I've often thought that I might make a good film critic. I'm a big fan of movies, but I have a critical nature that tends to unpack and analyze things. I know some people can't stand critics. They'd rather not think too hard about their entertainment, and to them a critic is like that English teacher in your life that can't help but bring your grammatical errors to your attention. I have, as you might expect, a different view.
I believe that film critics have the potential to raise the standards of movie making. They can, though they seldom do, hold Hollywood accountable for its excesses and irresponsibility. They make very clear what's wrong with the movies we watch, but they also call our attention to the true gems. It gets difficult, after all, to distinguish what is good, unless you are willing to identify what is bad. If you praise everything, then what do you say when you encounter something genuinely praiseworthy?
I think the common Christian view of the modern church is a bit like film reviews in a high school newspaper. Everything gets five stars, even when it stinks. Sometimes I get the impression that we believe that if we think highly of everything, it will actually be good. Consequently, we rarely reconsider the directions the church has taken.
When someone like me comes along, who is inclined to look at the church through a critical lens, people either find it refreshingly honest, or irritatingly pessimistic. But any critique of the church has to be like a movie review, the intent behind finding what is wrong is the opportunity to recognize the really great things when they come along.
More specifically, a critique is not really helpful unless it suggests a new direction. That is my intent, to seek out and implement solid Biblical directions that promise to fix what ails us. Of course, if Christians reject the critique, they also reject the possible solutions. We assume then, that we don't need to do anything or go anywhere new because what we were doing and where we were going are already just fine. Or, sometimes, we recognize things are probably not what they should be, but we are resolved to the deficiency, believing the way things are is a dynamic we cannot overcome.
While many, maybe most, people find criticism inherently negative, it occurs to me that criticism exists because of the belief that something better is possible.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Long Worship Service
This morning our worship service ran too long. The director of our upcoming mission trip planned the service, and it would have been fine, except there were several people involved in presenting different things, and some of us, myself included, spoke longer than the few minutes we intended. Anyway, the end result was the service was two hours long - forty-five minutes longer than normal.
I never used to pay attention to such things, but to keep the peace I've maintained a sort of unspoken social contract with the congregation. I generally plan our gatherings so they will last about 75 minutes, and I'm pretty diligent about keeping it from ever exceeding 90 minutes. Today was a rare exception, but I've already heard there were some pretty disgruntled people after the gathering.
Foreign missionaries often have this problem. They are not accustomed to the hard scheduled time constraints we employ here in the states. People here can get downright nasty if you allow your worship service to run beyond what they expect. Of course, this morning's gathering didn't really need to run as long as it did. Had I known it was going to, I certainly would have abbreviated my own contributions to the morning. But it bothers me that this is such a big deal.
American Christians are very much accustomed to rigid limitations on the time and effort they are expected to expend on worship or ministry. If you exceed these expectations, you often hear about it. An hour and fifteen minutes seems to be about the limit for an organized worship gathering. Ten hours a month devoted to a ministry and people start talking about "burnout." Of course, we have lots of rationalizations for all of this. We are busy people, with important things to do.
There is something about it, though, that eats at me...that makes me question our devotion. I know that a worship service or hours spent in service of a particular ministry are not necessarily indications of our faithfulness, but it's also hard to believe we are really surrendered to Jesus if two hours of worship or two hours of ministry in a given week are enough to deplete us.
I've been feeling regret today for letting the service run so long, but I also regret that I'm conditioned to think it's a problem.
I never used to pay attention to such things, but to keep the peace I've maintained a sort of unspoken social contract with the congregation. I generally plan our gatherings so they will last about 75 minutes, and I'm pretty diligent about keeping it from ever exceeding 90 minutes. Today was a rare exception, but I've already heard there were some pretty disgruntled people after the gathering.
Foreign missionaries often have this problem. They are not accustomed to the hard scheduled time constraints we employ here in the states. People here can get downright nasty if you allow your worship service to run beyond what they expect. Of course, this morning's gathering didn't really need to run as long as it did. Had I known it was going to, I certainly would have abbreviated my own contributions to the morning. But it bothers me that this is such a big deal.
American Christians are very much accustomed to rigid limitations on the time and effort they are expected to expend on worship or ministry. If you exceed these expectations, you often hear about it. An hour and fifteen minutes seems to be about the limit for an organized worship gathering. Ten hours a month devoted to a ministry and people start talking about "burnout." Of course, we have lots of rationalizations for all of this. We are busy people, with important things to do.
There is something about it, though, that eats at me...that makes me question our devotion. I know that a worship service or hours spent in service of a particular ministry are not necessarily indications of our faithfulness, but it's also hard to believe we are really surrendered to Jesus if two hours of worship or two hours of ministry in a given week are enough to deplete us.
I've been feeling regret today for letting the service run so long, but I also regret that I'm conditioned to think it's a problem.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Biblical Integrity
Our situation is a little unique in the modern Christian world. We are an independent congregation governed by local elders. Thus, the authority common to the more predominant pastor led church model is not common to me. As a minister, I can suggest a vision for our future, but I certainly cannot dictate it. I don't have a problem with that, as I don't think it's healthy to build the local congregation around an individual. But, having the authority to set direction in the hands of several is a bit complicated.
In our particular congregation, I've rarely been denied the opportunity to try things, but I've often been denied overt support. That is, I've been allowed and even encouraged to try approaches, to attempt to influence people, and to teach on Biblical direction for contemporary ministry. But rarely has the leadership identified and endorsed any specific direction for the congregation. And, influence leaders in the congregation have, at times, subtly undermined things we've attempted to do by making dismissive statements in the background. So, we've often found ourselves at an impasse in regard to a congregational vision.
Recent events began to change that, but at the moment it feels like we are a bit stuck again. Of course, I know some of my critics will say I'm only complaining because I'm not getting my way. And I am as subject to selfish desires as anyone. But I find that those who complain the loudest about "my way" are primarily concerned that if I get "my way" they won't get "their way." Though Christians tend to make their complaints using spiritual terminology, it is still, more often than not, a question of self interest.
Thus, when we dispute over our vision for the local church, we are, quite often, disputing, not over theological or doctrinal ideas, but over preferences and opinion. This, in and of itself, I don't mind. People have opinions and ideas, and should be free to express them, so long as we don't equate our opinions and ideas with the will of God. Unfortunately, that happens all too often.
For me, the most disturbing thing about the church today is that the Bible does not seem to literally matter. Most Christians will take exception to such a statement, but I'm convinced it is true. In his book, Knowing Christ Today, Dallas Willard points out that western civilization, both secular and Christian, has so separated faith from knowledge, that when confronted with new knowledge, we are capable of rejecting it in deference to our faith. Which indicates that our faith is not informed by knowledge. So if our faith is rooted in the modern church, and knowledge of Scripture challenges the practice thereof, we favor our faith over that knowledge.
This is another way of saying that we have assigned authority to our own traditions, experiences, feelings, and religion. The Roman church, after Constantine, assigned itself this kind of authority, and in spite of reformation, most of us still make the same assumption at some level. It basically works like this: We are the church. Whatever we do and whatever we have experienced is indicative of what the church does. If the content of Scripture appears to contradict what we do or what we have experienced, we can disregard it because... We are the church.
The net effect is that when the Bible establishes our direction for us, we are very slow to adopt that direction in actual practice. Many who sincerely believe they are following Christ are actually following a mixture of their religious experiences, their impressions of Christ, and an unhealthy portion of selfish intent.
I'm not real big on the modern church "vision process." It's been borrowed from the corporate world of commerce, which is another problem. But I find the typical process incredibly self centered. Often, we seem to be seeking our vision as informed by Christ, rather than Christ's vision as employed by us. And the strongest indication of that is the fact that the Bible actually gives us some pretty clear directions that we disregard because they do not fit our religious experience.
In our particular congregation, I've rarely been denied the opportunity to try things, but I've often been denied overt support. That is, I've been allowed and even encouraged to try approaches, to attempt to influence people, and to teach on Biblical direction for contemporary ministry. But rarely has the leadership identified and endorsed any specific direction for the congregation. And, influence leaders in the congregation have, at times, subtly undermined things we've attempted to do by making dismissive statements in the background. So, we've often found ourselves at an impasse in regard to a congregational vision.
Recent events began to change that, but at the moment it feels like we are a bit stuck again. Of course, I know some of my critics will say I'm only complaining because I'm not getting my way. And I am as subject to selfish desires as anyone. But I find that those who complain the loudest about "my way" are primarily concerned that if I get "my way" they won't get "their way." Though Christians tend to make their complaints using spiritual terminology, it is still, more often than not, a question of self interest.
Thus, when we dispute over our vision for the local church, we are, quite often, disputing, not over theological or doctrinal ideas, but over preferences and opinion. This, in and of itself, I don't mind. People have opinions and ideas, and should be free to express them, so long as we don't equate our opinions and ideas with the will of God. Unfortunately, that happens all too often.
For me, the most disturbing thing about the church today is that the Bible does not seem to literally matter. Most Christians will take exception to such a statement, but I'm convinced it is true. In his book, Knowing Christ Today, Dallas Willard points out that western civilization, both secular and Christian, has so separated faith from knowledge, that when confronted with new knowledge, we are capable of rejecting it in deference to our faith. Which indicates that our faith is not informed by knowledge. So if our faith is rooted in the modern church, and knowledge of Scripture challenges the practice thereof, we favor our faith over that knowledge.
This is another way of saying that we have assigned authority to our own traditions, experiences, feelings, and religion. The Roman church, after Constantine, assigned itself this kind of authority, and in spite of reformation, most of us still make the same assumption at some level. It basically works like this: We are the church. Whatever we do and whatever we have experienced is indicative of what the church does. If the content of Scripture appears to contradict what we do or what we have experienced, we can disregard it because... We are the church.
The net effect is that when the Bible establishes our direction for us, we are very slow to adopt that direction in actual practice. Many who sincerely believe they are following Christ are actually following a mixture of their religious experiences, their impressions of Christ, and an unhealthy portion of selfish intent.
I'm not real big on the modern church "vision process." It's been borrowed from the corporate world of commerce, which is another problem. But I find the typical process incredibly self centered. Often, we seem to be seeking our vision as informed by Christ, rather than Christ's vision as employed by us. And the strongest indication of that is the fact that the Bible actually gives us some pretty clear directions that we disregard because they do not fit our religious experience.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
A Welcome Chaos
After my last post I checked on a couple of other blogs I follow and found that they, too, had written about church plants. Hugh Halter's blog and Neil Cole's blog both focused on it, with Cole's blog featuring a long list of the challenges involved. Points well taken in contrast to my "church plants sometimes look like greener pastures" posting.
I have to say, however, the chaos of a missional church setting would be welcome to me. Cole's blog talks about all the weeknight meetings training different groups as they plant home churches. I'd really like to have at least one group of people prepared to be trained for such an endeavor. That's something I'd really like to work towards.
My house is abuzz today with poultry. I've been raising chickens as a sort of hobby, and today I have chicks hatching in an incubator, twenty-six new chicks and four goslings that just arrived from the hatchery, all in addition to my fifteen mature layers and my rooster, Stew. My kids are extremely excited by all this, but to tell you the truth, so am I.
I'd love to feel that way about ministry. I'd love to be caught up in the excitement of things happening at all levels, and life bursting out everywhere. I've been trying for a long time to involve everyone in our congregation in everything we are trying to do, and I think I've only frustrated them and myself. At this point, I think I really need, for the sake of productivity and my sanity, to work intensely with a very small group of people who want to explore all the possibilities of what the church could be.
I have to say, however, the chaos of a missional church setting would be welcome to me. Cole's blog talks about all the weeknight meetings training different groups as they plant home churches. I'd really like to have at least one group of people prepared to be trained for such an endeavor. That's something I'd really like to work towards.
My house is abuzz today with poultry. I've been raising chickens as a sort of hobby, and today I have chicks hatching in an incubator, twenty-six new chicks and four goslings that just arrived from the hatchery, all in addition to my fifteen mature layers and my rooster, Stew. My kids are extremely excited by all this, but to tell you the truth, so am I.
I'd love to feel that way about ministry. I'd love to be caught up in the excitement of things happening at all levels, and life bursting out everywhere. I've been trying for a long time to involve everyone in our congregation in everything we are trying to do, and I think I've only frustrated them and myself. At this point, I think I really need, for the sake of productivity and my sanity, to work intensely with a very small group of people who want to explore all the possibilities of what the church could be.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Church Plants
About ten years ago my wife and I seriously considered an opportunity to work with a then recent church plant up in Washington State. Ultimately, it didn't seem to be where God was leading us at the time, but I was certainly intrigued by the possibilities. I realize, of course, that church plants have there own challenges and difficulties, but for many in an established church ministry the thought of being in a setting where the church has not had time to accumulate any baggage is very appealing.
Some day I think I would like to be a part of a church plant, though as I've considered all the options and possibilities, I'd be most interested in some kind of home church network. It is my perception, at this point in the journey, that the effort to restore mission and discipleship to the local church is inhibited by the way we structure "church." I believe the home church format better lends itself to these.
One of the things I've learned from colleagues in church plants is it doesn't take long before established church folk start showing up, and bringing their baggage with them. The environment of a church plant is exciting, and inasmuch as American Christianity is very much about pursuing a feeling, that excitement is a draw. The problem is, these church plants often find themselves burdened with the dead weight of Christians who want that excitement but who are not particularly mission minded.
Hugh Halter at Adullam here in Denver is rather blunt on this point. He sees the missional church as made up of those checking out Jesus and those committed to serving him in a missional way. There is no in between. Hugh is rather unapologetic about the fact that the health of the missional church is often dependent on our willingness to invite people to leave if they've no intent to serve.
On the other end of the church spectrum, Saddleback church in CA requires its members to get involved in a ministry, or go worship somewhere else. I wonder how that really works in a mega church setting. I've often seen people sign onto a new ministry and then do nothing about it for years, so they must have some way of holding people accountable.
I know some will perceive of such things as overly controlling, but the American church is deeply afflicted by an audience syndrome. Paul often describes the church as a body, made up of many parts. Well, the American church is about three-quarters appendix. The appendix is a body part with an indefinite purpose, and when it's removed, you don't really notice its absence. That is the effect that audience has on the local church. A few members serve in the various ministries, and the rest observe.
I think that's what happens when mission gets misplaced. In the absence of mission, churches turn inward, and get focused on how we are feeling for Jesus rather than on what we are doing for Jesus. And it's not enough to merely support missions, we need our churches to be populated by people who share a strong sense of mission and calling on the local level.
Some day I think I would like to be a part of a church plant, though as I've considered all the options and possibilities, I'd be most interested in some kind of home church network. It is my perception, at this point in the journey, that the effort to restore mission and discipleship to the local church is inhibited by the way we structure "church." I believe the home church format better lends itself to these.
One of the things I've learned from colleagues in church plants is it doesn't take long before established church folk start showing up, and bringing their baggage with them. The environment of a church plant is exciting, and inasmuch as American Christianity is very much about pursuing a feeling, that excitement is a draw. The problem is, these church plants often find themselves burdened with the dead weight of Christians who want that excitement but who are not particularly mission minded.
Hugh Halter at Adullam here in Denver is rather blunt on this point. He sees the missional church as made up of those checking out Jesus and those committed to serving him in a missional way. There is no in between. Hugh is rather unapologetic about the fact that the health of the missional church is often dependent on our willingness to invite people to leave if they've no intent to serve.
On the other end of the church spectrum, Saddleback church in CA requires its members to get involved in a ministry, or go worship somewhere else. I wonder how that really works in a mega church setting. I've often seen people sign onto a new ministry and then do nothing about it for years, so they must have some way of holding people accountable.
I know some will perceive of such things as overly controlling, but the American church is deeply afflicted by an audience syndrome. Paul often describes the church as a body, made up of many parts. Well, the American church is about three-quarters appendix. The appendix is a body part with an indefinite purpose, and when it's removed, you don't really notice its absence. That is the effect that audience has on the local church. A few members serve in the various ministries, and the rest observe.
I think that's what happens when mission gets misplaced. In the absence of mission, churches turn inward, and get focused on how we are feeling for Jesus rather than on what we are doing for Jesus. And it's not enough to merely support missions, we need our churches to be populated by people who share a strong sense of mission and calling on the local level.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
What About the People?
It's a fine distinction, inasmuch as the people of the church are the church, but I'm not really all that negative about my fellow Christians as individuals. I think the vast majority of the people who populate our churches are sincere, kind, well intentioned individuals who are genuine in their desire to follow Christ.
It's not a doctrine thing either. My evaluation of the American church has nothing to do with who "gets it right." In regard to theology, every Christian fellowship has its strengths and weaknesses, and the grace of Christ covers us rather than individual righteousness.
But I do believe there is something broken. Ultimately, I think we've been lulled to sleep. I'm a big consumer of books and resources that center on discipleship and mission, and there are many such resources to be had. But at some point I begin to realize the reason these books are so popular is we've very little idea how to practice discipleship and mission. These qualities, once fundamental to the identity of the church, are largely dormant.
I deeply appreciate and admire those who are laboring in Christ to restore these qualities, and I'm praying that our little fellowship can grow and thrive in these areas.
It's not a doctrine thing either. My evaluation of the American church has nothing to do with who "gets it right." In regard to theology, every Christian fellowship has its strengths and weaknesses, and the grace of Christ covers us rather than individual righteousness.
But I do believe there is something broken. Ultimately, I think we've been lulled to sleep. I'm a big consumer of books and resources that center on discipleship and mission, and there are many such resources to be had. But at some point I begin to realize the reason these books are so popular is we've very little idea how to practice discipleship and mission. These qualities, once fundamental to the identity of the church, are largely dormant.
I deeply appreciate and admire those who are laboring in Christ to restore these qualities, and I'm praying that our little fellowship can grow and thrive in these areas.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
A Parody?
I've been mulling over a comment in my last post about American Christianity being largely a parody of genuine faith. That sounds pretty harsh, and probably deserves some more attention. I know there are a lot of really great things being done by Christians, the churches they attend, and the parachurch organizations that they staff. I know that most of them are devoted, at some level, to worship and prayer. Most of them do a really good job of caring for one another. The poor and the hungry matter to them.
The old cliche is that Christians are hypocrites, but I find that is generally as true of those who make the accusation as it is of those they seek to describe.
The church is populated by imperfect people (myself included) and it always has been. That's not my beef. I'm certainly in no position to condemn anyone for being a sinner.
What motivates my "parody" comment is a comparison between us and the early disciples. Men and women have been martyred for the cause of the Kingdom, and we are reluctant to be inconvenienced. If I had to summarize what I think is broken, I'd say that instead of following and doing for Christ, American Christians (again, with notable exceptions) are mostly feeling and donating for Christ. Our expectation of church and faith is wrapped up in our beliefs about how it should make us feel.
I meet people all the time who are passionate about serving Jesus. But my impression is the American church is currently overwhelmed with people who are just "feeling good" for Jesus. If they stop feeling good, they'll probably be gone. And there is little sense of any calling or mission they may have that reaches beyond themselves.
I guess it's not hard to tell why people who feel that things are pretty good the way they are find my views overly negative or even threatening. It's a tension I've learned, more or less, to live with.
The old cliche is that Christians are hypocrites, but I find that is generally as true of those who make the accusation as it is of those they seek to describe.
The church is populated by imperfect people (myself included) and it always has been. That's not my beef. I'm certainly in no position to condemn anyone for being a sinner.
What motivates my "parody" comment is a comparison between us and the early disciples. Men and women have been martyred for the cause of the Kingdom, and we are reluctant to be inconvenienced. If I had to summarize what I think is broken, I'd say that instead of following and doing for Christ, American Christians (again, with notable exceptions) are mostly feeling and donating for Christ. Our expectation of church and faith is wrapped up in our beliefs about how it should make us feel.
I meet people all the time who are passionate about serving Jesus. But my impression is the American church is currently overwhelmed with people who are just "feeling good" for Jesus. If they stop feeling good, they'll probably be gone. And there is little sense of any calling or mission they may have that reaches beyond themselves.
I guess it's not hard to tell why people who feel that things are pretty good the way they are find my views overly negative or even threatening. It's a tension I've learned, more or less, to live with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
