Ok, so how do I start this so you believe me?
It's true, I won a Wii!!
No, I really won a Wii!!
This is not a hoax.
This not a sweepstakes.
This is not a con to get you turn over your bank accounts.
No matter, how I start, it sounds phoney.
How about this?
My FREE Wii arrived in the mail today!
They delivered my Wii today that I won!
No matter, how it starts, I know how it sounds.
But, truly today at my house near South Charleston, UPS delivered a brand new in-the-box Nintendo Wii that I won through a random purchase at Blockbuster last fall. The funny part is WE ALREADY OWN A Wii! Now, I know what you're thinking, well, he's a nice guy, why doesn't he just give it to me(us). :~)
Well, you're right, I am a nice guy. But, I'm so nice right now, that we are living on, well let's just say less than we are used to and less than we are comfortable with. The good thing is God has blessed us and provided. He always does. Even better, we have been figuring out how to pay down debt, all while dealing with a much lower income and fun surprises that come up (ie, dishwasher going out and school deciding to buy new cheerleading uniforms during some of the worst economic times that we've seen in a while.)
Now, I'm not complaining. I'm just saying...
Here's what I'm saying...
Who wants to buy a brand new Wii sealed in the box for retail cost? ($250, no taxes :)
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
To Denominate or Not To Denominate
This is the question. The question of the hour, the day, the week, the month, the year.
Should we, as a house church network plant, join a denomination? If you want to weigh in on the discussion feel free. Just realize, as we have, that it may sound like a very dividing conversation. While I don't normally like these kinds of discussion (b/c they are not usually very productive or Kingdom of God centered), for us, at this time, it is extremely important. It affects the direction and future of our house church network. How much it affects us, is open to opinion, b/c we are who we are, yet, it will still affect us.
Most of us in our group desire to join a denomination for the following reasons.
Accountability. We want to be accountable to someone else so that we don't sway off our own way, but keep our roots connected with orthodox Christianity and theology. While we believe that God has given us vision to doing Church differently than most these days, we don't want that to be license to completely go our own way and disconnect ourselves from any accountable relationships. We want to be able to fairly easily address questions or concerns of heresy being taught or discussed within our Life Houses, but we do want some freedom to wrestle with and think about the scriptures and how they apply to our lives today.
Support. We hope a denomination will desire us as much as we desire them. Relationships don't work so well, if one is deemed to be sucking Life from the other. We want a symbiotic relationship. We hope for prayer support, a small amount (for a church plant) of financial support, and mentoring relationships. We want to be able to contribute to a larger network of Christian relationships in many different ways. (potentially district events and/or worldwide missions) We want to be a people that a denomination is proud to have as one of their churches.
Reputation. House church is outside the box for most and we certainly don't want anyone to wonder if we are a cult. Being connected to a denomination should help relinquish any of those kinds of concerns. (Interestingly as I've talked to folks outside of our group about this, some have pointed out that all of those negative cult situations, actually come from one person being given too much power, not from a shared leadership/participation type of group, like house church.)
However, I'm not sold on the fact that we need to be a part of a denomination.
Part of it comes from the fact that when I first became a Christian, I rejected the idea of denominations. It all seemed way too divisive. I would answer folks with what denomination, I held onto, but rather I simply said, "I am Christian."
Control seems to be an issue through our discussions. Some denominations want lots of control over a local congregation and some give lots of freedom to local congregations. Many aren't sure how and would have to work through how to have a relationship with a house church network versus a traditional style church. I am okay with (though I'm not a big fan of) being a part of a denomination because of a particular view of systematic theology. (I'm not a big fan of systematic theology) I'm not a big fan of a denomination mandating some gray areas of morality for not only a national church, but an international church. I do believe that the community of faith has something to say about how we should live morally, but more in the context of those who are in truly in relationship to one another (ie small group, house church, etc.)
One last thing that I'm finding. It's seemed to be a challenge and/or many challenges ahead of convincing a denomination or a board within a denomination of our vision for house church. I'm struggling with that. If you want someone to marry you, I'm not sure you should have to tell them why you're so great. They should just know it. Or they should just accept who you are. Context once again is also a reality. We are pursuing them at this point and not the other way around. Most of them don't really know us. (However, there is one denomination that has been pursuing us.)
Lastly, I've had some very good people who I trust, love and respect talk to me about their concerns regarding us joining a denomination. Mostly, they are against it. Not really too many folks have encouraged us to join. (except for maybe one friend) I find that interesting and curious. I wonder if those folks would be willing to pony up some financial support in place of that denomination. :~)
Well, I must go for now. I'm sure this discussion will come up again. Please pray for us. We will be doing the same. God knows we want to follow His direction.
If you've got something to offer in productive and helpful ways, please share. We are definitely willing to listen, consider, and dialogue about.
Should we, as a house church network plant, join a denomination? If you want to weigh in on the discussion feel free. Just realize, as we have, that it may sound like a very dividing conversation. While I don't normally like these kinds of discussion (b/c they are not usually very productive or Kingdom of God centered), for us, at this time, it is extremely important. It affects the direction and future of our house church network. How much it affects us, is open to opinion, b/c we are who we are, yet, it will still affect us.
Most of us in our group desire to join a denomination for the following reasons.
Accountability. We want to be accountable to someone else so that we don't sway off our own way, but keep our roots connected with orthodox Christianity and theology. While we believe that God has given us vision to doing Church differently than most these days, we don't want that to be license to completely go our own way and disconnect ourselves from any accountable relationships. We want to be able to fairly easily address questions or concerns of heresy being taught or discussed within our Life Houses, but we do want some freedom to wrestle with and think about the scriptures and how they apply to our lives today.
Support. We hope a denomination will desire us as much as we desire them. Relationships don't work so well, if one is deemed to be sucking Life from the other. We want a symbiotic relationship. We hope for prayer support, a small amount (for a church plant) of financial support, and mentoring relationships. We want to be able to contribute to a larger network of Christian relationships in many different ways. (potentially district events and/or worldwide missions) We want to be a people that a denomination is proud to have as one of their churches.
Reputation. House church is outside the box for most and we certainly don't want anyone to wonder if we are a cult. Being connected to a denomination should help relinquish any of those kinds of concerns. (Interestingly as I've talked to folks outside of our group about this, some have pointed out that all of those negative cult situations, actually come from one person being given too much power, not from a shared leadership/participation type of group, like house church.)
However, I'm not sold on the fact that we need to be a part of a denomination.
Part of it comes from the fact that when I first became a Christian, I rejected the idea of denominations. It all seemed way too divisive. I would answer folks with what denomination, I held onto, but rather I simply said, "I am Christian."
Control seems to be an issue through our discussions. Some denominations want lots of control over a local congregation and some give lots of freedom to local congregations. Many aren't sure how and would have to work through how to have a relationship with a house church network versus a traditional style church. I am okay with (though I'm not a big fan of) being a part of a denomination because of a particular view of systematic theology. (I'm not a big fan of systematic theology) I'm not a big fan of a denomination mandating some gray areas of morality for not only a national church, but an international church. I do believe that the community of faith has something to say about how we should live morally, but more in the context of those who are in truly in relationship to one another (ie small group, house church, etc.)
One last thing that I'm finding. It's seemed to be a challenge and/or many challenges ahead of convincing a denomination or a board within a denomination of our vision for house church. I'm struggling with that. If you want someone to marry you, I'm not sure you should have to tell them why you're so great. They should just know it. Or they should just accept who you are. Context once again is also a reality. We are pursuing them at this point and not the other way around. Most of them don't really know us. (However, there is one denomination that has been pursuing us.)
Lastly, I've had some very good people who I trust, love and respect talk to me about their concerns regarding us joining a denomination. Mostly, they are against it. Not really too many folks have encouraged us to join. (except for maybe one friend) I find that interesting and curious. I wonder if those folks would be willing to pony up some financial support in place of that denomination. :~)
Well, I must go for now. I'm sure this discussion will come up again. Please pray for us. We will be doing the same. God knows we want to follow His direction.
If you've got something to offer in productive and helpful ways, please share. We are definitely willing to listen, consider, and dialogue about.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Pagan CHURCHianity... One more thought...
One more thought I would like to add.
Frank and George seem to be at odds with human spirit-led leadership. Frank talks an awful lot about every-member participation (which I appreciate) and Jesus Christ leading meetings as the head of the Church in open meetings. They seem to have a problem with a human leading or facilitating a meeting (not to mention the spirit leading you prior to a meeting to share something that was planned in advance, ie order of worship). Frank claims that he has participated in these Christ-led (not human led) meetings where Jesus pulls it all together.
This is an area that some have challenged me with. It seems to come from our theology. How do we understand God? How do we understand the Trinity? How do we understand human leadership? How do we understand God's way of working with His people?
I fall in the category of believing God, the father is the one calling the shots, so to speak, but he does so with love (self-less giving) and a servant spirit. In the same way, I believe that God has entrusted men in the Old and New Testament with leadership to provide direction and vision with love (self-less giving) and a servant spirit. This type of leadership is way different than wanting our own way and requires great responsibility and accountability.
My question for Frank would be, why can't God manifest himself through human leadership? Isn't that exactly what he does? There are at least two categories within the house church (and other's too, I suppose) on leadership. One says that God calls a leader to provide vision and direction, spirit-led, of course, to a group of people. Another says that God calls a group of people to collectively provide vision and direction. I'm not talking about a leadership board or vision team, I'm talking about the whole group. But, even within a leadership board or vision team, you must have a leader to faciliate and provide leadership within their function. Does God's Spirit not work through an individual in such a way?
I wonder if Frank may have experienced a bad situation with poor leadership in the past. I wonder if Frank's personality traits lend away from control. Leadership does not constitute or replace every member functioning, in fact, good, healthy biblical leadership would encourage it, equip it and help it to happen. Leadership does not provide all the work, it proves the direction of the work. And it must be done in self-less, servanthood, and loving ways. While others not in leadership, interact and help to provide feedback to the leader, ultimately they follow, trusting God to guide the leader by his Spirit.
Too many have experienced poor leadership or leadership that disagrees with their decision. Too many have been hurt by selfish or hurtful leadership. This doesn't negate our need for it, it simply reminds of the type of attitudes that leaders must have and that their job is not to take all the work away from the people, but to serve the people by providing vision and direction.
Leadership must be balanced and checked with the Bible, with accountability groups, and with followers and supporters, but servant-leadership is a human service to God and others.
Frank and George seem to be at odds with human spirit-led leadership. Frank talks an awful lot about every-member participation (which I appreciate) and Jesus Christ leading meetings as the head of the Church in open meetings. They seem to have a problem with a human leading or facilitating a meeting (not to mention the spirit leading you prior to a meeting to share something that was planned in advance, ie order of worship). Frank claims that he has participated in these Christ-led (not human led) meetings where Jesus pulls it all together.
This is an area that some have challenged me with. It seems to come from our theology. How do we understand God? How do we understand the Trinity? How do we understand human leadership? How do we understand God's way of working with His people?
I fall in the category of believing God, the father is the one calling the shots, so to speak, but he does so with love (self-less giving) and a servant spirit. In the same way, I believe that God has entrusted men in the Old and New Testament with leadership to provide direction and vision with love (self-less giving) and a servant spirit. This type of leadership is way different than wanting our own way and requires great responsibility and accountability.
My question for Frank would be, why can't God manifest himself through human leadership? Isn't that exactly what he does? There are at least two categories within the house church (and other's too, I suppose) on leadership. One says that God calls a leader to provide vision and direction, spirit-led, of course, to a group of people. Another says that God calls a group of people to collectively provide vision and direction. I'm not talking about a leadership board or vision team, I'm talking about the whole group. But, even within a leadership board or vision team, you must have a leader to faciliate and provide leadership within their function. Does God's Spirit not work through an individual in such a way?
I wonder if Frank may have experienced a bad situation with poor leadership in the past. I wonder if Frank's personality traits lend away from control. Leadership does not constitute or replace every member functioning, in fact, good, healthy biblical leadership would encourage it, equip it and help it to happen. Leadership does not provide all the work, it proves the direction of the work. And it must be done in self-less, servanthood, and loving ways. While others not in leadership, interact and help to provide feedback to the leader, ultimately they follow, trusting God to guide the leader by his Spirit.
Too many have experienced poor leadership or leadership that disagrees with their decision. Too many have been hurt by selfish or hurtful leadership. This doesn't negate our need for it, it simply reminds of the type of attitudes that leaders must have and that their job is not to take all the work away from the people, but to serve the people by providing vision and direction.
Leadership must be balanced and checked with the Bible, with accountability groups, and with followers and supporters, but servant-leadership is a human service to God and others.
Pagan Christianity
I recently finished the book Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna and it has turned my world upside down. In many ways, nothing has changed. In other ways, everything has changed.
Some in the church have called Frank a heretic, but I don't think anyone has ever called George Barna one. In fact, he is considered THE Christian statistics guru and is probably one of the most quoted or referenced persons in Christendom, at least through our modern day sermon.
Now that I'm ready to blog about my experience with this book though, I think a better title for the book should probably be Pagan CHURCHianity. The book deals with the "evolution" or modernization of the historical process of the how the church has come to it's current form. The basis of the book is this. Most churches would claim that everything they do is by the book, er the Book. However, much, if not most of how we do church has evolved from it's original form due to the influence of it's surrounding culture, ie Pagans, Greeks, etc.
Clearly the church has changed from its original early church experience. That cannot be denied. How, why and whether this is a benefical thing to the Kingdom of God is where this book can create division and a variety of differences of opinion. Has the church evolved? (changed in order to survive) Has the church developed or matured? (changed due to its growth) Has the church become secularized? (changed due to worldy influence) These are the major questions with major implications.
The book discusses most of the major practices of how we do church. The Church Building. The Order of Worship. The Sermon. The Pastor. Sunday Morning Costumes. Ministers of Music. Tithing and Clergy Salaries. Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Christian Education. The New Testament (order and breakdown).
When I first became a Christian, I was really enthused with church. Why do we do this? Why do we do that? How come the Bible says this, but we don't do that? How come these themes come up repeatedly but, go untalked about in church? I had all these questions. The Scriptures didn't seem to line up with the church(es) I had attended. It's not necessarily that my church experience was in opposition to the Scriptures, but they just didn't line up clearly. Such as the trivial issue of dressing up for church. I was reading through the New Testament and Jesus seemed to be focusing so much on the heart and the motive, not outward appearances. And yet, many seasoned, veteran Christians were telling me I need to look my best on Sunday morning in order to show God respect and honor. These teachings just didn't seem to match up with any Scripture. There was certainly nothing to say dressing up was bad (at least not clearly), but it sure didn't seem to say what was our common church experience (more especially at that time than now).
So, it was amazing as I read through this book that so many memories came to mind, where I remember wondering why do we do this like this and I was given a pat answer, that more often than not was completely uneducated and something they had just been told to do (toll the company line!) presumably, hopefully by well intentioned people who weren't quite sure themselves. How many times have I done that? Egad!
If you've been trained in Christian ministry at college or seminars or wherever, you're brain right now may be considering these implications, as mine did throughout the entire book. Methods change from time to time, culture to culture, but the message never changes. Therefore, of course, the church has changed. The methods have changed due to times and culture that it existed in to meet the needs of that culture. The question is not do we use other methods (as the culture that we live in necessitates), the question is when we use other methods, are they helpful to what they Church is called to be and do or does it ultimately undermine or even significantly hinder the message and the people called to deliver that message. (ie, all Christ followers, not just pastor types) An extremely important part of this discerning process is to remember is what the early church was and what the Bible actually teaches rather than simply our human traditions based on the progression (or regression) of the church for a certain time and culture that no longer even exists.
I will admit that Frank and George seem pretty harsh toward our modern church(es). Even, too harsh for me sometimes. But, if I trust their words, it is because they love the church that they can come across so strongly. That and though they did not say, I would guess at least Frank's spiritual gift would be that of prophecy. (Prophets love to point out sin or atleast that which has the appearance of sin and call Kingdom people to repentence. :) Or course, our culture is not so enamored with these kind of gifts. They kinda hurt sometimes.
In each of these categories, (The Church Building. The Order of Worship. The Sermon. The Pastor. Sunday Morning Costumes. Ministers of Music. Tithing and Clergy Salaries. Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Christian Education. The New Testament (order and breakdown), Frank and George argue that when they changed based on their culture and time, that these changes have been for the detriment of the church. In some cases, I totally agree. In others, I'm not buying it. At least that it's as bad or as clear as they make it out to be. But, let's quickly look at each one.
The Church Building. The early church knew no "church owned" buildings. They met in homes and public arenas. (not even rented locations) Because of this, they had little overhead and most of their giving went to help the poor and those in need. Why has the church building been created then? Why to accomodate larger numbers, of couse. (many other reasons as well) But, if we multiply our churches instead of growing them larger, (ie, simple/organic/house church) then space is not the issue that we now see. (There are other issues as well, but those are dealt with as we go along here)
The Order of Worship. A great pastor friend of mine likes to remind me that all churches pretty much do the same thing. We sing, we pray, we preach, we give (money). Then, we go home. He's right. That's pretty much it. Nothing wrong with that, but the order of worship, though more flexible in some circumstances than others, is still pretty much the same. We sing. We pray. We give. We listen. Maybe we sing some more. Frank and George trace these origins to other religious rituals of their day and time, yet the early church knew no such type of order of worship. These were free flowing meetings with great participation (not a show to observe, but an experience to participate in, not just philosophically, but practically as well). I'm not sure how much this matters, in my opinion. I definitely see the need to be open to the leading of the Spirit of God. Never should we quench the Spirit and not allow him to move because of OUR schedule of events, but that has usually not been my church experience. Many pastoral leaders I know plan a great deal during the week, but are also very sensitive to the leading of the Spirit in the midst of the worship service. I just heard a story not long ago of my home church pastor being sensitive to the Spirit during a Christmas Eve service, so much that an individual gave their life to Christ because of it. If ever there would be a time to stick to the plan, it would have been Christmas Eve. I definitely see a great need though to give opportunity for greater participation by the attenders either through discussion, leadings of the Spirit, prayer, teaching, or some other interactive way of expressing Christ to each other. We need to return to our roots in this matter. This is how God made the Church, to minister to each other, not just the paid professional doing all of this.
The Sermon. Never had I thought much of this. I had assumed that the way we preach (though the New Testament clearly doesn't give us direction on HOW to do this) was similar to what was originally done. Frank and George make a great case for how and why the sermon has changed from the New Testament style of preaching. In turn, it gives us great cause to change the way we preach. I think most of us would agree that our current preaching, no matter how inspirational or great of a speaker, only lasts for a short while and does little to truly change lives, which of course, is why need our fill again so soon afterwards (ie Sunday morning, sunday night, and wednesday night, not to mention revival services, of course, those have greatly shortened over recent years).
The Pastor. I'm guilty. Here's an interesting fact, that I never considered. The word pastor is never mentioned in the New Testament. PastorS is mentioned once as a function, not as a title or a role. The shepherding role or function is mentioned numerous times, but not in the way that we experience today. This will cause quite a bit of controversy today. Both to those filling called to this role and to those who have experienced the demise of our current pastoral role. How many conversations have I had with other pastors on the unbelievable amount of pressure and expectations of a pastor. So many people in this role have been chewed up and spit out! Jesus could never fulfill these expectations that people have for a pastor in our current system. They are CEO, Shepherd, Teacher, Preacher, Mercy Giver, Community Representative, Perfect Dad and Husband, Money Managing Expert, Hand Shaker, Baby Kisser, Hug Giver, Administrator, Prophet, Evangelist, and much, much more. While the rest of the Church, sits around and pays him/her to do it. Many pastors break free from the constant tugging from all of these directions, and a few even stay in ministry and do it. Another thing that I think is a sad reality. Since we do pay pastors, if they are able to encourage and equip the church to actually do the ministry (the context of that one pastorS passage), then people would start wondering, why do we pay him/her anyway??? I definitely sense this and wonder a bit myself even as I am taking a part-time salary (very part-time, mind you). Paul was paid, you say? So did I. He was paid because he was a traveling church planter, not as a pastor of a local congregation. Is this to say the Bible condemns being a pastor? I wouldn't say that, nor would Frank or George, mostly because the Bible doesn't say that. However, does paying a pastor discourage everyone from giving to the community because that's what we pay him for and does it take up extremely valuable finances that could be used to help the poor? These are tough questions that we do have to consider. Jesus clearly calls us to help the poor and Paul clearly calls the entire church to serve one another and their community.
Sunday Morning Costumes. I don't feel like I need to say much here, but know that dressing up for church came from other cultures and religions and was completely unthought of in the early church. Most churches and Christians have gotten over this.
Ministers of Music. They argue that our development of music (choirs, worship band, etc.) have hurt the every member funtion even of worship. I tend to disagree, since everyone is involved and participating (not leading, but participating) but money could be an issue here as well.
Tithing and Clergy Salaries. Much has already been discussed on clergy salaries. The main part of this section is on tithing. Frank and George argue that tithing is biblical (ala Old Testament), but not a part of New Testament Christianity. The few times that they say to set money aside in the New Testament, it is not called tithing and it is clearly for a specific context/purpose and is in no way stated to be done for all churches at all times. Also, tithing was a part of the Old law system that Christ did away with with his death on the cross. (ie we don't give sacrifices anymore, restrict eating certain types of meat, etc.) While I will admit their argument is persuasive and doesn't leave much substantial argument on the other side (due to a lack of source material), the New Testament is not clear on this teaching, in my opinion, so let everyone do as God puts in their heart as the purpose and principles of tithing are taught out of joy and not out of compulsion by man.
Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Oh my goodness. Let me just say, I totally agree with them here. This is something I've been passionate about for a long time, since I first read the New Testament, but most totally disagree with me. Baptism in the New Testament took place immediately after a person desired to become a Christian. It was used almost in the same way as our "sinner's prayer" that we use today at the altar when someone desires to become a Christian. It was not a formal ritual that we invited all of our friends and family to and took pictures. It was simply a part of becoming Christian. It was not a growth step. It was not a maturity issue. It was not a "now I've cleaned all the big sin in my life up" kind of a process step. It simply happened as people became Christian. Secondly, the Lord's Supper or communion as we've come to call it was a faith community meal. When they came together every week to celebrate the resurrection, they ate a meal together. This was the Lord's Supper. This is why some ate too much, some didn't get enough to eat and some got drunk during the Lord's Supper in the early church. (of course, Paul yelled at them for these things) It was because the Lord's Supper was a meal (as in the Last Supper). It was not a cracker and shot of juice kind of dark and dreary kind of experience. It was a life giving, thankful appreciation and celebration kind of a meal that in we were reminded of the body and blood that was shed. Although these things aren't completely clear and Frank and George explain how they think these things did develop in the church based on their research, the reality is that tradition is hard to break once you've done something for a couple of years, try a couple thousand (or almost a couple thousand). While I believe both of these things to be true, baptism immediately after becoming a Christian regardless of opportunity for ritual/family/etc. and Lord's Supper as a meal, not a cracker/juice kinda thing, I know that the emotional ties that come with these things, most well meaning people will never change their practice of these traditions. Emotional ties run deep and mean alot to people, even if they aren't true expressions. How much do they hurt the church in their current form? That's a tough question. I'm not sure it is much, but maybe how we practice them could make up for how much they take away.
Christian Education. This is not huge for me, but it does make sense. Christian education in the early church was life on life, mentoring, experiential OJT kind of learning. Our current collegiate/seminary system creates brain/information/theoretical learning, but not much hands on practical learning, that comes when you get to your first church and they eat you up for breakfast. (in pastoral roles) Or in Sunday School extra preaching kind of ways if your just a laymen (sarcasm in the just a laymen thing). I will say there are a lot of good mentoring/discipleship type of programs in our church today that could be similar to the early church type of education, as long as they are relationally/practically based on not simply adherance to some theoretical knowledge of facts.
The New Testament (order and breakdown). The New Testament was put in an order other than chronologically. They argue that if we had it in chronological form, it would be easier and more apparent some of these issues that the early church was dealing with and the context for the letters that were written to different churches. While I would definitely agree and am intrigued enough to get a New Testament rearranged in chronological form, I'm not sure how big of a deal this is. I guess I'll have to read it this way to find out. He also argues about the section/verse breakdown causes us to miss the context of many verses of scripture that we misuse constantly and out of context. While this may be true, I've learned it also makes it much harder in groups to follow along (ie using the Message with the NIV).
Overall, the most important things that I took away from this were to not assume a biblical basis for why we do many of the things that we do in the church. Many of them actually have a Pagan or Greek or Secular origin. And if that is okay for the church to change with the times and culture (I do believe it is), then when we change, we must evaluate that according to the purpose and life that we as a Church are called to.
For example, when I first started sensing God calling me into planting a church, one of my first ideas was to have church in a theater. It's a building that is built similar to a church sanctuary and lies unused most Sunday mornings and most newer ones are a lot nicer than most churches. It is in the community and people are already used to going there. It is contemporary and uses modern technology. Everyone goes to the movies, while some people are afraid the roof will fall in if they go to church. (I disagree dad.) There are plenty of great reasons to "do" church in a theater. However, a theater also carries the connotation of being an observer of a good show, not a participant in a world changing movement of a family showing people the Father. However, since I'm not the only one in the church, we, together, as a community must evaluate our methods according to God's purpose for the church and when they don't line up, let's go back to our original practices and see how and why they helped the church thrive so much in it's infancy.
Some in the church have called Frank a heretic, but I don't think anyone has ever called George Barna one. In fact, he is considered THE Christian statistics guru and is probably one of the most quoted or referenced persons in Christendom, at least through our modern day sermon.
Now that I'm ready to blog about my experience with this book though, I think a better title for the book should probably be Pagan CHURCHianity. The book deals with the "evolution" or modernization of the historical process of the how the church has come to it's current form. The basis of the book is this. Most churches would claim that everything they do is by the book, er the Book. However, much, if not most of how we do church has evolved from it's original form due to the influence of it's surrounding culture, ie Pagans, Greeks, etc.
Clearly the church has changed from its original early church experience. That cannot be denied. How, why and whether this is a benefical thing to the Kingdom of God is where this book can create division and a variety of differences of opinion. Has the church evolved? (changed in order to survive) Has the church developed or matured? (changed due to its growth) Has the church become secularized? (changed due to worldy influence) These are the major questions with major implications.
The book discusses most of the major practices of how we do church. The Church Building. The Order of Worship. The Sermon. The Pastor. Sunday Morning Costumes. Ministers of Music. Tithing and Clergy Salaries. Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Christian Education. The New Testament (order and breakdown).
When I first became a Christian, I was really enthused with church. Why do we do this? Why do we do that? How come the Bible says this, but we don't do that? How come these themes come up repeatedly but, go untalked about in church? I had all these questions. The Scriptures didn't seem to line up with the church(es) I had attended. It's not necessarily that my church experience was in opposition to the Scriptures, but they just didn't line up clearly. Such as the trivial issue of dressing up for church. I was reading through the New Testament and Jesus seemed to be focusing so much on the heart and the motive, not outward appearances. And yet, many seasoned, veteran Christians were telling me I need to look my best on Sunday morning in order to show God respect and honor. These teachings just didn't seem to match up with any Scripture. There was certainly nothing to say dressing up was bad (at least not clearly), but it sure didn't seem to say what was our common church experience (more especially at that time than now).
So, it was amazing as I read through this book that so many memories came to mind, where I remember wondering why do we do this like this and I was given a pat answer, that more often than not was completely uneducated and something they had just been told to do (toll the company line!) presumably, hopefully by well intentioned people who weren't quite sure themselves. How many times have I done that? Egad!
If you've been trained in Christian ministry at college or seminars or wherever, you're brain right now may be considering these implications, as mine did throughout the entire book. Methods change from time to time, culture to culture, but the message never changes. Therefore, of course, the church has changed. The methods have changed due to times and culture that it existed in to meet the needs of that culture. The question is not do we use other methods (as the culture that we live in necessitates), the question is when we use other methods, are they helpful to what they Church is called to be and do or does it ultimately undermine or even significantly hinder the message and the people called to deliver that message. (ie, all Christ followers, not just pastor types) An extremely important part of this discerning process is to remember is what the early church was and what the Bible actually teaches rather than simply our human traditions based on the progression (or regression) of the church for a certain time and culture that no longer even exists.
I will admit that Frank and George seem pretty harsh toward our modern church(es). Even, too harsh for me sometimes. But, if I trust their words, it is because they love the church that they can come across so strongly. That and though they did not say, I would guess at least Frank's spiritual gift would be that of prophecy. (Prophets love to point out sin or atleast that which has the appearance of sin and call Kingdom people to repentence. :) Or course, our culture is not so enamored with these kind of gifts. They kinda hurt sometimes.
In each of these categories, (The Church Building. The Order of Worship. The Sermon. The Pastor. Sunday Morning Costumes. Ministers of Music. Tithing and Clergy Salaries. Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Christian Education. The New Testament (order and breakdown), Frank and George argue that when they changed based on their culture and time, that these changes have been for the detriment of the church. In some cases, I totally agree. In others, I'm not buying it. At least that it's as bad or as clear as they make it out to be. But, let's quickly look at each one.
The Church Building. The early church knew no "church owned" buildings. They met in homes and public arenas. (not even rented locations) Because of this, they had little overhead and most of their giving went to help the poor and those in need. Why has the church building been created then? Why to accomodate larger numbers, of couse. (many other reasons as well) But, if we multiply our churches instead of growing them larger, (ie, simple/organic/house church) then space is not the issue that we now see. (There are other issues as well, but those are dealt with as we go along here)
The Order of Worship. A great pastor friend of mine likes to remind me that all churches pretty much do the same thing. We sing, we pray, we preach, we give (money). Then, we go home. He's right. That's pretty much it. Nothing wrong with that, but the order of worship, though more flexible in some circumstances than others, is still pretty much the same. We sing. We pray. We give. We listen. Maybe we sing some more. Frank and George trace these origins to other religious rituals of their day and time, yet the early church knew no such type of order of worship. These were free flowing meetings with great participation (not a show to observe, but an experience to participate in, not just philosophically, but practically as well). I'm not sure how much this matters, in my opinion. I definitely see the need to be open to the leading of the Spirit of God. Never should we quench the Spirit and not allow him to move because of OUR schedule of events, but that has usually not been my church experience. Many pastoral leaders I know plan a great deal during the week, but are also very sensitive to the leading of the Spirit in the midst of the worship service. I just heard a story not long ago of my home church pastor being sensitive to the Spirit during a Christmas Eve service, so much that an individual gave their life to Christ because of it. If ever there would be a time to stick to the plan, it would have been Christmas Eve. I definitely see a great need though to give opportunity for greater participation by the attenders either through discussion, leadings of the Spirit, prayer, teaching, or some other interactive way of expressing Christ to each other. We need to return to our roots in this matter. This is how God made the Church, to minister to each other, not just the paid professional doing all of this.
The Sermon. Never had I thought much of this. I had assumed that the way we preach (though the New Testament clearly doesn't give us direction on HOW to do this) was similar to what was originally done. Frank and George make a great case for how and why the sermon has changed from the New Testament style of preaching. In turn, it gives us great cause to change the way we preach. I think most of us would agree that our current preaching, no matter how inspirational or great of a speaker, only lasts for a short while and does little to truly change lives, which of course, is why need our fill again so soon afterwards (ie Sunday morning, sunday night, and wednesday night, not to mention revival services, of course, those have greatly shortened over recent years).
The Pastor. I'm guilty. Here's an interesting fact, that I never considered. The word pastor is never mentioned in the New Testament. PastorS is mentioned once as a function, not as a title or a role. The shepherding role or function is mentioned numerous times, but not in the way that we experience today. This will cause quite a bit of controversy today. Both to those filling called to this role and to those who have experienced the demise of our current pastoral role. How many conversations have I had with other pastors on the unbelievable amount of pressure and expectations of a pastor. So many people in this role have been chewed up and spit out! Jesus could never fulfill these expectations that people have for a pastor in our current system. They are CEO, Shepherd, Teacher, Preacher, Mercy Giver, Community Representative, Perfect Dad and Husband, Money Managing Expert, Hand Shaker, Baby Kisser, Hug Giver, Administrator, Prophet, Evangelist, and much, much more. While the rest of the Church, sits around and pays him/her to do it. Many pastors break free from the constant tugging from all of these directions, and a few even stay in ministry and do it. Another thing that I think is a sad reality. Since we do pay pastors, if they are able to encourage and equip the church to actually do the ministry (the context of that one pastorS passage), then people would start wondering, why do we pay him/her anyway??? I definitely sense this and wonder a bit myself even as I am taking a part-time salary (very part-time, mind you). Paul was paid, you say? So did I. He was paid because he was a traveling church planter, not as a pastor of a local congregation. Is this to say the Bible condemns being a pastor? I wouldn't say that, nor would Frank or George, mostly because the Bible doesn't say that. However, does paying a pastor discourage everyone from giving to the community because that's what we pay him for and does it take up extremely valuable finances that could be used to help the poor? These are tough questions that we do have to consider. Jesus clearly calls us to help the poor and Paul clearly calls the entire church to serve one another and their community.
Sunday Morning Costumes. I don't feel like I need to say much here, but know that dressing up for church came from other cultures and religions and was completely unthought of in the early church. Most churches and Christians have gotten over this.
Ministers of Music. They argue that our development of music (choirs, worship band, etc.) have hurt the every member funtion even of worship. I tend to disagree, since everyone is involved and participating (not leading, but participating) but money could be an issue here as well.
Tithing and Clergy Salaries. Much has already been discussed on clergy salaries. The main part of this section is on tithing. Frank and George argue that tithing is biblical (ala Old Testament), but not a part of New Testament Christianity. The few times that they say to set money aside in the New Testament, it is not called tithing and it is clearly for a specific context/purpose and is in no way stated to be done for all churches at all times. Also, tithing was a part of the Old law system that Christ did away with with his death on the cross. (ie we don't give sacrifices anymore, restrict eating certain types of meat, etc.) While I will admit their argument is persuasive and doesn't leave much substantial argument on the other side (due to a lack of source material), the New Testament is not clear on this teaching, in my opinion, so let everyone do as God puts in their heart as the purpose and principles of tithing are taught out of joy and not out of compulsion by man.
Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Oh my goodness. Let me just say, I totally agree with them here. This is something I've been passionate about for a long time, since I first read the New Testament, but most totally disagree with me. Baptism in the New Testament took place immediately after a person desired to become a Christian. It was used almost in the same way as our "sinner's prayer" that we use today at the altar when someone desires to become a Christian. It was not a formal ritual that we invited all of our friends and family to and took pictures. It was simply a part of becoming Christian. It was not a growth step. It was not a maturity issue. It was not a "now I've cleaned all the big sin in my life up" kind of a process step. It simply happened as people became Christian. Secondly, the Lord's Supper or communion as we've come to call it was a faith community meal. When they came together every week to celebrate the resurrection, they ate a meal together. This was the Lord's Supper. This is why some ate too much, some didn't get enough to eat and some got drunk during the Lord's Supper in the early church. (of course, Paul yelled at them for these things) It was because the Lord's Supper was a meal (as in the Last Supper). It was not a cracker and shot of juice kind of dark and dreary kind of experience. It was a life giving, thankful appreciation and celebration kind of a meal that in we were reminded of the body and blood that was shed. Although these things aren't completely clear and Frank and George explain how they think these things did develop in the church based on their research, the reality is that tradition is hard to break once you've done something for a couple of years, try a couple thousand (or almost a couple thousand). While I believe both of these things to be true, baptism immediately after becoming a Christian regardless of opportunity for ritual/family/etc. and Lord's Supper as a meal, not a cracker/juice kinda thing, I know that the emotional ties that come with these things, most well meaning people will never change their practice of these traditions. Emotional ties run deep and mean alot to people, even if they aren't true expressions. How much do they hurt the church in their current form? That's a tough question. I'm not sure it is much, but maybe how we practice them could make up for how much they take away.
Christian Education. This is not huge for me, but it does make sense. Christian education in the early church was life on life, mentoring, experiential OJT kind of learning. Our current collegiate/seminary system creates brain/information/theoretical learning, but not much hands on practical learning, that comes when you get to your first church and they eat you up for breakfast. (in pastoral roles) Or in Sunday School extra preaching kind of ways if your just a laymen (sarcasm in the just a laymen thing). I will say there are a lot of good mentoring/discipleship type of programs in our church today that could be similar to the early church type of education, as long as they are relationally/practically based on not simply adherance to some theoretical knowledge of facts.
The New Testament (order and breakdown). The New Testament was put in an order other than chronologically. They argue that if we had it in chronological form, it would be easier and more apparent some of these issues that the early church was dealing with and the context for the letters that were written to different churches. While I would definitely agree and am intrigued enough to get a New Testament rearranged in chronological form, I'm not sure how big of a deal this is. I guess I'll have to read it this way to find out. He also argues about the section/verse breakdown causes us to miss the context of many verses of scripture that we misuse constantly and out of context. While this may be true, I've learned it also makes it much harder in groups to follow along (ie using the Message with the NIV).
Overall, the most important things that I took away from this were to not assume a biblical basis for why we do many of the things that we do in the church. Many of them actually have a Pagan or Greek or Secular origin. And if that is okay for the church to change with the times and culture (I do believe it is), then when we change, we must evaluate that according to the purpose and life that we as a Church are called to.
For example, when I first started sensing God calling me into planting a church, one of my first ideas was to have church in a theater. It's a building that is built similar to a church sanctuary and lies unused most Sunday mornings and most newer ones are a lot nicer than most churches. It is in the community and people are already used to going there. It is contemporary and uses modern technology. Everyone goes to the movies, while some people are afraid the roof will fall in if they go to church. (I disagree dad.) There are plenty of great reasons to "do" church in a theater. However, a theater also carries the connotation of being an observer of a good show, not a participant in a world changing movement of a family showing people the Father. However, since I'm not the only one in the church, we, together, as a community must evaluate our methods according to God's purpose for the church and when they don't line up, let's go back to our original practices and see how and why they helped the church thrive so much in it's infancy.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
I'm white.
It's official. I'm white. Or should I say, caucasian?
I've had a passion since I was a kid about this subject that I am going to raise today, but I've been afraid to open my mouth. It seems I'm getting brave in a lot of ways these days. I've been afraid, though because as soon as I open my mouth it leaves me open to criticism. But, that's okay. Open up, fire away.
Our black and African-American friends and brothers and sisters have been treated poorly. Certainly that's obvious through history. We all are aware of that. Many have spoken up about that throughout history, both famous and some not so famous. The majority of those that actually do speak up, though, are those that have had to go through it.
How many actually speak up that haven't had to experience it?
Racism. Prejudice. Profiling.
They are ugly words. They are even uglier to experience. They hurt. They destroy. Sounds kinda like sin, huh?
I've experienced these things in very minimal ways when compared to others. I was the little guy and was therefore picked last in games when I was in elementary school. I was a teenage guy, which I'm sure prompted police attention during my driving days more than once. (I didn't notice this until later in life, now that the police seem to ignore me as an adult and/or family man.) I've been passed up for a game or two of basketball due to my short, whiteness. Mind you, I told you these were minimal compared to what others have experienced.
One movie that made a huge impact on me as a kid was Soul Man with C. Thomas Howell. He played a white character who pretended to be black. He got away with it for a while and was expecting to understand what it was like to be black in our culture. He got an idea, but by the end of the movie realized how little of an idea he got since he was then able to be white, once again.
Then a few years back, I saw Amistad. Talk about crusing me! That movie destroyed me as I balled for over a half hour in response to the way these humans were being treated due to the color of their skin and cultural heritage. Sad. They were treated so much less than human.
I've always known instinctively how wrong it is for us humans to treat each other so differently simply based on the color of our skin (or any other innate reason.) I've never understood why others treat each other differently for this reason. They cannot intermarry. They cannot be best friends. They cannot let them in our house. They cannot go into business together. They cannot hire them. They cannot accept them in the same way as anyone else. Mostly, it doesn't even make sense.
Then I saw Crash. Oh my goodness. If you haven't seen this movie, you have to. Yeah, there is some "offendable" content (ie sexuality, language, violence) but the lessons and reality that it teaches is so much greater. If you must watch an edited version, I'm sure it's been on TNT or something. I actually own an edited, milder version if you want to borrow it. The movie was mind blowing and helped us see the reality that racism, prejudice, and profiling isn't owned only by white people but is a problem across multiple, if not all races. It's an ugly thing. It also helped me to see the different ways that I've probably been guilty of in the past myself and how it occurs so regularly right before our very eyes and we don't even recognize it because we are not the offended party.
Some blame biblical reasons. (Sad, they don't know or understand their Bible very well.) Some blame experience. Some blame ignorance. Some blame the media. These are not excuses. They might be reasons, but they are definitely not excuses. In my experience, more often than not, the greatest reason or excuse has simply been sin.
God created humankind equal. There is no supreme or better race. Why haven't we learned this lesson from the Nazis? Why haven't we learned this lesson from history? We are all children of the same God, whether we recognize or believe that.
I know about now, you might be saying, "you're not so innocent yourself." You're guilty too.
That may have been true from time to time. But, it certainly has not been intentional or I was not aware of it. One of the reasons that I am so passionate and have been so for much of my life is my experiences as a child. Not from experiencing these things myself, but in seeing others experience them in different ways. I don't have some vivid memory of a specific incident. I just remember how apalled I was as I heard of each incident and time that it happened.
This is a reality is today in our culture, at this day and time. Coming from our immediate, past for the United States, these have been some ugly and growing years. We've come a way. Yesterday is proof of that. But, how much is that saying when you consider how ugly the past is.
Today I am thankful for President Obama. I am thankful that he was able to be elected primarily on his gifts, experience and ideas. His race has been for the most part pushed into the background. I am sure that many didn't vote for him (because he was black), but I also heard just yesterday of at least one (white) person who voted for him simply because he was (black.) So, hopefully those ignorances balanced out. While I don't think that's the best or even a good reason to vote for him. It's an even worse reason to vote against him.
No matter what political persuasion or opinions you hold. Yesterday and today are beautiful days in America because we now have a black president. It is beautiful that it is now possible. It is a momentous occasion indeed. I was nervous and excited all day. I was in awe and appreciative.
Mind you, I don't think that racism, prejudice and profiling have now gone by the wayside, I am just grateful that we have reached this step.
I believe that has become possible in large part because of our younger generation. Certainly not all of the older generation would have a problem with this, but I find that the younger generation are much more open to these things. They are more sensitive to ignorance people that are racist. Mind you, they are not innocent, for many fall into the same trap, I'm just saying they are more open. Popular youth culture has had an impact on this, but young ideals can be a helpful thing as well.
Have you ever noticed how true the words of a kindergartner can be, even if they themselves cannot live up to them? (Why are people so mean to each other? Why can't we all just get along?)
Today, more than ever, I want to do something to bring racial reconciliation. I'm never sure what to do or how it will be received, but I want to do something.
There is one thing that I/we are preparing to do as a family. We are planning to foster to adopt a baby of another race.
Hopefully, this will help us to overcome any "unseen" racism/prejudice in our own lives and snuff it out. Hopefully, this will help create and build relationships with others of a different race than our own. Hopefully, this will spur conversations and ideas in others for how to create racial reconciliation.
Our primary reason for fostering to adopt is that hopefully, God will use this to give a child, that otherwise might experience a different kind of life, a new life. One filled with hope. One filled with love. One filled with a family.
But, we would also love for God to use it in racial reconciliation as well. We are willing to accept criticism. We are willing to sacrifice. We are willing to stand for what is right. We are willing go outside of our comfort zones.
Are you? Are you willing to create racial reconciliation? Are you willing to stand for what is right? Do you have the courage? What can YOU do? What WILL you do?
I've had a passion since I was a kid about this subject that I am going to raise today, but I've been afraid to open my mouth. It seems I'm getting brave in a lot of ways these days. I've been afraid, though because as soon as I open my mouth it leaves me open to criticism. But, that's okay. Open up, fire away.
Our black and African-American friends and brothers and sisters have been treated poorly. Certainly that's obvious through history. We all are aware of that. Many have spoken up about that throughout history, both famous and some not so famous. The majority of those that actually do speak up, though, are those that have had to go through it.
How many actually speak up that haven't had to experience it?
Racism. Prejudice. Profiling.
They are ugly words. They are even uglier to experience. They hurt. They destroy. Sounds kinda like sin, huh?
I've experienced these things in very minimal ways when compared to others. I was the little guy and was therefore picked last in games when I was in elementary school. I was a teenage guy, which I'm sure prompted police attention during my driving days more than once. (I didn't notice this until later in life, now that the police seem to ignore me as an adult and/or family man.) I've been passed up for a game or two of basketball due to my short, whiteness. Mind you, I told you these were minimal compared to what others have experienced.
One movie that made a huge impact on me as a kid was Soul Man with C. Thomas Howell. He played a white character who pretended to be black. He got away with it for a while and was expecting to understand what it was like to be black in our culture. He got an idea, but by the end of the movie realized how little of an idea he got since he was then able to be white, once again.
Then a few years back, I saw Amistad. Talk about crusing me! That movie destroyed me as I balled for over a half hour in response to the way these humans were being treated due to the color of their skin and cultural heritage. Sad. They were treated so much less than human.
I've always known instinctively how wrong it is for us humans to treat each other so differently simply based on the color of our skin (or any other innate reason.) I've never understood why others treat each other differently for this reason. They cannot intermarry. They cannot be best friends. They cannot let them in our house. They cannot go into business together. They cannot hire them. They cannot accept them in the same way as anyone else. Mostly, it doesn't even make sense.
Then I saw Crash. Oh my goodness. If you haven't seen this movie, you have to. Yeah, there is some "offendable" content (ie sexuality, language, violence) but the lessons and reality that it teaches is so much greater. If you must watch an edited version, I'm sure it's been on TNT or something. I actually own an edited, milder version if you want to borrow it. The movie was mind blowing and helped us see the reality that racism, prejudice, and profiling isn't owned only by white people but is a problem across multiple, if not all races. It's an ugly thing. It also helped me to see the different ways that I've probably been guilty of in the past myself and how it occurs so regularly right before our very eyes and we don't even recognize it because we are not the offended party.
Some blame biblical reasons. (Sad, they don't know or understand their Bible very well.) Some blame experience. Some blame ignorance. Some blame the media. These are not excuses. They might be reasons, but they are definitely not excuses. In my experience, more often than not, the greatest reason or excuse has simply been sin.
God created humankind equal. There is no supreme or better race. Why haven't we learned this lesson from the Nazis? Why haven't we learned this lesson from history? We are all children of the same God, whether we recognize or believe that.
I know about now, you might be saying, "you're not so innocent yourself." You're guilty too.
That may have been true from time to time. But, it certainly has not been intentional or I was not aware of it. One of the reasons that I am so passionate and have been so for much of my life is my experiences as a child. Not from experiencing these things myself, but in seeing others experience them in different ways. I don't have some vivid memory of a specific incident. I just remember how apalled I was as I heard of each incident and time that it happened.
This is a reality is today in our culture, at this day and time. Coming from our immediate, past for the United States, these have been some ugly and growing years. We've come a way. Yesterday is proof of that. But, how much is that saying when you consider how ugly the past is.
Today I am thankful for President Obama. I am thankful that he was able to be elected primarily on his gifts, experience and ideas. His race has been for the most part pushed into the background. I am sure that many didn't vote for him (because he was black), but I also heard just yesterday of at least one (white) person who voted for him simply because he was (black.) So, hopefully those ignorances balanced out. While I don't think that's the best or even a good reason to vote for him. It's an even worse reason to vote against him.
No matter what political persuasion or opinions you hold. Yesterday and today are beautiful days in America because we now have a black president. It is beautiful that it is now possible. It is a momentous occasion indeed. I was nervous and excited all day. I was in awe and appreciative.
Mind you, I don't think that racism, prejudice and profiling have now gone by the wayside, I am just grateful that we have reached this step.
I believe that has become possible in large part because of our younger generation. Certainly not all of the older generation would have a problem with this, but I find that the younger generation are much more open to these things. They are more sensitive to ignorance people that are racist. Mind you, they are not innocent, for many fall into the same trap, I'm just saying they are more open. Popular youth culture has had an impact on this, but young ideals can be a helpful thing as well.
Have you ever noticed how true the words of a kindergartner can be, even if they themselves cannot live up to them? (Why are people so mean to each other? Why can't we all just get along?)
Today, more than ever, I want to do something to bring racial reconciliation. I'm never sure what to do or how it will be received, but I want to do something.
There is one thing that I/we are preparing to do as a family. We are planning to foster to adopt a baby of another race.
Hopefully, this will help us to overcome any "unseen" racism/prejudice in our own lives and snuff it out. Hopefully, this will help create and build relationships with others of a different race than our own. Hopefully, this will spur conversations and ideas in others for how to create racial reconciliation.
Our primary reason for fostering to adopt is that hopefully, God will use this to give a child, that otherwise might experience a different kind of life, a new life. One filled with hope. One filled with love. One filled with a family.
But, we would also love for God to use it in racial reconciliation as well. We are willing to accept criticism. We are willing to sacrifice. We are willing to stand for what is right. We are willing go outside of our comfort zones.
Are you? Are you willing to create racial reconciliation? Are you willing to stand for what is right? Do you have the courage? What can YOU do? What WILL you do?
Monday, January 12, 2009
Messing my world up!
Have you ever been confronted with a truth that rocked your world? That turned it upside down? That changed all of your conceptions of what you thought you knew?
I'm sure you have. We all have. It's part of growing up from childhood to adulthood. Things seem so simple, then we realize how complex they are only to find out at the end of life, it was rather simple after all. Love others and be loved. Solomon, was it, said that the after everything he had went through, that life is all about serving God.
Okay, maybe this is not quite so profound, but it's been rocking my world. It answers alot of questions that I've had that I let go of because I never got a straight answer. It has much to do with my early discipleship in Christ and early ministry q&a.
The scary part is I've only just begun. I'm just starting to read about these things. Yet, somehow I know that it has significant implications for my life, for our lives, for our ministries. If I'd known about this years ago, many struggles would never have been struggles to begin with. Many questions would have been answered immediately. It wouldn't have been so hard and confusing. Remember at the beginning of the Matrix when he said, if you take the blue pill, you'll wake up and everything will be as you've always known it. But, if you take the red pill (or did I get it backward) then your eyes will be opened to an all new reality. I am becoming aware of this new reality.
Now, as it pertains to life, I've already experienced this eye opening experience. It was when I met Jesus. He rocked my world. He changed everything. He turned me upside down. He made me aware of my own selfishness, cleansed me from all my failures, set me back on my feet and started cleansing my heart and life. Nothing's been the same ever since. I see the world different. I see people different. I see "God" different. I see my purpose differently. My eyes have been opened to new realities that I know others are closed to.
This new thing is similar. It's not life changing in the sense of coming to Christ. It's not life changing in the sense that you may notice that many differences in me. But, it is life changing with how and why I do ministry a particular way. Ministry has been my "vocation" for over ten years. Initially, I wrestled with that. This answers alot of those questions. I didn't have the gifts, abilities, experience, education, etc to be and do the ministry. If only I'd known. I had so many questions going in because what I thought I was supposed to be and do (based on my limited experience in the church) were not really necessarily what I was supposed to be and do. Plus, I kept looking for the scriptural backing. "Our culture is so different from that of the Bible. That must be it," I told myself. But, I always wondered, why?
You see, since I didn't grow up in the church, I had little background and so I simply trusted those who were teaching me and showing me the way. Mind you, I questioned them, some would guess too much, but overall I trusted them and kept going. These were great people and none of them purposefully (ignorantly, maybe) mislead me. But, they gave me alot of pat answers instead of investigating the realities and complexities of my questions. If you're a parent, you know what I'm talking about.
Here's what I'm talking about. I'm reading this book called Pagan Christianity. (http://www.paganchristianity.org/)
It shows the historical evidence for how we got the church we got today. It explains the "evolution" of Christianity and church practices from the early church to our current version. As I was an young Christian growing, I wondered how/why what I was reading in the Bible was so different than what I experienced in church at that time. I would ask questions like why do we do this in church? Why is this important? When, as I read the New Testament, I could not find any real evidence or emphasis for my questions. And like I said, people gave me pat answers. So, even though it didn't make sense, I accepted it (kinda) and kept moving on.
In this last year or two, I've been putting some of those things aside, since now I've not be only responsible for a youth group but adult ministry and now the creation of a brand new church. So, I've been letting my convictions lead instead of doing things how others said I needed to do them. I've been speaking, er... preaching my mind. The messages that glare in the New Testament have become messages that I am speaking often, though in much grace, because they are not the messages that have been often proclaimed. For example, this idea of holiness = following more rules and staying away from sinners is hogwash. That's not the kind holiness that Jesus lived. That's not the kind of holiness that is continually talked about throughout the New Testament as different authors battle the early Christians desire to add rules to their relationship with Jesus.
Anyways, the book, of which I'm about 1/3 through traces the "development" of the church from the early church through the third century, the middle ages, Martin Luther, Protestantism, Evangelicalism, and our current consumeristic Sunday morning show. I've read about the "development" of the church building itself, the order of worship, the sermon and am currently working on the pastor. (ouch!) Not only does it trace these origins and the reasons that these things changed over time, but shows us the 2 most important aspects of them.
1) The way we do these things is not rooted in New Testament practice or scripture.
(You just can't say we do things "by the book," because it's more than likely simply not true.)
And...
2) The we do these things actually work against the type of life that Christ calls us to.
The quick and easy argument against the book is that the church has progressed and has changed with the culture and times. (ie, methods change, but message never does (although that is an argument to be had in its own right)) However, that doesn't mean we have entire freedom to use whatever methods we want.
If our methods ultimately work against the message for which they exist, then we must not accept the methods.
Now that's a discussion worth having.
But, a few issues that have already arisen in my reading...
I'm sure you have. We all have. It's part of growing up from childhood to adulthood. Things seem so simple, then we realize how complex they are only to find out at the end of life, it was rather simple after all. Love others and be loved. Solomon, was it, said that the after everything he had went through, that life is all about serving God.
Okay, maybe this is not quite so profound, but it's been rocking my world. It answers alot of questions that I've had that I let go of because I never got a straight answer. It has much to do with my early discipleship in Christ and early ministry q&a.
The scary part is I've only just begun. I'm just starting to read about these things. Yet, somehow I know that it has significant implications for my life, for our lives, for our ministries. If I'd known about this years ago, many struggles would never have been struggles to begin with. Many questions would have been answered immediately. It wouldn't have been so hard and confusing. Remember at the beginning of the Matrix when he said, if you take the blue pill, you'll wake up and everything will be as you've always known it. But, if you take the red pill (or did I get it backward) then your eyes will be opened to an all new reality. I am becoming aware of this new reality.
Now, as it pertains to life, I've already experienced this eye opening experience. It was when I met Jesus. He rocked my world. He changed everything. He turned me upside down. He made me aware of my own selfishness, cleansed me from all my failures, set me back on my feet and started cleansing my heart and life. Nothing's been the same ever since. I see the world different. I see people different. I see "God" different. I see my purpose differently. My eyes have been opened to new realities that I know others are closed to.
This new thing is similar. It's not life changing in the sense of coming to Christ. It's not life changing in the sense that you may notice that many differences in me. But, it is life changing with how and why I do ministry a particular way. Ministry has been my "vocation" for over ten years. Initially, I wrestled with that. This answers alot of those questions. I didn't have the gifts, abilities, experience, education, etc to be and do the ministry. If only I'd known. I had so many questions going in because what I thought I was supposed to be and do (based on my limited experience in the church) were not really necessarily what I was supposed to be and do. Plus, I kept looking for the scriptural backing. "Our culture is so different from that of the Bible. That must be it," I told myself. But, I always wondered, why?
You see, since I didn't grow up in the church, I had little background and so I simply trusted those who were teaching me and showing me the way. Mind you, I questioned them, some would guess too much, but overall I trusted them and kept going. These were great people and none of them purposefully (ignorantly, maybe) mislead me. But, they gave me alot of pat answers instead of investigating the realities and complexities of my questions. If you're a parent, you know what I'm talking about.
Here's what I'm talking about. I'm reading this book called Pagan Christianity. (http://www.paganchristianity.org/)
It shows the historical evidence for how we got the church we got today. It explains the "evolution" of Christianity and church practices from the early church to our current version. As I was an young Christian growing, I wondered how/why what I was reading in the Bible was so different than what I experienced in church at that time. I would ask questions like why do we do this in church? Why is this important? When, as I read the New Testament, I could not find any real evidence or emphasis for my questions. And like I said, people gave me pat answers. So, even though it didn't make sense, I accepted it (kinda) and kept moving on.
In this last year or two, I've been putting some of those things aside, since now I've not be only responsible for a youth group but adult ministry and now the creation of a brand new church. So, I've been letting my convictions lead instead of doing things how others said I needed to do them. I've been speaking, er... preaching my mind. The messages that glare in the New Testament have become messages that I am speaking often, though in much grace, because they are not the messages that have been often proclaimed. For example, this idea of holiness = following more rules and staying away from sinners is hogwash. That's not the kind holiness that Jesus lived. That's not the kind of holiness that is continually talked about throughout the New Testament as different authors battle the early Christians desire to add rules to their relationship with Jesus.
Anyways, the book, of which I'm about 1/3 through traces the "development" of the church from the early church through the third century, the middle ages, Martin Luther, Protestantism, Evangelicalism, and our current consumeristic Sunday morning show. I've read about the "development" of the church building itself, the order of worship, the sermon and am currently working on the pastor. (ouch!) Not only does it trace these origins and the reasons that these things changed over time, but shows us the 2 most important aspects of them.
1) The way we do these things is not rooted in New Testament practice or scripture.
(You just can't say we do things "by the book," because it's more than likely simply not true.)
And...
2) The we do these things actually work against the type of life that Christ calls us to.
The quick and easy argument against the book is that the church has progressed and has changed with the culture and times. (ie, methods change, but message never does (although that is an argument to be had in its own right)) However, that doesn't mean we have entire freedom to use whatever methods we want.
If our methods ultimately work against the message for which they exist, then we must not accept the methods.
Now that's a discussion worth having.
But, a few issues that have already arisen in my reading...
- The Church building did not originate in the early church and costs so much to maintain that it works against our call to love others, especially the poor. It focuses our time and attention on ourselves and our programs causing us to invest most of our resources which in turn cause us to be a "come and see" kind of people instead of a go and serve and tell kind of a people.
- The Order of Worship focuses more on the "show" that Sunday morning has become where we "go to church" (this mentality was non-existent in the early church) and observe/consume/watch the show and get emotionally excited/encouraged by the "paid professionals" instead of participating and encouraging one another the way they did in the early church. Our one direction type of monologue from the "paid professionals" to the "don't try this at home" type of people discourages people from using their gifts and letting the spirit lead them to exhort, encourage, prophesy, or teach one another. (except for those few churches that allow for a couple of minutes of this some weeks)
- The sermon origins are scary, yet kind of understood. The great greek philosophers provided much of the origins for our current "sermon." As I read about the purposes and philosophies behind the greek oraters, I was both dumbfounded and feeling ever so slightly guilty for following in their footsteps. This is the classic case of using the culture of the day to communicate a timeless message. Maybe it had its place for a while, maybe not. We could probably debate that. Maybe it has its place today, maybe not. We could definitely debate that. However, the modern sermon requires 1 hour of preparation for every minute spoken (according to my wonderful (that is not sarcasm) professors in college). Okay, most weeks, that's 30 hours. Maybe I've never given it quite that much, but it sure provides the necessity of paying someone to sermonize b/c volunteering an extra 30 hours a week only to speaking is not realistic. The costs that go toward paying someone to do what we all can and should do (if we're not following the modern sermon, but the biblical ideal) is not a wise use of money when we got people we need to love with those finances.
- The Pastor in most churches plays way too many roles and attempts to be SuperMan! Not because he cares that much or is that committed (though he may be) but usually just to keep people from complaining about what the Pastor isn't doing, after all, isn't that what we pay him for, to do the job(s) that we don't want to do or feel "super" enough to do? Even in those churches whose pastors spout from the pulpit about the Body of Christ doing the work of the ministry do way more than the scriptures mandate. Here's a scary note: the word pastor is not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. PastorS is mentioned only once in the context of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and teachers as they all prepare God's people for works of service. It is not a title to be used. It is a function of shepherding that is to be performed. Now let's be honest, today's pastor does 100X more than just shepherding!
Okay, so maybe you have to read it for yourself to get it. I doubt it, but maybe it'll help you understand and convict you as well. Maybe you'll just shrug it off as hogwash. You can't argue the historical origins, George Barna's (the guru of Christian statistics) participation helps that. We can debate whether you believe our current mode of churchianity inhibits the church from BEING the Church. But, you can't say we've been doing it by the book and therefore go on without even considering the implications. We haven't been and the implications are great! The church is in a dying position in our culture. It is no longer impacting the culture, but it is being impacted by the culture.
We just read this week how in 1 John 2:15-17, we are called not to love the world, but to follow and do the will of God. That is a question we must wrestle with. Are we following the world and culture or are we changing the world and culture because we give Life the way Christ gives Life.
I admit the answers aren't all easy and they are open to debate. But, I know where I'm at in the debate and the convictions that God is placing on me. It's messing me up. It's turning my world upside down. And it's a good thing. A good thing indeed.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Why House Church?
Too many young adults are leaving the church and/or have already left the church. Too many adults period, actually. Normally, this occurs around graduation. In the past, it has been said that once they have a kid or two, they’ll come back to make sure their own children gets proper discipleship. However, in our current day and age, this doesn’t automatically happen anymore. In fact, having kids could be a reason not to go, since they are too busy now with the multiple sport seasons and activities that their kids are in. After all, my kid cannot miss out on the opportunity to develop his soccer skills through club in the winter while learning piano and playing basketball for school. Have you seen his/her homework lately? Lives are too busy to spend on church stuff. All they do is color Jesus pictures and play anyway, right? Besides, church is just not so relevant anymore. I go religiously (once or twice a month), and it doesn’t really have much of an impact on the rest of my life anyway.
Our culture is changing. People’s lives have already changed. Very few want formality in their lives. Many are seeking informal, natural expressions of life. We live disconnected lives and yet we crave true connection. We run here and there without the time or ability to stop and think and love and listen and be. We are constantly having messages thrown at us, while we just sit there, accept some and throw out most of what we hear. We want to be entertained because it’s nice to enjoy life in a relaxed way, but that is not truly what the Church is about. It’s not about entertainment and consumption. It’s about something else. It’s about loving God and loving others.
Many young adults these days see little correlation between the Sunday morning “show” and living the life that God has called them to. It may (or may not) make them feel good or “close to God” for a few moments, but it does very little to change their lives or equip them to actually live that life. Many know they should go, they’re just not sure why. After all sleep is really important on Sunday morning since they were up so late Saturday night with their friends. Speaking of friends, they seem to be what matter the most to them. It doesn’t matter so much what they do, as long as they do it together in fun, relational ways.
There are many reasons why young adults and others are leaving the church these days. Sometimes, it’s the church’s “fault”. (Someone hurt them.) Sometimes, it’s the cultural life they live. (Church just doesn’t fit anymore.) Sometimes, it’s simply the entrance of a sin that they don’t want to give up. (I kinda like partying and all that comes with it without having to feel guilty about it on Sunday morning.) But, no matter the reason, the Church and the mature in Christ stand responsible for doing something about it.
We need to create safe, accepting environments that are relationally based.
We need to connect with them, ask questions, and listen to their responses.
We need to be patient, give them space, and pray for them.
We need to give them a way to love others in natural, practical ways.
We need to offer them something to give their lives to that is a tangible, obvious expression of God’s love.
House Church provides these things. It is not the only model of Church. It is not the best model of Church. It is the original model of Church. It is also a culturally relevant, meaningful model of Church that is beginning to make a reemergence in the U. S. and around the world. There is a house church network in Dayton, Ohio of about 1,600 people. There is a house church network in Columbus or 4-5,000 people. There is a house church network in Grand Rapids, Michigan of about 4-5,000 people. House Churches around the world are too numerous to keep track of, much due to their necessity in persecuted nations.
House Church also provides a safe, natural way to connect seekers to God’s Kingdom. It provides neutral ground. My unbelieving dad used to tell me he couldn’t go to church, because the “roof would fall in.” He and others unbelievers don’t like sitting around for an hour or more letting a stranger tell them what to believe (albeit in entertaining or contemporary ways.) If we give them space to share their unbelief and why, then we can move the dialogue forward in sharing our own reasons for belief and how God has worked in our lives. Just giving them space to be who they are and invite them to consider where we are, encourages them toward faith instead of turning them away in rebellion or self-preservation.
As it turns out, God has given me a passion for small groups for the purpose of discipleship and fellowship. He’s designed me to be more of a facilitator than a proclaimer. He’s given me a passion for the lost, especially those who have given up on church or have never really gone. He’s made me the kind of person that doesn’t seek the spotlight or the stage, but prefers leading smaller groups and being one of many involved. There is great reason culturally for House Church. There is great reason spiritually for House Church. There is great reason organizationally for House Church. There is great reason in my design for House Church. More than anything, though, becoming a simple expression of Christian community brings glory to God.
Our culture is changing. People’s lives have already changed. Very few want formality in their lives. Many are seeking informal, natural expressions of life. We live disconnected lives and yet we crave true connection. We run here and there without the time or ability to stop and think and love and listen and be. We are constantly having messages thrown at us, while we just sit there, accept some and throw out most of what we hear. We want to be entertained because it’s nice to enjoy life in a relaxed way, but that is not truly what the Church is about. It’s not about entertainment and consumption. It’s about something else. It’s about loving God and loving others.
Many young adults these days see little correlation between the Sunday morning “show” and living the life that God has called them to. It may (or may not) make them feel good or “close to God” for a few moments, but it does very little to change their lives or equip them to actually live that life. Many know they should go, they’re just not sure why. After all sleep is really important on Sunday morning since they were up so late Saturday night with their friends. Speaking of friends, they seem to be what matter the most to them. It doesn’t matter so much what they do, as long as they do it together in fun, relational ways.
There are many reasons why young adults and others are leaving the church these days. Sometimes, it’s the church’s “fault”. (Someone hurt them.) Sometimes, it’s the cultural life they live. (Church just doesn’t fit anymore.) Sometimes, it’s simply the entrance of a sin that they don’t want to give up. (I kinda like partying and all that comes with it without having to feel guilty about it on Sunday morning.) But, no matter the reason, the Church and the mature in Christ stand responsible for doing something about it.
We need to create safe, accepting environments that are relationally based.
We need to connect with them, ask questions, and listen to their responses.
We need to be patient, give them space, and pray for them.
We need to give them a way to love others in natural, practical ways.
We need to offer them something to give their lives to that is a tangible, obvious expression of God’s love.
House Church provides these things. It is not the only model of Church. It is not the best model of Church. It is the original model of Church. It is also a culturally relevant, meaningful model of Church that is beginning to make a reemergence in the U. S. and around the world. There is a house church network in Dayton, Ohio of about 1,600 people. There is a house church network in Columbus or 4-5,000 people. There is a house church network in Grand Rapids, Michigan of about 4-5,000 people. House Churches around the world are too numerous to keep track of, much due to their necessity in persecuted nations.
House Church also provides a safe, natural way to connect seekers to God’s Kingdom. It provides neutral ground. My unbelieving dad used to tell me he couldn’t go to church, because the “roof would fall in.” He and others unbelievers don’t like sitting around for an hour or more letting a stranger tell them what to believe (albeit in entertaining or contemporary ways.) If we give them space to share their unbelief and why, then we can move the dialogue forward in sharing our own reasons for belief and how God has worked in our lives. Just giving them space to be who they are and invite them to consider where we are, encourages them toward faith instead of turning them away in rebellion or self-preservation.
As it turns out, God has given me a passion for small groups for the purpose of discipleship and fellowship. He’s designed me to be more of a facilitator than a proclaimer. He’s given me a passion for the lost, especially those who have given up on church or have never really gone. He’s made me the kind of person that doesn’t seek the spotlight or the stage, but prefers leading smaller groups and being one of many involved. There is great reason culturally for House Church. There is great reason spiritually for House Church. There is great reason organizationally for House Church. There is great reason in my design for House Church. More than anything, though, becoming a simple expression of Christian community brings glory to God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
