Pastor Pat Edwards 1/15/2006
Grace Baptist Church in Bountiful, Utah

In this passage the Apostle Paul describes a behavior that is both foreign and innate for American Christians. Sometimes it makes us feel almost schizophrenic. 19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. Personal freedom in all its forms of expression is one of the most important American values but following the model of Jesus and giving our lives in service is one of the most important Christian values. And every day many American Christians find themselves torn between these two often contradictory values.

Everything Paul does, he makes clear, is for the sake of the gospel. And what he does is enslave himself to everyone to win as many as possible. We know that means he adapts his life to fit the life of others, he tries to remove any barriers between himself and others and then makes them and their fulfillment his priority. His behavior is always controlled by what will encourage people to listen to the gospel but he would never do anything that would consciously hurt or hinder the very thing he’s trying to promote. It’s like saying that I would do anything to lose weight and get healthy but obviously if some of the things I did to lose weight caused me to lose my health then those actions would be counter productive. The goal of losing weight is to get healthy. Paul’s goal is to bring people to life with Jesus by adapting his life to fit in with their’s is always controlled by his goal so it wouldn’t make sense to act contrary to how Jesus lived. So clearly he wouldn’t become a drug addict to reach drug addicts. With that understanding of Paul’s (and Jesus’) method and goals comes the question for us; how do we adapt without selling out?

As we saw last week American culture and laws were powerfully influenced by the Christian faith. Until recently most people in our nation behaved like Christians even if they didn’t believe part or any of the gospel. Attending church was something that the "good" people of the community just did. When people moved it was expected they would look for a church home in their new community. Since it was assumed most people were Christian the only thing churches had to do was let newcomers in town know what the choices were. And those choices were often based on denomination. Until recently children tended to follow the example of their parents. Your parents raised you Baptist so when you got married and found a job in a new town you looked around for a Baptist church because you were familiar with how they did things. Then society began to change but most churches didn’t. People felt the freedom to choose a church not based on denomination but on whether they like the church. And many came to feel that church was no longer even necessary. But churches kept hanging out the same old sign expecting people would see it and come. There are lots of wrong reasons why churches still think that. We think they’ll come because they’ll realize we have what they need. Or if people want religion they’ll have to come to us. We didn’t realize people were privatizing their faith and no longer felt the need for churches or pastors to feel close to God. Of course some churches saw the change and decided is they spruced things up, adapted to the culture and made church participation more appealing they might keep attracting people. Churches tried to remove barriers and stimulate interest to attract all those people who no longer felt pressured to attend their church or their denomination. But how far should we go in our efforts to attract people? How do we apply what Jesus and Paul practiced?

Our older generations grew up knowing there was a separate church culture expressed in such things as special buildings and furniture, Sunday dress, church speech and activities, music, etc.. Until the mid 60's most people accepted a church culture and a secular culture. What we sang in church on Sunday morning was not what we sang and danced to on Saturday night. The clothing we wore to work was not what we wore to church. To some degree the church always adapted to what was happening in the larger culture but there was always a clear distinction between the two. But the Jesus movement of the 60's changed things because a lot of young people stopped going to the church to find Jesus. If the church wanted to integrate these new, young believers into the system they needed to flex by accepting some of the forms and styles they had developed - things like casual clothing styles, contemporary music and more congregational participation. There’s a great old story that demonstrates what needed to happen. I don’t know if it’s true or an urban legend but it makes the point that churches needed to change. The story goes like this. During the peak of the Jesus movement a young man comes wandering into a very staid and traditional church. He’s a hippie: long hair, shirtless except for a vest, frayed jeans and sandals. The service has begun and the pastor is at the pulpit. The young man wanders down the center aisle to the front and sits down is the center of the aisle to listen to the pastor preach. The congregation is surprised and wonders what to do when one of the elderly deacons, white haired, dressed in a suit, comes marching down the aisle. People are thinking, "This is going to be interesting." When the deacon reaches the young man he reaches out and grabs his shoulder... and leaning on him slowly lowers himself down to sit right next to the young man and they both continue listening to the pastor preach. Did it really happen? I don’t know but the story shows some churches made changes so people would feel welcome.

Minor adaptations were made but most people still accepted the fact of two different cultures, church culture and everyday culture and they didn’t expect them to be the same. In fact most expected there would be some difference. But over time that has also changed so that now many expect to see little difference between secular culture and church culture. And that brings us to the present.

I’m going to use two terms to describe two types of churches today. The terms are "traditional" and "competing." Traditional churches are pretty much doing church the way it’s been done for the past forty or fifty years or maybe longer. Competing churches are those that have made radical changes in the way they do some parts of church like the worship service. They’re often the ones you read or hear about in the news. They’re the ones who have the pastor driving a tank into the service (that actually happened) or serve coffee while worshipers sit at tables during the service.

That brings us back to the example of Jesus and Paul. When is adapting good and when does it undermine what we’re trying to accomplish? Do we need to compete head to head with the world’s methodology or can we just adapt some things? And how many churches could compete even if they wanted to since most American churches are less than one hundred in attendance? One pastor told me he spent $25,000 on av equipment to reach twenty-somethings. Before his worship starts you listen to the latest secular music, gather around a table with your friends, drink gourmet coffees, watch professional-quality videos and wait for the band to crank it up and the pastor to run in like a cheerleader with his cup of Starbucks in hand.

Should we even try to compete? If we had $25,000 extra should we spend it that way? When does methodology undermine the message? When does the message people hear teach that church is performance, church is fun, church is to meet my needs, church doesn’t involve commitment? How realistic is "bait and switch?" How easy is it to shift the message to service, to sacrifice, to cross-bearing and persecution and suffering? Is life really a big adventure with Jesus, non-stop thrills illustrated by all the silly things pastors do to get your attention and let you know life with Jesus is a blast? Now I happen to think life with Jesus is a blast but not necessarily in the way the competing church models. But is the non-competing, traditional church any more effective in making disciples. They may not insist men wear suits and ties and women wear dresses to prove their spirituality. They may even use guitars and drums if they’re not too loud but do we basically require others to adapt to what we like, what we’re comfortable with? Have we baptized our practices so they’re the only "Christian" ones? After all we pay the bills and we’ve put in our time so shouldn’t worship and body life reflect our tastes? After all we’ve earned it by our service and faithfulness over the years.

Is what the traditional church does making disciples any better than the competing church? How many ministries are really designed to minister to people in a way that demonstrates the love of Christ, the good news of salvation and how many ministries continue because that’s the way this generation and previous generations have done it? How many programs in the traditional church end up just being for the insiders or for those willing to adapt to our traditions? Think of where the Sunday School is today versus how it started. While there were a few Sunday Schools in existence in the mid 1700's, Robert Raikes, a newspaper publisher in England, is most often given credit as the Father of Sunday School. History reports he became concerned about the behavior of the children in his community who ran wild in the streets on Sunday after working six days in the factories of his town.

In response to these experiences, Raikes set up a Sabbath School, where children were taught to read and write and instructed in the basics of the Christian Faith. His idea was soon copied and Sabbath Schools soon spread all over the country. Within two years, there were over 200,000 children attending Sabbath Schools in England.

The idea of the Sunday School caught the imagination of a number involved in evangelical churches and groupings. Most notably, Hannah More and her sister Martha founded a number of schools... that involved innovation. ...They attempted to make school sessions entertaining and varied. Programs had to be planned and suited to the level of the students. There needed to be variety and classes had to be as entertaining as possible (she advised using singing when energy and attention was waning). She also argued that it was possible to get the best out of children if their affections 'were engaged by kindness'. Furthermore, she made the case that terror did not pay. However, she still believed it was a 'fundamental error to consider children as innocent beings' rather than as beings of 'a corrupt nature and evil dispositions.' (Infed webpage) Sunday School reached the children in need, children abused by long hours of toil in factories, children without any formal education, children left without guidance to wander the streets on their one day of freedom, children who didn’t know the gospel. And into that mess came people like Raikes and the More sisters. Think about how wonderful and unique their insights were for teaching. And all this occurred in the name of Jesus. I’ll end this section of my sermon by sharing that while I know I don’t want to join the ranks of the competing church and try to outdo the culture at its own game I’m growing less and less content with the traditional church and its failure to impact our culture. I know Jesus has so much more for us than what we’re experiencing. And what he has for us he wants us to take to the people lost in darkness. Come back next week and I’ll share what I know Jesus is asking us to do.