07.19.05
Posted in faith at 11:44 am by
Greg at The Parish posted yesterday about the worship practices of the modern church. His thesis, as I understood it, was basically that the church has become individualistic to the point that its worship practices no longer challenge our individual selves. Without that challenge, there’s no chance that we’ll become anything different than what we are. The problem, of course, is that we’re meant to be more than what we are–we’re called to radical change and to be agents of change.
In the comments of that post Jim stated that this individual gratification model of Church could be an agent of death in the modern Church:
But you left out the warning. Affirming and (worse) acting on the things you called for in your post is maybe the best way I know to kill a modern north American congregation.
Greg responded in agreement and speculated that perhaps the death of the modern Church as we know it may be the only way for us to rebuild from the ashes:
You’re absolutely right; it will kill the typical American congregation. And you’re right that I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing if a good thing can be built from the ruins. I think we’re living in a time when the only way forward is to be faithful knowing that it will cost us size, “success,” and the trappings that come with cultural acceptance.
My question is this: has this practice of the deification of current lifestyle over change already killed part of the modern Church? What does a church that’s been lost to the worship of our static selves look like?
I suppose that, as you may have guessed, I think that many Churches are already on their deathbed–if not in their graves. Unfortunately, I think that on the basis of the appeal of their message of being comfortable in their suburban, upperclass, whiteness they’r not doing what a dying church should do: they’re not crumbling.
Of course, I’m thinking primarily of the modern ‘mega-church.’ People come in droves to the modern mega-church because it doesn’t REALLY challenge its members. Worship isn’t about change and challenge in many cases. And, unfortunately, I think that it’s just this quality that encourages folks to attend these churches in mindless droves.
I agree with Greg. The place to begin the building of an authentic Church that follows Christ rather than consumerism may well be in the ashes of a burned out Church. But, what if that burned out Church isn’t in a set of obviously charred ruins, but rather it’s a seemingly thriving body of people who believe strongly in the suburban gospel of whiteness and consumerism.
Trying to convince happy people that they need a life change that’s going to take them to a much less comfortable place isn’t a very appealing message.
My final questions are these:
Am I right, are many modern mega-churches already burned to ashes?
How do we spread the unappealing message of righteous discomfort to a happily comfortable group of people?
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/07/19/the_life_and_death_of_the_church/trackback/
Posted in faith at 11:44 am by
Greg at The Parish posted yesterday about the worship practices of the modern church. His thesis, as I understood it, was basically that the church has become individualistic to the point that its worship practices no longer challenge our individual selves. Without that challenge, there’s no chance that we’ll become anything different than what we are. The problem, of course, is that we’re meant to be more than what we are–we’re called to radical change and to be agents of change.
In the comments of that post Jim stated that this individual gratification model of Church could be an agent of death in the modern Church:
But you left out the warning. Affirming and (worse) acting on the things you called for in your post is maybe the best way I know to kill a modern north American congregation.
Greg responded in agreement and speculated that perhaps the death of the modern Church as we know it may be the only way for us to rebuild from the ashes:
You’re absolutely right; it will kill the typical American congregation. And you’re right that I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing if a good thing can be built from the ruins. I think we’re living in a time when the only way forward is to be faithful knowing that it will cost us size, “success,” and the trappings that come with cultural acceptance.
My question is this: has this practice of the deification of current lifestyle over change already killed part of the modern Church? What does a church that’s been lost to the worship of our static selves look like?
I suppose that, as you may have guessed, I think that many Churches are already on their deathbed–if not in their graves. Unfortunately, I think that on the basis of the appeal of their message of being comfortable in their suburban, upperclass, whiteness they’r not doing what a dying church should do: they’re not crumbling.
Of course, I’m thinking primarily of the modern ‘mega-church.’ People come in droves to the modern mega-church because it doesn’t REALLY challenge its members. Worship isn’t about change and challenge in many cases. And, unfortunately, I think that it’s just this quality that encourages folks to attend these churches in mindless droves.
I agree with Greg. The place to begin the building of an authentic Church that follows Christ rather than consumerism may well be in the ashes of a burned out Church. But, what if that burned out Church isn’t in a set of obviously charred ruins, but rather it’s a seemingly thriving body of people who believe strongly in the suburban gospel of whiteness and consumerism.
Trying to convince happy people that they need a life change that’s going to take them to a much less comfortable place isn’t a very appealing message.
My final questions are these:
Am I right, are many modern mega-churches already burned to ashes?
How do we spread the unappealing message of righteous discomfort to a happily comfortable group of people?
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/07/19/the_life_and_death_of_the_church/trackback/
zalm said,
July 19, 2005 at 12:33 pm
Nice addition to greg’s challenging thoughts, Brandon.
Y’know, I wonder if it’s less a matter of arguing for a certain concept of the church and more a matter of modeling that type of church.
Maybe I’m naïve to think that a church that looks more and more like the Kingdom as Jesus described it would ultimately be attractive in its own way. But until people are able to “taste and see” what that kind of church body is like, I think they will be reluctant to change their concept of church. Until we can show people a more excellent way, I think telling them that their church is “burned to ashes” is more likely to piss them off and make them defensive than it is to challenge them towards the Kingdom.
How do we do this? I don’t know. Sadly, I’m still figuring out what this is supposed to look like.
Brandon said,
July 19, 2005 at 12:37 pm
And, I think that’s part of the problem, too, Zalm. We DON’T know exactly how to model a more appropriate church because we’re not perfect either.
I think that it’s often the case that we, as speakers out against the modern mega-church movement, aren’t necessarily expecting change from THEM as much as we’re looking to recruit like minds who’ll join us in building a more Christ-following Church.
Paula said,
July 19, 2005 at 1:39 pm
We spread the unappealing message brother, we spread it!!! Some churches are little more than social clubs. This fact deeply saddens me
Resident Atheist said,
July 19, 2005 at 2:32 pm
One of the dominant themes in contemporary fantasy (I know not everyone likes genre fiction, but bear with me) is that once you sell your soul or your essence to demons or the Dark Powers or the Void or whatever, you become even stronger and more resilient than before–despite the fact that all your former friends and associates recognize that, for all intents and purposes, you’re dead. You just won’t do the universe the favor of actually dying, especially since in your new existence, you think you’ve had an epiphany (post-soul-sale of course) that’s led you to realize for the first time what life is really all about. (This is where a lot of authors start the metaphorical Nietzsche-bashing, but the better stories recognize that no single cause or attitude is at fault; any principles can be corrupted in such a way that they sever the ties between their holder and the rest of humanity–all it takes is a moment of having more zeal than wisdom.)
I don’t think this is necessarily a helpful perspective to impose on this situation, but I will say that it shouldn’t be too surprising that groups that have (apparently) sacrificed their essence and relevance for the sake of stability will be–well, pretty stable, all things considered. They know what they want to create, they know what they have, and they’re selling it. I don’t think you can sell something you don’t already have (and even if you have it, it might be worth examining whether selling it is a good idea, as it seems to reinforce the latent consumerist mentality), so maybe figuring out what exactly the kingdom is and enacting it would be a good place to start. I don’t know. Just a thought.
Brandon said,
July 19, 2005 at 2:50 pm
‘Figuring out what the kingdom is and enacting it…’
Ah, the rub and distinct challenge of my life. Part of the problem in establishing what, exactly, this nebulous kingdom looks like, RA, is I think, that I don’t believe anyone can truly know the articulate facial details of that kingdom. To further employ my art analogy–we’re trying create a realistic kingdom when all we are able to see is the Van Gogh impression.
Now, I will wholeheartedly agree that the kingdom can be better lived by myself and others who would care to so do. I suppose, part of the frustration lies in the uncertainty of not being able to know exactly what the end goal really is.
I guess, though, if one really believes in a graceful God, one must also believe that it’s the thought of bringing forth that God’s kingdom that counts.
Thanks for your thoughts, RA! As always, they’re provocative.
Kari said,
July 19, 2005 at 3:10 pm
On the topic of mega-churches, did you catch this story on Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church on All Things Considered yesterday afternoon? (July 18)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4759649
The thought of spending $95 million on a church building makes me want to throw up…
paula said,
July 19, 2005 at 5:47 pm
i think that when a church community has an empty, hollow form, and no vibrant living core, things will eventually collapse on their own. or people will encounter problems and have to find SOMETHING that has substance. God can do this if he wants.
Sense Light said,
July 19, 2005 at 5:47 pm
This was a great tag off of Greg’s blog yesterday. I think that you are right it’s hard to have other’s see where your eyes have been opened. I was actually writing about this today on my blog and then found that you responded to Greg’s input. Sadly enough you can’t tell the fake that they are fake…they honestly believe they are real…and those of us out there that are being real amoung the fake look out of place. Welcome to the F’d up politics of the mega church.
Brandon said,
July 19, 2005 at 9:26 pm
Kari,
You know, that clip was so disturbing I’m not sure, even, how to respond. Thanks, I think, for bringing it to my attention. But, in a way, it really makes me sad; sad for all those souls who may well never hear the REAL gospel.
Jim said,
July 19, 2005 at 10:22 pm
Thanks for the link (and the quote). My primary motivation for leaving that comment was to express the frustration that I feel at trying to advocate and ajitate for just the kinds of things Greg was talking about and getting blank stares in return. I think the church as we know it in North America needs to die. In this, I am only reiterating the long held view of Robert Farrar Capon. He does a nice job of articulating his “argument from history” about the necessary death of the (not only mega) church in his book “The Astonished Heart: Reclaiming the Good News From the Lost and Found of Church History.” Near the end of the book he talks about a hypothetical church deciding one day to simply close up, get rid of the nice building and start meeting in a bowling alley to read some scriptures together, pray for each other, maybe sing a hymn. I have to admit, that scene is kind of like a fantasy for me. It’s something I’d love to see happen in my church, and in many other churches too, but it’s just to damned scary! I keep dreaming though.
I also saw heard that Lakewood Church clip at NPR. I almost blogged on it, but I have to wait ’til I’m finished retching.
Jim said,
July 19, 2005 at 10:23 pm
I meant agitate. My gosh, where did I learn to spell?
Carol said,
July 19, 2005 at 10:26 pm
The real church has teaching that meets the needs of the heart like nothing else can. It is one that brings conviction for salvation, dicipling for the believer, and equipping them for service, since all have a special position just waiting for them. To accomplish a real church fellowship is first of all is a true calling, from true motives, and it will be attractive since it is real.
shupac said,
July 20, 2005 at 10:33 am
Trying to convince happy people that they need a life change that’s going to take them to a much less comfortable place isn’t a very appealing message.
Alas, a basic problem of all American progressives, in or outside the church.
Casey McCollum said,
July 20, 2005 at 11:57 am
Let’s remember that Jesus also died for those white, upperclass consumers as well…no matter how much we think they should change.
ninjanun said,
July 20, 2005 at 12:49 pm
Oh yes, remember the priviledged! Christ died for them too!
(of course, he also often called them to completely change their attitude and lifestyle to align with Kingdom values).
It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God…which is why Jesus tended to take the Good News to the poor, the oppressed, and the weak. He knew it was a message they needed to hear, and that they would be more likely to receive with joy.
As Brandon pointed out, the very nature and values of the Kingdom of God is such that most white, affluent Americans (and on the whole, we are richer as a nation than other countries by far) don’t have much to gain (in this life) from accepting the true gospel of Christ. We are called to die to self, after all, and for the affluent, they seem to have more to “die to” than those who don’t have much to begin with.
Instead, too many American churches offer them the warm fuzzy reassurance that God loves them and approves of their lifestyle.
Brandon said,
July 20, 2005 at 2:46 pm
Let’s remember that Jesus also died for those white, upperclass consumers as well…no matter how much we think they should change.
Piece of cake. I am one–well, apart from that upper-class bit.
I’m not sure that I’m reading your comment right Casey, but I sense a bit of judgement betwixt the lines of your post. I know full well whom Christ died for–and I know full well that these folks have grown accustomed to spitting in the face of Christ, as well, by worshipping Starbucks and Third Day more than the Almighty God of Heaven and Earth.
Brian said,
July 22, 2005 at 5:02 pm
I must first state that all told, I agree with many of the sentiments you are all expressing. I find many churches to be fundamentally misguided in their beliefs on missions and giving (essentially, all things outside their own church and congregation) which is extremely sad given our nation’s position of such great prosperity and wealth.
However, a word of caution to you all. The fact that you are now reading my message means to me that you have access to a computer. The fact that you have access to a computer typically means that you are already wealthier than a majority of the rest of the world (meaning you are employed and therefore are generating income or are even so wealthy as to own your very own machine … maybe even more than one!). As that is the case, let’s honestly admit that our scoffing at these wealthy mega-churches is somewhat ironic given the church in China, for example, could just as easily scoff at this new Utopian church some of you seem to be picturing. I only mention this because I have sensed a loss of humility in all the comments I’ve read on this matter in both blogs.
For example, ninjanun, I wholeheartedly disagree with you when you say “most white, affluent Americans … don’t have much to gain (in this life) from accepting the true gospel of Christ.” Are we reading the same Bible? Recall that the common ground that you, I, the wealthiest attender at the mega-church we all want to despise, and the poorest attender in an underground church in China all have is that we are sinful, fallen, and utterly helpless without the redeeming intervention Christ undertook on our behalf when he subjected Himself to death on the cross. Nowhere in that message is there anything to do with prosperity, social status, geographic location, or church attendance size. I have no objections to the claim that wealth does make the process of accepting the gospel more burdensome for those that “have much” (though in reality is so little). That said, let’s not forget that simply because individuals are wealthy and affluent does not guarantee that they have not accepted Christ, or that their acceptance of Christ is somehow tainted by their wealth. How absurd! Wealth, like beauty, intellect, craftsmanship, creativity, etc. is just one of the many blessings each of us enjoy and are responsible for. It is entirely feasible that a church can be packed to the gills with wealthy suburbanites who are wholeheartedly committed to Christ. I find some of you implying that wealth and prosperity is something to be apologized for when what we should be saying is that wealth and prosperity is something that should be encouraged (stay with me!) SO THAT it can be freely and abundantly offered to the world around us.
What is so much more important, I believe, is what is happening within the walls of the church in the hearts of the attendees, and how that is influencing them to be Christ in their world. Quite honestly, if the church full of white, mid-to-upper class, SUV lovin’ Christians is able to speak to that subculture in America and motivate them to a point of emulating Christ in every facet of life (humility, selflessness, giving, hospitality, gentleness, etc., etc., etc.), then why do I care if the church is in an arena or bowling alley? In defense for what all of you have said, yes, it is true that many (most?) of the mega-churches with this exterior appearance are not doing these things I’m outlining, but let’s not assume that means that ALL large forms of church are immediately wrong and should burn to ashes.
faithCommons said,
August 5, 2005 at 9:00 am
The Secret’s Out
This essay pulls no punches and is highly critical of institutions that many Christians hold in high regard. Don’t be surprised if your blood pressure rises.
Salvation from hell is Christendom’s most advertised product. In a post titled “still haven’t
BENEATHROVER said,
August 5, 2005 at 1:30 pm
blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah
blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah
blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah
blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah
blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah
blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah
blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah
blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah
blah blah blah, and did i mention, blah!
Tramadol hci online buy cheap tramadol hci online. said,
March 21, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Buy cheap tramadol mg tablets only in us online….
Cheap tramadol cod buy cheap cod online tramadol. Cheap tramadol cod. Tramadol cheap no rx free from india. Tramadol cheap cod. Buy cheap tramadol tramadol mg quick delivery cod. Buy online cheap and fast tramadol. Tramadol cheap no rx….