(this is the 5th and final post in my systematic living series)
Fit into the system or get out!
If you were privy to this URL before my recent 2-year blog shutdown you probably already know everything I’m going to say in the following paragraphs. For years I ranted about the state of Christianity in the western world (particularly the American brand) and how off-track it has seemed. Since then I’ve read many books, attended a few different churches for months at a time, and tried to find out why I was wrong. Afterall, EVERYONE was telling me I was wrong. I sought earnestly after justification of what seemed so wrong to me. I tried to fit into a church and be a “good Christian”. I even thought about joining a small group (if you’re outside the faith, think of these as manufactured friendships that you’re required to have ;)). But ya know what I found on that journey? Ya know what I realized after many years of honestly and earnestly seeking a proper view of church?
I was right all along. The modern church is jacked up and has virtually nothing to do with The Bible or Jesus Christ.
It’s funny because the above statement will evoke two opposite responses depending on who you are. If you’re a Christian who attends church weekly, is part of a small group, gets your paycheck from a congregation, or otherwise accepts the modern church as “the will of God”, you’ll write me off as another angry person who was somehow hurt by the church and now has an agenda against it. If you’re a non-Christian, someone who has been turned off to faith because of the church you’re reaction will be quite different. It’ll be more along the lines of: Yeah. I already knew that.
So, what’s wrong with the church? Why do I have such strong statements about it? As I said, I’ve gone over this a million times and don’t really have the energy to say it again. So, here’s just a few bullet points of the issues as I see them.
- Above all the church, and by extension the brand of Christianity we profess, is systematic. “To be a good Christian you do this, don’t do that…you live like this, you give your money here, you pray like this, you study the Bible this often….blah blah blah”. It’s all crap. Jesus came to destroy the systematic living of the Old Testament and we’ve done nothing but reestablish it.
- The church is no longer a group of believers. It’s a 501c3 non-profit business style entity. It has policies, procedures, paychecks, mortgages, janitors, and boards. It spends more time managing all this worthless junk than it does living the life Jesus calls us to. It’s a waste of time, money, and in the end because of an incorrect focus, it’s giving many people a wrong impression of the faith and what it means to be The Church.
- The church is disconnected radically from everyday life. When you walk into a church you’re supposed to dress differently, act differently, talk differently, pray differently, and sing differently. If you swear outside the church, you better not do it inside. If you have a naturally loud voice, you better not even TALK inside the church…or else. Again, Jesus came to abolish all this disconnection and false piety. It’s the stuff of the Pharisees.
- Churches now fall into 2 categories: Old & dead or Entertainment. Neither has anything to do with Christ. Both bore me or make me angry because they’re leading people astray.
Let me clarify that I’m not talking, here, about little things that need to change about the church. I’m suggesting that our entire concept of “church” is wrong. We would need to tear down our buildings, dismatle the staff and boards, and start anew if we were to get closer to what I believe God intends for us to be. Too many times when I talk about the church being off track the answer I hear is “Well…OUR church isn’t off track”. If your church has a building, a full time staff, ‘ministries’, or a board…then yes it is (according to my defintion). So, a change in worship style, getting younger leaders, or becoming a more ‘organic’ church with new branding doesn’t fix anything I’m talking about…just in case you’re missing my point. Let me also say that I want the church to be healthy and everything God wants. I don’t want to see the church go away…I want it to be the church of the Bible..healthy and pleasing to God. (and if you’re thinking I’m talking about the house-church movement or ‘Acts churches’, again, you’re missing the point)
Once in a while God steps in and gives me a little nudge in a direction I need. He did this yesterday and it was some much needed encouragement to say with boldness everything that you’ve read above. He put a book into my hands called Pagan Christianity which exposes much of what I say above, but on a much more studied and in depth scale. It was the encouragement I needed to move ahead bravely with the belief that the Christian faith as become systematic and disconnecting from this system is ok (or possibly even something God wants). I’m not talking about disbelieving the Bible or ceasing my relationship with Jesus. These have nothing to do with the systematic problem. I’m a believer in Christ and, as long as He continues to help me believe, I always will be. The church, and the mess that it is, will never change that. But there is a point where I no longer am willing to be a part of the system as an active supporter of this mess.
However, here’s the caveat to disconnecting from the church: If you do that, you must continue to meet and study and pray with fellow believers, and this I am doing. I’m not saying it’s ok to make your faith “a personal journey” and still be a follower of Jesus. That flies in the face of everything the Bible teaches. What I’m saying is that you can have real relationship, real study, real Christian life outside of this systematic church. It’s harder, but it’s also the real thing. It’s not a systematic solution, it’s an organic one and it’s the one Christ intends for us.
So, while I’ll probably continue to attend a systematic church (if I’m honest, it’s more for my daughter than for me or my wife) I won’t put much stock in it. I won’t support the system in any way. I won’t be bullied or insulted into being a part of something that Jesus neither envisioned or (in my opinion) entirely approves of. But I will continue to be a person who follows Christ the best I know how. Nothing a systematic Church can say or do will stop this real relationship from growing until the day I go “home”: A place without system and a place of pure relationship.
#1 by John on July 20th, 2009
| Quote
Bob,
This is something that many people are struggling with these days, including myself. The question is, do you try and change the church from within or ditch it?
There are a lot of people out there who are angry with the way the church has treated it’s members. Then there are those who think the church isn’t systematic enough.
However, I think this is a natural tendency of man. We crave order. If we don’t have a set of rules to follow then we feel lost. We don’t know if what we’re doing is “right” or “wrong”. Being a Christian anarchist seems antithetical to everything we know about “The Church” in the U.S.
Personally, I don’t feel like my walk with Christ is strong enough to make such a change, to just leave the Church. Maybe I’ve become co-dependent on it, maybe I’m really not as strong in my faith as I’d like to believe. Whatever the case, I applaud your boldness and confidence in your walk with Christ.
I like your compromise. Continue to attend for the sake of fellowship but maintain that relationship and walk on your own, rocking the boat along the way. Maybe someone will get their feet wet and actually start walking on the water towards Jesus instead of staying in the boat like a frightened child.
BTW, you may want to give a listen to the Beyond the Box Podcast – http://www.beyondtheboxpodcast
Cheers,
John
#2 by Bob on July 20th, 2009
| Quote
Hey John,
Thanks for your comments. For years and years I tried to be the guy to change the church quietly from within..and it almost killed my faith. I can’t do it anymore and I’m not sure anyone should. Personally, I think ‘leaving’ the church (put in quotes beause I mean more mentally and financially than physically) is a viable answer. The quicker these type of churches die off, the quicker there will be a space for non-systematic solutions to surface.
You say something here I think I take for granted a bit, but at the same time am SO thankful for. In the most non-egostistic way possible, I think you’re right: My faith is strong enough to do this where some may not be. This isn’t my doing, but Gods…he’s blessed me with a faith and personality that can stand on it’s own without support of the church. Some folks might not be able to, and to be honest, I have compassion for them because they’ll be tied to the church if they want to survive. This is a good argument for letting these churches die slowly, giving people time to adjust.
I look forward to bolder living in this way now…living outside the church and with other believers.
#3 by Josiah on July 20th, 2009
| Quote
I have little doubt that this perspective is swelling among many who have invested heavily in the church. I’ve interacted with many who talk about how no one seems to “get it”. They’ve been hurt and even alienated by the church. Sometimes I’ve been extremely aggravated by what the “church” has done to people. Churches that congratulate themselves on their openness and friendliness have allowed people to attend for years without anyone ever learning their name, and that is people who look normal. If you have a scraggly beard, or have shiny metal studs on your belt, or have abnormally high energy forget it. Those each represent people I know personally who have been shunned. My family and I have also personally been ignored in churches.
Then comes the folks who seem to think debating the mechanics of “church” is the same as decrying central doctrines as heretical. I’m confused by the seemingly well entrenched perspective that changing mechanics and methods is the equivalent of changing our theology. I’ve come to realize that these aren’t necessarily from the “senior saints” program of the church. It is more heavy up that way, but far from exclusive.
At the same time, you can’t be rid of mechanics entirely in any environment where you have multiple people involved. As we grow on the path of sanctification, I’d hope that the politics would lesson and a unity of perspective and purpose would grow as we grew closer to God, but our own sinfulness. Then, add to that the goal of helping people see what God has done for them and their need to grow and you increase the need for some rules and suddenly you have structure and hierarchy. That pretty much embodies the reason I haven’t, despite much temptation, gone fully the direction you describe. (Full Disclosure, It has more to do with my wife calling me out on it and showing me things like that.)
I’ve begun to see the root of the problem is with the people. The system is simply built on the flawed foundation of humanity. Changing the system isn’t the hard part. It’s changing the people that is the hard part. The people really matter, everything else is facilitating and reflecting their hearts. Flawed systems are a reflection of flawed, blind hearts.
At this point I contend that this has always been a problem in the church. People have always been a mess. They have no hope without God and seem to forget that this isn’t a one time action. Revelation 2 speaks of seven churches who had problems that boil down to people being a wreck.
I’m amazed with how little focus the church has on applying our faith. When I think back on growing up in the church I expect I could boil down directly applicable the teaching on sanctification to Read your Bible, Pray every day and you will grow, grow, grow. We don’t know what it means to do this together. Accountability structures I’ve been involved in have been exercises in awkwardness. I have friends who are involved in “organic” churches that are getting this and are trying to work out what it means. I’d relish the opportunity to be involved in a local group for that purpose.
Oddly, I’ve seen Linux User Groups that embody what I envision for the ideal church more fully than most churches I’ve been around. They have a community working in unity towards a goal and effectively train up new people without needless weight and organizational cruft. They also tend to have a stronger emphasis on evangelism.
#4 by Ryan on July 20th, 2009
| Quote
I’m sympathetic to some of your concerns, and I’ve questioned similar things in business meetings, small groups, etc. I don’t have time to post longer thoughts at the moment, but I’d also say that your model of meeting with fellow believers should accommodate some “organization” under elders who actually shepherd people at an intimate level (thinking Heb. 13:17), deacons who make it their business to see that there’s not a needy person among your fellowship, and intentional times of breaking bread, drinking wine, baptizing new believers, and disciplining wayward brothers and sisters. These things would be simple biblical commands that don’t require church as we see it in America. Like I said above, I’m sympathetic with some of your feelings, but at the same time I think it’s quite a stretch to say that a church that has some of the “trappings” of modern church organization and practice but still intentionally devotes itself to the things I listed above could hardly be charged with having:
“virtually nothing to do with The Bible or Jesus Christ.”
It’s the whole baby with the bathwater thing that one of the reviews for Pagan Christianity mentioned. I’m not saying you personally need to find a church that’s doing these and tough it out (although if you came to Louisville, I could recommend a sister church I think you’d feel at home in – http://www.sojournchurch.com – you might wanna check out their music at – http://www.myspace.com/sojournrecords – I dig it). However, I think you may need to balance your generalizations and at least accept a third category beyond Old & Dead vs. Entertainment.
I find myself in this third category (don’t know what to name it) of a church that meets in cooperation under the gospel, for the purpose of mutual encouragement/edification, speaking the truth in love to one another, and “every member mercy”, that loves the Word, worship together around the cross, biblical theology, sacrificial service, and caring for the least of these. In other words, a church that is by no means perfect or free from the influence of the Western church model but is still full of people meeting together and doing things that have a lot to do with the Bible and Jesus Christ.
Your post reminds me not to take any of these things for granted and not to be silent in my desire to see us growing in greater faithfulness to the Lord as we do church together. : )
#5 by Hans on July 20th, 2009
| Quote
Hey Bob, big props for your Systematic Living series. It seems every one of your points was countered with my nodding in agreement of a discovery I’d already implemented or pausing to reflect on a new perspective you provided. Several years ago my wife and I adopted a reduce/reuse/recycle attitude and our significant drop in consumption has been surprisingly rewarding. In many ways, it seems, we are on very similar paths.
I have to take issue with Systematic Faith, though. Perhaps I’m missing the boat, but I fail to understand how some small groups are nothing more than manufactured friendships and have virtually nothing to do with The Bible or Jesus Christ while others, the ones that meet and study and pray with fellow believers, are the one true church.
As someone who has nearly always self-identified with some fashion of church role (volunteer, leader, employee, rank and file parishioner), I certainly understand the frustration which comes with the legalism, hypocrisy, and bureaucracy which exists at some level in every fellowship.
Furthermore, I don’t believe every believer has to attend church. It is clear that ministry does not need to funneled through an organized structure. If you find a place where you can contribute and receive from, even if that’s apart from an systematized structure, more power to you! However, I don’t think the root of the issue lies at the organizational level. We are all sinners. I bring my sin into my marriage, parenting, business dealings, social situations, and yes, even to church. My church, and every other one, is made up of other sinners who are doing the same thing.
If you’re working within the broken system. Great. If you’re ministering on your own, terrific. But, please don’t continue to attend a systematic church without putting much stock in it. Others will easily identify this and the cycle of bitterness will continue.
#6 by Josiah on July 20th, 2009
| Quote
Ryan, isn’t in the role of everyone in a church to do what you described for Elders and particularly deacons? American Christians have done a lot of dangerous out-sourcing of their responsibilities. I’m not suggesting these roles are evil, but I am suggesting they might actually get in the way of true heart-felt service in some environments. “I’m sure the elders/deacons are aware of it” is a dangerous refrain.
#7 by Ryan on July 20th, 2009
| Quote
Oh, certainly, which is why our elders equip the saints for the work of ministry (cf. Eph 4) and spur us on toward every member mercy. That doesn’t change the fact that the NT describes the qualifications and appointments of elders and deacons, though. For example, you can find specific instruction in the Epistles regarding respecting and submitting to elders, their tasks, and rewards, and I don’t believe what was intended was for people to just assume it was everyone’s job so we don’t need the specialist. I think it is everyone’s job, but we still set apart / anoint / etc. the specialists. The best part, God designed it to work out in our favor:
“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account, so that they can do this with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.” Hb. 13:17 HCSB
Mind you, I don’t have in mind here a typical CEO pastor / “I’m sure the _whoever_ is aware of it” church model that your comment might assume. I disagree with the outsourcing of Christian responsibilities in the church as much as I assume you do.
#8 by John Kozicki on July 21st, 2009
| Quote
As an outsider, these comments are difficult to follow.
#9 by Bob on July 21st, 2009
| Quote
Don’t worry John…as an ‘insider’, they’re just as hard to follow :) I appreciate the discussion, even if I don’t agree with lots of the statements.
#10 by Josiah on July 22nd, 2009
| Quote
John, there are ultimately some real fine lines being discussed and things that some would call nit-picky or simply wouldn’t see the distinction. Having grown up in the church and been close to “full-time ministry” most of my life I’ve probably spent a lot more time than is healthy observing and thinking about these things. As a child and adult I’ve observed messy church splits, good and bad leadership, unity and disunity, and really a pretty broad spectrum of function and dysfunction in churches. Any way, perhaps that’s made me care deeply about this enough to pick the nits. Sorry about it being so bogged down. In truth, it probably only matters to a small, but growing few people.
Bob, I’m glad you appreciate it. I’d appreciate having you disagree with me if you feel it’s worth your effort. It sounds like you’ve probably had this discussion before so it may not be. I know you to be thoughtful and I certainly see the need for a thoughtful sharpening (or complete revolution) of my perspective.
#11 by Josiah on July 22nd, 2009
| Quote
Ryan, you nailed me. :-) Outsourcing or church responsibility is indeed a soap box of mine. I could rant on that for awhile.
What I’m talking about isn’t an abolishment of the position of deacon entirely or elder/pastor at all. I would suggest that deacon is not needed and even hurtful in some circumstances. It seems pretty clear to me that the position of deacon was assigned out of need for improving the service to widows who were getting lost in the mix and they were given specific responsibility to fix that. The appointment highlighted a cultural hole. The people who made up the church had a cultural blindness to widows or their simply were too many of them and so neglected to serve them effectively. This necessitated the need of a more systematic approach and so they appointed people to take this responsibility.
Acts 6 is what I’m referring to: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 6:1-7
My point in all that is a church can exist biblically without a deacon role existing.
On the position of Elder, I think we’re probably developing a very similar argument. I also think the CEO Pastor is a less than ideal model. I’ve personally seen such a role be the undoing of the man and the church. I expect we’d agree that the role of pastor is synonymous with elder in many ways. I’d suggest that a small group of Christians organize to fulfill the purposes of the body (in other words, a church) would have at least a couple guys serving in this role and preferably none with over-riding veto power. I contend that the church as a whole (especially the group of elders) needs to be on board with a direction or decision or the health of the church is at question.
All that seems to get back to Bob’s point. The church as currently structured in the USA is a mess. The models all three of us are talking about recognizes a top-heavy, overly bureaucratic structure that lacks life.
My contention is that none of that will change unless the hearts of the people who hold it in place changes. A desire to recognize the ineffectiveness and to make the bold decisions that can allow improved effectiveness is the core problem that got us here in the first place. Therefore it isn’t the structure that is at fault, it’s the hearts and minds of the people.
Further, I’d suggest church with a truly servant heart can be greatly affective despite the lack of reform of structure. They’ll just find ways around their mess rather than fixing it. I think this is common in some of the better churches I’ve seen.
This steps into yet another viewpoint I have. The Christian bubble has lost many great minds to the workforce. Consequently, the great minds that understand organization and structure and systems have been allowed to spend all their time in secular pursuits. The same seems to have happened in the arts. These tools aren’t available to us because we’ve lost them. Movement seems to be underway, especially in the arts, to regain some of this capability, but we are still a long way from it. The discontent this discussion grows out of seems to be proof to me that God is at work healing these parts of our body.
#12 by Josiah on July 22nd, 2009
| Quote
Wow, sorry! That turned out to be a rather big read.
#13 by John Kozicki on July 22nd, 2009
| Quote
Again, I’m just an outsider, but, Josiah, it seems that nearly all of your points, while they seem well thought out and reasonable, reinforce one of Bob’s primary points: the church is disconnected radically from everyday life.
#14 by Josiah on July 22nd, 2009
| Quote
John, I agree with Bob’s observation of problem. I’m suggesting that the way to fix it isn’t a revolution of structure. That’s like painting rotting wood. You can paint the wood and make it look good, but it’s still rotten. In this example, I’m saying the heart of people in church is the rotten part. The structure of the church is simply a symptom of people dis-interested in meeting the needs of others.
#15 by Mark on July 24th, 2009
| Quote
Amen Josiah! Well said. Believe Him, apply what He has said. Defend the faith once delivered. Nothing new.
Mark