"For some, it is down crosses and up umbrellas, but I am persuaded that we must take heaven with the wind and the rain in our faces." - From The Letters of Samuel Rutherford

I would like to begin by offending you. Sorry. It's a gift. And there are certain days when I just can't help myself (Bad dog! Bad dog! Stop That!).

I want to offend you by offering a modest proposal. Here it is. I propose that we create a new welcome sign and hang it over the entrance to Auschwitz (or Treblinka, or Buchenwald, or Ravensbrook, or any of the other Nazi death camps). The sign will read: "Welcome. And remember, God wants you to have your best life now! (Showers to the left)".

Offended yet? If not, keep reading. Now, why in the name of all that's holy would I make such an offensive and ridiculous proposal? In order to jolt you into reality, and to highlight the superficial nature of what passes for popular contemporary Christian teaching and discipleship. And therein lies a lesson for us all, a lesson about umbrellas, crosses and the Kingdom of God.

For good or for ill (you decide) the message of the Church is frequently a reflection of the times in which the Church lives. Sometimes it represents a dissenting view from contemporary culture, such as the Barmen Declaration of 1934. There the "Confessing (Lutheran) Church" distinguished itself and its beliefs from the state Lutheran Church of Germany which was quickly collapsing and capitulating to the relentless pressure of the Nazi regime. By the very nature of the circumstances under which it was created, the Declaration represented a Church of warriors and martyrs who had counted the personal cost of discipleship, understood that the days of their pilgrimage in this life were probably numbered and had chosen to take heaven with the wind and rain in their faces (O.K., As you can probably tell, I'm frequently called on as a positive motivational speaker for birthdays, bar mitzvahs and other joyous occasions where Crusty the Clown is unavailable. I keep 'em in stitches. Honorarium negotiable.) By contemporary Christian standards, the problem for such pilgrims as Anne Frank, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Neimoeller, Samuel Rutherford (and an unnamed host of others) was simply their failure to understand and claim their best life now. Funny how we so easily miss the simple answers to life's complex problems.

As a precocious college student at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in the early 1970s, I had the opportunity to attend a lecture by Rabbi Richard L. Rubenstein, the Jewish "death of God" theologian who wrote After Auschwitz. The lecture was entitled, "After Auschwitz: God is Dead." Rabbi Rubenstein's thesis was simple: given the horrors of World War 2 and the Nazi death camps, we can only conclude that God is dead, for how could a loving God allow such atrocities to occur and not prevent them. This problem of "theodicy" (the "problem of evil") is one of the three top issues which, according to Episcopal theologian and apologist Os Guinness, keep non-believers from considering the truth of Christianity. The three are: the question of the historical Jesus, the problem of pain, evil & suffering, and the problem of "Christians" (ouch, ouch & double ouch). But don't lose hope, Rabbi. God isn't dead. He simply went on hiatus and has subsequently undergone an extreme make over at the hands of His friends, who were deeply concerned for His image. He is now back as the CEO of WalMart, where you too can find your best life now, with always low prices. Always.

"Every age has its own characteristics. Right now we are in an age of religious complexity. The simplicity which is in Christ is rarely found among us. In its stead are programs, methods, organizations and a world of nervous activities which occupy time and attention but can never satisfy the longing of the heart. The shallowness of our inner experience, the hollowness of our worship, and that servile imitation of the world which marks our promotional methods all testify that we, in this day, know God only imperfectly, and the peace of Christ scarcely at all." A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God

There is a difference between being "simple" and being "simplistic". To make something simple means taking something complex and reducing it to its essence without losing its meaning or impact. To be simplistic is to ignore the complexity of a story and to reduce it to a cheap punch line. To our Post Modern culture, which has long since turned its collective back on the traditional church as being meaningful or relevant, we appear simplistic rather than simple. We have reduced the beauty and complexity of the Kingdom of God to a punch line delivered on a bumper sticker; eternity emblazoned on a coffee mug; the life and teachings of Jesus abbreviated on a bracelet (which you, too, can wear for only $14.95 plus state sales tax were applicable). The end result of such simplistic salesmanship has been the ultimate triumph of spiritual mediocrity. In the end we have raised up a generation, not of kingdom disciples, but of "Christian consumers." We have reduced the Kingdom of God to a trinket for sale, and in the process we have bored our Post Modern culture with the greatest story ever told. And that should be (if it isn’t already) an unforgivable sin.

From time to time, I have been asked why I write on cultural issues, rather than simply addressing house church. Well, for two reasons. First, my training is in cultural apologetics (long story). But secondly, since the days of Jesus the church has always existed within a cultural context which it was forced to address. To ignore that reality is dangerous folly; to speak into it is our calling, challenging its plausibility structures, confronting its values and calling it to repentance. In the New testament book of 1 Corinthians many of the issues which Paul was compelled to address were issues which arose from the inevitable clash between the values of the Kingdom of God (embodied in the life of the ekklesia) and the culture of that day: issues of moral purity, idolatry, lawsuits, marriage, frequenting feasts at local temples, dining in the homes of unbelievers where meat sacrificed to gods in local temples might be part of the meal, etc. In short, the church is most often a counter-cultural witness to the times in which it finds itself. I said earlier that, for good or for ill, the message of the Church is frequently a reflection of the times in which the Church lives. If true, then we must seriously consider the implications of these times for the house church movement today, and how we as house church leaders should respond when it comes to the message we communicate.

The Spirit of Personal Peace And Affluence - There I sat at a local Starbucks, trying desperately to write and mind my own business for a few quite moments. But it wasn't working. My eye kept being drawn toward the person next to me and the book he was reading - the very book I have not-so-subtly alluded to in this newsletter. Finally, I could no longer resist and I introduced myself and asked how he was enjoying it. He was profuse in his praise for the book. I asked him about his line of work. He and his wife were independent business people in a wonderful business opportunity . . . which being interpreted from the common Greek came to mean multi-level marketing. Determined to short-circuit the inevitable presentation I gave him my card and invited him and his wife to visit our Friday night house church gathering (which he expressed interest in attending . . . but alas). Our conversation tapered off and after he left I sat there marveling at the fulfillment of prophecy, namely, the prophecy given some 20 years ago by Dr. Francis Schaeffer. In his landmark work, "How Should We Then Live" Dr. Schaeffer wrote that the church of the late 20th Century stood on the verge of adopting what he called the "two terrible values" of "personal peace" and "personal affluence." Personal peace meant "leave me alone," while personal affluence meant "leave me alone with my affluent lifestyle and all my affluent toys". Thirty years later in a Starbucks, there I sat realizing the extent to which his prophetic words had been fulfilled. Today we live in an age of Christian entitlement and consumerism, the very embodiment of Dr. Schaeffer's personal peace and personal affluence, complete with books, seminars & TV preachers ready to convince us that those two terrible values are, in reality-and-truth-of-fact, spiritual virtues, the very will and plan of God for your life & mine. A survey of college students in the 1970s (when Dr. Schaeffer was active) revealed that the goal of the average college student was to find a philosophy of life. The same survey today reveals that the goal of the average college student is to make money. Apparently, in the thirty years since Dr. Schaeffer, college students have found their philosophy of life; it’s called "materialism" and expresses itself as the pursuit of personal peace and personal affluence.

We have become followers of fads and pursuers of trends, rather than instigators of anything truly revolutionary or revolutionaries ready to take heaven with the wind and rain in our faces. Our churches have become populated by Christian consumers in search of any spiritual WalMart which promises to sell them "their best live now." Unfortunately, like most marketing promotions, this belief system is a slick illusion devoid of any substance to carry the customer through the inevitable "tribulations" which Jesus promised would be ours in this world. The church has become a reflector of our culture, rather than a transformer of it. Much of what passes for contemporary Christianity is little more than religious consumers who have taken down their crosses and hoisted up their WalMart umbrellas against the wind and rain in the mistaken belief that comfort is their birthright and calling. But what about our house churches?

The Spirit of Re-Organization (Or De-Organization) Versus The Spirit of Revolution - Maybe you've seen the 1993 Bill Murray movie, "Groundhog Day." In the movie, TV weatherman Phil Conners lives the same day over and over again (or as legendary Yankees manager Yogi Berra would say, "It's like deja vu, all over again."). I was recently reminded of this movie by an e-mail I received admonishing house churches not to fall into the trap of "denominationalism" and listing alleged activities which might suggest they were indeed on the "slippery slope" towards the big "D" word. Personally, it felt like I was in a house church episode of "Groundhog Day." Are we actually having this same ol' discussion AGAIN? Have we made no progress beyond it (O.K., I hope to respond and address some of these issues in an upcoming newsletter, because they are important)? Let me explain why I think this is important. I believe that we are on the knife's edge of potential disaster in which we allow our structure to become our message. There comes a point (and it is quickly approaching) when seemingly endless discussions about structure overshadow our message and communicate a devastating truth: house church is all about a religious re-organization, not about a spiritual revolution. In my understanding, house church is NOT a reformation of structure. It is a revolution of the Holy Spirit about what it means to BE the Church. This is why Bill Beckham's observation is so critical, and so revealing: "You never change a structure until you change a value. We do not transplant systems and structures. We transplant values and life." My concern is that in too many instances house church people are changing their structures without changing their values. For example, could you list your top 10 house church "values" and how you plan to express them (See Module 4 of our House Church equipping workbook where we discuss the 10 "DNA Markers of Kingdom House Churches"). They have simply moved "church" into a smaller "box" (Honey, I shrunk the Church!"). Repetitious discussions regarding structure suggest that house church represents simply a "reformation" of structure, a twiddling-at-the-margins. This suggests that we are "re-organizers" rather than revolutionaries. We must revolutionize not only our structure, but also our message and our values. "House Church" is a structure, but it is neither a value nor a message. A change of structure without a change of values and of message will soon be seen for what it is - a reorganization masquerading as a revolution. If ever those in the House Church movement awaken to discover that the fire of revolution has given way to the cold reality of a mere "reorganization", then the movement will die, and rightfully so.

"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." -Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You

A revolution, by nature and by definition, represents an overturning of the existing order - both in its message and in its structure. It was in this sense that Jesus was a revolutionary, and brought about a spiritual revolution. He confronted the religious establishment which had turned the 612 requirements of the law into more than 5,000 religious requirements of men. But He did more than restore the legal requirements of the Law. He fulfilled the law's just requirements, purchased the redemption of those condemned by the law's just demands. No longer would the law be written on tablets of stone demanding legalistic outer obedience. Henceforth the Law would be written on human hearts by the very Spirit of God, transforming men and women from the inside out (2 Corinthians 3). And that was revolutionary; no mere re-organizing of the existing religious order.

The good news today is that we still have the greatest story of spiritual revolution ever told: "The Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the good news." Our sin is that we have bored our culture and failed to challenge their hearts. Our Post Christian Post Modern culture is looking for a spiritual revolution. We dare not offer them something less, like a mere re-organization of existing religious structures. I am personally convinced that the house church movement needs to recapture the Kingdom of God as its primary message. I have addressed this specifically in Module 2 of our house church equipping workbook under the section captioned "Augustine, Plausibility Structures & The Kingdom of God." Let me rephrase this issue as a question: What would happen if the long-term growth, health and success of your house church depended upon your ability to clearly and simply articulate the biblical message of the Kingdom of God? The Psalmist celebrated the Kingdom (Psalm 145), the prophets promised the kingdom, John announced the Kingdom, Jesus brought, taught and modeled the Kingdom, the early church embodied the Kingdom, Paul preached the Kingdom, and the Apostle John foresaw the coming day of the Kingdom on earth. Let's begin this journey by asking ourselves, How do our house churches embody and express the profoundness and the simplicity of the Kingdom of God?

On the other hand, the revolutionary message to the church of our generation is that Jesus wants His Church back, and He is prepared to take it back by force if necessary. When God takes something by force the process is called "judgment"; when we voluntarily yield what He wants it is called "repentance." Both occur during times of divine visitation, times which we refer to as "revival."

What about you? Are you prepared to be a true revolutionary? The Kingdom of God awaits those house churches which are prepared to take down their umbrellas, hoist their crosses and embrace it by taking heaven with the wind and rain in their faces. Samuel Rutherford would be proud.