and deference to my convictions. That doesn’t mean they have to follow my convictions. But I’m already swimming against the current in order to be true to my beliefs. Any efforts to avoid making it harder for me are appreciated!

And of course I need to offer the same kind of consideration to people who hold different inconvenient convictions. I need to remember how I feel on “my issue” so I can understand how they feel about theirs.

It feels different on the other side of the issue. If we were more sensitive to that fact, it would go a long way toward enabling greater unity.