Burger King Church
(Have it your way)
TCF Sermon
January 11, 2009
Open with Youtube video of BK commercial – commercial jingle sings: Have it your way.
We’ve just finished the football bowl season – and you may have noticed that every bowl has a sponsor these days.
It’s not the Sugar Bowl – it’s the Allstate Sugar Bowl. It’s not the Fiesta Bowl – it’s the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. It’s not even the national championship game – it’s the FedEx BCS National Championship.
In keeping with this trend, this morning’s sermon is sponsored by Burger King – the Burger King TCF Sunday Sermon.
Just kidding. And no, I own no stock in Burger King. Speaking of just kidding, did you notice last week, as Jim shamed me for using Powerpoint in my sermons, he showed a video from the Truth Project in which the speaker was, doing what? Using Powerpoint.
Now, back to our sponsor.
Burger King’s slogan Have It Your Way, was created in 1974. Some of you who are that ancient may remember the commercial we saw, as well as many others based on this theme in the ‘70s. It was a response to the success of McDonalds. Burger King was number 2, and McDonalds led the fast food burger wars.
So, bright advertising executives tried to hit on something that was viewed as a weakness in the McDonald’s system. When you ordered a burger at McDonalds, you got what they gave you. You could certainly ask to leave off the mustard, or the pickles, but there was a sense when you did that, that this was a pain for them to do.
But not at Burger King. This became their theme, and it’s a theme they still use today, more than 30 years later. Anyone remember the rest of the little jingle from this theme?
Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, special orders won’t upset us, all we ask is that you let us serve it your way. Have it your way....Have it your way at Burger King
Last week, Jim quoted George Barna. He’s a Christian researcher and author, who’s probably among the most quoted people in churches in America.
Through the years, many of his studies have been very interesting and revealing, in noting trends among Christians. So, let me quote Mr. Barna, too. I hate to be left out of a quotefest. Quoting from the same book Jim referenced last week, Barna says he expects to see Christians in the immediate future:
"choosing from a proliferation of options, weaving together a set of favored alternatives into a unique tapestry that constitutes the personal ’church’ of the individual."
How do you like that phrase? The personal church of the individual! And isn’t it interesting to see that quote alongside the Burger King jingle?
I imagine the apostle Paul hearing this and spinning in his grave. One reviewer called this statement, “the personal church of the individual”:
"the most mind-spinning phrase ever written about the church of Jesus Christ. Could it be that we evangelical Protestants, who have done more to fragment Christendom than any other group, are now taking that to the logical extreme: a church at the individual level, each person creating a personal "church" experience? At any other point in church history, "personal church" would be nonsensical. In today’s America, it’s the Next Big Thing." Kevin Miller, Christianity Today
In other words, Christians are leaving churches so they can have it their way. Western Christianity is becoming the Burger King Church. If you think that’s too strong an interpretation of what Barna wrote, let’s try this quote from the same book.
He illustrates his findings and ideas with two fictional characters who, he says:
"eliminated church life from their busy schedules." Why? They did not find a ministry "that was sufficiently stimulating" and "their church, although better than average, still seems flat."
I guess it’s just too bad for any little local church, which can’t possibly be all things to all people, that some Christians today insist on having what Barna calls a “unique, highly personalized church experience.”
A related side note: If Barna was just reporting on these trends, that would be one thing, and probably helpful in understanding this trend. But he’s not just reporting his research – in his book Revolution he’s advocating this trend as the best way for Christians to live a life devoted to Christ.
As Jim noted last week, these revolutionaries are generally devoted to the Lord, despite the fact that they’re abandoning the local church. But Barna writes: “My goal is to help you be a revolutionary.”
Let me tell you, this is a disturbing trend – and it’s not in any way a good thing, as Barna asserts. And as Jim noted last week, it’s one of the ways the enemy uses to separate us from God, regardless of how well-intentioned by some that this exodus from the local church might be.
I’ve said it before from this pulpit and I’ll say it again now. If you drift from church, it’s almost inevitable that you’ll drift from the Lord.
Blaise Pascal said “To be a member is to have neither life, being, nor movement, except though the spirit of the body, and for the body.”
Hebrews 10 is probably the clearest passage addressing this issue.
Hebrews 10:25 (NIV) Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
It’s critical that we note the context of this verse. The context is in the midst of a very strong warning against apostasy – against falling away from the faith. If you doubt the connection, look at the connecting word “for” in the very next verse, and then what follows.
Hebrews 10:26-27 (NASB77) For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
"Basically the verse (25) is a warning against apostasy. To forsake the local assembly here means to turn one’s back on Christianity" Believers Bible Commentary
Matthew Henry writes of these verses: "We have the means prescribed for preventing our apostasy, and promoting our fidelity and perseverance, v. 24, 25, etc."
But here’s the problem. Someone who might consider themselves a revolutionary because they’ve left the local church to follow Jesus, might say in response to a passage like Hebrews 10:25, “Hey, I don’t give up meeting with fellow followers of Christ. I get together with Christian friends often. I meet with them over meals. I meet over coffee at Starbucks. We get together and pray with the Christian couple next door. I have fellowship with the believers in my homeschool group, or my children’s soccer team. I go to a Bible study at a friend’s house. I fully comply with the admonition to not forsake the assembling with fellow Christians.
What’s the problem with this line of thinking? Is it because there’s anything wrong with these things in and of themselves? Of course not. Any of us would encourage you to have this kind of fellowship with other believers, whether or not they attend TCF, assuming of course, that any teaching you receive is sound. This is the kind of thing that can enhance our faith, and our commitment to the Lord.
But this morning, I want to explore why this kind of thing is not church. The kinds of things I mentioned, and many more similar things I didn’t, are no substitute for being an active part of a local church.
But, some might say, these fellow Christ-followers are a part of the universal Church with a capital C, so if I’m with them, I’m not giving up meeting together.
Yes, there is a thing called the Church, with an implied capital C. Christians of every stripe are part of that mystical body of Christ, His Church. The challenge is that many times in the New Testament, when we read of the Church, it is in fact Church, with a capital C – if not literally, then that’s what’s to be understood.
But not here. Not in Hebrews 10:25
Hebrews 10:25 (NIV) Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
There are several ways we can determine that this verse is not talking about the universal, capital C church.
For one, the word which is translated “meeting together” in the NIV, or “forsaking our own assembling together”, as in the NAS, indicates a reference to a specific place, not the mystical body of Christ – His capital C Church on earth.
"That’s because the Greek word is a form of the word used for synagogue. The author does not use the usual Greek word for church. Instead he uses a compound form of the word synagogue, which specifically means the local, physical gathering of believers."
Nelson Study Bible
Remember that the book of Hebrews was written to Christians of Jewish background. To them, the word synagogue is a clear indication of a specific institution.
Ecclesia is the usual word used for church. Though it does sometimes in the New Testament refer to the universal Capital C church of Jesus Christ, the word is clearly used to mean assembly – that’s its primary understanding in the New Testament. When referring to a fellowship locally in the New Testament – it’s always used for the local, organized body.
Secondly, there are other passages of scripture, even right here in the book of Hebrews, that make absolutely no sense unless they’re in the context of a local church. Jim touched on some of these thoughts last week. Three chapters later in Hebrews, we find these three verses:
Hebrews 13:7 (NIV) Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
Hebrews 13:17 (NIV) Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Hebrews 13:24 (NIV) Greet all your leaders and all God’s people. Those from Italy send you their greetings.
Now, if you consider time spent with your Christian friends or neighbors to be an adequate compliance with the scriptural admonition to not give up meeting together, then who is the leader that you’re supposed to obey, to remember, or to greet as mentioned in these verses?
Why should these leaders feel any need to give an account for their watch over you? Who appointed them? Who put them into place as leaders? Why have leaders at all?
So, what are the essentials for an assembling, a gathering of Christians, to be called a church?
One is leaders or elders – leadership that has some kind of sanction beyond the local church… that is, some sort of outside spiritual authority is doing at least the initial appointing of leaders.
Another is observing at least baptism and the Lord’s supper.
The last one, which also involves leaders, is addressing false doctrine – I suppose we could say that this is accomplished by preaching and teaching, as well as individual encounters, but it’s a role that leaders are admonished to fill.
For the first 11 years of TCF’s existence, we didn’t have formal membership. Now, since 1980, we do, and it’s in large part because of what it says in Hebrews 13 – that leaders “keep watch over you as men who must give an account.”
How can we possibly give an account for all who are part of the universal Church of Jesus Christ, with a capital C? Believers in India, Africa, China or even New York or California? Of course we can’t, because the reference is clearly to leaders in a local church. That’s why we ask you to tell us, by formally joining TCF, that you’re part of the flock for whom we’re responsible to give an account.
Why would we read in 1 Timothy 3 the qualifications for elders and deacons? Who’s the deacon in charge of cream and sugar at Starbucks?
Then, too, consider the idea of church discipline. At the end of the procedure outlined as the way to confront sin in Matthew 18, how does this make sense without the context of a local church?
It starts out by telling us how we are to first confront the sinner in private, so far so good, then to take two or three witnesses, I guess still so far so good for the revolutionary. But then Matthew 18:17 tells us:
Matthew 18:17 (NASB77) "And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer.
So, if your church is one of these personalized, have it your way Burger King churches of the individual, who decides what’s sin – who decides what needs to be confronted, who will communicate this to the guy across the fellowship table having a Starbucks latte with you?
And if church only refers in the New Testament to the capital C church, what church are you going to inform that this person is in sin, and won’t listen and won’t repent?
And finally, does that mean he can’t come to Starbucks with you anymore? See the problem?
Church leaders don’t make sense in the context of the universal church. The practical outworkings of church discipline don’t make sense in the context of the Capital C church. These things require a local church.
"When I read the NT I come across numerous “regulations” concerning church discipline, a practice that is moot in the absence of covenant and commitment between believers in a local assembly (see, for example, Matthew 18:15-20; Acts 5:1-11; Romans 16:17-19; 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 2 Cor. 2:5-11; 1 Timothy 5:17-20; etc.)." Sam Storms
In Jim Garrett’s conclave paper on The Meeting a few years ago, he noted something important about another passage of scripture.
Acts 2:42 (NIV) They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Again, a revolutionary might say, well, sure, I’m devoted to fellowship. Sure, I’m devoted to the apostles teaching – I read my Bible everyday. I also break bread with my fellow Christians, and I pray. But again, context, and the original language, are so important. Jim noted:
"And to the fellowship must refer to something definite, because of the definite article (i.e. the word “the”). It could not mean that these Jerusalem believers were devoted to the experience of fellowship, or just to fellowship in general. For one thing, the expression certainly conveys a commitment to the local body of believers, the community of the saints." Jim Garrett – The Meeting
Why do we not find a single verse clearly stating, in so many words, you need to be part of a fellowship, and then adding words such as, “by that I mean the local church?”
First of all, I hope it’s clear from these things we just looked at that the Word does in fact emphasize the critical importance of being part of a local church. But perhaps the reason it’s not said in those exact words is because the writers of the New Testament couldn’t conceive of these admonitions in any other context. It was assumed that they were writing to believers, followers of Christ, who were regularly involved in a local church.
"Every word of exhortation in the NT epistles, every ethical principle, every theological truth, is addressed to people who were active participants and living members of a local church. There is not the slightest hint that any NT author, writing under the inspiration of God, envisioned living out one’s life as a disciple of Jesus Christ or bearing the fruit of the Holy Spirit independently of, or unrelated to, the local expression of the body of Christ." Sam Storms
Let me also be clear about what I’m not saying this morning. I’m not saying that most of these things we’re talking about are illegitimate. Many of us are involved in what we call parachurch ministries. Many of us are involved in fellowship or ministries with believers outside the context of a local church, unrelated to TCF.
Diane Shepherd is involved with a local Crisis Pregnancy Center, where I’m sure she experiences Christian fellowship, but she’s also in a local church called TCF.
Jim Grinnell is involved in the Bright Tomorrows ministry for those with mental illnesses, but he’s also in this local church.
My wife Barb is involved in a prayer group at her workplace. But she’s also in a local church.
Do they have fellowship, do they discuss their faith, in these things? Certainly. But it does not replace their involvement in the local church.
So, I’m not saying this morning that we shouldn’t be involved in these things. I’m not saying that a church must have a building, must have paid staff, must have certain programs, or must conform to any specific style of worship service.
And yes, I do think house churches, in many contexts, can qualify as a local church (obviously so, since it seems all NT churches met in homes), though I must toss in a caveat to say that standalone small groups can become quite ingrown and subject to false doctrine.
I’m also not defending those churches who seem to be about size, or marketing the gospel, whose hallmark is slick production and big elaborate buildings, whose theology is anything less than biblical, whose spiritual life is all but non-existent. I wouldn’t go to a church like that either.
But does that mean we shouldn’t be part of any local church at all?
And yes, I do realize that there are circumstances that might keep a Christian from being involved in a local church. There are circumstances beyond our control, such as geographic isolation, persecution or other factors, that might make it difficult or impossible to be involved in a local church. Some of our own missionaries face these kinds of obstacles.
And there may be legitimate seasons of life in which you cannot, for a variety of reasons, be involved in a local church. But these are exceptions to the rule.
And besides, that’s not what we’re talking about. Many of these so-called revolutionaries could easily be part of a local church, but they’re not - they’re making a choice to be out of church, because they believe, I think erroneously, that a vital relationship with God is possible only by abandoning the church. And again, I think this is a disturbing trend.
What I am saying is that while these kinds of things can be a legitimate part of our Christian lives, and again, even an enhancement to our walk of faith, and that, yes, there are a few exceptions to the rule, they are not, cannot be, a substitute for active involvement in a local church in most cases.
The prediction is that in 20 years, only a third of Christians will rely on the local church as their primary, or exclusive means, of experiencing and expressing their faith. But one reviewer asks this key question:
"How vital can a Christian revolution be that views the local church as optional? Revolution is passionate for the church, so long as it’s the capital-C church, the universal group of believers in Jesus, the church I can’t see and don’t have to relate to." Kevin Miller
Interestingly, Barna in his book anticipates this kind of critical response. He writes:
"The Bible does not tell us that worship must happen in a church sanctuary and therefore we must be actively associated with a local church."
Of course it doesn’t. But this is the wrong argument. That’s because the New Testament church didn’t have church buildings. But to say that the Word does not prescribe a specific place, such as a church building, for worship, does not allow us to extrapolate that to mean that we can disregard the church.
"His (Barna’s) book merely reveals every thin spot in evangelical ecclesiology. We flamingly disregard 2,000 years of guidance under the Holy Spirit. We elevate private judgment above the collective wisdom of apostles, martyrs, reformers, and saints." Kevin Miller
As Roger Olson writes in his book: The Mosaic of Christian Belief
"Nowhere in the Great Tradition of Christianity before the twentieth century can one find the uniquely modern phenomenon of ’churchless Christians.’"
Now, let me be clear, that I think George Barna wants the same thing I do. In my role as an elder here, and I know this is true of each of the elders, and any other leadership in this church, our desire is to see vital, wholehearted followers of Jesus, people being transformed more and more, day by day, into the image and likeness of Christ, carrying out His Kingdom purposes, and advancing the Kingdom of God here and around the world.
That’s the revolutionaries stated goal, too. We just disagree, and let me say strongly so, on how to get there. And let me also add that I think the so-called revolutionary way of getting there is more likely to lead to many falling away from the faith, being separated from God by the enemy, than it is to lead more people to become more like Jesus.
I know that’s a pretty strong statement, but I don’t know how else to see what the Word of God says about this issue, especially the passage we looked at this morning from Hebrews 10. And if we want the Word to be our guide, and not just theory, we cannot ignore what the word says about meeting together.
How much functional authority does the Word have in your life? If you want to become a true revolutionary, don’t follow this “leave the church behind idea. “ You might rather follow the apostle Paul’s many admonitions about life together in a local church – about one another.
Note, again, that most of these verses don’t make sense just talking about the church universal. When it’s talking about how we live, how we work, how we relate to one another, scripture is talking about the practical outworking of our Christian lives in the context of our relationships in the local church.
And we can’t have relationships in the local church, unless we’re here, unless we’re connected in a significant way. Let’s just highlight a few passages.
Romans 12:10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves.
Romans 14:19 So then let us pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.
Let’s note a couple of things about this verse. First, it says, “let us pursue.” The NIV says “make every effort.” The Greek there implies “to follow after or press hard.” or... to pursue with earnestness and diligence in order to obtain, to go after with the desire of obtaining
What’s implied here? First, that it’s not easy. Sometimes, pursuing peace with one another is difficult. Secondly, it takes effort. Why would you have to be earnest or diligent if it came easily? That’s another aspect of this “one another” life we’re called to as members of the same body, as members of this expression of the local church called TCF. It’s not always easy. It requires going after these things with the desire of actually obtaining it. It requires diligence, perseverance, patience.
But it’s worth it, because, note the results written of here: Peace with one another. And building one another up. Our faith, our moral strength, our spiritual strength, is built up, benefits from our relationships with one another, as each of us pursues those things that build up one another.
Yes, staying in a local church can be spiritually challenging, because wherever you go, people are people, and will sometimes rub you the wrong way. It seems that many are no longer willing to face that challenge.
Before we close, let me note that there are many positive things, the benefits, if you will, of being members of a local church. Of being part of the same local expression of the body of Christ. These things happen here at TCF, and they encourage and challenge me in my faith.
I’m here because I need to be held to a higher standard of faith and practice. Remember the idea that the admonition in Hebrews 10:25 is a warning against apostasy? Sadly, in the church, in the body of Christ, capital C church, this separation is, more often than not, a choice.
Proverbs 18:1 (NASB) He who separates himself seeks his own desire, He quarrels against all sound wisdom.
This is the danger, and the result, of separating yourself. Let’s stick with the local church – let’s not be so concerned with having it our way, that we’re willing to be part of the Burger King Church, creating a personal church of the individual, and giving up meeting together as prescribed by the Word of God.
At least here at TCF, the only place we have some choice about, let’s prove that this prediction of a revolution, insofar as it means people abandoning the church, is just another missed prediction.
Pray
