One of the defining features of our culture is the desire to self-resource. And the internet is probably the ultimate expression of that self-resourcing. I seek the resources I need for my holiday, my banking, and my insurance on-line. I must confess I have probably spent well over 50,000 on ebay alone.
This change has affected the way that many of us think about our belonging. No longer do we belong to an organization or an institution in order to serve that organization or institution. We look to it to serve us. Instead of being contributors to our communities, we are 'consumers' of them. Now before we jump on the 'consumerism is bad' band wagon and its THE problem of the Western world... hear me out.
It may well be that participant members of Churches remain participants, regardless of the difficulties of participation, because they have a sense of the importance of the institution for the maintenance and transmission of the faith. The key task of the church is to maintain and transmit the faith to others.
On the other hand it may be that the increasing failure to participate by so many is a direct result of a loss of faith in such institutions as places that are effective in their key tasks, and these institutions make demands on us that do not contribute either to mission or personal growth. No help maintaining our faith and no help transmitting our faith. Confession again... I am embarrassed to take my unbelieving friend to church because it feels like a strange world ... even for me.
This is not necessarily a good thing. It may not be a healthy thing. But it is happening, and if the Christian Church is to be truly incarnational, it cannot simply decry what is, and become fruitlessly self-absorbed in what might be.
So it should be no surprise to discover that there are some people, maybe more than a few, who want to be part of a Christian community, to commit themselves to one another in prayer, in learning, and in social action, without the hassle and clutter of participation in the local church?
We could, of course, simply respond by saying that "the Church is, above all things, a sacred community where meeting together is of the essence of what we are. And those people are falling away from the essence of the Christian faith."
But if that was the sum of our response... We would merely add to the number of people that we fail to reach, and increase the number of people that we alienate because we want them to be other than what they are. Creating a hypoctical faith and something that is anti-christ. Jesus was about helping us be who we are not someone we are not.
We cannot blame people who are taught all the skills of self-resourcing from primary school upwards, if they then take those skills and use them to resource their own spiritual pilgrimage.
But could we blame the Church if we failed to respond to them by offering an alternative way to participate in Christian community, and confining them to a choice of sunday-worship-based congregation or nothing?
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Great thoughts - my first time writing on your blog. You are right about the need for alternatives for people who are genuinely seeking community. We need that more than we know because of our isolationist mentality. This generation does not really want programed/scheduled/repeatitive Christ experiences. I believe there should be openness to growth - spiritually and relationally - do what it takes to facilitate that happening. More of Christ in the time that we give each other.
"Instead of being contributors to our communities, we are 'consumers' of them."
Great quote!
Initially I even agreed with it but then as I re-read it I thought that we could tweak it some: "Instead of being contributors to a community, we are consumers of them."
The difference that I am pointing out is that I am not sure that an individual can actually be a part of community without actually being an active particpant in the consuming and the building of community.
I honestly do not think that the church can have a fake version of community and be truely incarnational. You are good to point that out Mark. Too often people like to imagine that incarnational living can happen, like Jaz said, in isolation. I don't believe this is possible.
*******
Jaz - welcome to the inter-nerd world of blogging. Make sure your blego stays in check!
Thx Jaz... welcome to blog world and adventures in learning communities v 2.0. Thx for your input. I would like to hear a little more of your Isolationist theory? Expand on that a little.
Jer
I am really glad you caught that... one of my struggles is I am not against consuming ... as many speak so against... the truth is that we must consume to actually live... And to be part of a community we must actually consume it. So my take is this ... to be truly incarnational we must be both consumers and contributors!!! Agree?
I agree about the consuming factor. I like to consume, especially when it comes to a fine meal with a good beverage. The Vault anyone?
I'm one of those that struggles to find community in the places people tell community is available. Maybe you can offer some advice, maybe I can consume from this community at this moment. Jer asked me this question and it's one I'm facing personally. How do you build or become a part of a community that you don't know exists or get into one you're not already connected to?
I want to consume right now, but I'm eager to contribute. Ideas, because I could use 'em.
"...to be truly incarnational we must be both consumers and contributors!!! Agree?"
I think that's hitting on a neccesary point. If we aren't consuming anything, how can anything be poured out in service/ contribution?
Maybe where things have gone astray in the last decades, is that the church in general has limited their spritual consumption to Sunday Church. Rather then taking responsibility for feeding ourselves, and church being a part in that, we've turned to services to get our "fix", then try to live on that for the rest of the week. I know I'm guilty of that many times.
*******
Any thoughts on how to shift people from simply spiritual consumers, to also contributing members? That shift is one of the goals that I'm hoping to focus on in the next few months when it comes to our gathering.
Community is viral... it is not something we herd people into. MY friend Matt hawkins says it this way... "In marriage you can't just love your spouse ... you need to be loved in return." The commodity exchange in church is so messed up... We tell people to come [love us] and we will tell them how to live life etc etc ... but offer nothing of true value to them. People come saying 'Hear me, acknowledge me, value me.' But in our gatherings we do not build anything that speaks to that... in many cases speaks against that.
Here is a thought... have a party ... invite only people you want to have there... people you have relationship with... but give them permission to invite some people thay want to be there with too.
What do you get?... a group or groups of people that are there because they have friends they want to be with .... Out of that chaos discover and find Jeus in the midst of it ... maybe you will find a Church.
My question then is are we giving back more then we're taking?
I would say that historically, there are more takers than givers. We are born taking from the world and have to learn to give back. And that's not easy.
I agree there is nothing wrong with consuming, but at what rate are we giving back, what we are getting, back to the community?
Maybe a bigger part of the problem is that our idea of community is messed up.
I hope this all makes sense.
Misfit...
I can see where yur thinking there in terms of community being messed up. Its true. This is hopefully a part of why we get involved in learning communities as this.
I would ask though what are the things expected to be given back?.. the expectations of giving back often times are pigeon- holed as money, time, filling a pew/ role in the church machine.
Mark, I think one of the problems that leads to consumerism is found within your choice of pro-nouns: "they," "them," "their." You are describing the church as though it is something separated from "us" and "we." I'm as much a part of the church as is the crazy lady who plays her tambourine in the front row.
When we take personal ownership of the church we will be less likely to consume and more likely to contribute.
But why contribute? and what are we really contributing to?
Is not the current church setup idealistic for consuming? People go and get their fill of music/speaking/"God" and the whole point is self-gratification to make themselves better people. How do you contribute to that?
I don't mean to come across as negative, but I struggle with how to effectively contribute to this kind of culture.
Does the church simply follow 'supply-and-demand' and provide something for consumption? or is it more then that?
this is Markimus but oddly my phone won't let me sign in...
This comes back to my original question? What is church anyways?
Dave
I am not too sure where you are reading the 'theys and thems' I thought I was quite inclusove in the article but that being said I a quite strong on not identifying with some of the discombobulated values of the church. I would have to admit in that case there is a 'them and they' because I do not share those values. too much to explain in a comment so I will leave that for convo at this point.
"I'm as much a part of the church as is the crazy lady who plays her tambourine in the front row." - Dave
I've been thinking about that alot Dave. It's so true. Kind of like the idea that you can choose your friends, but you can't choose your family. Whether I like it or not, every believer is part of my family. Even the ones I think are crazy. Weird . . .
Dave / Dan
Dave I like your example given but this is not the type of thing that I am alluding to. I think your example could get people thinking down the wrong track... It is very important to realize and value individuals expressions to God whether we prefer their way or not. I personally have stood beside the 'crazy tamborine lady' and borrowed her tamborine. That is Good...
HOWEVER
What I am talking about is small vision, self righteous [for lack of a better term]spiritual bigotry that says that people have to do church the same way its always been done. An intolerance of distinctives ... an unwillingness to let the 'crazy lady' have her expression... or say that everyone has to do it her way. I guess I would say I am intolerant of intolerance... Make sense?
I am talking about high level thought not necessarily relational dynamics. The lenses in which we view others not how we relate to them.
There are ideal worlds out there. The problem is, however, that we often look out from our all-ready-ideal worlds and say, "If only we cold be this......If we could just that....life would be better." We say, "Create communities that balance consuming and contributing." Ideal right? Yep. And practical....it just happens at a much smaller level then we shoot for.
*************
Oh, and Markimus, to your earlier comment you asked if I agree. I do.
Jer
Can you expand on your idealistic thinking... I think you have soem good stuff there.
Simply pointing out that it is much harder to contribute when the community is large and much easier to simply consume.
The most important variable for measuring a succesful contributing/consumer ratio is size. Smallness means that it becomes very neccessary to contribute.
But is it not necessary (maybe not for the church, but more for the individual) to contribute in a larger setting as well?
I mean, I look at all these large church's, and there are about 1000 people in a service, yet they have about 20 young adults come out to their young adults nights, maybe 15 youth come out, and then whatever community services that takes place, you have about 10 core church people show up anyway.
I've honestly noticed and noted that regardless of the size of the church, the same amount of people show up- depending on how much of a push there is to get involved.
I remember when CLCC youth was teh size of about 4 local youth groups combined (granted that may be on 'special' occasions, but even then, and now it's about the size of atleast 3 fair sized ones.
I'm using the numbers that I've seen as my example of contribution. A church will grow spiritually if a majority of the church maintains a level of contribution beyond what some people would be called 'reasonable' By that I mean they are committed beyond what we see in the average persons life.
Thanks Mark for this link. It's been an interesting read.
I would say following on from what Steve said that we often look at the lack of involvement and committment from people who "attend" our churches and we lay the blame with them but often times they would love to contribute and commit to the vision - some of the reasons lie with what Mark referred to earlier - being the intolerance, the doing things the way they are done in a certain church's culture. So people are not given an open hand to express themselves.
Sometimes we call it "wisdom" or checking if they've got a wrong motivation and that's why we don't release people. I wonder why we think we've got the right motivation in stopping others from expressing themselves. Maybe we have the plank in our own eye while trying to tell someone about the speck in theirs?
Coupled with those thoughts are some which are probably (kinda) the opposite view: I have spent my life in church pouring out every extra second, going the second, third, fourth mile and burning myself out contributing. I love God. I love the church but I am now 30 and questioning what it is exactly that I have been pouring my life into. What difference has it made? Has it been worth it? Most sundays the only people who speak to me (other than close friends) usually are people who want me to do something for them. The sense of people using me is a real thing and I am a strong believer and my question is why does this happen? How can we stop this happening? Imagine what happens to new believers who have talent in certain areas the church needs. What are we giving to them? Are we just takers? Is what we are taking from them and putting that into - is it worthy of their sacrifice or their life? Or is it more about the ambition and insecurity of church leaders needing to seem successful in both their own eyes and their peers eyes? Do we give a toss what God thinks?
Why do we do what we do? Are we God-pleasers or people-pleasers? It is after all, God we stand before on judgement day and not our peers and superiors.
I think Jesus told us to die to what we are, in order for Him to make us what we are not. The problem with the church is not in its methods, but that it has lost it first love. Its mind and heart are on earthly things. The church must repent, for judgment begins in the Lord's house. In the end, our opinions matter very little. Change must happen on the inside.
I Peter 4:17, Rev 3:16-18
Change can only come through repentance and being willing to have God expose our deceitful hearts. There is truly a lack of vulnerablity, honesty and humility in the church. Without the Spirit working on me, convicting me, changing me from the inside out, I am undone. Even as Isaiah said: Isaiah 6:5
"Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty. The cure then? A Revelation of Jesus Christ is needed. That in itself, brings repentance and death to all self-effort. The fruit of that is simply this: LIFE
If we have life, then all we do will be simply a result of that life, and many people will be drawn to that life.
John 12:24
I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.
Honestly, I think that the "church" has become an idol. At a point in my life, I had forsaken my first love, Jesus, for my love of the church. Of course, God showed me this in hindsight..but I repented. I still am involved, but my heart is not to serve the church, but my heart is to first serve my Lord...and there is a huge difference...
Post a Comment