Recently I ran into a local worship leader at the Cherry Street Artisan.  We talked for awhile, and he expressed a desire to form a band of music leaders that work together to share songs, ideas, and like.  I thought there was some merit to the idea.  During the course of the conversation, he said, “I bet we sing most of the same songs.”  He was from a charismatic, evangelical church quite different from ours.  Later, having had some time to reflect on his statement, it didn’t settle with me quite as well as I initially thought it would.  Why?  What does it mean if we’re singing most of the same songs?

First of all, it could be a really good thing.  After all, it’s doubtful there will be separate sections in heaven for different types of music.  No doubt there will be much unity there.  So, singing the same tunes, across denominations and movements, must be a good thing, right?

Second, however, it could be a bad thing.  Why?  Well, in case you didn’t know it, pop music isn’t always good music.  Britney Spears isn’t much of a musician.  Neither are most of those filling up the airwaves.  Pop culture has largely replaced fine culture and folk culture in society.  Now there is a type of music, as with all other aspects of the arts, that is imbibed mindlessly by most people.  Whatever is most popular, and whatever brings in the most cash, is certainly what you’ll hear through your car stereo.  But, as we know, as popularity doesn’t guarantee truth, neither does it guarantee beauty.  Most pop music is frankly pretty bad.

We could argue that Christians have created a parallel subculture in America.  Christian music companies have been gobbled up by the larger, “secular” record labels.  What gets recorded is what sells.  What sells is generally not that sophisticated, musically or lyrically.  Lowest common denominator music is what we get.

This has affected the rise in “praise and worship music.”  In the last 10 years, we have seen that genre of Christian music explode in popularity.  As this has happened, it has resulted in more and more churches singing the same songs that are played on Christian radio, that are then being celebrated by worship leaders and churches.  We have seen a rise, quite ironically, in worship “stars,” many of which have great intentions, and some of which write excellent music.  Most, however, I’d argue, don’t fall into that category.

The result?  A lot of weak, shallow worship.  Churches are playing the popular songs, much like Christian radio.  But does popularity equal beauty?  No.  What happens is that what is determining the song sets of worship leaders across America is popularity.  What sells?  Typically not the true, the beautiful, the good.

Is it a good thing that we’re singing all the same songs?  It could be.  But I doubt it’s the case here in our land.  Most of our tunes aren’t heaven-worthy.

I’ve enjoyed recently reading Ken Myers’ excellent book All God’s Children and Blue-Suede Shoes.  I’m now in the process of reading Dick Staub’s The Culturally Savvy Christian.  Both are highly recommended.  I will be commenting on them shortly.  But, both speak much about the impact of pop culture on the church.  One area impacted is the church’s music.  Recently, in The American Spectator, Lawrence Henry offered these words regarding contemporary praise music.  They are worth reading.  Although I think he’s a bit too hard on Dennis Jernigan, and I think he’s greatly overgeneralizing (see Getty, Kauflin, and others), he does make some great points.  To what extent have we simply “Christianized” shallow, displeasing American pop music?  It’s worth considering.

9 Marks Ministries has started a new blog featuring a number of guys I know from Southern and Clifton.  Anyway, a friend, Dee Reju, just posted a great article arguing for pastors to commit to churches for the long-haul.  He points out in the article that the average tenure for a pastorate is 3.5 years.

I’ve shared with several people that my desire to root myself in one place is a big reason why I decided to plant a church.  I strongly sensed God wanted me to serve in a college town where I could pour myself into training and sending out leaders.  Now, if I would have followed the course the “system” laid out for me, I would have served in a small church for 3.5 years, jumped to a bit bigger church shortly thereafter, and finally ended up in Columbia, or a similar city, when I was 50 or so.  Since I don’t really have a megachurch personality, it probably would have taken me longer.  Then, I would have likely had the downhill phase of my ministry in the context I really loved.

I refused to play that game.  I remember talking to pulpit committees, as I was wrestling with God’s will for us, that demanded five years of senior pastor experience.  And these were churches that were extremely small– less than 100 in attendance!  They were reeling from having their pastor leave, and they couldn’t see that their hiring practices were ensuring that someone else would abandon his church, and that they would be looking for another guy in 3-5 years.  I remember pointing this out to a nice man out in California who seemed to get it, but from whom I never heard again.  Can you blame sinners from climbing the corporate ladder if you’re building and maintaining the ladder?

I’m a sinner like everyone else.  But one thing I have refused to do is use churches to build a career.  I didn’t want to be another basketball coach, climbing up the coaching ladder, leaving downtrodden players and recruits and programs behind.  Of course, most coaches aren’t ready for division I when they’re young.  And maybe I wasn’t ready for this city.  But, in God’s grace, I will die trying.  I’m in the city I love.  And I plan to buy my burial plot in Columbia, Missouri.

Read Dee’s post here.

My father just got out of surgery, and apparently it went really, really well.  This is apparently a very complex, serious procedure.  It took over 2 hours.  Apparently the aneurysm was about the size of a couple of fists.  Thanks for your prayers.  Pray now for the after-care.  There are risks that are high that are post-surgery.

My dad, Richard Larson, is currently in the hospital here in Jefferson City, Missouri, for a pretty serious operation. He is having an aortic abdominal aneurysm removed. Please pray for my mom and sister, but particularly for my father right now.

The following is the discussion guide I used for our last “Theology at the Forge.”  By the way, if you’re in Columbia, join us tonight at the Forge and Vine at 7th Street for a discussion on health care.  Let me say, beforehand, though, that there are many out there that don’t understand what I, along with many others, are trying to accomplish by these public theology discussions.  Some in the evangelical world can’t support anything to reach skeptics that isn’t simply a walk through an evangelistic tract.  However, you can see by the questions below that the gospel permeated every aspect of the evening.  One of the problems today is that the average unbeliever can’t see how the gospel has any relevance to the details of his life.  The individualistic approaches to evangelism that the church has perpetuated for years have led to many thinking that the gospel has no bearing on issues like health care or the environment or sex or stem cells.  What we are trying to do at Karis is teach the gospel as a worldview that affects everything.  So, enjoy the discussion questions below.  See how our faith should shape the way we view the environment.  But note that there is never a “Christian view” of global warming or recyclying presented.  That’s because the Bible doesn’t address those issues.  Those are left to applying our worldview through Christian wisdom.

The Environment and You: Conserve or Consume?

Karis Community Church, 04.23.07, Theology at the Forge

1.         When we think about people and the environment in America, what stereotypes do we typically hear on both sides?  If those stereotypical positions are real at all, what faulty thinking do you think could lie behind each?  (crazy tree-hugger, oil-flingin’ redneck)

2.         What are real, practical reasons why human beings should be concerned about caring for the environment?  (concern for those beyond you, concern for beauty, etc.)  Why do you think our culture today makes it easy and natural not to care?  (individualistic, consumeristic, narcissistic, myopic culture) 

3.         As we look at our world around us, what are some true environmental issues that should concern us?  (global warming, deforestation, etc.)  What do you think a person’s worldview has to do with the way he or she views such things and deals with such things?

4.         In 1967, Lynn White of Cal-Berkley wrote an influential article called “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.”  The article made this claim:  “We shall continue to have a worsening ecological crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no purpose save to serve man.”  Why do you think this idea is commonplace?  How might it be justified?  For those of us that call ourselves Christians, how would you respond to this?  Who or what might also be to blame?

5.         This is “Theology at the Forge.”  Therefore, I want us to spend some time discussing what Christian theology might to have to say about the environment.  I want us to look at the topic in the four broad categories we speak of much here at Karis: creation, fall, redemption, and consummation.  What might each have to do with our discussion tonight?  I don’t assume, of course, that we all hold to this.  I just want to lay it out.

·         Creation: Christians believe God made the natural order.

                                                               i.      What is God’s relationship to the created order?  What difference might this make?  (immanence and pantheism vs. transcendence and deism; answer: an immanent, transcendent God who created all things)

                                                              ii.      What is the intended relationship of humans with the creation?  (stewards of that creation under the Lord)

                                                       iii.      What was the purpose of the creation?  How was it intended to relate to humans and to God?  (to be ruled over and cared for by humans, but also to bring glory to God; shows that Christianity is no dualism where spiritual is exalted at the expense of the material)

                                                    iv.      What differences could result from an evolutionary vs. a creationist understanding of the natural order?  (disrespect, as the product of mindless forces, or scientific exploitation vs. respect and conservation and wonder)

·         Fall: Christians believe the creation fell, along with humans, due to the sin of Adam.

                                                               i.      What impact does the fall have on how humans handle the creation?  (will trash it or worship it)

                                                              ii.      What impact does the fall have on creation itself?  (subject to decay)

·         Redemption: Christians believe that the life, death, and resurrection of Christ brings healing to the natural order, including humans.

                                                           i.      What difference should redemption make to people as they relate to the created order?  (Jesus should change the way we see and relate to the environment)

                                                           ii.      What does it mean to say that the created order experiences redemption?  (Restoration inaugurated by Jesus, yet awaits final fulfillment)

·         Consummation: Christians believe that the world and its inhabitants are moving toward complete restoration - a new heavens and a new earth.

                                                                            i.      What should this teach us about how to relate to the environment?  (should strive to “usher in” this restoration)

                                                ii.      What does this say about where the environment is heading?  (heading toward a new heavens and a new earth, a restored creation; over against dispensational, “left behind” ideas)

6.         If we assume this view of the world (which I am not assuming you do):

                                                               i.      That God created all things and gave humans the charge to be stewards over it…

                                                              ii.      And those humans fell, bringing corruption to the world itself, and concomitant, sinful responses of humans to that creation…

                                                            iii.      And Jesus came to redeem all things, including the creation and those human creations that relate to it…

                                                            iv.      And God will one day restore His entire creation, with humans, at the last day…

·         Then, how would that impact how someone interacted with that environment?

7.         What are practical ways that we can care for our environment?  What are things you do or recommend?  Can we consume, yet also conserve?  (better, care for)

“What Christians offer is an understanding that the world is not ours, that we are not the ones that give things value… The church and all of our institutions have failed to oppose the destruction of the world.”

                                                                                Wendell Berry

Our last “Theology at the Forge” discussed the Christian and his environment.  We looked, from a redemptive-historical perspective, at how Christians, while not worshipping the earth, should be stewards of it, more than all others.  I noted that at the recent SBC Annual Meeting, a resolution was made against global warming.  You can read about it here.  Now I certainly don’t deny that global warming is but a theory, and it very well could be false.  But why such a resolution?  Did someone sit down and think, “Gee, I wonder how we can comment on a peripheral issue to the world that will reinforce the idea that we are unsophisticated rednecks?”  It was a success, let me say.  Good grief.

Tonight Amy and I were wrapping up a premarital counseling session, when I realized I never posted my first wedding sermon. Last October, I performed the ceremony for Luke Daugherty and Ann Hausam, two close friends of our family, and key members of Karis. Here is the sermon:

As a church planter, I am amazed by the hilarious, yet tragic, ways church plants attempt to appeal to non-church goers. They have series on “five facts for financial security,” “eight paths to perfect parenting,” and, of course, something like “4 simple rules for a happy marriage.” These, I’m convinced, give the wrong idea about the Christian life. Come to Jesus, and everything will be fine. Just for fun, however, I’m going to give you “four simple rules” today. Simple they may be. But I think you’ll find that simplistic they are not.

First, some background. Ephesians 5:31’s statement that “a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” comes straight from Genesis 2:24. Why are Christians so hung up about marriage? It’s because it’s rooted in the created order. Only after Eve was created and marriage was instituted was everything perfectly good. Then and only then did God rest. Everything was perfect. Man and woman were in the garden, living out their divinely-instituted roles, ruling as vice-regents over all of God’s creation.

However, as we know, the fall happened. Adam and Eve sinned, bringing death. All of creation was corrupted by sin, including the institution of marriage. The divinely-created, complementary roles of man and woman were distorted. Genesis 3:16 says, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” In other words, Eve would now try to usurp Adam’s authority; Adam would now try to abuse his.

Found, however, in the verse just before, in Genesis 3:15, is an amazing promise. It reads, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” We see here, in the fall narrative, a promise of restoration of the fallen creation through Christ Jesus the Lord.

In the last book of the Bible, in Revelation 21:1, John the apostle says, “I saw a new heaven and a new earth.” In chapters 21 and 22, John weds the concepts of the city of God with the garden of God. The tree of life humanity was removed from through its expulsion from the garden is there in the new garden, the new heaven and new earth. At the beginning of the Bible, we see God’s perfect creation. At the end of the Bible, we see the restoration of God’s perfect creation through Christ. The storyline of the Bible flows from creation to fall to redemption to restoration.

Luke and Ann, you have heard us make much of the gospel of Jesus Christ in our church. We have talked much together about how it stands as the point of the Bible and provides a mirror in which we can understand ourselves and a window through which we can understand all of reality. What is this gospel? It is the good news of the redemption of Christ that restores God’s creation. Here in Ephesians 5, we see both. We see God’s good creation. We see Christ’s redemption.

Now, back to marriage. Luke and Ann, you have a twofold privilege before you through this holy commitment you are making to one another today. First, you may demonstrate the redemption of marriage through the gospel. Second, you may illustrate the gospel of redemption through marriage. Let me repeat. First, you may demonstrate the redemption of marriage through the gospel. Second, you may illustrate the gospel of redemption through marriage. In other words, you may show, through the power of the gospel, what marriage was intended to look like. And, you may show, through your marriage, the gospel that brings it, along with the entire creation, back to the way things ought to be. Adam and Eve, in the garden, before the fall—you can demonstrate that to the world. Christ our Lord, on the cross, undoing the fall—you can demonstrate that, too. What a privilege!

Now, back to our simple rules. I have two for each of you this afternoon that are found here in Ephesians chapter 5, as well as in Genesis 1-2. First, Luke, demonstrate the redemption of marriage and illustrate the gospel of redemption through leading Ann. Show those around you, through Christ’s work in you, how Adam led Eve, without sin, as her head. Show how a man who has been changed by the gospel leads his wife and family. Proclaim to the world how the power of Christ redeems marriage. Show God’s original intention.

In addition, illustrate to those around you, through Christ’s work in your life, how He leads His people, the church, as her Head. Illustrate how He guides her and provides for her. Show how He shepherds her. Illustrate how He leads those He has redeemed.

Second, Luke, demonstrate the redemption of marriage and illustrate the gospel of redemption through loving Ann. Proclaim to the world, through your care for Ann, what marriage looked like before the fall. It was bad leadership that led to the fall, but it was bad love that resulted. Now male leadership tends toward harshness and abuse. Demonstrate to those around you, through Christ’s gospel at work in you, what true headship looks like—it’s leading lovingly. Show what God really intended.

Also, illustrate to those that look on, through Christ’s powerful gospel, how He loves His church. His loving is displaying by His laying down of His life for her on the cross. He gave His life that we might be holy. Sacrifice yourself that she may be holy. Nourish her and care for her, as Christ does us. Illustrate to those around you what Christ did on the cross and continues to do for us, His redeemed.

Luke, as Doug Wilson has said, “A man finds himself in a position of inescapable leadership.” He can’t help but lead. And, as he also states, “A husband can never stop talking about Christ and church.” How will you lead? Will it be lovingly, as God intended? And will it speak the right things about who Christ is? This is your challenge today.

Third, Ann, demonstrate the redemption of marriage and illustrate the gospel of redemption through following Luke. Yes, the dreaded “S”-word is in our passage today, but it’s not only there. It’s in Genesis 2, as well. Eve is called Adam’s “helper.”

Demonstrate to those around you, through God’s work in you, what it looks like to be a biblical woman. Submit to Luke, and not just when asked to attend a Wilco concert. Follow him in decisions, big and small. Give people a glimpse of how beautiful Eve was before she ate the apple.

And, illustrate to those looking on how the church follows Christ. Yes, we’re sinners, and we do it imperfectly, but we don’t demand Christ submit to us. We follow Him. He is our Head. Illustrate how the church follows her Redeemer.

Fourth, Ann, demonstrate the redemption of marriage and illustrate the gospel of redemption through respecting Luke. Again, proclaim to the world, through your trust in Luke, what marriage looked like before the fall. Eve expressed insubordination in eating the apple. Disrespect resulted. After the fall, fallen women tend toward bitterness and resentment. Show those around you how Eve must have interacted with her loving leader.

And, Ann, illustrate to the world how the church respects Christ. True, the church worships Christ, and, as part of the church, you will never worship Luke. But you are called to respect Him as a leader, and, through that, you can give the world a glimpse of how the church looks at her redeemer. Illustrate the respect of the redeemed for the Redeemer, Ann. He needs your respect as a leader, as you need his love as a follower.

Ann, no matter what society says, you can’t escape the way God as made you and the role God intends for you. And you will always be shouting to the world, through your conduct, how the church follows her loving Lord. This is your challenge, as well.

There you have your four simple rules. They may be simple to grasp, but they’re certainly not easy to implement. It is hard to lead lovingly. It is hard to follow respectfully. Life doesn’t suddenly become rosy, and your marriage doesn’t immediately become dreamy, when you give your life to Christ. But it brings unspeakable joy when you have the remarkable privilege of demonstrating the redemption of marriage and illustrating the gospel of redemption.

Let your marriage do that, Luke and Ann. Let the gospel shine in your marriage, my dear friends, that the world might see and worship. To do this, you will need the fellowship of the community of the gospel. Never underestimate your need for God’s church to encourage and challenge you. And, when you fail, turn to that glorious gospel. He redeemed you, my brother and sister!

I have enjoyed reading The Church: One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic the past week or two.  Plus, I had the wonderful opportunity of having lunch with the lead pastor of a large, evangelical Presbyterian church in town.  It was an encouraging meeting where we both clearly sensed our mutual commitment to the gospel, yet we recognized our differences in terms of belief and vision.  We saw our great unity, but we saw our differences, as well.  In other words, we saw how we could work together, yet we also saw how there was a need for both of us in our community.

One of the chapters by Richard Phillips in the book led me to think a bit about the presence of denominations today.  First, we can be sure that, as there is no mention of denominations in the new heavens and the new earth, that they are, in one sense, a product of the fall.  They are contrary to the unity Jesus desires.  One day, I will worship, around the clock, right beside my Presbyterian brother.  Men and women will be unified, once again, as in Eden, in the new Promised Land.

Second, though, we can also say that denominations are also a product of grace.  What could I possibly mean by that?  This is where Phillips’ chapter is so helpful.  We could argue that, in God’s providence, denominations actually, in another sense, allow for unity between brothers to flourish on earth.  In other words, I am not in a congregation with my Presbyterian brother where we argue about the issue of baptism, or the relationship between the covenants, for example.  We don’t feud about the proper expression of church polity (although we hold much in common there).  We are, in God’s providence, because of our personal convictions, in different congregations.  Now, rather than having a relationship potentially based on disagreement, we come together solely to express and appreciate our agreement around the fundamentals of the faith.  We can gather together around the gospel.  We can rejoice in our unity.  At the end of the day, we can head back to the places God has called us.  But we can lock arms and work together.

There is an alternative to this that I have experienced first hand.  We can be a part of a group that finds its identity in denying creedal statements.  Everyone gathers in one church, denying the distinctions present.  This invariably leads to feuding over these secondary issues.  And, in my experience, those types of churches always have unwritten creeds that are enforced by leadership.  There are distinctives that are adhered to, often quite rigidly.  And ironically, those types of churches are often the least likely to see cooperation with other denominational groups, around the gospel, as a possibility.  Therefore, based on my experience, I would argue that evangelical attempts to deny the relevance of denominations lead to a lack of unity within and without.  Churches have much strife.  And those same churches refuse to partner with others.

Of course, there is another, non-evangelical alternative.  You have churches that stand for nothing linking with other churches that stand for nothing– all for nothing.  A recent “Tom in the Box” post decribed this sort of “unity” at the lowest common denominator.  This may lead to a sort of unity, but it’s no unity at all, as it’s being “together for a bunch of other stuff.”  It’s cheap, false unity.

Is it not much better to be who we are, recognizing our differences, being honest with those, and yet gathering around the essentials– the glory of God, the gospel of Jesus?  We can have diversity and unity.  The “diversity” part may not be as wicked as some might lead us to think, and I’m not sure the alternative is all that appealing.

Ok, before you accuse me of blaspheming, let me say that Jesus and Amy have impacted me far more than the people at Google.  But let me explain my extreme headline:

1) Several months ago, I switched to using gmail as my primary email interface.  I use other email addresses from my karischurch.org and graceformissouri.org domains, but I have them all channel through my gmail account.  This not only allows me to check email anywhere I have internet access, but, even more importantly, it keeps me from downloading different messages on different machines and never finding what I’m looking for.  I can’t tell you how much easier my life is now that I have told Microsoft Outlook goodbye and yelled, “Hello, gmail!”  And gmail has some amazing features that make email much simpler to manage.

2) Around that time, I also began using Google Calendar.  This is very similar to Outlook, but it’s better, and, again, it’s all online.  You don’t have to worry about having your calendar on one computer and not on another.  Wherever the internet is, there also is your calendar.  The program is again packed with lots of great features.  Examples: It will email you reminders for all of your events.  I can set up separate calendars for the church and for my personal schedule, as well as for other staff-people, that all show up in one interface.  You can search for other calendars and events (e.g., Mizzou basketball schedule) and add them right into your calendar set-up.  If you know what you’re doing (Troy does, not me), you can easily integrate your calendars right into your web pages.  I can’t say enough good stuff about gmail and Google Calendar.  Take a test drive.  Your life will be different, I promise.