Lights! Camera! Religious Pluralism!

I was recenty made aware of a video on You Tube being used to promote a Church of Christ.  This Church of Christ, in Jonesboro, Arkansas, ironically my old stomping ground, was using the medium of video to advertise to the general public. Being in the film and video industry, and having once served on the staff of several Protestant churches, including one in Jonesboro, I am very familiar with these cookie-cutter videos, available from several companies, and marketed as promotional pieces for use by local churches. At one time, my own former church was considering using one of the promotional videos. The usage fee was about 3-5000 dollars, with a guaranteed exclusive viewing area for a period of time. The videos were well-produced, and there were a variety from which to choose. The selected video would be customized to include the church's name, logo, and other contact info.  At first glance, I liked the video, as it seems heartwarming, and loving. On its face, the use of video to spread the gospel is a great idea. I have always advocated making certain that people know you exist as a local Church. Even as an Orthodox Christian, I see the evangelical value of such. I have even defended an Orthodox church's use of billboards when the Orthodox critics raised an uproar. I also push back against the tendency of some in the Orthodox Church, who seem to consider the use of media, to spread the gospel, somehow worldly, and unspiritual. I also share the concerns, of some, that such a tool should not be used as a substitute for individually bearing witness of the gospel, and by personal example of the exemplary Christian lives each should lead. The absence of this relegates the local Church to a social club, and such marketing-videos, as mere advertisement. In this way, churches can become mere business competitors. The competition centers around who can offer to the most people, family-oriented activities, the gym, the trips, the social groups, all under the name "ministries."

There is nothing inherently wrong with using the media in welcoming non-Christian, non-churched people to come to Christ, and become a part of His Church. The problem I have with this particular video is not its existence, rather, its content and compromising message. It presents a message that invites people to come as they are, to be a part of the Church, without presenting the prerequisite of becoming a Christian through repentance. It presents an easy, no strings attached, Christianity, which is foreign to the Faith of our Fathers.  This is what I posted as a comment on You Tube:

"Sorry, but this is the epitome of religious pluralism run amok, where Scripture and Tradition are irrelevant and must bend to whatever makes one feel comfortable. It is a dangerous blend of half truths. Frankly, I am surprised to see such from a Church of Christ, which typically holds to a standard of faith and practice. Attempting to become relevant, this particular church has become irrelevant by compromising with the world. Kinda makes you feel warm and fuzzy, though."

Watch the video below:

In the video, each excuse for not coming to church is raised by a presumed non-Christian, and then a response to that excuse is given. Let's look at both and evaluate the truth of each:

Excuse: "I can't come to church until I get my life together."

Response:  "Church is how I got my life together." "New Beginnings"

JTO: This is actually a good exhortation. It is likened to "the well do not need a physician..."

Excuse: "Church is filled with a bunch of hypocrites."

Response: "There is always room for one more." "Imperfect people welcomed."

JTO: The video makes a mistake in accepting the false premise of the excuse and attempting to answer it. The second part of the response, "imperfect people are welcomed", should be answered by explaining what Christ meant when he said,

"Be ye therefore, perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Perfect righteousness and obedience to the Lordship of Christ is the call of every man. An unchurched man may not understand the nature of grace, forgiveness, and the power of God to save and make righteous those whom He has saved. It is misleading to make a man think that imperfection is the excepted norm. And remember, the excuse was not about the unchurched having a sin or two, it was an accusation that even the righteous, the Church of Christ, are not, indeed, righteousness. "Christians are hypocrites", was the accusation. It seems that such an excuse-maker is also an accuser and has no desire to leave his unrighteousness. So, to appease his sin, by implying that "you and we are all the same" is a lie, and does nothing to bring him to repentance or into the Church.

The first part of the excuse, "there's always room for one more (hypocrite)", is an invitation that does not have a scriptural basis. What is a hypocrite, anyway?

Definition of Hypocrite:

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Now let's unravel the faulty premise: The Church is not "full" of hypocrites. Can hypocrites be found in a given Church? Yes, but for the most part, Churches are filled with sincere individuals who strive to be righteous, but always find themselves falling short. Saint Paul said,

"For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."

Was Paul a hypocrite? No, but he  understood the sin nature. The false premise presented in the video and accepted by this local Church of Christ, confuses the sin nature of man with the state of  hypocrisy. All members of churches have a propensity to sin and do sin to varying degrees. There is not "room for one more" hypocrite, and an invitation that such conduct is acceptable, is not scriptural. When and where in the scripture did Christ or His disciples say, "come on into the Church as you are, hypocrites." In fact, the Church is told to cast out hypocrites, who leaven the whole loaf. Christ, himself, gives the order of Church discipline in the book of Matthew,

 

"And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

Where in the world did we get the idea that all are welcomed into the Church, anyway? Yes, God desires that all should be saved, but the entire Church is made up of baptized believers who walk in community with one another, in a constant state of repentance, not on a come-as-you-are basis. It seems that this Church of Christ has forgotten that, 

"Many are called, but few are chosen".

Can an unrepentant person come to a Church service? Yes, if they will.  But are we to compel them and  accept them into community on a "come as you are basis"? No. This is not the gospel. Repentance and baptism is the prerequisite. The original Orthodox Church has always accepted catechumens, but catechumens come in a repentant state, already professing a desire to come into the Church. In the early days of the Church, the catechumens were not even allowed to remain for the entire Liturgy, for they were not yet baptized, and could not be present when the Eucharist was received. A prayer was said for them,

Deacon: Pray, ye catechumens, to the Lord.

People: Lord have mercy.

Deacon: Ye faithful, for the catechumens let us pray, that the Lord will have mercy on them.

People: Lord have mercy.

Deacon: That He will catechize them with the word of Truth.

People: Lord have mercy.

Deacon: That He will united them to His Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

People: Lord have mercy.

Deacon; Save them, have mercy on them, help them, O God, by thy grace.

People: Lord have mercy.

Deacon: Ye catechumens, bow your heads to the Lord.

People: To Thee O  Lord.

Priest: That they also with us may glorify Thy most honorable and majestic name: of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages.

People: Amen.

Then the catechumens were ushered out of the Temple.

Deacon: As many as are catechumens, depart; catechumens, depart; as many as are catechumens, depart; let none of the catechumens remain; as many as are of the faithful, again and again, in peace let us pray to the Lord.

Although the catechumens are allowed to stay in the Temple today, the prayer is still prayed aloud by the priest. This practice is not a rejection of the catechumens nor a way for one group to exhibit some kind of spiritual superiority, it was to protect the seeker, who, in his unbaptized state, does not dare come charging into the presence of God. This is the very reason people were warned,

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged."

The Church of Christ and many Protestant denominations, don't know what the Orthodox Church has known for 2000 years, that Christ, Himself, is actually present in the Eucharist.  It is this lack of understanding that allows this Church of Christ to treat, as common, the Body of Christ, making it a club where all can be members by just signing up. "There is always room for one more hypocrite and if you are willingly imperfect, you are just like us, so come on in!"  They have failed to see that salvation is not an event where one gives a mental or emotional assent to the truth, but salvation is a process that begins with repentance. In the original Orthodox Church, one first becomes a catechumen. This period can last a year or more. The Orthodox Church recognises that salvation is not served up on a plate like cookies, with the slogan "It's free, take one." In their effort to extend grace to the unchurched, this local congregation has mistakenly believed that Christ's commission to,

 

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature",

 

has been fulfilled by virtue of the fact that they have an edifice in a city with lots of stuff going on. They have flipped the commission to "go" by saying, "come", to the extent that they appeal to the base sin-nature of man who, in his desperately wicked heart, doesn't want to be told he is a sinner in need of repentance. Instead, this local Church, through this video, gives the message that the sinner can remain exactly as he is and still be a part. Again, this a false gospel. A person who points at the Church and yells, "hypocrites", is not repentant. They have presented a faulty and false premise as an excuse to remain in their sinful state. God has never welcomed hypocrites, He has always welcomed repentant hypocrites! A Christian response would be to tell such a person that they must repent of their sins, turn from their wicked ways, die to self, and follow Christ. Without repentance, there is no salvation. The Church welcomes repentant sinners, not willful ones.

The Rich Young Ruler is a case in point. Did Christ welcome him "as he was"? No. He challenged him to give up all that he had and, only then, could he follow Christ. Such a challenge was intended to reveal the true, unrepentant, heart of the young man. The Scripture says that he went away sorrowful, and Christ let him, saying,

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of  a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven." 

Christ is either Lord of all or He is not Lord at all. To compel anyone into the Church, under any other premise, is a false gospel.

Excuses:  "All they care about is your money".

Response: "They care about me." "People are priceless."

JTO: The excuse may be warranted, given the propensity for many churches to pour vast sums of their money into edifices, structures, buildings and grounds, while simultaneously giving only minor attention to the immediate financial and physical needs of individuals. The response does not seem to answer the excuse, but, rather, deflects it. A better response would be to tell them, "God loves a cheerful giver! It is the love of money, not money itself, that is evil. Our Church cares for the poor, the widows and the orphans, and the vast percentage of the money we have goes for that cause." The scripture says, 'Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.'" If a Church is not emphasising this, then they do give a valid reason for the excuse. I don't see, on the Church's website, any reference to widows and orphans. I do see a "Ministry Model", which is typical of modern church growth techniques, requires vast sums of money, and, of course, includes a gymnasium or recreation center. So, yes they do "care about" your money. It is necessary to raise vast sums to keep such an operation going.

Excuse: "Is there some kind of dress code"?

Response: "The code is. 'Wear some clothes'." "Come as you are."

JTO: Yes, it is good to welcome people of all economic classes and not reject anyone because of what they cannot afford to wear, however, to suggest that it is okay to wear any manner of dress is compromise with the world and diminishes the holiness of the worship setting. The inherent problem here, is the fact that the Church of Christ and other Protestant offshoots, do not have a narthex, nave, iconostasis, or sanctuary. Most just have an auditorium, where all are free to roam at will. There is no altar, for there is no Eucharist and no priest. What would be the altar, is simply a stage for speaking purposes. Apparently, Alexander Campbell did not have access to this part of the life of the Church when he attempted to fashion his new religion after the early Church. He assumed that all Christians sat around informally in homes and were equals-no priests. He overlooked the fact that early Christians also continued to attend the Temple services as well and were governed by Apostles, then Bishops. As the church spread and grew to the point of needing independent structures to house the worship of God, the buildings were patterned after the Temple and Bishops ordained priests to assist in the work and administer the holy sacraments.

Do we, or do we not, meet with the Holy God in worship? Is the worship building sanctified (set apart) or is it not? The original Orthodox Church considers the material world holy because God owns and sanctifies it. So, what one wears in the presence of God, in this Holy Temple, is important. This is why the clergy have always vested. How would you dress to meet the President or a King, or even for a job interview? And yet, the woman on the video is wearing a t-shirt, adorned with Native American artwork, seeped in subliminal pagan imagery, emblazoned across her bosom. In fact, did you notice she even shakes her breasts? Modesty is a scriptural virtue and has been lost in this western culture. My wife, in her post,  Where Is Your Gold Ring, says it best,

"'Let us glorify and bear God in a pure and chaste body, and with a more complete obedience; and since we have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, let us obey and give furtherance to the empire of our Redeemer by all the obedience of service, that nothing impure or profane may be brought into the temple of God, lest He should be offended, and forsake the temple which He inhabits.  The body is God’s temple, and we are the priest of that body-temple! In a very real sense, we are as answerable to God in how we conduct ourselves in our body, as the priest is in how he conducts himself during the Liturgy! Just as the body is expected to be pure, the manner in which the body is displayed is expected to be pure."

Yes there is a dress code, in and out of church! To promote anything else is compromise with the world. If a person is in need of modest clothing and has no means of acquiring it,  then the church should provide it. This is the scripture and tradition of the Church, though maybe not this particular COC. 

Excuse: "Church just makes me nervous."

Response: "I was nervous at first and then I felt right at home." Right where God wants you."

JTO: The video actually gives a good first answer to this excuse. The reason for a person's discomfort can vary, but a person's comfort level is not the main priority of the Church. For instance, the revelation of sin in a person's life can make them uncomfortable. A Church that has a high priority to make people comfortable, in order to get them to Church, will compromise with the world in order get people to stay in the Church. Such a Church will find themselves eventually compromising truth, such as homosexuality is sinful, and Christ is the ONLY way to heaven. The book of The Revelation, in looking at the state of the Churches in the last days, gives this warning to those who would be a part of her,

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

Those aren't really words of comfort, now are they? I think Christ is more concerned for their souls. This local Church, through this video does not follow His example.

Since the buildings of the Church of Christ are not sanctified, then one can understand why holiness in dress has been denigrated to a substandard which says, "Dress code? Yes, just don't come naked."

Excuse: "I'm not sure I believe everything you believe."

Response: "But you can still belong." "Doubt welcome"

JTO This is probably one of the most glaring and dangerous half truths. No. A person cannot belong to the Church without believing the truth. The response confuses disbelief with doubt. It is one thing to be ignorant of the truth or question the validity of a truth, but disbelief is an act of the will. The scripture says,

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool",

but this was an invitation for one to receive forgiveness through repentance, not for one who refuses to accept or believe the truth.

The Apostles told Christians to separate themselves from those who did not follow the truth they were handed, not to make them "belong". To say one can still belong if he doesn't believe, is the height of compromise and negates the validity of the Church. Truth becomes relative and ceases to be certain. Yes, Jesus ate with the publicans and the sinners and was criticised for it, but he went to where they were to call them out of the world. He did not move the worldly conduct to the Temple.

A better response would be to invite the unbeliever to come to a Question and Answer class, on or off the church property, to discuss the matters. If the non-believer hears and believes, then you have won their souls, but don't tell them they can still belong, as a disbeliever. This is not the gospel.

Excuse; "Church is for wimpy, girly men."

Response: (Video shows two non-girly men flexing their muscles) One says, "You want to say that again?"

Saint Ignatius Killed By Lions

JTO: One wonders how these non-girly men, portrayed in the video, would fare when faced with the are girly men compared to the martyrs of the faith who were men and women of God and have a special place in heaven. I doubt that either of  these non-girly men, nor I, will ever match the faith of those saints and martyrs who have shed real blood. Unless a man is willing to lay down his life, deny himself and follow Christ, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.real persecution that is going on all over the world, and that may, one day, come to America. A better response would be, "Girly men? Tell that to the 80 million Orthodox Christians who were savagely annihilated in Russia by the Bolsheviks. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Christians who are today being massacred in Indonesia, Iraq and throughout the entire Middle East and Africa, as we speak. Tell that to the Fathers of the faith who were tortured, beheaded, or ripped apart by lions, throughout the ages. Don't show them one obese man and one pierced-eared muscle man, trying to act tough, and call that, manhood. The men in the video 

"If you deny me before men then I will deny you before my father which is in heaven."

One who uses this excuse should be told that he is a girly man, if he does not follow Christ. He must be willing to literally die for Christ. It takes courage to do so. If he is not willing to die, then he cannot become a Christian nor be a member of the Church.

Excuse: "If you knew me and what I've done, you wouldn't want me."

Response: "If you knew me and what I've done, you wouldn't be worried." "Forgiven."

JTO: This excuse seems to come from a sincere heart, that is ready to admit that they are a sinner. This response is actually a good and redemptive one. We are all sinners and there is forgiveness for all...if one repents.

The final invitation of the video attempts to sum up the excuses and responses:

"You can come to my Church even if you were brought up Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Mormon, Lutheran Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Southern Baptist, a little bit of everything and a whole lot of nothing. You see it's not about a religion, its about a relationship. So please come to my church where nobody's perfect, where beginners are welcome, where socks are optional, grace is required, forgiveness is offered, where hope is alive, and where it's okay to not be okay-really."

JTO: The only problem with the video summary is the fact that it does not sum up the content of the video! It also adds a different subject- One can come to their church no matter what their religious background. This sounds right initially, but then the video resorts to the old, "religion is a bad word" idea. For any Church of Christ to say they are not a religion, and that religion is a bad thing, is not honest or at least  shows a propensity toward political correctness. If the following definition of religion is true, then the Church is religious and should be unapologetically so! It is NOT just a relationship!

 re·li·gion  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/  [ri-lij-uhn]

–noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.

8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

—Idiom

9. get religion, Informal .

a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.

b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

Origin:

1150–1200; Middle English religioun (Old French religion ) Latin religiōn- (stem of religiō) conscientiousness, piety, equivalent to relig ( āre ) to tie, fasten ( re- re- + ligāre to bind, tie; compare ligament) + -iōn- -ion; compare rely

This subject is akin to a dialogue I had with a local pastor concerning his Church's publicised motto, "The Spiritual But Not Religious Church." ( Read: Since When Is Religious A Bad Word? and Since When Is Religious A Bad Word? Part Two) As in that instance, this Church of Christ is conforming to the world and presenting a diminished Christianity. It certainly is not presenting the Faith of our Fathers. It is attempting to compete with the world by getting people to the property by any means, offering them an activity-based atmosphere and making them part of the club, with little or no strings attached.

"Well we must get them here first and then we can reach them", you may hear.

And then when you get them there, you spring the real faith on them? Let me know how that works for you, and when you find your church has become a revolving door of unrepentant sinners, in an out, in and out, which is typical of such a church growth method, you won't have to look far for the reason. The Scripture teaches us,

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Southwest Church Of Christ of Jonesboro, Arkansas: How wide is the gate and how narrow is the path that you have presented through this video? In case you don't understand:

WIDE is wrong and leads to destruction.

NARROW is right and leads to life.

By the way, I can admire Alexander Campbell for his attempt to "restore the church and "the unification of all Christians in a single body patterned after the church of the New Testament." The only problem is, he didn't go back far enough. The Church was here  all along, and is still here today. It never left- It is the Original Church, the Church of the Apostles- The Orthodox Church-since 33 A.D.

Other Related Articles:
Why I Left The Church Of Christ For Orthodoxy
Leaving "The Faith" to Get To The Faith
The "Church Of Christ"