In the Real Estate field, there are three immutable truths regarding the sale of buildings and property (especially in the commercial class). They are location, location and location. We are continually told that the church is not all that much different other than in the name of the critical element: people, people and people. John Maxwell says it repeatedly, Rick Warren echoes it in his Purpose Driven Life and virtually every “expert” who conducts a seminar reiterates it. Thus, just about everyone has sought to emphasize it and replicate those places where it is apparently, at least, practiced.

Sounds great doesn’t it? But I am more and more convinced that many churches which claim it as a mantra, ignore it as a practice. If the Lord Jesus is the perfect example in all things, then most churches have a long way to go in regard to relating and ministering to people as important individuals. I have mentioned on several occasions an example set with the man we know as the “Maniac of Gadara.” Jesus crossed the Sea, dealt with one man, and then re-crossed the sea. Evidently, even one person was important enough for a three day excursion. Equally significant to me, however, is the fact that it is almost impossible to find any two instances in which he dealt with the people to whom He ministered in exactly the same way. He touched some; He spoke to others; in some cases His presence seems necessary; in others, He merely spoke words of healing, etc., and it was done. This consistent variety gives us the impression that He was not only interested in people, but that He took time for them and recognized the incredible differences between individuals (and took them into account in His manner of ministry).

And that’s what we do in the local church, right? Unfortunately, wrong! We have allowed other considerations to creep in, taken our cues from the business world and even decided that, although He always had time for individuals, our culture is just too crowded and fast-paced to allow us to do the same. Unconsciously – and likely without evil intent – we have allowed other factors to become involved. The following are just three examples of what has happened to make our claims of “people consciousness” more hollow than resonant.

We are caught up in procedures. We’re big and we’re busy and we just must set certain procedures in place or we just won’t get things done. If you or your need don’t happen to fit into the procedure involved, either you are out of luck or you will have to try again sometime later. I once had a procedure in place for screening phone calls. I didn’t have time to talk to salesmen, those who chose not to identify themselves or even to missionaries that were seeking meetings or support. Would Jesus have done so? I think not, and I sincerely regret the obvious opportunities to share Christ or be a blessing to someone who was excluded by my procedure. Someone comes by to purchase or order a Bible but doesn’t have the money with him to pay for it. We tell him to come back when he does because after all, we can’t risk having any Bibles around that haven’t been paid for (we also never seem to take into account that the person may not even have the money for the Bible much less have it with Him). I really don’t think Jesus worried that much about such things; better that someone be turned away (and even offended) than that we violate our precious procedures.

We have our little processes that are similar to procedures but less formalized. There really is no written rule on the matter, but it just works best for US if we do things certain ways. That it inconveniences other people or leaves them feeling foolish or having made an unreasonable demand is of little concern – that’s just the way we do things. Some little kids flocked to Jesus; and the disciples had a fit. That wasn’t the process they followed. Jesus told them to back off and made much over the children. Our Lord certainly would not fit into many churches and their offices today because He really doesn’t appear to be particularly patient with process. I attended a college that had more and stricter rules than just about any place on earth outside the Muslim world. We were repeatedly told that these rules were for our good and that without them we would never ever be successful in life. I wasn’t very old, but I was old enough to recognize that many of the rules were not made for the students but for the convenience of the Administration. My kids attended a college which appeared to have the attitude of “let’s make a rule; then we won’t have to fuss with it again.” In both instances, it would take a lot of convincing that there was any “people-concern” involved.

There is a third (and there are many others that space limitations keep me from discussing), and that one bothers me more than any – precedent. We don’t want to set a precedent! Why not! In fact, I have a basic precedent to suggest: that we never should worry about setting precedents. If I am correct that Jesus rarely dealt with the same issue in the same way twice, He was constantly setting precedents. If every person is different, then it is almost inevitable that every situation will be at least a little bit different from any other. Wouldn’t it be great if we determined that we were simply going to deal with each case on its own merits? Then, if someone were to challenge us on the precedent issue, we could rightfully say, “We don’t have any precedents here. We deal with each case on its own merits because we truly care about people.”

I, personally, have experienced frequent cases where I felt that procedure, process and precedent were far more important than I. I don’t like it, but I’ve learned to live with it – after all I am a child of God and have been a Christian for well-over sixty years. I do wonder, however, how it must appear to new Christians or the unsaved.

Some time ago, Mrs. Walt Handford shared with me material that Walt had presented in a module he had taught at Tennessee Temple University. She gave me permission to share it – and this section, which is largely a quote from Jay Adams – struck me as critical to an understanding of change within the church.

“In 1980 one of our pastors introduced us to a new book by Jay Adams, Communicating with Twentieth-Century Man. Adams introduced us to the fact that in communicating the Gospel, two elements are critical.

Adams on Form and Substance

Here is his mind-challenging statement:

I shall now turn to an important theological distinction. For lack of better terms we’ll call it the form/substance distinction. . . . When Paul wrote the words “all things to all men” (cf. 1 Cor. 9:22), he was dealing with one aspect of the question in relation to Christian communication. When he wrote, “If any man preach any other gospel. . . let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8), he was concerned about the other aspect.*

When the Apostle Paul told us that anyone changing the Gospel in any way should be accursed, he was conveying the importance of our communicating only the Gospel just as given to us by God. We are not to alter it in any way. But when he said he wanted to be all things to all men so he could reach some with that unchangeable Gospel, he was speaking of the ways we can communicate the Gospel most effectively.

Adams goes on to explain what happens when we are afraid to change the way we communicate the Gospel:

The refrigeration of form grows largely out of fear: fear of change itself. It is the fear of a very real danger—that in changing form the substance might be impaired. Ironclad, and stereotyped ideas of how the message shall be communicated are clamped upon it. Soon, these become tradition. After that, because of their hoary age, they cannot be tampered with or even questioned—they are sacrosanct. Indeed, they become indistinguishable from the substance.

But when they do they bring about the very thing that everyone wanted to avoid—the substance is changed. It is
Changed by adding form that is mistaken for substance. . .
______________________
*(Communicating with Twentieth-Century Man by Jay E. Adams, 1979 Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, New Jersey. Chapter 3, page 19)

The twin dangers here are formalism and hypocrisy. . . . .

Without knowing it, such churches, thinking they are bastions of truth, in time actually become more susceptible to heresy and unbelief. Spiritual muscles become flabby from lack of exercise. The spirit of the world imperceptibly creeps in, and with it, the subtlest forms of error and unbelief. Aggressive Christian communication is, therefore, very essential to the church.

A survey in 2009 asked pastors to identify the most influential living preacher. Chuck Swindoll came in second only to Billy Graham. How does one use that kind of cachet? Apparently to call the church back from its captivity to entertainment.
Dr. Charles R. Swindoll is the pastor of Stonebriar Community Church in Frisco, Texas, the chancellor and former president of Dallas Theological Seminary, a prominent radio preacher on Insight for Living, and a prolific author. His latest book,The Church Awakening: An Urgent Call for Renewal, outlines the dangers when churches seek the world’s affirmation and copy the world’s methods. Leadership Journal’s senior editor Skye Jethani spoke with Swindoll about the use of entertainment values in worship.
Early in your book you say that when the church becomes an entertainment center, biblical literacy is the first casualty. So why do you think the church has become so enamored with entertainment?
We live in a time with a lot of technology and media. We can create things virtually that look real. We have high-tech gadgets that were not available to previous generations. And we learned that we could attract a lot of people to church if we used those things. I began to see that happening about 20 years ago. It troubled me then, and it’s enormously troubling to me now because the result is an entertainment mentality that leads to biblical ignorance.
And alongside that is a corporate mentality. We’re tempted to think of the church as a business with a cross stuck on top (if it has a cross at all). “We really shouldn’t look like a church.” I’ve heard that so much I want to vomit. “Why?” I ask. “Do you want your bank to look like a bank? Do you want your doctor’s office to look like a doctor’s office, or would you prefer your doctor to dress like a clown? Would you be comfortable if your attorney dressed like a surfer and showed movies in his office? Then why do you want your church’s worship center to look like a talk show set?”
Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, “When the church is absolutely different from the world, she invariably attracts it. It is then that the world is made to listen to her message, though it may hate it at first.” When a church is spending more on media than shepherding, something is wrong.
Some time ago a group of church leaders decided that they didn’t want to be hated. They focused just on attracting more and more people. But if we’re here to offer something the world can’t provide, why would I want to copy the world? There is plenty of television. There are plenty of talk shows. There are plenty of comedians. But there is not plenty of worship of the true and living God.
You think it’s rooted in a deep insecurity that we have as church leaders?
Yes, I do. I think you’ve put your finger on it. We want a crowd to make us feel important and liked. But why is getting a crowd our focus? Jesus never suggested that crowds were the goal. He never addresses getting your church to grow. Never. So why is that the emphasis today?
We can look back before modern technology entered the sanctuary and see the same values at work. The crusades of Billy Graham, the revivals of the Great Awakening, even all the way back to the Reformation, you see that Martin Luther used music and forms of worship that were relevant to his German culture. So what’s wrong with taking relevant cultural expressions in the 21st century and using them in our worship? Nothing, if they square with Scripture and if they honor the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is nothing wrong with using something new. We are called to sing new songs. I love them. Nobody sings louder in our church than I do—both the old and new songs.
But everything must square with Scripture. We must make sure that new things actually help people grow in the truth, that they edify the saints and build them up. Will it equip them to handle the world around them? Will it form them into the kingdom of God rather than the kingdom of this world? In many cases we use new things because they are novel, not because they are helpful.
So the issue is not innovation or tradition, but why we’re using a particular method or technology.
Exactly. I have been to church services, and you have too, where the only people who knew the songs were the band. I’m not edified. I’m just watching a show. And they’re not interested in teaching me the songs either. They just sing louder to make up for the fact that no one else is singing. Loud doesn’t help. Why do they do that? Do you want me to be impressed with how loud you are singing, how accomplished you are? I’m not. I’m not here to be impressed with you. I’m here to fall back in love with Christ.
Innovation doesn’t have to be loud or a gimmick. How about silence? Most people get no silence in their world. Imagine three or four minutes of silence. No music. No background distractions. Or change the order of worship. Start the service with an invitation rather than ending with it. Nothing in the Bible says to walk down an aisle. So be innovative. I’m not against screens, or new songs, or innovation. I just don’t like the gimmicks. I want to know when worship is over that that leader’s sole purpose was to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ. He’s not important to himself, and I’m not.
Here’s what troubles me: I don’t know why leaders younger than me aren’t saying this. I’m not talking about novices, but the leaders in their forties and fifties. Why aren’t they raising questions and showing some concern for where the church is heading with its focus on media and headcount and passive spectating? I know one church that has 17 people on their media staff and only 12 on the pastoral staff. When a church is spending more of its budget on media than shepherding, something is out of whack. We have gotten things twisted around. My book is simply saying come back, folks. I’m not against innovation. But we need more wisdom.
Speak to the 35-year-old pastor leading a young, growing church. The ministry is focused on communicating the gospel and honoring Christ, but he wants to incorporate more technology and media. How does that pastor know how far to go? What are the red flags he and his team should look for?
First, he needs to surround himself with people that ask the hard questions, people that are not all his own age. Second, he needs to study the Scriptures deeply and ask whether he can square what they’re doing with what the Bible says should be their focus. Third, he should ask whether or not this the best use of our money and time. Would I spend my time better pouring over God’s Word, in prayer, getting my heart right, mentoring younger men and women, and building into my staff? What investment of my time is going to lead others to say, “You know what, these people are so different; this is so refreshing; this is beautiful.”?
That was a major theme in your book. Ultimately what attracts the world to the church are sanctified people, filled with God, living in communion with him and one another, and not an entertaining show.
I’m so glad you got that. It’s called “the body.”
Let’s talk about what you do on Sunday morning. How do you discern the difference between the genuine presence of God among his people, and a fabricated experience generated by the staging, music, and lights?
That’s the danger of using too much media and technology in worship. I try to keep it as simple as I can. I deliberately hold back. I don’t plan out every single phrase so that it’s timed exactly with a slick presentation. I deliberately leave room for the Spirit to lead. We use video occasionally but about eight to ten times a year, no more. We’re not here to show videos. People have videos all week long. We use the screens for a song or two that we don’t know. Otherwise we’re using hymnals.
We try to keep it simple so that the pizzazz doesn’t become the reason to bring a neighbor. You have to come see the light show next week. Man, it is unbelievable! The thing will knock your socks off … Wrong. They can stay home and watch that on Friday night. When you come Sunday, you’re going to focus on One who is eternal, and we’re all going to meet him together. And in doing so, we’re going to leave different than we came because we will have been in his awesome presence, and we will be ignited by the work of the Spirit within us.
You are a very engaging communicator. Philip Yancey even said that “Charles Swindoll doesn’t have a boring bone in his body.” Some might even say that you are very entertaining to listen to. How do you reconcile that with what you’ve just said about the dangers of being entertainment driven? How do you ensure that people attracted to your ministry are engaging it for the right reason?
I talk about that. I tell them, “Keep me off the pedestal. You’re heading for a real disappointment if you put me on that pedestal. I am a sinner just like you are. Yeah, I’ve got gifts. I can’t help it. That’s the way God made me. But don’t think I’m better than I am.”

“When we stop long enough to think about it, we realize that our dilemma goes deeper than shortage of time; it is basically a problem of priorities….We sense uneasily our failure to do what is really important. The winds of other people’s demands, and our own inner compulsions, have driven us onto a reef of frustration.” – Charles E. Hummel

Sometimes we can learn from someone with whom we don’t fully agree. Dr. Thomas L. Butts is a retired pastor in the South who often writes some thoughtful things on a web site. The following was a recent post that I think contains some good advice in both the secular and sacred worlds.

Specificity is an essential ingredient of any agreement. After more than a half a century as a pastoral counselor, and frequent mediator of disagreements and misunderstandings, I have learned how important it is for parties to an agreement to talk out and spell out the details before signing on the dotted line. As the familiar saying goes, “The devil is in the details”.

Failure to be specifically clear often comes back to haunt careless parties. This not only happens in matters of business which can end up in civil court; it also happens in marriages which end up in divorce court.

In 1991 Clark Clifford wrote an engaging memoir entitled, “Counsel to the President”. He recalled how, as a struggling young lawyer, he taught a course on contracts at night law school. He said that he stressed to his classes the importance of reaching a complete understanding between two persons before entering into a contract. He emphasized how often people thought they had such an understanding until they were ready to execute the agreement and then discovered that each had a different notion of what the contract meant.

Clifford had a favorite story he used to illustrate that point. He said that he had told that story to every president he ever knew. This is the story.

A man walking down the street noticed a sign in the window of a restaurant that said, “Special Today — Rabbit Stew”. He said to himself, “That is a favorite of mine”, and he went in and ordered the stew. After he had taken a few bites of the stew, which did not taste quite right, he asked the waiter to call over the proprietor. The customer asked, “Is there any horse meat in this rabbit stew?” “Well, now that you ask, there is some”, the owner replied. “What is the proportion”? asked the man. “Fifty-fifty”, came the reply.

Now, most people would have felt that no further questions were needed, that there was a clear understanding on the matter. But this man pursued the issue. “What do you mean by fifty-fifty?”, he asked. The proprietor replied, “One horse to one rabbit”. That additional question brought a whole new understanding about the contents in the stew!!

This is a good anecdote to remember next time you are about to enter into an agreement with someone. It could save you lots of grief.

That article by Shane Hipps that is posted below…. Where would one even begin to respond to it? I posted it as a matter of information, not as something with which I have any sympathy or agreement. “As for me and my house….” we’ll just stick with the Bible and the historic orthodox position regarding it.

Editor’s note: Shane Hipps, the teaching pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church, recently posted his thoughts surrounding Rob Bell’s book and the issue of hell. 

There is a lot of talk these days about heaven and hell. Recently, a handful of best-selling books have been published on this topic (23 Minutes in Hell, Erasing Hell, Heaven Is for Real, God Wins). Some of these are in direct response to Rob Bell’s book Love Wins (incidentally and ironically, a book almost entirely concerned with this life, not the next one).

As a Christian who believes in the Bible and Jesus, I have found the intensity and certainty of the debate all very bizarre. It’s strange that so much passion and ink has been spilled over something that is all speculation.

Here’s what I mean: If you died, took pictures, and came back to life again, then you would know with certainty what happens after death. Of course, you would only know what happens to you, not everyone else. But if you haven’t died, you can only speculate about what happens to you and everyone else.

This speculation is perfectly fine. As long as we recognize these are only our beliefs. And beliefs by nature are not certain; they are faith based assumptions. That’s what makes them beliefs. Once you can prove them, they are no longer beliefs; they become a kind of knowing. And the funny thing is once you know, you don’t need to debate anymore.

I have never died, so I don’t have a theological position on heaven or hell. I can only entertain theological possibilities. There is a big difference.

I take a position when I know something with certainty. Almost always through direct experience. If someone pinches me, I don’t believe they pinched me. I know it. I experienced it. It doesn’t reside somewhere in my head. Nothing to debate. It happened.

I consider a possibility when it’s something I don’t know. This is something I merely believe. Either because someone I trust told me, or the Bible seems to say it, or reason supports it. But until I’ve experienced it, this is only something I believe– a possibility. And possibilities should be held with an open hand, perhaps with some humility and even humor. Who knows, I could be wrong about what I believe?

Now having said this, I’m only aware of one person who died, and I mean really died, like three days dead, and came back to life again. His name was Jesus. Upon his return from the dead, he didn’t believe anymore; now he knew. So if I wanted some indication about what happens after I die, I should probably pay attention to what he said after he came back from the dead.

Here’s what he said about heaven and hell after his resurrection. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

What did he talk about? Here’s just a sampling: He tells his disciples to make students of him (Mt 28:16), to share the good news of liberation in this life (Mk 16:9-20). He says, “Peace be with you,” and “I’m hungry.” (Lk 24:36-41) He says, “Receive the holy breath; now you can forgive sins.” (Jn 20:22) He says, “It’s me, really, touch my side” (Jn 20:27), and “The fishing is better on the right side of the boat.” (Jn 21:6) He says “Let’s eat” (Jn 21), “Feed my sheep; now follow me” (Jn21:18-20), and “Stop worrying about the future and the fate of other people; just follow me.” (Jn 21:22; Acts 1:7-8)

Not exactly a systematic theology of the afterlife. Mostly, it’s a repeated invitation to trust and follow him and not worry about the future. Apparently, he is also hungry a lot. If anyone had the authority and credibility to provide a coherent-once-and-for-all description of exactly what happens after you die, it would be Jesus upon his return from beyond the beyond. But he didn’t. He didn’t even seem all that interested.

If it were important to him, you’d think he would have written a book about it. Or preached a sermon or two. But he didn’t. After Jesus rose from the dead, he spends his time talking about this life.

It would seem Jesus is more concerned with this life than the next. Perhaps we should be, too.

We only get one, and it’s short