A Problem With The People
Everyone agreed with these observations, readily raising our hands to identify that we did not pray enough and all that. So the conclusion was that we all need to pray more. Pray for those young people, pray for our leadership, pray for opportunities, pray for God's leading...
"There is no problem with the programs, it's a problem with the people."
And there it was, said right out in the open. In addressing these issues and while trying to encourage all of us, we are told that it's all our fault and we need to change. Oftentimes, when I discuss the inefficiencies and limitations and problems with the way that the modern church is run, this is by far the most common response that I get. Church is fine as it is, it's just the individuals that are at fault.
For every example of how someone feels excluded from church, we have an example of how someone considers the church to be their family. Talk about someone with no friends in church and we can point out the opposite. Hear about someone that has never been mentored in any way and we can show how we have small group ministries to fix that.
Doesn't the overwhelming pattern say something about church at all? If ninety percent of the people are never involved in church ministry, and most people do not pray regularly, and many people do not have even one close Christian friend, and... At what point do we admit that maybe, just maybe, our system of church is producing these results, rather than blaming all of these people as being immature or incompetant or unwilling or rebellious or selfish or lazy? (And that's only a partial list of how we blame and label people!)
As David Grant recently wrote here, why are we so keen to defend the local church institution while we're so willing to attack the people themselves? That seems so backwards.
So fine, I don't want to go overboard with this. The modern practice of church is useful in many ways and we don't want to scrap it all. Yes, there is a great degree of personal responsibility in each of our Christian lives and we can't expect the church to do it all for us. Yes, we certainly should be challenged and encouraged to pray more, to seek God's leading more, to love more.
And yet the need to defend the church programs and services is so ingrained that we preach it openly and no one doubts it. Sometimes I feel like I can't help but cry out against this.
11 comments:
Rather than use the little comment box here, I've responded in post format on my own blog.
I have another communist anecdote/joke! And a little bit of plagerism from a certain Slovenian cave man.
A poem Bertolt Brecht wrote after the East German uprisings of 1953:
The Solution
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government /
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
Ha, ha. But really, isn't there something to this? Maybe half the problem with the communities you're trying to build is that you're letting too many people in. Maybe the kind of community you want is one in which a willingness to sacrifice must be displayed before one is accepted. Elect a new people!
Mike - that is a very interesting suggestion. I'm intrigued to hear the response, because I thought that that was a somewhat logical followup to the initial post.
'Tis funny indeed. I referenced Mike's response when I was talking to some people yesterday about all of this. Many hilarious comparisons between church and communism ensued, in quite an absurd fashion.
My dad's response to your blog, L.K., referenced The Pareto Principle. Whether it's the economy or church ministry, 80% of the results are caused by 20% of the people. It's not a coincidence of church, it's social nature. A minority will always be the leaders and the majority will always be the followers.
So when church leadership tries to get more people involved, it's very likely that little will change. If we think we can run a better church, somehow, that lets everyone interact better, that's unlikely. And if we take Mike's suggestion, we would only allow the active 20% of the people into church in the first place - and then they would have no one to serve.
I've heard several pastors over the years admit that the church system isn't ideal but it's the best that we have. They would gladly change if they knew of an alternative. It's like saying that capitalism sucks but it's better than the other options, so we're stuck with it.
Then perhaps my question is this: if we admit that it is the "worst form of church, except for all the others" (I don't agree with that statement, but regardless) - why spend time trying to tear it down, rather than build it up to be as good as it possibly can be?
I suppose that's my question at the heart of this topic in general.
Why? Why am I even talking about all of this? What am I so dissatisfied with the modern practice of church?
Because it took me 21 years before I realized how superficial all of my friendships were. Because I continually meet so many people, from teens to retirees, that do not have even one close Christian friend. Because I meet people that still have childhood wounds that they have never resolved despite attending church for years. Because real discipleship is a lost calling and group ministry is more important than helping individuals.
Because the best churches with the best people with the best motivations still leave so many in the dark. Because the church in North America is in decline and we still cling to the old methods. Because "modern church" is just a series of habits that we have adopted from centuries gone by. Because so much money is spent to keep church running while my friends have trouble paying for food. Because so many fringe people, like those with disabilities, are ignored and excluded everywhere.
Because we're happy with our churches and our ministries and our pastors. Because we refuse to even question or change these things except in minor ways. Because people that are seriously concerned are told that everything is fine. Because real discussion about these things is not an option. Because people are forced to become church rebels if they have any hope for improving church.
I never wanted to tear down church, I just wanted to reach these hurting people that I see all the time.
I realize you have a heart for people, and that is fantastic. Our society desperately needs more people like that.
I'll respond more fully in blog format...it would be too much for a comment box.
Ya know, I'd kind of appreciate if you'd stop referring to me as superficial in your blog posts, yeah?
Heh. Sorry about that, Mike. Point taken, I have always counted you as my dearest friend from times gone by. Ours was not a superficial friendship and you and I certainly did go through a lot together during the Wawa and London years. No insult intended. :)
What do you mean when you say "superficial", anyways?
Re: Superficial Friendships
I had friends that had serious family issues of which I knew nothing. I had friends that struggled with drugs and addictions and I didn't know it. I had friends that struggled with honest questions about their faith and I was oblivious.
Instead, our conversations focused on movies and entertainment and whatnot. Our time together was spent having fun with nothing too serious. We were frequently involved in Christian activities and church but the real one-on-one friendships were not there.
And once I realized that... Once I saw how shallow I had been... I decided to do something about it. I started my cell group, I hung out with guys a lot more, I invited people into my house more often, I made a point of asking those uncomfortable and intrusive questions, I purposely made room for many late night conversations.
And the results in my life, and in those of my friends, have been drastically different as a result. I love it! That's why I say that one of my two main passions is discipleship, for all of these reasons.
Post a Comment