Shhh. Don't Tell Anyone.
Shaun Groves, a "Christian" (make your own interpretation of my use of quotes around Christian) musician, has a series of interesting posts recently on the nature of church and the burgeoning community in his front yard. The conversation in the comments, particularly on the first post, is sort of an arduous read. Obviously, there is a ton of conjecture, un-researched opinions, and some out and out meanness. But after you wade through the crap, there are a few gems worth mentioning.
One commenter asks somewhat rhetorically, "I think when we start living in our communities AS the church we decide we no longer need the intentionality and structure that is laid out for us in the [New Testament]. Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Why can’t I do all the things that I do in the cult-de-sac AND connect to an intentional body of believers? One may be more flawed than the other but they can both exist." Sigh. I guess this is where I need to let the cat out of the bag. If anyone thought our little group was just an experiment in another form of church or attempt at doing something more relevant for the culture where we live...well, that's not really true. Here's the secret that might not be a good idea making public - we really believe that it has become virtually impossible to live "in our communities AS the church" unless some of the typical church "intentionality and structure" is laid down for a while.
Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Because by and large, connecting to an "intentional body of believers" and all that has meant in recent evangelicalism does not automatically lead to whole-life discipleship to Jesus. The much publicized repentance of Willow Creek should give anyone pause who might think otherwise. Attractional models of church and need-based programs simply do not leave time for people to actually be in their communities. There is just too much effort required to pull these things off, and the monster must be continually fed by more money, more volunteers, more staff, and more time.
To pick on Shaun a little, it is a bit absurd to pit "go-to-churchers" against "anti-go-to-churchers" and have them debate the relative merits of each position. That debate misses the point entirely. Most of the conversation in the comment sections of his posts should make that fairly obvious. Instead, the debate should be over how it would be possible to Shaun to have the kinds of interactions and depth of community he currently has with his friends and neighbors and at the same time support the aspirations of a growing religious organization without compromising his discipleship to Jesus. For most Christians in suburban anywhere America, there simply are not enough hours in a day for that to be a sustainable reality. Being a disciple is a singular occupation, or at least it is intended to be so. As a suburban American from birth, I can now be fairly certain that "normal life" presents an adequate volume of distractions that succeed in keeping me from living out the teachings of Jesus. For many of us, the institutional goals of the average church - filling seats, paying the mortgage, keeping the natives happy - became just another distraction that we just could no longer stomach.
But, don't tell anyone I wrote this because it might spoil all the fun debating about church models and what the Bible says and how my church does it and how we've all just gone off our rocker. Instead, keep pushing your agenda on all those church-goers, or visa versa. After all, I'm sure that all that debating is not distracting us any further from being an apprentice of Jesus.
One commenter asks somewhat rhetorically, "I think when we start living in our communities AS the church we decide we no longer need the intentionality and structure that is laid out for us in the [New Testament]. Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Why can’t I do all the things that I do in the cult-de-sac AND connect to an intentional body of believers? One may be more flawed than the other but they can both exist." Sigh. I guess this is where I need to let the cat out of the bag. If anyone thought our little group was just an experiment in another form of church or attempt at doing something more relevant for the culture where we live...well, that's not really true. Here's the secret that might not be a good idea making public - we really believe that it has become virtually impossible to live "in our communities AS the church" unless some of the typical church "intentionality and structure" is laid down for a while.
Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Because by and large, connecting to an "intentional body of believers" and all that has meant in recent evangelicalism does not automatically lead to whole-life discipleship to Jesus. The much publicized repentance of Willow Creek should give anyone pause who might think otherwise. Attractional models of church and need-based programs simply do not leave time for people to actually be in their communities. There is just too much effort required to pull these things off, and the monster must be continually fed by more money, more volunteers, more staff, and more time.
To pick on Shaun a little, it is a bit absurd to pit "go-to-churchers" against "anti-go-to-churchers" and have them debate the relative merits of each position. That debate misses the point entirely. Most of the conversation in the comment sections of his posts should make that fairly obvious. Instead, the debate should be over how it would be possible to Shaun to have the kinds of interactions and depth of community he currently has with his friends and neighbors and at the same time support the aspirations of a growing religious organization without compromising his discipleship to Jesus. For most Christians in suburban anywhere America, there simply are not enough hours in a day for that to be a sustainable reality. Being a disciple is a singular occupation, or at least it is intended to be so. As a suburban American from birth, I can now be fairly certain that "normal life" presents an adequate volume of distractions that succeed in keeping me from living out the teachings of Jesus. For many of us, the institutional goals of the average church - filling seats, paying the mortgage, keeping the natives happy - became just another distraction that we just could no longer stomach.
But, don't tell anyone I wrote this because it might spoil all the fun debating about church models and what the Bible says and how my church does it and how we've all just gone off our rocker. Instead, keep pushing your agenda on all those church-goers, or visa versa. After all, I'm sure that all that debating is not distracting us any further from being an apprentice of Jesus.
posted by Mike Bishop at 9:02 PM
6 Comments:
off your rocker, indeed, my friend. i think what you are doing is doing what the Father is doing, and doing it right there in Jupiter. it's incarnational...and it's doing what the Father is doing. to me, that is the issue. i'm more of a 'both/and' radical, and i think you are intentional about what God has called you to be a part of and live out the Way in an incarnational way, but you are intentional about it, are you not? it seems to me that if we want to cut through the crap, we have to open our ears and eyes to what the Father is telling us, to join Him in what He is doing. i agree that pitting the pro- and anti- sides against one another, while providing lots of blogversation, but ultimately debating models misses the point of incarnation. personally, i'm more with you than not, but where God has myself and my family, is not anywhere near that kind of being, the faith community we are joined to is rather typical...and even as that weighs on me at times, i still seek to incarnate what the Father is doing here and now in this place in this community (in the larger sense), and get out of 'circle-the-wagon' churchianity. i'm conflicted and convicted most of the time, because i see God's goodness working in both...yet if at some point in the future God joins us with others to plant some subversive gathering of disciples in some erstwhile community, my leanings take me toward doing it like-but-not-the-same as vineyard central and of course yourselves...in the 'cult-de-sac'...lol
Instead, the debate should be over how it would be possible to Shaun to have the kinds of interactions and depth of community he currently has with his friends and neighbors and at the same time support the aspirations of a growing religious organization without compromising his discipleship to Jesus.
What I think is being asked is "How do you balance the demands of the local church you attend with the demands of those you're in relationship with in your neighborhood and community? How can you possibly have enough time and resource for both?
Answer: I say no. A lot. I say No, I won't teach Sunday school every week forever. No, I won't be the guitar player or singer guy in your band every week. No, I won't join that committee. No, I will not be at every event or class or program you offer.
And I say Yes. Yes, I will teach for six months. I will teach in a rotation. I will play guitar once every two months. I will counsel people in your food distribution center for a couple hours a week. I will encourage our pastor. I will use my gifts to serve the people in this local church who also serve me.
I will also challenge you, pastor guy, to utilize lesser guitar players, and better teachers, to give everyone reason to serve using their gifts and resources. I need to do this for my personal health, the church's health, and to have time to be Jesus outside these four walls. That's important to me.
That's what I say, quite literally.
This is also the healthiest way, according to a team of sociologists out of a school I can't remember right now, to motivate and retain volunteers. Volunteers with the highest job satisfaction and lowest turnover are in the Boy Scouts of America, where they've purposefully put boundaries on volunteers. They enlist volunteers for a set length of time to do a set list of things that will not be added to, so that volunteers know there's a definite limit to their service, with the option at that point to re-enlist if THEY choose. Humans, these scientists say, seem to work best when their work has an end.
Church is like every other demand on our lives - even the kind of church you and Brant are involved in is a demand on the people in it. (your gathering is an inspiring one for me and very much a church in the biblical sense of mission, I'd like to add.) Life is full of demands that will consume us. But we don't quit work. We don't stay single or declare reproducing evil. We don't generally curse the demand as often as we limit it's access to our lives, we set up boundaries.
The problem, as I see it, is not that churches make demands on us but that we are horrible at saying no to demands in general. We aren't good at establishing a set of values and priorities, having a sense of purpose those are organized around, and then unflenchingly but kindly saying no to "good" in order to pour ourselves into great.
My two cents.
Did I understand the question correctly?
I thought Shaun's original post was excellent, so I linked to it on my site.
I think that this response of yours is even more excellent. And I even enjoyed Shaun's response to your response. You both are great at articulating exactly what has been going on in my head for quite some time now.
Your picture of the "attractional model time consumption monster" is dead-on in my book.
thanks for this.
Thanks for the comments. I meant to respond to yours particularly Shaun, over the weekend, but our web host was down.
I think you're right on about boundaries, or our lack thereof. To me, this is another issue of discipleship that we have "farmed out" to the organization rather than taking ownership of ourselves. What I mean is, it is much easier to do lots of church activities and call that discipleship than it is to follow Jesus and actually say "no" to things once in a while.
Am I reading incorrectly, Mike, that until your last comment you've been placing the blame for people spending too much time at church upon the church and not the people?
It seems to be a major objection of yours to church: Going to church doesn't allow us to spend time in our communities. There's enough blame to go around but I suppose, if I'm reading your past thoughts here correctly, that I'd like to see that blame thrown as much at church goers as it is at churches...if not more.
Shaun,
I read through my original post again today and realize that you might have taken it as a challenge to you...that was not my intent. I LOVE the questions you have been asking on your blog and the appreciate the encouragment earlier about our community. It was really more of a rhetorical challenge to people who might read your blog (or Brant's for that matter...) to consider how discipleship issues might get lost in some of these conversations about the relative merits of church models.
That being said, I DO think there is blame that the church as an organization needs to carry AND those of us who have been a part of those churches. Again, I believe it to be an issue of discipleship - churchgoers going along with the flow, thinking that their church activity = discipleship. And, churches organized in such a way where discipleship is an optional pursuit or only something for the super spiritual. Dallas Willard makes a similar kind of argument in 'The Divine Conspiracy', and, of course, he says it much better than I ever could.
Hope that clears things up...hopefully:)
Post a Comment
<< Home