Foolish wisdom
Commentary
I'm not that old, but I am still old enough to remember "Blue Laws" from my adolescence in northwest Texas. Maybe they didn't have "Blue Laws" in your part of the country, or perhaps they went by a different name. "Blue Laws" were restrictions that prohibited certain types of products from being sold on Sunday. Where I grew up, these restrictions went far beyond forbidding the sale of beer before church services let out. I remember going into supermarkets and seeing huge plastic tarps covering entire aisles because the store was not permitted to sell the items stocked there. Food stuffs were permitted to be sold, but the supermarkets with their diversified product lines were not allowed a leg up on competing stores that were forced to be closed on "the Lord's day."
"Blue Laws" seem almost quaint these days. The fact that they have been (almost?) universally rescinded speaks volumes about how far even conservative parts of our country have come down the road to "post-Christian" America. Nor is the promotion of commerce over Sabbath-keeping a uniquely American phenomenon. With the economic hardships that have resulted over the years, even stores in Israel are finding their viability increasingly dependent on being open for Sabbath shoppers -- an unimaginable oxymoron not long ago. In the modern world, the choice between economic survival (or even improved prosperity) and traditional religious values is a no-brainer.
There have been, of course, those who have resisted the replacement of revealed religious commands by the innovations of modern culture. For some of these folk the rationale can be summarized on bumper stickers as, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." I have even heard it said by others that that bumper stick is too accommodating to our modern sensibilities. They would reduce it to, "God said it and that settles it (whether I, or anyone else for that matter, believes it or not)." But the resistors are fewer in number every year.
Certainly much of what had been considered divine wisdom, our society now considers foolishness (and already considered it so in even Paul's day). Conversely, those who still have insight and commitment to God's purpose for and design of life rightly reject as foolishness much of what is presented as enlightened human wisdom. Before we rush off to join the resistance in tacking up copies of the Ten Commandments in our courts and schools and lobby our legislatures to re-enact the "Blue Laws," we better be sure we have properly understood the true wisdom that is inherent in God's commands.
Exodus 20:1-17
I don't suppose it will come as news to the readers of this journal that the Ten Commandments have traditionally been divided into "two tables." The first table, consisting of the first four commandments (prohibiting worship of other gods, fashioning images, and wrongful use of God's name; and requiring Sabbath observance; vv. 2-11), deals with our responsibilities before God. The second table, containing the remaining six commandments (to honor parents, proscriptions of murder, adultery, theft, false testimony, and covetousness; vv. 12-17), treats our duties to our fellow human beings. In an age when most of our parishioners probably could not list the Ten Commandments from memory (and might insert some interesting additions if they tried), many who gather to hear us preach may be glad to have the mnemonic device.
Just when this method of summarizing the Ten Commandments emerged is probably lost to the mists of history, yet we can be certain that it is not a modern invention. It probably lies behind Jesus' response to the question regarding the commandment of greatest importance (Mark 12:28-34 and parallels) even though Jesus derived the duty to love God from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and to love others from Leviticus 19:18. Nor does this division originate with Jesus, because his scribal interlocutor immediately acknowledged that Jesus had given the traditional answer.
The very fact that the Ten Commandments could be reduced to two, however, perhaps says something about them that we need to hear even more than memory tricks to help us recall the list itself. God's commands were never about lists of rules but about the principles upon which God's design of life are founded. They are not things on a checklist to do or to avoid such that as long as we don't run afoul of what is explicitly listed, we are pretty much free to do whatever else we might desire.
One clue to this approach to the Ten Commandments is provided by the very way in which they are introduced here in Exodus: "Then God spoke all these words." We are not told that God expounds commandments, or issues laws, or even pronounces decrees. Rather, God speaks words. God and the Israelites are entering into a covenant there on Mount Sinai and bound up in any covenant are responsibilities between the parties. Since this covenant is between an individual, God, and a community, the people of God, it naturally entails responsibilities between the parties to the covenant and responsibilities to hold the community together as a party to the covenant. These words, then, are some specific examples of what it means to live in such a covenant -- not an exhaustive list, but some pointers along the way.
It is this understanding of God's commands that is captured in the Jewish concept of Torah. Unfortunately, most Christians are only familiar with it as filtered through Paul, and his choice of translating it into Greek as nomos (that finds its way into English as "law") has led to some unfortunate associations. Torah is not so much "law" as "instruction." The Creator of the universe has provided instruction -- a manual, if you will -- regarding how best to live in accord with the design of the universe. It is instruction that is to be taken with the utmost seriousness, but it is not "legalism."
Despite the fact that 80% of the Ten Commandments are prohibitions, their fundamental purpose is not to limit life but to make living the good life, a life in tune with the rhythms of the universe, possible. They are not the ad hoc proscriptions of a cosmic killjoy, but the wise words of a loving parent on how to get the most out of the life we have been given.
1 Corinthians 1:18-25
One of the first rules of exegesis is to pay attention to the conjunctions. Anytime a passage appears in the lectionary that begins with a conjunction, "for" in the current instance, the first thing the interpreter needs to establish is what is the connection to what has come before and how does it affect the meaning of what I am about to read. Such conjunctions are red flags that we are joining the conversation between author and reader mid-stream.
Since this reading is drawn from the first chapter of Paul's letter, there is not a lot that has come before. Like all the authentic letters, 1 Corinthians opens with the customary salutations and Paul's usual thanksgiving to God for those to whom he is writing (1:1-9). He turns to his main purpose in writing at verse 10 ("Now I appeal to you ..." an adverb this time, but still one of those exegetical red flags). Paul is very concerned about divisions that are fracturing the Corinthian Christian community and wants to restore agreement among them. It is clear from Paul's description that they are forming factions under the names of prominent leaders of the church (v. 12). What is less clear are the reasons for the divisions. One indication comes in Paul's defense of his own ministry (presumably over against what others are perceived to be doing): "Christ ... [sent me] to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power" (v. 17).
A dispute within the Christian community over what constitutes "wisdom" and "power" provides the context for Paul's discussion of what counts as true "foolishness" and true "wisdom" in the assigned lectionary reading. It is interesting to note, then, that Paul identifies the belief that "the message about the cross is foolishness" with "those who are perishing" (that is, those outside the community of the redeemed) whereas "to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (v. 18). Who is it, then, that Paul intends to include among the "us"? Is it a rhetorical strategy to draw in all the Corinthians (who among them would want to perish?) and suggest that his position should be self-evident to them? Or is Paul himself suggesting that the only basis for agreement in the church is his position, and those who do not hold it, are in danger of perishing?
As uncomfortable as it may be for those who place tremendous value on tolerance and diversity, Paul's citation of Isaiah 29:14 to support his argument clearly suggests that he intends the latter possibility. There may be those, Paul insists, who believe that the church is about "eloquent wisdom" that is acceptable to Greek sensibilities and demonstrations of divine power through "signs" that would continue the Jewish religious tradition (v. 22). But the church is about "Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (v. 23).
If the concerns are "wisdom" and "power," then from the standpoint of "human wisdom" (v. 25) Christ crucified is an obvious stumbling block. A ministry that ends in the execution of its leader at the hands of his adversaries demonstrates neither "wisdom" nor "power" for those whose standards of judgment are success. Paul insists on the contrary that "those who are called" (that is, who have been redeemed) recognize in "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength" (vv. 24-25). But what does Paul have to bolster this claim other than his own insistence?
What is unstated here is that the message of "Christ crucified" does not end with the cross but with the resurrection (see especially 1 Corinthians 15:12-28). For Paul there is ultimately only Christ both crucified and raised -- there cannot be either one without the other since both intrinsically depend upon their counterpart. Thus, to preach "Christ crucified" is to preach him also "raised." "God's foolishness" in devising a plan of redemption that includes the "weakness" of death on a cross is "wiser than human wisdom and... stronger than human strength" because it includes the power of resurrection, the triumph over death and its hold over us. That we might have sought a means of redemption that does not require a death only unmasks our foolishness in believing that death can be conquered apart from resurrection.
John 2:13-22
It is well known that one of the major differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels is that whereas John places the so-called "temple cleansing" at the outset of Jesus' ministry, the Synoptics associate it with the final week of his life (Mark 11:15-18 and parallels). Although most critical scholars agree Jesus is likely to have performed such an act only once during his ministry, they are divided as to which chronology is more likely historical. The argument against John's ordering is that the Synoptists see this act as a prime factor in the decision to have Jesus executed. In favor of John's sequence is the fact that the Synoptists have no choice but to locate it during Passion Week since that is the only time during his ministry they report Jesus was in Jerusalem.
More important than the chronological difference between John and the Synoptics, however, is what they report as Jesus' reason for his action. In the Synoptics, Jesus charges that the temple has been transformed into "a den of robbers" (so NRSV). The Greek word is lestes, and it was used to refer to bandits driven not only by economic but also revolutionary motives, thus "insurrectionists" or "guerillas." Jesus' objection would then be that whereas the temple was to be a "house of prayer for all nations" they have transformed it into an insurrectionists' lair (Mark 11:17). The temple of the God of the whole world was being narrowly identified with the nationalistic longings of a single people. The irony is that while opposing such armed rebellion, Jesus would be crucified on a charge of fomenting insurrection.
In John's account of Jesus' actions in the temple, there is no suggestion of robbery or insurrection. Here Jesus is consumed with zeal for God's house (the disciples recalling Psalm 69:9) that drives his prophetic action (see Zechariah 14:21) against those who have transformed the temple into a place of commerce. Yes, people must have the proper sacrifices and offerings to bring to their worship, but worship itself is not to be an act of commerce.
In the reaction of "the Jews" John presents some key elements for his gospel. First, notice that they ask for a "sign." Coming just after transformation of water into wine at the wedding in Cana ("the first of [Jesus'] signs," 2:11), this request is hardly incidental. Moreover, reference to destruction of a temple, signs, and resurrection (2:19-22) all come together in what John marks as the climax of Jesus' ministry in chapter 11. Having raised Lazarus from the dead, the chief priests and Pharisees begin to plot Jesus' execution: "This man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation" (11:47-48). The conflict between Jesus and the Jewish religious leadership that began in the temple comes to a head over what must be done to preserve the temple. But for the gospels, saving the nation from destruction is dependent on Jesus' resurrection (2:21-22; 11:50-52) and not the fate of the temple.
Application
There are those who believe that the problems of modern life are the result of the loss of rules. If we can just go back to all the old rules and then compel everyone's obedience to the rules, then life will be wonderful. Problem is, the complexity of modern life is such that we are regularly faced with circumstances that the old rules never contemplated. Some of these are driven by rapidly changing technologies; some by new insights into and evaluations of the circumstances that gave rise to the old rules in the first place. Does anyone seriously think the answer to our problems includes execution of rebellious teenagers (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)? How do you compel 100% conformity to the rules? And anyone who has ever raised children knows that you can never create enough rules to govern every circumstance that may arise.
Our problem is that we look to rules -- ancient, biblical mandates and modern laws and regulations -- to make our world wonderful. But our world doesn't need to be made wonderful; God already created it "very good" from the beginning (Genesis 1:31a). What we need is to get back into step with the rhythms of life placed there by the Creator. We need instruction in the basic principles of love for God and love as justice for others, not more rules. And if the world has changed, then we shouldn't be all that surprised if some of the old rules of scripture no longer seem to fit. After all, those rules were applications of divine principles of love and justice to particular circumstances that may themselves no longer exist.
Before we let our antinomian selves run away with us, we do need to understand that God's wisdom -- those principles for how the world is designed to work -- are sometimes quite different from our wisdom. Sometimes success is in sacrifice; sometimes power is only demonstrated through weakness. If the world was created "very good" but has been corrupted by human sin, then we should expect that getting back into step with God's design for the world will go against the grain of the world system as it now exists. Human wisdom is foolishness, and what seems to the world God's foolishness is wisdom and power. On that we can broker no compromise.
An Alternative Application
Is it time to clean the commerce out of God's houses again? The point of this question is not to ask whether churches should be involved in bookstore endeavors, running childcare centers, or even placing Amazon links on their websites to receive the referral fees. The problem of commerce in the church is becoming something much more fundamental.
There is a business school at a local university that periodically sends me, as a pastor, flyers about either their MBA program or some special conference they are hosting. It would be tempting to laugh this off as those outside the church looking upon ministry as just another "service business" were it not that more than a few church growth gurus also promote business practices as well. Another flyer I received was for a conference specifically for pastors being held with Disney personnel in Orlando regarding how their "imaginative" customer service practices can be used to foster church growth.
Churches don't exist to be customer service enterprises. They exist to be places where people gather to minister to God through worship and to offer ministry to one another in the name of Christ. Obviously if they succeed at these tasks then they will also be places where people are served. But when we structure our churches and programs along the lines of customer service business, then we should not be surprised if they draw people looking for professionals to serve them rather than looking for a place where they can join in service of others.
"Blue Laws" seem almost quaint these days. The fact that they have been (almost?) universally rescinded speaks volumes about how far even conservative parts of our country have come down the road to "post-Christian" America. Nor is the promotion of commerce over Sabbath-keeping a uniquely American phenomenon. With the economic hardships that have resulted over the years, even stores in Israel are finding their viability increasingly dependent on being open for Sabbath shoppers -- an unimaginable oxymoron not long ago. In the modern world, the choice between economic survival (or even improved prosperity) and traditional religious values is a no-brainer.
There have been, of course, those who have resisted the replacement of revealed religious commands by the innovations of modern culture. For some of these folk the rationale can be summarized on bumper stickers as, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." I have even heard it said by others that that bumper stick is too accommodating to our modern sensibilities. They would reduce it to, "God said it and that settles it (whether I, or anyone else for that matter, believes it or not)." But the resistors are fewer in number every year.
Certainly much of what had been considered divine wisdom, our society now considers foolishness (and already considered it so in even Paul's day). Conversely, those who still have insight and commitment to God's purpose for and design of life rightly reject as foolishness much of what is presented as enlightened human wisdom. Before we rush off to join the resistance in tacking up copies of the Ten Commandments in our courts and schools and lobby our legislatures to re-enact the "Blue Laws," we better be sure we have properly understood the true wisdom that is inherent in God's commands.
Exodus 20:1-17
I don't suppose it will come as news to the readers of this journal that the Ten Commandments have traditionally been divided into "two tables." The first table, consisting of the first four commandments (prohibiting worship of other gods, fashioning images, and wrongful use of God's name; and requiring Sabbath observance; vv. 2-11), deals with our responsibilities before God. The second table, containing the remaining six commandments (to honor parents, proscriptions of murder, adultery, theft, false testimony, and covetousness; vv. 12-17), treats our duties to our fellow human beings. In an age when most of our parishioners probably could not list the Ten Commandments from memory (and might insert some interesting additions if they tried), many who gather to hear us preach may be glad to have the mnemonic device.
Just when this method of summarizing the Ten Commandments emerged is probably lost to the mists of history, yet we can be certain that it is not a modern invention. It probably lies behind Jesus' response to the question regarding the commandment of greatest importance (Mark 12:28-34 and parallels) even though Jesus derived the duty to love God from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and to love others from Leviticus 19:18. Nor does this division originate with Jesus, because his scribal interlocutor immediately acknowledged that Jesus had given the traditional answer.
The very fact that the Ten Commandments could be reduced to two, however, perhaps says something about them that we need to hear even more than memory tricks to help us recall the list itself. God's commands were never about lists of rules but about the principles upon which God's design of life are founded. They are not things on a checklist to do or to avoid such that as long as we don't run afoul of what is explicitly listed, we are pretty much free to do whatever else we might desire.
One clue to this approach to the Ten Commandments is provided by the very way in which they are introduced here in Exodus: "Then God spoke all these words." We are not told that God expounds commandments, or issues laws, or even pronounces decrees. Rather, God speaks words. God and the Israelites are entering into a covenant there on Mount Sinai and bound up in any covenant are responsibilities between the parties. Since this covenant is between an individual, God, and a community, the people of God, it naturally entails responsibilities between the parties to the covenant and responsibilities to hold the community together as a party to the covenant. These words, then, are some specific examples of what it means to live in such a covenant -- not an exhaustive list, but some pointers along the way.
It is this understanding of God's commands that is captured in the Jewish concept of Torah. Unfortunately, most Christians are only familiar with it as filtered through Paul, and his choice of translating it into Greek as nomos (that finds its way into English as "law") has led to some unfortunate associations. Torah is not so much "law" as "instruction." The Creator of the universe has provided instruction -- a manual, if you will -- regarding how best to live in accord with the design of the universe. It is instruction that is to be taken with the utmost seriousness, but it is not "legalism."
Despite the fact that 80% of the Ten Commandments are prohibitions, their fundamental purpose is not to limit life but to make living the good life, a life in tune with the rhythms of the universe, possible. They are not the ad hoc proscriptions of a cosmic killjoy, but the wise words of a loving parent on how to get the most out of the life we have been given.
1 Corinthians 1:18-25
One of the first rules of exegesis is to pay attention to the conjunctions. Anytime a passage appears in the lectionary that begins with a conjunction, "for" in the current instance, the first thing the interpreter needs to establish is what is the connection to what has come before and how does it affect the meaning of what I am about to read. Such conjunctions are red flags that we are joining the conversation between author and reader mid-stream.
Since this reading is drawn from the first chapter of Paul's letter, there is not a lot that has come before. Like all the authentic letters, 1 Corinthians opens with the customary salutations and Paul's usual thanksgiving to God for those to whom he is writing (1:1-9). He turns to his main purpose in writing at verse 10 ("Now I appeal to you ..." an adverb this time, but still one of those exegetical red flags). Paul is very concerned about divisions that are fracturing the Corinthian Christian community and wants to restore agreement among them. It is clear from Paul's description that they are forming factions under the names of prominent leaders of the church (v. 12). What is less clear are the reasons for the divisions. One indication comes in Paul's defense of his own ministry (presumably over against what others are perceived to be doing): "Christ ... [sent me] to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power" (v. 17).
A dispute within the Christian community over what constitutes "wisdom" and "power" provides the context for Paul's discussion of what counts as true "foolishness" and true "wisdom" in the assigned lectionary reading. It is interesting to note, then, that Paul identifies the belief that "the message about the cross is foolishness" with "those who are perishing" (that is, those outside the community of the redeemed) whereas "to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (v. 18). Who is it, then, that Paul intends to include among the "us"? Is it a rhetorical strategy to draw in all the Corinthians (who among them would want to perish?) and suggest that his position should be self-evident to them? Or is Paul himself suggesting that the only basis for agreement in the church is his position, and those who do not hold it, are in danger of perishing?
As uncomfortable as it may be for those who place tremendous value on tolerance and diversity, Paul's citation of Isaiah 29:14 to support his argument clearly suggests that he intends the latter possibility. There may be those, Paul insists, who believe that the church is about "eloquent wisdom" that is acceptable to Greek sensibilities and demonstrations of divine power through "signs" that would continue the Jewish religious tradition (v. 22). But the church is about "Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (v. 23).
If the concerns are "wisdom" and "power," then from the standpoint of "human wisdom" (v. 25) Christ crucified is an obvious stumbling block. A ministry that ends in the execution of its leader at the hands of his adversaries demonstrates neither "wisdom" nor "power" for those whose standards of judgment are success. Paul insists on the contrary that "those who are called" (that is, who have been redeemed) recognize in "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength" (vv. 24-25). But what does Paul have to bolster this claim other than his own insistence?
What is unstated here is that the message of "Christ crucified" does not end with the cross but with the resurrection (see especially 1 Corinthians 15:12-28). For Paul there is ultimately only Christ both crucified and raised -- there cannot be either one without the other since both intrinsically depend upon their counterpart. Thus, to preach "Christ crucified" is to preach him also "raised." "God's foolishness" in devising a plan of redemption that includes the "weakness" of death on a cross is "wiser than human wisdom and... stronger than human strength" because it includes the power of resurrection, the triumph over death and its hold over us. That we might have sought a means of redemption that does not require a death only unmasks our foolishness in believing that death can be conquered apart from resurrection.
John 2:13-22
It is well known that one of the major differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels is that whereas John places the so-called "temple cleansing" at the outset of Jesus' ministry, the Synoptics associate it with the final week of his life (Mark 11:15-18 and parallels). Although most critical scholars agree Jesus is likely to have performed such an act only once during his ministry, they are divided as to which chronology is more likely historical. The argument against John's ordering is that the Synoptists see this act as a prime factor in the decision to have Jesus executed. In favor of John's sequence is the fact that the Synoptists have no choice but to locate it during Passion Week since that is the only time during his ministry they report Jesus was in Jerusalem.
More important than the chronological difference between John and the Synoptics, however, is what they report as Jesus' reason for his action. In the Synoptics, Jesus charges that the temple has been transformed into "a den of robbers" (so NRSV). The Greek word is lestes, and it was used to refer to bandits driven not only by economic but also revolutionary motives, thus "insurrectionists" or "guerillas." Jesus' objection would then be that whereas the temple was to be a "house of prayer for all nations" they have transformed it into an insurrectionists' lair (Mark 11:17). The temple of the God of the whole world was being narrowly identified with the nationalistic longings of a single people. The irony is that while opposing such armed rebellion, Jesus would be crucified on a charge of fomenting insurrection.
In John's account of Jesus' actions in the temple, there is no suggestion of robbery or insurrection. Here Jesus is consumed with zeal for God's house (the disciples recalling Psalm 69:9) that drives his prophetic action (see Zechariah 14:21) against those who have transformed the temple into a place of commerce. Yes, people must have the proper sacrifices and offerings to bring to their worship, but worship itself is not to be an act of commerce.
In the reaction of "the Jews" John presents some key elements for his gospel. First, notice that they ask for a "sign." Coming just after transformation of water into wine at the wedding in Cana ("the first of [Jesus'] signs," 2:11), this request is hardly incidental. Moreover, reference to destruction of a temple, signs, and resurrection (2:19-22) all come together in what John marks as the climax of Jesus' ministry in chapter 11. Having raised Lazarus from the dead, the chief priests and Pharisees begin to plot Jesus' execution: "This man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation" (11:47-48). The conflict between Jesus and the Jewish religious leadership that began in the temple comes to a head over what must be done to preserve the temple. But for the gospels, saving the nation from destruction is dependent on Jesus' resurrection (2:21-22; 11:50-52) and not the fate of the temple.
Application
There are those who believe that the problems of modern life are the result of the loss of rules. If we can just go back to all the old rules and then compel everyone's obedience to the rules, then life will be wonderful. Problem is, the complexity of modern life is such that we are regularly faced with circumstances that the old rules never contemplated. Some of these are driven by rapidly changing technologies; some by new insights into and evaluations of the circumstances that gave rise to the old rules in the first place. Does anyone seriously think the answer to our problems includes execution of rebellious teenagers (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)? How do you compel 100% conformity to the rules? And anyone who has ever raised children knows that you can never create enough rules to govern every circumstance that may arise.
Our problem is that we look to rules -- ancient, biblical mandates and modern laws and regulations -- to make our world wonderful. But our world doesn't need to be made wonderful; God already created it "very good" from the beginning (Genesis 1:31a). What we need is to get back into step with the rhythms of life placed there by the Creator. We need instruction in the basic principles of love for God and love as justice for others, not more rules. And if the world has changed, then we shouldn't be all that surprised if some of the old rules of scripture no longer seem to fit. After all, those rules were applications of divine principles of love and justice to particular circumstances that may themselves no longer exist.
Before we let our antinomian selves run away with us, we do need to understand that God's wisdom -- those principles for how the world is designed to work -- are sometimes quite different from our wisdom. Sometimes success is in sacrifice; sometimes power is only demonstrated through weakness. If the world was created "very good" but has been corrupted by human sin, then we should expect that getting back into step with God's design for the world will go against the grain of the world system as it now exists. Human wisdom is foolishness, and what seems to the world God's foolishness is wisdom and power. On that we can broker no compromise.
An Alternative Application
Is it time to clean the commerce out of God's houses again? The point of this question is not to ask whether churches should be involved in bookstore endeavors, running childcare centers, or even placing Amazon links on their websites to receive the referral fees. The problem of commerce in the church is becoming something much more fundamental.
There is a business school at a local university that periodically sends me, as a pastor, flyers about either their MBA program or some special conference they are hosting. It would be tempting to laugh this off as those outside the church looking upon ministry as just another "service business" were it not that more than a few church growth gurus also promote business practices as well. Another flyer I received was for a conference specifically for pastors being held with Disney personnel in Orlando regarding how their "imaginative" customer service practices can be used to foster church growth.
Churches don't exist to be customer service enterprises. They exist to be places where people gather to minister to God through worship and to offer ministry to one another in the name of Christ. Obviously if they succeed at these tasks then they will also be places where people are served. But when we structure our churches and programs along the lines of customer service business, then we should not be surprised if they draw people looking for professionals to serve them rather than looking for a place where they can join in service of others.
