Thinking a lot about church lately. Yeah, I know – it’s my job. But I’m thinking more in terms of reformation and growth. You know, what we’re really supposed to be…and be about. At our church, we’re in a place where we’re re-thinking how things are done – What’s important. What’s NOT important.
I find that much of what we do (read: churches in America) provides little that is actually transformative in a person’s life (I understand that could be an overstatement). We do it simply because we always have. No one has ever stopped to actually ask, “Does this really make a difference?” Unfortunately, somewhere down the line, those things have become sacred. I mean, we’re clearly told in Scripture what the church is supposed to be about, but we’re given no specific instruction on how the church is supposed to specifically go about it. I think the reason we’re not told specifics of how we’re to function is because of the organic nature the church was designed to be. To put it simply, we’re to function simply. We’re supposed to be able to quickly adjust to the changing nature of the world so we can most effectively communicate the unchanging message that Christ is in the business of resurrection. We talked last night at Downpour how miraculous it is for someone to come to Christ. It is nothing less than someone who is dead coming to life. That’s miraculous. It’s the work the church is called to engage in…introducing people to Him and watching Him do His work in them. I’m afraid we’ve become so institutional that we fail to even understand where people are and are even less equipped to help them.
I am convinced that so much that people call essential for the church simply isn’t. We tend to try and do so many things, mostly badly, instead of finding the most important things and doing them exceptionally. Our churches are packed full of mediocre programs and burnt out people. What if we said “no” to a whole bunch of stuff (I’m talking programs, classes, pot-luck lunches, whatever), but looked at those few things that really led people into a deep relationship with God, with each other and gave opportunities for them to make an impact on the world. What if we put all our energy into those few things? Instead, we’re tired. We’re “there every time the door is open.” Funny, nobody ever says that with a smile on their face. Wonder why? Could it be that the door is open too often? That sounds heretical, doesn’t it? Don’t tell anybody I suggested it. But maybe if we could focus on the most important, life-changing things we would actually look forward to those things. I know that Christ brings joy and satisfaction and excitement to life. His church should, too, shouldn’t it? I’m afraid too often we know what we need to do, we just lack the courage to move in that direction. Change is a fearful (and sometimes fearsome!) thing. Trust me, I know!
So, what do you think? Is church something you look forward to or do you read this and hunger for something more like what I’m describing; something that actually adds meaning and purpose to your life; something you can’t wait to be a part of? Am I way off base? Or maybe you have had this kind of experience, either good or bad. Please share it with me…I’d love to learn from it.
Great post David.
With last fall’s disbanding of the church Danielle & I had been members of since moving to Texas a few years ago, we were in a bit of a church limbo. As that church was coming to an end, our small group felt a strong sense that we should continue meeting and see where God took us as a small group. We decided to become an organic/house church, went through our state convention to be ‘official’ (so we can tithe to the church), and have been figuring out what it all means as we go.
What started with 4 couples has now grown to 6 in the last few months and we’ve recently really started to catch where God’s leading us, both week to week in our meeting times as well as in a more general direction overall. It’s been really amazing being able to dig deeply into people, have them dig back, and see everyone grown in leadership of particular areas; all the while also trying to be an honest witness to the neighborhood we meet in.
Good food for thought! Here are a few of my ponderings:
Jesus never saw a bulletin. His sermons were participatory (people asked questions). There was no specific time to begin/end. Life was church. Church was about living in community with each other and with God with no regard to time frame and specific physical structures.
The disciples were concerned with the Temple buildings, but Jesus pointed their attention elsewhere (Mt. 24).
Paul said a service should be “limited” to three or four messages by different leaders. He on occasion preached long enough for folks to fall out of the windows.
James places a lot of emphasis on relationships and how the gospel impacts our dealings with others. Paul speaks of the grace to forgive one another and focus on the aims of Christ Jesus, rather than our petty personal interests.
Very little is said in the NT about music. We must simply assume they sang at times, but it was not a priority to write about.
Perhaps it is easiest to be church outside the sanctuary walls, as we have to be intentional about it, rather than tied to traditions and formalities.
I feel very strong about this as well. I’ve felt major calling and conviction in this area of how we “do” church. I see so many churches who go month to month praying that they will be able to pay their bills, and nothing is therefore leftover for community outreach and ministry to those in need. What are we doing? We are losing God’s mission because we are so wrapped up in comfy pews and an amazing sound system that we are missing the point. We are missing countless opportunities to “BE” the church, in action and in deed. I’ve been one of those “burnt out” church goers…being asked to help out here there and everywhere and being guilt tripped into trying to be at church volunteer 3-5 times a week that my marriage and family began to suffer. I dream of a church without walls, where most of the offering goes to helping the community and beyond, where a church is known for their tangible impact on others lives instead of their grand specimen of a building. I don’t know how and where God will lead me into this type of ministry, but I pray it is soon.
DP, please forgive my lengthy response to your post, but this one hits very close to home with my church experiences. I don’t mean to merely use this as an outlet to vent. I really hope that you can sense my frustration, but gain something useful from my input.
I’ve been in churches all my life that in retrospect have tried the shotgun approach instead of the rifle approach. They hope to throw out a bunch of options to their people instead of just a few in hopes of hitting on something the works. Their philosophy has seemed to be “If a few programs can reach a few people, then a lot of programs will reach a lot of people.” This, imo, causes the impact of the majority of these programs to be minimized. It’s the birdshot vs. the bullet. Some reasons I’ve observed for minimized impact from programs are lack of leadership, burnout of leadership, lack of program accountability, oversaturation of similar programs, and unresearched/undefined program target. Each of these often combines with one or more of the others. Let me explain my thoughts on each.
Lack of leadership occurs because, as you have undoubtedly experienced, there is a limited number of people in any given church who are willing to step up into a place of leadership, no matter what the program. Whether it’s the stereotypical 80/20 rule or the 90/10 rule, only so many people step out of their comfort zone and assume responsibility for ministry. Dare I say that this is often not the people’s fault? Church leadership that doesn’t equip the saints (Eph. 4:11,12) to do the work of the ministry is failing on many levels. Church programs that don’t help the leadership equip the saints often contribute to the problem.
This and other factors contribute to leadership burnout. When new leaders are not developed to come alongside of current leaders, there is a tendency for those current leaders to burn out. Fresh energy and fresh ideas from fresh faces in leadership roles of a program help propagate interest and excitement in a program. Subtract these and a program is only effective as long as the leader is effective. Burnout often occurs because those in leadership genuinely see the need, want to help, and therefore do. Whether by obligation (contractual or perceived), many leaders end up with too much on their plates. I mention “contractual” because I grew up in a church that demanded that all of its staff members attend any function that was happening at that church (Christian school included). This stole precious time for family and other higher priorities from these people all in the name of “ministry.” They were not needed for the operation of the functions. They were merely expected to be there. How wrong.
When a program’s leadership struggles or disappears from burnout or other reasons, that program does not always die too. Often, it continues, but with no defined direction or accountability. People merely show up to attend or serve just because it’s what they’ve always done. They’re like doctors tending to the patient, but the patient died a long time ago. The pastor or other senior leadership doesn’t always realize the situation and the lifeless program continues on. Time to bury it.
Oversaturation of similar programs is simple. Too many of the same types of program are offered, requiring more leadership and more accountability. For example, a couple of ladies can’t attend the Tuesday night Bible/book study, so another is created on Thursday nights to “meet their needs.” Not everyone is attending a Sunday School (ugh) class regularly, so we’ll create a few more with varied, catchy class names in order to reach more of those people. In truth, many of those people would attend if only they had a personal invitation, but it seems easier to just create a new class instead of making personal contact with them.
Imo, a program is not going to be effective if the leadership of that program have not developed a clearly-defined target group for that program and a well thought-out and implemented vehicle for reaching that target group. Too many “sacred cow” programs in churches today have no idea who they are trying to impact. Too many classes meet each week and listen to the teacher talk about anything and everything except what is going to specifically impact the group in a way that helps them become more like Christ in their walk of life. Too many ministries are doing anything but minister to a specified group of people by means of a vehicle that is culturally-relevant to that group.
In closing, the typical local church needs an overhaul of tremendous proportions. Church should not be something we do, rather, something we are. When our community is not impressed by or interested in what we do, why would we expect them to listen to and understand who we are? Your phrase “introducing people to Him and watching Him do His work in them” should be the filter through which all ministry/program ideas pass. There are definitely different methods by which this can be accomplished, but if those methods do not pass the filter test, then a church (any church) should get out the scapel and perform a little removal surgery.
I know my content sounded mostly negative, and I hope to respond again with some positive input about the basics of “church” as I sift through my own inventory of essentials. Thank you for making me think. You have definitely posed a timely and meaningful question.
Thanks for the responses so far. You have all written very thoughtful and thought-provoking comments. I’m enjoying reading them and getting a sense of where we all are, as a church. This topic has obviously struck a nerve as I think we’ve all had some negative experiences (and, Jesse, some good ones, too) and are looking for the “ideal.” Not sure it exists, but I think it is our responsibility to do some serious evals and determine what needs to stay, what needs to go, and what needs to be introduced to move us toward fulfilling our commission. As I continue to read back through, I may have some further thoughts, but I’m loving hearing what God is doing in you. Thanks, again.
dp
“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” Acts 2:42 Sounds simple enough. If we could wipe out the past 2,000 years of church history, I think that is what we would find our spiritual forebears practicing. To be honest, that’s what I yearn for. As one who has grown up in and served in various churches, I’m tired of the same old, same old. There has to be something more to being a Christ-follower than being in a specific place at a specific time doing specific things. I think, now more than ever, we must go old school in culture and seek to become like the first church in Acts. It appears their focus was less on buildings and programs and more on community and relationships. O how our society desires community and relationships (see-Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, etc.).
The ideal church, in my mind, would look more like a small group rather than what normally happens on Sunday mornings. People would meet regularly in homes or community spaces. Their meeting time would consist of some sort of creative expression of praise-songs, visual art, video, drama/dance, etc.(whatever the talent and abilities of that group tend towards), observance of the Eucharist (breaking of bread), a time of teaching from Scripture and prayers both formal and informal. This group would also seek ways to impact THEIR community and support what God is doing in other parts of the world. Not being bound by a building or staff member (no offense intended) would free up the financial resources of the group to really invest in people locally and globally. Of course since we have 2,000 years of precedence to contend with, this model would bring up all kinds of questions and especially here in the South, probably not be immediately received well. Being outside the norm would be both a stumbling block for some and, in my opinion, exactly what our culture needs. As you know the first church was so counter to their culture that people couldn’t help but respond. To be relevant in our current culture it would be wise for the Church to seek ways to sincerely offer what the world doesn’t-life, hope, restoration, peace, love, and joy, first through relationship with Christ Jesus and secondly through a community of Christ-followers.
Yeah, I see how you are, Adam…trying to eliminate my job, huh? No, I know what you’re saying and think that could and maybe should be a part of a church-planting strategy. You might not have enough pastors for every plant, but that doesn’t mean church can’t happen.
I was just reading in Philemon this morning and Paul addressed his greetings to him and the church that meets in his house. Definitely precedents for the house-church movement. That’s what Jesse was talking about in his comments. That is organic in its essence. it’s certainly what we’re working on accomplishing through our Journey Groups, even if we do still have our corporate worship.
This all speaks to John’s point, too, about how we avoid burnout as leaders. There must be adequate training for leaders (ongoing) if you’re going to see healthy, thriving churches, whether home church or not. Avoiding burnout is one of my top priorities for our peeps. About the only way to really accomplish that is to simplify and have less demands, focusing only on essentials. Agree?
Have you been reading my buddy Thom’s books? I do agree with our need to simplify. Maybe even have a “Simple Church”? (available at your local Christian bookstore)
The tough part is having a group of people who agree on the essentials. For some, Sunday School is absolutely essential, others not so much. For some celebrating the Eucharist is essential to worship, others don’t agree. So I agree with the direction and the need to simplify, we’ll just have to step carefully as we seek to discern what are the essentials.
I’ll go ahead and cast my vote that the essentials are seen in the verse I quoted above-Scripture teaching, community (fellowship), the Eucharist (breaking of bread) and both formal and informal prayers. I know some, maybe even you, disagree and that’s okay, I still love you. But I think that verse gives our church a great starting point to figuring what the Church is supposed to be about. Thoughts?
I am reading it now. I think I picked it up in my local LIFEWAY Christian bookstore. 😉
Determining the essentials is important and I don’t disagree with your reference to Acts 2:42. Those are the bases on which our structure is built and I don’t even bring those things up for argument. If it’s biblical, it’s essential. Make sense? That’s why in my original post I stated we’re told WHAT we’re to be about, it’s the HOW that is in question.
So, my beef is more in the programming structure than the content. HOW do we carry out the biblical essentials most effectively? I think that’s the big question.
Couple of thoughts and questions…
1. It seems like time has mostly led to great improvement in different areas such as technology and medicine. Over time, these and other areas have made amazing discoveries and breakthroughs. Do you think the Church has missed out on the progress of time? Like the changes in organization, materials, and buildings… couldn’t these be wonderful steps of progress for the church instead of just a matter of the church being institutionalized? I agree some churches have turned things like their buildings into too much of a focus and status-quo, but does that make the things themselves bad?
2. Along these lines, what if today was the day of the Acts church beginning. What would it look like? With the way life and culture is now, do you think it would look like the Biblical account of the Acts church in practice, or might it indeed have a building, format, etc? In other words, how much of what we read about the Acts church was cultural and what parts were Biblical?
3. I think things like meeting in a church building have a lot of positives, for example the ability for visitors to just come in. If we all just met in houses it would definitely give us more incentive to reach people and get them in, but it would also leave out the drive-by who says, “Yeah, I really need to go to church. Let’s stop in.” Or the new family who just moved to town and is church hunting.
4. I definitely think that some obviously Biblical essentials are: ~Spreading the gospel. ~Discipling believers. ~Communion/eucharist. ~Teaching/preaching. ~Prayer.
5. These essentials I listed in #4 I see as things that could be done in church homes OR church buildings. I see that they could be done with a sense of “getting it” or of just “going through the motions”. So in other words, to me it’s not a matter of focusing on the hows or the styles but on getting it done and keeping the heart of it all right (mostly an individual matter and responsibility, not corporate).
If we took this philosophy in any other area (sports, jobs, etc.) would anything ever happen? The Bible uses the analogy of armies and wars to describe the Christian walk. Would an organic army win the battles? I agree there should be an aspect of the church that is organic. But there also needs to be an aspect that is structured and institutional.
Emily, I think your points are well made. To me, the “institutionalization” of the church is more a state of mind. That is, when we think of the church as simply a structural system to be adhered to, a building, etc. Buildings in and of themselves are certainly not bad and I think you rightly point out some of the positives. Certainly, we can’t know exactly what the church would look like if first established in the 21st Century, which is why I think we need to identify those essentials and make sure they are a part of our church, whatever our format. Obviously, we believe that both meeting together in a building AND meeting together in homes is beneficial which is why we do that. So, in the end, there may be a call for some churches to be primarily “home churches,” while others meet in buildings. The focus should be on the church (people) and their mission, IMHO. Thanks for commenting!
dp