Examples or Metaphors - not both

At most conferences people who are giving speeches take the approach of sharing metaphors or specific examples of what they are talking about.  I have found this to be radically annoying and not helpful.  

Why?  

When someone gives a few examples of how "this thing" works, they give a specific example.  The problem is it is generally too specific and people are curious, but quickly discount the example as "able to work there but that would not work in my setting."  So a couple of specific examples are generally flashes in the pan.  Cool to see, but difficult to cook with.  

Another 'write off' of a few specific examples is that people do not own that idea.  There is some program that works in some area, people are generally not able to sustain that idea in their context because they really do not own the idea.  This 'lack of ownership = unsustainable" idea is on display when someone tells you, "you know we should really be doing ______.  You should make that happen."

If, however, you were to give more that a couple of examples for an idea then you are onto something.  If you were able to give somewhere in the ballpark of 20 examples of where/how this "idea" is working, then you begin to shut down the thoughts of "that will not work in my context" because you give people the ability to see how their context can be navigated to implementation.  If I hear of a prayer program in schools in one location, I will discount it.  If I hear of 20 prayer programs in schools, I am more apt to get excited on how I can implement that in my context.  

On the other end of the spectrum of giving a few examples, a speaker will often give one metaphor.  However, these metaphors are often 'heady' and the fear is getting too heady without giving specific examples of how the idea looks on the ground.  Which is why speakers do not spend much time developing the metaphors too much and jump right to sharing a few examples.  Then we are right back into the problems of sharing just a few specific examples.  

However, if a speaker develops a metaphor deeply and fully then it will capture the imagination of people to problem solve their own context.  When we problem solve ourselves then we have ownership to the idea and thus up the chances of success and sustainability.  

Let me violate my comments above and give just one example.  

Recently I heard the metaphor of the church as an airport.  The speaker went on to say that airports are never destinations in of themselves.  No one takes a vacation at the airport for a week.  The only time the airport as a destination was a good idea it was made into a fictional movie with two big movie stars in order to sell the movie.  

That was all the development the presenter did on this metaphor and the metaphor was dead in the water.  The metaphor was too heady and too abstract and people forgot the metaphor all together.  If however, the presenter had developed the metaphor more it had the chance to capture the imaginations of people.  Perhaps he could have asked:

• Where do people check their baggage?
• Who is responsible for flying the plane?
• Who is designated to work in the lost and found area?
• What does a passport look like in your church?  
• Do you have a security check point?  
• Are you profiling?

And on and on.  This metaphor, when developed, leads to a number of ideas on how to do/be Church.  

When the metaphor is not developed in favor of giving a few examples, then both the metaphor suffers and the people listening discount examples and do not build the metaphor.  

So give me examples or a metaphor.  Don't try to do both.  

Worship as a spiritual feeding tube?

It it not uncommon to hear the Sunday worship is that place where we go to get "fed" for the week.  It is the time in which we learn and worship and are nourished for the coming week.

I have written in the past about worship needs to be more like skiing, less like football and more like soccer and even worship as going up musical stairs.

All of these metaphors have been helpful for me to discuss and think of worship, but the metaphor of being fed has never worked for me.

The only time I can imagine "being fed" is when I cannot feed myself - when I am really young and really old.  Even when I order food at a restaurant, I am not being "fed", rather I am given food but I do more than just sit  as another feeds me.

So when I think of worship as a place where I am "being fed" I think of a time in which I am unable to do anything and someone else (or something else) does all the work and I just sit there - unable to do anything but spit out or consume the food.

When I hear of people talk of worship as a place where they go to "get fed" I cannot help but desire to wonder at what point do we need to drop this metaphor?

My senior minister asked if I had read The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church by Alan Hirsch.  It has been a while (December 2010) but I pulled off my kindle my notes and came across this little gem in light of worship:

"[People] come to "get fed." But is this a faithful image of the church? Is the church really meant to be a "feeding trough" for otherwise capable middle-class people who are getting their careers on track? And to be honest, it is very easy for ministers to cater right into this: the prevailing understanding of leadership is that of the pastor-teacher. People gifted in this way love to teach and care for people, and the congregation in turn loves to outsource learning and to be cared for. I have to admit that this now looks awfully codependent to me."


Just to clarify, codependency in this context is not a great thing.

Back in 2009 I had a post that explored the idea that while Jesus learned the trade of carpentry, he did not use many carpentry metaphors when talking about the kingdom of God.  

After further reflection on this idea more thoughts have been stewing in my brain.  

Not only did Jesus not use much carpentry language he also did not use much fishing language to talk about the kingdom of God.  It is interesting to me that Jesus did not use much insider language with his parables.  

Jesus used a lot of farming metaphors, wedding metaphors and even the occasional sheep metaphor.  These are the images that the followers of Jesus, the crowd that surrounded Jesus, could understand because it was their world - their images.  

I can understand how the disciples never seemed to "get it" even though they were with Jesus all the time.  

He was using language that was rooted in the life experience of the non-believer and the crowd.  He did not spend much time trying to appease or create insider language with just himself and the twelve.  

Is this not a way to consider the mission of the church?  

Too often we gather on Sunday morning expecting the same things that we who attend, understand and "get". We use insider language and even are fearful to change things because we might "upset" the most faithful members.  So we continue to do what we do in order that those who are in the church can be comforted and those who are not in the church can continue to feel like church is, at best, weird.  

What would it look like to take a model that we might find in the way of Jesus?  What if we created a church that was so concerned about connecting with those outside the church that those in the church would even be willing to "not get it" like the twelve disciples.  

Do you get or understand Jesus, or are you like the disciples and continually scratch your head wondering what the heck this Jesus guy is teaching and saying?