I found myself in the local Christian bookstore (or as Noelle likes to call it, the Veggie Tale store), and I bought a book I've been eyeing the last couple of times I have gone in. The book definitely had me at the title, the full title being "The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies". I browsed through the first chapter while Noelle watching a Veggie Tales preview on the T.V. in the kids area - the first chapter talks about how churches erroneously equate numbers with success. This is something that has troubled me for many years. If our view of a church's success is based on attendance or how big it is, does that mean God is really blessing it? I don't think so.
One of the paragraphs from this chapter really struck a chord with me: "To illustrate, let us think hypothetically about a church that started with ten people who then gathered to study the Bible and pray. The meeting grew to approximately fifty people over a year, upon which they decided to plant a congregation. Let us say that the church used a "seeker service" format where the Sunday service allows for complete anonymity for visitors. The service was characterized by excellent music, captivating drama, and a message that appealed to one's "felt needs" and to Jesus Christ as the answer to those needs. It often used psychologically-driven sermons. Five years later, the church averages a thousand attendees, of which there is a 60 percent turnover every year. Out of the one thousand attendees, the basic core group of practicing Christians is one hundred. Out of the thousand there are "fifty-nine giving units" (as they call them) accounting for 95 percent of church giving. Let us say hypothetically we know that a majority of the thousand attendees minus the hundred core still work eighty hours a week to support an indulgent lifestyle while neglecting the poor in their midst, still have sex outside of marriage, and have abusive relationships. Is this church a hundred people large or a thousand?"
That's the kind of paragraph that ruffles the feathers of people who think that The Church is fine right now. I'm excited to read the rest of this book, it already resonates within me.
7 comments:
That really reflects my thinking over the past few years. We need to move away from trying to approach ministry with methods from the fields of business, psychology, marketing, media, and self-help. The Church is at its best when it owns its identity. We are not these other things. That is not to say that the others are wrong. There is a need for all of these other fields, but to lead a church with any model other than a biblical one is dangerous. The church exists for one purpose: to tell others the message of Jesus. That is our mission.
I agree with the example I think that a church with 10 people who share their faith and love with others has more impact and is more blessed than a church of 1000 who "just go to church on Sunday" It's the fruit ..not the number of people...As Mike taught us in 3rd Place if you don't care for the roots then the tree will die...If you don't put your focus on the root of the church ..sharing Christ's truth and love..the church will die Don't look at numbers ..look at what that church is doing outside it's 4 walls
adam,
this style of big business church is what i worked the last 8 years of my life promoting and being quite successful at as a worship leader and a church planter. however it is also what burnt me out and poisoned my faith and allegiance to the organized church as a corporation.
it makes me ill to think that churches spend more money and time for their doughnut ministry than for ... say AIDS relief or feeding the hungry locally or spending more money on a budget to build a sanctuary to have "cool - awesome" events than a place to shelter those without a home when it is cold outside.
Then many of these pastors ease their social justice conscience by purchasing an ipod RED or donating a few dollars a month as a church perhaps to sponsor a single child or maybe two (if they have the 'left over' funds from the church picnic) with World Vision ( a great organization btw).
I may sound embittered... because I am. The American Church is not the bride that God intended. We have skewed the idea of what a church is supposed to be.
Sorry for my rant.
I like where you are going with this Jordan/Tina. The problem is though, that we can't separate the body from the entity. They are one in the same. The church exists for one mission, not two. the church is to be making disciples: producing fruit. The business side (the entity) and the action side (the body) both need to be meeting that one mission.
i understand the thought process that led you there, but the fact is that if we separate the concept of Church into two groups, it helps us sleep at night. it allows us to say that the entity is doing good and the body is doing good, when in fact the Church is failing.
the Church chose to teach a prosperity gospel, that God blesses the good and punishes the bad. (read the first line of Job and see that Job was not punished for sin) We chose to turn our heads from poverty, homelessness, AIDS, abuse, etc. and allow government to take on the role of meeting those needs.
We do not teach about responsible stewardship because we are afraid to make people uncomfortable, but when we discuss the importance of giving for a building campaign we can't figure out why people leave disgruntled.
We don't teach about personal evangelism or discipleship, because that has become a singular act of the minister. the job of the congregates is to bring people to church, the minister will do the rest.
We need to teach followers to also be leaders. We need to focus on modeling our lives on the life of Jesus. We need to empower each other to live a life that glorifies God. We need to utilize our culture but deny indulgence.
The Church in the 21st Century really needs to model the Church of the 1st Century. We have seen how programs and business models are failing. We have seen how unchecked authority corrupts leadership. We have seen how personal agendas destroys lives.
The Church is on a mission, regardless of what that mission is. We need to guide the Church back to its original mission.
I agree with you Jordan. We do want someone to blame. My point was that by making the Church into two different parts: the body and the entity, what we are doing is hurting the focus. Although you and I agree that there is one mission, some ministers will use their leverage to alter the mission.
I also agree that there are different roles in accomplishing the mission, however, often times the significance of a specific role is elevated, causing division. All roles are mission related and are all of valuable importance.
i guess the real issue here is what is our focus. Getting back to adam's post, the Mission will be exemplified by the behavior of the congregation (including the staff).
Now for some churches, utilizing the business model, they determine that they need a more refined mission. Just simply making disciples and impacting the world for the Kingdom is not specific enough. So they create mission statements. The problem arises when the mission statement is not visible in the behavior of the church. For example, the mission at SW is to reach unchurched people. That is a great mission, however, in the 5 years that i went there, I don't remember any "unchurched" people coming. I remember a lot of disgruntled church people coming. I remember a lot of relocated Christians coming, i remember a lot of former church goers coming. but i don't remember meeting any unchurched people.
My point: either a church uses its real mission as an example: to disciple and usher in the Kingdom; or they actually do what their mission statement says. I am advocating consistency. The mission statement at SW does not line up with the methods used there.
Either the mission statement needs to change (preferably to the Mission) or the methods need to change (preferably to something that effectively meets the Mission)
One last thing then i am off my soapbox:
the problem i see is when leadership takes itself too seriously.
the mission is serious, our role in the mission is serious, our abilities, egos, and agendas are not.
we are given a great opportunity, but if you read the Old Testament you will see that a blessing is often accompanied by a curse (or what would happen if the blessing is taken away)
Mark 11 describes what happens when a tree stops producing fruit and the blessing of God is taken away: it withers and dies.
When we stop producing fruit we risk losing God's blessing and risk dying as a church.
What is fruit then: well Paul gives us examples. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control.
But i do not believe that these are all encompassing. There are other things in Jesus' live that exemplifies fruit: forgiveness, compassion, giving, sacrifice, serving, selflessness, and authenticity.
When we see these and other fruit in our churches, we realize that God is there, he is being blessed and is blessing.
When there is little or no fruit, then we must ask if God is being blessed and if he is blessing.
ok, i am done.
Personally I have never seen SW as a missional church or a 'seeker sensitive' church if you will. It's always been about the 4 inside walls. Getting it done on the 'inside', with a couple of exceptions.
I've always watched the doors at SW rotate on a continual basis. We're about a thousand miles wide and a 1/4 inch deep.
I loved the tree and fruit bearing concept, Mike.
I'm so done with the church institution right now that I'm breaking away for a while to focus vertically and try to learn a different way of looking at things, especially when it comes to bearing fruit. I need to be on the outside of the 4 walls for a while.
Post a Comment