“What Church Will Be Like in 50 years.”

Recently, I ran across an article that had some predictions about what church will be like 50 years from now, on a website called “Church for Men” (see the link at the bottom of this post).  I found the contents of that article absolutely appalling — do people really buy into this??  Some of you saw and commented on the article when I posted it on Facebook — and I had so many things I wanted to say, I decided to add some comments of my own here. Here we go…

• First of all, a website called “Church for Men”?  I understand the need the site is trying to meet, but something like this just feeds into the unhelpful gender divide that is already present in large pockets of the evangelical church.
• The post accepts trends happening outside of the church (e.g. large corporations buying out mom-and-pop shops) uncritically.  Not only does the author assume no difference between how business works and how the church works, he seems to see no reason to push back against the trend toward church “megatization.”
• The author assumes that the purpose of the church is to “meet people’s needs” (see the first paragraph).  I would argue this is a gross (though popular) distortion of ecclesiology.
• As someone who helps to pastor a “midsize congregation”, I strongly object to his analysis of these “family churches.”  I think that smaller congregations offer some things that megachurches do not, and perhaps can not. Midsize churches have been around a lot longer than megachurches, and I don’t think they are going away anytime soon.
• I object to his assertion that megachurches offer “superior preaching, music, and programming.”  In this assertion, the author reveals some assumptions that I would challenge — for one thing, the assumption that preaching is the most important part of the service, that big contemporary worship bands (I assume) are the best way to worship, and that the church is supposed to offer “programs” for its members. In our church, we have intentionally avoided creating programs, instead letting our ministries flow out of the gifts and skills of our members, as well as what God is doing in our particular congregation.
• I do understand his point about midsize congregations becoming encumbered by properties, and losing members to megachurches.  However, there are ways for smaller churches to adapt as well — renting space, for example (which is what we do).  As for losing members to megachurches… well, small church takes work and contributions from each part of the congregation, and when folks aren’t willing to step up and share the load, it can become easier to seek out a church where the staff does the work.
• Satellite campuses — I really don’t like satellite campuses, because they are so impersonal.  I believe that preaching and worship are to be shaped (though not determined) by particular congregations — when a pastor doesn’t know his or her people, I think the preaching can suffer.  If preaching is intended to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,” a pastor better know a bit about the members of the congregation!  Now, certainly God can (and does) speak through impersonal sermons — but in my opinion, there’s no substitute for actually knowing your people.
• His analogy between Walmart and megachurches disturbs me.  Consumerism, anyone? Why do churches need to swallow up other God-honoring churches?
• I think satellite churches give too much power to the preaching/peaching pastor.  And I don’t think that’s helpful for anyone, least of all for the pastor him/herself!
• I also don’t think denominations are going anywhere.  I think they exist for valuable purposes, and give theological shape that is necessary for faith.  Granted, all these divisions between us aren’t helpful, and there is room to learn from one another — but worship in a church in Evanston, IL will not — and SHOULD NOT — look the same as worship in a church in Kigali, Rwanda.  I think the same is true in the states — different kinds of worship are ok, because no one style of worship can express everything about God!  So yes, let’s learn from one another, but let’s also accept that these traditions are not just old things to be jettisoned, but foundations that can help us encounter and serve God.
• As someone on Facebook pointed out, there is waaaaay too much emphasis on skilled (male) preachers in this argument.
• How could he use the phrase “McDonalds-ization of the church” as a good thing??? Consistent quality, yes — but not GOOD quality!  I think that analogy says the wrong thing about God.
• As a friend at church once said, “efficiency is not a kingdom value.”
• Does this article lean toward idolization of the sermon (and therefore the preacher)?  Obviously the author is not part of a tradition that emphasizes Sacrament alongside Word.
• I won’t even get into the author’s assumption that pastors and preachers are to be male.
• Where is the Spirit in this article?
• I agree that there is a strong need for pastors who are truly pastors — but I don’t think that has to be (or should be) a separate category from “preachers”.
• I also agree that it is a good thing for laypeople to step up and help in ministry — although I disagree that this will automatically follow from the mega-tization of the church.
• I am highly suspicious of the author’s assertion that “for men, sermon quality is paramount.”

I could go on.  I know that God works through megachurches as well as small churches, but I am tired of the highly-American assumptions that bigger is better, that efficiency is a virtue, that Christians are church “consumers” while churches are supposed to “meet people’s needs,” that preaching is a superior calling to all of the other gifts given by the Spirit, and that business trends ought to shape the church.

So there you have it.  If this analysis resonates with you, or if you think I have misunderstood the article at any point, please comment!

http://churchformen.com/teaching-in-the-church/what-church-will-be-like-in-50-years/

Where Leadership is Anchored

I like this article from Scot McKnight’s blog.  There are far too many people out there who strive to lead but aren’t willing to follow.

“Some of the most dangerous leaders are those who think they know better than anyone else, who are interested only in their own inventions and who relish the isolation of being out ahead of everyone else” (37). Mel [Lawrenz, in Spiritual Influence] turns it inside out: “The best leaders you ever followed did not learn leading by leading, but by following.”

 

Genuine spiritual influence then is leading others into following Jesus. The question then is this: Does this person lead me to follow Christ or does this person lead me to follow him/her?

via Where Leadership is Anchored.

Tim Suttle: How to Shrink Your Church

There aren’t many books out there that give instructions about how to shrink your church — in fact, usually we think a shrinking church = a dying church.  Tim Suttle’s article, despite painting with some rather broad strokes, makes some excellent points.

Success is a slippery subject when it comes to the Church. That our ultimate picture of success is a crucified Messiah means any conversation about success will be incompatible with a “bigger is better” mentality. Yet, bigger and better is exactly what most churches seem to be pursuing these days: a pursuit which typically comes in the form of sentimentality and pragmatism.

Sentimentality and pragmatism are the one-two punch which has the American Church on the ropes, while a generation of church leaders acquiesces to the demands of our consumer culture. The demands are simple: tell me something that will make me feel better sentimentality for the churchgoer, and tell me something that will work pragmatism for the church leader. Yet it is not clear how either one of those are part of what it means to be the church.

I especially appreciate that he calls out the “new niche industry” that he calls “the Church Leadership Culture” — dead on.

via Tim Suttle: How to Shrink Your Church.

AMiA taken in by Congo

As some of you may have heard, AMiA published a communique yesterday, announcing that they have been granted residence in the Anglican Church of the Congo.  They are no longer free-floating agents — that’s the good news.

But at the same time, I think this news should deeply sadden us.  The Congo [formerly Zaire] was at one point in the same Anglican province as Rwanda!  It saddens me that the AMiA bishops, whom I love, consider “reconciliation” with Rwanda as friendly separation.  It saddens me that these godly men can on the one hand talk about the need for AMiA to not be governed by “remote control” (i.e. by Rwanda), but on the other hand to turn to one of Rwanda’s neighbors for spiritual covering.  Granted, I don’t know all the details — but with this latest move, the situation seems clear to me.

Lord, have mercy.

I don’t agree with all of the the negative rhetoric in this article, but I do agree with the basic premise:

Stand Firm | What’s the Harm in a Little Schism?.

Ed Stetzer – Considering (and Surviving) Unhealthy Christian Organizations, part 1

This series of articles has the potential to be very powerful, as well as timely for the church and its leaders:

I started thinking about writing this article when a couple I know were approached about working at a prominent Christian organization. They expressed appreciation of how much good is done by this organization. Yet, they were not interested because they knew people who worked there. And, although everyone who worked there would readily say God was doing great things, they also used two phrases regularly: “we’re miserable” and “around here, you just keep your head down and do your job.”

 

And therein lies the quandary of the dysfunctional Christian organization– it often does good things on the outside while destroying the soul of those on the inside.

via Ed Stetzer – Considering (and Surviving) Unhealthy Christian Organizations, part 1.

Will this be me in 40 years?

So I’m preaching today — T-minus 2 hours and counting.

This will be the first time I have ever preached for a church, preached for anyone outside of an artificial “preaching lab” setting. In some ways, I’m less nervous since I’m not preaching for a grade! Seminarians are often the harshest critics when it comes to sermons…

That being said, I’m still nervous — especially because I’m supposed to limit the sermon to 15 minutes, tops. Since I hate practicing sermons, I haven’t read it out loud, so I actually have no idea how long it will turn out to be… I suspect it’s too long. That probably means I will end up talking too fast, as I usually do. 🙂

However, fundamentally I’m excited! I get to preach! Plus, my family’s here to celebrate Thanksgiving with me and the in-laws to be (!), so my family will be in the congregation to hear my very first sermon. I’ve already decided that my sermon won’t be “perfect,” and it’s certainly not your typical “three points and poem” sermon (since I’m NOT a linear thinking type of person…), but I’m still excited.

The process of writing the sermon has been quite freeing, actually. A lot of the ground work for my sermon was handed to me, because it “just so happens” that the lectionary passages for the day include TWO — that’s right, not just one, but TWO — passages that I have already studied in depth recently. I taught on the Gospel passage in our Sunday School a few weeks ago, and the Psalm for the day is the exact Psalm on which I preached last Spring for a seminary class. Oh that God… It feels like He’s smiling on me in this process.

In fact, this sermon is part and parcel with much of what God is teaching me right now: trust in Him and not in myself. I’ve had the strangest sense of peace (well, most of the time) as I’ve prepared for this sermon, and it’s not because I’ve spent billions of hours preparing (I haven’t). But for some reason, I have been able to trust God with this sermon. And that’s pretty darn cool.

On my own, I’m not capable of this type of trust. So…. thanks be to God for His care for me!

Gifts vs. Roles

Check out this great article on the False Distinction Between Gifts and Roles that many people in the church buy into.* The article is from a blog sponsored by Christianity Today called “Gifted for Leadership,” and this particular article is written by a graduate of TEDS, Sarah Flashing. She challenges the church, and particularly women, to think more deeply about what it means to honor God with the spiritual gifts he has placed in us. She also has a great discussion of what submission ought to look like in the church, emphasizing that submission is NOT a “giving up” (negative, shutting down one’s gifts) but rather a “giving to” another person (a positive act of love, not a denial of pleasures).

Check it out!

*Forgive the preposition at the end of this sentence, but it sounded way too awkward to write “into which many people in the church buy.” As far as I’m concerned, I chose the lesser of the evils!