Tag Archives: ministry

Theology & Culture

Why Calvinism asks the wrong question

10 Comments

So Calvinism, of all things, is becoming popular among Evangelicals. I remember a few years ago Dietrich Bonhoeffer was all the rage, and Evangelical studies of The Cost of Discipleship were spreading like the plague. Of course, it was hardly mentioned that Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran and so was his theology, but his writings were finding a new popularity.

These days, John Calvin is finding some new popularity among North American Evangelicals. According to this New York Time Op Ed, it is actually among many pastors that Calvinism seems to be creeping back into Evangelical churches and pulpits. The apparent reason for this renewal is that Calvinism provides an alternative to the prosperity gospel of Joel Osteen and the like. Calvinism does offer a good critique of the prosperity gospel, with its more realistic and honest stance on human beings and sin. Calvinism also invites a deeper understanding of scripture and deeper theology than “God will make you rich if you are good Christian”. I can understand why many are turning to something meatier in the face of Joel Osteen and others.

As Lutheran, this is kind of like watching your family, friends and neighbours become fans of your favourite sport which is great, but then realizing they are all cheering for a rival team. Finally, people are watching the right sport, but cheering for the wrong team is almost worse than not playing.

Now, some are reacting to Calvinism’s strict view on salvation and predestination. Benjamin Corey over at Patheos has written a couple of great posts about this. 5 Reasons Why Calvinism Makes Me Want To Gouge My Eyes Out and Love Doesn’t Kidnap: Why I Believe In Free Will Over Predestination. He rightly points to some of the deeply problematic consequences of the strict view of Double Predestination held by Calvinists.

However, as Calvinism (and its issues) comes up over and over again, I am surprised that Martin Luther is hardly mentioned. There would be no Calvin without Luther, so it is odd to debate the finer points of Calvin’s theology, without looking to Luther’s.

Now, I know should probably stop trying to say how great Lutheranism is, however, this justification stuff is exactly where I think Lutherans have the strongest theology there is.

Image Source - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nakedpastor/2010/09/cartoon-t-shirt-idea-for-the-elect-only/
Image Source – http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nakedpastor/2010/09/cartoon-t-shirt-idea-for-the-elect-only/

The problem of the reformation was that most reformers wanted to express justification in terms that didn’t involve good works that earned merit for salvation. This lead to theologians like Calvin having to come up with new criteria to determine what saves us. Calvinists say that God chooses ahead of time who is saved and who is damned. In response to this view, Arminians (another reformation movement) say that God decides not to choose, but to let us choose. So those who choose Jesus are saved, those who reject Jesus are damned. The issue for these views on predestination is that they paint a false dichotomy. There is either Double Election (Calvinism) or completely Free Will (Arminianism). These two options are opposites, but they are not the only two out there. Yet, Calvinism and Arminianism, for some inexplicable reason, are the two competing theologies out there for a lot of Evangelicals.

But each position has fundamental flaws:

  • Double Predestination, choosing who is saved and who is damned puts a loving and creating God in the silly position of having damn most people that God created…
  • Free Will puts a flawed and limited humanity in the position of having to choose God, despite our difficulties and imperfect ability to make good choices in all other matters – from choosing dinner off a restaurant menu, to choosing all manner of sin in regard to how we treat our neighbour.

Martin Luther saw a middle ground, which he called The Bondage of the Will: 

  • We are free in all areas in respect to our actions towards our neighbour.
  • We are free to reject God.
  • We are NOT free to choose God.
Image source - mmcelhaney.blogspot.com
Image source – mmcelhaney.blogspot.com

The good works/indulgence mess required that the reformers describe salvation as entirely the work of God:  We do not participate in our justification or salvation – God extends that grace completely on God’s own. We do not choose it, we do not earn it, we do not facilitate God’s grace giving action. And because God is the source of all grace and mercy, God does choose those who are saved. Calvinists would agree on this point.

However, Luther also saw that Christ’s death was not limited, but for all people, all creation even. God’s desire is to save all of creation. Arminians would agree on this point. So does that mean that all creation will desire to be saved? No. Will God force salvation on us? No. We are free in will to reject God. In fact, as human beings we are good at this. We often choose to be God in God’s place, as is the condition of Original Sin. We may choose God today, but will we choose God tomorrow? We are fickle creatures. In Luther’s view, he saw that because God had given us grace freely, without condition, the only choice that we really had to make is to reject God. (Luther did not see “not choosing” as an action of human agency). So our ‘Bound Will’ will chose to reject God.

The difference between Luther and Calvin is that Calvin started his theology with the issue of God’s sovereignty, Arminians started from the same point as well. When you start from God’s  sovereignty  you are bound to end up at Double Election or Free Will. God chooses for us, or God offers a choice.

Luther saw God’s chief characteristic as ‘Mercy’. Luther wasn’t really concerned with whether God’s sovereignty is strictly maintained, because the incarnation shows that God isn’t really concerned with that either.

Image Source - psalmslife.com
Image Source – psalmslife.com

Rather, Luther saw a God that was consistently offering mercy to a flawed, limited, sinful, suffering, imperfect humanity over and over again. Forgiveness was a daily exercise for Luther. He would remind himself daily of the Baptismal promises made by God – of Forgiveness, Life and Salvation (he was no anabaptist, baptism is all God’s action).

As much as Free Will seems like the answer to Predestination, it is isn’t. In fact, it is just as unloving a choice for God to make, as damning most people is. As imperfect and flawed creatures we simply cannot be relied on to choose God, we would all be damned if it were up to us. God’s real recourse is constant and abundant mercy.  God’s alternative to saving some and damning others, or letting us choose, is to be constantly forgiving. Salvation is not about God’s sovereignty, salvation is about God’s mercy.

Calvinism and Arminianism ask the wrong question – “How are we saved?” – there is no good answer to this question.

Luther was concerned only with this question – “Who is it that saves us?” – the only answer is God.

So what do you think? Does Calvinism or Arminianism appeal to you? Or does Lutheranism have the goods? Share in the comments, on the Facebook Page: The Millennial Pastor or on Twitter: @ParkerErik

*** Image Credit: The Predestination – T is a cartoon by David Hayward also know as the Naked Pastor. Check him out at www.nakedpastor.com ***

Theology & Culture

I wish Mumford & Sons Would Play at My Church

23 Comments

So last week I wrote a post about how Praise Bands are the New Medieval Priests. Over the past few days, that particular post has been generating discussion in the comments section, on my Facebook page and on Twitter. Worship is such an emotionally loaded topic, especially when it comes to music. Music is a powerful art form and so important in Christian worship. I think somewhere along the way, readers got the sense that I was advocating one style over another – that I was saying ‘Contemporary’ worship is not as good as, or as holy as, or as faithful as ‘Traditional’ worship.

Let me be clear, I was not advocating one style over another.

Image source - blog.ncbaptist.org
Image source – blog.ncbaptist.org

This is not about Contemporary vs. Traditional.

In fact, I didn’t use the word ‘contemporary’ or the word ‘traditional’ in that post. I am no classical music / organ snob, or someone who listens only to music newer than 5 years old. If you look at my iTunes library or the presets on my satellite radio in the car, you will see that my preference is eclectic. There is bluegrass, rock, folk, pop, classical, jazz, organ, soundtrack etc… But my heart music is some kind of bluegrass, folk, pop, rock mix or in other words Mumford & Sons. If Mumford & Sons decided to become a Praise Band, I would have resumes delivered daily to the church they play at. If Mumford & Sons decided to write a liturgy… I would be running down the streets looking for Jesus, because I would be convinced of the end of the world.

So let me say it again, this is not about Contemporary vs. Traditional.

I think I failed to connect the dots in my Praise Band Medieval Priests post. I think I failed to make clear I was talking about the medium of worship. I was talking about the ‘how’ of worship, not the ‘what’.

Yes, I have a strong bias to liturgy, but not because I am a traditionalist. I am biased towards liturgy because it is the agreed-to practice of the community of the Church. It is the vehicle that, for hundreds of years, Christians have agreed says what we believe about God, and liturgy allows us to worship God in an agreed-upon way. Liturgy is strongly rooted in the bible, in the early church, and in good theology.

Now I admit, I do think lots of contemporary music has bad theology in it, and I have done my fair share of ranting about Jesus-is-my-boyfriend songs. But I am also the first to admit that a lot of traditional hymns have equally bad theology. There are Jesus-is-my-boyfriend hymns out there too, they just escape our notice because they sound a little more Pride and Prejudice than Sixteen Candles. Contemporary music doesn’t have inherently bad theology, but like hymns, the theology covers a wide spectrum.

That being said, for my evangelical readers, I think I need to explain liturgy as medium.

Liturgy is not synonymous with organ music. The word Liturgy means “work of the people.” ‘The Liturgy’ is the order of worship, the texts that are used for the songs,  the assigned bible readings for each Sunday, the prayers and responses said by the pastor and congregation, the sacraments of baptism and holy communion. Liturgy is the skeleton of worship that Christians have agreed upon for hundreds of years.

But Liturgy can be done with organs, or guitars, or string instruments, or brass instruments, or piano, or drums or a cappella. In fact, I have done liturgy with all those kinds of instruments and their styles.

The style of music in liturgy can be any style, played by all manner of instruments and ensembles. There is some great liturgical music written and played in the contemporary style out there (eg. Steve Bell’s Holy Lord).

So, when I say Praise Bands are the New Medieval Priests, I am talking about Praise Bands. And no, of course not all Praise Bands. But the medium of ‘Praise Band’.

It is not way they play, but how they play it.

221313230_640Like with Medieval Priests , the Praise Band medium has become the message.

When Medieval Priests led worship, the language, the secret prayers, the division between the laity and priesthood, the transformation of bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood became the message. Those things were supposed to be the medium, the means of sharing God’s grace with the people. Instead, the Priests became the message, that only special people were required for worship, that only holy people had access to God. The liturgy of the medieval church had strayed far from the worship habits of the early church. The early church which gathered for prayer and song, to hear the Word of God, to share in the holy meal, to be sent into mission (that’s liturgy by the way).

Now this is completely anecdotal and very well my opinion, but for me the medium of the Praise Band can make the worshipper unnecessary. Just like the medieval priest who said mass by himself, often a Praise Band playing a song would sound just the same whether the congregation was present or not.

I think my objection comes from my experience over the past few years with Praise Bands. It seems like if I stopped singing, if the whole congregation stopped singing, almost nothing would change in the experience of music in worship. Praise Bands are a medium that has everything going against them when it comes to worship. They exist in an entertainment, consumer culture. They are a born of a genre of music that is performative. They even sound the best when played in concert style rather than worship style. They sound really good when the band interprets a song using the band’s own particular style, gifts and blend.

Here is where the rubber hits the road for me; despite all my best efforts to sing along, to songs that I know and that I played when I was in a Praise Band, I feel I like the music is more conducive to me listening than singing along. I am starting to enjoy listening over singing along, and I think I am not alone. I think this has become ‘worship’ for a good many people. Listening to the Praise Band, just like watching the Medieval Priest.

Does this mean I think we should give up on contemporary music in worship? Not at all. But I think, that like the liturgy of the Medieval Priests, Praise Bands will need a Reformation of sorts. I don’t know what that looks like, but some of the comments on my last post are the beginning of the discussion. Read them, see what people who have devoted their lives to music and worship are thinking. It is good stuff, it is smart, intentional and thoughtful.

Meanwhile, I am still thinking about how (maybe even if) Praise Bands are the New Medieval Priests. And wondering if Mumford & Sons will come play at my church.

So are Praise Bands a doomed medium? What needs to be done to reform them? Share in the comments, on The Millennial Pastor Facebook Page or on Twitter: @ParkerErik

_____________________________________________

PS. Just in case I wasn’t clear that I am aware of my own hypocrisy about this stuff, here is a video of a Praise Band playing a song that I co-wrote for the National Youth Gathering of my denomination…

Theology & Culture

In Defense of Men in Ministry – Guest Post by Rev. April Fiet

10 Comments

april-fiet-sbRev. April Fiet is my Twitter friend, a pastor and a blogger.  I appreciate her wit, her sharp insights into all things church and culture related, and her vulnerable writing style. I am honoured to have her write the first guest post for The Millennial Pastor.  As a man, I have written quite a bit about women in  ministry, so I thought a role reversal would be interesting and I suggested she write “something about men in ministry.” She came back to me with the fantastic post below. I am surprised she didn’t keep something so good for her own blog, but that is the kind of person that April is, gracious and giving.

Check out April’s blog here, there is a lot worth reading – one of my favourites is “12 Easy Steps to Shrink your Church.” I am a sucker for churchy snark. April can also be found on Twitter and on Facebook. Without further ado, April Fiet on In Defense of Men in Ministry:

Maybe it seems weird to give a defense for men in ministry, but I think it’s time to give one. Men may not always face the same challenges in ministry that women do. They may not ever be asked to give a defense for their calling when they announce they are headed to seminary. Men may never be told they cannot minister because they are men. Scripture passages might not be yanked out of context and used against men who are pursuing church ministry.

But, I still think a defense of men in ministry is needed – especially for men in ministry who support women in ministry.

Women in church leadership often face obvious obstacles.  When applying for ministry positions, many churches will toss out every application sent in by women. Women have had people get up and walk out of the services they were leading. Denominations have refused to ordain women who were obviously called and gifted. They have their reasons for doing so  (reasons I do not agree with), but even in the midst of these flagrant displays against women in church leadership, there are more subtle attacks going on – attacks that need to be spoken out against.

Women aren’t in ministry because men are doing a bad job. Throughout my theological studies, and now in my ministry, I have often encountered statements like this one: “I don’t think God prefers for women to be pastors, but when men fail so often to respond to God’s calling, God sends women instead.” The basic idea behind these kinds of statements is that men were unfaithful, so God sent someone else. Not only is it completely unflattering as a female pastor to be thought of as God’s second choice, it is also demeaning to my brothers, my faithful male colleagues who have answered God’s call to serve. Every month when I attend my pastors network meetings, I am surrounded by gifted and called men who heard the call of God and responded by giving up good jobs, homes, security and status to follow God’s lead. I don’t believe I am in ministry because men are doing a bad job. I’m in ministry because God intends for us to work together, and that means both including women, and not disparaging men in the process.

Men in ministry who advocate for women in ministry are not afraid to stand up for the truth of God’s Word. I have heard the claim made (more than once) that when a male pastor advocates for the full inclusion of women in church leadership it is because he is afraid to stand up against the culture and be labelled a sexist. The truth is, the men in ministry I know have spent countless hours studying Scripture. They have gone back to the original languages the texts were written in. They have asked the Holy Spirit for guidance. They care deeply enough about the Word of God that if they believed the Bible called for the exclusion of women from office, they would advocate for that. These men, who deeply love Scripture and hold it to be the authority over their lives, have read God’s Word and come to the conclusion that God’s calls women to leadership just as God calls men. Men in ministry who advocate for women in ministry are not weak. They are strong enough to stand up in a group of their peers and call for the circle of leadership to be opened to women, and sometimes it costs them friendships, the support of family members, and even standing in their denominations.

Men in ministry who support women in ministry aren’t “man-fails.” Male pastors who champion women in ministry aren’t doing so because they’ve “gone soft.” They may not go around bragging about their smokin’ hot wives, or flaunting their large broods of children. That’s not because they aren’t attracted to their wives (if they have one), or because they’re ashamed of the size of their families (no matter how big or small). They are secure in themselves, and don’t see the need to prove their manliness to their peers. Men in ministry who support women in ministry know that living life is all about discerning giftedness, calling, and life situations. My husband encourages me to continue serving in ministry, not because he is somehow shirking his responsibility to support me, but because he believes I am called to serve in ministry alongside him at this point in our lives together.

When I went to seminary, I was reluctant. I was afraid. I knew I was called, but as a people-pleasing introvert, I was so afraid to make waves. I found an incredible amount of support from fellow female seminary students and from female faculty, but it was the support and encouragement of male pastors and male faculty that gave me the confidence to pursue the calling God had placed on my life. Men went to bat for me in situations where doing so could cost them personally and professionally. Men encouraged me to step up to the pulpit and preach, even when I was doubting myself. The grace many male pastors exuded as they sought to welcome me and help me use my gifts for the kingdom of God buoyed me up when opposition was trying to pull me under. I am deeply grateful for the faithful men in ministry who have helped make a way for me.

It’s only right for me to defend them in return. The increasing support for women in ministry is not a response to vacancies left in ministry by men who were unwilling to follow God’s call. Men who take seriously God’s Word have studied and prayed, and come to the conclusion that God calls both men and women to lead. These men supported the full inclusion of women in church leadership before it was popular, or even acceptable for them to do so.

Not long ago, I had a conversation with someone who is an elder in his church. He told me that he had long believed that the Bible did not forbid women stepping into positions of church leadership, but that he had been afraid for cultural and anecdotal reasons. He had seen his wife struggle when criticized, and he thought it wouldn’t be fair to ask a woman to deal with that struggle when conflicts came up in the church. Years later, his church elected its first female deacon. He said that her presence on the leadership council made him realize that the church needed both women and men to serve in leadership. Something had been missing when her leadership gifts were not present at the table. And I agree with him. We need each other. Men in ministry, I’ve got your back.

So what do you think? Do men in ministry need to be defended? What challenges do men in ministry face? Share in the comments below

or

On Facebook at The Millennial Pastor’s page or April Fiet’s page

or

On Twitter @ParkerErik or @AprilFiet

Theology & Culture

“What is the Good News?”: It is not buying God off.

3 Comments

So I am sitting at a table in a church in rural Manitoba, Canada. For Canadian readers, imagine the winter paradise that most of you think rural Manitoba is. For American readers, imagine the winter wasteland you might think Canada would be all about. This is where I am.

I am also betweens sessions as the co-presenter at a youth retreat. Our theme for the weekend is “What is the Good News?”

Two sessions in and 3 to go, it strikes me how difficult a question this can be. There are  seemingly obvious definitions, like Jesus died for our sins, or God loves us, or God is King of all creation. But when you are trying to explain this youth, you need to be more concrete. At the same time, when you speak to youth and allow for their response, you will be surprised by their depth and their insight. Already the youth have been pointing out nuances that I didn’t consider when planning my parts of the speaking sessions.

As Lutherans, we have a very specific dogma when it comes to the “Good News”. We boldly declare that grace, that God’s love, that God’s mercy and forgiveness is entirely an action on God’s part. There is no earning God’s love. There is no choosing to follow Jesus. There is no repenting first, so that we may then be forgiven. The direction of God’s grace is always towards us.

We showed this video to the youth, of Nadia Bolz-Weber speaking to 40,000 ELCA youth in New Orleans about Lutheran theology:

Good News with this 1-sided approach (as in, it is all God’s work, and none of ours) becomes hard to nail down. We so desperately want to know our part. We want to have something to contribute. In in the middle ages it was good works which earned merit. The merit could be earned with works, and purchased with indulgences. The church sold Good News like a commodity. Merit became like ladder rungs to purchase for our climb to heaven.

Today, we are mostly over the good works thing. But the church is still selling Good News, in the form of faith or repentance or choice. We don’t say that we need to do good works to go to heaven, but instead that we need to actively accept God’s love. We need to choose Jesus in a conscious, life changing way. We need to truly repent of our sins to be truly forgiven. We need to DO something in our relationship with God.

This is still selling Good News. And we still buy it because it affords us a sense of control. If we can make the active choice, have the repentance moment, if we can accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour, than we are in control of our eternal fate.

But this is not what Jesus says about Grace. This is not what Martin Luther realized by reading Romans. This is not Good News

It is all still buying Good News, still buying God’s love. We once bought God with work and indulgences, now God is bought with sincerity of faith or our choice.

God doesn’t act this way. The Good News is not that we can somehow earn or buy off God.

The Good News has always been, and still is, that God is the one coming to us. God’s love, mercy and grace is freely given. Given whether we have earned it or not. Given whether we repent, choose, or accept it or not. God is constantly giving Grace, and there is nothing we can do about it. Nothing at all.

So what is the Good News?

That God is doing all the work when it comes to us. That is God is doing the saving, forgiving, resurrecting work.

And it just happens to us.

God just happens to us… just happens to love us, before we even knew what love was, before we had any say in the matter.

That is Good News!

So what is the Good News? What is our role? Can we have a role? Share in the comments, on Facebook, or on Twitter: @ParkerErik

Theology & Culture

Anchorman Christianity: 9 steps to giving people what they want

4 Comments

I have been blogging about evangelicals and their drama a fair bit lately, and about how they could use a little more mainline Christianity in their lives. But mainliners have problems too.  As the mainline struggles with declining numbers, finances, clergy numbers, etc… I have seen many churches trying anything to get people to stay, to come back, to be seen. These efforts have resulted in a trend that I have been trying to name, and I have finally come up with something:

Anchorman Christianity.

Now, the movie Anchorman is not for everyone, it is crass humour paired with the absurd, but it speaks to this trend. Anchorman 2 recently came out, and if you watch this trailer, you will get what I am talking about at 0:50. (Warning: the trailer contains offensive themes).

The main character, Ron Bergundy played by Will Ferrell says,

“Why do we have to tell the people what they need to hear? Why can’t the news be fun? Why can’t we give them what they want to hear?”

Anchorman is not just crass humour, it is also (at times) brilliant satire.

We all grow weary of the 24 hour news cycle, and the fight for ratings and views, which earn advertising dollars. But we kid ourselves to think that this “Give the people what they want, instead of what they need” attitude hasn’t crept into Christianity in North America.

And let’s face it, it works. It gets people to tune in, click the link or sit in the pew. It makes people happy, and there is nothing that feels better to church leaders than a room full of happy people. As a pastor, it is really hard to insist on giving people what they need, it can be way easier to give them what they want.

Giving people what they want can be done in these 9 easy steps:

1. Easy answers. People don’t need good teaching and preaching, they want easy answers. Just offer people a list of concrete easy-to-follow advice, they will not only love it, they will it repeated so they can write it down.  Look at all the internet lists out there, “10 easy ways to…” etc… We all click on them. Heck, that is why this post has that a title like that. Concrete advice is so much easier than in-depth explorations of our faith, theology, history and ethics. Don’t waste time helping people grow or learn, or to live with tension and complexity. The most recent young earth creation debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye had a “give them what they want” ethos written all over it.

2. Give them outrage. People don’t need to me telling them about complex problems, people want to be mad at something. We are biologically inclined to respond more viscerally to negative emotions like anger. The media knows this well. It is way easier to preach outrage about taxes, government regulations, other religions, political agendas, or the evils of being rich than it is encourage people to grow in empathy and compassion. Seeing the ‘other’ as human or seeing issues as problems we are called to do something about takes work, and a good measure of God’s help. Who has the energy to be calm, collected and compassionate? Outrage is easy.

3. The Bible they know. People don’t need me to tell them what the Bible really says, they want to hear what they think it says. God helps those who help themselves. Cleanliness is next to Godliness. To thine own self be true. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Money is the root of all evil. This too shall pass. Spare the rod, spoil the child. Most people think they know what is in the Bible, why tell them otherwise? Besides it is a lot easier for preaching when you don’t have to explain what the Bible is actually saying, no one wants to hear that anyways. It is more convenient to preach from the bible of old wives tales and clichés, than the 66 books we used to know.

4. Someone to blame. Terrorists, gangs, the poor, those in power, gays, immigrants, ethnic minorities, liberals, conservatives, children, the sick, the elderly, women. People don’t need to know that their problems likely have complex sources (with themselves at the centre), they want to hear who they can blame for their problems. So let’s stop trying to help people see the pervasive effects of sin in the world, or the suffering and brokenness of others around us. Instead, let’s blame people for their own problems and and let’s blame those ‘others’ for our problems too.

5. Approval but no oversight. It can be really tiring to say ‘no’ as a pastor. People don’t need to hear it, especially when they want to hear ‘yes!’ Can we read from “The Secret” instead of scripture in worship? YES! Can the youth sing Justin Bieber songs during the offering? OF COURSE! Is it okay to have a bible study on Chicken Soup for the Soul Vol. 3? NO PROBLEM! Can’t we just not mention God in church anymore? GOOD IDEA! It can be a lot of work to help people understand why Christians do the things we do. It is way easier to just let people do the crazy things they want.

6. The promise of getting rich. People do not need to hear that God doesn’t like people getting rich, they want to hear that God makes us rich. The biggest churches in North America make the promise that God will bless us with wealth if we only have enough faith (and give lots of money to the pastor). It would be way easier to tell people that God wants to give us lots of money if we want it enough, and at our basest level we want to hear that. It can be real bummer to talk about how Jesus was kind of a poor dude, and that God is not cool with extreme wealth or extreme poverty.

7. Car chases, puppy dogs and celebrity gossip. People don’t need to hear about all the depressing reality of the world, you know like real political, economic, social issues and what God has to do with that stuff. They don’t want to hear about suffering or sadness. So slap some kittens on the powerpoint, use the latest episode of ‘the Bachelor’ as a sermon illustration, use bible study time to watch the latest pop culture movies. It doesn’t really matter if people can’t tell the difference between Jesus and Jay-z, or Matthew and Matthew McConaughey, or Mary Magdalene and Miley Cyrus.

8. Avoid conflict at all costs. People don’t need to know how to have healthy relationships, they come to church to get what they want. Never ever challenge church people. Always do what they want. Always give in. Never fight. Maintaining principles, challenging bullies, standing up for justice just causes conflict. Conflict causes anxiety. And anxiety is really stressful. Pastors burn out on that stuff. It is way easier to just avoid conflict altogether. Churches that avoid conflict can last for decades before all the unresolved issues blow up in their face. Who wants to deal with issues all the time, when you can just deal with all of them at once every few years?

9. Nostalgia. People don’t need to practice living in reality, they want to live in the world that they fondly remember. Give them sappy, emotionally manipulative drivel. People want to be reminded of the world they once had and loved. They want to relive the same Christmas Eve service every year, it doesn’t matter the same kid has been a sheep for 7 years, or baby Jesus can shave now. People come to church because of how great it once was, they don’t want to waste time imagining what it could be in the future. Looking forward means change, looking back means everything stays the same. Change is hard, why change?

So, now that you know these 9 steps, please don’t follow them.

Long before Anchorman 2 came out, I had been adopting a motto for ministry. “I am not here to give you what you want, I am here to give you what you need.” It is a bold stance to take as pastor these days. You don’t have to spend much time reading the Christian internet, watching TV preachers, or even seeing some local churches in action. It is way easier as a pastor, as church leadership, as church people to give people what they appear to want. Giving people what they want gets results,  higher ratings and more butts in pews. But it is disingenuous faith. It results in “worshiptainment”, it creates “church consumers” instead of church members”, it allows people to stay stagnant in faith, instead of growing in relationship with that Jesus.

And speaking of Jesus, he wasn’t all that interested in giving people what they want was he?

Nope, he was all about what we really need.

So should churches care about what people want? How does your church cater to getting more ratings? Share in the comments, or on Facebook or on Twitter: @ParkerErik