Christianity Today's Out of Ur blog has an interesting topic entitled Dancing With Consumerism. You can read it right here. Shane Hipps makes the declaration that mega-churches are here to stay. I'm not sure whether or not he thinks that is 1. A good thing, 2. A bad thing, or 3. Irrelevant. But, he makes a three-fold synopsis of Jesus' ministry at the end of the interview that would indicate that mega-churches have not only missed the mark, but have missed the point of Jesus' earthly ministry altogether. Maybe I'm reading into this, but it seems clear to me.
But regardless of what Hipps thinks about the value of the mega-church, where we part sides in the discussion is in the debate over whether or not there will be mega churches in our future. Yeah, they'll be around for some time to come. A few will hang on until they become as irrelevant and burdensome as the multitude of ancient, pompous and lavish high churches and cathedrals that dot the landscape, which remain open despite the fact that one is lucky to find more than a dozen or two worshipers in attendance on any Sunday morning. But, one thing seems certain to me: There is a new generation who is either hot or cold. They have either grown fed up with the irrelevancy of the traditional, attractional church model, with its lethargic and gross inefficiency of its compassion, evangelism and discipleship-based ministries, or they will have hardened their hearts to religion altogether. These young people, I am convinced, will expose the folly of the consumerist church model and render it hypocritical to all but the most devout followers of the Benny Hinn's of the world.
When the Lord said in The Book of Revelations that he would rather that we were hot or cold, I believe this is what He was talking about. I am convinced that He sees more hope in people whose hearts have grown cold because of what they have observed of the lukewarm indifference of the Laodicean churches than he does in those who remain faithful to those churches, but who's faith has been emasculated by the religious facades promulgated by the leadership of those same churches.
Below is my response to Shane's interview as it appears in Out of Ur. The interviewer, in summary, asked, "What is the answer?" Here's mine.
I'm confused. Not a surprise. But, when I read the beginning of the article, it seems that Shane is a proponent of mega-churches and their consumer-driven agendas. Then, in the last part of the interview, he is asked, "What is the answer?" To which he shows us that Jesus was incarnational, counter-cultural, and yet privately contemplative and devotional. Does any of this sound like mega-church to you? It seems antithetical to mega-church as I know it.
I think Shane's answer is spot-on. Here are my responses to each of point of the 3-fold description of Jesus' ministry.
- Indeed, if we are to be incarnational, then we should integrate ourselves into society in ways that really matter to the heart and soul of mankind--in ways that really resonate with the masses, that speak to their true spiritual needs, not to their sensual and/or market-driven preconceptions of what pop-culture convinces them they need.
- To be countercultural is to resist the temptation to build congregations by appealing to society by way of pop-culture-dictated fads and marketing ploys the way the mega-churches do.
- To be able to reach people the way Jesus reached them requires a lot of quiet solitude and prayer to keep us in balance and from buying into the shallow lures of popular culture.
Yep, I agree with Shane. That seems like the answer to me too. From what I can see of this generation of Jesus followers, seekers, and not-yet Jesus followers, this 3 fold description of the life of Christ Shane talks about is the very thing that resonates with them. True, there is the Mega-church crowd that fills the pews and subsidizes these lavish worship-complexes, but do they mirror Christlike discipleship? I hope not.
49 comments:
Oops. I accidentally turned off the comments on this post.
Here's one a received via email from a good friend for whom I am kind enough not to drag his name into this in risk that he might be publicly flogged. I love this guy.
Here it is:
Interesting
Tried to post a comment on your blog, but it looks like comments are turned off, so screw you you petty doctrinal spewing iconoclast that only wants to tell people what to think but not hear their thoughts… unless there was just a screw up on the comment thing, then pretend I didn’t say all that nasty degrading stuff
See ya tomorrow at practice – 6pm at the Lighthouse… go in the back door in the alley
p.s. here is my reply I would have posted if you werent the kind of person I decided in an instant that you must be based on my not finding a way to post a comment on your blog
I think real issue isnt mega-church vs community church vs emerging, vs traditional vs attractional, vs missional. to me the sad reality lies in the 'vs' --the divisive labels that have been here even before Jesus and that we use to separate ourselves from each other and thus our God.
Yet I dont think it is something that grows out of church style or size, but rather out of the concept that church is a place you go and a limiting doctrine rather than a minute to minute living, changing and growing relationship with God, Jesus and neighbor.
p.s. I am in the process of starting a micro church... just for me :)
I think that as long as consumerism is a cultural value, megachurches will likely be in existence because there will be Christians who want one-stop-shops that meet all of their "needs" (tongue-firmly-in-cheek with the use of "needs").
I've heard someone say recently as well that they think in the long run, churches will either be quite small or very large because of financial reasons. Newer churches won't be able to keep up with rising costs of property, etc. Not sure what you think of this.
John, I am an incurable optimist. I believe that once people begin to truly grasp what it means to be missional, the mega church model will be left in the dust. There is nothing about it that seems pertinent to God's Kingdom the way I see it. It's spirituality mirrors the shallowness of the popular culture and consumerism that it embraces. I'm not judging the people who are involved with the mega church phenomenon; it's just that I know that God has so much more in store, something so much better for His church than what today's mega church craze has to offer. The more true believers, as well as sincere seekers, understand missional, the less appealing the big attractions will appear to them.
J.W.,
Hey, I just posted on the Out of Ur in response to your post. This is in addition to it. As you, I don't mean to be argumentative or to hunt you down. But, we should not for get that from Acts 2-7, the church was quite a mega church...at least 3000. It was scattered, I believe, to allow other regions to hear the gospel. Yet, it served its purpose and wasn't evil. In fact, it can be argued that the time of the Jerusalem Mega-church was needed to establish and grow strong leaders, especially male one.
Perhaps mega churches, the godly ones, are meant to do the same thing. There are also mega churches throughout protestant history...Geneva, for one, was essentially a huge multi-campus church under the leadership of Calvin, and take a look at the revival in France because of their church planting efforts!
No, churches will grow to the height that Jesus allows, often in accordance with the ability and faithfullness of its leaders to preach the gospel...and sometimes for judgment so that they'll always hear but never understand.
Paul, Thanks for stopping in. While true that the first church was big, you answered my argument yourself when you said that God scattered them. You see, the difference between traditional or attractional church and missional church is that the missional church doesn't sit around and wait for people to come. For a truly missional church, it's not about being an entertainment center, it's about going out into the world and being the hands and feet of Jesus to those in both physical and spiritual need. No one has the compassion nor the mandate to break the chains of social injustice and to administer unconditional love to the outcasts and downtrodden like the Bride of Christ. When our time and finances are diverted from these God-ordained responsibilities in order to maintain the physical church building and to entertain God's people who, for the most part, have no sense of spiritual duty beyond going to a worship service to be 'fed', perhaps it is time, once again for God to scatter us.
There are a few exceptions in a very few traditional churches, but for the most part, institutional Christianity is grossly inefficient, self-serving and apathetic at best. Sorry, but I don't see it any other way when I look at it generally. A major overhaul is way overdue, but I don't see it coming as long as people continue to support and be entertained by "rock show" mega-institutions.
W.K.,
Totally agree with you in general. As I said on the out of ur, Christ's bride is a crack-whore...addicted to her own pleasures and eager to sell out. But he loves her. Historically, though, this has never been untrue. The epistles were sent to bizarro churches with their own agenda. The letters to the churches in Revelation were dominated by awful churches. Not surprising since, according to 1 Corinthians 1 Christ chose us because we Christians suck worse than the average joe.
Either way, there are SOME mega churches that do it, more or less, right. I know of a few that really Godly with both their personal AND financial resources. They support missions, church planting, and use their facilities to train pastors and bring in those who are disconnected. They do it right.
On a side note, this type of thing really tests my belief in the sovereignty of God. A while back I was ranting to a friend about a few mega-pastors and speakers that I thought were totally apostate and leading people to hell. I said that if I had a big red button to push that would make them disappear, I would! (How do you like that about loving kindness?) It then occurred to me that Christ DOES have that button, and according to Revelation and 1 Corinthians 3, Christ does not hesitate to push the button if it suits him. For some churches and pastors, he hasn't pushed it yet, so they service a purpose for now...maybe a Isaiah 6 like judgment? Who knows. But I don't think a Jesus would have love us lobbying hand grenades at all mega churches since at least some of them are his servants, and who are we to judge another's servants?
Thanks for talking kline...it really seems you have a passion that the church could use...a very prophetic spirit. I pray for people like you...and for those people to have a spirit of love and compassion as well so that their judgments would be well tempered and well placed.
Paul, I like you, man. Really, I think we're precisely on the same page. I am not against any mega church; I'm just heartbroken that the Church at large has allowed so many of them, as well as thousands of other smaller churches, to drift so far off course. I know some pastors personally who have incredible faith and zeal for serving Jesus, but who have been misguided by seminarians who have promulgated the church growth/marketing craze of the past 20 years. Even they did so with a sincere desire to expand the Kingdom of God. It was just wrong, just as were many other movements in history. EVERY revival eventually became institutionalized and the fires were snuffed by apathy, selfishness, and committieism.
Who can refute Rick Warren's phenomenon. Even though I may not agree with everything, who can deny what has been accomplished there? I was drug, kicking and screaming into helping facilitate some of those Purpose Driven classes, but God used them in our community in a big way. It became quite a missional event. True, not everyone went on to being sold out to Jesus, but many did.
Like you, I simply want the best for my brothers and sisters in Jesus, and I long to see us working together to advance His Kingdom through compassion and servitude to those who are suffering, regardless of whether it was self-induced or a result of some injustice or natural calamity. There is more than enough of that to go around to drain our finances for a long time without justifying another 50 or 100 million dollar Sunday morning theater.
Keep up the passion, bro.
Thanks for the graciousness w.k.,
One really sincere question I have though is this...I don't understand your issue with all mega-church facilities. Isn't it all a proportion thing?
Here's what I mean. I am a part of a church plant in Chicago. For us to find a building that will allow us to do mid-week events, such as technical classes and meals in the community for the community, it will cost us almost a million dollars...and we're only about a 100 strong and in the cheapest part of Chicago. So this is a low estimate. Assuming we can go to four services, that's 400 people in the church. Now say we grow to 4000. We'd need a facility 10 time bigger that would actually probablly more than 10x more expensive than our original one we bought for $1 million since things tend to scale that way. That's just the facility...we'd have to renovate to make it into something usable, which is millions more for even a smaller building. The cost of doing ministry in the city I guess.
Either way, isn't it all just a scaling question? We buy a $300 projector for 100 people but gripe that mega-churches spend $10,000 for a huge projection system for 6000 people. Honestly, look at the budget of say, Mars Hill Church Seattle. I think you'll find more of their resources are freed to do other things. That's just economics. Maybe there is an ideal size economically, but really things get better, skills can be better honed and specialized, as things get better. A lot of mega- churches are taking over old, abandoned church buildings and restoring them for service again. I think that's awesome! They're not building huge new facilities, they're expanding outwards into many smaller ones.
Just some more thoughts. Really enjoying the conversation w.k.
Paul, you are absolutely right, if you are content to continue to build on the same foundations that caused our problems to begin with, to paraphrase Einstein. That kind of church planting is not what I see as something that is going to foster missional community in the long haul.
If a group of believers starts out to meet needs of people in their community, or for that matter, anywhere in the world, and if those folks really become impassioned about meeting those needs, the kinds of concerns and the issues which the traditional, attractional churches grapple with in order to maintain the physical plant, are the least of such a missional community's worries.
That is the kind of community I find myself involved with. We are purchasing property, but we are purchasing the property of impoverished, elderly citizens in a small village in Ukraine so that they have enough money to see them through for the rest of their lives. In turn, we are allowing them to live there for free for the rest of their lives, and we are training orphans and homeless kids skills such as carpentry, electronics, plumbing, gardening, etc., as well as teaching them to be compassionate and charitable, while they work with our teams to fix those elderly people's homes up so that their lives are not burdensome. Meanwhile, we have doctors from here in the US who are planning on working there full time to meet some of the medical needs and to help better equip the Ukrainian doctors to meet those needs as well. The average Ukrainian doctor makes no more than an average worker's wage, yet must buy many of his own medical supplies from that salary.
While we are in infant stage of our mission, we already have people all over the US who are volunteering for missions, who are contributing to the needed supplies, and who are working the logistics challenges out so that we can consolidate shipments and secure the proper transportation of these mercy containers to Ukraine.
Someday, we will need some warehousing space and a rehearsal hall for the Christmas musical project now in production which will tour the US raising funds for our mission and promoting missional Christianity. If it comes down to that, we will finally have a place--the warehouse--to gather to worship if we so choose to. But really, most of us clearly see the task which God has called us to as one of the purest forms of worship we could ever imagine.
What's more, at this time, we have no need for paid staff. Indeed, we are all doing work that is an integral part of our mission. Yes, there are those who some might consider to be leaders, but not in any official position. The 5 fold APEPT is clearly functioning in full capacity here, even though no one has been appointed by man to these positions. But, everyone recognizes those gifts in action.
Are we perfect? Not by a long shot.
Could we all sign the same doctrinal statement in one accord? Not a chance. We have Charismatics, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, UCC, Presbyterians, Baptists, Indies, Amish, Mennonites, fundies and libs...you name it, we're all working together on this mission, along with those who see God's hand in what we do but who have not yet made personal statements of faith in Him, but are serving nonetheless.
We can't take any credit for what is going on, and we have no credibility in man's eyes except for in the eyes of those who have been blessed by our outpouring of compassion. We all give selflessly of our finances and time, and that is how it keeps going and growing. All one can do is to imagine what it would be like if all of God's people decided one day that there were a lot more important things in this world to do than to build for themselves. Yes, there are plenty of churches who do good things. But a traditional institutional church, one which basically builds first and looks for mission later, has shortchanged its own ability for outreach before it can get started on it. There are few churches whose mission budget exceeds 10% of its annual budget. And there are many more who don't make 5%. And when you break those mission budgets down in terms of disbursement, it looks even more dismal.
I'll take whatever anyone can give. It's better than nothing. But, with humanitarian needs growing exponentially each year, and with institutional church giving decreasing drastically each year, the church is losing the battle big time. There has to be a more efficient way, and it is not going to be found in traditional church economics.
Again, nothing wrong within context in what you are saying. But we are clearly serving under 2 entirely different paradigms.
Webb, your latest comment here really blessed me. Thank you for sharing what you're doing more in detail, and for inspiring me (and probably others) with the reality of this missional approach.
God bless you, brother!
Hey Steve, great to hear from you. I haven't seen you around the blog sites for a while. Thanks for the encouragement bro!
Webb,
It sounds like you guys have a really unique vision and opportunity, having so many diverse peoples coming together to serve God with so much unity. That's great.
Yet I can't help but think you've got beyond the context of our recent dialogue. We were speaking of what you considered as the ills of mega churches. But you seem to have take issue with what you call the "institutional church," the big ones and the little ones. And that, brother, is a WHOLE other can of worms.
You want to give to the poor and support the mission of other brothers who do not have the resources that we have. That is truly biblical...1 Corininthians (paraphrased) "not that you should be hard-pressed [financially] but rather that there be equality in the church."
But there often is a concern about our neighbors. My thought at this moment is that the more diffuse, house church movement and the mega church movement will be the ones the remain in the U.S. Why? Well, the mega church does the planting cultural roots thing well and attracts people well. Small institutional churches can't compete...they either get big or die. From my experience, it seems the house churches tend to be more "missional"...more mobile, flexible, and earthy...focused
on hospitality and smaller bible studies. Yet they often get destroyed because the leadership is too diffuse and core doctrine often held too loosely. It gets difficult when your PCUSA and United Methodists while to practice or espouse homosexuality, while your baptists forbid drinking and have a hard time smiling, as your Reformed Church people dunk babies, and your Catholics pray to Mary. Hopefully there is enough influential leaders within your group to keep people on mission with Jesus and still keep people accountable for sin, so that people HEAR in the U.S. can benefit from Christ and the Church, not just Ukrainians.
There are advantages to the different ecclesiologies and different traps. I hold that both models, walking in the Spirit, will serve Christ well. I don't know how you feel about Mars Hill Church Seattle, but I'd challenge you to look at how they are doing church and see if they are serving God, institution and all, in a radical way in a VERY difficult environment. In the last 10 years, they've planted over 100 different churches in several different countries...they've done well.
Anywho...as I said, the church is a crack-whore and will remain so until the end. You seem to be doing well with the vision God has given you for today. My guess is you'll get more listeners by doing what you're doing well than you will by blasting the institutional church on a blog. It is good to be excited by the truth though, so keep that passion. Remember Philippians 1, that as long as they preach the gospel, and for whatever reason, it is for the good..."if they're not against us, they're for us."
May God give us all clear direction to build as HE calls the shots, and not how we, in our worldly wisdom, think churches should be built.
Thanks.
Paul, my friend, I am not "blasting" the IC. We have many faithful members of IC's who are a big part of what we do. Nor do we stereotype denominations by what the leadership of those denominations espouse, as you have with the Methodists and Presbyterians. In fact, I belong to a Methodist Church, although I don't have much time to go there. I know of not one of those members there who agree with the UMC position on said issue.
And it is our involvement in Ukraine that has developed for us the reciprocal effect of giving us a foundation for good evangelism and discipleship back here in the states. Long story, but what it is has done for us back here is amazing beyond anything any of us ever envisioned.
And I don't live in a big city like Seattle or Chicago where the social-dynamic is vastly different than it is here in a farming community with comparatively few social needs. So, adopting an impoverished community in Ukraine and helping those people to overcome the problem of democracy, to which they have little understanding of, works well for us. We're used to little villages.
I think Mars Hill has done a great job. Like I said, some get it; others don't have a clue. My hope is for us all to have a clue, and that is why I hope that more of these churches will see the opportunity that beholds them and grow more missionally focused in ways which will truly make a positive difference for the Kingdom in the long run.
One of the great things about using such a mix of religious genres is that they all are being forced to drop their biases and preconceptions of those of other theological backgrounds because they are coming to grips with the fact that when Christ's Church all works together to be His hands and feet to those in need, suddenly those things aren't even on the radar. Some great friendships have been made across denominational, social stratus, and racial lines that has really been heart warming.
I was more institutionally inclined for 20 years after I accepted Christ. I've been there and one that in church ministry, and I've faced just about every problem that the IC faces and they are many and mostly self-induced.
My church gives one percent of its annual budget to missions. Of that much of it is used for youth fellowship materials, which is hardly qualifiable. YOu can see where I might have to go outside my own church to mount any kind of serious mission effort.
Missional is not about us-against-them. It is about people who have found the existing faith paradigm inefficient and wanting, and have decided to take the initiative to do something about it.
Webb,
I'm enjoying and getting a lot of out of this conversation. Thank you.
As for my comment about the many denominations, my comment wasn't trying to presuppose that anyone with a denomination background HAS to believe any given thing. More, as people mix who hold fast to their various Christian backgrounds, disputes are bound to take place over issues of both primary and secondary importance. I basically was observing that if/when disputes over sin and doctrine come from people who aren't completely mature in their faith (which is all of us), the institutional church has a slight advantage in that its clearly defined leadership can more easily assert biblical authority. Not that they do in many cases, sadly. And sometimes they assert authority that is NOT biblical...as is the case in many denominations that espouse sinful moral conduct, de-emphasize missions, or claim as evil that which God made good.
I also think you are 100% to point out the difference between urban and rural ministry. Things are different here. In my neighborhood alone, there are over 63,000 people (as of 2000) in 1.85 square miles. We are also been named by some as the the most diverse neighborhood in the U.S. with over 80 representative languages. What's more, of all the big cities that I've seen or heard about, in many ways Chicago is the most apathetic and isolationist of them. Particularly, Rogers Park is somewhat known as a church graveyard. We're limping along with a great amount of heart but also an ungodly amount of fear. And this is Christ's glorious bride! :)
Cool...thanks a lot Webb for maintaining a cordial discussion. As for my previous comment about "blasting" the IC, well...certain aspects NEED to be blasted. Sigh...dratted if I know which ones all of the time. I pray for sniper like accuracy for our shots...for both of us.
Later
Webb,
One thing I do want to admit to...I really have never given serious thought to how missional Christianity looks in a rural setting. A tough question that it sounds like you're group has taken very seriously. I'd be interested in hearing more about your story in that and some conclusions you've come to.
Paul
p-dalach@northwestern.edu
Paul, In reviewing my last post, I was a bit testy regarding the denominational stereotype thing and I apologize. Many years ago I belonged to a fundamentalist church that taught me that is was unlikely that anyone who fellowshipped in a mainline denominational church was saved. Then I had the opportunity to work on a mission project with some Methodists and found them to be very impassioned about their faith and quite attuned spiritually.
Several years ago I joined a Methodist Church to help them out on another music project. They were a real nice bunch of people. But, as is often the case, and as you mentioned regarding some of the off-the-wall positions of some mainline leaders, I could see that I could have no future with them and still move ahead in the vision God has given me for ministry.
I had entered their candidacy process, but left midstream because, as much as some of the people wanted to be missional, the D.S. and Bishop really weren't about to listen to some crackpot who wanted to turn one of their churches into a congregation of people who were actually sold out to Jesus instead of remaining pawns of their self-important hierarchy. If I sound a bit bitter about it, it is because I am. I know I shouldn't be, but I can see nothing but utter hypocrisy flowing from the top down.
You can read a bit more about it on my post about the fiery young prophet. That kid had a powerful message to that leadership hierarchy, and many church folk concurred heartily with him.
But, regarding your claim that the institutional church has a better handle on doctrinal disputes than non-institutional groups, I don't think it could be more than a wash, at best. Indeed, most doctrinal disputes stem from the us-against-them mentality spawned by church leaders. My experience with the fundamental church is certainly not an isolated incident. That kind of fear-mongering and distrust is rampant among churches in every community, and it is perpetrated from the top down.
When your focus is on helping some alcoholic college kids find Jesus, or on extending the same grace and mercy to a prostitute that Jesus extended to you, or helping some homeless kid in a developing country who lives in a sewer and sniffs glue to mask hunger pangs, and to give her a sense of warmth and who prostitutes herself or deals drugs in order to keep from starving, suddenly doctrinal differences seem a moot point, and at that point, I am convinced they are a moot point to God as well.
The focus of our mission is defined in places like Isaiah 58 or Jesus' parable of the sheep and goats. That challenge is more than enough doctrine for anyone to handle without trying to thread a camel through the eye of a needle. Traditionals and emergents, Protestants and Catholics, liberals and conservatives, rich and poor, city slickers and country bumpkins can all find common ground at the Lord's Table and in the mission field when compassion is their passion. To try to build on doctrinal solidarity is a fool's quest. All one needs to do is to look at the folly of the Ecumenical movement to realize that.
The encouraging thing I am finding in this conversation however, is that we are both looking for the same thing, both trying to find Jesus in the midst of a sea of man-made theology and a world of choices. Despite living in 2 different worlds, we serve the same Lord and can agree that there is much within Christendom that is amiss. Without such discourse as this the noblest of ideas will whither on the vine. Thanks for caring enough to work through these issues with me. I'm enjoying it, as I am certain others are as well. Like my blog title implies, we are all fellow stumblers into this wonderful thing we call the Kingdom of God. I'm honored to share part of the journey with you. :)
Webb, I'm always around :) I read your blog posts and all the comments in my feed reader. I just don't often get the chance to jump in and join the conversation.
But your posts/comments here, as well as your comments on SmuloSpace and other blogs always seem to encourage me. I love your heart.
I spent 4 weeks in Ukraine back in 1992 (don't remember if I told you that before or not), so your ministry there touches my heart, too, in a more personal connection way.
What part of the country are you connected to there?
Webb,
Thanks for the apology...it takes a strong dude to pull that off. My father does that well too, and there is NOTHING I respect more than that in him.
There's a lot of baggage when it comes to denominational differences. I too have had friends across denominational and protestant/catholic lines that have been totally sold on Jesus and the mission he gave us.
And I've seen the truth of what you said about secondary issue differences fading in the face of just abject need...I had the privilege of spending the summer in Sudan a few years ago and saw how both active and Godly the Episcopalian and Catholic local churches were. Just as individuals are different within a denomination, individual parishes/churches are different from town to town and country to country. I too have done a bit of study on the ecunemical attempts and see flat failure. Romans 16:17 will always stand against worldly ecunemical attempts since some who wave the Christian flag are not Christians, but rather wolves who are to be avoided.
Yet, we do see a true form of ecunemical success through the missions focus of the new generation of believers and church planters. Many of the networks are very godly in their approach. Sad to say, though, the lines that Emergent and traditional folk are drawing seems to be creating a new line that divides.
As for the fiery young prophet...good for him! I just read that entry and was proud of him. I too am young and am encouraged that some people do in fact look at the truth of the words and not merely the unimpressive exterior of the speaker. There is too much of my experience wrapped up in being disregarded because of my age...it is a blessing to know that some have hearts to hear.
As for you...it's really respectable that you can own your fight against bitterness. I'm with you on that, sadly. A friend of my family, counseling me on the use of my spiritual gifts, has said he has not known one like me that hasn't burned out in the process...not a one that has not lost the war against bitterness. I just pray for you and I we can love Jesus and his people more than we hate the sin and folly that hurts us all.
Thanks Webb...
Steve, I can barely get by enough to even blog or comment on here, let alone understand all that feed stuff you talk about. :D I have less and less time to spend on here myself. I'm starting into business with some very good friends, alternating trips driving truck to Seattle from New Jersey and back. So, I'm gone 8 days at a time so that I can be home 8 days at a time so I can spend more time in the studio working on the Christmas project and doing what I can do develop our work in Ukraine. We're going to get to go over this year, but I'm not sure which trip yet. The big challenge now is getting the CD finished and getting the group ready for touring.
We are still in search of an exceptional solo violinist who is comfortable both improvising and reading. It's a rock and roll environment with 2 to 3 keyboardists, 2 guitars, bass, drums and lots of harmonies going on, so they would have to be comfortable in a format like that. If you know of anyone who might be interested and would be willing to tour for a month at Christmas and possibly travel to Ukraine please let me know.
Our focus in Ukraine has been primarily in Kiev and Bila Tserkva, although this village which looks like it is going to be the focus of our attention, is on the border of Moldova. I am very excited about the prospects we have for the village.
Paul, you have some profound insight and a ton of spiritual passion for a young person. That always excites me. I took you for someone much closer to my age or older.
I can't really say that I still harbor bitterness regarding that episode. I understand where the leadership is coming from; I am just convinced they are dead wrong. If I were in their shoes, I could very well have the same attitude. Something you will learn in time, however, is that institutionalism by its very nature will foster a spirit of control; it will divide; it will propagate theologies to justify its actions and inactions; it will stifle the dreams and visions of multitudes of once-zealous believers; it will eventually place it own self-preservation and promotion above God's own will. It always has, and it is hard to understand why we never seem to learn from the mistakes of our fathers.
It's not that organization is wrong per se. It's not that there is no place for leadership and order in God's Kingdom. It's just that over time man's agendas replace God's vision. Proverbs tells us that people perish for lack of vision, yet vision is too often discouraged in the church community, and that is why I believe so many churches are perishing or are on the path to eventual self-demise.
One thing many don't seem to understand about the current emergent/missional phase is that it is not an us-against-them movement. True, people are coming out of the woodwork telling us all that is wrong with the institutional church. But that's only because we now have a voice; we finally have someone who will listen. It's not a new band wagon; many of us have worked feverishly for most of our lives trying to help the church get back to its missional roots. It's just that it is finally taking root and those of us who have envisioned what the church can be like for years are now seeing light at the end of the tunnel.
Emergent is not tantamount to liberalism as many traditional conservative leaders are claiming. Most emergents that i know personally lean toward conservatism. But, as with any movement, there are wolves in sheep's clothing and you will find just about every viewpoint out there.
The one balance I do see coming out of it though, is that people are growing sick and tired of this Christian Right movement which has integrated Christianity with Republican politics, and I speak as registered Republican. It's one thing to think conservatively and another altogether to drag the name of Jesus into justifying war and social injustice. In the quest for balance some have drifted to the left further than reality dictates. As Robertson McQuilken said, "It is easier to go to one consistent extreme or another than to remain in the center of biblical tension." That is what we tend to do and that is why the pendulum swings rather than hangs in the center. But things do eventually smooth out and these things will work themselves out.
The opponents of Emergent/Missional will one day stop kicking the pricks and realize that the movement has much to offer them and that it was not against them after all. Likewise the radical factions of the movement will one day realize that we are all God's children and that this isn't an either/or situation, but rather a sovereign move of God that can have wonderful repercussions for the entire church as well as the whole world if we will only trust and follow the Spirit.
Are mega-churches or any churches operating flawless Christ-centered ministries? Of course they aren't, and we can't ever expect any organization controlled by men to be above reproach. But that is no reason to ignore the problems that exist. It is no reason not to want God's best for them. Some churches have taken radical steps to get on the right track and have proven that nothing can be so far off the mark that God can't turn the worst of situations into Gold. I have a number of friends who are very missional, but who are convinced that there is hope for every church and they are devoting their lives to helping them become all they can be to the glory of God's Kingdom. That is my dream as well.
Webb, I know of a musician that fits that description. I don't know what his availability is, but I do know that he's extremely talented, and extremely passionate about Jesus. I have worked with him on a number of occasions, and he's always a gem to work with.
Email me at steve@theologicalmusingsblog.com and I'll get you his contact info so you can see if he's available/interested.
Webb,
The more you speak, the more I'm liking you (aka respecting you in male speak).
I also realize, the more you speak, that that we have to have different ideas about what is the institutional church. I was raised in non-denominational bible churches...independent to the hilt. So, I haven't had long-term direct interaction with the high-level institutionalism that I think you're referring to. Considering the stuff going on with the bigtime denominations, I can see within that definition a reason for a distinct distrust of institutionalism.
I see great hope in some reason institutions that have formed...namely the multi or cross denominational church planting networks that have popped up which are more concerned with being real hands and feet and mouths rather than a huge talking head. I recently got married and my wife was the resident manager of a women's shelter in downtown Chicago. A really solid organization...many years ago. A good movement who's initial leaders at some point failed to pass on the gritty, down-to-earth vision and passion to the next generation. They are more about the official number of mouths fed (which is inflated quite substantially) than about really helping the women get off the streets or really living and preaching the gospel. A movement turned stagnant institution. Pretty much ever denomination follows that pattern...every organization follows that pattern, it seems, as visionary leaders are replaced with leaders intent on maintaining the status quo, which often includes their ties to power.
But this is, sadly, what we have to work with. It all tends to be so cyclical as to be, frankly, boring for any student of history. I think the emerging church (as distinct from Emergent who I think is in serious sin) is a movement that is breeding much fruit. Praise the Lord! But it too will breed institutional monsters because the initial vision will be passed to stable, dependable, efficient but often ultimately visionless men...they won't change. They will become intent on maintaining the initial success of the movement by continuing the initial methods of the movement and thus ensure the slow death of the movement. All the while the second or third generation managers will blame the failures on the people's faith or work habits rather than owning their lack of vision and faith.
And as I'm thinking of it, is it possible that faithless men are welcomed in as long as they maintain what once was? Are these men heralded as true supports of "the cause," as truly faithful, because they don't challenge, do ask uncomfortable questions? Is this how truly corrupt men infiltrate since they are seen as "good?"
As a side note, I really loved the Robertson McQuilken quote. I recently had as my thought of the days something that I see to be true (especially since as a Christian first and a physics student, I deal with it all the time): Most of the world does great evil by taking that which is complex and forcing it to seem as something simply solvable. We as Christians NEED to be able to deal with tension. Knowing that even as so much has been revealed, so much is unknown.
As for you talk of the Republican/Christian right merger. Ack...what happened to us? How did I as person who loves social justice also get forced into voting for abortion at the same time!? And how does caring for the economy also for me to stop caring for the environment that God gave us to steward! Sigh...just a momentary rant.
Later Webb...I'll be praying for your upcoming tour and the Ukraine trip plans...sounds like a good time.
Paul, you are so right about the cyclical manner of the church. Dr Douglas Pennoyer, an cultural anthropologist at Fuller Seminary coined the term Cycles of Collective Captivity, theorizing that virtually all societies fallow such cycles--revelation to social action to positive change to institutionalism, to apathy and indifference, to crisis, to revelation and social change again.
The eternal optimist that I am, I believe that one thing is different now than during any other time in history regarding these cycles, and that is the advent of the age of information. We've never been at a point in church or society at large where we can access so much information, learn so much, teach so much and be able to raise the level of accountability as we are today.
Like I said before, the idea that the church has problems is nothing new. But there are now a lot more prophetic voices than ever before to empower the need for change. Yes, there are more false prophets as well, but I contend that God's people will eventually be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. When I was younger, my influences were guys like Leonard Ravenhill, AW Tozer, and Keith Green. Those men not only saw the problems, but worked to do something about them. But they were so few in number compared to the number of theologians whose toes they were stepping on that their voices were largely muted while they were alive. As I observe this dramatic paradigm shift toward missional Christianity, I realize that those men were indeed types of John the Baptists of the movement. Like all men, they were imperfect; they saw in part. But they were a prophetic window into the changes God has in store for future generations.
We must stop creating schisms and resisting anything new, and instead, acknowledge and accept the fact that there is much about the Church that needs to change and then begin to develop a vision for turning things back in the right direction.
Your statement that you think emergent is in serious sin comes from those who resist change. There is nothing more in sin about emergents than there is in any other group. Like you, I spent a lot of years in fundamental churches, but their sins, while different than some of those who espouse more leftist views in the emergent movement, are many as well. No one gets a free pass here. We've all come short of the Glory and God, and as long as we are intent on removing splinters from eyes of those whom we do not fully understand, we will continue to be blinded by the planks lodged in our own theological eyes. The Gospel does not have to be compromised in order to change the things about our institutions that are no longer working.
Christ will never be irrelevant. Only those things we do in His name that are not really in His redemptive plan for mankind will grow irrelevant as society changes. Wisdom and revelation will come to those who are willing and able to to make the proper distinction between the two. They will be the ones to lead God's people out of this theological and culturally irrelevant quagmire we seem to be sinking deeper into.
Great stuff and great comments. I really enjoyed your discussion of the mission in the Ukraine too.
Hi Byran, thanks for stopping by. Yes, this has been a nice conversation. It's the kind of thing we need to do if we're going to work through these issues.
Webb,
Sorry that I probably didn't read your last post as closely as I should have...I'm not thinking as clearly as I could, being a bit tired. Don't hesitate to call me on something I didn't really understand.
Regardless, I personally am not at all against anything new. I'm not just for EVERYthing new...probably similar to you. I'm, at the core, rather suspicious of Emergent. A lot of what is going on in me is that the fundamentalist- isolationist-legalist is a faction that I understand well and, frankly, don't have the kind of influence on the shape of the church planting movement that Emergent does, so I'm not as concerned. People being as they are will always have sin, none the less for the fundamentalist as the liberal mainliners or Emergent.
Emergent is big into historical revision, it seems to me. They redefine atonement, leadership, pastorish, men/women, and ultimately they seem bend on moving towards redefining God as something he is not. Even this latest Out of Ur article speaks to me of this: they wish to, in the name of postmodernism, cast doubt on all traditional authoritative institutions and documents (including the bible). Yet it seems that, once the power of interpretation is up for grabs, they wish to pull a switch and take it themselves. For this reason alone I would remain suspicious of their motives...at the least their powers of reason since they aren't staying consistent to their message.
There was a recent incident that I thought revealing. If you caught the McLaren vs. Driscoll blog on Out of Ur, you'll also remember the polarization that was revealed within the church. It wasn't a polarization, strictly speaking, between fundamentalist and emerging, especially since Mars Hill Seattle is emerging, though not of Emergent.
But what was seen was this: one group wants to purge the church of moral impurity, in line with God's justice and holiness, the other wants to love the unlovable and welcome the hurting, in line with God's love and mercy. Both sides are like very bad doctors. The Driscoll camp on the blog (though I think not Driscoll himself, considering his apology) attempts to cut out the cancer with brutal strokes. McClaren's camp (who knows where McClaren really stands on anything) argues for soothing, merciful treatment like a doctor who's main purpose is to rid the patient of pain, believing this the main problem.
Yet both need camps, metaphorically speaking, need to go back to medical school: the one leaves the patient to die of shock on the surgeon's table...the other leaves the patient to die in a doped, happy oblivion.
But here's the clincher for me...between the camps, at least the brutal surgeons recognize the true problem and attempt to directly address it. I hear very little about sin and atonement from Emergent and way more about postmodern interpretations that tend to be more "civil" and palatable to unbelievers...which promote so-called "conversation". But often they are so palatable because they are worldly and their conversation sounds more like chatter that takes God's wrath all too lightly. There is NO such thing as a new, view of sexuality or gender. Ecclesiastes states there is nothing new under the sun. I don't believe they all have evil hearts. But I believe that they have an agenda that is all their own. It isn't biblically or logically consistent. And how much will we take in the name of "newness"?
Much of the bible isn't hard to understand. It isn't even completely culturally steeped so as to prevent clear interpretation. One example IS the homosexuality debate: for both Greek and Jew, man and woman, sexuality is something to be guarded at all points in the bible, above all culture or interpretive community. Traditionally, the church get so wrapped up in interpreting obscure passages and theologies but ignore the simple to understand but difficult to accomplish acts of a redeemed life before God. It was ridiculous of me to discuss and study end-times theology when I struggled with pornography. But doing so I could look informed and holy while quaintly ignoring my inability to extricate myself from clear sin. I'm not alone in this, in my hypocrisy.
In the end, is Emergent lifting up Jesus or merely promoting a man-made version of peace? Time will tell. Either way, the American Church is losing global leadership to South America and Africa, and thank God for that. We can no longer be trusted, if ever we could be.
Wow...a long, stream-of-consciousness rant. Sorry for that. I guess the summary is that, though iconoclastic myself, I refuse to a) ignore the weight of Jesus' righteousness and our sin or b) treat certain sins as any higher or lower than they are seen to be in the bible. We have a clear mission to make disciples, not merely people who intellectually acquiesce to our beliefs or who find accepting community amongst us. I wonder, in light of 1 Corinthians 4:19-21 and 5, what the Apostle Paul's response would be to our present age in general and Emergent in particular.
Again, only time will truly tell, in the mean time, we are to serve our neighbor in truth and love, having a reason for our hope and speaking it with respect and gentleness.
Paul, my apology, I've been very busy so far this week...and presently very tired, so I shouldn't really post anything. But, I didn't want to leave you out to hang with such a thoughtful comment. I think I agree with a lot of what you say, although I'm not certain we understand Emergent the same.
For one, I'm not certain that I understand the distinction between E and e. I'm fairly recent to the whole movement by name, and I connect much better with the missional moniker than the emergent one. What we call missional is what I have been ever since my conversion 23 years ago. I've always had a problem with what is now called attractional Christianity because I've always seen the faith as something that is active, outward reaching - missional. I'm just excited that many are now seeing the same thing. I know that there are those with whom I disagree who call themselves by the same labels, yet there are many more whom I agree with whole-heartedly. Perhaps you can better define to me the difference as you see it between E and e? Maybe that can clear me up on something I am unaware of.
Webb,
No problem about timing and exhaustion...I understand both.
On the difference between Emergent and emerging...I'll probably start off by saying this all gives me a very large headache...namely because since post-modernism is all against definitions, the best I can give is a modern definition of post-modernism which a really good post-modern wouldn't accept! I'll outline my most general understanding in the hopes that you can fill in the rest with some googling, starting with this bit of help.
Emergent is short for Emergent Village...they describe themselves as an "ecunemical conversation". You've done some work on ecunemical movements, so you know what is engendered in them often enough. They take scripture "seriously" only as long as it isn't offensive to non-believers and minority groups. They have a rather low Christology and a liberal ecclesiology. They follow the typical post-modern view of epistemology; that is, that there is no true interpretative community therefore every individual has something valuable to contribute. (Ironically, I find this last point their most hypocritical since they don't allow fundamentalists and Calvinists their opinion without heavy criticism for not being nice...do what you will on that). That is a rather shallow and admittedly biased view of the Emergent Village.
Emerging (small e) is a term to describe new types of churches that are culturally liberal (rock guitar, tattoos, drinking within conscience and physical limits, etc...) but who tend to have a varying spectrum on theology. Mars Hill Church, both of them, are emerging. Seattle, theologically VERY conservative...Michigan, theologically mid to liberal I think. Emerging churches don't follow the typical institutional norms. They value missional living and cultural flexibility.
So that's the VERY skinny on the subject. If you see anything wrong, upon research you do in the future, email me...I'd love to hear your insight.
As for some thoughts I've had recently with my brother, I'd contend as food for thought that churches need to be both missional AND attractional. We can't lose one in favor of the other. I think I can pretty much back that up biblically.
Thoughts?
I'd contend as food for thought that churches need to be both missional AND attractional. We can't lose one in favor of the other. I think I can pretty much back that up biblically.
Ohhhh, this I would like to see. Seriously! I struggle with understanding "attractional" in terms of biblical record and teaching, so I would really like to see how you back that up biblically.
I'm not at all being snarky. I'm dead serious.
Steve,
Missional, in that we view ministry as something that can and should be done outside of the church building in the midst of the lost. I think we in this discussion know about this.
Attractional, in that we are to be intelligible and orderly in our worship. Attractional, by definition that I work by (subject to discussion for sure), is more of a sunday morning thing. We attract by doing what we do the best we can do it, working as for the Lord (Col 3:23), on Sunday morning. So we work hard to communicate. We work hard to make our meeting place, if there is to be one, one that is not a stumbling block to those we would reach. Point in case, the failure of my church: we have pastel pictures of random-preteen girl designs all over the place. We serve in community where we are trying to reach black males. Is this helpful to make them feel welcome. Attractional, found in 1 Cor 14, in that we are orderly and intent on not freaking out outsiders that come in. Attractional that our environment would allow their hearts to be laid bare.
Attractional doesn't have to mean savvy programs and slick advertisements. The word itself means that we are attractive in our love and environment. To be as Paul in 1 Cor 9 means to be devote energy to both the outward and inward as God would lead us.
Just don't want to be victim of the social pendulum of revolution. The man of God avoids all extremes.
Steve and Paul, Thanks for keeping this thing going while I'm too busy for my next post :D
Really, I love the conversation going on here. While I am on precisely the same page as you, Steve, I believe that, according to Paul's last post, the difference might not be as strong as it seems. Again, I'm short on time and I'm dying to get back into the discussion. One of my sons is going through a crossroads point with his girlfriend and we've been talking a lot lately. He is 100% missional and 100% anti-institutional and he is a sociologist, so he should understand the dynamics of what is going on in his relationship but he is blindsided. Ironically, the position he is holding in their little domestic crisis is exactly the problem with the IC that prevents it from succeeding missionally. It was hilarious this afternoon because he got really mad at me for even insinuating that his viewpoint mirrored institutionalism's, but neither could he refute what I was saying.
Okay, that's all the time I have for now. I promise I will blog on this parallel asap. This is the coolest missional/attraction analogy that I have seen yet; and it is so obvious that we all should have seen it a long time ago.
Sorry to keep y'all in suspense. ;D
Paul, just saw your first comment replying to my query about the E or e.
I'm not sure that I see it as black and white as you do, although I generally have made the same observations about much of the big E as you have. I guess this is why I tend more toward using missional to describe myself. I don't want to be divisive. If you go back through my posts you will see my reflections on the stumbling blocks of an attractional church being missional. I won't give up on the IC even though I am no longer a part of it. I believe that it can change, but like Steve, there is so much there that stands in its way as to render it nearly hopeless in most - not all - situations. At best, it seems a compromise to me, because pop-Christianity has created such a powerful hegemony that it is very difficult for those who are caught up in the midst of IC to actually see what is wrong with it, especially if it has the appearance of great success.
...but like Steve, there is so much there that stands in its way as to render it nearly hopeless in most - not all - situations.
Wow. I didn't know I was that hopeless! ;) hehe (just poking fun at your hasty grammar there, Webb!)
Paul,
I see where you're coming from. What you have chosen to label "attractional" strikes me, not so much as "attractional", as merely "sensitive".
In other words, especially 1 Cor 14 (which, to my knowledge, is the only passage where unbelievers are referenced with regard to the gatherings of believers) seems to indicate nothing about trying to "attract" unbelievers, as it does simply showing the effect that our actions toward each other, etc., can have on any unbelievers that are present.
Personally, I see Paul's description as saying that the gathering of believers is for believers. The existence of unbelievers in the gathering appears to be a side note, and the impact on them a mere side effect to the body functioning as it should.
The "attractional" term that is thrown around a lot has more to do with drawing non-believers into the gathering by addressing their needs and culture. I think this misses the point of the gathering.
Attractional, found in 1 Cor 14, in that we are orderly and intent on not freaking out outsiders that come in.
For the sake of discussion, I would slightly disagree (although Webb is correct that we're not that far apart, really).
"Intent on not freaking out outsiders" sounds to me like we focus on them. I don't think this is what Paul is getting at.
I really think that what Paul describes is a body functioning together in its gathering in such a way that an unbeliever present will be brought to a realization that God is in their midst. In this sense, I can almost see the believers suddenly realizing that an unbeliever was present all along. They weren't even focused on that.
Obviously, I'm reading between the lines quite a bit there, but that seems to be what Paul's description lends itself to.
From a purely philosophical standpoint, I am a bit reluctant to yield any points about what a "sunday morning thing" should be. I just don't see "Sunday morning" as being anything distinct in Scripture from any other gathering of believers, which appears, at least in the Jerusalem church, to be daily.
Your descriptions seem to flow quite well with the whole "seeker" mentality of church, where Sunday morning focuses on the unbeliever, and then there are other meetings that are "for believers". I find this dichotomy a bit unsettling, even though I served in a church like that for a while, and bought into it full scale for several years.
When you start talking about target audiences ("trying to reach black males" and wanting to make them feel welcome, etc.), I have trouble seeing through my grid anymore.
I once was a part of a seeker church plant in which the senior pastor kept telling us that he wanted to reach "east side [name of town]" where the real poor folks lived.
Yet, our "target audience" ended up being the upper middle class people on the west side. You know -- the ones who could help fund our future outreach to the east side...
Interestingly, I never saw the church reach out to the east side. And when the church bought land on which to build, it was in a community on the west side where there were huge, expensive homes all around. So much for the east side, huh?
So, I guess "attractional" is just too loaded for me to see anything positive in it.
I'm truly sorry about that, because it's probably caused me to read way too much into your response to me. :(
Steve,
:) Brother, I think where MAINLY on the same page. And, yes, it does seem you have quite a few emotions attached to certain terms than I do! Understandable, really...
Just some clarifications. First, I am NOT espousing "sensitivity". How do you preach the wrath of God and death to self "sensitively"? How can you teach the torture of the crucifixion in the required detail and claim that it is because of OUR sin yet remain "sensitive"? I suggest that you can't, which is why I disagree with the methods of the seeker-sensitive movement.
I've mentioned before the social pendulum...and I think it really does exist. Here's what I think happened since the beginning of the seeker, "attractional" movement. For years, churches persisted in thinking that everyone in the church was a believer or had heard the gospel. They acted as if God didn't call some his people from the throngs of the unchurched...therefore in a very MISSIONAL way, they decided to consider the needs of the unchurched non-believers. BUT, as pendulum swings, the correction was too much. We've lost the full counsel of God...we've lost the full gospel to "sensitivity" to seekers.
But there really is a middle, godly ground that avoids all extremes...which is desirable since "the man of God avoids all extremes." That middle ground is, and I'll steal the term from Driscoll, seeker-intelligible. We teach everything, but we don't say something utterly lofts as "we must sacrifice our lives and souls on the alter of the Lamb and let our blood flow to cover the sins of our friends and neighbors!" (which a friend of mine actually pretty much said) instead of saying "we as Christians have to give up our rights and desires and follow Jesus' example so that we might be a light to our loved ones." One sounds to most people (even to me!) like I accidentally stepped into a meeting of the occult...the other is challenging and can be stated with as much passion, but is accessible to those who hear it. That surely fits within 1 Cor 9.
One other distinction that you missed Steve, in regards to 1 Cor 14. As you said, you inferred some about the actual makeup of the meeting...whether or not unbelievers were expected there or not. Here's the thing though, in any gathering of more than, let me say, 30 people, there are bound to be some who claim to be believers but in their hearts are really not sold on Jesus. Additionally, within any body, one has to teach even believers who are at a wide variety of places in maturity and understanding. Many believers wouldn't look too different than unbelievers. Some mature believers are encouraged by the "milk" of young believers...some young believers are intrigued by the "meat" of the mature.
Regardless, the fact is many believers don't understand certain theological terms like "penal substitutionary atonement" and "propitiation"...or the difference between "transgression" and "sin". To be seeker-intelligible has the secondary consequence of not leaving our less mind-hungry brothers and sisters behind who didn't look this stuff up on their own.
So all said, I don't see how we can make such a clear cut distinction, when we gather, between a meeting for "only believer" and a meeting where unbelievers are welcome. Jesus should be preached...preached through Genesis and preached through Revelation. That is beneficial to both the "mature" and the "childish".
I function as the coordinator for our service at church...I call people and put together the flow of our meeting. Maybe this is too institutional to you...I don't know since I'm not entirely clear still on how we're defining institutional. Either way, my goal is to try and make the service a place that is loving, culturally applicable, and ultimately a place where the MESSAGE of the cross is what is offensive and not the lighting, poor organization, not feeling loved and connected with, etc.. This is to help the immature believers as well as those who are just checking us out. As most people in my community, believer and unbeliever alike, don't like organs and hymns, then let us play with guitars so that we have the time to teach them that guitars and organs don't matter but to praise God's name and help make true disciples. Then, when the organ-hater church plants in a geriatric community, they can with full joy use organs to mature the immature and call the lost, knowing that the organ is nothing but a tool.
So that's my take. I hope I was somewhat clear in my thoughts.
NOTE: I don't stand by the poor grammar and unintelligible wording of some of my last post. Apologies to all those who attempted to read it and found it to be at about a 3rd grade level!
One last thing...in all this talk about how "attractional" can look on a sunday morning, I still want to stand my earlier post about the necessity of 7 day a week missional living outside of the weekly gathering.
Additionally, there ARE accounts of believers who met for a group worship time once a week on Sundays. Many were Jewish believers continued to meet and preach on the Sabbath. Very earlier in Christianity, many changed their meeting from Saturday, on the Sabbath, to Sunday, the day the Lord rose from the dead. Either way, a single main day of celebratory worship is historically common. The earlier church did eat together regularly, but there still was, according to Acts, a main time of public worship. Some interesting history can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath.
Later all.
Steve, no, that was right. I was implying that you do in fact stand in the way of the IC as to render it nearly hopeless... ;D just kidding..
Paul, have you read The Shaping of Things to Come, by Frost & Hirsch? I think they do a great job of defining the way Steve and I view the difference between attractional and missional despite the fact that I won't throw the towel in on the IC as much as they have. They go into the history of how the church became attractional. Pretty insightful stuff.
Anyway, Don't think we will ever avoid attractional completely; I just think that it should come on the back side of mission instead of before it. Therein lies the problem as to why it is tough for an existing church to make the transformation to missional. Missional, for one thing, is not going to draw the same kind of people. Missional draws people who want to serve, not those who want to be served, which is what we have made the attractional model out to be. The whole idea of seeker-sensitive really comes down to developing an institution that appeals to the the sensual tastes of popular culture--we're sensitive to their wants. Those people don't come there to join forces to be the hands and feet of Jesus to a hurting world, they come because we offer a fun worship, charismatic leaders and lots of activity traps for our kids, good business connections, social status, tax write offs, etc.
Not yet Jesus followers are more drawn to the missional model simply because it lacks the aforementioned things and exists primarily as a vessel of compassion and help to the downtrodden. I am continually amazed by how many unchurched people are drawn into what we are doing because they have this innate desire to want to do something purposeful for humanity. Nearly all of them had looked for it in the IC, but found it lacking, too self-obsessed. The typical unchurched person doesn't find Jesus hypocritical, just what they see going on in the Church. When they see a valid representation of what Jesus stands for, they are totally open to it and often want to be a part of what is going on.
I sometimes think that the Holy Spirit actually prevents those who are seriously seeking true faith from getting involved with attractional religion unless HE deems it something necessary for them to have to go through in order to discover that difference between real faith and man made religion.
Real busy week - gotta go. Sure am enjoying you guys keeping the ball rolling. ;)
Paul, thanks for the continued explanations. I think I have a much better understanding of where you're coming from.
I function as the coordinator for our service at church...I call people and put together the flow of our meeting. Maybe this is too institutional to you...
Yeah, it's a bit too close for comfort in my experience ;) But that's ok. I'm trying very hard not to be anti-institutional. But it's hard sometimes.
So all said, I don't see how we can make such a clear cut distinction, when we gather, between a meeting for "only believer" and a meeting where unbelievers are welcome.
All I was trying to get at is that the existence of unbelievers in any gathering is not a focus of the gathering. And any benefit to them is as a side-effect of what is going on in the gathering to begin with.
It has nothing, in my very humble opinion, to do with making them comfortable, or even speaking their language...
One could say that what Paul was describing is not "attractional", but even "confrontational" to the spirit of the unbeliever. They are brought to their knees by the recognition that God is there because of the interaction of the believers.
Webb wrote: The whole idea of seeker-sensitive really comes down to developing an institution that appeals to the the sensual tastes of popular culture
And the problem that I have seen with this, is that it becomes an elaborate "bait-and-switch".
Paul, right on regarding the being missional the rest of the week. The problem I see is that the increased emphasis on the entertainment factor of IC's has exacerbated the sense that Church is tantamount to a once or twice a week fraction of daily life.
I'm not saying that there can't be an attraction. But I can remember as an early believer, wanting to discover as much about Jesus as I could, but rather, I found churches obsessed with new forms of worship, Christian concerts, and a myriad of programs and social events that while, in and of themselves were not bad per se, were nonetheless an aversion from this sense I had that becoming a Christian meant that I needed to go into all the world and preach the Gospel in word and deed, setting the oppressed free, breaking the yokes of injustice and all that--indeed, I was consumed with the passion to do so, but was frustrated by the fact that I couldn't find anyone to disciple me and help me get started, and I tried a lot of churches. The good side is that I eventually realized I was going to have to do it myself, because this new passion could not be contained.
Likewise, I find many outside of the church who gave up for the same reasons--it wasn't real, purposeful and fulfilling to them, but rather a cheap substitute. I am continually amazed by how many people outside of IC really have faith but have simply become disenchanted with church-as-usual.
But rather than acknowledge the problem and do something about it, the church has done more to condemn them and further isolate themselves from a lot of people who, deep down inside, are empty and burning with the desire to be the hands and feet of Jesus to the world.
Sadly, this problem is not only with people outside of IC, there are many with the church community who have given up. My contention is that, rather than fighting this move toward missional, it could very well prove to be the foundation of true revival if church leaders would allow it.
The rock and roll Christmas project I am working on is clearly an attraction. It has a ton of entertainment value. It also proclaims the Gospel in music and video. But, it's main purpose is to challenge people to be the hands and feet of Jesus, to live missionally beyond the ticket money for the concert and CD's of which half goes directly to mission. It provides a number of vehicles to get people involved. If a church begins with such a vision, it will focus on that vision. If it thinks it can build first and serve later, the true mission will never be more than an addendum. Can it be turned around? Perhaps. But, there is so much that stands in the way.
I'm going to shift gears a bit here. In doing so, I want ya all to remember that I DO highly value missional ecclesiology. I'd like to shift towards discussing the emerging interaction with the IC...for though we know that ministry happens more beyond Sunday morning, the reality is that most of our brothers and sisters are IN the IC. They're what Christ has to work with, and by extension what we have to work with. It's like the idea of the new hydrogen economy...it's a great idea, but the switch over is going to require revamping our old energy infrastructure. Or like Nehemiah, building a new wall with old stones.
So with that in mind...
Steve, considering different churches and how they are set up, especially in light of who the service is for, how do you see Mars Hill Seattle? (I know it's cliche, but Driscoll has in many ways wrote the book on missional church for emerging types). Mars Hill, considering Seattle culture, seems like a great balance between "IC" and missional. Or rather, an IC that is focused on missional.
Just a thought...if the IC were missional, rather than purely attractional, would either of you have too much of an issue with it?
In the end, we do what we believe God is calling us to. I believe God has a plan for the IC still, for it is not inherent in the IC to be apostate, it is a positional thing right now. I KNOW it's almost always been off historically, but the problem is the hearts of the people, not the structure. The structures exist, so I feel it right for me to work within the structure to help shape hearts, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
One epiphany I had a while back during a conversation with a friend of mine...
Consider the early Church: Apostles (meaning literally "sent one", or missionary) had the authority to appoint elders (many different gifts) who ruled over the local body, which included people with the gift of teaching/knowledge/wisdom.
NOW, we have seminaries (ruled by people with predominantly teaching/knowledge/wisdom gifts) who train pastors/elders and out of those, some become missionaries.
My interpretation is that our leadership structure is upside down. Our courageous, creative, culturally aware brothers and sisters (the missionaries) are at the bottom of the structure instead of at the time. And the teachers, who's gifts tend them to be more culturally conservative and less connected (though still very valuable), are leading the church by shaping our local leaders' minds, though maybe not always their hearts.
I haven't thought this out totally yet, but this is a startling thought...no wonder our pastors suck so often and don't know how to "fight"! Elders/pastors should be born of true service, raised from among the people as the most faithful and skillful. More than having mere knowledge gained in seminaries, they should have UNDERSTANDING, which is more than mere knowledge. But we are more content to led our pastors just get a degree instead of proving themselves by the quality of their lives.
You want to reason the IC is so stagnant and uncreative...I think this is much of the reason. We base who we raise as leaders on who can regurgitate the most biblical information, not who is the most faithful and missional among us. This is also why the average "lifespan" of a youth pastor is less than a year and a pastor is, I believe, less than five years. "Pastors" are trained with books, not tempered by fire.
Again, though cliche, I point towards Mars Hill as an example of how leaders SHOULD be raised up and how people are trained theologically.
Oh yeah...forgot to add this...
But along with the previously mentioned problem with pastoral training, we also push the "nice" men into leadership instead of the men who can contend for the gospel and strive for sound doctrine. We prefer mediators rather than Generals as our leaders. Mediators don't send their churches on missions to fight at the front lines, Generals do.
Just some further thoughts.
Paul said: [for though we know that ministry happens more beyond Sunday morning, the reality is that most of our brothers and sisters are IN the IC. They're what Christ has to work with, and by extension what we have to work with. It's like the idea of the new hydrogen economy...it's a great idea, but the switch over is going to require revamping our old energy infrastructure.]
I'm not convinced this is completely accurate. For one, many of the IC'ers are not Christians and never will be. 2ndly, many of those who are Christians in the IC will never be missional and 3rdly, a good deal of them will not only never be missional but will stand diametrically opposed to any efforts in that direction.
Meanwhile, I am meeting more and more 'lost sheep' who are wondering aimlessly, not sure what their place is because they are not leaders, but followers, yet they know that something more purposeful than IC is calling their name. In addition to them, you have many, like myself, who have taken the leap, who are being added daily to the ranks of non-institutional missionalists. Then, perhaps most importantly, are the not-yet Jesus followers who will have nothing to do with traditional church, but with whom the passion and purpose of missional resonates. They are the ones I am excited about, because they are not only the up and coming harvest of souls, but they will be among the first to be discipled as missionals. The ramifications of that are awe-inspiring. I think if you combined the numbers of these groups you would be very surprised to find that there are a lot more people outside of the IC, who are ready or nearly ready to walk in missional faith than any of us can imagine. I think the biggest revival and surge toward missional will happen outside the walls of the IC, free from the control and agendas of men.
Paul said: [Or like Nehemiah, building a new wall with old stones.}
I like that a lot. If you are being called by God to be a type of Nehemiah to the IC, then God bless you! I know others for which this is true and it is a challenge not for the weak. It will take more youthful zeal than my nearly 52 years can handle, yet it will take maturity in faith, wisdom, hindsight, patience and perseverance that are rare commodities in 20 and 30 somethings. The reason I am hanging onto this conversation so long with you, Paul, is that I think you may be one of those of whom I speak. I am very encouraged by your strengths and I want you to know that if this is your chosen path, I will be here to offer you support I can. You encourage me greatly.
Paul said: [Just a thought...if the IC were missional, rather than purely attractional, would either of you have too much of an issue with it?]
That is a broad-stroked question. In a sense, no, I wouldn't have an issue. But, my question is, "Missional to what extent?" Then it would depend. I'm willing to accept that an IC might be starting small, and that is okay. But, as is all too common, that is typically as far as anything like this goes.
Coupled with the physical and financial burden of maintaining an IC, and there is seldom little, if any energy or resource left for meaningful mission. Can it change? Yes, but you'd better be putting on some good boxing gloves to fight off the opposition. The Tyrant of the Familiar is a nasty nemesis.
Paul said: [
In the end, we do what we believe God is calling us to. I believe God has a plan for the IC still, for it is not inherent in the IC to be apostate, it is a positional thing right now. I KNOW it's almost always been off historically, but the problem is the hearts of the people, not the structure. The structures exist, so I feel it right for me to work within the structure to help shape hearts, by the power of the Holy Ghost.]
That's what I'm talking about, my friend. I, too, feel it is more-than-likely what God is calling you to. I love your conviction and insight. All that is needed is for you to truly get a handle on what is wrong with the IC picture and not to get caught up in the same mistakes. If you can do that, you could become a strong figure in the task of reviving the missional spirit of the IC. But remember, you're fighting a 1700 year old stronghold. It might only come out by fasting and prayer.
Paul said: [Elders/pastors should be born of true service, raised from among the people as the most faithful and skillful. More than having mere knowledge gained in seminaries, they should have UNDERSTANDING, which is more than mere knowledge. But we are more content to led our pastors just get a degree instead of proving themselves by the quality of their lives.]
Man, I'm digging you more all the time! The IC depends on the gnosis type of knowledge, the man who walks by Spirit-filled faith depends on the epignosis. I think that it what you are referring to. You're right-on in your observation.
About Mars Hill: I don't pay much attention to the IC movement any more because I simply don't have time to. Being missional requires a lot more time than being an IC'er. But, since you keep harping on them, I am going to check them out. I will be in Seattle a couple of Sunday's a month, so I'll pay some visits and blog on them.
Sorry...not had a lot of time to write recently and this'll have to be short
Webb, I'll be eager to hear what you write when you get back from Seattle. It'll probably look, in some ways, like any other IC. That is, except there is a strong emphasis that Sunday meetings are about equipping the congegrants to do ministry.
About financial costs of keeping a typical IC going...I see where you're coming from. As I think about it, it seems, on first evaluation, that ministry in the city requires some space to meet since space is at such a premium. I'll have to think about that more. There certainly is the house-church model...a good friend is actually head of one. But, as we've had discussions, I'm still want to see greater fruit from it.
Anywho...gotta get home to my wife. We're trying to single-handedly start a gospel-through-hospitality movement in our church.
Later!
Webb,
Question for ya...
Does Christianity Today have an anti-mega church bent normally? Or is that a recent bias?
Thank!
Paul
I don't think they have one at all. What I've always appreciated about CT is that they simply cover the faith like a news agency. I sometimes think they're too much into the pop-culture thing, yet just when I've had enough they turn around and come up with an article that blasts the contemporary Christian music scene, which is little more than a reflection of everything else that is not working in Christendom, in my estimation.
If you read it long enough there will always be something that will offend you, as well as something else that really resonates with you. I think they're a lot more balanced than about any Christian rag out there.
Cool...thanks.
It just seems that recently it's been mostly anti-mega articles.
That may just be a local phenomenon.
Later,
Paul
Paul, the new blog on youth groups certainly is not emergent oriented. Mega churches see youth groups as a cash cow. Frankly, I think most of Christendom has fallen far from Yaconelli's standard in term of youth ministry. Again, institutionalism run-amuck. I wish I wasn't so busy or I'd sound off over on UR a bit.
I'd say I've long been a bit of a counter-consumer, with a bit of regular consumerism but no anti-consumer tendencies.
What an odd sentence!
I'd rather be missional than mega-church, for a lot of reasons. But I'm not anti-mega-church.
Post a Comment