+-+Family+Posed.BMP)
Well... P. Mike came right out and said that our church is lukewarm. He said it.
At small group we processed it a bit. We all feel it is sadly true and tried to track down why that is and how that changes. We talked about those who have been "hot" at some point, only to see it doused by someone else's cold shoulder, harsh words or intentional smirk. We talked about what we could do to make a difference. We talked about what it is that sucks life from believers when they get sucked into the vortex of the institutional church. I shared that I think it is mostly because most of what we do at church is not natural, most of the way we "do" church is not natural. There didn't seem to be much dissension on that point, much to my surprise.
It was a great time together. A great conversation. An honest look at who we are and who we need to be as a church.
There is other news to share concerning our church, but I think I am required to wait a few days before I can't vent it on here.
4 comments:
I certainly think there's a difference between lukewarm and dry.
Interesting conversation you had with your small group regarding the Church. What do you mean when you say that the way we do church is "not natural?" (I have my own ideas, but I'd like to hear more about your thoughts there.)
Because of a recent conversation with Brandon, I've been struggling with criticism vs. hope, finding a healthy balance (balance is a misleading word because, as Brandon points out, negativity is usually disproportionately heavy) between the two, etc. I think these two conversations are related.
Hoping the "news" about your church is good news.
Let's get together soon...I miss you, my friend.
BT
I feel like I have been vacillating between criticism vs. hope for four years now. In the early years criticism dominated my thoughts and conversations on this subject, but hope was always the undercurrent of my perspective. As time has gone on hope has been the one thing I have held onto.
I have hope that the Church can be restored. I have hope that the Church can be renewed. I have hope that I can participate in a body of believers where the Kingdom of God is being lived out in a life giving way. I have hope that Christianity could be identified with Christ once again, rather than the selfish, self-serving political, social and economic agenda we are associated with today. I have hope that Christians will not settle for simulated community and once a week encounters with their "body". I have hope that "doing church" can once again become more natural and less consumer driven and forced. I honestly have hope for all these things or I would have resigned and been gone from "church work" long ago.
I recognize that these hopes are founded in criticism, but I don't think this criticism is founded in negativity. Honestly. I have wandered through that valley and feel that these are healthy critiques of where we are as a Church and where I hope we could be. Perhaps the balance we are to seek is between pessimistic and optimism? Criticism is not unhealthy if its end goal is hope.
You asked, "What do you mean when you say that the way we do church is "not natural?" I honestly feel that very little of what we do is natural. Our model of church is not a result of biblical insight, but rather 1700 years of cultural influences. The rise of the megachurch is not a result of us "evangelizing our nation", it is generally the result of offering better goods and services, or running the better church business, of offering more programs, more entertaining services and better first-time visitor treats... and having a pastor who can really preach well doesn't hurt (but the term "preach well" is quite relative, and not necessarily reflective of the quality or challenge found in his/her sermons).
In large church models we have to devise programs and systems and assimilation teams to connect people with one another, because there is not natural way for them to connect. We take them out of their neighborhoods to connect with folks not from their neighborhoods, which distracts them from the relationship next door. We ask them to come to the church for events and programs and to participate in the body, when they could/should be doing that right where they live, first with their own family and second with their neighbors. We ask people to sit and listen to one person's revelation from the Word, with very little or no chance for interaction, questioning and owning what the talking head is saying. We split the family up every time they come through our doors and unintentionally replace their parents as the spiritual head of the house. Most of all, I think we have taken something that is best lived out in smaller communities and tried to force it into a larger framework, because it makes us feel effective, allows us to build bigger buildings and gives us more control and influence. Ok... some of that tends to sway towards negativity, but I most of it is just a summary of conclusions I have come to.
Wow! You lit a spark. I really needed to write that stuff out I guess. I think that was as much for me as it was for you or anyone else. I am sure I will want to revise it someday... even soon, but share your reactions/thoughts.
I think my question in the end is, "Why bigger?" I don't see the advantage. I don't see the point. I think we have to work really hard to find one, and that is not a good sign. Why not continually plant, continually send, resist building, encourage intentional community, encourage missional living, why not continually be planting pockets of hope in our cities, rather than one large blob of it?
Thanks for asking the questions. I would love to talk sometime. Peace.
What a fabulous reply. :) I'll try to go paragraph by paragraph and give responses, but know before I even get started that I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I share your hope that the Church can experience those things. I, too, would have long ago given up in this line of work if I did not have that hope. Like Dufresne says, "Hope is a good thing...maybe the best of things...And no good thing ever dies."
I agree that there is a necessary place for criticism, and that criticism does not have to be founded in negativity. I think, more often than not, that it is founded in negativity, however, and I'm working on that. (I am not saying here that I think you are negative, just that I generally have seen this criticism in a negative light...perhaps that says more about me than about the people providing the criticism. In fairness, I see the criticism founded in negativity sometimes when the criticism comes from me, which is what I mean when I say I'm working on it.)
I totally agree with you about "Church" in general being unnatural. A question I have is, if it is based on 1700 years of traditions, etc., when does it become natural? (I'm not implying that it should.) The church growth movement sickens me, and I completely agree with you on how we "market" church, trying to offer the best package to newcomers. I think what we generally tend to do is cater to "church-hoppers," somehow thinking that Paul's strategy of "all things to all people" applies. True also about the relativity of "preaching well," etc.
And the large church model is chock full of problems. You have highlighted some. I've always said that one law I would make is that you're not allowed to close your garage door until you go to bed, so your neighbors can know if you're home and can come visit, drink lemonade, borrow eggs, ask for advice, sing with you and their guitars, play kick the can, fill in the blank here. I recently told a couple who leads a small group here at our church to disband the group (great move for a small groups leader) because they have a heart for their neighbors and they have no time to develop relationships with them. This is a HUGE cultural problem, which for some strange reason has been multiplied by the church. Less would be great. And yes, we have allowed our pastors to replace parents as the spiritual heads of household and made them ultimately responsible for biblical education. I don't think this was the original plan.
Apparently I did light a spark...a good one! This is an enjoyable conversation.
I don't know why bigger. I don't think that was the original idea, either.
I'm tracking with your conversation here!! It's interesting...we're driving nearly 30 minutes to get to church here on the east side of Cincinnati. When I just told a friend at the church that it just seems crazy to drive that far to develop some kind of spiritual community...his reply revealed total oblivion to the problem. "Hey, it's a lot closer than our last church!"
I believe that the discontinuity between my church experience and my hope became too great. I'm afraid I've given up my ability and credibility to affect change within the "tribe." I hope you both fair a little better than I.
Post a Comment