Just another weblog
Here is a view on the not side. I know some have read up a bit on Brian McLaren. I have only read a little and agree to the points of having healthy and open discussion. So I am anxious to hear some thoughts on this:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2005/10/why_james_macdo.html
My own church history, that is. How much of my perspective on Christian living is wrapped up in the three types of churches I attended? I may never know, but I’d sure like to understand a little better.
Mainline
The first church I attended was of the mainline denominational variety. It had almost 8000 members, although probably a third of that attended each week. I went there with my twin brother, sister, and mom every Sunday. My dad attended rarely, usually on Easter or Christmas, and what I remember of that was that we had to make extra sure we behaved, as he would get mad at my brother and me for talking or goofing off. I liked it better when dad didn’t go.
The youth group was entirely different than the church proper. The staff consisted of college-age kids who were evangelical Christians (although of course I wasn’t familiar with that term as a teenager in 1980), led Bible studies, showed how to live as a Christian, and — more than that — shared their lives with us. In fact, the theme verse of the leadership was 1 Thes. 2:8.
A Move of God
Midway through my junior year in college, I started attending a church where the members were convinced that revival was going to break out any minute, and we needed to be prepared. I attended services, went to prayer meetings, learned spiritual disciplines, experienced the supernatural, and met my wife there. I also saw leaders fall, witnessed mistakes, made some myself, and in general learned how to be a charismatic-prophetic-end-times-bible-believing-hand-lifting follower of Jesus.
The people I met there were among the most dedicated believers I have found. Bible knowledge was everywhere, as was an emphasis on prayer and fasting as a lifestyle. They were passionate about their love for Jesus.
Seeker Friendly
After 15 years, we felt the tug of God to leave, so we took the opportunity presented by a move across town to look for a new church. The second one we visited was a seeker church in the Willow model. An absolute 180 from our previous experience, it was refreshingly different. Evangelical but not confrontational, devoted but not quite discipling, filled with new/young believers, I had never seen anything like it. We immediately got involved, volunteering in different places in an attempt to meet people.
And the answer is….
So, I go from mainline ho-hum to prophetic fringe to seeker-friendly. What does this make me?
From my first experience, I learned that every church contains followers of Jesus. Whether the preacher is bible-friendly or more of a social worker, whether it’s mainline or hardline, God still calls people to himself.
From my second experience, I learned that it is possible to be a fully committed believer, willing to spend my life and resources on an unseen kingdom. However, it must be done in community with other like-minded folks, or I cannot succeed. I also learned that great reward only comes from great risk. Of course, great risk also involves the possibility of failure, embarrassment, and even doctrinal error. I discovered that I am a risk taker.
From my third (and current) experience, I am learning that it is not enough to talk about “reaching the lost”, I must take an active role in doing just that. Prayer without action is, apparently, the same thing as no prayer at all. I am also learning that without a vision, the people really do perish. As humans, we must be challenged to something more than we can see with our eyes, or we will spend our lives toiling for things that have no eternal value.
So is one expression better than another? I am tempted to say Yes, but each time that happens, I am reminded that God called us to our current church for a purpose. I felt very clearly that He was telling me that while I had something to offer this church, it also has something to offer me. I am encouraged in knowing that God has some things he is putting in to me, to make me something that can be used by him. I feel like Onesimus mentioned by Paul in his letter to Philemon: “Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful.”
A friend of mine attends a church in midtown, and he tells me that all the musicians in the praise band, as well as head of technical crew and some of his assistants, are paid for their efforts (sorry, singers, you’re on your own). He found this out when he was asked to consider joining the sound team. The current sound guy takes home $900 per month for working every Sunday. Not a bad deal for working a few hours on a weekend. The musicians don’t have to be members of the church, either.
I mentioned this to my wife, and she told me that she met someone who is a paid singer at the mainline denominational church where I grew up. What’s going on?
I’m used to staff positions like “worship pastor” or “choir director”. I guess I’m assuming that if we pay the folks who have leadership roles, then they’ll have the freedom to focus on their task, and not be distracted by having to earn a living.
But what does it say if we pay the musicians? Just this: music is so important that it cannot be left to amateurs. The “sound”, the “feel” of the service is so critical that if we rely on volunteer parishoners only, the service will suffer.
But will it?
I wonder how long it will take before something like this (satirical) article becomes a reality? Meanwhile, I’m dusting off my bass guitar and practicing my “amens”.
Here’s an interesting link to a link to a link regarding the above. Please take a look at it, then come back.
I think one of the weaknesses of our late twentieth century evangelicalism is the emphasis on a “personal relationship” with Jesus. Now hold on before you call me a heretic.
The idea of a “personal” relationship with God was all but unknown to the Israelites of the Old Testament. Sure, Abraham and Moses had a friendship with God, but that was the exception, not the rule. (Bunny trail: how many of today’s Christians say that their relationship with God is like a friendship? Not me. In fact, aren’t we encouraged to set aside the “Jesus is my friend” notion as something that is OK for grade school but not as we get older? Maybe we should be rethinking this. But, back to the point.)
It is clear that one of the primary purposes of Jesus on this earth is to emphasize the fatherhood of God. We are to relate to God the Father as his children. And in the upper room, Jesus made the big pronouncement that he is calling his followers his friends. Both positions (child and friend) imply a personal relationship.
However, in our rush to be personal with God, I think we have all but thrown out the relationship that was already established and well-known to the children of Israel: relating to God as his people. The idea so prevalent in the Old Testament is not something I hear much about. However, it is echoed in the New Testament as well.
When the church relates to Jesus as a body does to the head, it’s not in a personal way. That is, a body’s organs do not relate personally or directly with the head; they simply take direction and follow orders. A soldier in an army (another picture of the church) does not personally know the commanding officer. In both scenarios, each member is incomplete (dare I say useless?) without the other members, and all members function as a unit to accomplish the will of their leader. Their identity is found within a larger group.
So we have this dichotomy. I enter into a relationship with Jesus where He calls me friend, and we have love for each other. I also enter into a relationship with other followers, where we band together to accomplish a greater mission than anything I could accomplish alone.
It seems that many of us think of church as a place where we can learn more about our personal relationships with God, rather than as a place where we have a job to do together. Church hopping, a lack of commitment, and a “what’s in it for me” mentality are the result of the over-emphasis on being a child of God, and not spending enough time on being the people of God.
I’ve been thinking a bit about this idea of revival, and what it would look like, and it is making me wonder if we really want it. There have been a number of events and phenomena called “revival” over the years, and if we generalize and say revival is “a renewed interest in spiritual things,” then many of these would qualify. However, if we take a look at revivals in the Bible, I think we’ll find that things aren’t quite as romanticized as we perhaps imagine them to be.
Let’s start with the New Testament (maybe I’ll get ambitious some day and do a “Part 2” with the Old Testament), and begin with Acts 2. Peter preaches and we’re told that three thousand people are baptized. I have heard people say, “Wow! Three thousand people! Wouldn’t it be great if three thousand people were saved at our meetings!” I’ve said the same things, but then I started wondering what that looked like.
First of all, how do we baptize three thousand people? And where? I wonder if the disciples would think it makes sense to baptize these people in the same place where they were baptized — the Jordan River. The map in the back of my Bible shows that the Jordan River is several miles from Jerusalem; did they all trek out for a baptism? And how did they baptize three thousand people? With 120 followers of Jesus in the upper room, and three thousand converts, that’s 25 baptisms per person.
Ok, but let’s suppose that of those three thousand people, some don’t want to be baptized by just anyone; they want to be baptized by Peter, or at least one of the twelve. This could slow things down a great deal. (One more thing: I doubt three thousand people could each have clearly heard Peter speak in the square that day, and completely understood why they were being baptized. The disciples may have had to perform a short interview with each one, just to make sure the person was there for the right reasons. Who knows how long this actually took, or whether it all happened in that one day.)
Ok, now that we’ve baptized everyone, what do we do with them? In Acts 2, many of these people were travelers, not residents of Jerusalem. They were there for Pentecost, and so were staying at inns or with friends or whatever. However, they no doubt wanted to stay in Jerusalem to learn from the apostles. So we read that they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, attended temple together, and ate in each others’ homes. The record shows that they were glad, generous, and had favor with everyone, but it also shows that there was favoritism and selfishness — in short, they were like any other group of new believers. When someone comes to Jesus today, we know that although the person is redeemed, there is still quite a bit of maturing which must take place. The person needs to be taught, needs to repent of certain sins, needs to make restitution or reconcile with others, etc.. Can you imagine if your “small group” consisted of 25 brand new believers, many of whom did not live in your town, who knew hardly anything about Jesus or his message, but who were excited to live in your house and eat your food? Welcome to revival!
Well, enough of Acts 2. Let’s go on to Acts 10. Peter is preaching to the house of Cornelius, and the record shows that while he was speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on the listeners. How did Peter know the Holy Spirit fell? Because they were speaking in tongues! How would you like to be preaching a message, and right in the middle of your three-point sermon, people started standing up and speaking in tongues! Others jump up and start praising God, even before your altar call! Now, people don’t normally jump up and interrupt someone they have specifically invited to come and speak. Therefore, it’s safe to assume that those who were doing the interrupting were perhaps a little beside themselves, or at least excited. Bring on the water, it’s time for more baptisms! Of course, these were Gentiles, who may not have heard of or understood baptism, so it may not have been as easy to accomplish this as with the Jews in Jerusalem. Maybe that’s why Peter had to “command” them to be baptized.
Ok, so now there are a bunch of Gentiles in the mix, and the Jewish apostles have to figure out what to do with them. The idea of Gentiles receiving the message was an absolutely new doctrine to them, so the apostles had to change their thinking. And when I say “new doctrine”, that is an understatement. It absolutely flew in the face of anything they had heard or seen in their lives as Jews or in the ministry of Jesus. It is probably not possible to overstate the magnitude of this event.
If we were to have a revival in our church/culture/society, what kinds of new doctrines would we discover? Or do we assume that we have a full understanding of how God works? I am not so bold.
So while we pray for revival, let’s be prepared to what revival brings. If God brings three thousand people to faith in our meetings, I think we’ll need a lot more chairs.