Among our readers you will find all sorts. Insiders, outsiders, rebels and commmited church-heads. Some have left Church-As-We-Know-It, while some have stayed behind to work to salvage it, and some believe that everything their church does is right, no matter what. Whether they are for "church" or against "church", they are completely defined by it. The gentle monks of unChurch Abbey do not have a dog in that fight. We just tilt our hearts toward God, follow onward, and leave the church-heads to fuss over the rest. Still we found this article to be very interesting, written by guest scribe Brant Hansen, a syndicated Christian radio morning show personality who left "church-as-we've-made-it" some years ago. These are his observations.FAQ #24: Shouldn't We Just Stay Where We Are, and Work for Change, Rather than Abandoning the Church?
by Brant Hansen, Syndicated Radio Host, from his blog, "Letters from Kamp Krusty"
Frequent Answer #24: For you? I have no idea.
And, by the way, sport, that's a weird way to pose the question.
I get this all the time, though. Since chronicling our own move out of the typical American 501-c-3 church structure, a lot of people have posed the question this way. It's a way of saying, a) yes, your fundamental critique may be right, but b) you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Or, perhaps, it's another way of saying, a) yes, your critique may be right, but b) I don't know any like-minded people around here, and I can't just go sailing off by myself.
Or, perhaps, it's another way of saying, a) yes, your critique may be right, but b) I went to Bible College, okay? What the heck else am I supposed to do for a living?
Or, perhaps, it's another way of saying, a) yes, your critique may be right, but b) I've already staked out my position on this, so now I'm committed to defending it.
Of course, there are those (many) who say, a) your critique is totally jacked, this system is the one God gave us, by golly, and b) you're an idiot, and c) shut up, and d) seriously, you're an idiot. This is a popular option, but these people usually aren't asking FAQ #24.
So, what should you do? Stick it out? Try to change things from the inside? Occasionally ask a question here and there, rock a boat here and there, slowly press for change?
Like I say, I don't know. I can't speak to your particular situation. I wish I could; this blog entry would be a lot more interesting. But one-size-fits-all thinking is, in part, what got us into this expensive mess.
Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost wrote a brilliant new book, ReJesus. (You should buy it and read it. I can make that categorical statement.) They say the church needs a serious "reboot", to re-align the software (all our church trappings) with the hardware (Jesus). Jesus' values, Jesus' priorities, Jesus' teachings.
By advocating for that, they're advocating for radical change, and I'll bet you know it, too. So here's one way you might look at it: Will that radical change happen without people like me making a radical change?
-------------
None of this, of course, applies if you object to the very idea of leaving church-as-we've-made-it. If you see "preaching", Biblically, as a sermon delivered each week to roughly the same audience by the same guy in the same building, and you regard this to be a sacrament, you'd never ask the question at all. (I heard a very popular preacher the other day say, on the radio, "When someone causes you to doubt or question, you get away from them, and get into the House of the Lord. I know I need to do that, because I need a talented man of the pulpit to help me understand, and...")
You may be a person, like this Talented Man of the Pulpit, who really needs, who must have, a Talented Man of the Pulpit. In which case, you've likely stopped reading this blog. You may think his sprawling campus is the House of the Lord, too, in which case, you've likely stopped reading this blog.
Here's another consideration: The original question reveals something horribly wrong. By abandoning a particular institutional conception of church, you are not abandoning the church. It's an insidious idea that begs the very question.
Now, for you, it might ultimately mean that you WILL wind up leaving the church -- the people called out by God for his purposes -- but that's a different issue. Simply put: You may not be able to deal with the freedom. Freedom is wonderful, and just like most wonderful things, like, say, sex and the strong force in an atom's nucleus, it's also dangerous.
You may need someone to tell you exactly how much to give, and exactly to whom. You may need someone to draw up a chart of the Eight Things a Disciple Must Be Doing. You may need the busy-ness that comes from meetings, and meetings that plan meetings. You may not know how to live without it. (I've heard it before: "Well, then -- what do you do?) You may not ever be able to break from something your parents did. You may need to be able to easily explain you're a "real Christian" by saying, "Here's where I go to church."
There's other stuff you may need. You may need to feel more occupied on Sunday mornings. You may need help being told what to study. You may need to avoid the disapproval of those who will judge you for what you're doing. You may need the significance that comes from your social standing in that particular group.
You may, if you're a musician or speaker, need a crowd.
If these are things you need, deep down, leaving a particular 501c3 organization may, in fact, ultimately result in leaving the real church.
Oddly, while we can worry about that, I'm more worried about the people currently well-plugged-in to American Church Life who have no role -- who've been trained to have no role -- in the church of Jesus. They left the church, and are busy members in good standing.
Anyway, I can't answer the question for you. If I were a career pastor, or lived in a small town, or -- any number of possibilities -- I, frankly, doubt we'd have made the move we made. I don't know that we could have done it.
It's been a wonderful thing, opting out, and a blessed thing. But I can't say, for everyone, everywhere, it's the thing.
Posts
7 comments:
Fine, since no one else has done so yet, I'll jump off the window ledge.
Joe, I read this a couple of weeks ago when it was posted on the Kamp Krusty sight. He had some very interesting and varied feedback on it, as I expect you to get here.
I suppose the reactions will be from extreme to extreme.
Here is my take on this question for what it's worth:
To stay or leave is secondary to me. What is important is this, why am I either unsatisfied with my "church experience," or the depth of my service that I am compelled to do something radically different? Off the wall different. Dare I say, unrecognizeably different.
It seems that, anymore, we all want to look outside our selves for the reasons we are uncomfortable, unfulfilled, uneasy, unhappy or unwhatever with (fill in the blank) about the way we are currently try to serve God. It could be anything.
What we(I) need to do is look inside ourselves first. What is missing? Am I the one who needs "fixing?" Am I a "doer" or a "user?" Most of the time what is missing, for me at least, is communion with God and my "group." The guys I feed off of when I can.
For me, it is not really a question of "stay and fix" it or leave and "become groundbreaking" in a new and revolutionary new way. It is more simply, "Please God, fix ME where I am. Then lead me from where I am to where I should be in Your will."
My theory is, "Change is not bad as long as the rate of change is properly managed."
I hope this is a positive discussion. Over all, I agree with Brant, "For you, I have no idea."
For me it is, if not easy to do, it is a rather simple answer, "Fix me first, God. Then help me reach out and help the next guy. If the Body needs to be tweaked, I'm willing to be the tool You use."
"The gentle monks of unChurch Abbey do not have a dog in that fight. We just tilt our hearts toward God, follow onward, and leave the church-heads to fuss over the rest."Joe, of course, may take some poetic license by underestimating our occasional frustration with churches over the years. :-) But 90% of the time, I agree with that sentiment.
The dissenters in this discussion no doubt will ask WHAT needs to be changed, and it's not something that can easily be boiled down to a top-10 list of action-items. Trust me, I've tried it, and it just comes off looking nitpicky and silly. It's such a big, far-reaching thing, an entire mentality, that it becomes hard to put into a simple few sentences.
Not to mention, it very quickly becomes just another "I know how to do church better than you" argument.
So I'm somewhere in the middle. I'm not going to sit back and say that I don't care what happens -- I *would* like for church to make a radical change. And I'm occasionally guilty of what Garry points out -- focusing on the institution more than myself.
At the same time, Garry, it seems like the vast majority of the people with that line of thinking -- "Please God, fix ME where I am, then lead me from where I am to where I should be in Your will" -- are generally NOT going to be the leaders of the church. The leaders, oftentimes, are going to be the ones more concerned with the future of the institution outside of themselves, are they not?
I have a rather complicated set of responses to this. . .
First, I think this is similar to the impulse that drove us to form our community 35 years ago - the church as-we-experienced-it wasn't 'doing it' for us, and we longed for something truer, more radical, more challenging, less watered-down, than what we encountered in our churches. So, I understand that.
And yet, we have always viewed a large part of our mission as promoting 'authentic spiritual renewal' in the 'historic Christian churches'. So, I have some misgivings about the idea of 'opting out'.
And of course, as a Catholic, I conceive of the Church in terms that tend to push me away from the 'opt-out' option, also (altho, Lord knows, there is no shortage of ex-Catholics who've done just that). "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it," and all that. Which is to say that Christ Himself has an interest in the ongoing life of His Church.
And I think of the Church (even the institutional Roman Church) in more 'organic' than 'organizational' terms. What Brant Hanson is describing is an organization to which he doesn't feel compelled to be loyal, for whatever set of reasons. And fair enough. But I think of the Church as quite a lot more than merely its organizational structure, or its internal politics, or any number of other things which, at bottom, are expressions of the fact that there are only fallen, sinful (albeit, at least theoretically redeemed) humans out of which for the Lord to build His Church.
And, as frustrated as I often was with the shortcomings of my church 30-odd years ago, in the meantime, I've come to see that an awful lot of people whose faith and holiness I had been inclined to denigrate, are, in ways I hadn't seen, often holier and more faithful than I am.
Part of the nature of the Church is us all helping each other grow in the Christian life. And I'm picking up a pretty individualistic vibe from Mr. Hanson; perhaps I misunderstand him.
'I don't need the church' means one thing when you're talking about thus-and-such specific church, in thus-and-such place, with thus-and-such pastor & elders, etc. And something else entirely, and, I think, false, if you mean it in regard to the People of God in a 'global' sense. . .
'I don't need the church' means one thing when you're talking about thus-and-such specific church, in thus-and-such place, with thus-and-such pastor & elders, etc. And something else entirely, and, I think, false, if you mean it in regard to the People of God in a 'global' sense. . .Brant:
The original question reveals something horribly wrong. By abandoning a particular institutional conception of church, you are not abandoning the church.
"The leaders, oftentimes, are going to be the ones more concerned with the future of the institution outside of themselves, are they not?"
Scott, I think we might have different (generational?) definitions of 'leader' and 'leadership.'
In the sense that you are using that description of leader as the "businessman" in the congregation, I would probably agree with your assessment, what I said is my prayer is not generally the mindset you find in those individuals. Maybe some, but not many. That doesn't mean we don't need that person in the church.
I also don't think I really understand the idea that the 'insitution' and 'Christlike, love your neighbor, get out and do something' Christianity are mutually exclusive. Sometimes the institution is the very thing that enables the "doer" to "do". Wait a minute, different discussion.
Back to leaders and leadership.
For me, the best, most effective leader in the church (from now on I'm going to say Body instead of 'church'), or anywhere else for that matter, is the man who leads by his example. He is the man on the front line, the first one on the beach, so to speak. The person who will go out of his way to build a relationship with someone, not for any other reason than to lift that individual up. He is the man who is willing to teach, either in a stuctured class environment or one on one, the things of discipleship and why it is important.
He is the man who strives to make decisions based on Biblical convictions instead of expedience. A leader in the Body wants to pull someone else along as he climbs, from the front by example. Sometimes a push from behind when there is a stubborn sheep. Most of the time, he is just the guy who is keeping steady forward momentum that others see and want to follow because they believe he knows the way.
Real leadership is the life that says, "Watch this, see how it is done." (Kind of like Joe's braclets from a couple of weeks ago only without the bling)
I believe that if we draw that kind of leadership from people, the "business" leadership will become easier if not simple. When we are doing the work of the Kingdom of Christ, the rest is not that big of a deal.
OK Joe, I see that, and good enough. . .
I guess my multiple paragraphs above boil down to this, which echoes your last comment to the previous post: as a Catholic, I am much more inclined ('conditioned', maybe?) to see my parish church - my particular, local church - as an expression of the 'universal Church' than y'all are. . .
But again, I've got my little 'order' - my 'renewal community' - as an expression of 'there's gotta be more than this'. . .
Garry: Very much agreed. :-)
There are two different kinds of leadership, definitely. One is the institutional "businessman" type you mention, and the other that you mention is what we're often calling "organic," I suppose. And in our 501c churches, yes, there is a need for both.
And, just like you, I'm more concerned with the organic type. The guys that are the first ones on the beach, regardless of job title.
And for clarification with everyone else, when I say "first one on the beach," I DON'T mean "first one to sign up to clear communion cups after the service" or "play guitar" or "run sound."
I'd also agree with you that the "institution" and "getting out and loving your neighbor" don't have to be separate. You are correct. I feel, though, that even though some churches can and do what we're talking about, today's local churches aren't always the best way to go about doing that. They're very rarely set up with that as a primary function. The central focus is almost always Sunday morning.
Post a Comment