Church and Culture

What Has Institutional Success Done to the Church?

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

Questions About Multisite Churches, Institutional Spending, Consumerism, and Accountability

Over the past several posts, I have been examining eleven questions I have been asking myself about the contemporary church.

I began with questions about church leadership and then turned to questions about what happens when the church gathers. 

Four questions remain:

  1. Are multisite campuses a desire to grow God’s kingdom—or the senior pastor’s kingdom?
  2. How biblical is it for as much as 50 percent—or more—of a church’s giving to support buildings, maintenance, utilities, and staff?
  3. Has the contemporary church fostered a consumer mentality rather than genuine discipleship?
  4. Why is the contemporary church so reluctant to practice church discipline?

These may appear to be four separate issues, but I believe they belong together. Each one raises a larger question: What happens when preserving and growing the institution becomes more important than forming faithful disciples?

Once again, I am not asking these questions as someone standing outside the institutional church. I have spent more than thirty-five years as an insider. I have served as a senior pastor and district superintendent. I have made my living from the gospel for most of my adult life. I have not merely participated in these systems. I have benefited from them.

Neither am I suggesting that everything associated with institutional Christianity is necessarily wrong. Institutions can preserve important traditions, combine resources, support ministries, and accomplish things an individual congregation could never accomplish alone. But institutions also have a natural instinct for self-preservation. Over time, keeping the institution alive can become more important than fulfilling the mission for which the institution was created. That is the concern behind these four questions.

When Expansion Becomes the Mission

I understand the appeal of the multisite church model. We explored it in two of the congregations I served over the years. It can make good financial and missional sense, particularly when a larger congregation merges with a smaller or struggling one.

The larger church can provide financial resources, leadership, technology, administrative support, and ministry programs the smaller congregation could not sustain on its own. A struggling church may remain open, and a Christian presence may be preserved in a community where it might otherwise disappear. Those are good things.

Everyone wants to reach more people for Christ. At least, that is what we say our goal is. A multisite model can provide opportunities to reach people in different communities while avoiding the expense of duplicating every administrative function. I appreciate the concept.

Still, I find myself asking a question: Why not call the new location a church plant? If the goal is to establish a congregation that makes disciples and reaches its community, why must it remain a campus of the larger church? Why must it retain the larger congregation’s name, organizational identity, ministry system, and usually its primary preacher?

Does the campus have local leadership with meaningful authority? Is it being prepared to become a self-governing congregation? Is the goal to reproduce healthy churches—or to extend the reach of one church’s brand? And, perhaps most uncomfortably, is the goal to grow God’s kingdom or our kingdom?

I am not suggesting that every multisite church is driven by ego or control. That would be an unfair judgment about motives I cannot know. Some multisite churches are undoubtedly reaching people and doing meaningful ministry.

But the model deserves examination. Bigger is not necessarily better. Expansion is not necessarily multiplication. Increasing the audience of one gifted communicator is not necessarily the same thing as forming a new congregation with mature local leaders.

Perhaps the real test is not how many campuses a church has but what kind of disciples and leaders those campuses are producing. If every campus remains dependent upon the personality, preaching, and authority of one senior pastor, have we planted churches—or merely expanded a platform?

When Maintaining the Church Consumes the Church

I am writing this while attending the General Conference of my denomination, the Evangelical Methodist Church. As part of that meeting, I have been looking at financial information from our congregations. The numbers raise difficult questions.

In many smaller churches, more than 50 percent of the congregation’s giving is allocated to pastoral support. Once denominational support, insurance, utilities, maintenance, and other facility expenses are added, as much as 80 percent of the church’s income may already be committed. That leaves very little margin for ministry and outreach.

This is not an argument against paying pastors. Scripture clearly supports those who receive their living from the gospel. As one who has received his living from the gospel for most of his adult life, it would be more than a little hypocritical for me to suggest otherwise.

Nor is it an argument against maintaining church property. Buildings require electricity, insurance, repairs, and upkeep. Those expenses are real and ignoring them does not make them disappear.

The problem is not that churches have expenses. The problem is what happens when almost everything a congregation receives is required simply to keep the congregation operating. At what point does maintaining the church consume the church?

We regularly say, “The church is not a building.” Our budgets, however, sometimes tell another story. They may reveal that maintaining the building, supporting the staff, and preserving the organization have become our highest priorities.

Again, I understand how this happens. A congregation loves its pastor. It values the building where generations have worshiped, married, baptized their children, and buried their loved ones. The building holds memories that cannot be measured on a financial statement. But a difficult question remains: If 80 percent of a church’s giving is required to maintain its staff, building, and denominational obligations, how much is left to feed the hungry, care for the poor, serve the community, support missions, and make disciples?

Perhaps an even harder question is this: Are we supporting these things because they advance the mission, or has preserving them become the mission? The institution was created to support the ministry of the church. The ministry of the church was never intended merely to support the institution.

When Disciples Become Consumers

Church-hopping and church-shopping have become normal in the United States. When we want a strong children’s ministry, we look for the church with the best children’s ministry. When our children become teenagers, we search for the church with the largest youth group, the most activities, the best facilities, or the most dynamic youth pastor.

I have watched this happen in churches I served. Families would participate in our children’s ministry, but once their children became teenagers, they migrated to the bigger church because it offered more opportunities for their teens.

I understand the impulse. Parents want their children to enjoy church. They want them to build Christian friendships, learn the faith, and have experiences that will encourage them to follow Christ. Confession: I’ve got teenage grandchildren. I want the same for them.

But I have begun to wonder whether we parents (and grandparents) have abdicated our responsibility for our children’s faith development to the professionals. We have outsourced discipleship.

We began to believe our children needed a professional children’s minister, a professional youth minister, and a full calendar of religious activities more than they needed parents who prayed with them, opened Scripture with them, worshiped beside them, served with them, and demonstrated a life of faith before them.

Churches have helped create this expectation. We compete for families by offering more programs, better facilities, larger events, and specialized ministries for every age and stage of life. In the process, we can unintentionally communicate that discipleship is something religious professionals provide for us. That is what consumerism does. It changes the question.

Instead of asking, “Where is God calling us to belong, serve, sacrifice, and grow?” we ask, “Which church offers the most for me and my family?”

The church becomes another provider of goods and services, which happen to be religious in nature. Worship becomes something we attend. Ministry becomes something the staff performs. Discipleship becomes another program we consume. And when another church offers a better product, we move.

I am not opposed to children’s or youth ministry. I am grateful for those who invest in children and teenagers. But no church program can replace the role of parents (and grandparents) in the spiritual formation of their children. The church should equip parents for that responsibility, not encourage them to surrender it. Have we become so focused on attracting families that we have forgotten how to form them?

When Accountability Threatens Attendance

Consumer Christianity also helps explain why church discipline has largely disappeared. No one seems to be accountable anymore—morally or theologically. We are reluctant to address destructive behavior because we do not want to appear judgmental. After all, we are all sinners. We are afraid of being hypocritical, unloving, or legalistic.

Those concerns are understandable. Church discipline has sometimes been practiced harshly, selectively, and publicly. Certain sins have been exposed while others were excused. Ordinary members have been disciplined while influential leaders were protected. What was supposed to produce restoration sometimes produced humiliation instead. We should repent of those abuses.

But the misuse of church discipline does not eliminate the need for loving accountability. “We are all sinners” is a reason to practice accountability humbly. It is not a reason to abandon accountability altogether.

The New Testament vision of the church is not a gathering of people who mind their own business while sitting near one another for an hour each week. It is a community whose members belong to one another. They encourage, teach, correct, forgive, restore, and bear with one another. That kind of life requires accountability.

Of course, accountability becomes difficult when people relate to the church primarily as consumers. Consumers do not expect to be corrected by the businesses they patronize. If they become dissatisfied, they take their business somewhere else. Church leaders know this.

If we challenge someone’s behavior, question a theological conviction, or call for repentance, that person may leave. Their family may leave with them. Their giving may leave too. They will probably find another church down the road that asks fewer questions. The temptation is to remain silent. But a church that is afraid to lose people will eventually become afraid to disciple people.

Biblical accountability is not about controlling people, policing every failure, or pretending some of us have risen above the need for grace. It is about loving one another enough to tell the truth and walking with one another toward restoration.

Perhaps the disappearance of church discipline reveals something deeper. Meaningful accountability requires meaningful belonging. It is difficult to hold one another accountable when relationships are shallow, attendance is optional, and participation consists primarily of watching a few people conduct a service. Church discipline cannot be separated from church community. We cannot expect accountability from people who have never been taught that they belong to one another.

What Are We Actually Building?

Multisite campuses, church buildings, paid pastors, denominational structures, children’s programs, youth ministries, and organizational growth are not inherently wrong. Each can serve the mission of the church. The danger comes when these things cease to serve the mission and quietly become the mission.

A church can have multiple campuses, excellent facilities, strong programs, growing attendance, and a substantial budget while failing to form people who live under the lordship of Jesus. A smaller congregation can devote nearly all its resources to preserving its pastor, property, and programs while having little margin left for the ministry it is trying to preserve.

Both may be institutionally successful—or at least institutionally committed—without necessarily being faithful to the mission Jesus gave His church. Perhaps the most important question is not whether our churches are growing, adequately funded, programmatically successful, or institutionally secure. Perhaps the question is whether our life together is forming people who look more like Jesus.

Are we making disciples—or merely attracting attenders? Are we multiplying churches—or extending brands? Are our resources supporting ministry—or is ministry supporting the institution? Are we forming children in the faith—or outsourcing their discipleship? Are we loving one another enough to practice humble, restorative accountability—or are we too afraid someone might leave?

Institutions have a way of convincing us that their survival is essential to the kingdom of God. It is not. The kingdom existed before our institutions, and it will remain long after they are gone.

The church must always be willing to ask whether its structures are helping fulfill the mission of Jesus or hindering it. Everything else—our buildings, budgets, programs, positions, campuses, and denominational systems—must remain secondary to that purpose.

We should not be asking only whether the institution is succeeding. We should be asking what its success is producing.

No Easy Answers

I know. I’ve raised a lot of questions. Many of which have no answer. Or, the answer will be different in every congregation. 

I haven’t asked these questions to condemn anyone or anything. I asked them of myself as one who leads in the institution. I just asked them out loud in the hopes that other leaders might ask themselves, and in so doing, that we might all be more faithful in our leadership.

As usual, my questions only raise more questions. Perhaps they did for you, too. I’d love for you to share your questions with me. Leave them in the comments below.

Until next time, keep looking up…

What Happened to the Church Gathering?

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

Questions About Participation, Preaching, Communion, and the One-Hour Worship Service

Fair warning: This post is longer than most. I’m supposed to be writing a blog, not a book. Even so, these four questions belong together, so I hope you will persevere to the end.

In my last post, I considered three questions about church leadership: the role of the senior pastor, denominational hierarchy, and professionalized ministry.

Today, I want to turn from who leads the church to what happens when the church gathers.

Four of my original eleven questions belong together:

  1. Is the church supposed to be a gathering of non-participants?
  2. When did church gatherings become sermon-centered?
  3. When did the church lose its weekly commitment to the Lord’s Supper?
  4. Were early church gatherings limited to one hour?

Once again, I am not standing outside the church criticizing what everyone else is doing. I have planned and led more worship services than I could possibly count. I have selected songs, prepared sermons, written liturgies, scheduled volunteers, administered Communion, and watched the clock—yes, that clock that hangs above the back door.

I have worried about whether the service flowed smoothly. I have shortened parts of the service when I knew my sermon would be long. I have felt the pressure to finish on time. I have also stood at the door after worship hoping people were pleased with what they experienced.

I am not questioning practices in which I have merely participated. I am questioning practices I have helped create and continue to perpetuate. That doesn’t necessarily make those practices wrong. It does mean I should be willing to examine them.

Is the Church Supposed to Be a Gathering of Non-Participants?

Most churches say they want people to participate. We invite people to sing, pray, give, serve, and respond to the sermon. Even so, most of what happens during a typical worship service is performed by a relatively small group of people.

The pastor preaches. The worship team sings. The musicians play. Designated people pray, read Scripture, make announcements, receive the offering, and serve Communion. Everyone else watches, listens, and participates when instructed.

There are practical reasons for that arrangement. A worship gathering needs order. Not everyone is gifted to preach, sing, teach, or lead publicly. Giving everyone an opportunity to say whatever is on their mind could produce something closer to chaos than worship.

Paul certainly valued order. When addressing the church in Corinth, he instructed them that everything should be done properly and in order. But the same passage also presents a picture of participation that feels unfamiliar to many of us:

“When you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must strengthen all of you.” (1 Corinthians 14:26 NLT)

Whatever else we make of that passage, Paul seems to assume that different members of the congregation will contribute something when the church gathers.

That reflects his larger understanding of the church as a body. Every member has a function. Every member has received gifts from the Spirit. Every member has something to contribute to the health and mission of the whole. How, then, did the gathering of the church become an event in which most people are spectators?

Perhaps part of the answer is that our gatherings became larger. Participation that might occur naturally in a home becomes more difficult in a room filled with hundreds or thousands of people.

Perhaps another part of the answer is our desire for excellence and predictability. We want the music rehearsed, the transitions smooth, the message prepared, and the service completed on time. Spontaneous participation is difficult to plan, control, and fit into the order of worship.

Again, none of those concerns is necessarily wrong. Preparation can honor God and serve the congregation. Disorder does not automatically indicate the presence of the Holy Spirit. But has our desire for order gradually eliminated meaningful participation? Have we unintentionally taught people that their role in worship is to arrive, sit down, sing when invited, listen to the sermon, and go home?

Attending a worship service is not the same as participating in the body of Christ.

When Did Church Gatherings Become Sermon-Centered?

I need to tread carefully here. I am a preacher. Preaching has been central to my calling and ministry for more than thirty-five years. I believe in proclaiming the gospel. I believe Scripture should be read, taught, explained, and applied to our lives. This is not an argument against preaching. It is a question about the place preaching has come to occupy in our gatherings.

In many Protestant churches, the sermon is the defining feature of worship. Even the architecture of our sanctuaries communicates the significance of the sermon—we have “pulpit-centered” sanctuaries. Everything before the sermon prepares for it. Everything after the sermon responds to it. The length of the service is often determined by it. I have heard church members call everything leading up to the sermon “the preliminaries.” Worse, I’ve heard pastors call it that!

If the music is exceptional but the sermon is poor, people may say the service was disappointing. If the pastor is absent, attendance sometimes declines because people prefer to wait until “the preacher” returns.

I know because I have helped create that expectation. I have promoted worship by telling people what I would be preaching. I have encouraged church members to invite their friends to hear a particular sermon. I have sometimes acted as though the congregation gathered primarily to hear what I had to say. Preaching matters, but was the sermon intended to carry so much of the weight of the church’s life?

The earliest Christians devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching. Teaching clearly mattered. But they also devoted themselves to fellowship, sharing meals—including the Lord’s Supper—and prayer. The church gathered to hear the Word, but it also gathered to pray, eat, share, encourage, discern, testify, give, and care for one another. Somewhere along the way, many of those elements moved toward the margins while the sermon moved to the center.

Prayer was shortened. Testimony became unpredictable and occasionally uncomfortable. Conversation was moved to a Sunday school class or small group. Shared discernment was assigned to a committee or leadership board. The Lord’s Supper became an occasional addition to the regular service. The sermon remained.

Perhaps that happened because a sermon is efficient. One person can prepare during the week and speak to the whole congregation at once. It is easier to control than open participation. It fits neatly within the allotted time.

It also reinforces the centrality of the pastor. The pastor studies. The pastor hears from God. The pastor explains what the Bible means. The congregation receives what the pastor has prepared. That arrangement may produce informed listeners. But does it necessarily form mature disciples?

People can listen to thousands of sermons without learning to read Scripture for themselves, pray with one another, discern the Spirit’s direction, articulate their faith, or participate in Christ’s mission. The question is not whether we should preach. The question is whether we have asked preaching to do what the entire body of Christ was intended to do.

When Did the Church Lose Its Weekly Commitment to the Lord’s Supper?

This question may expose the imbalance more clearly than any of the others. The earliest Christians gathered regularly around the Table. Acts tells us that they devoted themselves to the breaking of bread. Acts 20 describes believers gathering on the first day of the week to break bread. Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians suggest that the Lord’s Supper was a normal part of their life together—even if they were observing it badly enough to require correction.

The evidence may not allow us to establish that every congregation celebrated Communion every week in precisely the same way. Still, the Table appears to have occupied a far more central place in the early church than it does in many churches today.

How did we arrive at a pattern in which the sermon is offered every week while the Lord’s Supper is offered once a month, once a quarter, or even (heaven help us!) once a year?

I grew up in a tradition that celebrated Communion quarterly. Later, monthly Communion became more common. In some churches, even monthly Communion can feel like an interruption to the regular order of worship—something that makes the service run long.

Think about what that communicates. We make room every week for the preacher’s words but only occasionally for the bread and the cup. At the Table, the focus shifts away from the preacher. We remember Christ’s death. We receive the signs of His grace. We confess our need. We gather not as customers evaluating a religious presentation but as sinners who come with empty hands.

Communion also reminds us that Christianity is not merely a private relationship between Jesus and me. We do not receive the bread and cup alone. We come to a shared Table as the body of Christ. Rich and poor come to the same Table. Young and old come to the same Table. Republicans and Democrats come to the same Table. Those who agree and those who struggle to understand one another come to the same Table. We receive the same grace because we share the same need.

Perhaps that is part of what we lost when the sermon became weekly and the Meal became occasional. The sermon can be evaluated individually: What did I learn? Did I enjoy it? Did it speak to me? The Table confronts us with a different reality. Christ gave Himself for us, and in Christ we belong to one another.

I am not suggesting that weekly Communion would automatically renew the church. We can participate in the Lord’s Supper thoughtlessly just as easily as we can listen to a sermon thoughtlessly. But perhaps the frequency of our practices reveals something about our priorities. What does it say when we consider thirty minutes of preaching essential but ten minutes at the Lord’s Table optional?

Were Early Church Gatherings Limited to One Hour?

Let me say immediately that longer services are not necessarily more spiritual. I have attended long worship services that were deeply meaningful. I have also attended long worship services that only felt long. A three-hour service can be every bit as lifeless as a one-hour service.

The issue is not simply how long we gather. The issue is why one hour has become the expected limit in so many churches.

We print the times on signs, websites, and social media. Worship begins at 10:30 and should end around 11:30. If the service goes fifteen minutes long, people begin looking at their watches. Parents become concerned about children. Restaurant plans are affected. Volunteers in the nursery wonder if they have been forgotten. I even had an uncle who was a member of one of my churches whose watch alarm went off promptly at noon every Sunday. Such a nice reminder for the preacher. And, from a family member, too…

Some of those concerns are legitimate. Time matters. People have responsibilities. Children have limits. Respecting people’s time can be an expression of hospitality. But our anxiety about time may reveal something deeper.

We routinely spend several hours at ball games, concerts, movies, festivals, and other activities we value. We arrive early. We stay late. We do not resent overtime when the experience matters to us. Yet an additional fifteen minutes in worship can feel like an unreasonable demand. Why?

Perhaps it is because we approach worship as one appointment among many. We have given God His hour, and we expect the church to honor the arrangement. The one-hour expectation also shapes what can happen when we gather. There is time for a few songs, announcements, an offering, a prayer, and a sermon. There may not be time for people to share what God is doing in their lives. There may not be time for extended prayer, silence, conversation, testimony, or discernment. There may not even be time for Communion unless something else is shortened. The schedule favors the predictable. It rewards efficiency. It makes participation difficult.

Again, the answer is not necessarily to make every service longer. Perhaps the answer is to ask whether everything the church needs to do when it gathers can—or should—be compressed into a single hour.

Maybe some of what we expect from Sunday morning needs to happen in smaller gatherings where people can know one another, pray for one another, confess to one another, bear one another’s burdens, and contribute their gifts.

The deeper concern is not the length of the service. It is whether our gatherings are structured primarily around convenience or around the formation of a people. Perhaps the deeper problem is that we have made the Sunday worship service virtually synonymous with the gathering of the church—and then tried to compress everything the church is called to be into that single hour.

The Church Is Not an Audience

I am not calling for the elimination of sermons, worship teams, planned services, or established times. I am asking whether our gatherings are accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish. Are people merely attending, or are they participating? Are sermons equipping people to engage Scripture and follow Jesus, or are they creating a congregation dependent upon the preacher?

Does the Lord’s Table occupy a central place in our life together, or has it become an occasional addition to a sermon-centered service? Does our use of time reflect thoughtful stewardship, or does the sixty-minute limit reveal how little room we have made for worship in our lives?

Perhaps we need to recover gatherings in which more members of the body have something meaningful to contribute. Perhaps we need more room for prayer, testimony, conversation, silence, discernment, and response. Perhaps we need to come to the Lord’s Table more frequently and remember that Christ—not the preacher—is the center of our gathering.

Not every congregation will answer these questions in the same way. A church of thirty people will gather differently from a church of three thousand. A congregation meeting in a home will have possibilities that a congregation meeting in a large sanctuary may not have.

The New Testament gives us principles without handing us a complete order of worship. That gives us freedom, but it also gives us responsibility. We are free to develop forms appropriate to our time, place, and circumstances. But we are responsible for asking what those forms are producing.

Perhaps the problem is not that we have sermons, planned worship, or an established order of service. Perhaps the problem is that the order has become so fixed, the sermon so dominant, and participation so limited that most people can attend church for years without ever believing they have anything meaningful to contribute to the gathered body. The church is not an audience. It is a body.

When the body gathers, every member may not speak, sing, preach, or lead. But every member should understand that they have been given grace, gifts, and responsibility for the good of the whole.

Once again, I have generated more questions than answers. Then again, I’m not the perfect pastor.

That doesn’t keep me from trying—or from asking more questions.

Until next time, keep looking up…

Who Leads the Church?

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

Questions About Senior Pastors, Denominational Hierarchy, and Professional Ministry

In my last post, I shared eleven questions I have been asking myself about the contemporary church. Today, I want to dig deeper into three of them:

  1. Is the senior pastor a truly biblical role?
  2. Is denominational hierarchy a biblical concept?
  3. Is professionalized ministry the biblical model?

These questions belong together because they all concern leadership—who leads the church, how that leadership is structured, and what leaders are supposed to do.

Once again, I need to acknowledge my complicity. I have been a senior pastor. I have been a district superintendent. I have worked for a denomination. I have received my living from the gospel for most of my adult life. I have not merely participated in these systems. I have benefited from them.

That doesn’t necessarily make the systems wrong. It does mean that I am not casting aspersions. I am questioning structures in which I have spent more than thirty-five years of my life.

Is the Senior Pastor a Truly Biblical Role?

The New Testament certainly recognizes leaders in the church. It speaks of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, elders, overseers, and deacons.

What I have trouble finding is anything that looks quite like the modern senior pastor.

In many churches, the senior pastor is the primary preacher, chief executive, vision-caster, staff supervisor, fundraiser, institutional manager, public face, and central spiritual authority. That is a lot to place on one person. I know. I have been that person (and I still am).

I have also helped create churches in which too much revolved around me. I was the primary preacher. I was expected to cast the vision. I was the one people called when they needed prayer, counsel, a hospital visit, a decision, or an answer.

Some of that came with the calling. Some of it came with the structure. Some of it probably came from my own need to feel important. That last one is difficult to admit.

The New Testament seems to picture leadership as more shared. Elders are generally spoken of in the plural. Spiritual gifts are distributed throughout the body. Every member has a function. No part can say to another, “I don’t need you.”

Does that mean having a senior pastor is inherently unbiblical? I’m not prepared to say that. But I am prepared to ask what happens when so much authority, visibility, and responsibility become concentrated in one person.

The pastor begins to carry expectations no human can fulfill. Preach well. Lead decisively. Counsel wisely. Visit faithfully. Manage effectively. Grow the church. Resolve conflict. Be available. Keep everyone happy. When the church grows, the pastor receives too much credit. When it declines, the pastor receives too much blame.

The congregation can also become dependent upon the pastor. The pastor prays. The pastor teaches. The pastor visits. The pastor evangelizes. The pastor hears from God and tells everyone else where the church is going. That may create an efficient institution, but does it create a healthy body?

Perhaps the problem is not that churches have senior pastors. Perhaps the problem is that the senior pastor has become the center of gravity around which the congregation revolves. Christ—not the pastor—is the head of the church.

Is Denominational Hierarchy a Biblical Concept?

This question gets even more personal because I have seen denominational connection at its best, and at its worst.

Denominations can provide accountability, theological identity, shared resources, clergy standards, mission partnerships, and opportunities that individual congregations could never provide on their own. I have benefited from all of those things.

And accountability matters to me. When I left one denomination I joined another for that very reason. I suppose that’s why this question causes so much cognitive dissonance for me.

The New Testament church was not simply a loose collection of congregations with no connection or responsibility to one another. Churches shared resources. Leaders traveled among them. The apostles provided instruction and correction. Acts 15 describes leaders gathering to address an issue affecting the wider church.

Connection is biblical. Accountability is biblical. Shared discernment is biblical. But is everything our denominational systems have become biblical?

Boards create agencies. Agencies create offices. Offices develop policies. Policies require administrators. Administrators require budgets. Before long, a structure created to support ministry requires enormous energy simply to support itself.

I understand why many of those structures developed. Heck, I helped administer some of them. They were usually created to solve real problems or accomplish something worthwhile. But every institution eventually develops an instinct for self-preservation.

When does connection become control? When does accountability become bureaucracy? When does theological oversight become institutional gatekeeping? When does preserving the denomination become more important than serving its congregations and advancing the mission?

Denominational structures are not necessarily wrong because we cannot find them outlined in the New Testament. Neither are they sacred simply because we inherited them. They are tools. Tools should be evaluated by whether they still serve their intended purpose.

The local church does not exist to maintain the denomination. The denomination exists to help the church follow Christ and participate in His mission. When that order becomes reversed, something has gone wrong.

The problem? Those on the inside don’t always see the issue. They see themselves as “helping” the church and “fulfilling” the mission. I know because I was one who saw it that way.

Is Professionalized Ministry the Biblical Model?

Let me be clear: Scripture provides for the financial support of those who devote themselves to preaching and teaching.

I am grateful for the churches that have supported my family and me through the years. Their generosity allowed me to devote time and attention to ministry that I could not have given otherwise.

The problem is not that we pay pastors. The problem is that ministry can gradually become something performed primarily by the people who are paid to do it.

We call pastors “ministers,” which can subtly imply that everyone else is something other than a minister. We hire staff to teach, visit, disciple, organize, lead worship, conduct outreach, and administer the church. Eventually, the pastor and staff perform the ministry while everyone else attends, gives, and occasionally volunteers.

Pastors become religious service providers. Church members become their customers. Members expect the professionals to provide good preaching, meaningful worship, pastoral care, children’s ministry, student ministry, and opportunities for the family. If one church does not provide what they want, they can usually find another one that does.

That arrangement may keep the institution operating, but is it the biblical vision of the body of Christ?

Paul wrote that Christ gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers “to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church.” The leaders are not given to do all the ministry for God’s people. They are given to equip God’s people for ministry. There is a significant difference.

Perhaps the measure of a pastor’s ministry is not how much the pastor personally accomplishes. Perhaps it is how effectively the pastor helps people become more like Christ and participate in His mission.

A church can have excellent preaching, polished worship, strong programs, and a large staff while its members remain mostly passive. They can be well served without ever being equipped to serve.

Professional ministry should not relieve the saints of ministry. It should prepare the saints for ministry.

Giving Ministry Away

I am not calling for churches to eliminate senior pastors, dismantle denominations, or stop paying ministry leaders. I am asking whether our structures are accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish.

Does the pastor help people depend more deeply upon Christ, or does the congregation become increasingly dependent upon the pastor? Does the denomination strengthen local churches for mission, or do local churches increasingly exist to maintain the denomination? Does professional ministry equip God’s people to do the work of ministry, or does it quietly teach them to leave ministry to the professionals?

Perhaps faithful Christian leadership can be measured, at least in part, by how willingly it gives ministry away.

Jesus did not gather disciples merely to watch Him work. He taught them, formed them, corrected them, empowered them, and sent them. He gave them real responsibility and invited them to participate in His mission.

The church will always need leaders. But it needs leaders who understand that the goal is not to build ministry around themselves. The goal is to equip the whole body to become more like Christ for the sake of others.

Once again, it appears that my questions only lead to more questions—questions for which I really don’t have answers. I suppose that’s another reason I’m not the perfect pastor.

But that doesn’t keep me from trying…or asking more questions.

Until next time, keep looking up…

Do You Have a “Little” Jesus?

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

A customer came in the shop last week and on the way out the door he went around to several of the staff and to me and gave us all a “little” Jesus. You know the one I’m talking about, right? Yeah, that little 1″ plastic Jesus you can keep in your pocket. That one!

My wife has one on the dashboard of her car. The pharmacy where I get my medicine has about a dozen of them across the drive-thru window (and a “little” Mary, too–for the Catholics, I suppose). And now, five of my staff and I have a little Jesus.

This is not meant to be a knock on the concept of the “little” Jesus. It’s actually a very heartwarming trend designed to remind folks of the message of love, hope and faith. Folks are purchasing these in bulk to hide in places like public parks, grocery stores, and, in some cases, the U.S. Capitol, as a way to share their faith and remind people that they are loved.

It’s quaint. It’s cute. It’s encouraging. I was grateful to the customer who gave them to us. I appreciate his effort to encourage us and remind us that Jesus loves us. It even gave me the idea that I should keep a bag of them in the shop to give to customers occasionally.

My fear, however, is that the “little” Jesus becomes a distortion of our view of the real Jesus–the One who was revealed on Mount Tabor (so says tradition) in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s transfiguration (see Mark 9:2-13, Luke 9:28-36 and Matthew 17:1-8).

Peter’s View

What do I mean? I mean that I don’t want my view of Jesus to be like Peter’s view before the encounter on the mountain. What does Mark tell us:

5 Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 6 (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.) Mark 9:5-6 NIV

It’s Mark’s parenthetical phrase that captures me–“He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.” Peter is not being profound. He is being scared. And when people are scared in the presence of something they cannot explain, they try to manage it.

Peter’s suggestion sounds spiritual — build shelters, preserve the moment — but underneath it is this instinct: Let’s contain this. Let’s freeze this glory. Let’s put Jesus on equal footing with Moses and Elijah.

We do the same thing. We want a “little” Jesus. Nope! The transfiguration blows that view out of the water.

When Jesus disrupts our assumptions, we try to domesticate Him. We turn Him into a manageable advisor instead of a sovereign Lord. We build theological tents that keep Him from challenging us. We say, “I’ll listen to Jesus — but also to culture. Also, to my preferences. Also, to whatever feels comfortable.”

Peter wanted three equal shrines. God the Father would have none of it.

No “Little” Jesus

Let us have none of it either. Let the “little” Jesus remind us of the Jesus revealed on the mountain. Let it remind us of the One who was from the beginning (John 1:1), and the One whom Peter remembered when he wrote the early Church:

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[b] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. (2 Peter 1:16-18 NIV)

You and I do not live on mountains of visible glory. Yes, we have mountaintop moments in life. Like Peter, our lives are rollercoasters. The truth is we live more mundane Mondays and ordinary Tuesdays.

We live in doctor appointments. In business pressures. In strained relationships. In cultural confusion. But the command from the cloud still stands: “Listen to Him.”

There are so many voices competing for our allegiance. Voices telling us what matters most. Voices telling us what success is. Voices telling us what truth is. Voices telling us how to define morality. But when the noise clears (or the cloud, as it were), there is one voice that carries divine authority—Jesus only. Listen to Him.

When we are deciding whether to forgive or hold a grudge — don’t think we have a little Jesus. We have Him who forgave us completely. When we are tempted to cut ethical corners — don’t think we have a little Jesus. When suffering enters our life and we do not understand — we don’t have a little Jesus.

When fear creeps in about the future — we don’t have a little Jesus. We have a Jesus who is big enough to hold our future in His hands. When we wonder what really matters at the end of our life — we have a Jesus who is as big as God because He is God.

Eventually everything else fades. Careers fade. Health fades. Applause fades. Even religious systems fade. But, when the cloud lifts, and the mountain empties —there is Jesus! Larger than anything in this life. That’s the Jesus for me!

Keep your “little” Jesus (seriously, I mean keep him–I will), but keep him because he reminds you of the One who saves us from our sins, reconciles us to the Father, rose from the dead and will come again in the same glory that was revealed on the mountain that day.

Until next time, keep looking up…

Bold Predictions for 2026…

/ pastorlynnmalone / 1 Comment

Let me establish upfront that I am no great prognosticator. As a matter of fact, as best I can remember, I’ve never made a list of predictions before in my life. It is presumptuous, and that is one thing a follower of Jesus Christ should never be. I’m reminded of what the Apostle James wrote to the early Church:

13 Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” 14 Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15 Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” 16 As it is, you boast in your arrogant schemes. All such boasting is evil.17 If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them. James 4:13-17 (NIV)

Image created using AI

We can’t predict the next hour with great certainty much less the next year, so it is a bit bold to attempt a list of predictions as we roll into this new year.

So, why embark on such a fool’s task? Well, one, I’m probably a fool, but two, because I have followed the Christian landscape fairly closely over the past few years and I see some things on the horizon that I’m concerned about. Perhaps, then, they are not so much predictions as they are points of interest to watch or look for as the year progesess. I share them so that you might watch with me.

So, without further ado, here are FIVE BOLD PREDICTIONS CONCERNING THE CHURCH IN 2026 (in no particular order):

5) The United Methodist Church will continue to decline.

I hope this doesn’t sound like sour grapes, nor do I wish you to think I relish in this prediction, but this one really is a no-brainer without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit. The trajectory over the past few years is relatively clear–it’s down and to the right.

That trajectory was hastened by the “disaffiliation” process the denomination instituted a few years ago. Statistics for my old Annual Conference shows a total membership of 53,085 in 2024 (the last year available) and total weekly attendance of 22,281. My final year as a member of the Annual Conference (2019) showed 105,992 membership/104,501 attendance. I’ll grant that Covid occurred in the interim, but so did disaffiliation. Between the two, the Annual Conference saw severe decline.

The number of congregations constituting the Annual Conference also saw a significant decrease during that same period. The denominational statistical website (UMData.org) lists 267 congregations in the Louisiana Annual Conference at the close of 2024. Likewise, at the end of 2019, there were 486 congregations.

By my math (which ain’t great, by the way), that equates to approximately a 50% drop in membership, an over 80% drop in attendance, and a 45% drop in the number of congregations. None of those are encouraging numbers.

According to Google, between 7,600 – 7,900 congregations departed the denomination since 2019. That’s over 25% of all the congregations that once constituted the United Methodist Church. The numbers also don’t tell us how many members were “quiet departures”–meaning they simply left their congregations without fanfare.

Hey? This isn’t new information. The United Methodist Church was in decline pre-Covid and pre-disaffiliation. Both only hastened the process. Long before Covid or disaffiliation, economist Don House warned UMC leadership that collapse was inevitable.

Honestly, the UMC is only going the way of all mainline denominations. The Pew Research Center has catalogued this decline for years. Count the decline to whatever reason you will (there are many and it is complex), failing the Holy Spirit’s intervention, this prediction is rather easy to make.

4) Large churches will get larger and small churches will get smaller.

This prediction, too, is a safe one. Researchers say that overall church attendance is down while megachurch (over 2,000 people in attendance) is up 10%. Here’s what’s happening: Many believers are leaving the small congregation and migrating to the large one.

It’s another example of “consumer” Christianity. For better or worse, it’s a fact and we need to acknowledge it. Church members migrate to the larger churches in favor of programming, activities and events that smaller congregations can’t or don’t have. Also, many people embrace the anonymity that comes by being a part of a large church. One can slip in and slip out un-noticed, and if they leave the congregation no one notices.

Yup, in a megachurch, one never has to look another person in the eye. In a small church, a newcomer may have to navigate (or hope to avoid) every person in the congregation. Talk about no longer living in a culture where that possibility is comfortable is understatement.

Additionally, smaller congregations are “graying,” meaning its members are getting older. When we get older, we don’t attend as often. Illness and mobility limit our participation. It’s a fact of life. Smaller congregations are finding it difficult to replace those graying members. The reasons are, again, diverse and complicated. Failing the Holy Spirit’s intervention, this prediction, too, is an easy one to make.

3) Artificial Intelligence will become more prominent in Christian worship.

I’m really going out on a limb with these predictions, aren’t I? Though it is an easy prediction to make, this one concerns me more than the rest. Why?

The use of Artificial intelligence removes the human element and removing the human element from Christian worship distorts the reality of Christian worship.

Consider this: recently, the number 1 song in Christian worship was written by AI and performed by an AI generated personality (see the story here). There is no Holy Spirit engagement, no human struggle, no human/Divine interaction, no witness/testimony. Each of these are necessary in authentic worship of the Lord.

Yes, I know. The integration of AI is just another use of “technology” in the worship experience, but is it a good one? How about AI writing your pastor’s sermons? Good idea? I don’t think so!

I’ll confess. I have utilized AI in my sermon preparation. It is a great tool to use for research. When I left full-time vocational ministry, I sold (or gave away) the lion’s share of my library. AI has kept me from having to repurchase volumes and volumes of commentaries, dictionaries and the like now that I’m serving bivocationally. As a tool, AI is great. As a replacement for prayer, study and preparation, not so much.

Honestly, AI can probably write a better sermon than I can. I tried it one time (read the results here). It was a very good sermon. No, I did not preach it.

AI can read all the Bible commentaries in the world in seconds, categorize their meanings and spit out a 2,000 word sermon in under a minute. What pastor wouldn’t love to free up 8 – 10 (or more) hours per week to devote to other responsibilities? But, using AI to write one’s sermon is equally as bad as a pastor plagiarizing another pastor’s sermon (which happens far too often, anyway). Then again, wasn’t it Mark Twain who said, “The key to originality is the ability to conceal one’s sources.” Ouch!

Let’s not even mention the impact that AI is going to have on the use of resources that could otherwise be used to promote human flourishing. Do you know how much energy (electricity) these AI data centers are going to need? WE ARE NOT PREPARED FOR THE FULLY FUNCTIONING AI EXPERIENCE!

AI will be the death of the human race. That’s a far more bold prediction than predicting it will be used more in Christian worship. Pastors and lay persons need to seriously assess the use of AI in the body of Christ. We need the Holy Spirit’s intervention if we are to be faithful stewards of this transformative technology.

2) Christian persecution will grow in 2026, especially in the United States.

It was November of last year that saw gunmen enter St. Mary’s Catholic School in Nigeria kidnapping over 300 students and a dozen teachers. Only a few days earlier, attackers targeted a church in Nigeria, killing two and injuring 38 more (story here). These types of attacks are increasing in frequency, so to predict more in 2026 is yet another easy call (see how bold I am?).

For a sampling of areas of persecution, see the Wikipedia statement below:

“According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom‘s 2020 report, Christians in Burma, China, Eritrea, India, Iran, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Vietnam are persecuted; these countries are labelled “countries of particular concern” by the United States Department of State, because of their governments’ engagement in, or toleration of, “severe violations of religious freedom”.[15]: 2  The same report recommends that Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, the Central African Republic, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Sudan, and Turkey constitute the US State Department’s “special watchlist” of countries in which the government allows or engages in “severe violations of religious freedom“.[15]: 2 

“Much of the persecution of Christians in recent times is perpetrated by non-state actors which are labelled “entities of particular concern” by the US State Department, including the Islamist groups Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Houthi movement in Yemen, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province in Pakistan, al-Shabaab in Somalia, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Islamic State as well as the United Wa State Army and participants in the Kachin conflict in Myanmar.[15]: 2 “

I know…Wikipedia, right?

A little more bold prediction is for the type of persecution that is happening around the world is going to increase in the United States. What some call persecution, others call inconvenience. I see inconvenience soon becoming persecution with the increasing secularization of western culture, and the encroachment of Islamic influence and socialist/communist polices and politicians in our nation.

Examples of the “creeping” nature of this persecution are when churches were forced to close in 2020 while casinos, bars and strip clubs remained open, and the recent legal suits against Christian business owners who refused to serve LGBT+ customers. Okay, so I would have made the cake, but I shouldn’t be forced to or made to pay if I refuse. Need I even mention the targeting by the IRS of Christian non-profits?

Of all of my “bold” predictions, this is the one that is least likely to come to pass (at least I hope it is), but it is, nonetheless, a legitimate possibility.

And for my final prediction…

1) Jesus will continue to save the lost.

Talk about the no-brainer of no-brainers. The Holy Spirit will be active in the Church to make a difference in people’s lives and bring them to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.

Our task, as disciples, is to live faithful, obedient and holy lives so that the Holy Spirit might actually use us in that process.

Evangelism is a cornerstone of the growth of the Kingdom of God and will be integral to the work the Holy Spirit will do if predictions 4 & 5 are to be avoided in 2026 and beyond. Unfortunately, I am afraid evangelism is no longer in the theological wheelhouse of the mainline church, or in many small congregations (regardless of affiliation).

Let us be diligent in sharing the Gospel because we know the Lord Jesus Christ is still in the saving business. His grace is enough.

I’m 100% certain of this prediction because no liberal, mainline theological drift, no congregational decline, no technology and no persecution can change the power of Jesus Christ to save a life. He is the One who builds His Church. He is the One who transforms lives. The Church, that invisible, eternal body of Christ will continue to grow and make a difference in this old world. How do I know? Because Jesus Himself said so:

“And I say also unto thee, ‘That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’.” Matthew 16:18 (KJV)

That, my friends, is good news, indeed!

So, none of my predictions were really that bold after all. Well, anyway, here’s to a blessed 2026.

Until next time, keep looking up…

Bowing to Cultural Approval…

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

Six Subtle Ways We Bow to Cultural Norms

Okay, so I’ve been reflecting on Daniel 3 all week because I’m preaching on that passage today. In my prayer and reflection, I began to consider what are some of the subtle ways we believers in Jesus Christ can sometimes bow to sins that have become culturally acceptable. They’re not likely to show up in today’s message, so I thought I might share them here.

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (along with the prophet Daniel) were part of the Hebrew upper class that were carted off to Babylon during the Babylonian captivity. While there, they were schooled in the best Babylonian schools, and after three years were placed into King Nebuchadnezzar’s (King Neb, for short) court for service to the empire.

Hey? If you’ve been in Sunday school at all, you’ve heard the story before (read it here). King Neb builds a gaudy statue and commands the entire empire to bow down before it when they hear the music play. The music plays and everyone bows except these three Hebrews (I’m not sure where Daniel is during all this). The three get tattled on to the King who calls them to himself to give them one more chance to submit.

The three refuse in one of the most remarkable ways recorded in the Bible:

16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If that is the case,our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. 18 But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.” (Daniel 3: 16 – 18 NKJV)

I love the “But if not…” statement of verse 18. What faith! “King Neb, even if God doesn’t deliver us, we’ll not bow down to your idol.”

The Idol in Question

Neb’s idol was a 90 foot tall gold statue. It was pretty obviously an idol. Everyone knew it was an idol and no one really cared. Babylon was filled with idols. What’s one more? Idols were culturally acceptable in those days. What’s the big deal?

That’s probably the question that was on King Neb’s mind as he confronted the three Hebrew young men. And, I have to wonder if Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego hadn’t considered it themselves. I mean, perhaps they had the philosophy that the Apostle Paul later expressed to the Corinthian Christians:

4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. (1 Cor. 8: 4-6 NKJV)

Yup! They could have adopted that mentality, bowed down to the idol and everything would have been fine. After all, everyone else was doing it, and they weren’t actually bowing down to anything that was real, so just go along to get along.

Thank God, they didn’t bow down! They chose obedience to God over cultural influence. What an example for us!

Six Cultural “Idols”

Okay, so they’re not really idols in the strictest sense, but they are areas of cultural influence that often cause us to bow down in contrast to the clear teaching of Scripture. What are they?

1. Gossip

Gossip is one of the most common places where we bow to cultural pressure because we can disguise it as conversation, or even…wait for it…prayer concerns. There is a fine line between sharing concern and gossip.

Gossip is talking about others in a way that does not honor them or God. I’m reminded of Solomon’s wisdom in Proverbs 16: 28–“A troublemaker plants seeds of strife; gossip separates the best of friends.“

When someone tries to bring gossip to us we must kindly and gently shut the door, refusing to bow to the pressure to sully someone else…even in the name of prayer concerns.

2. Complaining (Grumbling)

Okay. This is one of my biggest temptations, and one place where I’m tempted to bow. In my defense, there is A LOT to complain about in our world today, and there are so many people doing it (including me) that no one notices anymore.

The Bible is clear, though, that we should do everything without grumbling (Philippians 2:14). Truly, life is filled with so many blessings and complaining takes the focus off our blessings and causes us to miss all the good that God is doing around us.

Complaining causes anxiety and discouragement and damages us spiritually. We can’t bow down to this culturally acceptable practice and maintain a faithful Christian witness.

3. Little White Lies

Whether we call it stretching the truth or use it as a means of dodging conflict, it’s still a lie. Everyone does it, so that makes it okay? I don’t think so.

Ephesians 4: 25 reminds us, “So stop telling lies. Let us tell our neighbors the truth, for we are all parts of the same body.” Paul’s reminder is a good one for faithful living in a culture that so easily accepts a lie for the truth.

4. Comparison

I said before that comparison is one of the things I’m not going to do at my age. What’s the point? It only creates envy and we know that envy is one of the seven deadly sins.

Social media feeds our need to compare ourselves to others, and again, comparison can take our focus off the myriad ways that God blesses us each and every day.

Comparing ourselves to others is such a subtle practice that it slips up on us before we know it. Faithfulness demands that we refuse to bow down before it. We can do this by thanking God for the blessings He has given to others. We don’t need someone else’s blessing. God has His own blessing for us if we’ll just stop and take note.

5. Getting Offended

In today’s culture, everyone is offended by something. Offense, however, can quickly become spiritual poison to us. Offense breeds bitterness, and bitterness keeps us stuck in hurt and anger.

We overcome offense through the spiritual practice of forgiveness. Christ forgave us. Ought we not to forgive those who offend us? Forgiveness is at the foundation of our faith, and when we bow to the pressure to take offense, we belie our faith.

6. Normalizing Sexual Sin

This one is a biggie in today’s culture. Of course, it’s been a big one for a long, long time, but even more so today. Modern culture treats so much sexual sin as normal, even many Christians. Cohabitation, sex before marriage, pornography, lust and adultery are commonplace.

Sexual sin damages the soul, distorts intimacy and welcomes shame and confusion. In short, it destroys our faith and undercuts the witness we offer the world when the Church and believers accept it as normal.

Once again, the Apostle Paul reminds us, “Run from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18).

The Power of a Faithful Witness

There are probably a lot more than six ways we bow to cultural influence, but it’s late and I have to go to church. That fact notwithstanding, we take a cue from the three Hebrew guys who refused to bow down to King Neb.

Our faithfulness will invite scorn from the culture and there will probably be consequences for that faithfulness. Here’s the thing, though–the Lord is with us in the fire of public scorn. In the end, we’ll come out the other side with our witness intact. We’ll be stronger and the Lord will be glorified. Isn’t that what we’re aiming for?

Let me hear from you if there are other areas we may be tempted to bow to the culture and its expectations. Leave your comments below.

Until next time, keep looking up…

Just More Bad News…

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

Did the title get your attention? Well, that’s exactly what I wanted it to do. You probably clicked on the link because you thought, “Oh! Let me see what the bad news is!”

Well, the bad news is that your/our social media is leading us to more and more bad news. It really doesn’t matter the platform, either. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X (Twitter)–the algorithms are all pointing us to bad news. And, we keep clicking and keep scrolling. We get caught in a “doom loop,” and that makes the situation worse.

Positively Negative

The reality is we like bad news. Many years ago, I had a radio executive in one of the congregations I served. I dabbled in radio as a younger guy, so I thought “Maybe it’s time to get back into radio.” I had a conversation with the executive to pitch my idea for a local radio talk show. After a couple of back and forth conversations discussing the idea he eventually said, “Lynn, to be successful in talk radio, you have to be negative. I don’t think you really want to be negative.” That same attention-grabbing negativity that drives talk radio also drives our social media algorithms.

No, I didn’t want to be negative then, and I don’t want to be negative now, but heaven help me, I find myself being more and more negative in my online engagement, and that’s leading me to be more negative in my face-to-face engagements. I don’t like the person I’m becoming as a result of all the “bad news” in my life. It’s messing with my sanctification!

It would be real easy to say, “It’s not my fault!” That’s the easy out. I could blame it on “algorithmic negativity bias” (it’s a real thing–look it up). Look, social media is designed to keep us scrolling. The algorithm learns which posts get our attention–that make us stop, linger or click. Unfortunately, bad news gets our attention more than good news. If we stop and linger on a “bad news” headline, we get more bad news headlines in our feed.

We humans have a survival mode bred into us that means our brains are wired to pay more attention to threats and danger (think “fight or flight” here). So, when we see a negative headline, we naturally pause.

Traditional media understood this long before the brainiacs developed algorithms for social media. Traditional media was driven by two statements: “If it bleeds, it leads,” and “Sex sells!” Social media has simply perfected these mentalities, and we’ve (meaning “me”) fallen for it in a big way.

What really makes me stop on the bad news headline? It’s just my old sinful nature at work, and the Enemy is utilizing social media to draw me away from the holiness to which Christ calls me. Let me say it this way, “Sin has a hold of me and it won’t let go, and now social media is helping it keep its hold.”

Turning Off the Doom Loop

So, the Holy Spirit and I have a little work to do. Yeah, I know the simple answer is to get off social media, but I ask, “This day and age is getting off social media a realistic possibility?” Social media is simply a tool. It is amoral. It is what we do with it that determines its morality.

The first thing I must do to turn off the doom loop is repent. All significant spiritual change begins with repentance. I repent of my own negativity and I’m sorry for all the negative posts I’ve made on social media (and there have been a few more than I care to admit). My prayer is “Change my heart, O God!”

The Lord really does want to change my heart, and as much as I would like a supernatural transformation, He’s asking me to do a little of the work myself. What is He asking me to do?

One, He’s telling me to limit my time on social media. Set a timer if I need to in order to remind myself how long I’ve been online. I need to spend less time online and more time “touching grass,” as they say–more time in face-to-face interactions. It’s a whole lot easier to say mean things online than it is in person.

Two, I need to actively engage with positive content online in order to reprogram the algorithm. That means I have to mute or block or snooze the negativity in my social media feed. When I find positive content I need to share it with others. Simply don’t click on negative headlines. Stop falling into the trap.

Three, I need to get back into God’s Word. I need to spend more time reading and reflecting on God’s Word than scrolling negative headlines on social media.

Yeah, I’ve got a lot of work to do, but with the Holy Spirit’s help, perhaps I’ll come out on the other side a better person. Perhaps the holiness I desire will make its way out in the interactions I have online and in person. That’s my prayer, anyway…

Because I’m just tired of all the bad news…

Until next time, keep looking up…

Things, They are a Changin’…

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve heard of Cracker Barrel Restaurants rebranding initiative. I must say, we’ve finally found something that everyone can agree on: no one likes the new branding that Cracker Barrel came up with!

Conservatives and Progressives/Liberals alike have lamented the corporate change. There are several reasons I’ve seen over the past week. Those reasons include a loss of nostalgia and identity, The redesigned logo removes the iconic image of a man leaning on a barrel—an emblem of Southern charm and the chain’s heritage—leaving just the words “Cracker Barrel” on a gold background. Critics say this erases the brand’s sentimental value.  

There is also the sense of perceived sterility and blandness. Many called the new logo and updated decor “cold,” “sterile,” or “soulless”—in stark contrast to the warm, cozy atmosphere long associated with Cracker Barrel.  

As with everything else these days, there are those who note the political undertones of the move and the backlash that followed. Conservative figures widely criticized the change as an example of “wokeness,” while others accused the company of abandoning tradition to appeal to diversity, equity, and inclusion agendas. Even California Governor Gavin Newsom mockingly added fuel to the fire, reflecting deep political polarization surrounding what many consider a benign design change.  

And let’s not forget the financial consequences of the rebrand. Cracker Barrel’s stock plunged nearly 15% in one day, erasing an estimated $100 million to $195 million in market value. 

I’d say someone didn’t really think that decision all the way through.

Let me say that my family used to love Cracker Barrel. We came to love it when we moved to Kentucky for seminary. Cracker Barrel was a welcome stop on the 12-hour drive between seminary and our home in Louisiana that we would make several times each year.

The biscuits and the cornbread muffins were always warm. The hospitality was always cordial. The atmosphere was inviting and the food quality was consistent. We always knew what we were going to get when we stopped at a Cracker Barrel.

We don’t go to Cracker Barrel anymore, though. We stopped going before the rebrand. We stopped going because the last three times we went to Cracker Barrel, the food simply wasn’t very good. And, they started serving alcohol, too! Not that the alcohol really matters. We go to restaurants all the time that sell alcohol, but there was something that stung me when they made that move. It’s probably more my issue than Cracker Barrel’s, but still…

So? Why such the pushback on Cracker Barrel? I think it’s because Cracker Barrel represents a memory. It was Grandma’s kitchen with biscuits and gravy, and rocking chairs on the front porch. The rebrand stripped away everything the company represented to its customers, all in the name of “relevance” and “modernization.”

I’m not so sure it’s not the same struggle the Church/church faces, too. We want to reach the next generation. We want to be relevant. But sometimes, in the process, we risk losing the very soul of who we are.

Some churches throw out every hymn, every tradition, every symbol of the faith, hoping that a sleek, modern design will attract people. But what happens? People walk in and say: ‘This doesn’t feel like church anymore. It feels soulless.’

Now, don’t get me wrong—change is necessary. We must preach the Gospel in the language of our day, but the Gospel is still the Gospel. The method of the message may change, but the message must never change. Or, just like Cracker Barrel discovered, we can’t throw away our heritage and expect people to follow. People are hungry for warmth, for story, for authenticity. People are hungry for Jesus!

Are we giving them Jesus, or are we giving them some warmed over, feel-good-get-your-God-moment and sending them back out into the world? The Church/church just needs to give the people Jesus every time they come.

Paul tells us in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ‘So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you.’

Notice, Paul isn’t saying never change. He traveled culture to culture, adapting his methods to reach people, but he never threw away the core. He held fast to the Gospel, even as he adjusted his approach.

So here’s the lesson for us as a Church/church:

  • Change is fine—but it must not be an erasure.
  • We can add new songs, new ministries, new outreach—but not at the cost of losing the warmth of fellowship, the truth of Scripture, and the centrality of Jesus Christ.
  • People don’t come to church for flash and logos. They come because they’re looking for a family, for hope, for soul, for salvation.

So the next time you drive past a Cracker Barrel (or hear someone complaining about the new logo) remember this: What the world is truly longing for is not sleeker branding, but something real, something rooted, something alive. And friends, that’s exactly what the church can offer, if we hold fast to Jesus Christ while speaking His love in a way this generation can understand.

I sure do wish we could all agree on that!

Until next time, keep looking up…