Moving from cosmetic to fundamental change in the laity

Each year I attend conferences and read books about the future of the church. I hear about how the future of the church will be smaller and more missional. The church will need to shift from making congregation members to Disciples of Jesus. The church will be more lay driven and rely upon bi-vocational ministers. I hear about the house-church movement, the Emergent movement, the Mega-church movement, the Neo-Monastic movement, and even those hinting at a “bowel movement” to flush out their disliked theology/philosophy/generation/leaders.

In all this conversation about all the different movements that the church is experiencing or needing, there is a bit of doctrine that clergy publically affirm but privately call into question. The past few years more and more clergy are beginning to speak out against this false teaching but it still is defended by many.

What is this doctrine? It comes in many variations but the gist is this:

The clergy are just not beginning to see what the laity have known and have desired for a long time – we need to change the way we are the Church.

Of course the Church of the future will be different than the Church of the past or present. No one knows what the Church will look like, although that does not keep many of us from speculating. The idea of a changing Church is not really up for debate any more.

What is up for debate is the first part of this doctrine – the laity know and desire a change in the way we do Church.

The Diffusion of Innovation Curve. How do we get over the tipping point with our laity to have an early majority of lay members embrace fundamental change?

Lay members of the church are not dumb they know that change is needed. However, the number of laity who understand what type of change is required is much less than what is needed to create a change that we all agree needs to happen. The laity that I have encountered, even those who acknowledge change is needed, express only cosmetic change.

When we talk about a fundamental change to the way we do Church we are talking about willing to close our beloved Church in order to birth new communities. We are talking about willing to personally engage in a lifestyle change to integrate the spiritual practices/disciplines. We are talking about willing to set the spiritual formation of our children at the same priority level of the educational formation of our children.* We are talking about willing to disentangle the American Dream and God’s Dream, Capitalism and the Beloved Community, patriotism and support of “the troops” from one another. We are talking about willing to see the Creeds not as litmus tests for “orthodoxy” but as poems penned to describe the indescribable. We are talking about addressing the social issues of human sexuality and identity, war, and income inequality. We are talking about addressing the theological issues of the atonement, theodicy, and the authority of the Bible.

These are some of the questions of fundamental change that we need to address.

And these are not the questions that I hear laity asking. Questions of fundamental change are not questions that keep laity up at night. But I can tell you, they haunt this clergy person every day.

---

*Why there is a culturally acceptable parenting approach to let our children choose if they are going to attend a faith community but do not let them choose to attend school is beyond my understanding.

Spiritual Virtuoso

A couple of months ago I read James K. Wellman's book entitled Rob Bell and the New American Christianity. It is interesting to use Rob Bell as a case study for speculating the future of American Christianity because Bell's theological understandings have been over simplified from the back lash of Love Wins*. 

Bell's theology not only is influenced by Process Theology and Rene Girard but also things like spiral dynamics integral and Radical Theology and Evangelicalism. Bell, like each one of us, is much more complex than we like to believe. 

Anyway, one of the things that Wellman talks about are people who are "Spiritual Virtuosos". I cannot recall if he coined this term or is citing some research on this sort of topic, but nonetheless the phrase "Spiritual Virtuoso" captured my imagination. 

Here are a list of embodied qualities of a "Spiritual Virtuoso":

• inner personal authority
• confidence mixed with vulnerability
• willingness to break with religious customs for the sake of spiritual and moral principles
• detachment from, though not a rejection of, social structures
• ascetic—practicing self-denial relative to physical and sexual needs
• little interest in gaining followers, or creating a social movement
• focused on personal salvation and more other-worldly
• willingness to embrace martyrdom
• followers are attached to principles over person (less forgiving of a leader’s faults)
• authentic humility and openness

I don't know what to do with this at this point, but I wonder if one is born or one becomes a virtuoso. Do the Spiritual Disciplines help create virtuosity? 

There are a number of great insights in this book and I encourage anyone interested in the future of American Christianity to consider reading this. 

One of my favorite lines from this book? 

Laughing as he said, ‘One of the most lethal aspects of that word—heretic—is that it ends discussions, rather than starts them.’ Turning more serious, Bell warns, ‘And that’s why I think it’s so dangerous. It ends discussion, and it’s holding hands with violence.’

---

*The thing about it though is that Love Wins is really not as controversial as Jesus Wants to Save Christians, but Love Wins is a 'sexier' topic. 

The Church is at her best when...

The Church is at her best when she recaptures the visionary, creative, innovative, and compassionate Spirit God has given to God's people.

Many churches are not started by a clergy person or a bishop or an ecclesial administrative body. Many churches are stated by a few people who have a vision.

Many churches have buildings and sacred spaces that were not designed by a minister but by the innovate people of the church.

Many churches work to reclaim and pronounce blessings on parts of the world that others have dismissed or discarded. When the people engage in the innovative spirit of God to do the work of redemption and reconciliation - the church is at her best.

Many churches have a ministry with the poor or the disenfranchised. These ministries are not driven by a single individual or a single pastor but the Spirit of compassion of the people of God.

The Church is at her best when she (not to one individual or one pastor or one leader) recaptures the visionary, creative, innovative, and compassionate Spirit God has given to God's people.