Friday, September 28, 2007
BEAUTY NEEDS PROTECTION/NURTURING
I recently officiated a wedding on a beach at Big Sur. What a fantastically beautiful place. We were on a spit of beach with waves coming in on both sides. There was a rock wall in the water in which an opening had been carved by the waves over time. The water would rise and crash through the hole in the rock and then fan out in a perfect semi-circle at your feet.
A wedding in this setting of God's natural beauty raised a comparison. A wedding is also beautiful. God's creation of male and female and marital love is a precious gift analogous to his creation of nature's beauties. How we are blessed by both!
But we have learned the hard way (and are still learning) that God's natural beauty cannot be taken for granted. It must be cherished. It must be respected. It must be protected. It can so easily be tarnished, muted and even destroyed. And how much poorer we become when that happens.
Likewise, the beauty of marriage cannot be taken for granted. It must be cherished. It must be respected. It must be protected. This is probably the greatest failing of people with good intentions concerning marriage. Even Christians with a mandate to marry "for life" fail to understand this necessity. They may refuse to divorce, but is the marriage still beautiful? With neglect - by the way, there is no such thing as "benign neglect" in relationships - a marriage slowly tarnishes; its beauty is muted; it can even be destroyed.
The day of the wedding was beach clean-up day along the California coast. As I drove to the wedding site beaches had signs up and volunteers were gathering (even scuba divers!) to clean up California's beaches. This is necessary for we humans are messy creatures.
And we mess up our marriages. How often do you "clean up" your relationship? Work on healing, mending, taking a Saturday to focus only on your marriage?
Of course, in both nature and marriage it is a whole lot better if you don't litter in the first place!
A wedding in this setting of God's natural beauty raised a comparison. A wedding is also beautiful. God's creation of male and female and marital love is a precious gift analogous to his creation of nature's beauties. How we are blessed by both!
But we have learned the hard way (and are still learning) that God's natural beauty cannot be taken for granted. It must be cherished. It must be respected. It must be protected. It can so easily be tarnished, muted and even destroyed. And how much poorer we become when that happens.
Likewise, the beauty of marriage cannot be taken for granted. It must be cherished. It must be respected. It must be protected. This is probably the greatest failing of people with good intentions concerning marriage. Even Christians with a mandate to marry "for life" fail to understand this necessity. They may refuse to divorce, but is the marriage still beautiful? With neglect - by the way, there is no such thing as "benign neglect" in relationships - a marriage slowly tarnishes; its beauty is muted; it can even be destroyed.
The day of the wedding was beach clean-up day along the California coast. As I drove to the wedding site beaches had signs up and volunteers were gathering (even scuba divers!) to clean up California's beaches. This is necessary for we humans are messy creatures.
And we mess up our marriages. How often do you "clean up" your relationship? Work on healing, mending, taking a Saturday to focus only on your marriage?
Of course, in both nature and marriage it is a whole lot better if you don't litter in the first place!
Thursday, September 20, 2007
VISITING CHURCHES
My wife and I recently were able to visit two churches in another city on a Sunday morning. Every church leader should do this occasionally in order to experience church as a visitor, realize the first impressions that are made, and carry home a new sensitivity to how your own church operates and impacts newcomers.
The first church was one I had heard of for years and appreciated from a distance. However, our experience there was disappointing. I realize my comments focus largely on external issues, but they do make a difference - especially on a visitor who might be "seeking" God or a church home.
The first thing I noticed was difficulty finding the building because the sign out front was inadequate for a major street and faded. I missed the building when driving by on the other side of the street. From the parking lot it was not clear at all where the assembly was held and no signs offered any help. Walking into the auditorium was depressing: Inadequate lighting made it seem dark which then tended to make the service seem dull; 40 year old decor that said we haven't paid any attention to this in years; communion trays that were tarnished and had lost their finish. I thought, "Most people would never use an item in this condition at their dinner table."
I wrestled with myself as to whether or not I was being petty and "unspiritual." What about persecuted Christians who met in the Roman catacombs in the first century or underground house churches in China or Muslim countries today? Fair enough. But we are suburban America and not persecuted. A church, like any group, sends all kinds of messages about who they are in all kinds of ways - including how they handle their property. Is there not something wrong with the message that is sent by a middle class church that has carpet, lighting and bathrooms that most members would not want in their homes?
Kennon Callahan, in his book Twelve Keys to an Effective Church, makes the point that attention to externals such as decor, lighting, temperature, seating, grounds, parking, etc. serves to reduce the negatives. What he means is that none of those things convert someone to Christ or make a disciple. But not paying attention to those things puts unnecessary barriers in the way. First impressions do matter. People do react to their surroundings and to the atmosphere of a gathering. We do feel the way we feel.
I sensed this church was not growing. It did not have an "alive" feeling. And I think that was reflected in the way it felt being there.
This was all clearly contrasted with the second church we attended immediately after the first. The building itself was inviting and communicated a message of being a lively place: not only adequate lighting, but lighting as an artistic component of decor; large colorful banners with a message of outreach and commitment to the mission to the world; lively music enhanced by comments from a totally engaged worship leader. The first song communicated a world-wide perspective speaking of faith from the plains of Africa, through Asia and reflected in a thousand church steeples and bells.
The first church used black and white Power Point slides of hymnal pages with notes. The second used appropriate video images behind the song words to enhance the message - in color.
Perhaps it was not merely coincidental that the second church also had two baptisms that morning.
The bottom line was that one church "said" we are comfortable in our past. The other said, we are engaged in the present and encountering our world. Now the truth is, the first church may be doing that as well - but it was not obvious and not what they communicated.
And the other bottom line - I know which one I would want to return to and which one I don't. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it's true.
All of us need to occasionally make an intentional decision to look at our own church - grounds, facilities, the way we are greeted, ease of finding where to be and what to do, etc. through the eyes of a new person. It is so easy to get into comfortable ruts that no longer see how uninviting or unappealing a church may be to newcomers.
And then, may our worship together - our singing, prayers, our time of communion, the message of the morning and our interaction with one another - may it all shout out that our God is alive --- and so are we.
The first church was one I had heard of for years and appreciated from a distance. However, our experience there was disappointing. I realize my comments focus largely on external issues, but they do make a difference - especially on a visitor who might be "seeking" God or a church home.
The first thing I noticed was difficulty finding the building because the sign out front was inadequate for a major street and faded. I missed the building when driving by on the other side of the street. From the parking lot it was not clear at all where the assembly was held and no signs offered any help. Walking into the auditorium was depressing: Inadequate lighting made it seem dark which then tended to make the service seem dull; 40 year old decor that said we haven't paid any attention to this in years; communion trays that were tarnished and had lost their finish. I thought, "Most people would never use an item in this condition at their dinner table."
I wrestled with myself as to whether or not I was being petty and "unspiritual." What about persecuted Christians who met in the Roman catacombs in the first century or underground house churches in China or Muslim countries today? Fair enough. But we are suburban America and not persecuted. A church, like any group, sends all kinds of messages about who they are in all kinds of ways - including how they handle their property. Is there not something wrong with the message that is sent by a middle class church that has carpet, lighting and bathrooms that most members would not want in their homes?
Kennon Callahan, in his book Twelve Keys to an Effective Church, makes the point that attention to externals such as decor, lighting, temperature, seating, grounds, parking, etc. serves to reduce the negatives. What he means is that none of those things convert someone to Christ or make a disciple. But not paying attention to those things puts unnecessary barriers in the way. First impressions do matter. People do react to their surroundings and to the atmosphere of a gathering. We do feel the way we feel.
I sensed this church was not growing. It did not have an "alive" feeling. And I think that was reflected in the way it felt being there.
This was all clearly contrasted with the second church we attended immediately after the first. The building itself was inviting and communicated a message of being a lively place: not only adequate lighting, but lighting as an artistic component of decor; large colorful banners with a message of outreach and commitment to the mission to the world; lively music enhanced by comments from a totally engaged worship leader. The first song communicated a world-wide perspective speaking of faith from the plains of Africa, through Asia and reflected in a thousand church steeples and bells.
The first church used black and white Power Point slides of hymnal pages with notes. The second used appropriate video images behind the song words to enhance the message - in color.
Perhaps it was not merely coincidental that the second church also had two baptisms that morning.
The bottom line was that one church "said" we are comfortable in our past. The other said, we are engaged in the present and encountering our world. Now the truth is, the first church may be doing that as well - but it was not obvious and not what they communicated.
And the other bottom line - I know which one I would want to return to and which one I don't. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it's true.
All of us need to occasionally make an intentional decision to look at our own church - grounds, facilities, the way we are greeted, ease of finding where to be and what to do, etc. through the eyes of a new person. It is so easy to get into comfortable ruts that no longer see how uninviting or unappealing a church may be to newcomers.
And then, may our worship together - our singing, prayers, our time of communion, the message of the morning and our interaction with one another - may it all shout out that our God is alive --- and so are we.
