Game's Locked!

"Game's Locked!" Did you ever hear that phrase growing up? Especially the Easterners amongst my readership, I would be interested to know if this is a universal, or at least an all-American practice, or if it is uniquely midwestern or even uniquely Minnesotan. Because I heard it many times growing up, more often hearing it than saying it. The rules of "Game's Locked" are as follows.

If there was a baseball game going on in Wakeley's front yard, or the vacant lot on Mt. Normandale Curve, or a football game going on in our front yard or Peck's front yard, and a few kids from the neighborhood happen along who wish to join in, the organizers of the game have the option of saying "Game's Locked", thus denying these new kids entry into the game. All completely legal and universally understood. And like I said, I was more often seeking entry than being on the inside, though I was proud to be so on a few rare occasions.

So what is the subject of this post? Am I going to recount my childhood athletic experiences? Not on your life. I could get the same effect from a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, and it would be quicker and much less painful. No, rather, I would like to talk about the church. It is my belief that many in the church have a "Game's Locked" attitude towards those on the outside looking in. Let me explain.

Of course, by saying "many in the church", I am keeping it very non-committal, non-judgmental, non-accusatory, but of course you are smart enough to know that I can only talk about my own experiences, largely in my own church. Busted. So what do I mean by "Game's Locked" in regard to the church?

Much like the baseball game of my youth, if you weren't there at the beginning, you don't get in. So what do I mean by that? Literally, not there from the beginning? No. But it has more to do with accepting church on our terms, the way it has always been. If you don't like church the way it was done in the 1950s, well, sorry, game's locked. Sound too harsh? Perhaps. But I have heard the following in the past year, mostly in the context of seeking a new senior pastor:

"I don't go in for all this church relevance stuff".

"That's what we need, a guy with a tie."

So if I consider this an informal survey, we are looking for someone nicely dressed and irrelevant. I could do that.

Another reason I bring this up is the seeming panic of some within our church over the rise of the "emergent church", supposedly in our midst. I received the following anonymous handwritten letter, postmarked August 21st, 2006, I suppose because at the time I was the chairman of the Board of Stewards when we were considering an ultimately failed attempt to start a Sunday evening contemporary (gasp!) service at our church. Because it is anonymous, and I have no clue to this day who wrote it, I don't feel I am outing anyone by repeating it here (as is, misspellings intact). If the writer of this letter happens to be reading this, congratulations, consider yourself published.

"The empty pew -
No longer do we teach people how to become a Christian -
No longer do we preach against sin. What's that?
No mention ever that our world and culture are collapsing.
No one to teach morality - and oh yes, who is supposed to return soon - aren't the signs mostly in?
No longer will my family sit in a pew and not receive instructions on how to face a hostile world - which really hates genuine Christianity.
There are a few churches left who haven't joined the new age movement - who aren't a part of the imerging church - who haven't sold out to lighting candles and chanting montras -
Who - will instruct us and inform us about all these snares that Satan sets for the Christian?
Wake up - we are on God's side - we are supposed to join forces and fight these Satanic wiles -
Sorry - can't stay around and watch the church decend into Sardis - Rev. 3:2"

Here, "new age" and "emergent" seem to be synonyms for "anything that I do not recognize from the church of my youth". because there was nothing remotely "new age" or "emergent" about our Sunday night intentions. I also read a very strong "us vs. them" worldview in this letter, and yes, I will admit, that perhaps there is not very much "us vs. them", "we're good, they're bad" preaching and teaching in our church, but I happen to think that is a good thing, and goes to the heart of what I am talking about.

I have also received e-mails warning of the evils of the emergent church, with all the same links to all the same articles telling me point by point why they are to be feared. I am late to the game on the "emergent church", and don't consider myself qualified to speak out strongly either for or against, but I thought I should at least base my opinions on something more than Internet articles and e-mail chains. So my friend Cliff encouraged me to at least read Brian F. McLaren's "Generous Orthodoxy" before posting this blog, which I have done, (just finished last night), and is thus another reason for the tardiness of this post, so you can blame Clifford. A brief review...

As with any book, there is much of Brian McLaren that I agree with and much that I disagree with as well. First, this from "Chapter 0", which happens to be a good explanation of what I mean by the "Game's Locked" philosophy of church life:

"...I'm writing for the spiritual seekers who are attracted to Jesus, but they don't feel there's room for them in what is commonly called Christianity unless they swallow a lot of additional stuff. Not essential orthodoxy, but rather doctrinal distinctives - the fine print added to the contract of orthodoxy - that are fine to explore and discuss but threaten to become far more important than the gospel warrants. Perhaps I'm trying to tell them, "Don't leave! Don't give up! There's room for you!" But maybe I'm just wrong, overly idealistic, and naive. Maybe it's not right to tell these people there is room for them in most Christian circles - because there's not. If that thought breaks your heart, you should read this book. Many - no, most - are happy with their orthodoxy and are unbothered about the people who are about to leave or the outsiders who feel unwelcome..."

Good, but on the other hand, I had a hard time pinning down exactly what he would consider essential orthodoxy. This seems to be a book completely devoted to the "happy thoughts" side of Christianity. Little or no talk of judgement, sin, death, and unless my memory fails me, not one mention of the cross. Just know that Jesus came to love the whole world, and as a follower of Jesus, I am also to love the whole world. I spent the whole book waiting for him to assert that he is not a universalist, and the closest he got to addressing the question was to say it was the wrong question:

"But what about heaven and hell? you ask. Is everybody in?

My reply: Why do you consider me qualified to make this pronouncement? Isn't this God's business? Isn't it clear that I do not believe this is the right question to ask? Can't we talk for awhile about God's will being done on earth as in heaven, instead of jumping to how to escape earth and get to heaven as quickly as possible?"

This wasn't going to be a treatise on the "emergent church", so I will cut it short. Basically, I agree we need to open the church doors wide to any and all people, and that we are to join God in loving the whole world, including those of any and all religions and no religion at all. But to say that their eternal destiny is God's business, and we are just called to give them a tuna sandwich and say go in peace, without telling them about death and judgment and the cross of Christ, that is not loving them as we ought. I think Michael Horton sums up my view in his - actually quoted by McLaren himself, to his credit, in the book:

"...this seems to present you with two options: a non-emergent gospel that is definitive, clear, sure, and certain, or a 'radically indeterminate," anything goes gospel that means anything, and thus is worth nothing."


It reminds me of the old Miller Lite commercials - "Tastes Great!" "Less Filling!" "Tastes Great!" "Less Filling!"...The current debate in the church seems to be, "Preach the Gospel!" "Feed the Poor!" "Preach the Gospel!" "Feed the Poor!". My question would be, why do they have to be mutually exclusive?

At this point, I would bring up another voice in the debate, probably the one with whom I have the most in common, and that would be Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. He addresses this question in his book "Radical Reformission". He says, (giving credit to Lesslie Newbigin's Triangular Movement of the Gospel), that the church consists of three parts - the gospel of Jesus Christ, the culture in which we live, and the church itself, or the gathering of God's people. A healthy church must embrace all three parts. Anything less results in less than God intended for his people. He then illustrates with three equations:

Gospel + Culture - Church = Parachurch
Culture + Church - Gospel = Liberalism
Gospel + Church - Culture = Fundamentalism

I don't have a lot of experience with the first two, but I guess the third is where I live for the most part, though I wish it were not so. We have our gospel message down pat, and we can recite it perfectly to one another as we sit inside our churches and wait for the lost to darken our door.

So in closing, even if you forget all my disjointed meanderings above, I would leave you with this. For all I have said for and against the emergent church, I think there is something much more dangerous and imminent - the submergent church. Don't know if I've coined the phrase, but if I have, so be it.

Living and moving below the surface, every once in awhile putting up the periscope to see if, heaven forbid, the "hostile world" is getting near...and then..."Dive! Dive! Dive!" (I recently viewed the 5-hour director's cut of Das Boot, so this image is fresh in my mind).

To extend the metaphor, we need to surface, looking for people in the water, clinging to broken boards of materialism, spiritualism, humanism, and yes, loving them, and welcoming them aboard with a warm cup of coffee and the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.

Now I've gone and mixed my metaphors. I hate when people do that. Game Unlocked?