Actions Speak Louder Than Words
The majority of a church's resources are devoted to the weekend service. Preparation for worship and sermons and multi-media stuff, Sunday school teachers, ushers, building usage, etc. While other church activities certainly take place, the greater percentage of it is devoted to the weekend services.
So if we try to emphasize any other initiative or purpose, whether it's social assistance of some kind or cell groups and mentoring, these will always come second to the weekend service. These other goals may be important but they're never as important as the services because we do not devote as much of the church to them. And when push comes to shove and people have to give something up, they'll stick with that top priority of the weekend service at the expense of anything else.
Actions speak louder than words, right?
If someone was involved in small groups, or service to the poor, or Alpha, are they considered to be a member of that local church? What if they only do those things regularly and they never come to a weekend service? What if they only attend one service a month? How do we define who is a member of our local church and who isn't?
Many people like to describe the local church as a "family." I am leaving my current church soon to join a different one with my fiance and various people have expressed some sadness at my departure. I was part of another church that permanently shut down and that was a very emotional experience for many long-term members there. We love those friends and those close relationships that we have in church.
However, how many of those relationships continued in any way after that church closed? How many of my friends from my current church will I ever see again once I switch? How many friendships survive after there's a conflict and someone leaves a church? In my experience, the answer is that very few relationships continue once someone moves on from a church for any reason, whether good or bad.
Attending church on weekly basis seems to make it conveniant to be friendly but it makes it inconveniant to become very close friends. Church is a life-support system that keeps these relationships alive, but only superficially, like keeping the breathing going. And once you remove the common factor of weekly attendance, these relationships falter and die. And when that happens, you have to wonder how close these relationships were in the first place.
Actions speak louder than words, right?
And what is the basis for a healthy Christian life with continued growth? The way that we answer this question informs much of our spiritual lives. If we answer that Bible and prayer are most important, we can devote ourselves to daily devotions and Bible studies. If we answer that good and challenging teaching is required, we can look for books and sermons and Sunday School classes. If we answer that we need mentoring relationships and discipleship, then we look to develop closer relationships with people. If answer that all of those things are important then we need to incorporate every facet.
Since mentoring relations are the exception rather than the norm in modern Canadian Christian culture, that would suggest that we place less emphasis on the relational aspect of our spiritual growth. And frequently, someone in church will ask if we all study the Bible and pray by ourselves enough, and the majority of the people will admit they do not. So that leaves Sunday services as the most common method to drive our spiritual growth because everyone actively attends these services every week.
Actions speak louder than words, right?
13 comments:
Presumably, the vast amount of resources go to large-group activities because that is the way that the church reaches the 60-80% of people that only attend large-group activities.
Emphasizing other initiatives will be second because they are designed to target a smaller group, ergo, fewer resources should be required.
The reason some (not all) relationships end once someone leaves a church is because there is only so much time in the day. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, just life.
For example, I have a number of relationships with people at work. Should I ever leave where I currently work, I can only think of one, perhaps 2 people, that I would continue to have any sort of relationship with. Is that a bad thing? Not really, because I'm going to have to devote time to new relationships at my new work.
Same with church. If the relationship is important, it will continue. If not, then a new relationship will fill its place. Such is the manner in which life works.
Church does provide avenues for people to develop deeper friendships (small groups), and most churches are generally very active in encouraging people to join them. Few do, but that's because the people aren't interested, not because the church doesn't think it's important.
The church Sunday service would tend to try to focus most on the individual churchgoer's relational connection to Jesus, leaving relational connections to other people to small groups and how much that person wants to participate.
Joel said,
"The church Sunday service would tend to try to focus most on the individual churchgoer's relational connection to Jesus, leaving relational connections to other people to small groups and how much that person wants to participate."
If that is the case why wouldn't we want just one gigantic gathering to do that instead of the competitive 300-400 places that exists in London today? Would that not be a better way to show Christian unity?
Lots of excellent points, L.K.
- So the majority of church members only attend large-group activities...does the Bible emphasize large-group stuff as the most important aspect of our Christian lives? Our actions seem to indicate this belief. I think that Jesus cared more about his time with his disciples than the crowd-of-5000 times.
- Sure, friendships come and go based on our situations. However, if we seriously refer to a church as our "family," do we really mean immediate brothers and sisters or do we mean distant-cousins that we don't care about too much?
- If we get choked up about a church closing but then we don't see those people after it closes, why all of the emotion? What are we actually sad about? Calling a local church a "family" is too often a very hollow phrase...and it shouldn't be.
- A business might say that they value teamwork and co-operation, and they might have many small teams in various departments to prove it. However, if the main boss makes all of the decisions then this proves that the business doesn't really value those things. Actions speak louder than words.
- Heh. I like how you compared work relationships to church relationships. I see it much the same way. And I think that we're very often satisfied with having "co-workers" rather than mentors and brothers/sisters.
David: If only.
Jamie:
- I didn't say it was more important. I just said that was the only way it was practical. If you are suggesting it would be best if we delete large group settings, then you lose any chance of connecting to all those people. I know the response is "that will never happen", so if that's the case (which it is), then let's make it as good as it possibly can be.
- I'm using the word "church" in a global sense now, but yes, it is a family. And you are closer to some family members than others. Those people may or may not be in your specific Sunday morning service, but that doesn't say anything about the Sunday morning service.
- Local church family. It's because people like associating with people they know, but know that with any sort of church changes, they won't be seeing those people. The ones that are "close" will remain "close", the ones that are simply "time-based" will change. It sounds like you are arguing for small home churches here (maybe you are).
- I'm not saying churches are perfect. Never have. But I get concerned with the constant insinuation that the senior pastor is like a boss. I have never seen a pastor that behaves like a "main boss making all the decisions", and of course that isn't healthy. I think if you talk to the majority of churches you'll find that's not the case. Don't let a couple of bad apples sour the entire concept.
- Again, there is only so much time in the day. Most of the people you run into will be fellow labourers in the mission field.
Let me paint a picture of life for most people. On average, people work from 8ish-5ish (or some combination thereof). Throw in an hour beforehand for getting ready, and an hour afterwards for eating, and that basically takes up the time from waking up until 7ish. Then, if you have a family, you need to spend time with your spouse and family. That probably takes up until 9ish. By that point, it's getting close to bedtime.
Which means that for the vast majority of people on the vast majority of weekdays, they are committed from morning to night. That leaves weekends, in which you have to do all the stuff you can't get done in the week.
There is only so much time for so many "close, mentoring friendships".
I suppose the obvious retort is that "well, then let's cut out Sunday morning service to give people more time". You keep telling me you aren't actually saying this, but it does seem like the obvious conclusion to your thoughts, if it is of the limited use to which you suggest.
Re: 'I have never seen a pastor that behaves like a "main boss making all the decisions."'
I...really? Huh. That strikes me as a very odd statement. Pastors are well-intentioned and care a great deal, but they're almost always the main leaders and decision makers and voices of the local church. Sometimes they're excellent bosses and sometimes they're terrible bosses but bosses they are. Most big decisions do run through the pastors and they wield an awful lot of power in deciding what gets done and who gets in. You disagree?
Re: 'There is only so much time for so many "close, mentoring friendships".'
Indeed. 2 - 4 such friendships is the usual max, like how Jesus had only 3 guys. We devote a lot of time to our friends already, it's just a simply matter of taking that friendship to a deeper level and making it a priority for ourselves. Not too different but now the purpose in hanging out is not for ourselves but for the other person.
Developing these mentoring relationships isn't rocket science, it's just time and deep conversation and love. So why do I still meet so many people that do not have anything like this at all?
Presumably, the vast amount of resources go to large-group activities because that is the way that the church reaches the 60-80% of people that only attend large-group activities.
Elect a new people!
But seriously, folks. I'd say it is a huge strike against contemporary North American Christianity* that the only events most people gather for are the podium thumping mass fascist events.
I have never seen a pastor that behaves like a "main boss making all the decisions", and of course that isn't healthy.
I share Jamie's surprise here. It seems to me the pastor usually is the boss. I guess we can whip out our lists of anecdotes and see whose is longer, but that won't get us anywhere. It's just strange that you say you've never seen it, and at least three others here think it is business as usual. Why that disconnect? What's going on there?
*Did you enjoy my that list of qualifications?
"...that list of qualifications..." L
et's hear it for proof-reading.
*fore-head smack*
Perhaps I am partially reacting to the use of "boss", which, as has been pointed out on this very blog, has extremely negative connotations that I think are completely undeserved for pastors in general.
For example, J, are you really suggesting that LT was worthy of the title "boss" at FCCC? It was a board of elders, of which LT was a member of. And even that "board" was not deserving of the title "boss".
If this is another attempt to use incendiary comments, I suppose you can consider that use effective (in that I reacted, although as I always say, I really fail to see how that adds to civilized discourse at all).
But more generally, as we have talked about in person, you seem to have something against authority figures in the church, which is a fundamental variance of opinion that we both have.
Do I doubt that you are trying to accomplish good? Of course not. Do I think that these sort of comments can have a damaging impact? Yup. Do I see an alternative model suggested? Nope.
Critical comments without an alternative solution provided or suggested generally causes me to (a) react negatively, and (b) tune the writer out.
I guess this is why I get labeled with being "pro-church" and "defender of the status quo". If that's the worst that one can call me, I am content with that.
I hope the above does not sound that I am ticked off (I'm not). I also know that you tend to post the strongest of your opinions on your blog, when really we aren't that different (I think). But I'd really think twice because you do never know who is reading your blog, and who might be swallowing some of what you say in the same manner which it is implied that I do when it comes to traditional church rhetoric.
Joel,
"If only". Not sure what you mean by that.
I know you are wanting an alternative model. I have rarely met a pastor who wasn't tinkering with some new model. If you studied what pastors study you would find them in a never ending search for a new model. I was one of them. I think the desire for a model is a significant problem in and of itself. Therefore offering one simply perpetuates what I'm thinking is a false goal.
If the N.T. did teach a model why can't anyone agree on what it is?
If you did a study on current church programs you would find that most have come into existence since post WW2. They are so entrenched now that some people think they have always existed.
Key practices like weekly sermons, paid clergy and church buidings are post 4th century. O know that doesn't make them wrong but it also means that one shouldn't mandate them for people.
The ones that were common in the 1st century are ones that require the risk of entering into relationships and are the least practiced today.
I do know that many who have abandoned the institutional model are seen by some as missing something that is vital to their Christian growth. I'm not sure what people think they're missing as I can't find institutional church practices to be Biblically mandated.
Our natural mind finds it weird, even foreign to not look for a model. I think that Jesus' methodology isn't really a reproducible model. Each day brought whatever it brought. A simple example could be stopping in the crowd to ask who touched Him, which became the "sermon" for that moment.
He was ultimately put on the cross because he didn't fit in with any religious system of the day. He enjoyed living relationally with all kinds of people and that infuriated those who liked their lives to be religiously neat, predictable, risk free and in control.
For the record, referring to pastors as bosses was not intended to be an incendiary comment. If you prefer, I can use the word "manager" instead as a valid comparison. (And yes, Leonard was the main leader of FCCC.)
And the point of my various ramblings on business management is not to do away with business management, it's about how to be a better manager. Sometimes I focus on the negative qualities of bad management but very often I talk about what it takes to be a great manager as well.
P.S. The one itme I referred to you as "pro-church" was tongue-in-cheek, boyo.
David - "If only" simply referred to my wish that the church could be as unified as you suggested. Most people who talk to me will know what a proponent I am of unification of churches and the need for the one body of Christ to act like one body for a change. It's why I don't really bat an eye about attending mass or Orthodox Presbyterianism, etc.
Perhaps you aren't providing a model, but I suppose what you are recommending is "relationship building". I hear that...although if I start saying what I've said before we'll just be running around in circles.
J, thanks for the clarification. I'm glad it wasn't intended to be incendiary. I'm not sure what you mean by "main leader", but as my recollection of the church structure recalls, that wasn't the case - Leonard generally (not always, but generally) spoke on Sunday mornings, but the board of elders was responsible for the actual administration of the church. Not perhaps an incredibly important point, but worth noting, I think.
But now you've really piqued my interest: you say your various ramblings on business management is not to do away with it...does that also hold true for your ramblings on church management?
P.S. I took "pro-church" as a type of compliment, so no need to apologize. :)
One last repeat of an anecdotal nature. Not sure if this proves the rule or is the exception.
When I was in Wawa I went out with a pastor from another church for breakfast. Wawa is fairly isolated with less than 10,000 people in a 200km radius. Anyways, we enjoyed fellowship with each. We knew we differed theologically on a number of points but we enjoyed the things we agreed on.
I suggested that we get our two small men's groups together. His face actually went a little ashen at that suggestion. It seems we could enjoy fellowship at a relational level but the formal group level was a whole different matter.
I've known many pastors who won't have their groups get together even when they theologically agree. And yet they will go for lunch or coffee together. Protecting/marking their turf is considered good pastoring.
BOCTOAE and I'm thankful for them.
I know that we can separate ourselves even at the meet together for coffee level but most seem to know that that looks petty.
There's been a number of different initiatives to bring various church groups together and when it has happened there has been a lot of celebrating of a miracle. I say this tongue in cheek, because if it seems like a miracle for various groups to be together that's not a sign of maturity.
Generally I'd say the average Christian would be happy getting together, it's the "mature" pastors who are having a difficult time of releasing the reins of control of their groups.
I'm glad you don't "bat an eye about attending mass or Orthodox Presbyterianism, etc." The sad reality is that many do and I think it can be traced, at least in part, to an allegiance to a system in order to follow Jesus.
Post a Comment