Dr. Charles (Chuck) Gutenson is a church consultant andformer Chief Operating Officer of Sojourners. He previously served 10 years atAsbury Seminary in Kentucky, most recently as the professor of Theology andPhilosophy. He received an M.Div. from Asbury in 1995 and a PhD inPhilosophical Theology from Southern Methodist University in 2000. A member ofthe International Society of Theta Phi, an honor society for theological students, scholars in the field of religion and outstanding religious leaders,Chuck is the author of three books (one forthcoming) and numerous articles on avariety of theological and philosophical articles.

Church Up Worth Getting For

By Charles E. Gutenson

Abingdon Press

Copyright © 2013 Charles E. Gutenson
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-4267-5775-4

Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………11. Putting Jesus Back at the Center………………………………….72. The Value of Authenticity………………………………………..153. The Big Six…………………………………………………….254. Radical Hospitality……………………………………………..375. Rebalancing…………………………………………………….476. Focus, Focus, Focus……………………………………………..637. Right Belief, Right Practice: Equal Partners?………………………758. Moving beyond the Sacred/Secular Distinction……………………….859. Go and Make Disciples!…………………………………………..9510. Using All the Tools…………………………………………….10511. Moving Forward with Hope………………………………………..115Notes…………………………………………………………….125About the Author…………………………………………………..132

CHAPTER 1

Putting Jesus Backat the Center

When people say: “I would like to have a coke, please,” do theyreally mean they want that brand of soda known as Coca-Cola? Or, byasking for a “coke,” are they merely intending to ask for a soda, usingthe term “coke” as a generic for soda or soft drink? Often, we reallydon’t know without asking. Have you ever thought about how much ofa marketing advantage it is for the manufacturers of Coca-Cola to havetheir brand, “coke,” as the generic term used for soft drink or soda? Oneof the biggest obstacles to the success of a new consumer product is thecreation of brand awareness for that product. You can’t buy a productyou don’t know exists—no matter how good it may be. So, all productmanufacturers strive to have the brand of their product line become ahousehold word, recognizable by almost everyone. Other brands thathave become synonymous with specific product lines include: Xerox(copy company or for copies); Q-tip (cotton swab manufacturer orthe swabs on a small stick); Sea-Doo (the company or the generic forjet ski); Jello (the brand or generic for gelatin dessert); and Jacuzzi (thebrand or generic for hot tub). There is no guarantee that such brandrecognition will result in success. The product still has to be a goodone, but such brand recognition creates enormous opportunities forthese companies, which is evidenced by the huge sums of money theyspend to create and preserve a high level of brand recognition.

Now, before we get too much further into this discussion, let meagain assure the reader that my goal is not to identify some clever marketingscheme that will transform churches so that they seem a “superiorconsumer choice” to the other Sunday morning alternatives. While Istrongly resist going in that direction, the challenges we face are broughtinto sharp relief when we consider the concepts of branding and brandrecognition. What sort of “brand experience” do folks have withchurch—generally speaking? It’s really quite a mixed bag, isn’t it? If thebrand experience of the church is loosely defined as the sum total of allinteractions with “the church,” then we are going to get answers that fallacross the spectrum. However, what studies show us is that the youngerdemographic (those under thirty-five, for example) are increasingly findingthat their brand experience of church is either neutral (“yeah, churchis okay, it’s just irrelevant”) or negative (“I’ve had enough of church,I quit”). In other words, the church has very high brand recognition(folks know what church is). However, when you look at the long-termhealth of the church, neutral or, perhaps more commonly, bad brandexperiences create significant concern. Because of bad brand experiences,the brand image of the church (again, speaking generically) is perceivedquite negatively.

In a later chapter, we will discuss the perceptions that personshave of Christians and our church. Here, however, we will summarizequickly. In a study published by Kinnaman and Lyons, the threemost common terms or phrases people used to identify Christians(and by implication, the church) were: hypocritical, judgmental, andanti homosexual. In other words, the “brand image” (brand imageis a mental construct made to capture the experiences and expectationsassociated with a particular brand) of the church in general andChristians in particular leaves rather a lot to be desired. Let’s come atthis from a somewhat different angle and see what we can learn from it.

Consider the following little experiment (or, better yet, conduct ityourself). Let’s imagine that mid-morning in some large U.S. city, wewander out to poll anyone who will stop long enough for us to ask onequestion. That one question is this:

Of all the people who have ever lived, who would you consider tobe the three greatest?

Word the question in that particular way—not who are the most influentialor not who are the best known (since either of these would likelyallow folks to include persons who have had negative impacts). Whodo you think would be candidates for such a list? Alexander the Great?Socrates or Plato? Copernicus? Newton or Einstein? I’ll make the followingprediction: in the overwhelming number of cases, Jesus will belisted as one of the top three. In those cases where he is mentioned, hewill most often be named as the greatest person ever to live. To use ourearlier terms, I am sure we would find not only that Jesus has excellent”brand recognition” but also that he has an overwhelmingly positive”brand image.” I wonder what to make of that?

Let’s imagine you were able to get a few more minutes with severalof the persons who agreed to take our one-question poll. Imagine theywere willing to answer one more question:

Why do you think Jesus was one of the greatest people of all time?

What sorts of answers do you suppose you would hear? A vague affirmationof his teachings? We would probably hear that answer withsome frequency. Perhaps people would focus on his call to love all thosearound us, most especially our enemies. Perhaps they would focuson his affirmation of the value of each and every person by the wayin which he invited all into relationship with himself. Some wouldname his utterly unselfish way of living. There would be a variety ofanswers you would get to this question, but one thing of which youcan rest assured is this: the answers would run in precisely the oppositedirection from the criticisms of the church mentioned above. In otherwords, while the Christian church and Jesus would both have very highbrand recognition, their brand image would be very, very different. Thedifference is captured in a quote often attributed to Ghandi: “I loveyour Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlikeyour Christ.” And, there you have it in its most succinct form—manylove Jesus and their perception of his life and values, but they look at usChristians and our churches and they see a huge disconnect. What’s upwith that? Well, the short answer is: to be worth getting up for, we inthe church need a major reboot, with the result that the life and behaviorsof Jesus return to the center of what following Jesus is all about.Only then can we expect a culture tired of those who play at religion tosit up and pay attention to the good news.

Unfortunately, too often our answer to the different perceptionsbetween Jesus and the Christian church is framed in a self-serving way.For example, I recall one author arguing that there really was no differencebetween Jesus and his church. Instead, he argued that Ghandihad created a Jesus of his own making, a Jesus that was not particularlybiblical. It’s no wonder Ghandi preferred that Christ, the argumentcontinued, but we Christians don’t need to take this criticism seriously.I suppose the conclusion we are supposed to draw is that Ghandi, andthose like him, really should dislike both Jesus and the church. Is it thecase that there are those who have created a perception of Jesus thatreally is just a “tamed down” version of the biblical Jesus? Is it possiblethat the Jesus so admired by some really is quite disconnected from thereal Jesus? Of course, it is possible, perhaps even likely. However, beforewe dust off our hands, comfortable that we have undermined this particularcriticism, we need to think much more deeply. Perhaps there aresome other reasons for the fact that folks have such divergent views ofthe church and its Lord and Founder. And, maybe, just maybe, there issome validity to the fact that people love Jesus, but feel very differentlyabout many who claim to be his followers.

Before moving on, it is worth noting one likely reason that some feelthat popular conceptions of Jesus are constructs that are quite differentfrom the biblical Jesus. Those who “love Jesus but hate the church”tend to focus on Jesus’ behaviors, the ways in which he engaged thosearound him: loving them, healing them, feeding them, offering themhope. Those on the other side tend to focus more on doctrine andbeliefs. The former see Jesus most fundamentally defined by his interactionsand relationships, the things that he did and the ways in whichhe related to others. The latter see Jesus most fundamentally definedby the theological statements the church developed and affirmed abouthim. One side can’t imagine why it would matter what you believeabout Jesus if you are not engaged in a life that looks like his. The other,because of its firm commitment to salvation by faith alone, too easilyoverlooks the significance of a life that imitates Christ. Both sides havea point, for sure. However, at a time when the disconnect between Jesusand his followers is so great, we need to be much quicker in listeningand acting on the criticisms and slower to feel the need to engage inself-justification. So, when critics of the church say that Christians donot look very much like Jesus, what exactly do they mean?

To begin with, Jesus was quite a bit different from the vast majorityof Christians today. How so? Jesus saved his harshest criticism forthe religious community, and even then, the strongest criticisms weresaved for religious leaders. Today, we Christians seem obsessed withthe culture at large, identifying its every flaw, blaming it for many ofthe problems that we face in the church, and we are often unwilling toaccept our own contributions to those problems. We assume a “victim”mentality, sure that the culture at large is out to get us. Failing to realizeour own shortcomings makes us the perfect target for a portrayalof us as self-righteous and unserious. We select “hot button” moralissues, mostly ones of which we perceive ourselves to be innocent, andwe make them central to our critique of the culture around us. Thatmoral agenda often looks thin and self-serving to the culture, and theyconclude we Christians are hypocritical and judgmental—often quiterightly so. We would do well to heed Jesus’ words to tend to the log inour own eye before worrying about the splinter in the eye of the culture.Or, perhaps we need more to “love the sinner and hate our ownsin.” Instead, we are perceived as excusing our own sin and hatingthe sinner, worried more about looking like we have it together thanin expressing grace and mercy to those who readily admit they do not.

The Gospel writers remind us repeatedly about the temptationsto become judgmental and self-righteous. Jesus points it out in theSermon on the Mount with the log/splinter reference. In addition,the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector makes the point withsome force. The Pharisee would have been the epitome of all that wasreligious, and he did not fail to point that out to God in his prayer,recorded in Luke 18. He reminded God of all his good behaviors, eventaking time to thank God that he was not like the despised tax collector.On the other hand, the tax collector as the representative of theworst of the worst merely prays for mercy. The outcome? The recitationof good behaviors benefits the Pharisee not a bit, and we are told it isthe tax collector who leaves the synagogue accepted by God. In thefourth chapter of his Gospel, Luke has the audacity to place the firstdemon exorcism right in the middle of the synagogue. N. T. Wrightsuggests that Luke is trying to convey a central theme in Jesus’ ministry:quit worrying about those outside the walls of the gathering placeof God’s people and focus instead on being faithful to God’s call onyou. Re-centering on Jesus will mean spending less time critiquingthe culture and more time in a self-critique that brings our lives intocloser alignment with that of Jesus.

The culture also finds disconnect between Jesus and the churchregarding the positions from which we engage in ministry. In short,where did Jesus spend all his time? He was forever among the poor, thelame, those marginalized for one reason or the other. He hung out withthe sinners, with the tax collectors (even taking one for a disciple!),with those the religious would have considered outsiders. I remembera friend saying to me once, quite well-intentioned, that he couldnever hang out at the bars, even if for ministry. He was afraid thatfolks would assume he was one of “them.” Jesus seemed not so worriedabout that, obviously convinced that his presence among the sinnerswould do them more good than they could possibly do him harm. So,when the critics of church point out how different we are from ourLord, they notice how we do ministry from a place of comfort.

Some of us wander onto the margins from time to time, visitingbriefly the kinds of situations and circumstances in which Jesus madehis home. And while I affirm the ministries that engage the marginson a short-term basis, the critics of church notice how little we reallyhave invested there. Chris Seay, pastor of Ecclesia Church in Houston,Texas, made this point beautifully to me with the following story. Itseems he and his family had relocated to a new part of town to begina new church. The church building was also where he and his familylived. One evening, he went out for a moment and noticed what hedescribed as the tallest group of women he had ever seen. When hegot closer, though, he realized they weren’t women at all, but rathertransvestite prostitutes. Before I could ask anything about it, he said,”Well, what could I do? I invited them in for coffee.” To re-center onJesus, we must become more known for our ministry from and on themargins, rather than to the margins.

The shortest way to make the overall point is this: if we want to bea church worth getting up for, we will need to close the perceived gapbetween Jesus and the church. We are going to have to look a lot morelike Jesus and spend less time talking about what we believe about Jesus.Jesus fed the poor and hung out with sinners. His parables tell of restoringthe marginalized to communion and fellowship with God’s people.He called people to unflinching commitment to God that costs oneeverything, but he made that call while modeling that sort of commitmenthimself. Jesus told his followers to love everyone, even their enemies,and loving them did not mean having the warm fuzzies for them.It meant willing their best and participating in making that a reality.None were unreachable to Jesus. Just as God blessed both the evil andthe good, so are we to be a blessing to all without regard to merit.

Our Lord has remarkable brand recognition and overwhelminglypositive brand perception. If we church people really want tosee renewal, really want to become a part of a church worth getting upfor, the answer is near to us. We must re-center around Jesus, particularlyhis life and behaviors—be not just willing but actually pouringourselves out for those around us. We must make a space for those weconsider to be most unlike us. Even more, we must make a space at thetable for those we consider our enemies, creating that space for others,not from a place of comfort, but rather taking up space alongside thevery people Jesus did. Do we want to stop the criticisms of the church?Do we want to undermine the claim that Christians are not like Christ?All we have to do is start to become more like him, but therein liesthe rub, doesn’t it? To take seriously the call to be imitators of Jesus isa deeply scary thing. Who will protect me, if I take up space on themargins of life? Who will make sure that my family does not suffer if Itake on such a potentially dangerous location for ministry?

You know, I really have no answers to those questions. I can say theanswer Jesus gave. He said that all who had given up things in this lifewould receive them back one hundred times in the next. Beyond citingJesus, I have nothing to offer. At times, I think the question is notwhether or not we can create churches worth getting up for. Instead,the real question is: how badly do we want to have churches worthgetting up for? Enough to imitate Jesus? Enough to suffer discomfortand social dislocation? Enough to participate with God in the buildingof churches that turn our normal conceptions upside down? Arethere a few intrepid souls willing to wander down this path? If so, if wecan convince ourselves to take these radical steps, perhaps God will begracious and send a few souls our way. Because, remember, at the endof the day, ministry of this sort is every bit as critical to our own salvationas it is to those to whom we minister. Let’s do a massive churchreboot—one that puts the life of Jesus at the center. Let’s take that firststep toward becoming a church worth getting up for!
(Continues…)Excerpted from Church Up Worth Getting For by Charles E. Gutenson. Copyright © 2013 Charles E. Gutenson. Excerpted by permission of Abingdon Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.