Confusing Rushing and Urgency
With the world changing so quickly there is a pressure in the Church to try to keep up with the times. Local churches are expected to have the same personal services and amenities of any other place which has 'membership dues'.
When viewed in this light, the church becomes a place where we are primarily "fed" and "where everybody knows your name". And when the church does not accomplish these things, then one takes "membership dues" and goes elsewhere. This creates a unhealthy co-dependency which I have recently addressed here and here.
The point of this post however, is that when the local church is asked and expected to keep up with the Joneses of the for-profit world then we are always running behind. This pressure to keep up married with the fact that churches are usually lagging behind, creates a sense of urgency in the church for some people.
What I have noticed is that in the church urgency is often confused with rushing.
In our efforts to keep up with the Joneses and keep pace with the expectations of being a "membership based" culture, we are often reacting to things and rushing to create something that it ends up not being our best.
There is a difference in a sense of urgency and being rushed.
There is a difference in responding to issues and reacting to a concern.
Our churches are notorious for rushing to get something out by Sunday and in doing so we fall even more behind and look even worse.
- Child care at all times
- Personalization of services
- Different "take aways" or SWAG
- Free perks for members
- Premium content for those who pay more
- Access to communal resources
When viewed in this light, the church becomes a place where we are primarily "fed" and "where everybody knows your name". And when the church does not accomplish these things, then one takes "membership dues" and goes elsewhere. This creates a unhealthy co-dependency which I have recently addressed here and here. The point of this post however, is that when the local church is asked and expected to keep up with the Joneses of the for-profit world then we are always running behind. This pressure to keep up married with the fact that churches are usually lagging behind, creates a sense of urgency in the church for some people.
What I have noticed is that in the church urgency is often confused with rushing.
In our efforts to keep up with the Joneses and keep pace with the expectations of being a "membership based" culture, we are often reacting to things and rushing to create something that it ends up not being our best.
There is a difference in a sense of urgency and being rushed. There is a difference in responding to issues and reacting to a concern.
Our churches are notorious for rushing to get something out by Sunday and in doing so we fall even more behind and look even worse.
Not the 50's nor the 90's but the Emergents!
There are a couple of ways of thinking about "church" that seem to be in tension with each other.
There is the more popular and more recent 1990's idea that believes that if you get a band that play contemporary music while having a dynamic speaker then people will come. This more difficult to argue as no longer valid as we sit in the shadow of mega churches/teachers such as this guy or this guy or this woman. However, you may recall that back in 2007 Willow Creek (a church that pioneered the 1990's model of church) reported that that model was a mistake and does not lead to discipleship.
There is the 1950's idea that believes if you build it, people will come. Put a cross on the building and people will come to the church. Another way of this model is expressed this way, "yes people leave the church in their 20's but they always come back when they have kids." There are several books on the shelves that argue that this way of thinking is all sorts of wrong. I differ to these books.
There is the more popular and more recent 1990's idea that believes that if you get a band that play contemporary music while having a dynamic speaker then people will come. This more difficult to argue as no longer valid as we sit in the shadow of mega churches/teachers such as this guy or this guy or this woman. However, you may recall that back in 2007 Willow Creek (a church that pioneered the 1990's model of church) reported that that model was a mistake and does not lead to discipleship.
It is not that these above models are totally wrong 100% of the time. Rather it is that we have put all our eggs in a particular basket as a way to "save the church" from extinction.
We are in the middle of the Emergent Church/Incarnational Christian gaining traction as the new model that will "save the church". And while I am an advocate of this way of being the Church, I have to admit that this model too will suffer the same fate as other models if it is unwilling or unable to adapt.
The 1950's model, the 1990's model the Emergent model are all wonderful models - they are not, regardless of the rhetoric, silver bullets.
Are we Christians really monotheistic? Part 3
If we live our lives thinking there are multiple gods (such as the "god of anger") yet we worship only one God (such as Jesus) then we are not really monotheistic oriented. Rather we are henotheistic or monolatristic.
If we Christians are moving in our lives believing there are somethings (or some gods) which are good (say love) and some things(gods) that are bad (say hate) then we are forgetting that God declared all things good.
If we declare somethings good and somethings bad then we will live out our lives attempting to remove the bad while seek after the good. So we begin to worship the "good" gods and demonize the "bad" gods.
Again, not a posture of monotheism.
While practical and popular, the question, "Is this good or bad?" is not a question for Christian monotheism. We already know the answer. All things are good as declared by God.
If we are asking if something is good or bad then we are really, at our core, practicing something other than monotheism of Christianity.
Christian monotheism rather accepts that all things are created by one God and that one God called all things good. As such we do not waste time considering if something is bad and therefore should be avoided or good and therefore should be attained. The question Christian monotheism asks is, "Is this redeemed or does it need to be redeemed?"
This question changes our posture in the world.
If we think that hate is bad and should be avoided then we are forgetting that Christian monotheism calls us to hate things like slavery and injustice. If we think that drug use is bad then we will avoid it as well as those who are victims of drugs. Rather if we see drug use as something that needs to be redeemed then we will sit with and seek out help for those who are addicts.
If we live in a world of good and bad then we will not engage the bad parts of the world and therefore the world does not change. Additionally, when we think something is bad we deny the power that is inherent in that thing (such as the power of hating injustice).
Rather, if we live in a world that is redeemed or in need of redemption then we will enter into the dark places of the world and work for change. Additionally, when we see something as in need of redemption then we are able to utilize the inherent power in that thing in order to help redeem it. Can you imagine a world that is so full of hate of slavery that no one would allow anyone to become enslaved in human trafficking?
So, I join all my Christian brothers and sisters who claim monotheism to change from asking, "Is this good or bad?" to "Is this redeemed or in need or redemption?".
If we Christians are moving in our lives believing there are somethings (or some gods) which are good (say love) and some things(gods) that are bad (say hate) then we are forgetting that God declared all things good.
If we declare somethings good and somethings bad then we will live out our lives attempting to remove the bad while seek after the good. So we begin to worship the "good" gods and demonize the "bad" gods.
Again, not a posture of monotheism.
While practical and popular, the question, "Is this good or bad?" is not a question for Christian monotheism. We already know the answer. All things are good as declared by God.
If we are asking if something is good or bad then we are really, at our core, practicing something other than monotheism of Christianity.
Christian monotheism rather accepts that all things are created by one God and that one God called all things good. As such we do not waste time considering if something is bad and therefore should be avoided or good and therefore should be attained. The question Christian monotheism asks is, "Is this redeemed or does it need to be redeemed?"
This question changes our posture in the world.
If we think that hate is bad and should be avoided then we are forgetting that Christian monotheism calls us to hate things like slavery and injustice. If we think that drug use is bad then we will avoid it as well as those who are victims of drugs. Rather if we see drug use as something that needs to be redeemed then we will sit with and seek out help for those who are addicts.
If we live in a world of good and bad then we will not engage the bad parts of the world and therefore the world does not change. Additionally, when we think something is bad we deny the power that is inherent in that thing (such as the power of hating injustice).
Rather, if we live in a world that is redeemed or in need of redemption then we will enter into the dark places of the world and work for change. Additionally, when we see something as in need of redemption then we are able to utilize the inherent power in that thing in order to help redeem it. Can you imagine a world that is so full of hate of slavery that no one would allow anyone to become enslaved in human trafficking?
So, I join all my Christian brothers and sisters who claim monotheism to change from asking, "Is this good or bad?" to "Is this redeemed or in need or redemption?".
| Somethings are difficult to redeem. :) |
Be the change by Jason Valendy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.