Is the Church broken?

Is the Church broken?

Travis Johnson, over at The Edge Church Think Tank, posted an article bemoaning the incredible shrinking church: “The Great Shrinking Church. What Gives?!?!” First, he cites some statistics from The American Church:

  • 18.7%: Americans in church in 2000
  • 18.0%: Americans in church in 2003
  • 11.7%: Americans projected to be in church by 2050
  • 4,600: New churches from 1990–2000
  • 38,802: How many new churches there should have been in order to keep pace with American population.

That America is becoming an increasingly secular nation is no surprise. That traditional church style seems increasingly irrelevant in the “naughties” and that church numbers are in decline—again—no surprise.

So, taking an unflinching look at the numbers (there was more cited), Travis concludes:

“In my mind, those statistics absolutely prove that we MUST move every single priority to the side burner. Establishing new churches and transitioning declining churches needs to be our primary focus. The question is how. How do we re-ignite passion for the Great Commission among our churches, both locally and denominationally?” (Emphasis is Travis’.)

So far, the comments, especially from Mike Dyer, indicate that church organizational structures are lacking, the clergy are worldly, and innovation is rejected. In short, the church is broken. Mike writes:

“The church needs to become self-aware and realize that the church is a failure. It is not flawed. It doesn’t need a tune-up. It is broken. It takes courage to face the fact we are not successful Christians going to successful churches with a successful clergy. We have failed our young children, our teenagers, our divorced members, and our friends. The clergy has failed in leadership and the laity has failed as church members. Christians need to be honest and discuss our failures, analyze our failures and document our failures. The Church does not need to be more self-confidant, they need to become losers.”

It’s the usual Emergent critique: reinvent the church. (See my post, “It’s okay … I’m Emergent. I’m here to help.”) Travis, to his credit asserts that the church is victorious, but he still wonders what’s wrong.

I respectfully submit that both Travis and Mike are looking in the wrong direction. Of course, my viewpoint is just as subjective—and just as likely wrong—but I think that it’s neither a matter of re-prioritizing and “re-igniting passion for the Great Commission,” nor is it a matter of declaring the church DOA, and moving on.

Of the two strategies, perhaps Travis’ is closer to what I see as the most fruitful direction. But rather than ask, “how do we reignite passion for the Great Commission?” I believe the question should be: “Have I met Christ and been transformed?” And, “How do we introduce others to Christ?”

Christ always had a galvanizing, polarizing effect on those he met. When you met Christ, you either lashed out, or followed him. I don’t think there was much of a middle road, not when I read the Gospels. Christ was a catalyst. And I submit that if we have people in our pews who do not know Christ, if we have Sunday School teachers and preachers in our pulpits who are not transformed, if we are not longing to see Christ in Heaven, perhaps we have never truly met Christ?

And even for those who have met Christ, and responded, why are they not continuing in their transformation? Have they abandoned their first love?

I suspect the key problem here is not church structures, forms, or worldliness, per se. The problem is not the Great Commission. The problem is the Great Commandment: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, strength, and soul, and your neighbor as yourself.” Church growth is essentially a question of evangelism. And evangelism is essentially a reflection of our love for God and fellow man. Where there is no evangelism, love is the key missing ingredient.

We who claim to be Christians: Are we keeping this commandment? Are we learning to love the Lord with everything we have? Are we passionate about bringing others to Christ? Are we truly being transformed by the renewing of our minds? If not, maybe we haven’t truly encountered Christ yet. This is what the church needs, what the pulpits need, what our Sunday School teachers need. It’s what I need: Genuine, life-changing, personal encounters with Christ.

And the way that happens is first through you and me. As I become transformed (Romans 12) and as I grow to have the mind of Christ (see Philippians 2) I will reflect Christ to those around me. Through me and the love I have for others, those around me will encounter Christ and come to their own saving faith (or rejection). As I mentor and disciple others, they will, in turn, reflect Christ to the world around them, and they, too, will begin to love, God, love others, evangelize, mentor, and disciple.

As a gauge of your incarnational, transformational life, consider this: are you mentoring somebody? Are you being mentored? Are you meditating on the Word, as well as studying and memorizing it? Are you the master of your thought-life, or are they your master (Philippians 4)? (These questions are for me, too.)

The church is not broken. It’s just small, and shrouded by multitudes who have yet to meet Christ to follow him. They’re following a pastor, a movement, a doctrine—but they’re not following Christ.

Emergent philosophies and ideas, alone, won’t produce this church. Traditional philosophies and techniques won’t either. This is all about being genuine disciples first. The doing comes out of that.


Other, loosely related articles:

» “It’s okay … I’m Emergent. I’m here to help.” Or, deconstructing the helpful deconstruction.
» Spiritual formation is not discipleship
» Why so much growth and decline?
» Diversity, the Global South, and the Assemblies of God


From the blogosphere:

  • Delilah Boyd, blogging from “A Scrivener’s Lament,” compares Olson’s numbers to other survey reports, and concludes that Christians are big-fat liars.
  • Riffing off the Scrivener, Bucky at the Brown Bag Blog wonders, “Do Guilt-ridden Liars Outnumber Church-goers?” He concludes that even if the survey respondents and the entire Church crowd are liars, it’s Olson who’s not to be trusted: “Mr Olson, I have to suspect, is being driven by an agenda and is therefore not to be fully trusted.” Ted Olson, the man himself, responds.

Update:
Tim Challies wrote an interesting thought-piece, asking, “Evangelism — The Chief End of Man?” It’s worth reading, in light of the discussion here. Tim starts with the presupposition of the Westminister Shorter Catechism which states that the chief end of man (mankind’s end-purpose for existence) is “to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” If that is true, and I believe it is, it has bearing on whether our primary emphasis should be evangelism or loving and knowing God. This only affirms my position that loving God with all our heart, mind, strength, body, and soul should have the highest priority and that the transformation resulting from such a divine encounter will naturally result in loving our neighbors as a result, and evangelism ensues as a byproduct of that kind of love. Not only is outward love a natural byproduct of transformation, but the transformation makes possible intentional love–which involves sharing the Good News of the Kingdom that is here, now.


[tags]BlogRodent, Tim-Challies, Pentecostal, Church-of-God-in-Christ, Assemblies-of-God, Assembly-of-God, church-growth, church-decline, evangelism, The-Great-Commission, The-Great-Commandment, Jesus, Christ, Jesus-Christ, spiritual-transformation, spiritual-renewal, witnessing, missions, Emergent-church, Emerging-church, revival[/tags]

24 thoughts on “Is the Church broken?

  1. Pingback: Rich - MySpace Blog

  2. Jim

    We have taken the Gospel and turned it into a book. We have take the Great Commission and made it “take the Church” instead of “take the Gospel”. I converse regularly with a few fellows in Canada who suggest perhaps the American version of “emergent” has gone off tangent. I do not know. Emergent, in northern Kentucky, is a subject unheard of as of yet. Also, for the most part, I highly respect what I hear coming forth from these fellows. Is the Church broken? More, I suspect, we find ourselves presently with a false and a true church, and denominational name tags over the door really don’t mean much. Separation really takes place in a man’s heart and judgement belongs to God. My only “critique” of your words here are with having the “mind of Christ”. I’ve always seen that more along the lines of actually HAVING the Mind of Christ indwelling me and the idea of transforming my mind to be as His a lifelong commitment. Peace, my friend…….

  3. Travis Johnson

    James, in so many ways shouldn’t the church be the embodiment of the Gospel?

    Rich spoke to love, I spoke to envangelism, Mike spoke to the corporate characteristic of a broken church. In the end, it all bleeds together with little room to decipher what is cause and what is effect.

    I do know that some of the most loving churches I have ever been in are horribly inwardly focused. Some of the most evangelistic churches I have ever been in seemingly lack love.

    BUT, from a birdseye, there has got to be a reason for our American decline (we are not declining overseas). The true church is not unloving. Neither is the true church not evangelizing.

    I put forth that we are distracted. We are distracted from our primary purpose. The love and the evangelism have been edged out by competing factors.

    We have shifted from being a movement intensely focused on the spreading of the Gospel and the multiplication of believers to being an organziation that consolidates power, influence, and resources for all the wrong reasons. We are now in a maintenence mode.

    My conclusion? Cut the heart out of anything that does not promote the spreading of the Gospel. “De-fund” administrative clutter and organizational maintenance in favor of a light and fast mission motivated passion for God and souls.

  4. Travis Johnson

    Jim (how did I get James?),

    My assumption is that most Christ followers are doing the best they know how and are responding to the limited structures and leadership governing the church today. Flawed and frail we may be. But, positionally, we are so much more.

    This conversation caused my mind to race back to Barnabas and the Apostles recognizing a soveriegn move of God at the newly formed Church at Antioch. Great numbers came to Christ in a church that had only at that moment begun to evangelize the Gentiles.

    Barnabas ran to that place and helped give direction to a fledgling movement. Then, he called for back up and got Paul for a year. Great numbers continued to come to Christ.

    Love abounded in this ethnically diverse church and the Gospel spread like wildfire. As we see there, man puts structure to the moving of the Holy Spirit and directs the formation of believers.

    Had Barnabas and Paul built a faulty structure at Antioch…had Barnabas not advocated for Paul to be accepted among the Apostles, then the face of the church would likely be very different today.

    So, if man structures the moving of God, the type of structures we build will grow or shrink this movement called Christianity. Failing in our organizational priorities as local, denominational and universal expressions of the Church, while not terminal as failing to love and failing to evangelize, is a recipe for stagnation and decline.

    At this time, even the Pentecostals are in danger of decline in America. In fact, if we did as Dave Olsen did and count only the attenders of our church services and not members, adherents, or other fuzzy figures, I would not be at all surprized if we are nearing the peak of our bubble with a Pentecostal decline on the very near horizon.

  5. Travis Johnson

    Jim (how did I get James?),

    My assumption is that most Christ followers are doing the best they know how and are responding to the limited structures and leadership governing the church today. Flawed and frail we may be. But, positionally, we are so much more.

    This conversation caused my mind to race back to Barnabas and the Apostles recognizing a soveriegn move of God at the newly formed Church at Antioch. Great numbers came to Christ in a church that had only at that moment begun to evangelize the Gentiles.

    Barnabas ran to that place and helped give direction to a fledgling movement. Then, he called for back up and got Paul for a year. Great numbers continued to come to Christ.

    Love abounded in this ethnically diverse church and the Gospel spread like wildfire. As we see there, man puts structure to the moving of the Holy Spirit and directs the formation of believers.

    Had Barnabas and Paul built a faulty structure at Antioch…had Barnabas not advocated for Paul to be accepted among the Apostles, then the face of the church would likely be very different today.

    So, if man structures the moving of God, the type of structures we build will grow or shrink this movement called Christianity. Failing in our organizational priorities as local, denominational and universal expressions of the Church, while not terminal as failing to love and failing to evangelize, is a recipe for stagnation and decline.

    At this time, even the Pentecostals are in danger of decline in America. In fact, if we did as Dave Olsen did and count only the attenders of our church services and not members, adherents, or other fuzzy figures, I would not be at all surprized if we are nearing the peak of our bubble with a Pentecostal decline on the very near horizon.

  6. Jim

    Travis…..When you speak of man “structuring” the move of the Holy Ghost, I hesitate, for it seems to me it ought to be the other way around. When you state that “if man structures the moving of God, the type of structures we build will grow or shrink this movement called Christianity”, I think you say it all. Pentecostals are in danger of decline in this country because about 15 years ago they began to think they possessed the Holy Ghost instead of the other way around. Television evangelism began to “structure” the idea that we, as born-again believers, have been transformed into “Christ-clones”. We all stumble, however. We all make mistakes; and the Church is an “individual” just like the rest of us. She has her share of ups, down, and errors. When you get too big to admit that part of humanity yet within you, though, you’re due for a fall. Paul birthed a lot of churches. The foundation was always Christ. Peace, my friend……..

  7. Brendt

    “First, he cites some statistics from The American Church…”

    Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said that there are “lies, d*mned lies, and statistics” ? OK, perhaps that’s a little overblown, but it coincides with my point, and Twain was funnier than I’d ever hope to be.

    Long before anyone came up with the terms “emergent” or “post-modern”, the Western church has (wrongly) tried to adopt a business model — perhaps we can get on Wall Street with “JC” as our ticker abbreviation — and has been fascinated with numbers.

    Now before someone goes quoting Acts 2:41 (and similar passages) to me, I’m not saying that numbers are evil. And I’m certainly not saying that a lack of quantity is an inherently good thing. But to use numbers as anything more than a potential need for examination — for instance, to start with such things — is truly broken.

    Are there things wrong with the church? Definitely.

    Is church attendance down? Definitely.

    Are those two things related? Highly questionable.

  8. Travis Johnson

    When I speak to structuring the move of the Holy Spirit, I am speaking to order, the way things are done organizationally. What I am not speaking to is man quenching the Holy Spirit. That would be a diffeerent bird for a different discussion.

    If you would like a New Testament example of man structuring Kingdom advancement, look to the Apostles call to appoint godly men to tend to the affairs (tables) of the church. Without that man mande structure, the ability to win, receive, disciple, and multiply believers would have been severely hampered.

    In the case of Antioch, the Holy Spirit moved, the Gospel was spread, and THEN structure was placed to the movement. It is a necessary thing. As a fairly outspoken critic of my own denomination’s inability to break free from its own organizational molasses, that’s a pretty reasonable thing to say I think.

  9. Brendt

    Jim is quite generous to say that he “hesitate[s]” when Travis speaks of man structuring the move of the Holy Ghost. I run screaming.

    Travis states that “if man structures the moving of God, the type of structures we build will grow or shrink this movement called Christianity.” Now if the “if” of this statement is true, then “this movement called Christianity” has absolutely nothing to do with the church, which Jesus said that He would build in Matthew 16:18.

    If man controls Christianity, then I’m sleeping in on Sundays.

    While writing this response, I saw that Travis clarified his wording with examples. However, that’s not “structuring the move of the Holy Ghost/God”. That’s getting man the heck out of the way so that God can move more freely.

  10. Jim

    Not against structure, Travis. Just concerned about who puts it up. I’m not always so sure it’s the Holy Ghost. Personally, I think Rich sums it up well in his last two statements………

  11. Travis Johnson

    I couldn’t agree more with Rich’s last two statements, though I have some personal conflicts over the sequence of the whole “knowing, being, and doing” philosophy.

    Man made structures do not scare me at all until they encroach on the Power of the Gospel, stimy, or strangle the two greatest calls of Christ. In fact, much of the Church experienced by the New Testament Church was man made. I mean if we are going to do this right, then perhaps Brendt could share his experience in selling all of his goods and having all in common with the non-structured Christians he knows.

    Structure is right. It is encouraged by Christ Himself when He said to go and make Disciples. The necessary two people required to establish a disciple making relationship is a structure in and of itself.

    So, as the Body of Christ expands, which it does and is presently doing even here in the US (just not relative to American population growth), we must break the structures that limit expansion.

    Life giving, permissive structures propel the spreading of the Gospel. Restrictive, overly centralized structures on every level that withhold the spreading of the Gospel should be in the cross hairs of every Great Commission Christian.

    Then again, if you guys can’t handle structure at all, then lets fire all of the church planting and missions sending movements off of a high roof and float aimlessly from one accidental Christian gathering to another.

  12. Brendt

    I don’t think anyone is decrying structure, no matter what its origins. But any attempt by man to structure or direct the actions of God will do nothing but “encroach on the Power of the Gospel, stimy, or strangle the two greatest calls of Christ.”

    Structure can indeed be right, good, and helpful. It allows finite man to be a part of an infinite God’s plan. But all that structure does is help man get out of the way or in the right way. Structure is an amoral thing — it is neither “life-giving” nor “restrictive”. Those attributes belong to God and man, respectively.

  13. Travis Johnson

    Brendt, I think you are presenting an overly idealistic approach. The fact is that man is entrusted with the gift of the Gospel. We have this treasure in earthen vessels. And, that is incredible. Ultimately, it is up to me…to us as individuals fully endowed with radically diverse personalities. God has given us the ability and responsibility to use our personalities, intellects, emotions, and characteristics to share the Gospel in ways that best fits us as individuals and our audience at any given time.

    The Holy Spirit does not possess us and move us like mind numbed robots. Rather, He flows within our giftings, strengths, and weaknesses on a daily basis. The same goes for structure. Based upon our best working knowledge of structures, we are to steward the power of the Gospel in our Judea, Samaria, and uttermost parts of the world. Let me stress- “To the best of our ability.” There is no precise orgnaizational formula in the Scriptures for the Church. So, we are left to work that out on our own with aggressive goals in mind, with a desire to see lives transformed.

    You said:

    ***Structure is an amoral thing — it is neither “life-giving� nor “restrictive�. Those attributes belong to God and man, respectively.***

    Communism, Socialism, Fascism? Structures. Restrictive. Repressive. In my halfway informed mind, these structures are not beneficial to the spreading of the Gospel, not now and not really well in the New Testament experiment with the Christian commune. Other structures that limit the reach of the Gospel are the focus of my frustration.

    So, the question…my original question still remains unaddressed. Why is it that the church in America is shrinking? Rich said love is lacking. Maybe so. I mentioned a lack of structural/organizational priority for the Great Commission. I think that is pretty accurate. Of course, if we truly loved we would truly want to reach.

    What priority do you put to share the power of Christ? Your church? Your church’s affiliations?

    I think those are legitimate questions. Tough questions. But, an honest, passionate Christ follower would ask them and answer truthfully. When I answer it truthfully, my heart is broken.

    The question is good and fair and deserves a good treatment. Step up an tell me why you think that the church is shrinking. I am interested in your view on that.

  14. Rich Post author

    Jim wrote:

    I suspect, we find ourselves presently with a false and a true church, and denominational name tags over the door really don’t mean much.

    I fully agree. “The Church” (big “C”) is a much smaller sampling of all who are “in church” (little “c”) on any given Sunday.

    Jim continued:

    My only “critique” of your words here are with having the “mind of Christ”. I’ve always seen that more along the lines of actually HAVING the Mind of Christ indwelling me and the idea of transforming my mind to be as His a lifelong commitment.

    Paul clearly outlined this as a choice and process in Philippians 2 … “let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus ….” This is a choice Paul is telling the Philippians to make to take on the humility and other-centeredness of Christ. This is a process of transformation and outworking, as Paul highlights after the kenosis passage: Work out your salvation with fear and trembling…for it is God who works in you and through you according to his purpose.” (Paraphrasing from memory, sorry if the language is off.)

    Travis added:

    Rich spoke to love, I spoke to evangelism, Mike spoke to the corporate characteristic of a broken church. In the end, it all bleeds together with little room to decipher what is cause and what is effect.

    Indeed, there are many symptoms, and we could get into a nice cynical funk outlining all the deficiencies we all perceive. Shucks, any first-year Bible college student or seminarian rails about that stuff in school all the time, before they get out there with the patient and realize that discussing the symptoms gets you only so far in diagnosing the ailment and providing a positive, health-inducing program of treatment.

    But I seriously doubt structure is, itself, the problem, nor programs. All structures and programs tend to ossify (see Margaret Poloma’s book, “The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads”) or descend to chaos. What is first needed is not a new program or a new structure, but a revived patient. What ails the patient–the American churchgoing community–is the deception that all is well with the family, the individual, or the local church–when it is not. In fact, many of the people in our pews might well be headed to Hell upon their death.

    If that’s true, and I grievingly suspect it is, then another program and a renewed emphasis on evangelism will only produce more of the same: people coming to church for whatever reason, but not encountering Christ, not being transformed, and–in turn–not transforming their world.

    Travis illustrated:

    I do know that some of the most loving churches I have ever been in are horribly inwardly focused. Some of the most evangelistic churches I have ever been in seemingly lack love.

    I suppose that depends on the object of the love for the former (is the love you witnessed driven by a genuine love of God and obedience to his commands?) and the drive for the evangelism in the latter (was it driven out of a natural desire to share the good news, or for the sake of evangelism and growth itself? What was the actual content of the evangelistic message? Was it truly the Gospel or some modern form of it watered-down to not offend–think Joel Osteen?)

    BUT, from a birds-eye, there has got to be a reason for our American decline (we are not declining overseas). The true church is not unloving. Neither is the true church not evangelizing.

    Good point, but I submit that there may be many in our pulpits today who neither love God nor love their fellow man, thus who do not evangelize. Their churches are then filled with the same (churches tend to organize themselves around the characteristics of the leadership).

    What is the difference between the modern American pastor and the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic missionary (those are the ones experiencing most of the growth)? Bible Schools and seminaries are training professionals who are effectively the CEOs of modern corporations. Many of my peers in Bible College and seminary were driven by the passion to be pastors or teachers. They were not driven by the passion to bring the Gospel to a lost people. However, my missionary friends: those were the wild-eyed prophets willing to make tremendous sacrifices before they could even set foot on the field: They had to maintain a low-to-zero debt profile, they had to spend at least a year raising funds before going to the field, then they had to spend another year or two getting language training before going out to work with another in-field missionary. Combined with four years in a Bible college, it took six to seven years before getting to where they were called–driven–to go to minister. And that doesn’t count what they actually face in the field. To survive, to thrive, they must be Spirit-empowered–they must be people who’ve been personally transformed. (Note: I’m painting broad swaths of generalities by the power of my keyboard. I am speaking in generalities–there are obviously many, many exceptions to test my theory. I do not speak of either exceptional transformed, God-loving, neighbor-loving, evangelistic pastors. Nor do I speak of missionary failures.)

    That is not the usual experience most graduating pastoral-degreed candidates have.

    I suspect it’s at least possible (yea, likely) that those who are driven to missions have a fundamentally different encounter with Christ and a different love poured into their hearts by the Holy Spirit than the typical Bible college pastoral ministries major.

    Again, I’m not saying this is true of all pastors, and I’m certainly not saying it’s true of anyone reading my words right now. But I suspect an honest evaluation would show demonstrative differences in spiritual temperament between the average pastor and the average missionary.

    Brendt notes:

    Are there things wrong with the church? Definitely.
    \r\nIs church attendance down? Definitely.
    \r\nAre those two things related? Highly questionable.

    That is a salient point Brendt. But where would you suggest we focus to diagnose what’s wrong, if declining numbers are not symptomatic?

    By the way, I do disagree with a presumption that all healthy churches grow in numbers–based on the idea that all healthy organisms grow–or reproduce. That notion is faulty in the real-world of biology and it’s faulty as a church-health model as well. Some of the healthiest churches I know had static, or declining numbers, but produced a stellar range of ministers out of their dwindling congregations because of the health of the ministry going on there. (My own home-church, Highland Assembly of God, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, disappeared off the map within a decade of my leaving for college, but the youth group I grew up in generated 12 or 13 ministers or missionaries that I could name off the top of my head–and possibly more.) You could argue that this is reproduction of a form, but it’s not going to be reflected in a Sunday-by-Sunday spreadsheet of attendance numbers.

    This only reiterates, in my mind, the importance of individual encounters with Christ resulting in transformation exhibited by the primary fruit and gift of the Spirit: Love. Love for God and love for one’s neighbor.

    Travis noted:

    I couldn’t agree more with Rich’s last two statements, though I have some personal conflicts over the sequence of the whole “knowing, being, and doing” philosophy.

    Thanks for the nod, but I’d be interested in what you see as a weakness in “know/be/do.” Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. That’s an encounter that is principally knowledge-oriented and experiential. Transformative faith comes about by an encounter with the living Word. The doing follows, as James tells us that faith without works is dead.

    By the way, this has turned into and excellent and thought provoking dialog. I am blessed that you all chose to weigh in, here, and I hope it redounds to greater understanding and bringing the Kingdom closer to what God really wants it to be for at least this small corner of the blogworld.

    Regards,

    Rich.

  15. Travis Johnson

    Great thoughts, Rich. And, to echo your comments, this has been enjoyable and hopefully beneficial to weigh in with Jim and Brendt.

    I certainly do not have the focus to address everything you raised in your response. Perhaps, I can share some of my conflicts with knowing, being, and doing later. But, like I said, it is a conflict that I have and not a well formed perspective mostly stemming from frustration with the marginalization of the effect of relational witness on formation. In the end, it doesn’t matter. It is a marginal theory that plays itself out in our seminaries.

    Concerning this all and as a final, parting thought, I will say that structure is not the answer. Yet it very well could be a significant cause for our decline. Structure in the terms of the orignial proposition of a misguided organizational priority. That premise still remains. Until we sideline all competing focuses, like wild-eyed missionary wannabes, salivating over a harvest to be had, we will continue in our present downward spiral away from the harvest and into our comfortable dens of Christian sub-culture and godless social gatherings.

    Personally, I am not going to wait to figure it all out. That is for someone else to do. What I will do is continue to throw myself into the lives of people and make it as hard for them to go to hell as possible. Any competing activity or trait must support that effort or be sidelined. I pray that my love for God and man is what compels me.

    As I grow as a pastor, businessman, husband, and any other pursuit in which I am involved, I will do my best to structure my pursuits and people under my care in the best way possible to give them permission to do the same. I want to be able to present myself as Paul did when he said “follow me as I follow I Christ.”

  16. Pingback: Brainwaves

  17. Brendt

    Sorry for the delay, guys. For some silly reason, my company wants me to work on weekdays. ;-)

    The more I think about this, the less I have to say about it. I’ve enjoyed the conversation, but I think my contribution value is declining. I’ll just address a couple of points that were directed at me.

    Travis said:

    I think you are presenting an overly idealistic approach.

    Quite possibly so. But after 35 years of realism, I decided that not having a will to live wasn’t worth it. Bottom line: This is all about God. I can’t see how any human aspiring to be like Jesus isn’t going to be idealistic (or commit suicide).

    Travis said:

    Ultimately, it is up to me

    If any part of God’s plan is up to me, we’re in deep.

    Because of Rich, I had to look up “ossify”. ;-)

    Rich asked:

    But where would you suggest we focus to diagnose what’s wrong, if declining numbers are not symptomatic?

    If a gunshot victim is crying because of the pain, his runny nose would be a symptom. But it’s not necessarily where the doctor should focus his attention. The American church has tried focusing on the numbers (i.e the runny nose), and the result is colossal failure (either because the numbers declined, or the numbers were the only thing that grew). I’ll admit — I don’t know where the focus should be — but history has proven where it shouldn’t be.

    To paraphrase Matthew 6:34, “Sufficient unto the day are the numbers thereof.”

  18. Travis Johnson

    Brendt,

    You quoted me a bit out of context on the last one. If I read that “ultimately up to me” line seperate from its context, I could not possibly agree with myself. Please don’t put me into a discussion saying something I did not say. What I did say was:

    ****The fact is that man is entrusted with the gift of the Gospel. We have this treasure in earthen vessels. And, that is incredible. Ultimately, it is up to me…to us as individuals fully endowed with radically diverse personalities. God has given us the ability and responsibility to use our personalities, intellects, emotions, and characteristics to share the Gospel in ways that best fits us as individuals and our audience at any given time.****

    God does not NEED us but, He has chosen to use us as His mouthpiece on the earth. People are dependent on you and me both to communicate the Gospel to them. I happen to believe strongly that the way we carry ourselves impacts or fails to impact people for the cause of Christ. I hardly think that is a self-centered/ man-centered approach. I believe it would actually be a Matthew 28 approach.

    If I fail to be responsive to the prompting and move of the Holy Spirit, then I fail to fullfill my role in the “jointly fitted together” church, a relationally-structured church. Now, for all my hang-ups with religiosity, I have to come to the conclusion that our call to take dominion of the earth, to go and “make disciples,” and our call to be good stewards would lead us to hone our leadership and organizational skills to the point that we are intentionally making disciples and cultivating the God-given harvest that comes our way. What is possibly wrong with that?

  19. Brendt

    Travis,

    To be honest, I didn’t see how that statement fit in the context of the rest of the paragraph anyway, so I wasn’t aware that I was taking it out of context. Here’s the paragraph in context:

    The fact is that man is entrusted with the gift of the Gospel. We have this treasure in earthen vessels. And, that is incredible. Ultimately, it is up to me…to us as individuals fully endowed with radically diverse personalities. God has given us the ability and responsibility to use our personalities, intellects, emotions, and characteristics to share the Gospel in ways that best fits us as individuals and our audience at any given time.

    I agree whole-heartedly with all of the non-italicized statements. But I do not agree with the conclusion (italicized). And I even agree with most of the statements in the other two paragraphs in your most recent response.

    But to say that “it is up to me” reminds me of the “delegate” vs “instrument” argument. I wrote about this extensively as it relates to the marital relationship, but it applies to this as well. I would encourage you to read the whole thing, but here is the salient portion (I was describing different viewpoints and how I had arrived at the one cited here):

    4) Those who do believe in God’s intervention in our lives, see Him as the ultimate Provider and Protector, and see the husband as nothing more than God’s instrument to provide and protect the wife.

    Now, this may seem like semantics at first blush, but delegate and instrument are miles apart. If you are God’s delegate, the responsibility lies with you. If you are God’s instrument, the responsibility lies with Him.

    Perhaps you view Christians as delegates, rather than instruments. I just can’t get that to jive with my understanding of God and man.

  20. Rich Post author

    Brendt, you make an interesting distinction between our roles as instruments or delgates. I think this is an important point. If I understand you correctly, a more reformed view would see man as instruments, and an arminian view (consistent with COG and A/G classical Pentecostalism) would view man as delegates/stewards.

    The biblical case can be made for both, I think. We are at once stewards who have been charged with the honor of being God’s instruments. Christ’s parable of the talents highlights our responsibility as stewards. Paul talks about our stewardship of our bodies as God’s instruments–which are not our own, but God’s paid with a price. Paul also describes in Philippians 2 how we are to have the mind of Christ–obviously, an element of decision-making and stewardship is involved here–and the result is the awareness that it is God who enables us to will and to act according to his purpose. And Romans 12 highlights our responsibility to be transformed so that we may know God’s will. Throughout the NT we see patterns of delegated stewardship–our duties and responsibilities–alongside God’s sovereignty and our role as his hands and feet: instruments. Christ said he only did and said that which he saw the Father doing and saying. It’s our job to discern what the Father is about so that we can align our behavior to his.

    Even in your model of instrumentality over delegation, you still have been delegated at least one thing: the choice to submit as an instrument. We cannot escape that which has truly been delegated to us: our will to choose. By his soverign grace, God provides the ability to choose, to be sure, but even when he makes it possible to overcome your sinfulness so that you can be a proper instrument, you still must make the choice.

    In the end, proper stewardship and submitted instrumentality blend and who could tell the two apart?

    Now, assuming we have been delegated nothing, that we have no role to play in making proper choices and taking proper action, assuming that under the proper conditions we become mere conduits for God’s will, and perhaps little more than divinely controlled puppets, then what’s the point of the discussion? The church, then, is exactly as it should be. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever evangelism happens is exactly what should happen. No more, no less. Whatever neglect we give to the Word is exactly what God desires. Whatever doctrinal excess or lassitude inflicts the church is exactly the balance God wants.

    We would merely be along for the ride.

    Perhaps I’ve set up a straw man and I’m railing against conclusions you wouldn’t support. But this is what I see as the logical outcome of pitting instrumentality against stewardship/delegation.

    Regards,

    Rich.

  21. Brendt

    Rich,

    Not sure how you drew the reformed/arminian conclusion, but it may be pretty doggone perceptive, as I used to be more of an arminian ilk, but now am more of a reformed ilk. Not sure if that’s related to my shift from “delegate” to “instrument”, although I kinda have to wonder about that, as teaching and direction from my pastor (definitely an Arminian) are largely what brought this about.

    But regardless, I attend a church that is living proof that Calvinists and Arminians can play together, so don’t worry about this devolving into a C vs A argument. ;-) Besides, my reformed-ness is about me, not others.

    Your statements only get a bit straw-man-ish at the end (starting with “Now assuming…”; I agree with most of what you are saying. I’m not abdicating my responsibility to obey, but my responsibility for the outcome. The opinion that man is responsible for the outcome is (IMHO) untrue, yet widely taught (at least implicitly) in Christian circles — or at least in the circles that I used to spin in.

    At the risk of bringing up the A/C question again, some of the questions you raise in that paragraph, or their correlaries, are given in criticism of conformed thinking. The one that I hear most often is “If election is absolutely true, then why evangelize?” Not sure what the “official” Calvinist answer is to that, but mine is “I don’t know for sure, but God told me to, and that’s plenty for me.” ;-)

    You said:

    In the end, proper stewardship and submitted instrumentality blend and who could tell the two apart?

    I see your point. But still, while being willing to admit that it may be a weakness in my mentality, I can’t wrap my brain around it being quite that gray. Hence my distinction between delegate and instrument.

    One more thing: ossify? lassitude? I’m just thankful that Firefox has a search directly to dictionary.com ;-)

    Grace,
    Brendt

  22. Pingback: CaNN: Anglican.tk

Leave a Reply

This site is protected by Comment SPAM Wiper.
%d bloggers like this: