Who’s to Blame for the Failure?
ome good discussion resulted from my last post about small groups and house churches. I appreciate all who participated. Ironically, the conversations that I’m involved in seem to be converging into some common areas of discussion.
Dan Edelen’s basic premise is that the church overall (encompassing both small groups and house churches) has failed (or, more accurately, continues to fail) in its mission. I’m not really sure anyone here would disagree with that, as Dan pointed out in his original post. And in the conversation over at Ray’s X-Change, Tony Sisk has commented that he feels that Raborn, ded, and I are blaming the institutional church for the failure in making mature disciples.
I started to respond on Raborn’s blog, but my comment got so lengthy (hmmm, a common problem for me!) that I decided to just post here instead.
“Ded” already hit on some of the points I would have made over there, so I don’t want to just repeat what he said. However, I would like to add my thoughts to the discussion.
I want to emphasize that I do not merely “blame” the institution or its leaders for any failure. Tony is correct that people are responsible for growing in maturity themselves. And to that extent, the people are to blame.
However, Ephesians 4 also makes it quite clear that the gifts that were given to the church (gifts which we typically equate with leadership in the institutional church) were given for the equipping of the body so that all could grow in maturity.
So, responsibility lies on both sides. It’s not one-sided either way. What ded has tried to explain (and with which I concur) is that the system that is currently in place, having evolved in various ways over the centuries, is inherently flawed.
Let me state that again, very succinctly: I believe that the system is inherently flawed. In that sense, I’m not blaming anyone at all! I just think that we need to take a good, long look at what we are trying to accomplish, and ask if we are going about it in a way that is conducive to accomplishing that.
As Raborn has pointed out, it is slightly oxymoronic for a man to be standing on an elevated platform with people sitting in a very spectator-oriented fashion, while that man tells them that they don’t need a person elevated above them (spiritually speaking) in order to have abundant life in Christ!
No matter how much a pastor understands, or even teaches, that people don’t need him to be preaching to them every week, the very fact that he is preaching to them every week counters that!
Now, a little interjection here. None of this is meant to be a criticism of anyone in particular. As ded so graciously pointed out in clarification on Raborn’s blog, he has respect (as do I) for people like Gordon Cloud, Tony Sisk, etc., who are doing what they are doing within the institution. Many, many blessings on them in their endeavors! So, please, guys, understand that I’m not criticizing you. If, in reading this blog, you feel led of the Lord to modify what you’re doing, then to God be the glory. I’m not so arrogant, however, to believe that I have a word for you in how to operate within your ministries. I’m asking questions, providing food for thought, but that is all I’m trying to do! If anything, my interaction with you guys here makes my heart long to fellowship with you in person!! And Lord willing, we will do that someday.
OK, so back to my musings about the system itself. I’ve used an analogy here before that some of you might not have seen if you’re fairly new to my blog. If a person were to repeatedly attend 12th grade at school, year after year, hearing the same material taught over and over again, yet never graduate, we would never look at that person and say that they were mature. In fact, we would draw quite the opposite conclusion. We would see something very wrong with that picture. There is a point where the student needs to go and actually live what they have been taught, and quite possibly even teach others.
I see the traditional way of doing church as fostering the “unhealthy” idea, however, that maturity is equated with staying in the same place (i.e., the same church), sitting under the same pastor. (“Changing churches” is usually frowned upon, unless there is a geographical move, in which case, they are expected to find another church and pastor to “sit under”.) I think you can see how some of us view that as inherently flawed. Or, at least, I hope so!
Many pastors, like Tony and Gordon, have the greatest of intentions. Raborn, ded, and I were staff pastors at one time or other in our past. All three of us have done our share of preaching. We all had the same idea that God had designed the church in such a way that the people needed us to preach to them in order to lead them into maturity. All three of us have, at one time or other, bought into the line of thinking that sees the Sunday morning service as the pinnacle of the church’s existence. All three of us have since questioned that presupposition.
I have seen estimates (unverified) that as much as 85% of a church’s budget go toward making that Sunday morning service happen. Staff salaries, church building mortgages, utility bills, sound systems, etc… to what end? Even things that are equated with “maturity” and “discipleship”, such as small group ministries, are really just incorporated as ways to get more people into the big church. They are viewed not as a means to send others out to make true disciples, but as a way to keep people committed to the organization.
Why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on that Sunday morning service? Why do we continue to examine what we think will “bring them in”, without really doing much of anything to “send them back out”?
Now, I’m not knocking any of this in and of itself. Please understand my heart here, and the intent in even writing this. It is not that these things are inherently wrong! But when we look to them as the main goal and purpose for our existence as a church, I think that we create an unhealthy situation.
I pray that we all, at whatever level we find ourselves currently, will seek greater maturity in our faith. And I pray that we will seek how we can make true disciples of others. Let us push forward in the declaration of the Kingdom of God which Jesus announced to us. And let us run with great perseverance and endurance the race before us, setting aside everything that encumbers us, even if the very encumbrances are seemingly well-intentioned traditional approaches to doing what we are called to do!
Until next time,
steve 
October 11th, 2006 21:28
“Why do we continue to examine what we think will “bring them inâ€, without really doing much of anything to “send them back outâ€?”
To me this is the key, whether we are discussing institutional church or simple church. Without a missional focus, we’re just another club. That is why I am so interested in learning about and relating with others who are pursuing a missional life.
Also, I’d like to challenge the idea of maturity without missional ministry. I’m embarassed to say that although in the past I would have been considered a mature disciple, I didn’t understand anything about being missional. My belief was that my ministry was in the church, to equip others to minister to others in the church.
While there is a degree of ministry to one another, we have overly focused on that. We have neglected those who truly need the gospel ministered to them because they don’t enter the buildings we’re entrenched in. It would be nice that when we think of ministry, our first thought wouldn’t be of something that happens in a church.
Stepping off my soapbox.
PS – I really enjoyed Raborn’s post too and linked to it today.
October 11th, 2006 21:34
Grace, great to see you, my friend! (And why aren’t you on my links list? I must correct that as soon as I’m done this comment!)
I saw your link to Raborn’s post and the HT to me. Thanks! I chuckled as I read your comments on sacred cows, and look forward to more of them from you. You are a blessing.
The missional aspect is something I’m still trying to understand. Not that I don’t understand “missional”, but I don’t fully understand the way in which that word is suddenly a “buzzword”, especially as it relates to the Emerging Church. (Frankly, I’m still trying to figure out if I’m considered part of the Emerging Church, or what!)
I’ve seen the word come up quite a bit lately, and am trying to learn as fast as I can what it all carries in its definition. Maybe you can help?
Be blessed!
steve
October 12th, 2006 00:00
Steve, I appreciate your heart in this matter. I wonder though if we aren’t making a blanket statement that the church does not completely deserve. (And by church, I mean the “body of Christ”, not necessarily the “IC” or “house churches” or whatever).
I am going to stick my neck out here and say that I disagree with the idea that the church has failed in discipling. After reading the post at Cerulean Sanctum and your posts here, I think perhaps some generalizations are being made based on the short-comings of some.
Now I will be the first to admit that there are a lot of things the church could do better. Ded hit the nail on the head in his comments in your last post. We must have a hunger and thirst for Jesus.
There are many churches who have depended upon programs and methods that were inadequate, poorly planned, or just a plain ol’ bad idea.
There are still many churches, though, where people are being saved, discipled, and are in turn discipling others.
As a pastor, I have never felt that my congregation’s personal growth rested solely upon me. In fact, I do everything I can to get them to take personal responsibility for their own growth. I do feel that I have a responsibility to feed the flock of God, but I have never labored under the impression that I was to be their only source. Most pastors I know share the same view that I have just described.
The church may not be what it should be, but I hope we won’t be too hasty to write it off as a failure when God isn’t finished with it.
This is a challenging conversation. It does cause to examine our convictions doesn’t it?
October 12th, 2006 00:41
Steve,
Great post. It serves to clarify what I would have wanted to say myself. We all are to blame, none of us are to blame, and the “system” is to blame. Kind of confusing, huh?:) I am not as interested in casting blame as in walking in the Solution. I know you are too.;)
October 12th, 2006 02:22
Steve,
Like I’ve mentioned before on Cerulean Sanctum, I think the problem is inherent in how the West lives out its social constructs. The Church is growing in countries that place a different set of values on community and work than we do. Our fragmented community and broken work practices are undercutting everything the Church is doing in the West, especially in America.
If the Church would speak to those issues, we might see change. But until we get a handle on them, nothing will get better.
October 12th, 2006 07:40
Gordon wrote: I am going to stick my neck out here and say that I disagree with the idea that the church has failed in discipling.
I want to agree with you in saying that the church has not failed. I really do! All of my “evidence” is anecdotal, I admit. I’m not an expert, and I don’t have statistics. I just get this overall sense, especially here in America (and Dan does a good job at pointing out that the failure seems to be more visible in the West), that we end up with a “form of godliness”, but “deny its power”.
After reading the post at Cerulean Sanctum and your posts here, I think perhaps some generalizations are being made based on the short-comings of some.
And this may, in fact, be completely true. Maybe I just had a knack for being in bad churches!
But the things that I have observed, and the conclusions I have reached have been from seeing the same things happen in church after church. Over my 37 years of life, I have been involved in 10 different churches in 4 different states and about 4 or 5 different “denominations” (some were independent, but hopefully you know what I mean). In some, I was merely a musician involved in the music. In others, I was a staff pastor (associate pastor in one and music pastor in others). Most of them, I left due to geographical moves (lest people get the wrong impression that I have just stormed out of church after church because “my needs” weren’t being met).
Maybe I’m painting with too broad a brush, but when I look back at all those experiences, there are some very strange common factors in all of them. From Bible churches to Independent Baptist to Southern Baptist to Pentecostal — with the exception of Bible version preferences and the use of the gift of tongues in services, not much was different in the overall scheme — it was the same package, different name.
My goal on this blog is not to continue to rehash the things I observed, but to say that I think there is something that can be learned there.
Gordon, you know by now how much I respect you, and how much I believe that you are doing a lot of things right. I believe that a lot of good can still happen in the institutional church. I just think there are some things that will continue to foster a lesser maturity level in people, regardless of how loving and caring and sincere the senior pastor is.
Having said all of that, I really don’t want to beat a dead horse on this. I don’t want people to read this blog over time and think that all I do is gripe about the institution! I do hope to continue to challenge people to think through why they do what they do, and explore the possibility that there might be even better ways (not just different programs!) to accomplish what we are all called to do.
And in that process, I welcome your disagreement!!
steve
October 12th, 2006 07:43
DLE, it’s quite possible that you and I are seeing the same thing and are in agreement.
If the Church would speak to those issues [of fragmented community, et al.], we might see change. But until we get a handle on them, nothing will get better.
I’m not sure those are the primary issues, but I do agree with you that those are important issues that come into play.
I actually have a hunch that whatever Jesus intended the Church to be is not dependent on a particular societal construct. However, I do see your point about how some societal aspects can definitely hinder what Jesus has called us to be. Maybe that’s what you’re getting at.
steve
October 12th, 2006 07:45
Raborn wrote: I am not as interested in casting blame as in walking in the Solution. I know you are too.;)
Exactly!! In the end, it doesn’t really matter who is to blame, as long as we seek Jesus and walk in Him.
Thanks, brother!
steve
October 12th, 2006 13:12
Steve,
I haven’t updated my blogroll since I discovered bloglines and put all of my favorites (including you) in there.
I agree with you about the buzzword aspect of both missional and emerging. I have a tendency to use both words because they condense the larger meaning of what I’m trying to say.
In spite of my blog title I’m not sure that I would really be considered part of the emerging church. Emerging is descriptive for me in that it describes this point in my journey where I have left my former ideas of church and am in the process of developing a new understanding of church.
I have read some good articles describing missional at the website Friends of Missional. What it means to me personally is getting rid of the sacred/secular divide that I had and learning to recognize all of life as an opportunity to minister. It means that every moment is an opportunity to hear from the Holy Spirit about how I can serve others.
You’ve probably read enough of what I’ve written to know that all of my former ministry was very church-centered. It has been an eye-opening learning experience to reconsider ministry without a title, a congregation, or people who automatically call on you. There is a big world out there that needs Jesus, and they won’t be coming to my door looking for Him.
For me, it’s not about doing a mission trip or serving in a church program, it is about learning to live a life with eyes that are open to the need around me.
I know this seems a little off-topic from your post, but I spent many years trying to help develop mature disciples, and I can say that without an understanding of being missional it wasn’t very productive.
I just wanted to add that I really appreciate the respect that you and your commentors give to one another.
October 12th, 2006 13:52
Grace, I don’t mind it being off-topic. Some of my readers (*cough*Gordon*cough) are probably glad you’re getting me onto a different topic!
hehe
But seriously, I think you hit on something that often comes into my mind, too, when you said:
There is a big world out there that needs Jesus, and they won’t be coming to my door looking for Him.
It is that idea that somehow we need to bring the world to the church that seems troublesome to me. I would propose that the idea behind the Great Commission is more along the lines of we should be the church to the world.
Note that I did not accidentally leave out the word “taking” or “bringing”. It’s not that we should be taking the church to the world. We need to be the church to the world.
Perhaps we’ll discuss this more at length in an upcoming post.
steve
October 12th, 2006 17:18
Some of my readers (*cough*Gordon*cough) are probably glad you’re getting me onto a different topic! hehe
You are too cool, dude!
October 18th, 2006 14:54
Hey Steve,
I too enjoy both the focus and the spirit of what you’re writing on your blog! And thanks for your encouragement today; the timing was a God-thing. As for the blame thing regarding conventional church and the failure of discipleship, let me cast my vote with those who want to move past blame to solutions.
I’ve spent too much time pointing fingers at the past when I should have had my nose to the wind trying to sniff out the Spirit’s direction and wisdom on this matter.
Also, I agree passionately with your comment about the inherent flaw in the system that is conventional church. I don’t believe that the solution is to simply keep doing church, only this time “really mean it!” I think there’s something more fundamental needed.
Look forward to more on this.
Shalom,
tp
October 18th, 2006 15:09
Hey, Tomas. Great to see you here! I’ve been enjoying your blog.
If anyone misunderstood and thought that I was trying to spend time on the blame game, I want to clear that up! I was writing in response to other discussions, and in saying that blame was shared all around, I was intending by that to say “Let’s get on with it”! So, I cast my vote with you and others, too, in that regard
You used the term “conventional church”, and I like the sound of that. I have often used the term “institutional church”, but have found that term unnecessarily threatening to some. I may have to adopt your term there! Thanks.
steve