Hidden Messages of American Christianity: “Pastor O’Gill and the Little People”

Standard

Pastor O'Gill and the Little PeopleThis is the fourth in a series of posts covering the hidden messages that sneak into American churches’ proclamation of the Gospel. For more background, please refer to this post.

Ugh. Yeah, that title’s a woefully forced play on the old Disney flick about leprechauns. Hey, I can’t be a fount of creative wit every day, right?

Some “little people” who came out in droves when I asked for a suggestion of other hidden messages in American Christianity. Oddly enough, they were the least likely people to shout out a suggestion, but shout they did. In fact, I was afraid that if I did not post concerning their plight, I might be beaten to death by a shillelagh.

I’m not sure I can quote a Scriptural passage detailing the necessity of introverts for the Church, but neither can I make much case for all the raging extroverts who occupy just about every position of prominence in many churches.

There’s no doubt that I’m a raging extrovert. For most of my life I was deemed “intimidating”: 6’4″ 215 lbs, “Boeing 747 at takeoff” in vocal decibel strength (and nearly as constant as the traffic on Runway #2 at San Francisco International), and an “Oh yeah? Prove it!” kind of attitude. Got something to say that everyone wants said, but no one’s got the testosterone to say it? Ask Dan; he’ll say anything. In fact, we can’t shut the guy up. (Please, someone, anyone, find his off switch! We’re begging!) Now that I’ve crossed forty, I finally learned my lesson. Now I try to listen at least as well as I yammer. Nor does the limelight offer the same temptation it once did.

To the average introverted person, though, Dan circa 1985 was either the kiss of death or an object of awe—in the same way that the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion or an attack of flesh-eating bacteria inspires horrifying, sickening awe. “I…can’t…look…away! And the goggles, they do nothing!” What does this have to do with hidden messages in American Christianity? Well, here’s an exchange that actually occurred recently (in HEAVY paraphrase):

Dan: Some people are intimidated when they walk into a church. And even when they’ve grown accustomed to it, you still need to personally ask them to volunteer for things.

Extrovert #1: Preposterous! Why, no one has to ask me to do anything—I’m just there. And nine times out of ten, I’m leading the whole shebang! Why when I was in Desert Storm—

Extrovert #2 (loudly inserting a word edgewise): Well, in the thirty years I’ve been a member of this church—and that was before any of you were here, I might add—I’ve never heard such a thing!

Introvert #1 (taking his life in his hands): Uh, if I may interrupt, the reason you’ve never heard such a thing is that you’re always talking.

Introvert #2: {Silent nodding.}

Talk to any expert on this subject and they’ll tell you that America is the most extroverted country in the world and the complete converse of the rest of the world. We’re about 75% extroverts and 25% introverts. I think only the Australians approach that level of in-your-faceness.

There are plenty of sources out there that claim that the American church is increasingly becoming Hollywood-lite, a non-stop exercise in entertainment, but this is not the place for me to go down that path. All I can add is that as the need to make ourselves (supposedly) appealing to the world increases, our level of extroversion increases proportionately. A spectacle then, by definition, must be an expression of unrestrained extroversion. Is it any wonder then that today’s churches are noted for their stages rather than their altars?

When Pastor O’Gill stands up and tells the congregation to “Meet and greet your neighbor” or to “Pass the peace,” I’m certain a few hardcore introverts are wondering if they’re lucky enough to be in a church that has one of those “defibrillators for dummies” that are cropping up here and there. Worse yet, be the introverted visitors who are asked to stand up and introduce themselves to the gawk-eyed regulars! O’Gill then offers that church life revolves around small groups where real sharing (an introvert’s worst nightmare) occurs. And lastly, one of the worship committee gets up to say that there’s a lack of Scripture readers who can be called upon at a moment’s notice to read the weekly passages during the service. Oh, thank goodness. All the extroverts raised their hands—another bullet dodged.

(Megachurches are an odd thing for introverts, though. So big that the agoraphobia kicks in or so big that one can get lost in the crowd, get in and get out, with no one hurt? No way to tell. Maybe a little of both.)

Still, somewhere between the blare of a John Eldredge-inspired movie clip on the massive stage-flanking screens and the plethora of people clapping and raising their hands up for God (and everyone else) to see, introverts have got to be wondering if the message of the Church is “Next week, we’re gonna make you dance in the aisles, too.” And this is an Episcopal church!

Yeah, the tone of this post is a little lighter, but that’s only because I’m coming from that grossly overcompensated for extroverted side of the church. I can live in that world, though the spectacle of it sometimes makes even me a little queasy. Yet no matter how you look at it, nearly everything the Church does in 2005 is geared to people who talk first and ask questions later. Quiet is anathema in our sanctuaries on Sunday, as if reflection before the Lord is a diabolical plot hatched up by monks—Roman Catholic monks.

Not all people do relational well. While women outperform on the interpersonal side of things—the side that points to some level of extroversion—men don’t like all that hugging and chatting. When we see that churches today are about 62/38 female to male with that ratio growing more disproportionate, could it have something to do with the fact that extroversion and feelings are hailed by the American Church of 2005 while introversion and thinking are dwindling away in the message? In addition, the extroverted, anti-intellectual way we conduct many of our churches may be contributing to the dearth of Christian intellectuals today (who are typically men whether we like it or not.)

Let’s look at this another way. What’s the scariest possible Christian church denomination for an introvert? Pentecostals. Most comfortable is an old school Presbyterian or Episcopal church. To an introvert, there’s probably people ready to speak in tongues or hankering to jump a pew in that Pentecostal frenzy, whereas in the Episcopal church they may even let you sit in the narthex instead of the sanctuary if you ask meekly enough. Yet what is the trend in many of those old school churches? Well, no worse words could be heard than the pastor proclaiming from the pulpit, “Next week we begin our new contemporary praise and worship service. We permit you to raise your in hands worship, too.” Where can a true introvert go?

I hear the Orthodox Church is growing….

In all seriousness, while the message may be that we want all people to join in the community of saints, our delivery, and the message we’re proclaiming—even if we say it nicely—is that only extroverts need apply. We don’t know how to reach the introverts in our churches. We may have droned on so long that they may actually have had something to say that is vitally important to the health and welfare of the congregation, but we missed it amid the noise.

I’m not an introvert. I understand, however, that some of the pillars of our churches are those people who serve unseen. They’re not the glamour boys who hog the spiritual spotlight, but they’re the old men who have an intercessory prayer ministry only they know about, a ministry that has prayed over every person in the church at least once. They’re the folks who may be the only one sitting at the hospital bed, lending quiet comfort to the ill. No one notices them come in or leave, but they were there. Perhaps they, too, prayed powerful prayers that shook the gates of heaven.

We extroverts, the majority, are sending the wrong message in the church to people who are introverts. We need to step back and see if there are betters means for incorporating the types of spiritual exercises that appeal to introverts. We have to understand how the ways in which introverts can minister can benefit us all in the Church. We may have to stop assuming that because we gave a blanket greeting to a small collection of people on Sunday, we sufficiently greeted the introverts. We need to stop talking for a second and start listening. God sometimes speaks in whispers, so even He has an introverted side, too.

As much as this post has been a defense of introverts and the necessary ministry they bring, as an extrovert I must ask this of introverts: Meet us halfway. We’ll promise to tone down the frantic extroverted message we’re shilling if you’re willing to understand that community only works if you’re actively involved in the life of the church on all levels.

Deal?

That Other Standoff

Standard

Is it almost Thanksgiving? You’d never know it from the various wars erupting all over the Christian blogosphere as one faction yells to the other faction,Standoff “Oh yeah, well what about this!”

Yes, I’ve participated, but I’ve tried to be as civil as possible. I’m not trying to establish a beachhead. I just desire that other people understand the faction I’m tenuously a part of, especially since mine seems to be on the small side as factions go.

The cessationist/charismatic debate on the surface has tended to be civil. I think that the default faction leaders, David and Adrian, have done well. There have been a few gashes, but I’m not seeing any severed limbs lying around.

But there’s another war out there and this one has turned grisly: Emerging Church vs. Traditional Church. The rhetoric on both sides is so dense that it’s approaching depleted uranium stage. This week brought out the mustard gas and biowarfare as Emerging Church proponent Justin Baeder attempted a domain rustling by securing “emergentno.com” in an effort to put the spoofing screws to Traditional Church proponent Carla Rolfe of Emergent No at “emergentno.blogspot.com.”

Two words: Truly Lame.

While the cessationists and charismatics appear to at least be listening to each other so far, the Emerging Church (EC) vs. Traditional Church (TC) battle has degenerated into a hatefest. I’m halfway tempted to pronounce a pox on both their houses. (I’ve previously blogged about this issue here, here, and here.) The sad part is that there are people on both sides of this EC/TC war whom I appreciate, and the truly thoughtful folks on both sides are not as heinous as they are portraying the other side to be. In many ways, both sides there are attacking the same fringe elements that are under assault in the charismatic/cessationist debate.

But assaulting the weirdos is easy. I’m a charismatic and I’m fed up with the fringe within the charismatic movement. (I’m even more fed up that the fringe may be taking over!) When examining the war going on between the EC and TC camps, each side has every right to be hacked at the lack of Christlikeness in the other side, but then we all know what Jesus said to the group ready to stone the woman caught in the midst of adultery.

I’ve got zero diplomatic skills, so if I tick someone off here in either the EC or the TC camps, I apologize in advance.

This is what the Bible says:

And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
—Mark 12:28-31 ESV

Earlier this week, Ingrid Schlueter of Slice of Laodicea, one of the TC blogs that is most fiercely battling the EC, had this to say about Traditional Churches:

There is, without doubt, a shortage of biblical love and concern on the part of church members in Bible preaching churches today. There is a reason that emergent churches and mega churches with small groups are attractive. There is no more empty feeling in all the world than having attended a church service as a visitor and leaving without a kind word being spoken. In my husband’s and my search for a church for our family in an area where good churches were in short supply, we found this again and again. At one point, after attending a church for almost a year, I said, “Tom, we could be in an advanced stage of rigor mortis in the back pew and I doubt seriously that anyone would notice.” … After moving to a new state, we visited one church where we needed directions. I went to the church office and said, “Excuse me, we’re just visiting and we need to find out where to put our children for Sunday School.” The woman looked me up and down rather cooly, and gestured vaguely down the hall. “Someone will help you down there.” She said. This, folks, was a small church. But I was new and uninteresting looking and that was that.

I don’t think I can add anything to her disappointment. Far too many Traditional Churches, filled with people who adore God and love the Scriptures, are getting the first part of Jesus’ two greatest commandments right, but are missing the second. Doctrine has no strength unless it’s put into practice. It’s not enough to be able to cut down every heretical anti-lapidarydipsydoodlearian out there with the Truth of the Scriptures. Yes, that has extreme value and must be guarded, but if we do not love the very people that the Lord Jesus died for, all the doctrine in the world will sit idle in our hearts, gone begging for someone, anyone to put it into practice for the disenfranchised of the world.

Ingrid’s lament is even more tragic, since it should be second nature for us to at least love the rest of the Body of Christ, even if we have difficulties with extending the love of Christ to the lost. Yet how can we do the latter, as the Lord Himself showed us, if we can’t even love our brothers and sisters in Christ?

Does the EC do this better than the TC? Probably. That need to be part of a loving community greater than oneself is one of the reasons that the EC is gaining adherents. The people who don’t normally get called to the wedding party are being handed an invitation. The Traditional Church needs to understand this and repent.

Now as open as Ingrid was about failures of the TC, I’ve searched high and low to find someone within EC ranks who was willing to take on the fact that the EC plays fast and loose with a lot of Scripture, muddying just about every doctrine it touches. With Open Theism increasingly discussed within the EC (but not in those exact terms, since the EC doesn’t desire to have exact terms about anything), one wonders if they’re doing the second commandment right, but are unraveling the tapestry that spells out that the first commandment clearly. What the TC does well—speaking to sin, holding up the cross, affirming the inerrancy of Scripture and its authority—the EC outright mangles, with many of the leading lights in the EC giving depositions on doctrine in the same manner that Clinton asked us to rethink what the definition of “is” is.

For this, the TC has every right to hold the EC’s feet to the fire, but the EC won’t stand for it. I won’t go into all the sites posting doctrinal fallacies attributed to the EC (and they are legion), but suffice it to say, it’s hard to think of the EC in any way other than a reactionary movement that can’t form a coherently Biblical reason for everything it supposedly believes. What other outcome, other than rank heresy, can be expected from the EC if it continues to deconstruct the Scriptural base on which it’s supposedly founded. The oldest lie in the Book is, “Did God really say…?” The Emerging Church needs to understand this and repent.

All this makes me tired.

Why is it incongruous to think that we can have solid doctrine that holds up the full revelation and personhood of the Triune God while ministering Christ to His Chosen and the lost around us? When those two are melded in purpose, isn’t that The True Church? Emphasizing any part of the whole revelation of the Gospel over any other part is a recipe for disaster, yet somehow Traditional Churches and Emerging Churches are doing their best to cook up such a mess.

And we wonder why the Church in the West is failing.

Grieving Answers to Prayer

Standard

Then [Job's] wife said to him, "Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die." But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
—Job 2:9-10 ESV

I came back from the men's retreat I was on this weekend, but I did not return as I had hoped. Instead, I came back home weeping on the inside.
Grief
This is not the fault of the good men I grew closer to this weekend, but it has everything to do with the knowledge that even in the midst of good company, people truly do grieve alone. And I'd be lying if I claimed I was not grieving.

How long I've been grieving is a more difficult assessment. Or even what I'm grieving. Grief doesn't always announce itself or its intentions, we just know it's there, brooding. However, having the opportunity to get away and think a little may have jarred loose a few answers to both questions of "How long?" and "What?"

I'm grieving answers to prayer.

I'll say right away that you won't find a doctrine on this anywhere in the Scriptures. If you're the kind of person who detests what you might perceive as extrabiblical conjecture, then reading on will only anger you, so better stop right here and skip to another post. For anyone else, all I ask of you is to listen with the Spirit.

Anyone would think another a fool for grieving those answers to prayer that led to sustained blessings, and he'd be right. What's hard is dealing with answers to prayer that resulted in a firm No. Harder still is the answer that led to blessings that were later taken away before they bore fruit.

The accident that renders the promising athlete a quadriplegic. The new husband who loses his bride to an aneurysm only a month after their wedding. The career dream that was reached, only to be snatched away. The ministry that failed. The stillborn child.

We grieve them, don't we? Olympic glory. A love built for the future. The dream we put our sweat into all these years. The heeded call of God put into action. The child of hope. Once they seemed so beautiful in our thoughts and prayers, but what now? There is only grief.

It's popular in many Christian circles to counsel people that it's perfectly fine to get mad at God. But what of Job's response? He called such advice foolish and did not sin with his lips by giving in to such hellish temptation. Grief, though, was permitted, and so he grieved in the sackcloth of his acquired poverty and the ashes of his dreams.

Job's question is a penetrating one: Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil? As for me, I believe Job is right, but I must also believe that grief is allowed when the prayers of the righteous result in something other than their intentions.

I was once told the story of a teen who was one of those extraordinary few who God revealed the purposes of her life. He gave her an enormous burden for the African people, so much so that her whole heart was given to missions at a young age. Upon graduating from high school, she worked hard to raise support and was richly blessed by the many people who loved her and caught her vision. When she was selected to join a team going to the African interior, the joy was palpable. She boarded the plane, set foot in Africa, and promptly died from a fever within days.

As far as anyone knows, she never got to share the message of Christ with anyone there. Thousands had prayed for her, hoped for her, and supported her. But what of all those prayers?

I used to think there was always a lesson in happenings like this, but I'm not certain I do any longer. Some things just are and perhaps all we can do is grieve those answers to prayer that we do not understand. I know people who have driven their faith into the ground looking for a lesson from some horrid injustice that pierced them, but what if there is no lesson other than the way of suffering? What if grief is its own lesson?

Some things make no sense. I know that I reflexively must understand why something is the way it is. None of us says, "Thy will be done!" easily, particularly when that will seemed to lead to ruin. Why did that bright girl with a heart as big as the world start and end her journey the same week? My only response is grief for a prayer answered in a way I cannot comprehend.

We in our household appear to be receiving an extra portion of these questions whose only answer is grief. The way of the cross? I would like to think so. Maybe this is the ultimate meaning and source for that manner of grief, but like a fog it rolls in and obscure everything else before burning off in a shimmering morning that paints diamonds on the grass.

Let us accept good and endure evil. And may our faces be turned to the Son.