What would it look like if we really distinguished church members from disciples and then rigorously evaluated congregational success by the kinds of followers of Jesus that we produced? The Faithwalking community of which I’m a part has been asking this question and rigorously pursuing the answer for several years. We begin all of our Faithwalking retreats with these words.
We live in a day where there are two views of what it means to be fully human, fully alive. These two views have become blurred to the point that they are virtually collapsed into one in the Church in our culture. In fact, we believe that they are so collapsed into one that nothing short of personal transformation will be able to get them distinguished. It is our belief that getting these two views clearly distinguished is the first step into the journey of personal transformation.
The first view is the one offered by western culture. In the western culture view, being fully human is about getting the goods - about being good, obeying the laws, and as a consumer, pursuing the American dream. In this view a growing life of ease and convenience is the goal; suffering and sacrifice are to be avoided when possible. This view leads to a self-centered life where I take care of me and mine but ignore the poor, the marginalized, and the oppressed. Somebody ought to take on the challenges in the common good, but not me.
This consumer view has bled over into the Church. Increasingly we pursue and consume religious goods and services. We have language that reflects this consumer view. We frequently talk about “church shopping.” How often have you heard someone say, “We are shopping for another church? The one we are currently attending isn’t meeting our needs. The pastor’s sermons aren’t adequately feeding us. The youth ministry isn’t engaging my kids.” Increasingly the call to sacrificial service, denying oneself, and taking up the cross daily as a way of life are absent from our conversations and from our intentions.
So, this consumer view declares that you get the abundant life – the eternal kind of life that Jesus promises – by pursuing a life of growing ease and convenience – defining oneself by what is possessed and consumed. It’s deceptive because in this view, people are called to serve and do mission trips – as one compartment of their lives. After all, that makes me feel good.
The second view is Jesus’ view of being fully human and fully alive. Jesus stands in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets who assert that we are designed to have stewardship over the earth. Ours is a call to a life of service on behalf of the common good. It is a life where I am responsible for myself and for my family. I am also responsible for loving my neighbor – for being my brother’s keeper. The Faithwalking community often says, in the language of contemporary society, that Jesus calls us to live a life where we take responsibility for the systems and structures of the community or city that we live in. The common good is our assignment, and it is when we take on that assignment that we experience the fully human, fully alive reality that Jesus says is possible.
One mega church pastor who is a good friend said to me recently. “I wish that you weren’t so convinced that we aren’t making followers of Jesus. If you’d come with me I could show you a number of people who are living exactly the kind of life you are calling us to.”
My response: “I absolutely believe that. The problem is that these people emerge from your congregation as the exception, not the rule.”
Sadly, he agreed.
So, I keep wondering, what would happen if we really distinguished church members from disciples and then rigorously measured congregational success by the kinds of followers of Jesus that we produced?
More about that next time.
5 comments:
Jim,
I am becoming increasingly convicted about this whole idea of drawing people to a church, a religious institution, rather than going out and relating to our neighbors and ministering to those around us. When did we get off the message of the gospel?
I wonder if we can continue to do church in large church buildings that ask people to come to us instead of doing more small house churches that seek to go to people and actually talk with them.
Craig
I am in agreement with this point, we need develop more deep relations between the people,not only a fan club of the pastors and leaders, we need to be the actors and not only cheer people in the sits.
We need to build a special small groups that can be the stones of the real church, there they need to live the "fellowship" that not mean only eat and ans eat and don't produce nothing for serve out of the walls.
Even more sadly, those few that emerged from that congregation, as the exception, were likely not compelled or propelled or nutured or encouraged or in some other way "made" to be followers of Jesus there. In my experience, it is likely that they were compelled to strike out on their own, with their cross, out of frustration with the lack of any outward focus in their home church. They get it that Jesus never said "come and see"; he just went (where the need was) and did. To a considerable extent, this is about the shortcomings of the long taught and employed attractional model.
The church I attended while I lived in Austin, TX holds an annual 'Faith in Action' day one Sunday every Spring. The church service gets canceled, and everyone in the church down to the littlest goes out and performs services for the community. It's a noble concept, but I was left wondering if every Sunday should be a 'Faith in Action' day for the body of Christ.
Looking forward to the rest of the commentary on this. Seems like the old self - the default self - slips into practice (it is so well practiced) that the new self has to fight hard to be a disciple. In 20 years of pastoral ministry, I keep waiting for this to change, but it always there! Thanks for the reminder Jim.
Post a Comment