All the mixed messages in church was one reason I stopped going.

Dude, I don’t have time to sit and leave much of a comment here, but you are barking up my tree. I’m a firm believer that EVERYTHING we do (in and out of church) is theological. We completely bifurcate “doctrine” and “duty” or whatever you want to call it, and we come up with a system that works only in our heads, and leaves us as functional heretics.

This is a good point, that we have thought nothing of what it means to have a church set up like a concert venue or a seminar/motivational speaker gathering. It was “practical,” and had nothing to do with theology. But, it does. Our “ecclesiology” and our practice betray each other….but the latter shows what we actually believe (i.e., that people are sheep [in a bad way], spirituality is knowledge [only], that the pastor is actually a little pope, etc.).

As for waste, I think it shows a lot about what we truly believe. God isn’t a God a plenty, but a God of too much. We are actually the center of the universe and may do as we please.

As for our different arts, I think we see a lazy, complacent, disrespectful, uncreative group of people who have no sense of the transcendence of God. Our acceptance of second best “art” is showing (and I’m by no means an artist, but anyone can see the pitifulness of our current crap).

Anyway, I must go take a final. I’m sure we’ll see some good discussion off this post.

-Alan

[Quick response because I'm at work, and because I need to think more ...]

Yes; what you say rings true. But what do we do about it?

Jesus’ response to not dissimilar issues in the Jerusalem Temple was to overturn and denounce. The synagogue was imperfect too - but he (and Paul and co.) worked to subvert it from within. Then again, the NT church ended up with a new pattern(s) of corporate life - drawing on elements of the old, but distinctively different from what went before (well, on a good day, anyhow).

I believe all of those things are theological because our theology influences our decisions. So when I’m trying to figure out what book to buy as a gift for someone, for instance, my theology (as well as perhaps my politics) come into play when making that decision.

This is true whether or not we want to admit it. We might claim to value helping others in need, and we might even do it some, but in reality churches tend to spend most of their money on their own members, or at a minimum, attracting more giving members.

About art, quality is entirely subjective. I can’t stand the Kincaide type of stuff, but that’s my subjective opinion. Other people think it’s the greatest stuff ever. You could say the same thing about rap vs. country (I used to hate both, now I don’t really have anything against either).

Finally, I don’t think the last 50 years of Christianity has been a waste. You can see threads of current trends starting half a century ago, subtly influencing the church to the point now where I think the wine is ready to burst out of the old wineskin. Emergent philosophies, house church movements, more intimate worship movements, more interaction between denominations, a refreshed focus on taking care of those in need, and a refreshed focus on accepting and embracing those on the margins of society. All of these trends are as much because of Christianity’s progress in the last 50 years as they are despite Christianity’s stagnation.

It doesn’t mean that by and large Christianity was doing it right over the last 50 years, but overall it was a part of the process of getting it right.

Wendell Berry writes a great deal on “sales resistance” and creating a sustainable local economy to build community life. As Christians and churches, we need to model an alternative lifestyle and risk being out-of-step with our secular peers.

This whole series is challenging me in stupendous ways, thank you for taking the time to think these things through out loud for all of us.

As far as your point about what will be remembered in 500 years. Let me ask you this question: when you listen to classic rock radio (or any genre) are you just getting what radio was back then? No, you’re getting filtered results. In essence, you don’t have to put up with all the crap that was also produced alongside the greatest hits. Same is true for art, theology, etc from any time period of your choosing. So, before we knock what’s happening right now in theology, we have to remember that looking back it might be a very similar picture.

With that said, I HATE the standard of excellence the majority of people have set for themselves in all realms these days. We should be trying with all of our beings to do excellent work, regardless of what other’s standards are.

Take this comment for example, I’ll read through it before I post, but did I really take a chance to think through all of your points (or mine for that matter)? No, because in this culture I have to keep moving onto the next thing.

alan. nice connection with us seeing god as a god of plenty. that’s a great insight. i think we could also say something about our own affluence giving us a context of plenty.

pistol. i love berry. i need to read him more. especially his essays. i’ve just read some of his books.

chris. you make a good point. i guess i didn’t think about that. only time will tell. it just feels like the quantity of stuff that is getting put out versus the stuff that will stand the test of time is disproportionate to 50 years ago. or earlier than that.

derek. you’re right. a lot of the stuff that is coming to the surface has been in motion for 50 years or so. it just seems like christians and the church haven’t made any theological advancements or anything redeeming that stands out. outside of a few bright spots here and there.

why do you think there is such a disconnect between everything that we do and our behind the scenes theology? better yet, why do you think people just don’t connect the dots?

and how would you help them to do so?

I think a lot of it comes down to the clergy/laity division. Clergy explains and distills theology, and to provides “appropriate” practical applications of it. Like the temple mentality, this is essentially borrowed from the Jewish and pagan systems as well.

But the early church had none of that. They practiced the priesthood of all believers. Where the spirit would speak through any of them in their gatherings. So God would call believers to account, not by a charismatic, educated, controlling leader, but through their peers. Of course, some were particularly gifted in prophecy or teaching, no one leader held those titles exclusively.

But we’ve been taught, for 1500 years, to be passive and let the exclusive leaders connect the dots for us. And when doing so, we trust their judgment, and we trust their decisions - rather than looking to scripture ourselves, and listening to what God has to say to us.

I’m still struggling with how to help others connect the dots. Step one has been to step out of the system and explore it from a totally different way. Still maintaining friendships and participating occasionally in the typical church system, but still trying to figure the rest of it out apart from the typical system.

The other thing I try to do is what I’m now doing — just pointing out how different modern church is from what is described in the NT. That alone helps people to stop and think. Most still justify the differences as cultural. And putting the church into a local context. That there’s nothing wrong with using a presentational system to reach people. But many listen, understand, and start to struggle with it as well. Discussions with those people are the highlights of the past year and a half for me.

Finally, just encouraging others to read the NT with all of this in mind, trying to let go of the modern traditional notions of church, pastor, worship service, etc. Not to let go of the theology, necessarily (though portions of it do need to be analyzed more closely), but to place it in it’s proper context. The NT reads quite differently that way, when you believe that it holds a sense of divine authority, but that its application today needs some major adjustments.

The first place to connect the dots is in our own lives. This week I’m preaching on John the Baptist’s birth. I’m a lot like Zechariah. He was so busy taking care of business at the temple that he failed to recognize (and believe) what an amazing thing God was doing. We connect the dots by demonstrating in what we say and do what God is saying and doing in the world.

Josh, our affluence certainly affects the way we see God, and everything else. Ultimately, I think our affluence has given American Christianity, as a whole, a type of prosperity gospel (though most would deny it).

Derek, how do you define “early?” It seems that a hierarchy developed quite quickly. Is it possible to have a hierarchy and still practice the priesthood of all believers?

Connecting the dots with this issue is a huge question. I fear that it may be too late for some to learn how to think and act theologically, instead of letting their local pope pontificate their entire life for them. But, at bottom (and very simplistically), I think it has to be done in discipleship. That’s where we teach people, not “have a QT and memorize a few power verses,” but how to think across the lines. It requires messy life on life type stuff. In that way, the disciple teaches the discipler, too, as they can and hopefully will ask difficult questions and challenge presuppositions. 1,000 people listening to a preacher becomes little more than group think, and is rarely challenging. As I said, simplistic, but that’s where it should start, at the bottom.

Something I’ve been thinking about that maybe you could help me on Derek (or anybody really).

This is not something I proud of, but I think some others might agree with the sentiment. I often find myself just physically and mentally drained at the end of the workweek. And it’s much easier to have a pastor whose job it is to think through some (not all) theological issues for me. Is it wrong to submit some of your spiritual authority to another? Or do I just need to suck it up and make the time?

I’m all for returning to a church model that let’s all believers lead equally, it’s just practically not an option unless we (especially me) were to vastly change our lives.

“It seems that a hierarchy developed quite quickly. Is it possible to have a hierarchy and still practice the priesthood of all believers?”

Alan, If you’re referring to bishops/overseers, I have a post on that coming soon based on stuff from Viola’s book. I’m probably going to resume that series over the weekend. In a nutshell, though, the NT role of bishop was not anything like the modern pastor or denominational bureaucrat.

Generally, I mean early as in before the corruption of the church when it found favor with the Roman government, eventually banning lay ministry and house churches through rule of law. Realistically there were elements of the church heading towards clergy/laity divisions before then, but the NT is very critical of this.

Chris, I have a full-time job, and I was a worship leader at my church just 18 months ago (at the time with 2 kids under 4 years old). I was more tired on Sunday afternoons than any other time of the week. Most churches assign huge amounts of volunteer resources in order to put on their Sunday morning “production.” This is the ultimate goal of most churches, get you saved, and then plug you into the master plan and put you to work!

Compare that with showing up at someone’s house, eating a meal, sitting down and singing some songs together, praying together, and reading through the Bible and talking through what God has placed on people’s hearts to say. Does that sound tiring, or refreshing? Personally, I can see why the early church did it daily. I think it’s actually more practical than the currently predominant model, even in our modern context.

The only one we are called to submit to, spiritually, is Christ. And we are called to encourage one another when we gather together. In modern church, we submit to the pastor and let the professional ministers encourage us. Those two models just don’t look similar at all.

[...] Brown is running a series on the consumptive church that has generated some fantastic discussion. The latest post deals specifically with consumptive patterns in U.S. [...]

It’s dangerous to generalize our own experiences as “the church” as a whole. Josh’s original post talked of the problems of the church in the last 50 years.

To stretch that to the last 1500 is, well, quite a stretch. It seems to overlook significant contributions of, say, the Franciscans, certain Anabaptists and Menonites, Christian Brethren, and many others beside.

And from where I’m standing, an immense contribution of the last 50 years is that women’s ministry has (at least in a large number of churches) been recognised on a par with men’s for the first time in many centuries. That is a remarkably positive thing.

But I have to keep reminding myself that my experience is different from yours. But I will keep on about this: lift your eyes to the shape of the whole church militant.

As one who is trying very hard to work within the framework of the church, the last portion of what you’re saying is very discouraging. So what do you say to the artist that is doing their best to please God? They aren’t signed with any label but they make amazing music. They’re complacent? There’s no preachers out there that have made significant contributions but Billy Graham and a few theologians? What does that say to all the pastors of churches large and SMALL who do their best to lead their people?

I think when we talk like that we’re buying into the corporate system of things…the very thing we seem to be speaking against. We’re looking at the big market for the well known preachers, artists, and musicians. So we’re looking to the mainstream market for this? Aren’t we supposed to be subversive?

If we are to be subversive, then the great content described as lacking won’t be noticed, would it? Great works of art are often not noticed in their lifetime.

I don’t want to be argumentative, but I fear broad generalizations. They may describe our current experience, but they don’t describe every experience…perhaps not even the majority. What do we say about the worship, preaching, and art that are really speaking to people’s lives? Remember, the Spirit has ALWAYS used a flawed church. There’s always room for the church to move toward a greater fulfillment of what God intended. We should strive for that. But we must not do that at the cost of putting down those who are truly putting themselves out there for the Kingdom.

josh. thanks for your comments.

i’m definitely not saying that god can’t used a flawed church.

but can we at least agree that the church looks a lot like the host culture? and that we consume at the same rate, if not higher, than the culture at large?

that’s my point. the music we create is of the same transient nature as avril, britney, or 50.

my point is just that you can substitute tomlin, newsboys, or the cathedrals.

cheap knock-offs of the host culture’s cheap art.

It seems like this could be political rather than theological–and makes me want to think of the theology of me driving a Honda rather than a Chevy. I think that these issues are not quite as simplistic as presented in that we should critique a church model that uses mud huts in Africa if we do boxed concrete suburban churches that have seats in rows and critique those–lets think transcultural and global about the actual ideas presented. Is it more spiritual to eat tofu rather than a juicy fact In n Out burger? Ridiculous and legalistically-driven this way of thinking appears to be even though I think the premise of consumer-driven Christianity is where we indeed live. The fact is our world is becoming consumer-driven. China is putting 1,000 more cars on the road daily. We cannot think “local” and must see this as not just an “American” issue. This is the West, this is China, this is Latin America this is the world. When we consume less, we have kids in countries around the world with less food on their tables. I think Korea has some models for church and Latin America that we are actually following here in America because they have done it first. My Honda was actually manufactured in America and helped the economy in many nations. My church is influencing Nepal and because we have a certain size have now been able to staff two orphanages in Nepal and see the first new Christians in a region that made the status “unreached people group” into a people group. So, if I am selfish and want a church to be small, big or meet on a yacht, I am missing the point. My local church actually can change the world, even though our music may never hit the top 40. Yours can, too. And, the parking lot might actually have a few SUVs in it for crying out loud;-)

When we consume less, we have kids in countries around the world with less food on their tables

rick. i mean surely jesus’ answer wasn’t to consume more so that the people getting paid thirteen cents an hour would be able to afford a bowl of rice every single day.

the answer is not supply-side jesus. who encourages us to spend more so that we can jump start the economy around the world.

the answer is for the church to dream and imagine new alternatives. to creatively engage with our full gamut of resources and intelligences.

there is no reason the church can’t creatively produce better solutions than spend more on end of the spectrum and let the state run everything on the other end.

surely the jesus of the gospels has something to say to how we spend our money. surely the jesus of the gospel inconveniences our lives at some point?

i’m not picking on chris, because i understand his heart and the nature of his question. it’s a place that i find myself. but surely jesus forces us to act in such a way that our lives aren’t as easy as we’ve created them to be?

suvs? sweatshop labor? hyper-consumption? wasting energy? over-spending? out of balance budgets?

surely the church can make the connection theologically to these issues.

i understand what you’re saying rick, that this is a global problem. but as the biggest country in the world, the city on the hill that we think of ourselves as, surely we can lead the change instead of blaming china and india for their growth? surely we can come out of our ivory towers on sunday morning to see that there is a world that is consuming itself to death and the answer is not strategic consumption by the church on it’s end . . . but rather antithetical subversion to the consumptive model.

that is the way of jesus. that is our critique to the empire.

“Rich” not Rick, btw.:-)

Jesus allowed some pretty expensive perfume on His feet. One of the disciples said that could feed a lot of people and was a waste. What I fear is a new form of legalism that really is based more on politics rather than scripture. Legalism happens when the answer is a “negative to the negative” as in this case. It is EASY to be against things.

My point merely is that you are trying to force a political agenda on the form of church and into a theology where it is too narrow, and grounding in our time and space to be a universal doctrine. I am not saying you are wrong in the political sense, but that there is indeed a separation to some degree with the idea of reaching our own people in their culture and trying to put forward a political thing as the welcome mat to church. Abortion is evil, too, btw. I am not going to have picture of dead babies at the door of my church and in not doing so I should not be accused of not being a light or the City on A Hill. I want balanced budgets and not deficits, but that is not a sermon topic that comes from anything Jesus happened to say. The idea is we are about people–even Americans who live in the suburbs (the majority of the USA).

Jesus came to redeem the earth, not a political system. “Render to Caesar what is Caesars” is not overthrow the government but lets transform people. As we get to know them and as they are introduced to Jesus, then we can teach them to feed the poor and take care of our planet.

HA! i think it was quoting MM to the senior pastor at a mega church is what got me fired the first time from a church. that was almost a decade ago.

This might just be crazy talk. But I thought the basic principle was to go out into the world, preaching, baptizing, and discipling?

What does it matter if it takes a warehouse church with rows of seats, a lighting system that would make Bon Jovi cry to claim 1 soul into heaven? As long as there are places that can be preached, let them.

It isn’t about what we buy, it is about how we are faithful to the basic principle.

Derek, the house church model sounds amazing, it really does. Maybe I’m just too comfortable with how I’ve been doing church to take that leap? Plus, it’s extra hard because the church I do go to has a lot going for it.

Josh, thanks for not picking on me! Jesus has already irrevocably changed my life and will continue to do so. I’m just not totally sold on the idea that we’re all to be biblical scholars ourselves or teachers. Did Paul call everybody to be Paul or to use their own gifts?

This might be hitting on points you’ve already made or are going to make, but if the church was to be countercultural and begin creating art, sermons, whatever that wasn’t transient, how would that change the way you, for example, blog?

zach. what i buy is a basic principle to me.

chris. for this blog, it means that i would try to constantly create good content. as opposed to what i ate for dinner and my workout schedule. that i would it as a tool to inspire myself and others toward good. as opposed to be one more place that people visit but don’t have time for. one more thing on their list in the hyperconnected culture we live in.

and i think you’re misunderstanding what i’m saying about art. i’m not saying everyone needs to be a theologian. or even an artist.

i just think we need to offer something besides being passive stooges in an audience.

and as it relates to art, i think we should create for the sake of creating itself. not to create a “product”. when we create to make a product we end up with crappy christian art, music, and t-shirts. when we create for the sake of art itself, we don’t care about money or profitability.

art isn’t a product. it’s a reflection of the good and divine.

my point was that we create too many products and not enough good and divine things.

Josh, I agree with you, I just overstated my theologian/artist point. I do think we’re all called to proactively engage what we hear/see/experience, there’s just a point where we have to submit to authority. For example, I don’t know greek, so I have to allow someone else to do the translating for me.

Your last sentence is spot on.

“What I fear is a new form of legalism that really is based more on politics rather than scripture.”

I agree with Rich on this. What we don’t need is a new legalism. Rich, you probably know me well enough to know that all along I’m arguing for the simple implementations of church - not infusing politics into it, really, just following what the NT has to say in terms of values. But we don’t want to turn that into legalism.

“Maybe I’m just too comfortable with how I’ve been doing church to take that leap? Plus, it’s extra hard because the church I do go to has a lot going for it.”

Anytime you get believers together, good things can happen. This isn’t any less true just because they’re not in house church.

Just take the principle. Every time the church talks about that huge new expenditure, or that new staff position that needs to be filled, point out what ELSE that money could accomplish in terms of real needs. Ask why members of the congregation aren’t allowed to discuss during the gatherings. Trust me, the more you ask those kinds of questions the more you’ll understand how the mental approach to church today has a lot of friction against an implementation of the New Testament form of church.

[...] The Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex, Opium & 3 Legged Chairs, The Model Speaks Volumes, The Medium Is The Message [...]

[...] Points, The Religious Industrial Complex, Opium & 3 Legged Chairs, The Model Speaks Volumes, The Medium Is The Message, Appeasing The White Man’s [...]