Thursday, February 27, 2014

Where's Number 10?

You may have noticed on the previous blog post that only 9 out of 10 were listed.  To be honest it was a mistake, a simple oversight.  But now that I look at what Thom Rainer lists as number 10, I think God may have had a purpose behind it...

In my previous post I listed 9 traits of church members that make a church inward focused. I praised God that Solid Rock does not resemble those nine traits. Then it was brought to my attention that I had forgotten number 10. So I quickly went to the book "I am a Church Member" by Thom Rainer and found the 10th.

Tenth Dominant Behavior Pattern of Church Members that Cause Inwardly Focused Churches

10. Evangelistic Apathy Very few members share the gospel on a regular basis. More are concerned about their own needs rather than the greatest eternal needs of the world and their community.

The reason I think God had a purpose in my oversight, in my forgetting to include this one, is because I think this is one that Solid Rock struggles with. 

I often joke that we cannot depend on our sign or the location of our building to attract visitors. Yet more than not people visit Solid Rock because they drive by.  Now, don't get me wrong I appreciate visitors who come in because of the sign, or people who are leaving their church and looking for a new one. But what about the people who don't know Jesus? What about the co-worker, classmate, neighbor who needs to hear from someone they know about the Good News?  

We spent the better part of 2013 saturating ourselves with the Gospel message in all of its implications. It's time! It's time to take that hope to the hurting. It's time to take the message of love to the lost. It's time to take the Gospel to people. We can't wait for them to come to us.

Dallas Gatlin, Executive Director of Carriage Town Ministries in Flint, said it well, "It's not enough to simply get ourselves to church on Sunday and cheer for Jesus, we must do more than that."

I hope that you will join with me in taking the Gospel beyond the walls of Solid Rock.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Ten Dominant Behavior Patterns of Church Members that Cause Inwardly Focused Churches

It saddens me that some churches (the body of Christ, Christ's ambassadors, God's called-out people) operate this way. At the same time I am so very grateful that our church does not. I am not writing this in a prideful sense neither of myself nor the people of Solid Rock, rather I praise God for his grace. I pray that by His grace we will continue to honor Him as His Church.

Ten Dominant Behavior Patterns of Church Members that Cause Inwardly Focused Churches
Taken from “I am a Church Member” by Thom Rainer


1. Worship Wars – One or more factions in the church want music just the way they like it. Any deviation is met with anger and demands for change. Certain instrumentation is required while others are prohibited.

2. Prolonged Minutia Meetings – the church spends an inordinate amount of time in different meetings. Most of the meetings deal with the most inconsequential items, while Great Commission and Great Commandment are rarely the topics of discussion.

3. Facility Focus – The church facilities develop iconic status. One of the highest priorities in the church is the protection and preservation of rooms, furniture, and other visible parts of the church’s building and grounds.

4. Program Driven – Every church has programs even if they don’t admit it. When we start doing a ministry a certain way, it takes on programmatic status. The problem is not with programs. The problem develops when they become an end instead of a means to a greater ministry.

5. Inwardly Focused Budget – A disproportionate share of the budget is used to meet the needs and comforts of the members instead of reaching beyond the walls of the church.

6. Inordinate Demands for Pastoral Care – All church members deserve care and concern, especially in times of need and crisis. Problems develop, however, when church members have unreasonable expectations for even minor matters. Some members expect the pastoral staff to visit them regularly simply because they have membership status.

7. Attitudes of Entitlement – This issue could be a catch-all for many of the points named here. The overarching attitude is one of demanding and having a sense of deserving special treatment.

8. Greater Concern over Change than the Gospel – Almost any noticeable changes in the church evoke the ire of many; but those same passions are not evident about participating in the work of the gospel to change lives.

9. Anger and Hostility – Members are consistently angry. They regularly express hostility toward the church staff and other members.

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Creation/Evolution Debate Wrap Up

I watched the debate between Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and Bill Nye the Science Guy. There has been much talk from both camps about how each debater did, what one should have said and another shouldn't have said.  I don't want to get into all that... I want to take a step back and consider from a wider angle why this debate was so unique and why perhaps it left so many people unsatisfied.


1.  THE DEBATERS

First let me admit that both of these men are smart and I respect them both for their contribution to their respective fields.  However, they are not experts.  Ken Ham is a missionary evangelist who uses the Genesis account of creation to tell people about Jesus.  That's why he came to America (that's what he did in this debate and regardless of any other performance, that was the highlight of this entire event!).   He has a bachelors degree in applied science and a teaching certificate.  Bill Nye is most known for his children's TV shows about science. He has a bachelors in mechanical engineering.  Neither have done many, if any formal debates. And both came into the debate with preconceived agendas. Nye's: The rejection of evolution is ruining America’s global competitiveness by weakening science education. Ham's: The Bible is completely true, period.  They both view their audience to be "young people".  Because of this they both lost sight of the topic of the debate, but I'll address that later.


2. THE AUDIENCE

I'm not talking about the audience at the Creation Museum packed with supporters for Ken Ham and 3 fans of Bill Nye. I'm talking about the viewing audience. To date the video has been viewed or partially viewed 830,293 times in 3 days. This is huge for a debate video. The uniqueness about this is that people who don't normally watch debates, were watching this one.  For example the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox about the existence of God has around 500,000 views in 2 YEARS. (I would highly recommend watching this!)  My point is this, the expectations of the viewing audience was as varied as the topics that were covered.  Some think that point of a debate is to change the mind of the other side. Some think it is to point out the fallacies of the other side. Some think it is to prove your own position is true. And some just can't understand why we all just can't get along and stop arguing! 


3. THE TOPIC

The published topic of the debate was "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?" Here's where things really got off the rails...  The "creation model" was not formally defined.  In the first five minutes of each presenter's speeches, they were talking about text books, different definitions of science, Noah's ark, C.S.I. (TV show), MRI machines, and bow ties.  They never landed on what they were debating.  The whole night they danced around from ice cores to kinds vs. species, and light-years to fossils.  I walked away with a lot of facts, evidences and arguments, but I didn't feel like they really addressed the question.


4. THE REAL ISSUE

The real issue isn't one of science, it is about foundation.  Both gave loads of evidence--compelling evidence, but both were still left with gaps--unanswered questions.  Herein lies the fundamental difference between their view points--the foundational issue:  How each one goes about investigating the unanswered questions. For the evolutionist there are some assumed truths: billions of years, natural processes, and no God (no supernatural). For the creationist there are some assumed truths: the Bible is true, and God is creator and sustainer of the universe.
For example when Bill Nye was asked what caused the "Big Bang", he said, "I don't know!"  Evolutionists are convinced of the process that it used (billions of years, natural process, and no supernatural involvement), but have no answer for the cause. Creationist are just the opposite.  Ask a creationist, "What caused the 'Big Bang'", and they will tell you confidently of the cause, GOD. But what they won't be able to explain the process (other than God spoke it).
Another example could be the age of the earth.  For the creationist the assumption is the conclusion: young earth. This will lead to a specific interpretation of evidences and processes. For the evolutionist, the assumption is the process: no God and natural process. This will lead to a specific interpretation of the evidence: billions of years.
Both require a belief in something.  Bill Nye believes that the universe created itself, therefore matter and energy are either timeless or supernatural themselves.  While Ham (and I) believe that matter and energy are finite and a Supernatural Being (God) created everything.


The ultimate good of this debate was that the Gospel was shared to a huge viewing audience, but in addition to that, I hope this debate caused people to be aware of their assumptions.  We all have them--choose yours wisely.