I hope it doesn’t come across wrong to put church in quotation marks. I used a lowercase version because I’m talking about “Sunday morning gathering of believers” AKA “church” but not “the Church” as in all believers… anyway, I think that makes sense.

So here’s the deal, because of traveling I’ve attended three very different Christian churches in the past month. What’s really funny is that I say these three are “very different” but they really aren’t. I know there are some major differences in say attending a conservative Plymouth Brethren church versus a TBN-style church like Joel Osteen’s Lakewood church. Now those would be two very different churches, both likely with many well-meaning, God-loving people attending.

The three churches that I attended had pastors/congregations that would actually agree on most things. They just had three way different styles. The biggest thing I came away with from these three different styles is that you need to find a style that works for you. As for me, I like a lot of scripture, a message that is about following more after Jesus than when I came in the door, being pointed to holiness, the Bible and the Cross. Things I want less of: “we at this church” mission statement kind of preaching. I want a message that can apply to a believer in Bend, Oregon or Hawaii or China and can be heard and be relevant in 10 years.

What kind of style do you like?

Former megachurch pastor who fell from the pulpit with a homosexual sex and drug scandal is back leading a church of about 200 in Colorado. He had something very interesting to say in The Wall Street Journal.

“Tiger Woods needs to golf. Michael Vick needs to play football. Ted Haggard needs to be leading a church.” This after Ted once said that he would never lead a church again, he later said, “I over-repented.”

A lot of things could be pointed out here… I’m just going with this one:
• Tiger Woods adultery is totally separate from his job as a golfer. He rightfully lost endorsement deals because of it, but he shouldn’t lose his right to be a pro golfer.
• Michael Vick’s dog fighting crimes have been paid for with his time in prison and he was suspended by his employer (the NFL) for a time. It is now all done. His crime was illegal, but it was separate from his job.
• Ted Haggard talks about leading a church as if it is the same thing as Tiger Woods playing golf? Is there a difference between a skill and a calling? Between an occupation and an appointment from God? Between playing sports and leading God’s people?

Am I wrong here?

I’ve been writing a longer piece about “being the Church” and I have come to this question a few times in the process.

Is the Church broken?

I keep coming back to it because I’m not sure if the Church can be broken. I hear it said a lot, “the Church is broken.” This goes along with the thoughts, “the Church model in America is ineffective.” All of these sentiments seem to be pretty common. So before I write more, I want to ask you, “is the Church broken?” Also, can the Church be broken when the Church is people. Clearly these are “broken” people, so maybe the question answers itself.

What do you think?

Rancho Cucamonga, CA home meetings are facing citations and threatened to be shut down. Under local statute, the church’s home meetings are illegal without a permit, according to Pacific Justice Institute president Brad Dacus.

Read more:
onenewsnow.com
www.foxnews.com

As a graphic artist, I’ve designed the brand identity for a few small companies and have been privileged to provide artwork to support the large brand of AAA (American Automobile Association). Designing brand identity is possibly my favorite activity in my line of work - choosing a color set, fonts and working through the typography is a rewarding challenge. I appreciate a good logo.

But I’m not sure where branding fits into the Church…

This is an area that I’m exploring and here are a few of the questions that I’d like to hear discussed.

• When did branding (logos and distinctive names) get introduced to the Church?
• Does associating to an exclusive brand of the Church fall inline with Paul’s admonition to not say “I am of Paul or I am of Apollos?”
• Are there acceptable brands for the church and less acceptable brands (e.g. The Cool Church)?
• Does our use of branding show we’ve conformed the Church into the corporate world?

Imagine being in your Sunday morning church meeting and a government official storms in demanding to your pastor that he is not allowed to preach about X, Y and Z. In this land of free speech? In a church that serves the sovereign God? What would you do?

You may be surprised to hear that your pastor already has received such a commandment - or should I say ‘made such an agreement’. Its called a 501(c)3 non-profit registration.

For a few benefits from the IRS (tax exemptions), church organizations have relinquished their right to be a voice on partisan political issues.

The IRS puts it this way:
“These organizations cannot endorse any candidates, make donations to their campaigns, engage in fund raising, distribute statements, or become involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any candidate. Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violate the political campaign prohibition of section 501(c)(3).” Learn more

There’s confusion regarding what can and cannot be said legally by 501(c)3 church organizations. Attorney, Tim Mooney cautions advocating a point when the “…issue is really hot and is a dividing point between the candidates” and it “could be considered illegal electioneering”.

On the other hand, Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice, wants to encourage pastors that they can speak out on the moral issues of the day. However, in his conversation with  Senior Counsel, Colby May its evident that the church is being stifled.

Jay: What are the prohibited areas right now under the IRS rules and guidelines? What are [church organizations] not allowed to do?

Colby: The particular section of the tax-code says that “they may not intervene in support of or in opposition to a candidate for elective office.”

Jay: Yes, but you’re talking about there a candidate for elective office, so in other words, “they can’t indorse a candidate or oppose a particular candidate”.

Colby: That’s right.

Jay: But, that doesn’t impact their ability to address the major moral issues of day?

Colby: That’s right it does not, however what seems to have happened, there’s been this creep of all things political into the discussions that used to be distinctly moral or religious in character. And so, when you talk about abortion, and you talk about marriage, you talk about sanctity of human life, all those kinds of issues – it seems that they now brush into the political and as a consequence of that when ministers speak out on it, there are those who will use it for partisan purposes by filing complaints with the IRS to politicize the whole matter for the very purpose to try to get churches to be quiet on those issues.

The result: the Church is quiet. The sword of truth is become non-partisan and politically correct.

According to another Senior Counsel of the ACLJ, every year before the election, hundreds of thousands of church organizations receive letters with legalize intending to cause the church leadership to cowar away from the possibility of running a foul with the IRS.

How can the church agree to this silencing unbiblical obligation? It is said that ‘every man has his price’ but the body of Christ has already been purchased and redeemed from this wicked world. It is our duty not be conformed back into it but rather to let our light shine in it.

The church’s union with the IRS is forbidden by God. He told His children of Israel “do not make a league with the world”. He also commanded the church not to be “unequally yoked.”

Let me ask you, what role did your pastor play in your vote in 2008? What role did the Bible play?

The Church needs to be relevant.

Consider that statement.

Relevant. It has become one of the goals of many Church’s and church goers in this day and age. The idea being that as the church, those called out by Christ, we must become increasingly relatable, conscious and palitable to the world, those lost and without Christ. In the name of relevance we have taken it upon ourselves to fashion our message in such a way as to entice the many to by all means come to Christ. As Paul said “I have become all things to all men, that i might by all means save some” 1Corinthians 9:22. This of course is the proof text, it justifies using “all means” to “save some” or so it would seem.

But does it ? Paul of course meant he became all things that were lawful. He never compromised the message to accommodate the many, he conformed his lifestyle in such a way as not to offend his culture. So when with Jews he abstained from unclean foods, but when offered unclean food when with gentiles so as no to offend them he ate it giving thanks to God.(look at acts, and Corinthians to see examples) in fact Paul argued so vehemently for the uncompromising truth of the Gospel that he was often beaten, stoned, whipped, imprisoned , and flogged. He did not become like the world to save the world in fact i would argue he was set apart and holy, different from this world in order to save it.(2corinthians)

Relevance is never the issue. When is a cure not relevant to the infected, when is air not relevant to the suffocateing, when is food not relevant to the starving. So answer me this when is The Gospel, the message that alone when mixed with faith can save the damned from hell and death not relevant… NEVER! Jesus Christ is the only way for the dead to receive life, Paul said he was unashamed of that message(Romans)

Instead what we do when we don’t present the fullness of the truth but rather seek to entice is falsify the message, make false converts, weaken our own ability to save the lost, mar the image of Christ, and invite wolves in amongthe sheep. Ultimately we become irrelevant, unable to save the unsaved

Remember that Jesus instructed those that might follow Him to first consider and weigh out the cost of following Him. We too should warn those that come to Christ to realize what is being asked and required of them. Instead of seeking to be relevant to the world let us seek to be relevant to our God, in so doing we will represent the message that “is” already relevant to the world more fully, clearly and powerfully