I’d rather not talk about it, but this thing won’t die.
Some of my readers are aware of my pointed criticism of LifeChurch.tv. There are several posts here, but one in particular drew way too many comments from people who simply refused to understand what I was saying. Yet that particular blog post still often leads all other posts in traffic.
I thought I had left it all behind, but I still hear from folks every month or so who were badly burned by some experience at LifeChurch. If you click the tab above for “Readers Note” you’ll find a recent comment that simply reinforces what I’ve been saying all along: LifeChurch isn’t a church; it’s a religious entertainment franchise.
There is a considerable list of good things coming out of LifeChurch, so it’s not meant to dismiss them as evil. They are certainly more orthodox than, say Joel Osteen. You’ll get the essential gospel message as recognized by most evangelical Christians, and they aren’t afraid to talk about sin. Their Bible application for mobile devices remains one of the best PR tools I’ve ever seen. The streaming live worship and live chat on the website is a really smart move. However, it remains nothing more than an entertainment business.
It’s not a church. While there is some nice healing action taking place for relatively mundane human needs, the exclusion of genuine spiritual concern for those with more serious wounds is a signal failure. It’s one thing to know you can’t handle certain things for lack of skill; I freely admit to my own limitations. However, I don’t institutionalize them and tell my associates they can’t do what I can’t do. The question on my mind isn’t control and outcomes, with a necessary bottom line to meet. The question is not whether I handle surprises, but how.
I have no vested interest in keeping anything in particular alive, especially if something dies in the natural process of helping people. If obedience to the Spirit of God means killing the ministry, then the human organization dies. The guiding principle is obeying those burning convictions that only the Spirit can place in my soul. The calculus isn’t based on human factors. It will include them, but I don’t evaluate the course of action by starting with entirely worldly concerns. They call it “spiritual” when it’s entirely human and very much a matter of business and profit and visible results.
A church is willing to die on the Cross, too. Craig and his associates aren’t evil; they’re decent people, but they aren’t spiritual. The attribute “spiritual” is rooted outside this world; it makes no reference to worldly measurable results. These people are distinctly worried about profit and loss and numbers and real estate. I’ve discussed with them the merits of some of their self-help psychology masquerading as religion and they will rudely dismiss what doesn’t fit in their corporate planning. The controls are very strict and very human, not at all biblical.
The problem is that the whole of Western Christianity tends to agree with LifeChurch about what matters, having redefined biblical terms to match very human and worldly concerns.
I may not be able to help you, but what I have I offer freely. I’m not interested in human outcomes, but serving as a conduit for the Spirit of God. That Spirit leads me to avoid involvement in some crusade to shut down LifeChurch. There is no vengeance in my heart, just the dire necessity of honestly reporting what I see.
We can talk about it, but I am trapped under no obsessions about it.
