My wife, the dear and good Judy, wrote out some of her thoughts about church attendance. I asked her permission to reprint it here.

Sometimes I Just Don’t Feel Like It

by

Judy Fowler

When you don’t “feel” like going to church, this is not a “feeling” that comes from the Holy Spirit. At church you might be encouraged – or corrected. You might be an encouragement by your “mere” presence. And correction and encouragement are to be avoided because we would then have to carry on with being who God intends us to be, not what we are willing to settle for being. Going to church when we don’t feel like it means that we must be in company with (confronted by) people who are hard to love, and be loved by people whose love is demanding. Sunday’s supposed to be a day of rest, right? Why should I be reminded of people I forgot to pray for and of small thoughtful things I neglected to do!

“Church” – meeting for worship – is meant to be a change from all the other things we do in the week – work, chores, TV, video games, sleeping, sports, exercise, etc. It may still be a place where we have active responsibilities, but if we don’t avail ourselves of the opportunity to be obedient – yes, I said obedient – in this basic act, then we will fall down in other places as well.

This could all be dismissed as a pastor’s wife’s rant because I only care about how things “look” when people don’t come to church – how it reflects on my husband’s ministry. How we, as a pastoral couple, are discouraged. How “the board” will see this as a pastor’s failure. How the pastor feels that he isn’t accomplishing what God desires for the people under his care.

I really – and prayerfully – hope that these thoughts can be seen as the experience of someone who has witnessed a lot in her increasing years.

My dad – a pastor – used to have an “extra” beatitude, “Blessed are the persistent, for they shall get through.” Mine would be, “Blessed are the consistent for they shall become more steadfast.”

Matthew 5:3-30 says it all. So much of today’s philosophy – which isn’t new or modern, – otherwise Christ wouldn’t have said these things “back then” – is putting oneself first. See, there’s nothing new there! So many pat themselves on the back for their consistency in diet and exercise programs, faithfulness to an employer or vocation, but see consistency in church attendance as being legalistic, as giving into the pressure of people who don’t “get it” – whose lives are small and regulated by old fashioned ideas, who are merely religious.

This is a failure to see that God’s will for our lives as individuals NEVER contradicts His Word to us as the Body. This truth – in those words – was “shared” with me, in the heat of one of our most serious arguments, by my pastor. The fact that he was and is my husband only made more of an impression on me. I don’t believe a day has gone by – really – when I haven’t had these words brought to my mind. (The other phrase that was spoken loudly that day was -”Either we live our lives believing God honors our obedience, or we don’t!!) I feel certain that the daily reminder of these words comes from the Holy Spirit because no one else would be that consistent.

God’s will for us as individuals, when obeyed, will bring about the growth and strengthening of the Body – His church, (which is why His will for each of us will never contradict His Word – Scripture – to the Body. God’s Word is sufficient and specific in all areas intended for our spiritual growth, personally and corporately!

One of the instructions and encouragements to couples in marriage prep is that love is a decision. We choose to love, even on the hard days, and in rough circumstances. Failure to make that decision consistently – steadfastly – will usually result in the breakdown – and breaking up of the marriage.

To love the Body of believers means to be consistent in connecting with them. Attending worship – even just to see and be seen on days when you don’t “feel” like it, is part if the discipline that maintains and supports the Body. Much the same as there are days when the love and support in a marriage are a decision – not a spontaneous, joyous, mutual response! If you’re “not feeling the love”, then the decision to love takes over and maintains the relationship – between other churchgoers – and between spouses (the analogy of Christ and the church as His Bride does not break down).

As the church – the Body – we must love one another – the members – both honorable and less honorable. When we begin to feel that we are the only “honorable parts” in the Body and think that we should be attaching ourselves to a Body of believers where our part will look better, or work better, then we need to question our motives, and perhaps see this as temptation, not guidance. The only reasons for removing ourselves from a Body of believers are because of a physical move to another community, or when we find heresy taught and encouraged. In the latter case, having failed to help bring about correction and see change, removing oneself and one’s family is, of course, necessary.

1 Corinthians 12:12-26 is very specific in requiring steadfastness – consistency – in loving and needing one another. We cannot, in a time when the devil is winning and making us feel unnecessary to the Body – give in to temptation and remove ourselves from the Body. Even for one lazy Sunday. And please! – I’m not talking about illness and vacations. We don’t want the devil to win, especially when all that is required is putting on some modest clothes, washing our faces, combing our hair and using some gas in the car, or calling someone to pick us up, just showing up!! (Now I’ve opened up several more cans of worms!! Right? How are we to dress for church? That’s not a can of worms, it’s a red herring.)

You know, there are even pastor’s wives who don’t feel like going to church – on a given Sunday. I know how they feel. But, like most of them, I’m going to resist the temptation to give in to my feelings, ask God to help me, forgive me and get going!! Those Sundays are often more filled with joy, sometimes a learning experience, – aside from the sermon, – and generally God lets you know – when you’re open to the lesson, – that you’ve done what’s pleasing in His sight.

(There are even some pastor’s wives who don’t even go the church where their husband is the pastor – but that’s another topic! – well … maybe not!!)

To build anything takes commitment and steadfastness. A family, a child’s life (– it’s health – physical and emotion, it’s education,) a career, a relationship, a reputation, a resume – anything!

Building a church, even if it is well established, always growing, always in transition – especially a church plant or re-plant – at times requires sacrifice. But attending on Sunday and making a further commitment to weekday evening study or morning prayer group is not a sacrifice – it’s your reasonable service. Our whole life is to be a sacrifice but the benefits outweigh the sacrifice. Romans 12 – beginning to end – is one of our best condensed guides for living. But again, we don’t do it alone. There are so many on our side here on earth that our gratitude should outweigh any desire to “feel the need” before we can exercise our weekly obedience in attending worship. And no! – “… if you knew what it was like at our church, you’d understand!” isn’t the point. I probably do know, but staying away isn’t an obedient option.

Boy, am I going to be in trouble!!! Pastor’s wives (old school!) are only supposed to try and teach Sunday school, crafts and the odd teenager!!!! (and all teenagers are odd!)

Every church has one of these, but not for too long. They leave.

I recently had the unpleasant experience of trying to reason with a person who was behaving in ways similar to another individual, in a different congregation, a few years ago. They share these things in common. Both are self-published authors. Both strongly dislike the 16th Century theologian John Calvin (they believe he is a false teacher), although neither of them have read anything he wrote. Both now avoid attachment to any local church. Both get most of their information from the internet. Both see any disagreement with their beliefs as divisive, no matter how disagreement is expressed or presented. And, as well, they both cite Titus 3:10 for support when they cut off all communication with anyone who disagrees with them.

Their attitudes have nothing to do with formal education. They just prefer to be self-taught but both lack discernment in the content they choose to believe.

They are frustrating to speak to, or to exchange email or letters with, because they are solidly of the “my mind is made up so do not confuse me with facts” cohort.

The problem is that they try to disguise their ignorance as certainty.

They are unable to see the damage they cause to the gospel of Jesus Christ because of their intransigence. Much of what they so fervently believe is open to theological discussion and debate. When they remove themselves from a local church they also isolate their beliefs and behavior from the mutual accountability which must exist in any church, for its corporate wellbeing and for the spiritual health and growth of its individual members.

The tragedy is that they do not stay around long enough to be taught because they have become unteachable. What they call ministry is always on their terms and with their content.

Your church may have one of them. But they will soon leave. Just disagree with them.

The beginning of a new year brings new beginnings for governments. In Canada the House of Commons returns from a holiday break. In 2011 the United States sets a new Congress and an altered Senate to work.

This is a good time to consider the character of the men and women who are elected to public office, at any level. Just as the Ark of the Covenant held the stone tablets with the laws for God’s people, so the arc of the government identifies how people elected to public office usually live out their mandate. It is a four-step process.

The first step is the recognition of the candidate’s principles. Principles can be neutral, positive or negative, but whatever the candidate believes in ought to guide and govern whatever they do from the point of seeking and accepting the role of a candidate.

The second step is the presentation of the candidate’s promises of what they will do if nominated or elected. Promises should come from the candidate’s principles but at times the temptation cannot be resisted to make promises the candidate knows they cannot keep, which immediately undermines their declared principle of honesty. The arc continues.

The third step is being elected, which moves the candidate from principles through promises into power. It does not matter if the candidate’s new title is Board Member, Councillor, Mayor, Member of Parliament, Representative, Senator or President. With every elected office comes some level and form of power and privilege. This is the apotheosis in the arc of the government. To the elected man or woman acquiring and exercising power usually becomes addictive. Power becomes something to be retained and, if possible, increased, which leads to the final unfortunate step in this arc.

The final resting place of the elected person’s principles and promises is in the morass called pragmatism. Whatever undergirding principles guided the candidate to make their promises to get elected are now trumped by pragmatism. Self-serving pragmatism becomes the only principle and promise that will now be employed to ensure that power is maintained and hopefully enlarged.

Pragmatism is used to excuse the violation of principles and the breaking of promises. Rare indeed is the elected man or woman who will relinquish their power for the sake of their principles and promises.

The arc of the government explains why elected persons rate so low in any poll or survey on trust.

Pragmatism often tramples the truth. Perhaps any oath of office should include a declaration to be faithful to all of the principles and promises which brought the candidate to power. It might make for slightly better government, at every level.

Perhaps.

This September weekend marking the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy has been almost overshadowed by the plans of a pastor to hold a public burning of the Koran, which he then decided he would not do, although The New York Daily News reported that one unidentified man did burn some pages of the Koran near Ground Zero.

Christians have a mixed history when it comes to burning books, sometimes with unfortunate results. Those who think it is a justifiable act presume that there is biblical support for such behavior, citing events at Ephesus recorded in The Acts of the Apostles by Dr. Luke. In Acts 19:19 he writes that a number of people who had been involved in occultic practices became Christians and decided to hold a public burning of their books and materials which contained incantations and instructions for carrying out rituals of magic.

As a caution to any Christians who now believe this justifies public burning of the Koran or any other objectionable writings it would be wise to consider two important facts in the account in Acts.

First, the burning of the occultic books was not a planned, organized event staged for the purpose of publicity. It was instead a spontaneous and public demonstration of repentance. The new Christians were saying to the city, “This is what we were, but now we are something else. This is what we followed but now we follow someone else”.

The second fact is just as important. The people in Ephesus burned their own books. They did not go and gather up the books of those who continued with the practices they had now abandoned. They did not go and collect the writings of any other religions. They simply burned their own stuff.

A number of years ago, following a sermon in which I encouraged parents to know what their children were reading one of the sheep approached me, angry, demanding to know why I had not called on parents to burn the Harry Potter books. I replied that I held a degree in literary criticism and did not really hold with book burning. He became even more angry and removed himself, his ewe and his lambs from the congregation and went off to find a new sheepfold.

There are times when it may be appropriate for you to destroy harmful writings, but only if, like the people in Ephesus, you also are engaged in a true act of repentance, and the only things you burn are your own.

We were away for a few days due to being inattentive to the complexities of forgetting important things while relaxing by the ocean shore. Now, serious efforts will be made to actually write and post pieces which will hopefully, bless, annoy, challenge and build you up.

There used to be fewer labels to define the church. Really, how far in the past is it necessary to regress to find only Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox? Well, maybe a few hundred years. But there were not that many subsets until the early part of the last century. First came liberal, and then fundamentalist, followed not long after by the much misunderstood and even abused label of evangelicalism. During evangelicalism’s formative years the names of Harold Ockenga, Nelson Bell, Billy Graham, Carl Henry and Charles Fuller were seen and heard together in their cumulative efforts to encourage a movement that was biblically and academically sound and culturally acceptable.It worked for a few years.

Now getting past middle age, evangelicalism is thinning out  as it becomes drained by all of its divergent streams. Seeker, emerging, Emergent, reformed, charismatic, prosperity, monastic, traditional, contemporary, Third Wave, and more recently, the Third Way, all of them trying to maintain some semblance of connection with evangelicalism.

Perhaps the most revealing and bogus claim for evangelicalism came a few years ago from the soon-to-be-disgraced president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Ted Haggard, who made the remarkable statement that evangelicalism embraced everyone from Benny Hinn to R. C. Sproul. In attempting to hold up these two men as representatives of diversity within evangelicalism Haggard, as the pastor of a megachurch, displayed his own theological shallowness, and the sad condition of a movement which apparently had no one better to wave its flag.

We need something better. We need something more akin to what Thomas Oden calls the “new ecumenism”, with unity built on truth rather than image. Maybe we do not need evangelicalism any longer, but we do need something better.

Last weekend a wedding was scheduled in Vancouver, British Columbia. The bride and groom are from Colorado. The officiant, the “pastor” who was to conduct the ceremony is a dummy, well a ventriloquist’s dummy to be exact.

The puppet’s name is Butch and his master is a childrens’ entertainer named Maralee Dawn. On her hugely self-promoting website she claims to air her program on so many channels and networks around the world that you have likely heard of her already. She also claims to be ordained by the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada.

News reports revealed that the provincial government, which certifies all persons who are qualified to perform marriages, was not thrilled about the impending nuptials being overseen by Butch. Apparently the dummy does not hold a certificate to perform marriages, and he would not qualify for one because he is too young anyway.

There are too many disturbing things about this to go into all of them but a couple are worth consideration. First, why do evangelicals do things like this? is it for promotion, attention, or because they have a misguided sense of how to engage the culture? Second, why is the government having to step into this when the ordaining body should be stepping in with a cautionary word.

And third, the bride, the groom, the puppeteer and Butch: which one really deserves the tag of “dummy”?

There’s something not quite right about sheep running. They’re not built for speed or agility and usually there’s some degree of confusion about directions. So it’s best not to be in their path when they stampede. You likely won’t die but you may have a lot of small dents if you are trampled by sheep.

When the sheep are people who make up the congregation of a church you don’t want to be in harm’s way when they start to roll.

This is a place for pastors and other church leaders who have been, or are in danger of being, trampled by sheep. Let’s admit up front that there are too many shepherds out there who have in some way abused the sheep. They have misled them, mistreated them, and tragically sometimes destroyed them. There are several good places for those sheep to receive help and support when they have been the victims. This, however, is intended to be a shelter for the shepherds and other leaders who have found that somehow their lives have been changed by sheep who are out of control.

And that’s usually the reason why the sheep get a shepherd in their sights and take a run at him or her. It’s about control.

The book which is supposed to guide and govern Christian churches, the Bible, is unequivocal about leadership. Depending on context the same Greek word can be translated as “pastor” or, more often as “shepherd”.  In the Bible Jesus calls himself “the good shepherd”. He is also called “that great shepherd of the sheep.” Pastors and elders are “under shepherds”. All Christians are simply “the sheep”. There’s a reason for this. Sheep need care, nurture, protection and leadership, and these are all the responsibilities of the shepherds. When some, a few, or many of the sheep decide to ignore this biblical model it may turn bad and lead to someone being trampled by the sheep.

The other victim of sheep in a woolly stampede is truth. Truth is being trampled under hooves in the Christian church today in alarming ways, through books, magazines, journals, conferences, seminars, radio, television and internet broadcasts, and by some ungodly shepherds.

There are lots of warning signs when the sheep are restless. Learn to recognize those signs and maybe a stampede can be averted.

Comments, stories, debate, disagreements and arguments are welcome.