A New Role

A fabulous author, leader, and visionary, the late Phyllis Tickle, talked about a trend in the Church. She presented the idea that every approximate five hundred years, the Church would do a garage sale. What she was referring to is the idea that due to a variety of forces, the Church was made to look at itself and determine what aspects of being the Church it was going to keep and what aspects would be discarded as the Church moved forward into the future. Her viewpoint was that the Church is currently in one of those periods which started in the early 2000s or a little earlier. (To read about this more in depth read her book, The Great Emergence: How the Church is Changing and Why [2008].)

I think that her theory is very accurate. I also think that we are still in the midst of one of the Church’s “garage sales.” There is a lot of turmoil within the institutional church. We are trying to figure out what will take us into the next five hundred years in a way which will serve the people of God both within and outside of the Church. This inventory and choosing is being done by individuals and by the corporate body. I have addressed this in previous posts without referencing Tickle’s theory but definitely in the same vein as her theory.

In this post, I want to lift up the idea that there is a growing need for nontraditional ministry models. Specifically, I am thinking about the role of leaders, usually referred to as clergy, in nontraditional ministry. The traditional clergy role is one which is connected to a specific congregation, in a specific location, under a denominational title. I do not support the elimination of the traditional role as I have just described but I think it is time that the Church is open to other ways for clergy to live out a ministry role. A vital one which is overlooked as of now is one that utilizes technology.

With the increase in technology and the manner in which it connects us in new ways, I believe it is time for the Church to acknowledge a ministry role for clergy which focuses on technological connections. To date, the Church has just added to the list of duties for traditional clergy, a component which points toward involvement in social media and the internet. I have personally been one of these traditional clergy who has attempted to actively use technology in my ministry. The problem with this is that there is not enough time to adequately serve in this capacity. The amount of time and energy necessary to fulfill the traditional role of clergy as I outlined above, leaves a fair inadequate amount of time and energy to do any sort of justice to a social media ministry. In order to honestly provide ministry in this area, the Church must acknowledge it as a validated ministry with the same status as a clergy person serving in a local congregation.

One aspect of ministry which Jesus demonstrated and the Church has at times striven to live out is the idea that ministry occurs where people are at a given time. Jesus did this by walking from village to village and sitting on hillsides or by lakes. The Church has done this by sending people to new lands. I believe this is what Jesus meant when Matthew records him saying, “Go and make disciples of all nations…” The key word here is GO. Jesus intended the Church to go where the people are. Today, the people are in the cyberworld. For me, this legitimized the importance of an affirmed ministry role for clergy in this aspect of life.

Do you agree that this is a need? How might this need be part of the change happening in the Church? What other nontraditional ministry roles need to be considered?

A Savior

One of the challenges which I see in the church, especially among leaders, is confusion over who is the savior. The problem is not that these leaders, and some members, struggle to come up with a description of Jesus Christ. Many of them do a great job of telling the life story of Jesus, talking about his earthly ministry, and giving a theological explanation regarding his death and resurrection. The issue is that in their zeal for fulfilling the Great Commandment, they begin to think that they are responsible for ensuring the salvation of others. This could not be farther from the truth.

Jesus came with a purpose, some may even say a call. Jesus’ purpose was to destroy all the barriers between humanity and God. God’s desire is that all may experience the fullness of God’s love in a lasting relationship with God. The difficulty in the achievement of this is humans have chosen often to take paths which lead them away from God. These paths make us vulnerable to committing unloving actions and to experience the impact of those actions taken by others. They also can give us a distorted understanding of love. Jesus’ ministry was focused on correcting this distortion and showing how these paths lead us away from God.

Jesus broke down social barriers which humanity created amongst themselves. Jesus presented a definition of love that was unconditional and with a focus toward others and not self. He reminded everyone what it meant to be in relationship with God. Actions which he took supported his words and showed us how we are to demonstrate God’s love to one another. All this culminated in his loving action taken on a cross where he gave his life to remove any remaining barriers we might have between us and God.

That final action by Jesus which led to his death and resurrection is sufficient for all people. Through this action, Jesus saved us from the paths we take which lead us away from the love of God. Jesus does not need us to recreate or to add to this action. Instead, Jesus told us to go out into the world and to tell all the people of his breaking of all barriers. More importantly, Jesus desires us to demonstrate this work in our own actions and words.

There is not one of us who is the Savior. That position has been filled by Jesus Christ. We do not have it within our abilities to break down the ultimate barrier between God and humanity. What we do have is the ability to introduce the Savior to others by our lives. Our expressing of the love of God and attributing that love for the choices we make in life will open doors for individuals to first experience and then begin to understand what God’s love is truly about.

YOU ARE NOT THE SAVIOR! Instead, spend your time introducing the Savior to others through your life and the sharing of God’s love.

Using A Liturgy

Liturgy in the church is something which can cause quite an argument. Some individuals have the view that without liturgy to guide worship, there has not been genuine worship. On the other side are individuals who view liturgy as a heavy burden from the ancient past which causes worship to be dreadful instead of energized. More than a few remain somewhere in the middle. In recent times, this has been a struggle played out among many congregations and within many denominations. Little surprise that there exists a broad spectrum of the type and amount of liturgy experienced throughout the church.

For those who may not understand the term of liturgy, it is the form which public worship takes within a religion, most often Christianity. The arrangement of the different elements of the worship service is prescribed and followed in each worship service with only a little variation. The actual words, music, and prayers may or may not change but the order and structure remains the same.

My experience in the church has been one in which there has always been some type of liturgy guiding the worship service. I have been in settings where it may not be as pronounced but it is still present. Participants in some worship settings in which I have participated may not even think about the liturgy being used or the basis for the choice of liturgy.

Like many aspects of the church, there are positives and negatives when it comes to the liturgy. First, some positives. The most evident one is that by using a prescribed liturgy, the worship participants who attend regularly know exactly what will happen next in the service whether they have a printed guide or not. In addition, many parts of the service are easily memorized since they are used every week. An example would be a liturgy which includes the Lord’s Prayer. The participants tend to memorize these words early in their worship experience and each week it remains the same. Another benefit to a liturgy is that for worship leaders and planners, it provides a guide for their work. Each week they know what elements they need to prepare. The leadership also knows the order and movement in the worship space.

Now, some negatives which accompany the use of liturgy. One negative is that liturgy can lull a participant into going through the worship service almost on autopilot. All the positives listed above regarding memorization and knowing what comes next can allow a participant to not even think about what is being done. Another pitfall of liturgy is that often the meaning behind the elements and the ordering of those elements gets lost. I mentioned earlier that some participants may not even realize that a liturgy is in place because they have forgotten or it has not been explained what the liturgy is and the reason for every aspect of it. Most liturgies have a theological, practical, and spiritual meaning to them but with time those understandings can be forgotten. The third problem with liturgy is that if someone is a new participant, the individual can become lost since regular attenders just move from element to element with little or no explanation. This can turn a newcomer off since they do not wish to feel ignorant or become very self-conscious of their lack of knowledge.

Much of the negative can be overcome. The key is that communication about the chosen liturgy must happen regularly both verbally and in print. Discussion around the meaning of what is done and why it is done in the prescribed fashion must occur with those who are regularly participating. Explanation of each element and the flow needs to be shared by the worship leaders and/or in whatever printed materials are used so that the newcomer feels she/he has a guide which empowers them to participate.

So here are the questions which I would like each reader to answer:

  1. Does your worship setting use a liturgy? If so, what is that liturgy?
  2. Do you understand why a liturgy is in place and what the elements of it might be?
  3. Is liturgy an aid or a hindrance to the worship experience?

Good Managers

Today I thought I would talk again about one of the words that is used in church circles but is often misunderstood. The focus word for today is stewardship. When most people hear this word they think about a campaign each congregation launches in late fall to get financial pledges from their members for the coming year. Based on those pledges then the leadership creates a budget. The problem with this understanding is that it is far too limited.

The word stewardship comes from the word steward. A steward is a manager of property and/or finances on behalf of another person. So stewardship is the act of managing. Based on this definition, one can easily see why the word conjures in the minds of many church members the image of a financial campaign. Yet this falls completely short of the Scriptural understanding of stewardship.

The concept of stewardship is first introduced in Scripture in the first chapter of Genesis. Here, as part of the creation story, God places all creation under the care and authority of humanity.

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Genesis 1:26-30 NIV

Here God is placing humans as managers over all which God just created. So stewardship includes the managing of creation.

Another aspect of creation is found in 1 Peter. Here the writer reminds us that we are to use whatever gifts (skills and abilities) we have been given to serve one another.

Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 4:10-11b

Not only are we reminded that we are to be managers of our gifts but also of the grace which we have received from God.

As you can see, stewardship involves much more than the annual fundraising for the church. Stewardship is an expectation and responsibility placed upon us by God. We are to be managers of everything which God has created and which God has given to us.

Hopefully the next time you hear the word stewardship, you will not only include your managing of money in a way that benefits God’s church, but also consider how you are managing the other aspects of life.

Classless Church

In the June issue of The Atlantic, James Carroll wrote an article entitled, “To Save The Church, Dismantle the Priesthood.” When I saw the cover of the magazine and it listed this featured article, I knew that I had to read what appeared to be a disconcerting concept.

In the article, Carroll presents an argument for removing the clerical titles which have been a significant part of the church hierarchy. His reasoning for this is that these titles separate and give power to a certain class of members which leads to corruption. He argues that this is why there has been rampant sexual misconduct among the clergy because the clergy protect their “class.” My intent is not to argue in support or opposition to what Carroll states but instead to consider what the pros and cons of the removal of a clergy class in the church. Also, I will not be able to fully cover all the arguments in this post.

Beginning with some pros for this change in the church. I do think that Carroll has a valid point that in some denominations, clergy are able to hide behind a code of secrecy among their peers. When their peers are charged with the task of investigating and trying an accused colleague, accountability may come into question. The one way this works is that there is such a high level of transparency in the process and a structured process which can be problematic as well. Elimination of a special designation for clergy could have the potential of placing the handling of misconduct on a more level ground.

Another possible pro to the elimination of a clergy designation is that it would actually require more commitment from the rest of the members. Part of being a member of the clergy is that certain responsibilities and expectations are placed upon the individual. If one person is not given a title which automatically requires fulfillment of these responsibilities and expectations, then those will need to be divided among others within the church.

However, a change as being proposed here comes with issues. The first issue is that organizations quickly struggle if there is not identifiable leadership. While there are aspects of the work which can be managed through group leadership, there are logistical aspects which require a designated person with the correct skills in place. The reality of humans is that we all are given different abilities so there is an inherent division based on skills and abilities. The church has always considered clergy to have a specific role based on their skills and abilities. My denominational background refers to this as separate in responsibilities but equal in faith.

Another issue is that some responsibilities and expectations within the church require specialized training. The method for this training has traditionally been through learning institutions which are called seminaries. Degrees are obtained confirming that the individual has received the necessary education to reasonably fulfill the unique responsibilities and expectations referred to the clergy. Due to the intensity of study needed to obtain that knowledge, not every person sitting in the pew can be expected to obtain this education. So individuals are chosen through a variety of means to obtain such education and training and then return to the church and fulfill the specific responsibilities and expectations.

Again, this is just scratching the surface but my conclusion is that while creating a classless church may solve some problems which now exist, other problems will arise. Does the church need reformation and restructuring? YES Should the individuals in the pews take on more responsibilities? YES Does the elimination of the designation clergy solve all the problems? NO The church is made up of humans who are imperfect, from top to bottom. This truth means that problems will always exist. The true question is are we willing to adapt, learn, relearn, and reform.

Lack of Action

This is the last planned blog post as part of the series which I began last week. The series is intended to give reasons which I believe cause people to say the church no longer works for them. Here are the earlier posts in the series:

Why Does Church No Longer Work

Lack of Authenticity

Lack of Relationships

Lack of Language

Today’s discussion will be in regard to the church’s perceived lack of action. This perception is not due to the fact that the church does not have numerous activities within its fellowship. I would argue that the opposite is actually true. The church seems to always have something scheduled or planned. The requests for teachers and leaders, for food providers, for workers, for participants, seem to be almost never ending. The church is always busy with something. No, the lack of action refers to making a difference which impacts the world.

I want to again caution the reader that this is perception. I think it is unfair to state that the church does not have an impact on the world at times. However, I think the reason for the perception is that this is far too infrequent. The church is generally good about coming to the aid of people who are experiencing losses due to natural disasters. The response of the church toward local people who need some emergency assistance financially is alright. I would say that given the resources made available to the church, it does a fair job of responding in crisis situations. Yet is that all which calls the church into action?

When I talk to those who are walking away from the church, one of the reasons that they state is that the church often is too inward focused. As I explore what that means to them, I hear words which indicate that they wish to belong to a group who makes a difference in a visible way. These people seek a church which stands up for the groups in the world who are marginalized, ridiculed, condemned, persecuted, ostracized. They desire to be part of a church which does not act like judge and jury but instead goes outside the walls to be with those who are on the outside (of the church and society). This is the difference which they wish to see occur. When I listen to them, I hear the words of Jesus, the Christ. I hear the words of the Old and the New Testament. I hear the expectations God has always placed upon humanity.

The charge of a lack of action has nothing to do with busyness. The church is very busy, especially within its walls. This charge comes from the inactivity of the church to be a voice which challenges society’s ostracizing ways. This charge comes from the church focused on building itself up instead of building individuals up. It is a charge which unfortunately is too often true.

Lack of Language

This blog post is a continuation of the series which I began last week. The series is intended to give reasons which I believe cause people to say the church no longer works for them. Here are the earlier posts in the series:

Why Does Church No Longer Work

Lack of Authenticity

Lack of Relationships

Today, I am presenting the case that a lack of language is a reason which leads to the church no longer working in people’s lives. Let me be clear, the church uses a lot of words. However, those words are usually very difficult for people to understand unless they have had some training or education into the language of the church.

When I talk with people, I often hear them say that they feel they do not truly understand a lot of the words and terms which we use in the church. Most of these come from centuries long ago. They are not words which we use in everyday speaking. Some words have crossed over into discussions outside of the church but the understandings associated with them are very skewed or do not reflect the original intent of the word.

The late Eugene Petersen understood this was an issue over thirty years ago. In1993 he released a copy of The Message – New Testament. Petersen’s goal was to take the Bible and translate it into words that people of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century were using. Over the next nine years he would release the Old Testament translation in two sections and eventually the two Testaments together in one volume. Eugene Petersen understood that it was important for people to read the Bible in a language that made sense to them. Not a new idea since that is exactly what happened during the Protestant Reformation.

The language in which someone can read the Bible is an important piece but it cannot be the only piece. How many times do we use words such as grace, redemption, trinity, forgiveness, salvation, sin, atonement, unconditional love, or hope, yet never explain what we mean by them. What about the words we use in the building: narthex, sacristy, nave, sanctuary, altar, table, pulpit, lectern, or chalice. Again, words that we do not explain and assume everyone knows what we are talking about. The language of the church can be like a foreign language to individuals.

We need to take an example for Eugene Petersen. The church needs to translate its words into the language of today. Where an equivalent cannot be found, explanation and teaching is in order. Where we can use today’s words to describe a concept or aspect of our church space, then we need use today’s words and not the words of the sixteenth century.

Unfortunately, too many in the church seem to adopt the attitude that if a person wishes to be part of our fellowship, they need to learn the language. We expect change on the part of the individual. The problem with this view is that it presents a dividing of those who are in (the one’s who can speak the language) and those who are out (the one’s who have no understanding of the language). The bigger problem is that a large number will choose not to even attempt to learn this foreign language but instead walk out the door and find a place where they can understand what people are saying.

Lack of Relationships

I am now in the midst of a blog post series attempting to name Why Church No Longer Works. In addition to the introduction to the series, I have stated that one reason is the church has a Lack of Authenticity. Today I share my second observation which is the church has a Lack of Relationships.

Some of you may want to disagree with my observation by stating that you witness all types of relationships in the church. Your arguments might include that everyone at your church is friendly with each other and know each other on a first name basis. Another argument might be that the pastor knows every person and makes a strong point in meeting new individuals who may be visiting or new to the neighborhood. You may even state that you have been at the church a long time and watched some young adults as they have grown up, maybe even be able to tell about when the children were baptized. All these arguments, and more that I am sure you can make, certainly appear to show that there are relationships in the church. I would even agree with this point but would argue that these are only surface relationships.

What I mean by surface relationships are those type of relationships where one can state easily observable characteristics, traits, or highlights about another person but there is not a deeper knowledge. We experience these types of relationships with our co-workers, employees of a business which we frequent, or maybe even some of our neighbors. What these relationships lack is anything beyond the basic facts of a person’s life. There exists no understanding of what the individual’s hopes and fears might be. You are unable to name what struggles the person has overcome or may even still be experiencing. An ability to articulate why a person believes what she/he believes does not exist. No depth in the relationship is found.

I am sure that some of you reading this post could state to me the names of one or two individuals with who you have more than a surface relationship. However, I am confident to say that this is the exception and not the norm regarding relationships in the church. Connected to my earlier post dealing with authenticity in the church, a majority of relationships within the church are not authentic.

Why is a lack of relationships important?

In my study of the Bible and the stories about Jesus, I am convinced that it is all about relationships. We hear stories of the relationship between God and God’s creation, especially humans. There are stories about the relationships between humans, both family and strangers. Jesus spends a great deal of time discussing relationships and demonstrating how to be in relationship with others. Even our theological concept of the Trinity as interpreted from Scripture is about relationship. This indicates to me that relationships are a central theme in the Christian belief system. So relationships should be very important to the church.

If relationships are so important in our faith, the lack of them leaves us with something hollow. When we do not take the time to go beyond the surface in someone’s life, we communicate that the individual is not that important to us. Having a feeling that I am not important to others can encourage me to leave that setting in search of a place where I do feel I am important in another person’s, or group of people’s lives.

As I have read articles about what brings value to a person’s life, I have often come across statements which show a strong desire of individuals to feel like they belong. A desire exists to feel connected and meaningful in the lives of others. We were created with an inward drive to be in relationship. Humans will search long and hard to find some way to feed this drive. The drive requires more than just a sense of being known on the surface.

When the church does not offer a place for and strong encouragement to develop authentic, deep relationships, people will walk out and search elsewhere. My observation as I read through the Book of Acts and the letters found in the Bible is that these were the type of relationships which existed among the followers of Christ at the beginning. The gatherings were small and intimate. There was a sense of knowing the deep desires within the hearts of the people. A meeting of the needs of all people was emphasized, including the need to belong through relationships.

In order to correct this situation, the church is going to have to work on some important goals:

  • Create a place where trust can be established and protected
  • Remove the judgment from our structure, our sermons, our liturgies, and our statements
  • Encourage and develop times for relationships to be established, grow, and sustained
  • Practice grace above any and all rules, polity, and traditions
  • Follow the example of Jesus, the Christ

Jesus was all about relationships, maybe it is time that the church learns from Jesus and does likewise.

Lack of Authenticity

Today I am beginning my new series entitled, “Why Does Church No Longer Work?” For background on this series, please reference my post from last week. The response that I lift up to you today is that the church lacks authenticity.

The definition of authenticity is “the act of being authentic.” A Google search for the definition of authentic produces this — of undisputed origin; genuine. For our purposes, I am going to focus on the last part of that definition, the word “genuine.” My view is that the church is viewed today as not being genuine. This is very important because we have come to discover that one of the most important characteristics that Millennials seek in a person is authenticity, or being genuine.

Author, Karl Moore, writing for Forbes an article entitled, Authenticity: The Way to a Millennial’s Heart states this:

“The authentic self is a goal for all four generations alive today: Seniors, Boomers, Xers, but most especially, Millennials.”

Karl Moore

He continues by quoting from a book written by Sienna Zampino which discusses what authentic leadership looks like and why it is so important to Millennials. This is important to the church because we know that Millennials are exiting the church at a very high rate. In the search for reasons, a sense that there is not authenticity within the church appears to be a strong reason.

Is this a fair claim?

I would say that it truly is a fair claim. One reality which our current generation has inherited is the great fear of being seen as unworthy in the church. I was raised with the value of being best behaved whenever I was in the church building. This value is not a wrong one on the surface but it can create a misguided view that those within the church walls must be perfect, at least in behavior. Striving for perfection can be a noble effort but can lead to a masking of some true realities. When people feel they must be viewed as perfect within the church walls, a group of people with a lot of masks comes into existence. No one wants their flaws and imperfections to be known, so they hide their true selves. This leads to incomplete attempts at healing, reconciliation, growth, and honest worship. We put on our best clothes, best faces, and a surface friendliness then head off to that church building for an hour or so of making attempts at our best performance. It is not genuine, it is not authentic.

What amazes me about this dynamic is that it stands so extremely counter to the Gospel and the example of Jesus. All within the church claim to be, and I would say most are striving to be, following the example of Jesus, the Christ. Yet, here is one area where we miserably fail. I think that one of the significant reasons that Jesus appealed to so many people is that he was authentic. Jesus did not wear a mask. Jesus’ actions and attitudes were out there in the very open. In fact, he spoke against putting on masks or airs.

As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”

Mark 12:38-40

“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.”

John 18:20-21

Jesus taught authenticity but the church teaches through actions, and sometimes words, inauthenticity.

The reality is that we are sinners who are in need of the healing and reconciling love of our Lord. Churches should be gathering places where we can honestly and openly admit this truth, not just in a corporate sense found in the worship liturgy with the confession, but in the midst of the relationships we have with one another. A person should come to the gathering knowing they will be there with others who are imperfect, who admit these imperfections, and who experience the forgiveness guaranteed to all in the Gospel. If someone enters the gathering and only sees people who are trying to present a perfect image, how can they ever admit their imperfections and need of God’s grace?

In addition, the attempts to put up a false front does not work, no matter how hard we try. Our attempts to hide our imperfections easily melt away when pressure is applied. Perceptive individuals can quickly detect the fake. An especially wary generation as the Millennials are can see through our facade in a little amount of time. Not because they are any better perceiving than previous generations, who knew all along they were participants along with everyone else in a false image, but because this is a generation which is not afraid to state the truth of what they see.

This pattern of the church MUST change. In order for the church to fulfill the call placed upon it by the Lord, those who are followers of the Lord must strive to be authentic. We must create a space where it is safe to be authentic. Individuals must be able to admit that they are one of those about who Paul writes, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Then together we learn how to be forgiven and to strive to do a better job the next. 

Why Does Church No Longer Work – A Series

I spent some time this week pondering some of the topics which I will discuss in upcoming blog posts. Some weeks determining what I will write about is more time-consuming than actually writing. As I sat with my thoughts, I stumbled upon a question that has haunted me for a great length of time. The question (which I am using as a series title) is “Why does church no longer work?”

The question assumes that the practices of churches these days are no longer working. I am sure there exist individuals who would disagree with that idea completely. For me, watching the struggles of maintaining a level of involvement in the church over twenty-two years of ordained ministry is evidence enough that something is not working. The way in which we attempt to be the church seems to have lost their effectiveness. Even the large, multi-campus churches are noticing equal numbers of people going out the door as they have coming in the door. All this makes me comfortable in saying that “church” is no longer working for a large majority of people in our communities.

I have decided that this challenge requires more than one blog post, so I will be doing a series of blog posts. I admit that I will not be able to exhaustively cover this topic. I also admit that I cannot come close to identifying all the complex issues which lead to my question. At present, I have identified four issues that I plan to discuss in this series:

  1. The church lacks authenticity.
  2. The church lacks relationships.
  3. The church lacks today’s language.
  4. The church lacks action.

Each of these issues will be explained and addressed in the coming days. I hope that you will join me in exploring these issues. I also would benefit from hearing your responses to my posts and any other issues you may name in response to my initial question.