What the Church is and what the Church should be are two radically disproportionate institutions. The Church you go to on Sunday (or your parents go to, and you hear about it on Sunday afternoon) is a far cry from what is was created for. Originally, the church was a gloriously messy movement with a laser-focused message and a global mission. Now, it is an argument waiting to happen. I'll go so far and say that you probably don't even agree with other Christians about what the purpose of the Church even is! How can the Church be effective, grow, and transform lives and communities if we can't even agree what role she plays in our lives?
I'm really upset about this. Through all of the turmoil and heartache that I've experienced at the hands of Christians, I still deeply love the Church. As Bill Hybels famously states, "The local Church is the hope of the world." That's why I started in ministry, and that's why I still love it today. The Church has the ability to genuinely change the landscape of our culture if we give her the freedom to do so. The problem is, we (pastors included) don't know the role of the Church. We don't know what personality makes up a "good" church. Is it the music? The preaching? Their involvement with the poor? How they spend their money? No!
To understand the role of the Church, you have to understand the creation of the original Church.
What separates Christianity from every other world religion...ever...is the simple fact that its growth was fueled not by what they believed, but what they had seen. It wasn't the teachings of Jesus that sent his followers into the streets preaching, but his resurrection. The men and women who were leaders of the first Church were not believers, they were eyewitnesses! So, how did the Church begin?
In Andy Stanley's book, "Deep and Wide" (which should be required reading for anybody considering ministry) he describes the launch of the first Church this way:
A small band of Jewish dissidents defied a superpower and a religious system that had been in place for thousands of years and, in the end, prevailed. At the center of this grassroots movement, originally referred to as The Way, was a Jewish carpenter whose message centered around a "kingdom" that wasn't directly connected to this world. He spoke mostly in parables that few could understand. He insisted that those who followed him love the Romans and pay those onerous taxes. He alienated the influential and the powerful. He offended practically everybody. His family thought he had lost his mind. After only three years of public ministry, he was arrested, publically humiliated, and executed. Sounds like the perfect way to start a movement.Stranger still, these Jewish separatists claimed that not only had their leader risen from the dead but that they had touched him, eaten with him...they had seen him! Within a few weeks, their numbers swelled from the hundreds to the thousands; to the point where The Way replaced the entire pagan pantheon of gods as the primary belief system of the Roman Empire. From a purely secular point of view, it would seem as if the Church grew in spite of itself.
However, if you know your church history, you know that once the church got legalized, it got organized. What was once organic became institutional. What was once a movement became an establishment. Two thousand years later, we are still struggling to regain our identity, purpose, and passion.
Very few people think "movement" when they hear the word "church" today. But that is the very struggle we see in today's church. We have become fossilized. Our ideas have turned to law, and our fluidity to adjust has been hampered like a bad hip. The church needs leaders who are willing to do what is necessary so that they hand their churches off better than when they found them. The church needs men and women who are willing to put themselves up for scrutiny and to counteract the adage of, "this is just the way things are." They way the Church "are" is not what the Church needs to be today are two very different institutions.
I'm not saying that the construct of the Church is wrong, or that the original tenets need changing. I'm arguing for a re-evaluation of why we, as Christians and leaders of churches, continue to fall into the same habits. Let's ask the difficult question:
What is the Church?
Who is it for?
What traits should be characterized in every church?
How can my church change?
I know we won't all agree on every point, and that's fine. But before we part ways on method and approach, it's critical that we find common ground on the purpose and core characteristics of the Church. Churches have isolated themselves for too long over petty differences. It's time to unite under the banner of "Christian" and spur the Church onward together.
I know that I haven't given any specifics on how to go about moving the Church forward, finding common ground, and identifying the purpose. My next few posts will address all of that. I've taken some time off this blog the past few weeks to wrap my head around this issue. I'm planning a "summer series" if you will identifying the major issues the current constructions of the Church faces, and providing real, tangible solutions to the problems.
Stay tuned. Next post, I'm going to need your help! As always:
Be honest. Be open.
This is the Christian Safe Zone.
