Cultural Relevance for Dummies

The ministry team and I at my church were having a staff meeting today, and the subject of people smoking by the doors of the church came up. In south Arkansas, a deacon would throw the offender off the property for "defiling God's house." In Kentucky, where many people make a living farming tobacco, and it seems as if 1 of of 3 people smoke. In our discussion, we had to figure out how to minister to those who smoke, and provide a place for them to do so where it is less offensive, without making them feel like smoking was worse than adultery or lying, etc. (Other than the argument of defiling the temple of the Holy Ghost - our bodies, there is no Scripture to say that smoking is a sin, by the way - and by far not on an equal plane as gossip, gluttony, lying, fornication, etc). So our solution is that we're providing an area outside where there is an awning, ashtrays, and benches along with information about classes they can attend to help break addictions. Since they're going to go outside and smoke, why not provide a designated area where it won't bother visitors or members who don't wish to walk through cigarette smoke? If we deal with this right, we may actually have an opportunity to minister to the more pressing issues, like getting them off meth, or dealing with that "shacking-up" issue.

Check out this article on cultural relevance.
Discuss if you're not sick of hearing about it by now!

I enjoyed reading the article. Here's some of my input:

I hear the term "cultural relevance" so many times, I'm almost numb to it. Yet I'm beginning to embrace a new perspective on the subject. I believe that being culturally relevant is to minister the gospel in a way that particular culture understands while not pushing the "extra" standards of another.

I believe meeting the needs of the culture you are ministering to should be the TOP priority when wishing to be culturally relevant. Changing your standards of living or in the name of cultural relevance is insane (if God indeed called you to live by those standards). If I have a conviction against drinking, and if I go to Germany where EVERYBODY drinks, do I preach against someone having a beer, or do I change my standard and begin drinking beer myself? - NEITHER! I live by my conviction and preach the gospel (maybe against drunkenness) so that someone can come to Christ.

You can't have a Bible belt southern-gospel style church service in the inner city of Chicago or New York City expecting the urban society to receive, nor can you can't integrate hip-hop style worship into a southern-gospel style church in a rural town of white folks. You have to speak the "language" of those you are ministering to so that they can receive.

That's my take on responsible cultural relevance. Anybody?

Holy Spirit Baptism, Tongues, etc.

Many have read the comments on another blog made by me and by others on Jeff Noble's blog. A discussion (a verbal one, not a typed one) last week and the comments made on Jeff's blog, then later on Mark Wegley's blog made me understand how poor of a job we Pentecostals and Charismatics do explaining scripturally what we believe.

I will attempt now to humbly present to whoever is in this discussion and whoever would stumble across this post some information on what we believe. The purpose of this post is merely for information as to what those who call themselves "Pentecostals" believe when it comes to the subject of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues.

Like as with Baptists, there are many different fellowships that claim to be Pentecostal. Many of these fellowships believe very differently from one another (again like many Baptist organizations).

What makes one be able to call themselves "Pentecostal" is the link to the experience noted in Acts 2. About every Christian I know agrees that something supernatural happened on the day of Pentecost. There were 120 people who, when they were in "one mind and one accord" (not a Honda), they all suddenly encountered a power like they never experienced before. That power enabled those early disciples of Christ to add thousands to the church daily. Pentecostals believe that this experience (after salvation) can happen today. This is probably the beginning of where others throw their hands up and say "hey wait a minute!"

The Assemblies of God has an excellent writing about what is taught in A/G churches about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. This article does a much better job at explaining tongues and Holy Spirit Baptism than I ever could and has a really good "FAQ" section that answers a lot of questions I've seen recently.

Here's a few of points I'd like to mention on the subject:

• Tongues is NOT the end result. Power to be a witness is the ultimate purpose for what I call the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Tongues should also never be the focus of the Pentecostal believer. The focus of this gift must be power to win souls!
  
• It is a huge shame, but I have noticed myself that there is a lack of balance in many Pentecostal believers. The experience of what is being "felt" should never take priority over the faith that comes by hearing the Word of God. We walk by faith and not by sight. It has been my observation that people who have this experience have less knowledge of the Word of God than people who don't claim to have it.
• I read a comment by Jeff Noble on Mark Wegley's blog that eluded to say that the Pentecostal organizations all have roots in the late 19th/early 20th century. While it may be true of this teaching and experience being revived during that time, we must know that history is filled with revivals that changed the course of Christianity as we know it. Luther, for example - Justification by faith was a damnable doctrine in his time. It began a split between Catholics and protestants down the line. To say that Pentecostal doctrine is "new" and is suspect because of it is the same as Catholics saying that they are the original and we are all wrong for deviating from the original (a whole 'nuther blog post).
• We cannot merely interpret scripture on the basis of human intellect. Although intellect is a powerful tool, the human mind can never truly comprehend the supernatural. I believe that the interpretation of scripture that would direct one to interpret in a way that makes sense to the mind, and not give weight to the interpretation that allows for a supernatural explanation is questionable. Otherwise everything else we believe in is not as we believe (creation, the virgin birth, Biblical account of miracles, Jesus' resurrection, the rapture, etc).
  
• Paul's writing in I Corinthians was not to forbid people from speaking in tongues. It was instruction on how to use the gift wisely. Otherwise in 14:18 Paul wouldn't be saying he talked in tongues more than anyone.
  
• Christianity is based on a belief of the supernatural. What may sound like gibberish to the human mind may sound like the most fluent heavenly language in the spirit. Paul talked about how speaking in tongues was unfruitful to the human understanding, not how tongues was simply unfruitful.
  
• The supernatural gift of tongues is something that is used in communication with the unbeliever (as noted in Acts 2 where people heard these believers speaking in their native tongue). I read a story a few days ago about someone who came from the Philippines to the Azusa mission and heard the rare dialect that one would have had to come from the Philippines to speak it. Another instance comes to mind where recently a group of A/G teens from Kentucky went on a missions trip (I cannot remember where) and a teenager from that country blessed them with a beautiful exhortation in English. The parents thought she was speaking in tongues - and she was - the English tongue.
  
• It is also something that, although sounding like "gibberish" to the human mind, can be interpreted. Again, we're dealing with the supernatural here. I can't count the times where, in a service or prayer meeting someone would burst out in a "message" in tongues; not much longer after that I would feel that familiar tugging at my heart (not unlike the one most of us experienced when when we answered the call to salvation) and would know what the interpretation would be. Not too long after that someone else will speak out that same interpretation.
• It was stated by someone (can't remember who, and I'm ready to finish this thing, so I don't really want to look it up!) something to the effect of being bothered by some saying they had more of God than they. I have this to say to that statement: You can have all of the presence and power of God you want - you are the only one who can keep yourself from rising to new levels in God. Should one allow a fear of an emotional response or of a manifestation of God's presence keep them from going higher?
  

It is unfortunate, but as many of my Baptist friends would agree, many pentecostals do not exercise responsibility in the usage of tongues. I have a right to free speech, but if I were to go into Mark Wegley's classroom at UAM and scream "FIRE!!!" and there was no fire, that would be irresponsible (and would probably get me arrested). In relation to this subject, for me to send a group of teenagers to See You At The Pole and instruct them to pray loudly in tongues, it would be just as irresponsible. Not because they should be ashamed of tongues, but because it would distract those who have been taught (erroneously, I believe) against tongues.

I welcome your comments on this. My goal here is to not convince anyone reading this to seek after what is described as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit or to argue. I hope this has been as clear as I intended it to be. This subject shouldn't be a source of division. It would be wise for us all to begin some posts with some ideas on how we can reach the lost (not the already saved). --- Oh yeah! Jim's already doing that on his blog with the "organic quotes."

What's the deal?

Today was commenting on a blog post on Journeyguy's page about the reason why the youth from ages 18-25 are dropping out of church. In the comment, I eluded to my concerns about the "majority rules" direction that many churches have turned. I would like to elaborate more on the subject.

As one who loves the body of Christ, and the institution of the local body of believers, it makes my stomach twist in knots to think of what is happening in so many Bible belt churches.

Let me qualify some of what I'm about to say. I've been on staff vocationally at 2 churches over 7 years of time. My father has pastored since I was 11 years old. I know how things work on the "inside." I've seen the good, the bad, and the ugly. I've spent the last 3 years on the "other" side of the church office as a member of a local church. I've worked in alliances with pastors and youth pastors alike in 2 cities, and many of my friends are or have been in ministry themselves in various denominations and types of churches. I intimately know the subject which I am about to address.

I love my pastors. They are people who have spoken words of life to me when I needed to hear them most. They have a love for people who anyone else would have written off long ago. They have an ability to put up with almost any attack by their sheep on their lives and on their families, then put a smile on their face Sunday after Sunday, no matter what battlescars they are hiding underneath their suit.

Unfortunately, in most Bible belt churches, the pastor is treated merely a manager who can be hired or fired by the board and congregation. The way he preaches, the songs that are sung, the visitation schedule, and sometimes even where he lives is dictated by a democratic process. If the congregation don't like what they are getting, they pass around a petition, present it to the board and they either get their way - or the pastor gets a U-haul gift certificate for Pastor's appreciation day.

The membership/board voting process may have begun in good taste when more than just a few in the church were hearing God's voice on an important matters. However, we have a problem when a large amount of members and even board members haven't spent time in prayer on the matter, nor would they be able to tell Gods voice from Elmo's.

This always reminds me of some accounts from ancient historians during the time of Jesus. During the era, some wrote of how priests would have a rope around his ankle when going into the Holy of Holies in the temple (Please note, the teaching that the priests from Aaron's day wore a rope is incorrect). The reason he would wear a rope: the priests' position was controlled and governed by the carnal authorites of the time. The Pharisees and Sadducees were those who controlled the high priest. There was a great fear in that because the priest was so carnally controlled, God would strike him dead. This tells me when doing God's work, treating it as a carnal position and not doing it with the utmost respect for who it's for - is a recipe for clerical flambé.

My church's fellowship, The Assemblies of God, has some things in their constitution and bylaws that church leadership needs to wake up to. The disciplinary procedures and conditions of voting membership and board members need to be enforced. These conditions - tithing, abstaining from a lifestyle of sin, family life, abstaining from dissention, etc - are being ignored. These conditions are there for a reason. They are there to help protect the church from carnal mutiny, and to prevent carnally-minded decisions being made on spiritual matters.

Deacons as well should be made aware that their job is not to keep the pastor doing his job, but to do the work of the ministry (that's scriptural!). It's funny, many deacons (or board members as they like to be called) are constantly reminding the pastor that it's his job to go visit the sick, put out the fires, and keep all of the ministries in the church running - when it's the deacon's job. Deacon from the greek means "Servant." In the book of Acts, by the direction of the Apostles, Stephen was one who was selected by the multitude of disciples to do the various tasks of the church so that they could stay in the Word.

Acts 6

1And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

2Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

3Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

5And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

6Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

7And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

8And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

The deacons must rise to the occasion - they have a spiritual job to do to take the burden off of the pastor so he can focus his attention on the Word and in prayer. If he is to be the prophet of the house, he should be acutely aware of what God is saying to that congregation. Lost souls are at stake, and his time should never be taken up by pacifying big babies (what I affectionately call those who have been saved long enough to stand on their own, and not have their feathers ruffled by pettiness). I know pastors personally who run the wheels of their cars pacifying people who have supposedly been saved for decades, thus distracting them from the task at hand. Instead of deacons agreeing with the big babies, and having meetings to straighten the pastor out, the deacons need to serve the pastor by correcting the big babies.

As far as keeping him accountable, where is the apostollic (don't freak out - I'm talking of someone over him OUTSIDE of his church) leadership over his life? I'll paraphrase what Watchman Nee said in his book, "Spiritual Authority." In order to be in authority, you must submit to authority (I'd quote it, but it's packed in boxes while we move). If you are a pastor who has no covering, who's holding you accountable? Surely it's not your congregation and board!

Again, we must understand that a pastor is not to be "hired." He is a gift from God to the church. He is a caretaker of the sheep, which includes some automatic servant traits; but the sheep never lead the shepherd.

If you are a member of a church, and are one who has treated him as a hireling, call him today and repent. Either way, call your pastor, and offer to visit the sick for him, or to mow his yard. Just do something to help take the load off of him. It's not his job to be the manager of your church. It's his calling from God to be your pastor. He is a called man in a called place. Be good to him, and reap the rewards of someone who has a Word from God that he didn't muster up at 11:00 on Saturday night!