As always we touched base on where we were both up to and discussed life and living the "Christian" way. It was good to just pray 2gether quite naturally watching the sun setting. We share similar perspectives and questions on the concept of church & spirituality and I managed to put into words some thoughts that have bounced round my head for some time:
I can't help thinking that there's something amiss about the way we can do church...
...I wonder if sometimes our programs and structures have inadvertently become the unspoken goal of church rather than the servants of it. I know the theory that it's about God and each other and reaching out but I ponder if that's partly....well...the theory.
The picture I have is of God's people doin church being kinda something like an organic, amorphous, ever growing, transforming and evolving ....ummm...BLOB!
Yeh! It's as if when people are drawn to Jesus this 'body' is created with it's own charisma-like-gravity-pull. It develops structures, systems & functions to serve it's nature (These include programs and leadership and operate both internally and externally to those in close proximity). It would be ever metamorphosising as its content (people) and context (culture), size and age etc change.
Sometimes I wonder if what happens to church is that it takes some form and then with good intention endeavours to maintain that status quo. Does it erect a form of external scaffolding to truss up it's established facets? That they become non changeable features to be protected? I guess I'm thinking about such things as meeting form - communal discussion, praying, singing, teaching, communion, 'evidence' of personal spiritual health etc. All belting stuff but like fruit on a tree it's gotta come from within and if u don't have a good life blood/sap flowing round the tree, don't be surprised if there isn't much of a harvest.
So do we concentrate too much on maintaining the form to the detriment of the health of our "blob"?!
Constraints and false goals are like a scaffolding set up externally to keep the system alive yet, I'm thinking, they actually imprison and stifle the organic nature of this extraordinary "creature"! It can wither and live a stunted, stale & caged up life, maybe even die or possibly just migrate out of the errected structure to live and thrive elsewhere - (He WILL build His church).
I think to operate a different way takes a lot of courage. It means letting go of some stuff that might well not come back for a while, or even at all. Some people might call that scary but was it ever REALLY there in the first place? It means walking blindfolded hand in hand with God into the unknown. ..that we can call exciting! If it's the scaffolding we're holding on to for dear life then we'll have a hard time letting go, even if the reality would do us so much more good. But it's one of those Matrix moments where your illusion of reality pails in comparison to true vision, even if shocking in the first instance.
There are aspects of housegroup which I think I'm missing out from and missing giving, but being at the canal felt kinda "blobby". It seemed organic & natural. I know it doesn't always go that way and it doesn't mean housegroup was anything less for those there. But for myself I think, in that moment, I was doing the right thing.
Cheers.
11 comments:
What you are talking about here echos what I read recently in the book "Organic Leadership" by Neal Cole. He calls it "institutionalism" and uses a metaphor from the movie "Shawshank Redemption" The book is worth it just for that jaw dropping chapter. Basically we live in this system that we don't really like, but we've grown so used to it that we've actually come to depend on it for our survival. Oh I can't do it justice. Just read the book...
Its a double-edged sword. Like so many things in the Kingdom, there's a tension between two extremes. We have to find a way of living in the gap.
Structure can stifle but structure can nurture. So you need some structure. The problem is that the optimum degree of structure varies as a function of the needs of the individual and as a function of the needs of the individual over time. We're all different and we change. Tricky.
Perhaps the most attainable solution is a church community that is very comfortable with individuals opting out. I think you belong to a church which is quite good at that already. Not perfect but quite good. Did everyone have a problem with you going to see your friend ?
Thanks, ye, I think there's a lot of truth in that. It is indeed tricky & morphs. I certainly haven't always been where I am now. In fact my current opinions would probably have offended me 10 years ago. And it's also true that I think we are in an increasingly open, flexible and agile church. I think The Big lunch Sunday was a big new thing on that scale - responding to a need by putting a "service" to one side.
Ye, I hope I'm not dissing "structure". I agree it's a needed & very useful tool. I want to be sure it's employed and not the employer as I explore this "gap" territory far from where I used to be.
Hey I like the thinking and the discussion. Revival happens at the edge and rarely at the centre until the edges become the centre and we start again. Do we embrace the edges or reject them because they are not the centre and if we embrace them do they become part of the centre and actually simply part of 'church'. church should never be meetings for the sake of it. so long as our centre is always God and nothing else, so long as the centre is God and not meetings, not people, not ideas, not me, not family, not my peace, not my perception of truth, not community, not my healing - God alone - then everything else becomes what it naturally was always meant to be - everything else becomes the best it could ever be just as it could be without straining to become something else - only with God at the centre.
As a virgin blogger to someone who sounds very experienced!
Whats this all about? Church, meetings, God, house-group, structures, doing the right thing?? Thought religion was to point the way to God, not to control the flow. The goal is not to make people forever dependant on religion or the church for communion with God but rather to help them on their journey.
Christianity is not the broker between Jesus and the culture. "If you want to find Jesus," it declares, "You must come to church."
I couldnt agree more with your statrement ........'The picture I have is of God's people doin church being kinda something like an organic, amorphous, ever growing, transforming and evolving ....ummm...BLOB!'
Is this revival? Dont think so, just real life with the boss
Can I be your friend?
Keep morphing
Thanks for joining in all...may He lead us...
Thanks Michael! Welcome aboard!
I wonder what "God as our centre" looks like and what our path ever towards that involves? Both personally & corporately? I'd like to think that I'm there now but have a sneeky suspicion that any number of circumstance changes or challenges will alert me to how way off beam I could be. I think that's the way of the walk.
I remember u said how sunday church for you is about "God at the centre". I wonder if that is the reality for many folks, and indeed if it really should be like that? A close friend who's currently not part of a church (as we would define it) remarked that it was the meeting regularly with people that they missed. My wife effectively said the same thing recently without realising it - we were contemplating not coming one sunday and that was her main objection. I know for a fact that I no longer come "to meet with God" as I would once have understood it. However, having said that I want to meet with Jesus through his body that is the church. That would be my "God at the centre" interpretation. And if that doesn't happen then I feel it was a waste of time. I enjoy the occasions when I can enter into a moment of "music led worshipful heaven" as such and when something is shared that testifies to God at work or pokes a challenge to me. But most of all it is the mixing 1-2-1, touching base with folk, forming relationships that I think is the vital factor for me (and I realise that could be much to do with my personality & gifts etc). If I were to imagine a situation where we only sing ("worship") and listen to a message and then go straight home I would not go and I don't think anyone else would. Like I said, I think that the fellowship factor is actually the biggest pull for most people even if they might think that their motives are something "higher". Having accepted these motives I now see this "coals in the fire burning intenser" kind of effect as actually a great form of worship to God. Therefore this motive is no lower....and God is still at the centre...only not in the way I used to presume. Do u follow?!! ;-)
Seems Greg Boyd is in agreement with you. Always a good sign IMHO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sps4lRUAAn8
Re. The Weekend Event (aka Sunday Morning Service) - "This is not church...Don't think you're doing church when you come here.... This is a seminar with some worship... Church is when you do life with other Jesus followers."
Hmmmm, really good post, with a lot worth thinking about in it, mate. One thing that shocked me recently; I read a book on the history of the Protestant Church. It really, really startled me to realise how different 'Church' has looked over the centuries, to the extent that the normal pattern of our meetings, and even some things we'd really emphasise, would be looked upon with suspicion and disdain in previous generations - even treated as heretical.
I think, when you look at the Church, there's a strange tension. On the one hand, Church is a living and organic thing, a 'body' that should just be, well, growing. On the other hand, the body does have a skeleton that gives it a shape and form, and that's what the structures and patterns should be - the structure of the body, if you like.
But the key thing is, what do I mean by 'structure'? The Bible does contain some evidence of institutionalism; another book I've been reading is one by Derek Tidball, studying the NT from a sociologist's viewpoint. He argues that there are elements of institutionalism from the moment Jesus ascends, with the selection of Matthias as an Apostle, then the setting-up of Stephen and his guys, the Council of Jerusalem, etc. Acts, and the Epistles, he argues, have a lot of institutionalism.
But the Bible's actually scarily vague. Nowhere does the Bible instruct us, "This is how many worship songs should be sung, this is how long a sermon should be, this is the best way to evangelise..." I grew up in a church where we'd sing more than eight or nine songs, and I often feel frustrated at church because I want to worship for longer. Others would find it deadening after the third song. Or else, sometimes you get the feeling 'this is the moment when people share', and what should be a spontaneous thing has become... an institution.
I think the 'skeleton' that gives shape to the body should be the Bible, inspired and revealed by God. Not the meeting-structure.
So here's the thing: which are the institutions that we should change? How do we do this without losing their advantages (because there will be some)? How do we mitigate their loss? And how do we keep an attitude that allows change to continue, given that human nature is just to create another institution? (That last question's the real killer, methinks...)
"And how do we keep an attitude that allows change to continue, given that human nature is just to create another institution? (That last question's the real killer, methinks...) "
Now that's an interesting question. I once did a dissertation for a post-grad business course. One of my main conclusions was that successful organisations are those that strategically engineer an environment in which change is not threatening to its people.
Basically...
1 - Change happens.
2 - People don't like change (fear of the unknown, etc.) and will try to resist it (structures, procedures, etc.)
3 - So, make change less painful.
4 - Problem solved !
In corporate terms this is about security of employment (or at least trust that the company will do its best to look after you), encouraging employees to always be trying new things (including job swaps, temporary assignments, etc.), having a compelling mission/vision which transcends individual ambitions, a no-blame culture, great social support networks (football club, walking club, CU, real-ale club) and so on.
So, what about the church ?
We're very fortunate in Christian communities; we already have many of these requirements satisfied already. Some do need a bit more work. My belief is that a big problem is confidence / self-esteem, or the lack thereof. Once our churches are full of confident, joyful, passionate people, a lot of these 'structural' problems fall away. This echoes Michael's view that its all about God. Kingdom people should be confident, joyful, passionate people. And why are we not ? Well that's worthy of another post.
Thanks again guys, a lot there...really excited about this kind of discussion (as long as it enters our walk & isnt just theory of course).
I think the Bible might be in our DNA. The law written on our hearts...in every cell that we let it permeate.
Williamskj - we await ur "confident, joyful, passionate" blog!
Peace n b wild. Jz
Post a Comment