Legalism As It Pertains To...Appearance

You may be thinking, "Wait, isn't this the same as the one you wrote on clothing?" That'd be a valid question, but this actually is an entirely different topic, and one I think most of us have lived out if we're honest about it.

When someone walks into a church service and they don't look like you, how do you feel about that? For example, perhaps everyone in your circle dresses well for church, limits hair length for men, would never pierce an ear or *gasp* something else. It's also likely nobody in your circle has a tattoo, either, right?

What if you attend a church essentially built for a different crowd, perhaps a motorcycle-driving group? Your circle may well include folks who wear riding gear to church, might have a few or many tattoos, some piercings and heck, maybe even long hair and seemingly unkempt beards on the men. If someone walks in that doesn't look like you, do YOU then feel a bit uncomfortable, as though they don't fit?

Look, I'm neither of these groups. I'm casual, don't have a pierced ear (well, not anymore), no tattoos and my haircut could best be described as "military" in style. I don't really fit either of the above groups, and so maybe all that means is they might not be in the circle I hang out with, but does that mean we can't worship together?

What I'm trying to get at is that I expect us to be uncomfortable with people who don't look like us, talk like us, act like us. But that should never be a reason to exclude someone or not go speak to them and invite them in lovingly to church. Realizing we are very much human and prone to looking at appearance much more than someone's heart, I think we have to work hard to see past the exterior to enjoy the interior with people. As a rule, I think that's a tough line for Christians to cross, for a variety of reasons.

The only reason I am bringing up here, however, is legalism. I think this is a case where legalism can actually be fairly unintentional. For example, I may not intend to ignore that person who walks in who makes me uncomfortable, but I may not put any effort into talking to them, either. Am I wrong? You bet I am. Have I judged based on my own sense of what someone should look like? You bet I have. Is this legalism? I believe that it is and I say that because even though it is seemingly unintentional, I'm creating a box I want their appearance to fit within and am unwilling to be inviting to them if they are outside that box.

While I firmly believe most forms of legalism are completely intentional, based on often misguidedly strong beliefs about something upon which God has provided no Biblical guidance or specifics, appearance is one where I think we all fail without even thinking strongly about it. If you ask many Christians, and press them on the issue of whether or not someone's appearance (again, not clothing for purposes of this discussion) should affect how well you accept them, I think they'd say it should not. Yet subconsciously, unintentionally, we all do it.

So while I'm saying this is something most of us do or have done even though we didn't mean to or didn't want to, it's still legalism at its core. I challenge all of us to remove our preconceived ideas about what a Christian looks like, about who God can love. He has made it clear to us He loves us for our hearts, not our outward appearance. If we go against that, we're against God, making up rules of man, and that, again, is legalism.

Let's not do it! Let's love like God loves us! Don't ignore the person and hope someone else will speak to them. Don't walk away figuring God will take care of it. We are all called to minister for Him and it happens in many ways. Sometimes, it really is as simple as looking past appearance to the heart of someone and loving them as God would have us do.

Legalism As It Pertains To...Music

Before you think this is going to be a diatribe against those who prefer hymns and believe anything more modern than that is evil, STOP. This is not about preferred styles of music, be they for worship or otherwise. Rather, it's about pushing your particular preference on everyone else and feeling they are wrong if they don't agree with you.

Here's what I like. I prefer guitar-driven (preferably electric) worship music with a full band consisting of more guitars, keyboard/piano, bass and drums. I don't like horns and I can't stand the organ. I like my worship music to be upbeat when it should be and slow when it should be and if the worship leader can work in a hymn every week or two, even with a new arrangement, I think that'd be great.

Do I get that where I attend? Not even close. I had it at our church in Texas, but that's really the only time it's occurred. If I attend a church that is "traditional"--although, I don't know how we ever determined that singing hymns with only a piano/organ combo is traditional--I can take it for a little bit but then I become bored. And if it's led by organ only, forget it. I just can't do it because the sound of an organ grinds on my ears.

Now, given my strong propensity toward modern worship with an alternative or rock-driven edge, does that give a traditionalist the right to say I'm wrong? Does it give me the right to say they are wrong because they can't see the value in the newer music? The answer on both accounts is a solid "NO".

Look, we have many different churches with many different styles of worship. Why do you suppose that is? I suspect it has to do with each of us being such unique individuals and desiring different things from our Sunday experience. So there is something out there for everyone, but what if you don't want to move? What if your church was traditional and is now more "contemporary"?

Well, you can stay and live with the change or you can move on to another church. Staying and complaining and not adapting is an incorrect option. It's not your job to try to force others to believe as you do any more than it's mine to try to make a traditional church more modern in its worship style. Now, if I'm a worship leader and I've been hired to update things a bit, obviously I'll go with the newer stuff. However, I would caution worship leaders to think about who is worshiping with them.

The music isn't just about what you think is right as a worship leader. It's about what's right for the church you are a part of and for the people that reside within it. This likely means making a few concessions to meet more in the middle on a few things. For example, tossing in a hymn here and there is welcomed not only by the more traditional attenders but by those of us who enjoy new music as well. And please, please, please, don't just slow everything down thinking somehow that makes the concession and also makes it more worshipful. It doesn't. Slowing everything down just takes a good song and makes it slower and, generally, worse. Trust in the music and the people will follow or, if they don't, God will lead them elsewhere.

At my church in Texas, we had a large number of senior citizens in the congregation, probably about 20% in this church of 1700 were over sixty, I would say. Do you think the music changed to accommodate them? Nope. In fact, last year during a "40 Days of Purpose" series, a member of the worship team sang "Crashed" by Daughtry. Look it up if you don't know it and see how shocked you are at how rockin' this song is. It was awesome! In fact, I'm told the guy even jumped off the stage while performing it second service!

But as progressive as we were, the worship leader still did a great job of incorporating hymns into our worship experience. He recognized you could do the modern stuff as long as you did it correctly, with passion and the way it was written, but you could also add in older stuff. Bringing in the older stuff made everyone happy.

So the next time you think you've got the corner on what music is correct in God's eyes, especially when it comes to instrumentation and style, I challenge you to look it up. Find out where in the Bible it tells you leading with a guitar is not allowed. Find out where in the Bible it's made clear that rock music is sin. You won't find it, so stop trying. If you don't like what you hear, ask God to open your heart to hearing what He has. If that leads you elsewhere, and perhaps it will, that's OK; it really is.

And this goes for all of us, not just those who prefer one style over another. We have to examine our hearts every time we consider pressing forward on something we feel convicted about to assure it's Biblical and not just our feeling on it. Music has fallen into that category probably throughout the ages. We've just been in our current "battle" for a few decades now and I'm sure it will continue with the next generation of music as well. Enjoy it. It's fun!

Legalism As It Pertains To...Clothing

Think about this for a second...church services in ancient days, at least within some areas of the world, were toga parties. They were parties because it was church, which is worship, which should be exciting, right? You know, even now, with some modification in what is worn underneath, a number of cultures still have similar looks. At the very least, anyone outside the Western culture most often dresses completely differently than we do.

So why, or better how, can people justify this mistaken concept that you must dress a certain way to attend church or church functions? I just don't get it. I don't know how many times I've seen this happen. In the mid-nineties, I was attending a church that, as it turned out, felt very strongly about what people wore. In advance of a cookout at the church one summer evening, the pastor announced Sunday morning that everyone should dress appropriately and that shorts were absolutely not allowed.

Summertime...temps in the upper 80s and 90s...long pants. Ummm, no. This was the first thing the pastor had said which gave me insight into how he believed, that his rules, man's rules, were more important than God's rules. Oh, you can say you want someone to dress a certain way, and you may very well have a conviction about it, but that conviction needs to stay with you or else you are putting yourself above God. How can I say this? Well, is this rule you created God-made or man-made? It's as simple as that.

OK, look, this is a common issue for everyone in the church. We've all been guilty of legalism in one form or another, putting our own convictions on others because we believe we are right. All I'm saying is that regardless of whether or not you feel you're right, if it's not specifically stated in the Bible, you've got no ground to stand on. And yes, I do realize anyone can make the statement that the Bible doesn't cover everything, so we have to interpret things the best we can to find the ways we should live. I get that, but people, issues of clothing have nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with salvation. In fact, very little of what we argue about amongst ourselves when it comes to the church has to do with salvation and living according to the rules God has provided. Very little.

I will say that most of us feel you should at least dress modestly, and the reasons for that certainly make some sense. I mean, the girl with the great body in the miniskirt and halter top doesn't help ANY of the men nearby focus on the service. It's not intentional; it's just how we're made. And that's not an excuse, either. We are seriously made this way. It's very, very hard not to notice certain things. So yeah, it'd be great if everyone recognized the need to dress at little more covered up for church, but by the same token, when do we start to look inward instead of creating some rule to take care of what we can't handle?

Isn't that what most of these man-made rules are for? When you get right down to the dirt, don't you make rules for yourself to help you focus the way you need to on God? Doesn't the way you choose to go about worship, about music, about prayer or any other aspect of your spiritual life become dictated by your own rules about how to do it best for you? When I go to church, I like to be comfortable. I wear jeans and a polo or long sleeve shirt of some type, any type, when it's cold. My level of comfort has a lot to do with how well I feel I can focus on worship and on the message.

But that's just me. My wife is comfortable wearing pants and a nice blouse or sweater, though she'll rarely wear jeans and she'd never wear shorts. I would, but she won't, and that's her conviction. My mom has always felt that, to her, it was important to wear a dress or a skirt to church. In fact, unless this has changed recently, she will wear this all day Sunday, even. It's something she feels works for her, a personal conviction that helps her truly worship her King. Me? Any time I walk in the house the shoes come off and the shorts go on, summer or winter, weekday or weekend. I don't carry that same conviction my mom does, but even as strongly as she feels about this for herself, she knows it is her personal sense of how to do things and not something everyone else is responsible to also do.

When you look at someone in church, do you judge them for how they are dressed? If you find yourself doing it, next time look inward and pray, unselfishly and openly, about your attitude. God wants you to focus on Him, not the clothing around you. And the next time you worry too much about how others are dressed, consider for a second how you'd feel if you walked into a service in a different culture. In that instance, you might be the one who looked out of place. Would you want them to accept you or deny you a chance to worship?

Legalism...stinks, doesn't it?

Are You The Only One?

Disruptions. If you pastor a church, you have a front-row seat to every disruption of the service that happens, from noises to movement. I don't know how you keep your wits or how you manage to continue your messages as though nothing is happening; I really don't. To me, sitting there in the congregation, I can't stand it. I can't focus because of it, and I certainly can't get anything out of what you're saying when my attention is being taken from me despite my best efforts.

This post is for both groups involved in these disruptions. First, it's for the pastors, because they can't really approach this subject for fear of turning away the very people they want to help. In fact, those causing the disruptions may be the ones that need it the most...it's possible anyway...and yet a pastor can't even talk to them individually about it, or at least not easily. They most certainly can't do it to the entire church.

Second, this is most definitely aimed at those of you who cause the disruptions. It'd be easy for me to play nice and say that perhaps you don't realize you're doing it, but I'm not going to do that. Why? Because far too often we make excuses for our actions when we should be taking responsibility for them and I am tired of it. Now let's dig into some examples just from my own church service this morning.

Yes, that's right, these all occurred during church today and I didn't get a thing from the message because of them. Now before you think I'm easily distracted, I am not. I never turn to watch someone walk in or out, nor am I concerned with movement around me because I come to worship; I come to learn and I intend to get that out of my time in church. However, there are times when the disruptions are so grand that I can't see past them.

How about we start with a simple one, shall we? A typical church service these days last an hour, maybe 90 minutes on the long end for most of us. Sure there are some longer, but let's go with the majority. Now, an hour is half the time of most movies, yet unbelievably many people can't seem to make an entire hour of church without getting up to go to the bathroom. How? I mean, one or two, occasionally, I could see, but this is every week. Today, we sat on a different side of the church, which apparently is the "movement" side. I lost track of how many people got up to leave during the message, but it was at least 7 or 8, maybe more, and we only have about 100 people in there to begin with. And of course not only did they get up to leave, but they came back. That's 14 or 16 disruptions just from those people on my side.

The second one today was just as obvious, which was misbehaving children. OK, I have to ask, why in the world are kids that are too young to sit still during the message sitting there when classes are being offered elsewhere for them? Are the parents just that unconcerned with the others around them that they don't care their kids are doing headers off the church pews? No kidding, two of the kids two rows in front of us fell off the pews, head first, because they were messing around. During the message this happened! Incredible.

Third, and unfortunately this involved two people I have known for over seven years from a previous church, is "the cuddling couple". Sitting directly in front of us, the husband of this couple went back and forth from sitting forward and paying attention to what I can only describe as "smothering" his wife, wrapping his arm around her and pulling her close (seriously, looked like smothering), whispering, smiling and kissing her. Were we at the movies and I missed it? Better yet, was it Lover's Point? I honestly had serious concerns about where his hands were going to go next. Trust me when I say this guy is someone whose heart I know. He's a very devoted Christian husband and father, very loving and very sincere. But I had to wonder this morning how he could be so completely oblivious to his surroundings, of the propriety of what he was doing.

Last, and this one just blew me away, was the worship leader tuning his guitar at the back of the sanctuary...DURING THE MESSAGE! This is not a large building. As I said, maybe 100 of us in the service and it probably seats 200-225 at the most. He was two rows behind us, TUNING HIS GUITAR! Dude, there are doors to a common area you can go to for this! I couldn't believe it was happening. I advised my wife later that had this been our first Sunday at this church rather than our third, we would most definitely not be returning based on this example. I've never had a service so disrupted that I can recall. I'm 41 and have been in church all my life save about 4 1/2 years of rebellion in my early 20s. That's a lot of Sundays, people.

My question then is to all of you who participate in these disruptive practices in church: ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE?

I mean exactly that. Do you believe you are the only one there in the service and therefore your actions are not disruptive? Are you under the impression you are in a sound bubble whereby nobody else can hear what you or your children are doing? Possibly you think you're sitting in a box so nobody can see you. Maybe that's it. So here are some simple guidelines for you disruptors moving forward:

Bathroom People - Go before the service begins. You don't get up in the middle of a good movie or show; you hold it in. You don't take off on a trip without going first. You can plan for this, so don't use it as an excuse.

Misbehaving Children - This is on you, parents. There is no excuse for either not having your children in a class when it is offered or not assuring your children are being well-behaved if you choose to keep them in the service. This isn't a park; this isn't the zoo. It's church! Do they act this way in class at school? If they do, I would bet the principal's office is a familiar place for them. Is it fair to your pastor to let them be a problem? How disrespectful is that? And don't give me a story about how they are kids and just won't behave. That's a load and you know it. It's your job as parents to discipline and raise your children, not their job to raise themselves. Do it and don't make excuses.

Snuggling Couples - I can't believe I even have to say something about this, but if you don't know you're in church, perhaps I can't help you. I get that you love each other. That's great! But keep the public displays of affection outside the church sanctuary. Again, can't believe I had to just say that out loud. You may think, "Oh, I'm just rubbing his/her neck or stroking their hair", but those behind you are thinking just how uncomfortable this is making them. And, depending on how else you choose to act, say in the case of my kissy, kissy, smiley, whispering couple this morning, it may very well be completely inappropriate for the venue. Get a clue and knock it off.

Guitar Tuner Dude - You, a minister, of all people, should know better than this. I've never, ever, ever run across something so blatantly clueless from a staff member before. I was literally shocked when I heard the guitar being tuned. My first thought was, "Is this really happening?" That was before I moved on to, "Why is he doing this in the sanctuary?!" Un-freakin'-believable. I was dumbfounded; still am.

Look, the gist of all of this is that you need to be cognizant of where you are and that should dictate how you act, and that goes not only for church but school, the movies, a play, etc. The first question to ask yourself may very well be, "Am I in public?" I say that because, well, apparently a lot of you don't recognize that you are.

Just remember, you're not the only one there.

Tithing...Money or Faith?

Last year my wife and I were attending a church in Odessa, TX where I heard the best message on tithing I'd ever been presented with. Instead of focusing on stewardship, he focused on faith. Possibly because this was a position I'd only recently begun to understand, this message really struck home and got me to thinking about how poorly I've heard tithing preached on over the years.

Don't get me wrong, there are very viable points for spending time teaching on the money side of it. It's obvious the church doesn't run on good vibes generated by smiles and hugs. Every country does rely on some form of currency to keep things running. The pastor needs a salary, preferably some benefits and insurance as well; the building has upkeep and maintenance costs to consider; there are programs, such as missions, that cannot survive without financial support, yada yada yada.

To be sure, when Jesus told the wealthy man to sell everything he had if he wanted to join up, the man was sad and left, knowing he couldn't make that type of commitment. Money and possessions far and away make the most sense as things God would ask us to give up a portion of in order to show commitment to Him. I'm not minimizing that at all.

What I believe doesn't happen enough, though, are enough messages focused on the true reason behind tithing, which is showing God you believe He will provide, that you trust in His direction and that you are committed to doing His work. Even in messages where this was presented, it was a byline, not the main point, which has always been focused on money. God uses money as the motivator for tithing because we rely on it so much, because it's the toughest thing for us to give up and because it's tangible. It's a deeper expression of faith that is shown by giving up those things, that money, and it has a bigger impact than just "saying" you have faith or just "praying" about your faith. This is something we do in the real world to prove it, and it's not always easy.

My wife and I went through a patch recently where I was unemployed for 19 out of 26 months. Nineteen! With only one income, and bills we couldn't meet, do you think we tithed? A better question might be, do you think we WANTED to tithe? Regardless, we did, and we did it as a show of faith. Honestly, I think that's where we both finally understood fully the purpose in tithing. Before that, even though we tithed, the impact was lessened because we could afford to do it and still pay everything. But when you are presented with not being able to afford things and relying on God to fill that gap, it takes faith. I'm not saying this is for everyone and you may feel differently about that last statement, but I am saying it is for us because "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord", as it says in Joshua 24:15. I feel strongly that this means not just lip service, but real service, and that serving means in every facet of our lives, not "everything but money".

So my question is, how strong of a hold does money have on you?

Legalism As It Pertains To...Baptism?

I know, I know. Confused? Concerned? Readying yourself to fight me to a "believers death" if I don't say what you want to hear? Listen, just hear me out on this one, try to have an objective mind, and attack this rationally with me. But first, we have to establish the premise.

I grew up in a church denomination that believed, at the time I was born, in baptizing babies. Now, by that very statement, you could surmise that they also believed in baptizing by sprinkling, rather than immersion, people once they were older and you would be right. Why mention this? Because this is my foundation. This is what I KNEW was right and true from a very young age. And I hope you realize that when I say I "KNEW" it was right and true, that simply means I felt that way because it's what I'd always known. In fact, until I was an adult, I never thought twice about it, to be honest.

In that sense, my foundational experience is no different than anyone who grew up in a belief system that stated you could only be baptized by immersion. Anyone raised that way, whether from a young age or whether that was the method first presented to them after they accepted Christ, likely feels very strongly there is only one method of baptism.

A few questions, then, should come from this for people on either side of the proverbial fence. One, do I feel the way I do about baptism because it's something I was taught or do I feel the way I do because the Bible specifically states it? Two, is my unwillingness to consider the alternative viewpoint on this issue due to stubbornness via the foundation built in me or do I think I have "proof" my viewpoint exists Biblically?

Third, and key to me utilizing the term "legalism" in the title of this entry, is this: Regardless of how you feel, do you attempt to push your conviction on others who do not share it in an effort to garner acceptance, say in the form of church membership?

Wow! If you are in the immersion camp right now you're fighting to keep from tuning me out, but please listen, because I'm not saying any of this out of a desire to change convictions. I'm about to give you some ideas on why this does indeed fall into the category of legalism, and it's maybe even more common than the others that are more visible, namely concerns over appearance, clothing or music. Those topics will show up on here in later entries.

So let's look at this issue a bit; get a little foundation of our own to draw from without going too deep. I could give a ton of Bible verses here, but you can look it up. If you're in the immersion camp, you're drawing from several verses in the New Testament and have decided that since references appear to speak only to being immersed, that must be the only option. This would be great, if the Greek word baptizo only meant one thing. But you see, it doesn't. Oh sure, it can very much mean immersion considering it is used as such to describe things ranging from baptisms in rivers and special pools to Jesus describing His being "immersed" in suffering.

On the other hand, it can also mean a "pouring" out of, well, as we think of it, water. Although the term is also used in the original Greek texts to speak to a pouring out of the Holy Spirit. Now, I could go on all day and get into the language of it all, the meaning of words in their original language and intent, but I don't think it would benefit any of us. I say this because none of what I've said so far is good enough to convince anyone to side one way or the other.

But that's good, because that's not what I'm trying to do. What I need to get through your thick skull and mine is that whatever method we believe in, there is nothing specific in the Bible to uphold either side. Oh sure, immersion appears to receive more obvious references, but can you really do anything with regard to theology based solely on the outer skin? And really, do you firmly believe this has anything to do with salvation? With all apologies to my Catholic friends on that point, who have so many man-made rules they can't see the forest for the trees, the method by which you were or choose to be baptized has absolutely no right or wrong and nothing to do with getting into Heaven. Baptism should, technically, come after someone has put their faith in Christ, as a sign of obedience to Him.

Before I close out with my grand argument, so to speak, I have to share something extremely alarming I pulled up in preparation for writing this. And make no mistake, I'm writing this to get it off my chest that I'm sick and tired of legalism and how it has even translated into this area. But here it goes, and I'll give you a direct quote:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

I bolded that last line because it's just so unbelievable to me. As my brother, a Wesleyan pastor, stated to me, "To add anything on top of the grace of Christ is heresy." I'm going to make a very strong statement and say the last line of the quote above falls into that category. Now, would you like to know where this came from?

This quote comes directly from "The Baptist Faith and Message", page 6. You can find this on the Southern Baptist denomination website and several of its subsidiaries. What really bothers me is that I attend a Southern Baptist church...and THIS is what the denomination holds as valid and true? That somehow, even if I am a Christian, if I am saved, unless I have been baptized by immersion, I'm not good enough to take communion? Ummm, WHAT?????? Exactly where is THAT one in the Bible? It's not, which means it is, at the very least, a legalistic man-made rule.

I have to say I didn't expect to find anything so blatantly legalistic, so blatantly heretical, anywhere within the Southern Baptist statement of beliefs. Count me sufficiently shocked and, for the moment, glad most of the churches within the denomination are self-managed, connected primarily in name with the SBC so as to give an identity.

Let me be very clear in stating this is not an attack on the SBC. If I wanted to attack specific denominations or religions, I'd be writing something entirely different and probably not using this forum lest I begin receiving all kinds of hate mail. This is simply sharing with you something I found that is so incredibly man-made I can't believe it even exists.

I've been promising a statement meant to sum up why I don't believe anyone has the right to push their convictions regarding baptism on others, which would be legalism in action. And, I'll admit, it's going to be slanted against those who believe immersion is the only way to go. So here are two things for you to chew on.

From Easton's Bible Dictionary we get the following:

The gospel and its ordinances are designed for the whole world, and it cannot be supposed that a form for the administration of baptism would have been prescribed which would in any place (as in a tropical country or in polar regions) or under any circumstances be inapplicable or injurious or impossible.

And then, from, of all sources, the Catholic.com website, I offer this set of paragraphs which I think sums it up extremely well:

After Peter’s first sermon, three thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41). Archaeologists have demonstrated there was no sufficient water supply for so many to have been immersed. Even if there had been, the natives of Jerusalem would scarcely have let their city’s water supply be polluted by three thousand unwashed bodies plunging into it. These people must have been baptized by pouring or sprinkling.

Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies (an opening into the airway in the throat) or in negative pressure ventilators (iron lungs). Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed, and may not wish to defer baptism until their recovery (for example, if they are to undergo further procedures).

Other difficulties arise in certain environments. For example, immersion may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos. Or consider those in prison—not in America, where religious freedom gives prisoners the right to be immersed if they desire—but in a more hostile setting, such as a Muslim regime, where baptisms must be done in secret, without adequate water for immersion.

What are we to do in these and similar cases? Shall we deny people the sacrament because immersion is impractical or impossible for them? Ironically, the Fundamentalist, who acknowledges that baptism is commanded but thinks it isn’t essential for salvation, may make it impossible for many people to be baptized at all in obedience to God’s command.

I especially like a few things in that last quote. Primarily, my thinking has always aligned with the thought that, in ancient times, there is NO WAY anyone living in the Arctic or several desert climates would have had an option to be baptized by immersion. Where was the water for them to do this if they lived where it was always frozen, or where was the water if their climate was so much a desert that it was simply impossible?

Are you telling me people from these areas made yearly treks, kind of like their own visit to Mecca, just to be baptized in a pool or river? I have to think if this was happening, we'd have heard about it by now. Even the last bit of that quote, speaking of those who believe immersion is the only option (referred to as Fundamentalists), has a very valid point on the matter.

With all that information presented, the only question is, do we hold to our belief in the proper method of baptism because God made the rule or because man made the rule? I would submit to you that if you defer to either method and refuse to accept the other as possible that you believe in man more than God. You believe that man was able to decipher something God never specifically stated in the Bible. You believe the Greek can only be translated one way, when in fact is means multiple things (as many, many Greek words do and hey, that's just like our own English language; go figure).

Last, I would submit to you that in order to align yourself properly on this issue, and to not be legalistic about it, you must consider how your belief in the method of baptism fits in places where immersion is not possible. That alone is the key issue as far as I'm concerned and the only reason this has been written.

Show Me The Words!

If you attend a church that uses projectors to display song lyrics and most everything else, let me ask you something...do you have every song you sing on Sunday memorized?

I didn't think so. I know I don't and I can't be the only one. Even songs I have been singing for years can be easily forgotten within this mind as it grows older. I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one who has this issue, so I have a plea to worship pastors and church media directors everywhere.

Please, please, spend time with those who serve stressing how important what they do is to the worship time, both music and preaching.

How about a word picture? You're in church, somewhere in the middle of music worship. Worship pastors work hard to put together a set of songs, in a set order, intended to help draw you in to a place of worship, a place of intimacy with God. You're in a good place, mind ready to worship; the music has its hold on you; you're feeling that closeness, that moment where you let down your guard and the walls seem easy to scale...AND THEN IT HAPPENS.

The person responsible for displaying the lyrics doesn't pay attention and now you're on to the next verse but you have no idea what to sing. Or they don't follow the worship leader when he/she switches things up a little. Perhaps they hit a blank slide and you are now LOST.

OK...where did your moment go? Are you still in that sweet spot of worship or are you now distracted, even if just a little bit? Unless you have that song memorized and had your eyes closed, you're now distracted. It's human nature. Whether you intended it or not, the moment is gone because something, in this case visual, stole it from you.

Worship teams have such an important role to play, but is the focus, especially of those running sound or video, on HOW it serves others? I think most who serve have their hearts in the right place, but too often it's accepted that the quality of their work can be subpar. Why is this allowed? Are we afraid to confront because we're just so happy people are serving? Let me turn this around a bit. If you were serving, wouldn't you want to do your best?

I'm tired of losing the moment because someone isn't paying attention. I'm tired of not getting there because something controllable distracts me because I have eyes that work. For the sake of worship, and with full recognition that your role is important and should receive nothing but your best, I implore you to understand how something so small is really something so great.

What NOT To Do As A Church...OR...How I Learned To Love The Bomb

The Dr. Strangelove reference there is just to get your attention, as the subject otherwise may be one of curiosity, but not necessarily get you interested right away. As most of my life is lived out as one "Friends" line after another, I have a need to share movie/TV references in communications often. But why am I really writing this note? In a fun way, I wanted to share something we learned recently that can be beneficial to any of you who are or have been heavily involved in ministry. In fact, it’s probably equally important for those of us who are contented attendees each week as well.

My wife and I are in the process of trying to find a new church home at the moment. We want something that fits us best, that offers good care for our 22-month-old son, and has a solid doctrine we can get behind. On some level, there is also an interest in finding a place to fit in, at least for me, in some type of ministry capability, perhaps sound or music, maybe eventually leading a Bible study.

A few weeks ago, we tried out a church that's very close to our house, called Waypoint. This is really where all of this comes from, because I've never seen one church fail so greatly in so many ways that was yet seemingly so healthy from a numbers standpoint. There had to be 300-400 people there, at least, and I'm just not sure how. Now, you would think with a name like Waypoint that their intent was to create a metaphor for where we should be on our journey with Christ, or perhaps those "waypoints" along the way that are indicators for how we're doing, or where to strive for, etc. A search of their church website provided us with no direction heading into the service. It was very vague, very nondescript, if you will, in terms of letting you know affiliations or anything beyond a simple statement of beliefs. There wasn't even a way to contact the pastor. In fact, it didn't even tell you his name. So that's where we'll begin.

DO: In providing a connection point on the web, be sure to list WHO is on staff, HOW to contact them and WHAT they are about. Give some biographical information, something to let the reader know where this person came from, what's important to them from a vision standpoint of the church, etc. In general, share the things any inquiring newbie would want to know.

DON'T: Don't create a web space with no information whatsoever about the pastor, the leadership, contact information or anything along those lines. You wouldn't create a business site this way, so why create one like this for a church? You're a church, right? Isn't a big part of your role to invite people in to a relationship with Christ and, by nature, a relationship with you as a people? Isn't it supposed to be a place where people can meet you, ask questions, etc.? Sure, in person is the primary contact method, but this is 2009. We're closing out a decade where the web is everything and is utilized for research more than ever. That falls over to churches, too.

DO: When people walk into your church facility, whether it is a permanent structure or temporary, like a theater or storefront, they like to be greeted, especially if they are new. Is your church so big you don't know everyone that comes in the door? Greet them anyway, right? People come to a church to feel welcomed, to be invited in to learn and understand more about God. We are their first impressions of what that relationship is like and we need to be there for them. I've never been in a church that didn't have someone available to greet you when you arrived...

DON'T: That is, until Waypoint. We arrived 10 minutes before service was set to begin. Two guitar players were practicing on a stage. There were 30 or 40 other cars in the parking lot, so there were plenty of people inside the facility (this is held at a Conference Center, not a church building) yet nobody was there to greet us as we arrived. In fact, though we saw a number of people, not one came up and introduced themselves or asked us if we were visiting or anything. We had to stop one of them after a few minutes to ask for assistance in finding the Nursery for our son, which brings me to the next...

DO: Make it obvious to people where everything is. I think most churches I've been in do a good job with this with signage or, if they don't have signage, using greeters to answer questions and direct visitors to where they want to go. At Waypoint, it was more like...

DON'T: Not only have no greeters or helpers of any kind, but also no signage. Oh, there was a sign we noticed off to the right indicating some classes for older kids, but nothing indicating a Nursery. Again, this wasn't a tiny church; it had several hundred people. When we asked the person we ran down where the nursery was, we found the next item on my list...

DO: Make sure to have childcare for infants and toddlers available from the very beginning of your services, even a bit before. If service starts at 10, it should be open at least 10 or 15 minutes ahead of time so parents can drop their kids off and get to the service on time. You know what a service with lots of infants and toddlers is like otherwise? Pick an adjective: noisy, disruptive, chaotic...I could go on. So what's the opposite of this plan?

DON'T: Do it like Waypoint did. When we inquired about the nursery, we were told he'd show us where it was, but that none of the children went to their classes or the nursery until after the music portion of the worship service was completed. Ummmm, what????? So you're saying I'm to somehow keep my 22-month-old son content until the music time is done? How? With magic? With smoke and mirrors? Anyone who has ever had a child, or even SEEN a child knows this is impossible. Infants, sure. They don't move much, don't care about much. But once your kids begin to walk and are active, SITTING is of the devil to them. They hate it. And so did my son. In fact, after a few songs, I gave up and took him out of the building, yes, out of the building, so the discontent he was showing wouldn't be a problem to others. Now, while we're on the subject of times, etc., let's discuss start times.

DO: Start your service as close to on-time as possible. I've run across the occasional old-time church that starts a Sunday evening service on “farmer's time”, so to speak, maybe as many as 10 or 15 minutes late. That's fine. It's an evening service, meant to be more casual, etc. But Sunday morning really, really, really needs to start as close to on-time as possible. This isn't just because people want to stick to a schedule. It's because many of us have kids who are young enough to where dealing with anything over an hour and 15 minutes is like pulling teeth anyway, especially if we're butting up against their lunchtime.

DON'T: Start it 20 minutes late because, well, you know, we're all just enjoying fellowship and it's fun to talk and we have to catch up and yada yada yada. Ummm, that's what the time BEFORE service is for and that's what the time AFTER service is for. At Waypoint, we began the music worship 20 minutes late. This is 20 minutes EXTRA we now had to try to keep our son content and comfortable, keeping him in our area, not letting him run around and be a distraction, etc., on top of him already not getting to go to the nursery right away. This naturally leads us to length of service...

DO: Try to stick to a fairly set time of worship each week. If you want to use the excuse that it's all "led by the Spirit", OK. There are charismatic churches out there for you where a few hours in service is considered normal. But for the rest of us, and especially for those with children, we really need to know because we have to plan everything. Those toddler mouths get hungry at fairly regular times and if you don't meet it, they don't understand what hunger is and so their very fun reaction is to fuss and cry. Woohoo!

DON'T: Not only begin your service 20 minutes late, but then decide within starting the teaching time to just meander along for another 20 minutes before even coming close to beginning to speak. Yes, we had a wonderful time of "touchy, feely, sharing" time at Waypoint and we learned something entirely new in the process of this as well, which comes next...

DO: Recognize that God is amazingly capable of multi-tasking. Heck, He even knows when you are sleeping and when you are awake (to borrow from Santa). He created the universe and has a pretty good handle on all of His people. So when you want to pray, two things you can do well to show Him you understand Him. One, it's OK to pray about multiple things in the same prayer because he's a pretty smart guy. And two, He knows who or what you're praying about, so just say it. It'll be good. On the other hand...

DON'T: At Waypoint, apparently the rest of us have no clue how God works. From what I could gather, you must pray about only one thing at a time, lest you confuse the God of the universe and cause Him to forget everything you wanted to pray about. In addition, apparently it's necessary to reach out with your hands in the direction of the person or persons you are praying for so that God can see exactly who it is you're referencing. I mean, seriously, how else is He to know who those people are? I suspect this also means that when praying for yourself, you should, theoretically, point to yourself or maybe lay hands on your chest so God will know it's you who you are praying about.

DO: Last one here for everyone. Thinking about doing something "different" in the service, perhaps breaking out into small groups, or doing something requiring personal interaction? Your "DO" here is to NOT do that. Let the service focus on what it should be doing, teaching, helping people grow and lifting up God.

DON'T: Don't do this. As Pastor "Happy Go Lucky" at Waypoint started his "sermon", he let us all know he was going to do something different that day. He was going to speak for 15 minutes and then we were all going to break out into small groups to study the passage he was speaking on. It was at this point I turned to my wife and advised her we were leaving when the break occurred. Let me ask you something? If you were new to a church, or even had visited just a few times but knew very few people, if any, would you be comfortable? What if, during meet and greet time in the middle of the service, nobody had come to speak to you? How would you feel upon hearing you were being forced to get into small groups to do a short Bible study in the middle of the service? I thought so. Don't do this, people. Use your small groups for what they are there for. Use your other opportunities for what they are there for. Don't try to create small group interaction in the middle of your church service, or at least not unless you intend to drive people away rather than welcome them in. Remember, your time for preaching is not your time for fellowship. It's your time for teaching. Rationalize it how you may, but putting people on the spot, like Waypoint did with us, is a surefire way to turn people away.

I'll end my separated points there, but wanted to encourage each of you to recognize a few things when it comes to new people visiting your churches. As newbies, we aren't looking for immediate acceptance and understanding, necessarily, but we are looking for smiling faces, people who are inviting and want to assure our questions are answered and needs are met. Assure that your greeters, or just the people in your church, recognize how important it is, regardless of size, to say hello to everyone and make them feel welcome.

During the 10-minute downtime in between the music worship and the preaching time at Waypoint, I took my son to the nursery and got him checked in. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, stopped by my wife to say hello and introduce themselves before or after I returned to my seat. The lesson here is for your people not to assume someone else will do it. Always take the initiative, always be welcoming, always meet and greet, so to speak. We attended a large church down in Texas, yet we always felt accepted, always felt cared for, always felt invited. You've never seen a church with so many greeters at so many places along the path into the sanctuary, and even inside. They went out of their way to assure everyone felt welcome and it worked. A church of about 1700-2000 never felt lonely and it never felt too big.

My wife and I have gone to 5 churches since we returned to our hometown. The first was one I attended for 4 years until we decided to find something a bit smaller. But it hadn't changed a bit, the music hadn't grown, and it still didn't match up with the welcome we wanted. The second was the one we'd attended before moving down to Texas last year. It felt fine for a short time, but soon began feeling empty and lacking in key support areas a church needs. A flock needs a true shepherd, pastors and laypersons, and we all know this.

Our first church to visit after we left our most recent church, we received no greeting, but the check-in desk appeared obvious so we headed over there where we were indeed warmly greeted and ushered to the nursery for our son. However, once inside the service, the worship itself was lifeless, the music mix among the worst I've ever heard (you have to be consistent, people, or you distract from the worship), and the preaching just plain sad. Also, not a terribly friendly place overall. The second church we visited was Waypoint, of which I spoke above. Waypoint is more the antithesis of their name. I'd say a more accurate description for them would be "Looking For Our Way", because it was very disorganized, had no real structure to it, was very touchy, feely in sense and, we're fairly sure we saw a number of gay people there. Ummm, yeah, THAT one is real specific in the Bible, folks. Don't kid yourselves in this era of social acceptance.

That experience was so disappointing that we didn't go anywhere the next Sunday because we felt so frustrated. The next week, our intent was to visit a church a bit further out from our house. As we drove up on it, I realized it was in a very small storefront. It used to meet in a theater. So in 7 or 8 years of existence, it's actually shrunk from a theater to a small storefront. That's not what we’re looking for, so we decided not to attend there. We would've had to go home with no service yet again, but my wife suggested a church her dad used to pastor that happened to be on our way home. We're glad we did, as we felt welcomed right away and it was an encouraging day. It's not perfect, and doesn't meet a perfect needs list, but very few churches can. We'll give it a shot next week as well.

And why? Because they invited us in; they treated us as Christ would treat us; they wanted us there, to be a part of a body of believers who have a desire to grow and learn together in Christ.

I hope you can all see this for what I want it to be. These are just some words of wisdom from a weary, oft-traveled guy trying to make sense of what does and doesn't work in ministry, gang. Take it for what it's worth, suggestions of what to do and what not to do if you want to reach those who know nothing about your church. Too often I feel we become content and, unintentionally, we push people away because we don't want to put forth the effort to accept new people, to accept those we don't know and would have to reach out to, but that's our calling. I'd hate for us to miss it.

God Bless, all.