commentary on church, pt 3 of 3

Question 1 - What makes church healthy?

Question 2 - Describe any experiences you’ve had at a healthy church?

Question 3 - Is Western Christianity doing its job? If yes, why? If no, what could be done?



I don’t think Western Christianity is doing its job…. I could cite book after book, survey after survey of why the Church is failing. Even in the failure, God continues to use a flawed system to do miraculous things for His Kingdom, but we mustn’t use this excuse to ignore the problem.



Right now we have 3 different era’s alive and contributing to society, the Boomers, Busters and Mosaics… In the next twenty years we are going to see a big drop in Church tithing, as the Boomer are the biggest givers (who have financed most Church growth in the last 50 years). The Buster’s and the Mosaics choose to give their tithes to other sources, namely social and environmental causes. If nothing changes, the Church will lose its funding and therefore lose its ability to present the programs it has built into the “Church Experience” we are witnessing today. Sorry, there is no citations here… but most of this is readily available in George Barna’s book “Revolution;” “The Millennium Matrix” by Rex Miller; “Irresistible Revolution” by Shane Claiborne; and “Everything Must Change” by Brian McLaren; just to name a few of the authors talking this lingo…

So, what can be done?! It seems that the biggest obstacle of the Church is to transition from program based Church to missional based church. A big challenge when faced with the gap in communication styles between the Boomers and the Mosaics. Only a few pastors I have talked to are in tune with this cultural transition, and there is major dissonance in their opinions on how Church should respond. Some chose to ditch the boomers entirely and focus on missional style church, while others can’t quit the money stream and remain focused on maintaining the status quo, even as the status quo dies off. It is a fascinating time to be in vocational ministry, that is for sure!



My prayer is that the church, in whatever form, chooses to be committed to community and finds a mission to take part in (not only to give money to, but to also get their hands dirty in). The Kingdom of God is here and now and I want to be apart of refocusing minds not on a building of stone and clay, but on proclaiming the foundation of Christ.

Just like community, the church is best when there is a missional focus. This missional attitude is the sticky part of community, it is the glue that holds relationships in place. Everyone needs two things in life to be fulfilled: Affirmation (love) and a sense that they are contributing to something meaningful (being an integral part of the whole). Therefore, it would make sense that a community of believers who have decided to join the work of God in this world, would choose to attach themselves to a mission of sorts whether it is the poor, the homeless, the addicted, or international students, Africa, orphans, special needs, wells for africa, the mocha club, et cetera… The healthiest, churches are ones in which their lives are centered not around themselves but around a greater need.

That is what Jesus has called us to be: Missionaries to the world, no matter where we live, sleep and eat.

commentary of church, pt 2 of 3

Question 1 - What makes church healthy?

Question 2 - Describe any experiences you’ve had at a healthy church?

Okay, this is going to be answered from the perspective of the body of Christ, a community of believers, not the Church as an organization.  The healthiest church has always been one that holds community in high regard, and strives to bring the Kingdom of God to this world (has a mission).  In my life, Church has always been ugly.  In that light, you can see why much of what I say is anti-Church and pro-church…  The following are some specific instances where I have experienced a healthy church:

FCA summer camps (2001-2004) - This was my first taste in community of believers, centered around athletics and Jesus.  It was a with a group of 10-15 counselors that I trained for 3 summers in a row.  Truly an awesome time in my life.  Prayer was daily, Worship was passionate, and Competition was fierce!  We were friends from different Universities, different upbringings and different denominations, but all united around one mission, that was to proclaim the adventure of receiving Christ as Lord through the avenue of athletics.

Kanakuk Colorado (2005-2007) - A truly beautiful experience where a community becomes so close it transforms friendships into family.  I give credit to this place for awakening my desire for Christ and a community to worship Him in.  It was a chapter of my life that is a mix of joy and sorrow - within a close-knit community you share in the joys and sorrows of each member…  We experienced both the celebration of marriage(s) and the grief of premature death within the three years I worked at this place.

Norman Community Church (2004-2006) - During Grad school at OU, I was apart of a Church that did church like I’d never seen before… With the housechurch as the core place of worship, Church was decentralized and the community was empowered to be missional in their approach.  Housechurches were characterized by their unique missional focus, ie: Greek, International, College, Married, Special Needs, Homeless, et cetera… Each housechurch was directed in ministry by the pastor and leadership team. Sunday celebration was held twice a month at a school cafeteria and the other Sunday meetings were held at peoples homes.  Accountability was directed from a paid pastor who met directly with housechurch leaders and had additional accountability through a sister church in OKC.  It was not perfect but it was a joy to be apart of, a very genuine place… as well as a place where people got the opportunity to be church as opposed to just doing Church.

commentary on church, pt 1 of 3

Just a little preface. The following is mostly my opinion, (answers to a friend questions about the health of church) though it is based in scriptures, theological/social/biblical) commentary and experience; it is not absolute. God is moving in many different forms of Church and we can not say that there is one form of church that is perfect, (even though I may say one is better than the rest… it is far from perfection). Also, it depends on who we are ministering to, boomers (1940-1965) and early buster’s (1965-1975) prefer presentation (program based church), while late busters (1975-1985) and mosaics (1985+), prefer more of a convergent, missional church.

Also, many people are fearful of confronting the institution of Church, because they fear being called a heretic for their questioning… but as many wise people have said, it is in questioning and seeking that we find truth! Besides a heretic is only someone who questions Orthodox belief… there was a time when Galileo was a heretic for believing the earth was round (sidenote: flat-earthers still exist)

So with that preface I’ll begin answering a few questions on church health.

What makes church healthy?

A couple of definitions:

Church (capital C) - the institution of religious practice; the local congregation; the denominations; the buildings; mainline and evangelical; basically Western Churchdom.

church (small c) - the bride of Christ; the body of Christ; a community of believers; not relating to a building, sect, or denomination.

I suppose you are asking what makes the Church healthy, being the local congregation or the institution of religion we call Church. If we are looking at the Church in this way, we must first identify the hierarchy of the current system of Church, mainline or evangelical (it is mostly the same). They are formed in the likeness of a corporation, with a CEO (pastor), Board of Directors (staff, deacons and elders) and shareholders (the congregation). This hierarchical system can be a expansive and powerful machine, or a small-time, mom and pop shop. Either way the goal is the same to preach a message that is related to truth, but not too truthful as to upset the shareholders (which provide the operating budget).

This is a tricky proposition, as the CEO has two masters to appease, one of preaching Christ Crucified and the other of paying off the note on the new million dollar sanctuary.

Now I am being a little facetious… as many churches across this great nation are doing great things in the name of the Lord, with flat screen TV’s in the sanctuary, multi-million dollar facilities and smoke machines for the praise band.

It is not necessarily the form of church I prefer, but again God is using it in a mighty way.

Now, the health of these organizations is reflective of the leadership’s capacity. The leader is the lid - and no organization/ministry can grow past the capacities of it’s leader. If a leader empowers his/her people, as a true servant-leader, much can be done in the name of the Lord. But if the leader is unwilling to give up control and leads as a tyrant (yes, even some pastors lead in this way), the church can not do much good.

Now it is true that God used an Ass, but that doesn’t mean we have to be Asses.

So health of a Church is a direct reflection of the leadership. Healthy-humble leadership = healthy-usable Church.

G.K. in the morning…

If I am asked, as a purely intellectual question, why I believe in Christianity, I can ony answer, “For the same reason that an intelligent agnostic disbelieves in Christianity.”  I believe in it quite rationally upon the evidence.  But the evidence in my case, as in that of the intelligent agnostic, is not realy in this or that alleged demonstration; it is in a enormous accumulation of small but unanimous facts.

pg. 216, Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton

G.K. then goes on for around about 10 pages… giving examples of and arguments against that which an intelligent agnostic would use to disprove God, or in the least to give reasons one could not believe in God.  Which in G.K.’s mind is a decision based on un-true demonstrations or as he puts it chance rationalist arguments.  To begin to follow his line is a exercise of the mind, though it is very logical, it is also very philosophical (meaning: big words and complex sentences).   I encourage anyone to pick up this book and ponder its words… I often recommend Orthodoxy to people with intelligent determination and ambitious doubts as it took me 2 years and many a G2 to sift through the language, thoughts and arguments.

speak….

Last week I pulled the pin and dropped a grenade into my comfortable life… In the aftermath many are confused and I am staggering about… not in a daze, but in apprehension. It seems I have a limited time to decide what is next, and in this angst, I am constantly seeking out God’s word for my life.

This morning I found myself reading and meditating on 1 Samuel 3. Samuel’s initial response to God’s voice was to think that Eli was calling him, not realizing it was God who was speaking, Samuel went in and woke Eli up 3 times… before he finally was advised by Eli to say to the Lord, “Speak, for your servant hears.”

I have always had a deep affinity with Samuel, who plays a pivotal role in the transition from Israel being ruled by prophetic Judges to the appointment of a King, and the beginning of the end of the Kingdom of Israel. In such a time of upheaval, the people of Israel show brash arrogance and envy. Wanting to be like the kingdoms that surround them, they give up their submission to a loving and protective God to put their trust in a man, a king. And throughout this turbulent time, Samuel stays his course as a messenger of God… speaking truth while the Israelite’s turn their backs on God best!

And as I sit amid this great upheaval in America, I say the same thing to God, “Speak, for your servant hears.”