Reading John chapter four I found an interesting thing. In chapters one thought three Jesus is pointed out by John the Baptist as "the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." The first few disciples follow him, apparently based on John's recommendation and his pointing Jesus out. Then, Mary his mother, seems to single him out at the wedding in Caana. But, John the gospel writer, does not give us any remarks of Jesus blatantly claiming anything about him self until chapter four. In chapter four verse 26 Jesus declares that he is in fact the messiah, the promised servant of God that fulfills all the Old Testament promises.
So what was the setting and who was the crowd that heard this amazing pronouncement from Jesus himself that he was the anointed one, the Christ? It was the Samaritan woman at a well outside of town.
It was an audience of one. It was a completely female audience. It was an audience that lived a messed up life (vs. 18). It was an audience that had religious misunderstanding (vs. 22). It was an audience that was outside Jesus' own racial circle, and outside his own cultural circle (vs. 27). It was an audience that had no position of religious influence. It was an audience that had no religious integrity to proclaim the message (this was not the kind of person you would ask to write a review of your freshman attempt at a religious book).
Maybe the church today is targeting the wrong group.
We set our churches up so that we will be appealing to the educated, well dressed, gadget carrying, person. Or, we develop a ministry that will appeal to the modern urban individual who is motivated to take calculated risks and be upwardly mobile in a setting of urban renewal. But, who really needs the good news? Who needs to hear that Jesus is Lord? How about the meth addict, with the burned out and missing teeth? How about the young woman who is poor and enamored with witchcraft? What about the immigrant who has the really heavy accent? What about the bitter young man who never had a real family and has no education and can barely make it?
It seems that often Jesus proclaims the good news to the least likely people. Then, when he is with the religious growth experts and religious power brokers of his day he castigates them. I think the church needs to target all the lost no matter what their background or appearance. But, today we live in a church culture that James actually speaks directly against. In part by the way we target a particular audience.
"Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?" James 2:2-4
So, can we be successful in ministry today by simply targeting the spiritually hungry (vs. 25). Can we be successful by simply ministering to whoever God sends to our church, even if they are the disenfranchised (vs. 9)? Will we as Pastors be satisfied with the new converts God sends us, or will we be jealous of the other pastor who has rich, educated, "got it together" kind of converts? The answer to this question will determine the integrity of our church in the next decade.
4 comments:
Right on Paul. I think one phrase that is a dead give away of this kind of wrong church targeting: "Family Friendly."
What about the high percentage of people who live in broken homes? Family Friendly = if you have a happy/successful, Leave-it-to-Beaver family, you will fit in at this church. If you are divorced, live in boyfriend, single....not the place for you.
I think churches can have a family friendly attitude, without advertising themselves as "First Family Church."
Dear Kathar of the Hill People,
First, let me say, I don't know who you are.
Second, churches should be family friendly, as our culture has come to currently define that term, and friendly to everyone else too, regardless of their family difficulties and backgrounds. On this it seems we agree.
Third, it appears that in the last line of your comment that you are making a dig at a local church known by the name, "First Family Chruch."
As a Pastor I feel it incumbant upon me to say, that if you have a problem with a local church this is not the place to vent. Also, it is my responsibility to urge you, that if you have something aginst "First Family Church" talking to me about it and writing about it on the internet is gossip. You should follow the Bible instruction of Jesus and "first go and be reconciled to your brother." (Matt 5:21-26; 18:15-20; 2 Tim. 2;24).
Lastly, taking all of Jesus ministry into view, and the story of the woman at the well in context, Jesus was not approving of her live-in boyfriend. He made no comentary about her 5 divorces, and Jesus himself was single. He was ministering to her so that she would be saved, and her life would be transformed from what it was when Jesus found her. My mind, spirit and family were in turmoil until we found Jesus and began to obey his word. Now we have amazing peace. I recomend it to you.
Ahh Paul, you do know me! But for fun I will keep you guessing.
I think I was trying to add to your comment:
"Maybe the church today is targeting the wrong group. We set our churches up so that we will be appealing to the educated...etc."
It is good for the church to "target" everybody, but naturally if one group is "targeted" another is not. This is just the challenge of contextualizing the Gospel to culture. Contextualization plays itself out in the American church today (and in Bible times) as some affluent groups are over-targeted, while other groups are unfortunately under-targeted. And usually, in my opinion, the under-targeted group is more ripe for the Gospel. (Example: Woman at the Well compared to the Rich Young Ruler).
As far as "First Family Church," if there is a local church that goes by that name, then that is an accidental/sub-conscience coincidence. I was not referring to any specific church.
I had in mind a teaching by Pastor Darry Northrop I came across on the same topic of your blog. (Jesus loving the undesirable of society). In his presentation, he gave the negative-example religious church the hypothetical name "First Family Church."
Lastly, to clarify, and I'm sure put us on the same page, a church can "target" sinners (a.k.a. showing love) without "approving" of sinners, that's what Jesus did.
Right on. Any way, there are several churches in the US that go by that name and I thought the comment might just be some dig at a pstor or church that they might be hacked off at for some reason.
Well, I will try to figure out who you are later.
Post a Comment