How to welcome guests at church (and enjoy the service more, too)

I appreciate Thom Rainer's blog; it is full of useful articles for ministers and for Christians in general.  I have copied and pasted a good portion of his article Ten Commandments for Guest-Friendly Church Members.  Here are the ten "commandments" (In KJV English for effect).  Note the gentle sarcasm here:

1. Thou shalt pray for people in the services whom you don’t recognize. They are likely guests who feel uncomfortable and uncertain.
2. Thou shalt smile. You only have to do so for about an hour. Guests feel welcome when they see smiling people. You can resume your somber expressions when you get home.
3. Thou shalt not sit on the ends of the rows. Move to the middle so guests don’t have to walk over you. You’ll survive in your new precarious position.
4. Thou shalt not fill up the back rows first. Move to the front so guests don’t have to walk in front of everyone if they get there late.
5. Thou shalt have ushers to help seat the guests. Ushers should have clearly-marked badges or shirts so that the guests know who can help them.
6. Thou shalt offer assistance to guests. If someone looks like they don’t know where to go, then they probably don’t know where to go. Get out of your comfort zone and ask them if you can help.
7. Thou shalt not gather too long in your holy huddles. Sure, it’s okay to talk to fellow members; but don’t stay there so long that you are not speaking to guests.
8. Thou shalt offer your seats to guests. I know that this move is a great sacrifice, but that family of four can’t fit in the three vacant seats next to you. Give it a try. You might actually feel good about your efforts.
9. Thou shalt not save seats. I know you want to have room for all of your friends and family, but do you know how a guest feels when he or she sees the vacant seats next to you occupied by three hymnals, one Bible, two coats, and an umbrella? You might as well put a “Do Not Trespass” sign on the seats.
10. Thou shalt greet someone you don’t know. Yes, it’s risky. They may actually be members you don’t know. And you may get caught in a 45-second conversation. You’ll be okay; I promise.

 Most of us don't think about things like not sitting on the ends of the rows; we do it everywhere else (except movie theaters, where we like to sit in the middle.  There's probably a lesson there...), so it's done out of habit, "just in case" we have to go to the bathroom or something.  And it's also human nature to sit in the same place, even if you didn't want to sit there the first time (like the front row of a class); you know that next time, most people will sit where they sat last time, until it's a habit and, eventually, "my" seat.

I'd love to see the back rows, not the front rows, empty, with everyone "scooched" toward the middle.  Imagine what the reaction of guests would be!  Our youth group tried this for a while when I was in high school.  A few bad apples had spoiled the YG's reputation in the worship service, so when our youth minister challenged us to essentially "up our game," we answered by filling the second and third rows, leaving the very first row for people to sit in who made decisions at the invitation.  Keep in mind, this was in a church of 1000+ people, so it was a move forward of about 20 rows, and from the far stage left section to the center section.  Wouldn't you know it, our reputation improved because everyone could see us during the service.  And I honest got more out of the music and sermon by being closer to "the action."  I paid more attention, and the singing sounds much better when all the other voices are behind you.

Just something to think about this week.

For This Christ Died? (A Repost from the Archives)

Easter, like most holidays here in America, tends to be marked

by mixed messages. There is truth, and there is all the crap on sale at Wal-Mart.

"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us,

so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21)

"Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows,

yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,

and by his wounds we are healed" (Isaiah 53:4-5)

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,

for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.' He redeemed us

in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus,

so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit"

(Galatians 3:13-14)

"And they sang a song: 'You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals,

because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God

from every tribe and language and people and nation. . . . Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,

to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!'"

(Rev. 5:9-10, 12)

The contrast is phenomenal, is it not? Now, the Easter bunny is not the Antichrist, nor is Easter egg hunting a sin. But, as is the case for most holidays, we need to stay focused on the source of the holiday and the true meaning. Easter is a bouquet of truths given to us by God. Lean in and savor them for yourself:

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

"The Son of Man came to give his life as a ransom for many."

"While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

"It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Jesus called out in a loud voice, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.' When he had said this, he breathed his last."

"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep."

"For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him."

"For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. . . . But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him."

"Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."

The Love of God

I loved this song from the first time I heard it, something I can't say very often.  As we approach Resurrection Sunday, may we center upon the love of God poured out in the incarnation, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  

In my sermon yesterday, the centerpiece of the message was that God's holiness and God's love intersect at the cross, for it is where God poured out his wrath against sin, satisfying his holiness, and it is where God poured out his love by putting Jesus, not us, on that cross.  This way, as Paul writes in Romans 3:26, God is both "just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

Another song I really like is the contemporary hymn In Christ Alone.  I think only a few corrections are in order for this song, and one of them would be to change the line "'til on the cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied" to "'til on the cross as Jesus died, God's wrath and love were satisfied."  It wasn't just wrath poured out that day.  "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us."  Indeed, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins" (1 Jn. 3:16; 4:10).

How Rich are We?

It's a "fact" I've heard many times before, usually written/spoken to induce guilt in Christians about how materialistic and ungrateful we are.  It is, more or less, this: you think you are poor, but compared to the rest of the world, you are filthy rich, like "we are the 1%" rich.  

Now it's true that much of the world lives on very little, as in less than $1/day.  In India, we certainly saw extreme poverty, and where we lived, Chennai, a decent middle-class, pay-all-the-bills salary equates to roughly $300-400/month.  So, if you could take your American salary of, say, $4000/month and live in India, you would live like a king.

That said, you should feel really bad about making so much money and still struggling to make ends meet because, compared to the rest of the world, you are Bill Gates.  That's what they say.

But I've never really bought into (no pun intended) that line of thinking.

I would feel really fortunate/convicted/generous if I made $40,000/yr where the standard of living were $4800/yr.  But in America, it's not.  Consider a few examples:

• College tuition: the cost of a Bible college education at OCC (where I attended and what is probably average) is approximately $7500 per semester (15 hours tuition @ $310 per hour, misc fees, books, double occupancy room, and meal ticket), or $60,000.  Now, at Lakeview Bible College, in Chennai (a place where I taught a couple of undergraduate classes, and a quality Bible college for sure), a similar degree will cost you about $500 per semester, or $4000 total.
• Food: we could eat out every single meal in India at nice restaurants and spend less than $5 per meal for two people.  Try that in America!
• Medical care: Here we go.  We didn't have health insurance the entire time we were overseas, because medical care was so cheap we didn't need it.  For example, one time Heidi spent 4 hours in an emergency room, receiving three IV solutions (saline and antibiotics), and a couple of prescriptions, and all of it cost less than $75.  Granted, I'm not sure I would want to go to that hospital for surgery or some life-saving treatment, but still.  And prescription drugs were about 1/20th of the price they are here.

So it's not an apples to apples comparison.  Even in the US, wealth is somewhat relative: $80,000/yr means two very different things to a person living in Martelle, IA, and a person living in New York City.  There are better ways to convict us of our materialism and to rouse compassion for the world's poorest people. 

Am I really having this conversation?

Sometimes facebook doesn't do me any favors.  Make that most of the time.  One of the blessings and curses of fb is the fact that you can have discussions/debates with other thoughtful people.  I said you can, as in, it's possible, not necessarily likely.  Such is the case I've found myself in for the past four days.  I belong to a group on fb for ministers from the Restoration Movement (read: a typically very socially and theologically conservative group), and the goal of the group is to foster ideas, discussion, and sharing on any number of trends, practices, beliefs, etc., we encounter in our ministries.  On Sunday, one member put forth this post:

After all the recent Sanctity of Life celebrations let me toss out a question. Pro-Life is the only right choice. No questions about that WHATSOEVER. Let me give you a little bit of medical knowledge and then ask a question for consideration.

According to drs who treat infertility, only about 1 out of every 4 or 5 fertilized human embryos ever are able to implant themselves in the wall of their mothers uterus and continue to develop further. A certain percentage of those that do implant also do not develop correctly and are also naturally eliminated by the body. These are medical facts and not subject to debate.

The line I have often heard among those who are pro-life (like myself) is that "Life begins at conception." If that is literally true, then God must be killing 4 out of every 5 "babies" that are conceived, because most fertilized eggs never make it to gestation. Certainly God is sovereign and can do as He chooses, but I find this natural conclusion of the concept that "Life begins at CONCEPTION" to be unsettling.

So... we do NOT have a right to intentionally end life in the womb... no argument. But, does life REALLY begin at conception, or is this an argument from emotion or slogan? Given our medical understanding, do we need to adjust this concept?

 I have questions about the data (how do they know 4/5 of fertilized eggs never implant?), but even assuming it's true, I think the questions at the end are very disturbing and have tremendous implications as to how one ministers and teaches on this subject from the pulpit.

We're up to about 80 comments on this topic so far, spread out among 5-6 of us.  I'm surprised and saddened by the fact that others have been not only sympathetic to the questions, but also have been advocating such things as: a baby has no soul until she draws her first breath (because of some twisted understanding of Gen. 2 and Adam becoming a "living soul" after God breathed into his body), an embryo/zygote/fetus is only a potential human being (despite all evidence to the contrary), and that it is problematic to assume that aborted embryos go to Heaven because (gasp!) Heaven would then be filled with babies.

So it seems the main problem these guys have is that because of the fact that, according to the Christian pro-life position, the majority of conceptions die; therefore, it is problematic to think that Heaven is "filled" with undeveloped embryos or tiny babies.  Apart from a complete lack of thoughtful study of Scripture and application of logic, it's just stupid and wrong.  I mean, really?  Heaven's glory is tainted by the presence of human beings whose only crime was not living long enough?

I'm pretty sure God has thought about this in advance and has made necessary arrangements.  Maybe God will allow those babies to grow up in Heaven, until they reach the "age" at which we all will be in Heaven.  Maybe they'll enter Heaven fully formed; God is not bound to preserve embryos as such forever.  

Additionally, I'm truly horrified by the "logic" that states that a baby has no soul until he/she draws first breath outside the womb.  The only difference, the only difference between a newborn and a baby one minute from birth is location.  There is no ontological change that occurs in the baby during the trip from the uterus to the outside world, no reason whatsoever to believe that one minute before birth, the baby has no soul and is therefore not a human being made in God's image, and the next moment, the moment of the first breath, when bam! they are suddenly not just a living mass of cells, but a soul-indwelt human being.  John leapt in Elizabeth's womb when Mary (pregnant with Jesus) visited.  How would that be possible if neither John nor Jesus had a soul?  The same logic that applies to personhood applies to ensoulment: does the baby have a soul one minute after they are born?  What about one minute before that?  And one minute before that?  And one minute before that?  If the soul exits the body at death, isn't it reasonable to assume that the soul enters at life, which begins at conception? 

My brain can hardly keep from exploding.  This is a group of ministers!  What are they teaching the people at the churches they serve?

More Than Last Year

The goal this year for the blog is to have more entries than last year.  In 2012, I posted 11 blog entries, 3 more than in 2011.  With a little focus and effort, I should easily be able to make this year the bloggiest year ever for me. Not that it's some huge accomplishment; my all-time high for blog posts in a year is 37.

So as not to make this post a "filler" post to pad my numbers, I'll actually include some substance.  Here's a list of what I'm reading(and have read recently):

• The Furious Longing of God (Brennan Manning) - In classic Manning style, God's love for us is explained through story, insight, and numerous quotable blocks of awesomeness.
• You Lost Me: Why Young Christians are Leaving Church...and Rethinking Faith (David Kinnaman) - 18-29 year-olds are the leaving the church (and sometimes the faith) faster than any other age group.  Kinnaman's book explores how why people are leaving (and why he categorizes them on a spectrum of exiles, nomads, and prodigals).
• The Most Misused Verses in the Bible: Surprising Ways God's Word is Misunderstood (Eric J. Bargerhuff)  I enjoyed almost every chapter in this book.  His chapter on Acts 2:38 was an embarrassing exercise in begging the question (in this case, he assumed Calvinism; therefore, any hint of the individual's faith that isn't caused by God is horrific).
• Shock and Awe (Episode #1) (Celebrity Pastor) - I laughed hard several times while reading this satirical look at what it means to be a pastor at a new church and how to effect change in the local congregation.  He gives 7 principles to his leadership style; "Principle #5: Be Awesome First, Apologize Later" is a good example.

On Saving Lives

I can't even begin to imagine what it was like inside of Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14th last year.  The whole thing should never have happened, and everyone agrees that it was a horrible tragedy.  That being said, I hope what I'm about to say doesn't sound callous or disrespectful to the families suffering after the shooting.

There is another tragedy occurring every day in America, and it, too, involves precious children.  According to the Guttmacher Institute, there have been over 50,000,000 induced abortions (not counting spontaneous abortions, aka miscarriages) between 1973-2008.  

However you look at it, that's an unbelievable amount of people, more than the populations of Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming combined.  How many scientists, consumers, doctors, artists, inventors, writers, poets, future Presidents, innovators, communicators, etc. have been lost to abortion?  

Remember, what is conceived is from the moment of conception a genetically independent human being.  All that is required for the embryo to become an infant/toddler/kid/teen/adult/elderly person is time and food.  The difference between an adult and a toddler is development and age.  The difference between a toddler and a newborn is development and age.  The difference between a newborn and an embryo is development and age, not anything genetic.  Yet it is legal to kill a baby before she is born because of some arbitrary and subjective definition of viability says the human embryo/fetus is not really human until it completely exits the mother's body.  According to this logic, the older you are, the more human you are, and the more worthy of life you are.  So the elderly are the most deserving of life, and babies and toddlers are the least deserving of life.  Does this not sound insane?

Abortion will never cease to be about the baby.  A woman's body and choice are secondary to the legal status of the human offspring growing inside of her.  The most dangerous place in the world for a child to be is inside of her mother, statistically speaking.