A Pipe Dream?

I direct your attention to a recent post on Radical Congruency called The Pipe Dream.

I quote the post in its entirety:

The reality is simply that a pastor-less church, where everyone functions out of their co-operative giftedness is a pipe dream for armchair critics. I?m wording this strongly intentionally, because the reality of the Body is that NOT EVERYONE IS MATURE enough to function that way.

People come to gatherings who are damaged, demanding, in need of healing, counselling, etc. Those who ARE mature will hopefully be functioning in their giftedness and be a huge resource to these needy people, but the Body just isn?t that “uniform” in its spiritual, emotional or mental depth.

The only way you can have a completely egalitarian gathering is either (1) on paper, or (2) in a very small, exclusive group of like-minded friends who do not accept new group members who are different than them, or who have deep needs.

The pastor(s), whether they are paid or not, will always have their hands full with needy people, and (if they?re at all humble and servant-hearted) will gladly welcome a team of co-labourers around them.

I think they are trying to say that we cannot have a church where no one leads or where everyone leads. I totally agree. Some house churches react against top-down leadership by adopting a flat leadership system–like the Quakers have. But I don’t see this as a Scriptural alternative.

While I affirm that the New Testament gives no grounds whatsoever for a clergy/laity distinction, this isn’t to say that churches are leaderless. It is unhealthy for a group to have an equal share in every decision and ministry. It is unhealthy for the immature to have an equal weight in vision casting and implementation as the mature. However, I also think putting most ministry into the hands of one person (or even a few people) is another form of unhealth.

I believe church can be largely decentralized. Churches need leaders. Churches out to have more than one (though, I do believe that unhealthy churches or new churches can and sometimes should have one leader that functions in a primary and unique way). Leaders need to be stewards of ministry, but they should not be the sole possessors. These things are logistically difficult to work out in practice, but it can be done (I recommend the last two chapters of The Voice of Jesus: Discernment, Prayer, and the Witness of the Spirit as a place to start).

Though I agree that a perfectly “flat” church is a pipedream, I would say that a church run by one pastor, or where ministry is done by a few leaders, is an unhealthy church. So I agree that what they are describing is a pipe dream, but I don’t think we should, as a response, run back into the loving arms of a clerical idea of leadership.

Hurt By Success

Check out this brief article from Christianity Today. Apparently, the huge success of such great works as the Prayer of Jabez and Left Behind have begun to hurt the Christian Booksellers of this fine nation. The success of the afforementioned books caused a number of retailers–like that gem-of-a-store, Walmart–to start selling Christian books. Now, because of the increase of Christian book sales at Walmart and online booksellers, Christian bookstores are suffering.

I am actually a bit sympathetic. A little bit. A very little bit–simply because I know people who work at Christian bookstores. They have good hearts and have a deep desire to minister to people. Your chance of feeling impacted by the love of Jesus Christ is a bit higher at a local Christian bookstore than it is at Barnes and Noble.

However, as you know, I am disgusted by the fusion of Christianity and consumerism. I’m not against consuming, per se. I am against the cultural philosophy of life that is consumerISM. Consumerism is defined on dictionary.com as:

1 The movement seeking to protect and inform consumers by requiring such practices as honest packaging and advertising, product guarantees, and improved safety standards.

2 The theory that a progressively greater consumption of goods is economically beneficial.

3 Attachment to materialistic values or possessions: deplored the rampant consumerism of contemporary society.

It is the fusion of ideas #2 and #3 with Christianity that bother me. Christians in America (and elsewhere in the West, I suspect) tend to ignore the dangers inherent within these ideas. MOST Christians would reject #3. It is common for American Christians to buy in (pun intended) to the idea presented in definition #2. We believe that greater choice, availablity, and convenience are beneficial to the Body of Christ. But the unholy alliance between consumerism and Christianity has birthed a host of problematic spawn:

* Human beings are now seen primarily as “choosers.” As a result, we approach our faith as though it were a commodity. Each tenet and particular is a commodity among many. We can now assemble our own spiritual “package.” Community is no longer a Body made up of those who mutually submit to one another. Instead, we choose the community that best fits our ideal package. We are a community of choosers, rather than a community of the called.

* We treat tenets of faith and doctrinal distinctives as though they were like they are optional–sort of like whether or not we want a sunroof on a car purchase.

* By nature, information is disseminated primarily among the affluent, for they have the means to purchase a larger number of books. We let the market determine the distribution of thoughts and ideas in the Body of Christ. And the Market priviledges those with financial means, and disadvantages the poor. Some may say that this is just the cold reality and we must, therefore, deal with it. But I disagree.

* Since dissemination of ideas is market-determined, the church is driven by fads and novelty, rather than by excellence of content.

* There are some items at local Christian stores that appeal to some people, but have no place in our universe–like trite bumper stickers, Jesus keychains, Testamints, etc. You might reply–”well people want that stuff.” That’s my point. People shouldn’t just get what they want. That is a consumerist value. What is distributed in the Body of Christ shouldn’t be determined by the tastes of the masses. I realize that this opens up a lot of difficulties–perhaps I’ll tackle the “how” of this question at another time.

The fact that Christian stores are in decline is not necessarily an evil. Perhaps it is a good thing. It serves as a reminder that when we decide to treat the sharing of truth as a business, then it is subject to the same vulnerabilities that all businesses share–when the competition is more convenient and cheaper, then you will lose customers.

The Return of the Things

Out of the blue a guy called me today and said he found my backpack. Everything was in it…the laptop, my wallet, all the church documents that I had in there…all of it was returned. YAY!

Great Article from the Vineyard

I really respect the Vineyard Association of Churches. As a “denom” they really encourage innovation as well as promoting faithful expressions of the Body of Christ. Check out the following by Berten A. Waggoner–it is inspiring:

Part one - HTML version (pdf version)

Part two - HTML version (pdf version)

As far as conventional church associations and denominations are concerned, I think the Vineyard is probably among the most healthy and shows great promise in regard to doing church missionally.

False Advertising

I have a gaming website that I regularly visit called “Home of the Underdogs.” To get there, you have to type “www.the-underdogs.org” into your browser. Home of the Underdogs is an abandonware pc game website that allows you to find classic games, many which were underappreciated in their day.

Today, I accidentally typed www.the-underdog.org (notice that I forgot to type the “s”) into my browser. And, oddly, it took me to amazon.com. Apparently, Amazon owns “www.the-underdog.org.” I don’t know how or why they own that domain name…but try it out and you’ll see.

Since when is Amazon an underdog? I love the convenience they provide, but they aren’t even close to being an underdog in the bookselling industry. Maybe they were 10 years ago. But no longer. They dominate. That is like many pastors I know who lead seeker-sensitive churches and still refer to themselves as “outside-the-box.” It is like mega-churches selling themselves as a place where people can feel at home. False Advertising. There is a psychological need for us all to identify with innovation, with obscurity, with the underdogs of this world. We all want to feel like we are fighting for something that is underappreciated. That is why many conservative cultural Christians enjoy feeling persecuted. That is why mega-churches act as though they are missional outposts–struggling to shine their light into a dark and oppresive world.

Nothing to do with the Missional Church

Sorry, this has nothing to do with the missional church, but if you are a LOTR fan, here is a preview of the ROTK extended edition.

The Shift

Urban America is changing. Gentrification is happening in major metro areas–the affluent are moving back to the urban core and the poor are moving out into the suburbs in search of cheaper housing. Using categories like “urban” and “suburban” no longer works. Nor does it make sense to treat issues like diversity, poverty, etc as urban issues. These are realities that all metro churches (and many rural churches) need to address. They aren’t just problems for urban folk.

The problem with affinity-based churches, at least in Minneapolis/St. Paul–is that they are (almost by definition) unable to respond to challenges in their area, since they are focused on one group. And that one group is usually young white families or older white families, or young adults, etc. The marginalized are hardly ever a target group. And those churches that do target them will almost always have limited funds. Meanwhile, the growing suburban church next door has a good deal of resources (which they use to reach more in their narrow demographic).

My point isn’t to insult the church growth paradigm. My point is to direct people’s attention to the marginalized around us. Churches–even affinity-based ones–need to resond to the “urban” issues in their area.

This requires greater networking, a way of “redistributing” ecclesial wealth (yes, I am well aware of how communist that sounds), and a willingness by leaders to work with leaders of churches with whom they differ.

Good Stuff From Mr. Hunter

Just read a good post by Todd Hunter. Here’s a taste:

Those talking the loudest about “just relationship” or “just community” are actually envisioning and intending a course of action as well. They just intend to leave behind an appropriate negative (manipulation); they intend an absence of something. But “stuff” must be done, action must be taken, decisions must be made to implement that or any other vision. It is like wanting a “garbage-free” room in the house: action is required, one must use their will, and they must determine and intend to pick up the litter in order to free the room of trash.

Telling the Story in the local church

My friend Jeff made the following comment in response to the previous post:

I think its the church’s (pastor/speaker) job to tell the story and the people’s job to interpret and apply it.

What do you think of that? My initial response is to challenge it, after all such an approach COULD lead to a distinction between clergy/laity. However, I think there is an insight there that is worth unpacking.

What would our gatherings look like if the speaker–whoever that is–shares the story, but the actually commentary and application were prayerfully discussed by the congregation (I know there are logistical problems with this, but I think they can be overcome. I’m more interested in hearing if this approach would be overall healthier). Any challenges to this perspective? Any affirmations?

Church is like the Lord of the Rings extended edition DVD

In the tradition of comparing movies to the church, I now offer a comparison of LOTR and the church. I think that the Extended Edition offers a great metaphor of the preaching and teaching role of the church. The LOTR DVD is about a story–the tale of Frodo Baggins and his quest to destroy the One Ring in the fires of Mount Doom. Everything on the extended edition DVD addresses this story–it amplifies the story and helps us to appreciate the story and the way it is told. A lot of churches are like the extended edition DVD, but without the movie included–it is all commentary, but without story. They tell you how to apply the Gospel without telling the story of the Gospel. That doesn’t make any sense. It is better, in my opinion, to tell the story without much explaination than it is to give an explanation without much story. Of course, it is better to have both. It is like reading the Pauline Epistles without ever reading the Gospels. Many problems in our churches would be done away with if we centered our ministry on the Story, and filled things out with commentary, instead of confusing the two.

« Previous Page — Next Page »