Friday, March 18, 2005
Getting to The Heart Of The Matter
This article gets right to the practical heart of matters in the great church debate. (HT: SmartChristian)
The more I think about it, the more I think that people confuse the church and the church's mission. Let me explain what I mean by that.
The church is the body of Christ -- the fellowship of believers. The church is Christians. The church's mission on the other hand is to reach out into the world and make new Christians, new church members. If you think about that, that means the church is FOR Christians. Christians DO the mission.
This is why I am not at all convinced the mega-church seeker model is the right way to do church. This way of doing church is really FOR the non-Christian designed to make them Christians. By setting up the church in this fashion I think we do harm to Christians in two ways.
Firstly, I think we rob practicing Christians of the worship, fellowship, teaching, and preaching that they need. This tends to create stagnation in spiritual life of the churched. Much s I love the simple gospel, as a long-time Christian I want to hear more.
Secondly, if the church as an institution takes on the mission, it robs the individual Christian of that mission. Again, stagnation results in the life of a Christian. Instead of being charged with doing real evangelism and discipleship, Christians are charged with setting up chairs and working on a committee. Not that those functions are in anyway bad, but they are not the kinds of activity that are going to build depth in one's spiritual life.
I worked for Young Life in part because I really believed in the para-church as a great way to do the church's mission while leaving church for the believer. It did not work like I wanted it to because we could not find the right way to transmit the converted into the church. The result has been that of a hundred kids that said yes to Jesus in my Young Life ministry 20 years ago, probably only 5 of them would call themselves Christians today. I wonder if when the institution of the church takes on the role of the parachurch if they don't run the risk of having the same kinds of results?
The Meeting House, a Brethren In Christ multi-site congregation that calls itself a "church for people who aren't into church," regularly invites those who don't want to "get in" to their church by making a demonstrable commitment, to "get out."This sure is the opposite of what you hear from most churches these days with "seeker services," not pushing for membership, those sorts of things. I found this idea as appealing, but still felt cautious. I wonder if it is just my Presbyterian instincts that raises the caution flag?
Known to church staff by the tongue-in-cheek label "purge Sundays," the invitation "to get in or get out" is viewed as a mechanism to address "Christian tourism."
Then people are asked to make a choice -- to get fully committed to being integrated into normal church life -- or to find another church where they'll be able to do that.That doesn't sound so bad does it? All they are asking is people to really join the church.
Cavey says that just showing up on Sunday morning "is anything but integrated." Rather, being integrated at The Meeting House means being committed to a fellowship of Christians through a home church or cell group, through which individuals can practically live out and exercise the teachings they are learning on Sunday.
The more I think about it, the more I think that people confuse the church and the church's mission. Let me explain what I mean by that.
The church is the body of Christ -- the fellowship of believers. The church is Christians. The church's mission on the other hand is to reach out into the world and make new Christians, new church members. If you think about that, that means the church is FOR Christians. Christians DO the mission.
This is why I am not at all convinced the mega-church seeker model is the right way to do church. This way of doing church is really FOR the non-Christian designed to make them Christians. By setting up the church in this fashion I think we do harm to Christians in two ways.
Firstly, I think we rob practicing Christians of the worship, fellowship, teaching, and preaching that they need. This tends to create stagnation in spiritual life of the churched. Much s I love the simple gospel, as a long-time Christian I want to hear more.
Secondly, if the church as an institution takes on the mission, it robs the individual Christian of that mission. Again, stagnation results in the life of a Christian. Instead of being charged with doing real evangelism and discipleship, Christians are charged with setting up chairs and working on a committee. Not that those functions are in anyway bad, but they are not the kinds of activity that are going to build depth in one's spiritual life.
I worked for Young Life in part because I really believed in the para-church as a great way to do the church's mission while leaving church for the believer. It did not work like I wanted it to because we could not find the right way to transmit the converted into the church. The result has been that of a hundred kids that said yes to Jesus in my Young Life ministry 20 years ago, probably only 5 of them would call themselves Christians today. I wonder if when the institution of the church takes on the role of the parachurch if they don't run the risk of having the same kinds of results?
