Why? Don’t get me wrong. I’m not at all ashamed by the subject matter or by the fact that a church is willing to talk about it. I’m embarrassed as a Christian and as a pastor because the gimmicky appeal simply perpetuates the negative stereotype of Christianity that it is a cheap and shallow religion. You see, many people already think that Christianity is an American religion that derived in the last few hundred years, and this kind of ploy only reinforces that perception.

Any student of religion knows that Christianity is certainly not a modern invention of American culture, and it is absolutely not even a Western religion as its origins and foundations are in the ancient Middle East. In fact, its Judaic roots go so far back into history that in its incipient form Christianity can make the claim that it actually predates all the other religions in the world today. But, you wouldn’t know that when you get a mailer or drive by a billboard like that here in the United States, would you?

No, you’d probably think that Christianity is an American invention created by the founders of our country as part of the great American experiment. As Christianity is often presented in our culture today, you might easily get the impression that it is a religion that exists to serve the needs of American citizens and to make their lives better here in this country. But, that is simply not what Christianity is about.

In his book Amusing Ourselves To Death, Neil Postman wrote this: “I believe that I am not mistaken in saying that Christianity is a demanding and serious religion. When it is delivered as easy and amusing, it is another kind of religion altogether.” American Christianity, when it is portrayed as light and entertaining, is not really Christianity at all. It is, as Postman says, “another religion altogether”.

Personally, I’m having a hard time picturing James or Peter back in Jerusalem sticking flyers in the doors of their neighbors inviting them to come hear a series on “How to have great sex” or “How to be successful in your trade”. Had they done so, I’m quite sure more people would have shown up, but those people would probably have gotten the wrong impression about Christianity.

They would likely have drawn the conclusion that Christianity is there to serve their needs and provide them the keys to living a more fulfilling existence. And yet, that isn’t what Jesus offered to his followers during his time on earth. Jesus told his disciples that following him wouldn’t add more friends, it would subtract them. Following him wouldn’t make them more successful, it would likely take it away. And, following him wouldn’t give them a better life, it would probably cost them theirs.

When Jesus preached wherever He went, we see that He deliberately thinned the crowds who had gathered by calling them to count the cost of following after him. People came from all over, perhaps hoping to hear something they liked, but we read in the gospels that many turned away from him when Jesus didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear.

What resulted after this exodus was a gallery of followers who were fewer in number but who also were more sincere and devoted in their faith. This small band of disciples were more than willing to give up their comfort, give away their possessions, and give their very lives for the One who called them. And, it was this band of followers that, as it says in the book of Acts, “turned the world upside down”.

There is a story about the Italian warrior Garibaldi who long ago asked young followers to join his crusade to defend his country. They asked him: “What do you offer us?” His response was: “Offer you? I offer you neither pay nor quarters nor provisions. I offer hunger, thirst, forced marches, battle, and death. Let him know who loves his country in his heart, not with his lips only, follow me.”

This is akin to what Jesus told his disciples in Matthew 10:34-39 when He said: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace (read comfort, pleasure and success) to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

Now, admittedly that is not a very likable message, but it is the true message nonetheless. The call of Jesus upon his followers is to a life of sacrifice and devotion, not a life of comfort and pleasure. That message doesn’t sell too well here in America, but we must make a choice between selling success and telling the truth. And, the truth is that real Christianity isn’t cheap and shallow, it’s costly and challenging.

Hundreds of years ago there was a king named Abu Taber, when threatened by invading forces and visited by an ambassador with terms of peace, he summoned one of his soldiers, handed him a dagger and commanded: “Plunge this into your chest.” Immediately the soldier obeyed and fell dead at his feet. Then, calling another, he ordered: “Leap over that precipice and into the Euphrates.” Without a moment’s hesitation that soldier leaped to his death.

Then, turning to the ambassador, the king said: “Go, tell your master that I have 500 men like that, and that within 24 hours I will have him chained with my dogs.” And, the story is that even against overwhelming odds, Abu Taber and his small but devoted band of followers won that war convincingly.

What is the point of this story? Well, the point is simply that having fewer but more devoted followers is actually preferable to having more but less faithful ones. That is what Jesus chose for himself and intended for those who would follow him, but many wouldn’t know that by the caricatured version of Christianity that they experience so often today.

Rarely do people hear the convicting but truthful message about Christianity in our culture, that it is indeed as Neil Postman said “a demanding and serious religion”. The honest truth is that Christianity isn’t shallow and cheap, and it’s high time that pastors and churches stop presenting it that way.

If you are a pastor, elder or ministry leader of any kind, consider this a plea to stop trivializing our faith by peddling an inauthentic form of Christianity. Please stop the mailers, the flyers and the billboards that embarrass the church and make her look like a cheap tramp when she is the holy and unblemished bride of Jesus Christ.

For those of us that care deeply about preserving not just the message of our faith but also the legacy of our faith, we are asking that church leaders rethink how they sell the gospel in America. The truth is that Christianity is supposed to be a hard sell and many people just won’t be up to the task, so we are not doing them or our faith any favors by selling it on the cheap.

What I’m genuinely concerned about is that by peddling gimmicky Christianity we are not only filling our churches with insincere, halfhearted consumers but that we are also jeopardizing the legitimacy of our faith by encouraging it. This kind of selling doesn’t accomplish the mission that Jesus began and it even imperils the reputation of the Church in the world.

I believe, therefore, that the best thing we can do both for people and for our faith is to be up front and honest about the serious demands of Christianity so that we won’t defraud the people who come to our churches looking for genuine Christianity and so that we won’t defile the reputation of our churches in front of those who don’t.

What Augustine meant by that statement is that Christians must agree on critical matters of faith but that there is room for diversity among us on non-critical matters of faith. And, even when there is disagreement on the critical matters, there still must be grace exhibited among us.

Augustine’s simple statement has been the modus operandi for theologically informed and reasonable Christians through the centuries and continues to prove to be still useful and applicable for us today in navigating the choppy waters of biblical and theological debate. What this statement does for us is it helps us to distinguish between the major and minor points of Christian orthodoxy which so often seem to be confused in the Church today.

For some reason, many supposedly discerning Christians seem unable to tell the difference between critical and non-critical matters and are given to elevate secondary or even tertiary issues to the level of primary. When this happens, all matters of disagreement are reasons for debate and division within the church and every opposing viewpoint no matter how trivial or minor is viewed as theological or biblical compromise or deception. The end result is a constantly warring body that disagrees and divides over just about any matter of differing perspective.

Why people choose to fight and separate over trivial matters ought to be both perplexing and disturbing  for us as the Church because Jesus specifically prayed that we would not be this way. His prayer in John 17 is for the Church to be “one” and not many, but we have still surprisingly found an unlimited number of ways to disagree, divide and denominationalize the Body of Christ through the centuries.

Traditionally, the essential matters have always been those which have been delineated in the Apostles Creed and other matters are relegated as non-essential. It’s not that the non-essential issues don’t matter; it’s that the non-essential issues ought not be issues for division or even matters for disassociation. And yet, it seems that many other non-critical points of faith have been held as essential matters worth fighting and separating over, which has proven to be both an embarrassment and a blight on the Body of Christ in the world.

I, for one, am profoundly disappointed that so many Christians apparently lack the real discernment to understand the difference between the majors and the minors of faith and especially that they are not willing to permit any diversity within the body on the lesser issues. In my observation, many misinformed Christians choose to indulge their fears, insecurities and assumptions about unfamiliar or differing views rather than choose to investigate and understand what they do not know or may not be familiar or comfortable with.

What I have seen in my study of God’s Word is that there are some points that are clearly articulated and easily supported in Scripture but there are also a number of matters that are not clearly expressed or substantiated. Therefore, there are many issues of faith that are more gray than they are black and white. And, where there is gray, there must be a measure of liberty and diversity that must be permitted.

Frankly, there are many non-essential matters of faith that are not abundantly clear in the Scriptures that have been perhaps purposely communicated that way so that we would not treat them otherwise. The bottom line in all this is that we must choose to be clear on matters where the Bible is clear and provide room for debate and disagreement on matters where the Bible is unclear.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible is unclear about many things that are not fundamental to our understanding of the gospel or its application in our lives today.  One clear example of this is the sequence and timing of end times events. The simple truth is that whether the rapture occurs prior to the tribulation or after or sometime in the middle is not a critical matter of faith. And yet, so many people unfortunately consider this lesser issue to be a dividing point within the Church. The eschatological fact of Jesus’ return is the essential issue…the timing or sequence of his return is not. The same goes for ever brooding controversies over supralapsarianism and limited atonement or hermeneutical arguments over the quality of the distinction between Israel and the Church and even the heated debates regarding the cessation or continuation of certain spiritual gifts.

The pursuit of unity within the Church depends on our understanding and respecting that there are different liturgical traditions, theological persuasions and hermeneutical structures that fit comfortably under the roof of the evangelical house of faith which offer varying perspectives on a host of non-essential matters that should not preclude interaction and fellowship with one another. And yet, conflicts are started every day over these minor issues and the world watches our bickering and biting with an ever growing incredulous skepticism.

While we should be finding ways to agree and work with one another for the common cause of spreading the gospel of Jesus in the world, too many of us are busy finding reasons not to be unified and even not to have fellowship. As the late Paul Harvey once said, “Too many people are no longer fishers of men, but keepers of the aquarium.” In the aquarium of evangelical faith many are consumed with the unanimity of the fish that are in the aquarium rather than caring about the other fish that are lost outside of it.

All this is to say that unity should be more important to us than uniformity. The Church in the world is a diverse body as it should be. And, even the Scriptures tell us that it would be so. Though we all must agree on the content of the gospel and it’s demands on our life, we can disagree on the lesser things and still work for and not against the oneness of the Church in the world to the glory of God.

During the tenure of his public ministry, it’s important to note that Jesus did not leave us with a systematic theology and neither did He require that his disciples sign off on a statement of faith before He commissioned them. And, yet since that time, every generation has been formulating markedly distinctive theologies around lesser matters and fragmenting the Body of Christ exponentially in the name of “doctrinal purity”.

To our disgrace, we have and continue to sacrifice relational unity on the altar of dogmatic uniformity. For many generations, we have majored on our differences and minored on our similarities and have chosen to be known collectively more for what we are against than for what we are for, which not only compromises our credibility with the world but also continually distracts us from our vital mission in the world.

Therefore, for the sake of the Body and for the sake of the mission, we all must learn to forbear with one another where we disagree and be willing to believe the best in each other rather than always fearing the worst. We must put aside our unfounded fears and insecurities over trivial matters and look for common ground to share with each other rather than theological battlefields to fight each other on. We must not speak ill of others we do not know or of matters which we do not understand, and we must learn to ask more questions and listen more rather than make more statements expecting to be heard. We must also stop looking under every rock and around every corner with suspicion and distrust, and we must be just as concerned about the practice of grace as we are about protection of truth. And, perhaps most importantly, we must all learn that being loving is always more important than being right. For the sake of the Body and the mission, we must.

Some people look at this juxtaposition of seemingly contradictory behavior from Paul and refer to this as a “black eye” on the history of the Church and a terrible example of disunity in the body, but others see this as a representative reality of the complicated messiness of body life in the Church. I used to favor the prior view as I was once deeply disappointed in Paul for dumping his good friend in anger simply because He wasn’t willing to follow his own advice and make peace with Barnabas. However, in recent years I have come to favor the latter view because, as a pastor, I have had a front row seat for all the messy and painful drama that occurs within the church and believe that enduring peace and unity within the body is simply not possible within a fallen world and any expectation of it is quite frankly, naive. Though I admittedly long for lasting peace and unity within the body of believers, I now know and have come to accept that forgiven but fallen people will always find reasons to not like each other and divide.

I have served in three very vibrant churches in my ministry tenure and none of them have been spared the pain and heartache of divisions. And, the more I talk with others, my hunch is confirmed that there is no other church that hasn’t. In my experience, conflict and division in the church is inevitable and is not a matter of if but of when they will occur. Though we work hard to establish peace and stymie incipient divisions in the body of believers, we cannot prevent or stop all disagreements and conflicts from occurring. And, in fact, I believe that we must not at times prevent all conflicts from erupting because sometimes conflicts can actually produce and accomplish something that is ultimately better, stronger and healthier.

I believe that disagreement and conflict can actually be the instructional tool that God uses to develop the body. The truth is that if there is no conflict and all disagreements are instead headed off in the name of peace and unity, then people never actually learn to deal with or confront controversy. If they do not know how to manage conflict, then they are deprived of learning a very important life lesson on both the value and the importance of achieving resolution through conflict. After all, if you don’t know of or aren’t willing to work through a conflict then how can there ever be any understanding or appreciation for peace? In other words, the only way we can truly appreciate peace is by knowing conflict. If we know no conflict, then peace has no meaning. Because of this, I believe that conflict is a tool that God uses to teach us to appreciate both the value and the importance of peace.

I also believe that disagreement and conflict can be the purging fire that God uses to grow the body. The reality is that if we head off all conflict then we can’t learn from it and we won’t grow because of it. Sometimes we must permit conflicts to play out and even for division to occur so that the body can grow together toward like-mindedness. One of the critical conflicts that always wrecks one-heartedness in a body of believers is division over certain kinds of change. Often the change pertains to non-essential issues such as style, philosophy or tradition, and often there are some who are reluctant or indignant toward any kind of change and consider all or most change to be a threat. So, when some are open to change and others are not, then sometimes conflict and division is critical for the necessary change to occur. When a division occurs and opponents to change move on, then the body is free to move forward together toward a common goal with newly homogenized hearts.

Furthermore, I believe that disagreement and conflict can also be the surgical instrument that God uses to heal the body. Sometimes, I believe that God will even utilize conflict as the painful means to remove contentious issues and relationships from within a body to still unrest and insecurity. Often ongoing drama within a body of believers creates tension and fosters stress within the body that elevates the general discomfort of the body, and a “sharp disagreement” can be the very necessary instrument used to break the bone of contention and expedite the mending process. Although the fracture always hurts and sometimes even bleeds, the mending of the fracture does result in a stronger and a healthier body.

When it comes to the separation between Paul and Barnabas over whether to take John Mark on the mission, we see that their conflict and division did in fact ultimately produce something better, stronger and healthier. Although, we are not privy to what transpired between the three men in the interim between their separation and reunification, we do know that all three of them went on to impact the world in profound ways and finished their ministries well. We also know that Paul, just before he died in his last letter, spoke of his fond affection and admiration for the very man who years before had so deeply disappointed him. In 2 Timothy 4:11 Paul wrote to his protege Timothy: “Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry,” which shows that the men did reconcile and appreciate one another despite the difficult separation that occurred years before.

Their story gives me hope and confidence that conflict, even division, in the body of Christ though it is immediately painful can and will ultimately be beneficial for the Church and for those who serve her. Though we may struggle now to see the good that will come, we must trust that one day it will. I was once told never to doubt in the darkness what God has revealed in the light, so the light that must sustain us in the darkness of division is the promise of peace and the hope of ultimate reconciliation.

I had an interesting dialogue with my father about pastoral ministry recently, and he said something in our conversation that really made me think. After having pastored a thriving church for 25 years, he decided to step down and take on leadership at a seminary full-time. I had asked him if leaving was difficult for him because of all the relationships that he had built and invested into for all of those years. His response was that it was not as hard as one would think because he noticed that as he scanned the faces in the crowd on Sunday mornings in the months before he resigned, he noticed that he no longer recognized most of the faces of the people in the room anymore. Apparently, so many people had come and gone through the years that the entire face of the church had changed.

As a pastor, I have observed for myself this incredible shift of people who change churches almost as often as they change clothes. And, I have been amazed as I have witnessed this ongoing flux of Christians who tend to wander from church to church looking for the newest and greatest show on earth. Now, what has amazed me even more is that churches seem to be willingly feeding this wanderlust by strangely competing with one another for their attention.

Having been in pastoral ministry for almost a decade now, I have crossed paths with a number of pastors and churches that are unapologetic about and consumed with their church growth models and marketing strategies, and they will try just about anything to lure the masses into their sanctuaries and even away from others. On a recent Sunday morning that I was free from responsibilities at my own fellowship, I was able to visit a large church that boasted the most expensive facilities and amenities in the area and was amused to find a large bookstore complete with religiously themed t-shirts, Christian skull caps and Bible action figures. There was also an expansive coffeehouse with a full breakfast buffet…all the necessary things we  need for a genuine worship experience, of course. But, what struck me the most during my visit was not the multi-million dollar sound system or the state of the art children’s computer check in system, but one simple revelatory notation in the church bulletin.

As I sat down in the back before the service and read through the bulletin I noticed that the church posted for all to see those who had recently “transferred” membership to the church. Now, maybe it’s just me, but the veritable fact that people are transferring from other churches to yours is probably something we should be actually embarrassed of rather than proud of. People shifting from one congregation to another does not grow the kingdom of God but simply reshapes it.  And, it seems to me that this ongoing shape-shifting is probably a shameful indictment of a fickle church culture and not a measure of ministry success. So, I’m wondering if celebrating these tidal shifts is wise or even appropriate.

Now, I know that people do move at times from one church to another for understandable and necessary reasons such as a physical move from one community into another or a fundamental doctrinal or philosophical disagreement with their former church home. But, when people shift their membership simply because of their ever changing tastes, styles and preferences, then what we have created and permitted is a formula for a hollow Church.

The author Calvin Miller in his book Once Upon A Tree put it this way: “Fields of suburban Christians migrate from congregation to congregation, propelled by a wanderlust for the greatest Christian show on earth. This ecclesiastical restlessness thwarts the holy work of God’s saving community. The saving work of our Savior cannot prosper while his community wanders in search of something glitzy to fill its shallow heart. The reverbs and amps and colored spots of contemporary worship can come to focus on a plastic discipleship where shepherds replace their crooks of pastoral care with vaudeville hats and canes.”

What he is saying is that the wanderlust of vagabond Christians who skip from church to church with the attention span of 4 year olds is not only undermining the stability of the local church but is also stifling the progress of spiritual growth. There was a time in the first few centuries of the church that there was only one notable church assembly in each city for people to attend and, and if they had differences that divided them, then they needed to overcome those differences in order to fellowship and worship. They did not have the option of just attending another church down the street or around the corner as they did not have the luxury of simply running away from their diversities. No, they had to find unity in the midst of their diversity.

Today, though, if we get bored or disagree with each other on even the most minute details of doctrinal fidelity, then we simply feel entitled to either find another church that suits us better or just start a church of our own. Through the centuries, we have divided and denominated ourselves ad infinitum to the point where there are too many different assemblies in any given city to even count. Now, that ought to strike us as odd especially since Jesus specifically prayed that the church would “be one” in John 17. Jesus wanted His Church, above all, to be united around the globe and we have instead chosen to be divided over and over and over again.

So, that leads me to conclude that we are merely living out the effects of the divisions that we ourselves have created. We have effectively catered to the consumer Christian by constantly offering them an array of alternatives rather than challenging them to learn the importance of steadfast commitments. What we perhaps don’t realize is that by creating an ever growing menu of churches and ministries, we are actually enhancing the expectations of an already shallow consumer culture.

For me, one of my primary frustrations in church ministry is the ever revolving door that is pushed around on its axis by vagabond Christians who blow in and out of churches because they don’t seem to understand or appreciate the importance of a commitment. And, perhaps they don’t know any better because we just keep enabling it. I’m thinking that their flaky, non-commital modus operandi is fueled first by our unwillingness to expect more of them but also by our reluctance to stop trying to find new ways to entertain them.

The reason I had decided to disengage the church culture was because I was fed up with it. I was irritated with pastors who seemed insincere and ambitious about building their own kingdoms on earth. I was tired of the country club mentality of comfortable Christians holed up in Christian subculture. I was weary of getting handed another business card by those who see the church as a networking opportunity and I was still smarting over the fake smiles from cleverly deceptive people who had infiltrated the ranks in sheep’s clothing.

I came to a point in my life where I actually started to believe the cliches about the church, that she is corrupt from leadership on down, that she is full of judgmental, self-righteous finger-pointing pharisees, that she is no different than any other consumer driven business in offering felt needs goods and services in exchange for “free-will” offerings, and that she is fundamentally hypocritical because her underbelly is as dark as her face is light.

I basically concluded that the church was a hopelessly misguided institution that had somehow moved across the ocean from where it had started. As I studied the book of Acts and saw how the church once was, how it was organized, how it was governed and how it was connected, I realized that the American church was starkly different. What once seemed to be a supernaturally pure, relationally honest body of believers now looked disappointingly flawed and hopelessly disconnected from its origins. So, I decided that I would find a way to thrive as a Christian without the church. I figured that perhaps people were right about their assertions that we do not need to go to church to live the Christian life.

However, my experience during my time away proved otherwise. It seemed that the moment that I chose to fundamentally change my Sunday schedule by substituting sleep or a brunch or even the lake for corporate worship that my spiritual life immediately began to take a tumble. After only a few weeks away from the church I grew more pessimistic and cynical toward God’s people. I began to dwell on all the inherent problems that had precipitated my departure and began to resent the church more for pushing me away. I started to blame my feelings of spiritual isolation on the church by holding her responsible for my difficult choice to stay away.

But, the longer I stayed away the more I realized that the church was not going to change and that it was just going to move on without me. Though I still resented her faults I began to figure that my staying away was not going to make those faults go away. And then one day I concluded that I could either spend my life criticizing all that is seemingly wrong with the church or I could help to remedy those problems. In other words, either I could lament all that the church was not or I could consider all that the church could be.

After plumbing the depths of my heart and mind during that difficult season, I noticed that my heart began to soften. As I began to ponder what I wanted the church to be, I actually began to miss her. Strangely, I began to miss the off-center sermons from insecure pastors, the pitchy and sometimes stale worship, the plastic smiles from sinfully challenged people, and I even missed the weird and often isolated Christian subculture with all its religious consumables. Even though I could still see and even dislike all these obvious flaws in the church, I began to see how even her flaws could be lovable.

What I began to understand for the very first time is that Jesus knows all his bride’s faults, her imperfections and oddities. He knew when he died for her what she would become, even in 21st century America, and He loved her all the same. I guess we would call that unconditional love…the capacity to love something or someone in spite of obvious and latent flaws. The truth is that Jesus loves the church the way she is. Even though I am quite sure that He wants to make her pure, I am also resolved that He will love her even if she isn’t.

For me, this was the epiphany. I realized finally that if Jesus could love the church the way she is, then certainly I could too. I don’t think that my expectations are any higher for her than his are, so I have no justified reason to hold anything against her anymore. This monumental revelation gave me the heart to try to love the church all over again, warts and all. And, I not only returned to her imperfect gatherings but now even pastor one as well.

The reason I share this story with you is because I believe that many of you have taken the same path but you may not have yet returned. Perhaps you have not yet learned to love the church the way that Jesus does and to love her simply because Jesus does. If she is his bride, then she is precious to him and ought to be to us. To love the husband but hate his bride is quite frankly a betrayal of monumental proportions. If you think that staying away from the church because of her imperfections is a viable option for you, then you are wrong. You are also wrong if you think that you will be able to sufficiently feed your own soul without the guidance, accountability and relationship found in and only within the local church. I can tell you from personal experience that staying away from her will only shrink your soul and harden your heart. And, if you stay away too long, you will simply wither away altogether.

Chances are, there is an imperfect church near you that you can attend. And, it is entirely possible that it is full of insecure, self-righteous and sinful consumers, but perhaps you can learn to love flawed people all the same because it is likely that you are flawed too. I now know that I am.