I've been thinking about church a lot lately. Well, I guess you could say I've been thinking about church a lot for the last several years. Not just the church we attend (although that's certainly part of it) but The Church, the global Church of people connected through Jesus. And mostly I just have lots of questions and lots of unsettled feelings about all of it. Mostly I just know something's missing. I think what's missing from church is The Church. Yeah, we've got the buildings and the sermons and the songs and the programs but where is the heart? Where is the sacrifice? Where is the connectivity to people in dire need of love and Christ?
The church we went to prior spent more time discussing the design and budget of the stained glass than they did caring for hurting people around them. We were more concerned with doing things as we had always done them rather than thinking there might be another way. And it seems that the church we're at now is more concerned with keeping the regular attenders comfortable than inspiring those people to live a sacrificial life. And if they do sacrifice their time, we want it to be serving the other attenders. We're more concerned with how efficiently we can make lots of coffee rather than the percentage of people in our community who are wasting away, unaware that they are hopelessly lost. We, as a church want to be catered to. We want "our money" to be put to "good use." We want to be heard on important matters such as whether or not the church sign is large enough to be seen from the road. Because we want them to see us. We want them to join us rather than us joining them. We do church for ourselves.
And what's my part in all of it? I complain when we run out of caffeinated coffee. I complain when the sound mix is bad. I complain when we run ten minutes over. I complain when the stained glass is more important than the people. Complaining is easier than action. Because action is brave and complaining is weak. And at the core of who I am, I am weak and I am unwilling to take action. I only care enough to throw up my hands in frustration and walk away.
Why can't we paint the homes of the poor rather than paint elaborate stage settings? Why can't we clothe children in need rather than supplying aprons for our volunteers so they don't get their clothes dirty? Why can't we feed the hungry rather than buy donuts for our already overweight population of people? Why can't we pay the expenses of overseas missionaries rather than paying an army of church staff?
I don't know what the answers are. All I know is there has to be more to church than this. Because if there's not, I'm just no longer interested. I know Jesus Christ is alive and moving. But where is he moving? Is he moving within the walls of our churches? Is he moving in our meetings and our bullet points? Does he care about our stained glass? Does he care if we have coffee or not? I just don't know anymore.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Jenny Hintze
Jenny Hintze
Search This Blog
Posts
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing items in a set called Hintze Family. Make your own badge here.
Places of interest
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(204)
-
▼
July
(27)
- The Hintzes go to the beach
- And one more just to make your head spin
- Because I had to....
- I have a new chair!
- Mikey update
- Nothing to do in this town
- Take that, part II
- Be on the lookout for jhintze#2
- Some pictures at the park and a duck maternity shoot
- Mikey language
- Take that!
- You're my favorite
- Getting a "real job" well, kind of, well, not really
- The Church
- Like mother, like son
- So, there's this book I'm reading...
- On their way to Kenya
- A little Mikey update
- A wedding tag along
- Check out my toad
- Will Mikey ever speak?
- Stringer
- Puppet Show
- Kids, Self Control, and Crazy Dancing
- City of Enchantment Fireworks
- views from our backyard
- Get your own "My Sweet Jesus Doll"
-
▼
July
(27)
18 comments:
This will be long.
I think some of your frustrations come from a general misunderstanding of what The Church is. And when I say that, I don't mean to say that you're misunderstanding something — I mean people, Christians, in general. The misunderstanding is simply what people feel the purpose of the The Church is, and as we move forward in time, most churches get further and further away from the Church's true role.
What is the Church's role, then? To guide Believers into becoming more like Christ.
That said, many Christians have it in their heads that we're to bring our "lost" friends to church so that they can become saved -- but that was never, ever, the Church's intent. The Church was established to teach Believers the Mind and Heart of God as best as could be taught, and in so doing, the Believers would "go unto the Nations" being "salt and light" and sharing God's Hope through the changed life they led. The Believer's personal walk was to be the influence to others, leading those lost to salvation. The Church was never meant to serve this purpose. Mankind made it warped like that, not God.
So, what does that mean? It means our focus in Church should be the "equipping of the saints" and doing our best to guide Believers to a closer walk with Christ. As we grow closer to Him, we will become the catalyst to those in our circle of influence.
Now, am I saying we shouldn't be inviting our "lost" friends to church? Of course not -- but I think that a lot of churches in this day and age cater to the lost, neglecting the edification of the Believers. This leads to our churches being full of baby Christians that aren't fully able to be all they can be for Christ in this world, simply because they're still so young in their Faith.
I could go on, but you get the gist of that point -- and that's really a whole other topic.
That said, how does this relate to donuts and stained glass? I think the Church should do a decent job of making the learning and equipping process of church as comfortable and inviting as possible. We don't want to be lazy, but if I feel my church can truly edify Believers, and if I want to get Believers to my church so that they can be edified, and if donut holes help me get people to my church for edification, then so be it. Bring on the donut holes. So it is with props, music, lights, meetings, etc., etc.
All of those things should be done and handled with the motivation of leading Believers closer to Christ -- doing whatever works best to help the "learning" process. If we succeed at that, then when we "go unto the Nations," our lives will be the light on a hill, and we will lead people to Christ through the influence He is through us. Then, we bring them to church to help them learn more about Him, and the process repeats. So, those things are important.
And when you look at it from the Church's original purpose, you see that it's not the Church's role to paint homes, clothe children, feed the hungry, etc., etc. -- per se. RATHER, it's the role of the Believer to do those things -- we shouldn't wait for our church to start a program, because we should be doing it ourselves already. So, we shouldn't necessarily "fault" our church for doing comfortable things.
Speaking in general terms, a lot of the frustration people have toward their church (and Church in general) really stems from a dissatisfaction within. The solution to that dissatisfaction is something we've been kicking around at our church: finding -- and taking -- a "next step" with God. The first step, though, IMHO, should be to take the majority of the "aid" responsibility off the leadership and institution of "Church," and put it back onto ourselves, as Believers.
The hungry aren't hungry because Big Church In Town doesn't focus on feeding them -- they're hungry because I didn't provide them food.
I don't really think we're disagreeing with each other here, although that's entirely possible. I know the purpose of the church is to equip the saints for service. And I know that we, as the body of believers, are the church. It's not the building we go to on Sundays. I absolutely own my responsibility in the failure to teach others about Jesus. I am failing miserably as a disciple. Nobody knows that more than I do.
But I don't think the Sunday morning gathering (or whenever the gathering may be) is to be a time of comfort. It should be a time of growing, stretching, communing, learning, questioning....
I think that our natural bent in America is to be interested in the biggest, best, and brightest. I don't think the church should be obliged to give in to the consumeristic ideals of those who make it up. And I do believe that the organized church (made of the believers in it) is responsible to help the poor and the weak in their communities.
As I said in my original post, I don't know what the answers are. All I know is this whole church thing is failing. And I include myself in that.
What a great discussion! I have nothing profound to add although I will be thinking and if I come up with something, I'll be sure to share.
I must say, though, that I was responsible for purchasing those aprons and I got a super great deal and my sister and I embroidered them each, with serving others in mind, one by one. So, I kinda like the aprons. Don't like the donuts at all. Do like the coffee but I did start bringing my own coffee cup when I plan on drinking some while I'm there to save a cup or two.
Hope I didn't squash the discussion. I've been known to do that a time or two.
It's a good one and I would love to hear what others have to say even though I got nothin'...
But why shouldn't we be comfortable? Why shouldn't there be joy in fellowship with other Believers as we learn about God? Remember: we're talking about community worship/learning, not personal growth. I can't think of any instance in the Bible were there was a community of "uncomfortable" Believers worshipping and learning about God together. However, there are countless passages that refer to one having a personal sacrifice of suffering.
I think the point of question is really about the style or method of the communal worship experience -- as far as I can get of what you're trying to convey in your post.
As far as consumerism goes, I see your point -- but that's the slippery slope of degrees. What is "consumerism"? How much is too much? Where are the lines? How far should the church go to attract people?
I think the answer to that is that the church should go as far as it needs to, as long as it's true to God's Word. However, this may mean that I, personally, don't like the organs and choir and orchestra -- so that means that church isn't for me. Are they wrong for doing things that way? Of course not -- it's just not my thing. Thus, we're back at the style and method, rather than the Foundation Belief.
No one is saying that we should be uncomfortable. Air conditioning is great, and I like donuts and coffee as much as anyone, but comfort shouldn't be the priority for a church (or The Church). I don't remember Paul writing anything about the importance of being comfortable. It should be a side effect, if anything.
I think that the church (especially in America) has become too comfortable to the point of being complacent and lazy. We're more concerned about our own comfort and personal well-being than we are about our neighbor. Again, this raises the issue of the role of the church: is the church meant to be an evangelical tool, or is it meant to raise disciples? Are these two roles mutually exclusive? Do donut holes have an impact either way?
I think an underlying issue here is about stewardship. How do churches waste resources on things that are truly irrelevant? How could those resources be used in a more productive way that would truly impact lives?
I believe that churches are going to have to move away from the "build great facilities and get as big as possible" mentality. Those things are great for gathering people into a weekend service, but they don't do much to promote discipleship.
But again, we're walking the slippery slope of degrees, when we need to look to Scripture. What some see as extravagance or massive comfort is neutral to others. A lot of people see our church as this bastion of greatness, and others see it as ho-hum. My point is that we can't emphatically state that Church A is too comfortable and Church B is less comfortable -- there are too many are grey areas.
According to Scripture, the Church is not an evangelical tool, directly -- the Body is. They are exclusive in the intent and direction of movement, but not in the end result. The Church is to equip us and provide fellowship and support with fellow Believers -- it is up to the Body to spread the Word.
RE: stewardship, this goes back to the slippery slope -- and it goes back to my response to Jenny's comment. The underlying issue is more about how we as individuals feel about this and that, like how I feel about having so many people on staff versus how Bob and Harry feel about it.
If it makes me uncomfortable, and it's become a stumbling block on my road to being more like Jesus, then I need to decide how to deal with it. As I decide that, I have to decide if I'm trying to change something because I don't agree with it -- or if I'm trying to change it because it goes against Scripture.
RE: discipleship, this goes back tot he Church's role, and I can't find anywhere in Scripture that says the Church should make disciples. Rather, the Bible tells us that the Body is to go out and "make disciples." Again, it's not the Church's role -- the Church being the community gathering of fellowship and worship, or the Body en masse.
What "Churches" need to do is put more emphasis on communal learning and getting into the Word of God, while at the same time, emphasizing the calling of all Believers: to spread the Word as individuals.
Why should we even bother to make the distinction between "the church" and "the body?"
I understand what you're getting at - the individual is responsible for the discipleship process, but the church must be held accountable.
If discipleship is not the responsibility of the church, then what is the church good for? Community? Really - is that it? Church is just a glorified social club? Is that why churches need a dozen full-time staff members, massive facilities, professional lights and music, etc? So they can claim to have the coolest club/church in town?
Church today is not the same church of the New Testament. It has incorporated countless pagan practices and has mutated into something completely foreign.
I'm generalizing, but most churches today exist to serve the needs of Christians, to give them a little pep talk or self-help speech. There are very few instances of the church challenging followers of Christ to do anything meaningful. It's more about making us feel better and teaching us how to live our lives more productively and feel like good little Christians.
Some of this is directed at our home church, and some of it isn't.
The distinction comes from discussing the way in which we do church, and what the Scriptural role of the Church is.
The Church is accountable for edifying Believers and helping them grow to be more like Christ. As we grow in our Faith and relationship with Him, we share our Faith with others. This eventually -- hopefully -- leads to discipleship, which, in Scripture, is a personal development between a small group of people.
Jesus' disciples weren't The Body -- there were only 12 of them. Discipleship is a desired byproduct of a Believer growing closer to God through their church, and discipleship begins when a Believer takes an active, personal stake in another person's life. With that, I'll disagree that the Church is "accountable" -- as I'm enough of an Existentialist to feel no one, or thing, is accountable for anything I should or shouldn't do. I may not get much out of how Church A does stuff, so it's up to me to figure out what to do.
RE: the country club, I think I've addressed that. None of my comments follow along with the "coolest club/church" statement you made.
And yes, Scripturally, the Church does exist to serve the needs of Believers insofar as edifying them to assist in their walk with Christ. If the church is "good," the Body will also feel compelled to go out into the community/nation, as well as seek discipleship in a small group or individual.
And so we go back to what I said earlier. If we feel our church (speaking in generalities) is failing in those areas, we are accountable for rectifying that situation. That's when we have to determine whether or not our issues are with the practice, or the church's adherence to Scripture -- insofar as we interpret it.
Man, I still got nothin... :)
Tommy can't get to the internet from where he is or I'm pretty sure he'd be in on it somehow. He's the one with the intelligent words. I say things like "still got nothin".
Like Tommy says frequently, I fail to articulate for fear that I may deviate from the true course of rectitude.
I got nothin' either....I have to be careful though becuase my husband is one of the "army of church staff!" I love you guys, and when you get it all figured out, you let me know....Andrea, I don't even know what some of those words mean...I miss ya'll! I am coming home tommorrow. I know you miss me too! :)
"... edifying Believers and helping them grow to be more like Christ. As we grow in our Faith and relationship with Him, we share our Faith with others."
As far as I'm concerned, this is discipleship. I'm not referring to accountability groups or mentoring or whatever. My dictionary defines discipleship as "the state of attempting to follow the example of Jesus or another teacher." I'm pretty sure that the church is responsible for that.
My point about holding the church accountable is this: when churches spend too much time worrying about not offending anyone, or being practical to the point of being one step removed from a Tony Robbins seminar, we're in serious trouble. Jesus didn't worry about whether he was politically correct. I think that too many church bodies today are overly concerned with their "seeker sensitivity" and water down their message.
Yes, the individual is responsible for his/her own actions, but the church is responsible for providing individuals with the tools that they need to disciple themselves. I'm not talking about people like us who have been Christians for years and went to Christian colleges, etc. I'm talking about young Christ followers who hear message after message of lightweight fill-in-the-blank presentations.
I listened to a guy named Doug Pagitt speak at Ecclesia last night, and he referred to the church today trying to boil the story of God and man into 3 point formula that you can write on the back of a placemat, fold up and put in your back pocket. This is not what it means to follow Christ, but it is all that many young Christians are getting from the church.
I believe that the church today is in serious trouble and will be effectively dead in a matter of years if something doesn't change.
I don't know why it's so hard for people and/or organizations to admit that they don't have everything figured out. That perhaps, just perhaps, there's more to all of this church stuff and Christianity stuff than we can really fully understand and explain.
We must (as a church, a body, as individuals, however you want to classify us) be able to admit that we're not cutting it. Until we're able to admit that, very little will change.
But I suppose if everything's just peachy, then nothing needs to change.
My original post was for me to help me work through some of this stuff. That's what I do. It wasn't meant to cause a debate. Although I'm not surprised or disappointed that it has. And I certainly don't want to stifle any productive discussion that we may have.
But we also need to remember that bickering among ourselves over semantics or whatever isn't going to get us anywhere. We are supposed to be one body unified and with a common goal. That goal being to spread the word of Jesus to those who don't know.
Y'all are still missing my point.
*Everything* you guys have raised as an issue is directly related to a church's methodology and practice. By no means whatsoever is the Body of Christ failing. Every day, all over the world, people cross over the line of Faith and into an eternal relationship with God. Our Kenya group will come back in a few days with stories of salvation, etc.
What I see, though, is a dissatisfaction with the organized church and how it does things -- or more specifically, certain organized churches.
One can easily say if "churches spend too much time worrying about not offending anyone, or being practical to the point of being one step removed from a Tony Robbins seminar, we're in serious trouble." But that doesn't ring true for all organized churches. And a Believer should, at that point, leave the church if that's how they feel about it because that church is no longer meeting their needs. Done deal.
If a Believer feels there are too many churches leaning that way -- which is what I said in my first or second post -- then that Believer has to decide what to do about it. Gripe? Leave? Start a faction within? Begin a new church? Who knows?
RE discipleship: yes, that's the first step of discipleship, but that's it, and what I've been saying all along. The Church isn't for the lost per se, it's for Believers so that they can learn about God and be a greater influence to the lost.
My issue with the angles you both have been bringing up is that, based on the tone of your comments, you're putting way too much responsibility and accountability on "the church." Should there be some? Of course -- but the brunt of the evangelical burden falls on we, the Body. If our "institution of learning" isn't living up to the standards we have decided to hold as our standards, then we have a decision to make.
And again, why is the church "for providing individuals with the tools that they need to disciple themselves"? Why don't I have accountability? What percent should be the church's burden, and what should be mine? Who's fault is it that I'm a "baby Christian?"
RE: hearing "message after message of lightweight fill-in-the-blank presentations," again, this goes back to methodology -- not Foundation Belief. This type of message IS what the young Christian needs -- but it may not always live up to what a more grown Christian needs. So again, a decision must be made by that Believer as to whether or not Church A is filling the role any longer.
RE: Pagitt, he's correct to an extent -- and he should do exactly what he feels God calling him to do with his church in relation to that passion. His belief doesn't suit all churches or all congregations. Period. Is it wrong for him to feel like we should push new Believers more forcefully? No! Is it wrong if the church next door does things more slowly? No. Just like some learners are visual and other aural, it all depends on a million factors -- and one can't make a blanket statement that It Should Be Done This Way Or That Way.
If you look at the report we got back for our church, you'll see that a lot of people felt we needed to delve into the Bible more deeply. Why is that? Because we have a lot of more mature Christians attending regularly, and they're ready for more depth. 3 years ago, we would not have gotten that response to the degree we did. Why? Because the "age" of Believers was younger and newer.
So what do we do? We find a balance. Our church, specifically, is a church for baby Christians, and those that are just beginning to start this walk. We are here for people who have had bad experiences with church, church people, or have never been to church at all. Thus, we have to cater to their Believer's age and somewhat slowly introduce them to God. While doing so, we urge them to get into Small group and begin Biblical Discipleship so that they can begin to get a deeper understanding of God.
Fast forward 5 years, and that Believer may feel they're getting baby food and not table food. So what do they do? What should the church do? It depends. Many of us love being part of a church that caters to young Believers and we want to play an active role in helping them come closer to God. That's our calling. It's up to us to get into the "deep stuff" because we know on Sundays, the message is going to be targeted at those younger in Faith. We feel comfortable with that, and we know the impetus is on us to grow closer to God, rather than expecting our preacher to hand it to us.
Others don't feel this way. They want their church to grow as they grow, getting deeper into God as they grow deeper on their own. If the church's purpose isn't to do that, then there will the separation we've been discussing this whole time. SHould the church then change to suit older Believers? Of course not -- unless the leadership feels it should. Where does that leave the mature Believer? Where I said earler: at a point of decision. Is their calling to assist in helping young Christians grow closer to God? Do they just need to find a place that helps them, personally, grow deeper?
No one's saying anyone has everything figured out -- but there's an underlying dissatisfaction in these posts that are really about methodology and technique and personal "taste" and desire for growth.
And for the record, I don't think anyone is bickering or debating. This is quite tame in my book -- you should have been in my Philosophy 404 class... =)
Okay, then.
Dang I showed up at the end. My $0.02. Comfort in the church is not an issue with me but apathy is. The edification of the saints is rarely accomplished when the church is presented as what happens in connection to an organization for a couple hours a week.
Teaching, breaking bread, sharing as others have need so that we can go out and live our lives as Jesus would live it if he were living it in our place is what the church should be.
It is very hard to break that into a formula, a method, or three points to be filled into the blanks of an outline.
The church can happen in a wide variety of contexts.
All of that makes a converation about the church frustrating and enlightening at the same time.
I think you've all made valid points.
I wholeheartedly agree, Tommy. And apathy comes, not from the institution or practice, but from the individuals.
While a church and its style can assist an individual down the road to apathy because church is boring, not mature enough in teaching, etc., etc., it's ultimately the responsibility of the Believer to choose not to become apathetic.
Yeah, but it's highly likely that lazy parents will breed lazy kids...
How's that for profound???
Post a Comment