“The Church is the hope of the world.” These are the words Bill Hybels has been preaching at Leadership Summits and Conferences, printing in books and writing in articles for many years, but my question is not whether it’s true but if it’s actually being lived out by the church.
On Tuesday morning (1.20.09), Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States under the banner of hope and a promise of change. Obama’s rise from obscurity was nothing short of remarkable, but he achieved this by tapping into the hunger and desperation the country (and the world) was seeking: Hope. Obama’s message was tailored throughout the campaign, and even now in his first few days of office, specifically around the idea of hope which has laid dormant in the hearts and minds of Americans. Ultimately Obama did a tremendous job of exegeting our culture and this masterful understanding not only won him the election but elevated him as the symbol of hope in this country and around the world.
What happened to the church being the hope of the world?
Perhaps a statistic can help us with the big picture. In a recent survey conducted by Lifeway Research, 72% of respondents said the church is “full of hypocrites.” It’s no secret that the public image of the church has taken a major hit, but how did we get to this point?
During the election season, much of the church stood vocally opposed to the election of Barack Obama and his message of hope, sealing the image of the church as destroyers of hope. Despite where you stood in the election, the church’s response to Barack Obama was neither gracious, loving, and least of all hopeful. Perhaps the most startling example was from Focus on the Family in a letter written by Dr. James Dobson entitled Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America [pdf] which declared that the hope Obama would bring is nothing short of the destruction of the Christian faith and unraveling the fabric of American life. In the eyes of the public, the church stood diametrically opposed to hope. This was perhaps the final nail in the proverbial coffin.
For far too long the church has engaged in “hell-fire and brimstone” tactics and strategies that have veered more on the hope-less rather than bringing hope and promise to a world starved for a message of hope. The church’s role is to fill the void with a new hope, however we haven’t and instead of filling it we’ve left a gaping expanse. Barack Obama simply filled the void left by the church.
The church hasn’t done the hard work of listening, of trying to understand what the country is clamoring for (hope-which is exactly what the gospel offers when presented as good news instead of “hell-fire and brimstone”). We haven’t changed our approach to express the hope of the Kingdom of God and as a result Obama has become the symbol of hope reserved for the church because of Jesus. (Never more was this more clear than on Tuesday.) Now we’re left in a position we should have never been in the first place.
It’s time for the church to listen to and learn from Obama, to understand how he speaks to the country and the way in which he communicates a new hope for a new age. It’s time or us not to hitch our train to him, but to ride his coattails and prepare the way of hope by using his language and his rhetoric in ways that communicate the gospel. We can learn from his exegesis of the culture in such a way that eventually we will be able to take up the mantle of hope in the public square once again. Let me be clear: This is not about systematically embracing his political viewpoints and promoting his public policy. This is about learning how he communicates hope to the culture, something we have obviously forgotten how to do.
Remember, in four to eight years Obama, like Bush, will fade into history. Unless the church is there and prepared to pick up the ball of hope and run with it, we’ll have missed our opportunity once again to be the symbol of hope as the bride of Christ. And instead, to the rest of the world, hopelessness will be the banner by which we operate.
“The Church is the hope of the world.”
Related posts:
- A Day of History & A Day of Change
- yes we can!
- picture desperately in need of a caption
- lost.
- the church is not the hope of the world?
While I hear what you are saying, I think the “church” was reacting to the type of hope Barack Obama was/is getting ready to impliment. I think it’s two different arguements that the church was waging against him:
First, an arguement of values and how they matched up best with traditional christian beliefs. When you held McCain / Palin up against Obama / Biden, there was a stark difference in basic fundamental Christian beliefs. You’ve got Palin, a far right wing conservative and Biden, the exact opposite. It’s long been known that the Christian community leans strongly towards the conservative minset.
Second, was the arguement of Barack’s character in general. I must personally say that I still do not understand how some have come to be shaded by his past. Obviously, sitting in Wright’s cult for 20 years did not bode well for acceptance into the Christian community, nor did his alliances with Bill Ayers. These two biggies are another reason why the “conservative right Christian” disagreed with his nomination and stood against it.
Finally, let it be known that Barry is indeed an awesome communicator – something this country has not had in years – you had Bush one, a bumbler, Bill, a nutcase, and Bush two, who spoke like a drunk texan. Barry was a refreshing change. This reason, in my opinion, is why he laid waste to McCain. From a communication standpoint, he blew him away.
But your arguement of hope, and how the church has responded and been labeled, in my opinion is not that bad. We live in an evolving world. The world is not the same as it was back in the 70′s or 80′s. The church, for the most part, has not evolved as quickly as the world has in it’s acceptance of new and fresh thinking. Fortunately, I find this to be a good thing, as so many views out there water down scriptures and the diety of Christ.
So where does the church go from here? Well, let’s be honest, the conservative right Church will not sit back and tolerate many of the things Barry will do. It goes against our beliefs. We’ll probably be labeled as such, but some of us really believe it is the right thing to do. Not to be cliche, but I ask myself this dumb phrase – What would Jesus do?
The one thing I gleen from this thought is indeed communicate with more love, but not to back down. In this ever changing world, it’s only going to get worse before it gets any better. Personally, I feel it will only get worse until the second coming – which I hope and pray is not far off.
Hey Aaron…very well communicated. These are my most current feelings about how to react to the fervor within our nation and world at this point. I, for one, (while not an outright Obama-devotee) cannot help but be hopeful for what is to come.
I am hopeful as well, however, in his first week, he is making nothing but poor decisions – hence – alienating the “church.”
I’m still of the conviction that the church is the hope of the world. I’m afraid that we don’t communicate that very well. I think that two pictures typically dominate: (1) the church cowering in the midst of a changing world, or (2) the church engaged in polemics. Whether (1) the change is bad, or (2) our argument is right, neither option offers much HOPE. For the church to communicate hope, we must live it – changing lives and changing communities… repenting, restoring, redeeming, reconciling (and that’s just the r’s).
The church has ceased to be the hope of the world because we have ceased acting as the hope of the world.
Obama’s campaign resonated with so many Americans (and so many “younger evangelicals”) because it called us to action, and to service, and to sacrifice, rather than mimicking the same partisan lines. Even if his political positions are the same as many of these partisans, his rhetoric asked us to act rather than (1) cower or (2) argue.
Its sad on two fronts. Its almost as if there is reverse racism here. People signify him as change simply because he is black. And the church being hopeless has been my thought for sometime so no reason to go down that path. As I wrote, I applaud the great deal it is for the black community and this country to elect a black president. It shouldnt be overlooked. But simply because he has made it doesnt make him a great president. I think of the sports world on this. When Doug Williams won a super bowl in the 80s he was known as a black quarterback. Now Donovan Mcnabb, Vince Young, Duante Cullpepper, etc are all just known as quarterbacks. I wonder if this will be the case in the presidency? I hope so.
All I know is his first two major moves in office have been to push another 800 Billion dollar bail out which makes absolutely no sense and is loaded with pork yet again. And he pushed former Pres Bush to rescue the auto industry with my tax money, and it wont change a thing. GM is still threating to go belly up and frankly Chrysler should have been killed off long ago. I see more of the same wrapped around a great speech maker in my mind.
I don’t give Focus on the Family that much credit anyways, that letter they sent was false prophecy, as if Dobson is the next Nostradamus.
I think our Christian values have been bent so out of whack that our churches were endorsing an administration based on one issue, abortion. Our churches totally ignored the issues of responsible spending, stewardship of our resources, torture, justice for all people, giving back to our communities, and of course the issue of waging war.
It a nice post Monts and I completely agree with you, the church has been stagnant for too long.
I’ll see you in a couple of weeks.
Dan, who is Barry?
Matt,
Barry Millhouse Atherton.
The conservative “fun” name for Barack Hussein Obama.
It started with Millhouse, because he didn’t want anyone using his middle name because of it’s reminder of middle eastern problems. So he was named Millhouse by Mark Levin. Later, some republicans made fun of Obama and tied it to Osama, so Hannity named him Atherton. Barry is the first name given to him by Limbaugh – and all three now call him Barry Millhouse Atherton.
Just fun. Don’t read into it.
Steve,
It wasn’t just abortion. Frankly, I personally think this is a lost cause. The conservative church was tied up in his affiliation with Wright and his cult. Goes far beyond abortion.
Just wondering.
Due to closer observance to Obama over the last few days, and this post, I think there’s yet another arguement the “church” may have with this guy:
The “type” of leadership Barry is showing in recent days has labled as “bully,” “ineffective,” “dictatorial,” and “uneducated.” Gingrich has also been quoted as saying “He reduced himself from being president of all the American people to being the partisan leader of the left” and “The first month of your presidency is not a very good time to give a campaign speech.” referencing Thursday night’s address.
People are also turned off on his arrogant style of leadership. Unlike Bush, he is late to everything. Everything. Never on time. The level of pride he carries in himself rivals that of our good buddy, Rod Boyabitch.
His kiniving to spend more and more money placing our children and grandchildren so far into debt and his marxist ways of dictating how much people can be paid is ludacrist.
These are only on-going reasons why the church will not stand with this man. His ways are socialistic, marxist, and very, very different than what true freedom really is. It’s not government control. It’s freedom.
Wow. This guy just continues to screw things up big time. This is NOT the government’s country. It’s our country. Yours and mine. We get to say how things are handled – not big government.
Dan- Who is this “arguement” from? And are they talking about Newt Gingrich? He was ran out of office by his own party and has been blamed for the republican party’s failure of the mid-nineties.
Whoever this is from they absolutely need spell-check and need to stop following failed demagogues.
A good portion of it is posted for you to view on Fox News. It’s one of the lead articles. Front and center. You can’t miss it.
The article is different on Foxnews for IPhone, none of what you wrote was in it.
But now Foxsports.com is following me on Twitter and I think they are my new blog subscriber. That’s so wierd!
Must be those right wingers stalking you, Judd. We know where you are. All the time.
Damn Dick Potter and his “Patriot” Act!
Hope…everyone keeps talking about hope with this guy.
And with one stroke of a pen, “hope” for our children and grandchildren to have financial freedom and limited taxation was taken away by this ignorant president. 787B Porkulus bill which our children will be taxed for at such a high rate it isn’t even remotely funny.
Seems wall street thinks so as well. After his magic touch, the DOW falls 298 points.
When are people going to really wake up and see this joke for what he really is? A socialist, marxist, facist communist – and he runs our country. Rest assured, soon, he’ll have each of us worshipping his name. Wait. People already do that.
This is the single biggest mistake this country has ever made.
Hope. It’s gone. What a fool.
I would like to personally welcome Dan Kinzinger back to the United States of America, he has been living overseas the last 8 years and would have hated the high rate of taxes and huge deficit we have accumulated in the previous 8 years, before our President and Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama was elected by a majority of American voters.
In the very near future Dan Kinzinger will be posting his stimulus plan that will fix everything in 1 day. Everyone stay tuned…
High rate of taxes. lol.
You kidding me?
If you really think taxes have been high in the past, this porkulous bill will bring tax rates to between 60% and 70%. This debt will never get paid off, because the dems will just keep on spending. 30 some million to study birds in California?!?!
This will go down as the biggest mistake since John Mark befrended Jermel and had a competition.
Here’s the problem, they say Obama is the new massiah. Wow, I have such fear of this. See, our God is a jealous God and I believe so is our new President. He is spendind sooooo much money and making soooo many “changes” that are going to break America and therefore making us only to lean on him, therefore making Obama the new massiah.
My Lord will come (not Obama) and when he does, may he have mercy on all of you that are putting the church, HIS (GOD’S) church down. You say you are “Christ FOLLOWERS” but you don’t even know what your talking about and here you are PREACHING this to all of these people and wow, you’re ruining their lives. Have you even read and UNDERSTOOD the bible, how about Romans? You talk about fire and brimstone preaching. I believe if not for Jesus Christ being the scarificial Lamb then that would be the end. However, he did die on the cross for our sins and rose again. And that is why Romans is such a great book. All the glory should go to God because of His grace. Aaron you right, that if the church does not tell about the grace of God then it is hopeless and there is eternal suffering for all. But if the church also teaches grace, then there is hope and you do not need Obama to fill that role. Obama is not going to save you. There is no hope in Obama, Bush, Mccain, Clinton, Washington, or anyother president but in Christ alone is there hope. Without Christ I can do nothing.
Well, fogetting spellcheck, you’re right, but missing the main target here.
America has fallen into a realm that it hasn’t been…ever…
One has to look at Christ and the Bible for hope from this wreched man and his terrible leadership and the utmost damage he is doing to this country.
By all means, it doesn’t mean by any sense of the word God won’t prevail – He will and always will – but we still have an obligation as believers to stand for what is right and stand against what is wrong. This sore of a “leader” goes against every bone in the right-thinking Christian mind – and for those others, we must simply pray for.
I know I’m really late getting in on this conversation but I read this the other day and was reminded of your post and the conversation that I had read here.
“Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society. The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can’t articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.”
I felt like this summed up some of the problems and reasons for the failure of the church to be the hope of the world.
Read the whole article here…
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html
Michael Spencer is an interesting fellow, but he’s pretty much dead wrong. This is part of the social attack on evangelicalism – and the fundamental belief system. He wants you to hear that the boat is taking on water, unfortunately, he’s treading in it.
One can’t sit back and discount holding true to fundamental Christian beliefs – and compromise them for sociological acceptance today.
The “new” movement – this “house church / emerging” movement he speaks of is nothing more than the evil stepchild of the seeker movement. It too shall pass, and blow away like all the other flawed thought processes throughout history.
Dan, the house church movement is responsible for seeing the church in China explode from a mere 3 million Christians in the 1970′s to over 130 million today by Chinese government estimates… or more Christians than members of the Chinese Communist Party.
I’m not so sure that the house church is the evil stepchild you make it out to be… nor will it pass away anytime soon.
Dan,
When are you starting your own blog?
I thought this WAS Dan’s blog!? Who the crap is this Aaron guy!?
Pea soup. A good soup. Filled with peas, some make it with bacon, potatoes, etc. Man, it’s healthy. Many really like it. So many don’t. Why? Because it’s flavor is too harsh and it’s texture is like thin pudding. Doesn’t take back, though, that it has a ton of nutrient and is great for you.
But why won’t people eat pea soup? It’s too think…too…flavorful. Too…harsh. So we add water. More and more water. More water, until, the soup has blanded to a point of mere junk, but more palatable to the tastebuds of some. Possibly more than the ones who like the soup the “right” way.
Regardless, the soup was consumed. You had person “A”, who ate the soup before it was blended with water. He grew strong, because he didn’t compromise the original soup – how it was intended to be eaten. Person “B” ate the soup too. He grew, but much slower – and not near to the potential the soup could have given him if he would have eaten it whole.
This is the difference between the emerging/ent/house movement and evangelical fundamentlist beliefs.
May get more people, unfortunately, they will all still need something else you can’t provide.
Thadd,
Not anytime soon. I like educating you too much.
Dan I think a mistake you make is combining the house church movement with the emerging church movement. Even though there are instances where that is true, that isn’t the case 100% of the time. So, you’re making a broad stereo-type that isn’t really fair to the church as a whole.
Your stereotype is: house-church = weak Christians ; traditional-church = strong Christians. It’s not that cut and dry, nor is it an accurate statement.
The Chinese Christians I’ve met who are a part of the house-church movement are some of the strongest and most faithful Christians I’ve ever met. They literally bleed for Christ because of the persecution they face. I’ve never met an American Christian like that… mainly because we experience tremendous freedom of religion here.
Just saying: Be careful with broad stereotypes.
Agreed, and well put. I will say that Christ can be shared / is being shared in many forms and settings. Ignorant of me to say that one wasn’t as good as the other.
Or is it.
See…that’s the big question, Aaron. So you have a house church. fine. Is it different than a “small group?” Different than a “team of believers?” Probably not.
My concern lies with the premise on which the “house church’
grows it’s roots from. The emerging movement.
Didn’t I say I was ready NOT to type tonight? LOL… My mind is mush after a day of…well…regardless…
I will say this, Aaron. you’ve got a great arguement there. Give me a day. Of course, masterpieces don’t come in an instant, brother. lol….
And again you’ve missed the point Dan, the house church is not the emerging movement, nor does it find its roots in the emerging movement. You’re making a broad generalization based on a stereotype that is incomplete.
The house church movement is a worldwide phenomenon that is catalyzing the Kingdom of God in some of the most difficult places in the world: Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam, the Philippines, and a slew of African nations. Because of this movement there has literally been over 100 million people choose to follow Jesus in just the past 30 years… not to mention what’s been done before that! Why are you so disparaging of a movement that has been making such a difference for the Kingdom? You say it’s because it has roots in the emerging church, but the emerging church has only been around since the 1990′s, this contemporary house church movement has been around since before the 1960′s in the US (probably longer) and much longer around the rest of the world.
Why are you giving the church a black eye in this? What’s your beef?
Dan,
You’re a friend, but you’re not my teacher.
says the student to the teacher. lol