After More Thought

A friend pointed out to me this weekend that I don't really believe what I wrote in my Sheep Stealing blog a few weeks ago.

So, to clarify...

I think in a local context Bible believing/Bible preaching churches should not be competing for existing sheep, nor should they see local para church organizations (such as IV or the Navs) as competing for the existing sheep. If we're all in the business of the Kingdom of God.

However...

I do have a problem with para church organizations taking leaders away from local churches with the claim they are going to train them, only to get them out of their communities and teach them that they have to stay in this central location. I think this severely damages the local church and is unethical.

Sheep Stealing

Lately I've been thinking a lot about how different church would look if we really thought we were working for the Kingdom of God, rather than the Small Principality of __________ (insert the name of your church here). What if we gave to missionaries that weren't just our denomination if they were undertaking strategic work that we felt called to be a part of? What if we supported other Bible-believing/Bible-preaching/Bible-living churches in our area as brothers and sisters?

This came up in a church meeting a few weeks ago when we were talking about stewardship and the radical idea came up to send a chunk of our young families to the church up the road that is doing great things with college students, but is struggling because it doesn't have families as a foundation for the church. What if we did that? What if we blessed people that left our churches because they were called to other ministries (instead of cursing them)? What if we were committed to church planting, rather than growing mega churches?

Last night I was reading Dave Sliker's blog and was surprised to hear him hitting on a lot of these topics. I was especially struck by the following paragraph:

If seeker-sensitive churches are content to play their role on the “team” rather than build the biggest, most successful ode to their giftedness on the block, then everyone wins in the end. If other pastors can come to terms with the fact that “sheep stealing” is a farcical notion birthed from insecurity and sinful ambition rather than the word of God, they would then be fine with people shifting to different expressions of the the body reflected in the different corporate gatherings throughout their cities. Different seasons of growth, maturity, and development demand that believers run with different groups that best fit those seasons. Pastors that are willing to serve, launch, and recognize their limitations can be free of heart and pleased to have played a role in loving a member of the broader body of Christ that is valuable to Jesus. Pastors that seek to be “all things to all men” in a vain effort to gather all peoples to themselves will be sorely disillusioned and frustrated with the passage of time.

If we saw different churches having different roles in the community, things would look quite different. If we stopped trying to create the perfect mega-church on every corner and learned how to be a really good hand or a really good foot (in the body of Christ), how awesome would that be.

Anyhow, I was very excited to hear someone from IHOP saying this as it directly addresses some of my recent concerns about them vacuuming up all the "serious" Christians and holding them in the only "true" church. Kudos Dave. Good points and a good message. I think IHOP has a really important role to play in the North American church. I'm looking forward to seeing them engage more with other churches in the "team ministry" that Dave talks about.

Maundy Thursday

No, not Monday Thursday. Maundy Thursday. It's an event I had never heard of until I went to Park Street Church in Boston. A celebration of the Last Supper and the beginning of the final events leading to the Crucifixion. I've always thought it's a great way to prepare for Good Friday.

For all the people who have been asking me what Maundy means, this description from wikipedia:

The word Maundy is derived through Middle English, and Old French mandé, from the Latin mandatum, the first word of the phrase "Mandatum novum do vobis ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi vos" (A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another as I have loved you), the statement by Jesus in the Gospel of John(13:34) by which Jesus explained to the Apostles the significance of his action of washing their feet. The phrase is used as the antiphon sung during the "Mandatum" ceremony of the washing of the feet, which may be held during Mass or at another time as a separate event, during which a priest or bishop (representing Christ) ceremonially washes the feet of others, typically 12 persons chosen as a cross-section of the community.

Revolution

Relevant magazine currently has an article up about the release of George Barna's Revolution in soft cover.

This book first came to my attention last November when I was looking for something that might grab my father's attention to buy him for Christmas. Barna is a well known Christian pollster and is always tracking trends in the church.

Here's Relevant's take on the key message of the book:
Barna’s research has identified an unsettling trend: Increasing numbers of Christians have become fed up with the Church and are not taking it anymore. This may not sound like news to some, except for the fact that these people do not seem to be your typical "bedside Baptists," but passionate followers of Christ. In fact, Barna sees them as the leaders of an entirely appropriate revolution, which he likens to the Reformation itself. He paints an urgent picture of the situation:

Existing churches have a historic decision to make: to ignore the revolution and continue business as usual, to invest energy in fighting the revolution as an unbiblical advance or to look for ways of retaining their identity while cooperating with the revolution as a mark of unity and genuine ministry. My current research suggests that the latter approach will be the least common.

Pollsters are very good at identifying trends, and often at putting their finger on the problem based on the data. I don't doubt that there are people pushing at the constraints of "church", but I think it's more helpful to ask why. And not in a sound bite. Comparing the current situation to the Reformation is pretty dramatic. If things are truly that extreme, why don't we see it more evident?

This is not to say that I don't agree that there is a growing group of people who aren't satisfied with how things have always been done. I know I am. I'm tired of prayer meetings where we don't pray and worship times when we don't worship. I'm tired of the expectation that church is a social obligation and nothing more. I'm tired of lowest common denominator small groups.

What I disagree on is that what's happening is a unified revolution. I think people are walking away for a variety of reasons and not one thing that everyone's getting wrong. I don't think one person can write one book that will sweep the nation and fix everything. Churches aren't responding well because (at least in my case) what's wrong is so fundamental they don't know how to address it and a radical response is out of the question.

I also don't agree with Barna's conclusion that the answer is to sit outside the church armchair quarterbacking and picking and choosing the small bits we agree with. Christianity isn't a hobby. You're not picking out the country club that best fits you. Christianity isn't something you do in isolation. We're called to be in community. If the North American church isn't working then we have to figure out what is a better response to the teaching of the Bible.

The Reformation? Probably not. A time to look what being a passionate follower of Christ looks like? Absolutely.