The challenge of getting people back in the habit

Hebrews 10:24-25 - And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

Last weekend my church restarted in-person church services.

We didn’t go.

This Sunday I have an assignment due, so we may not attend this week either.

We are now, due to COVID, out of the habit of church attendance.

I feel that this will be an unforeseen result of the pandemic - People will have forgotten how to “do church.“

After months of online services - probably a year+ for some - previously consistent and committed attendees will have gotten used to staying at home. Now, they will be in the habit of cooking a roast dinner (which I’ve loved doing every Sunday night this year) or doing the odd jobs which get them prepared for the week ahead.

The challenge for church leaders will be to remind people of the value of physical church attendance.

In part, they will need to contradict the massages they have been giving all throughout the pandemic - that online church is genuine church and that you can be a healthy believers without physical church attendance.

While these messages are still true, in a post-pandemic world - more Christians than anticipated will need to be re-convinced that it is worth getting into the car each Sunday, just like they used to.

Nepotism questions that must be answered

The offspring of ministers, can be, some of the most talented, committed, faithful and knowledgeable young believers within a church.

When it comes to hiring new staff members, I’ve seen plenty of positions, rightfully,  go to those whom share the surname of the senior minister.

So, how do you avoid the accusation of nepotism once a minister’s kids gets a gig?

Primarily, no single minister should ever have the sole power to hire anyone. Ever. 

No staffing decisions should ever be conducted within a vacuum. If this is the case, and a minister’s relative gets a job, then the charge of nepotism will always hang over that appointment.

But, if the panel - inclusive of a related minister or not - is doing the hiring, what questions should they be able to answer?

First of all, they should be able to point to a group of candidates that were potential hirings. 

Second, those on the panel should be able to clearly articulate why a minister’s kid got the job. They should be able to identify their skills, talents and experience and why this was superior to other candidates.

Finally, they should feel comfortable, having hired the minister’s progeny, to keep them on staff if there is a falling out with the senior minister or the minister amicably moves on. 

If this is not the case, and the above explanations can’t be satisfactorily provided,  then the smell of nepotism will (and should) thickly linger...

Should I really be asked about my injustices?

I am white.

I am male.

I am middle class,

I am married.

I am from a country which is adored globally.

I am a member of the largest religion in my country.

I am one of the least persecuted people on the planet.

Day to day, injustice barely touches me personally.

So, I wonder, when it comes to topic of injustice, how does my privileged situation colour my views?

How different would they be if I was a victim of injustice?

Frankly, I don’t know.

Hopefully - selfishly - I hope I’ll never know.

Yet, in far too many church sermons and bible studies, white-middle class-comfortable-privileged people wonder about injustice.

I did last week.

And, frankly, when the first question asked me to consider the injustices in my life... I found barely any.

Because I’m not a victim of wage thief.

Or sexism.

Or racism.

Or bigotry.

Or even religious persecution.

When it comes to the biblically significant issues of injustice and inequality, it would be far more powerful to put a name, face and voice to the issue.

Bringing in someone who is comfortable to share their personal story is a far better way to begin a discussion about injustice with well-meaning, but ignorant, people.