Security

I've had a number of posts I have wanted to do, all reasonably long so I have to find a chunk of time to do them. But this one is one of those that if I don't do it soon, I'll lose the thoughts ...

A few years ago, David Murrow wrote a book called Why Men Hate Going to Church. Decent book, which in my opinion only has a partial diagnosis and is woefully short on prognosis and solutions. Part of the diagnosis is that the church focuses on a few points that ends up chasing men away. One of these is "security". The modern church is big on providing a secure environment. Just how far this has gone has become painfully clear recently.

I live about a mile north of New Life Church in Colorado Springs. A few months back, a gunman came on their campus on a Sunday, and ended up shot to death by an armed security guard. With this being a church of thousands, I have no problem with that. Actually doesn't surprise me -- years ago I volunteered with a church's benevolence program, and we had a female cop with us as one volunteer. Came to find out in time that she had been encouraged to always bring her gun (concealed of course) with her while attending church and volunteering -- something I was glad about the night we were assigned together to interview a woman who came looking for help who was clearly schizophrenic and we worried she might be a danger.

But now the news comes out that the senior pastor of New Life has been talking about security at pastors' conferences and consulting on the issue of security. He is encouraging churches to have armed security forces. Apparently he is even encouraging churches to consider having metal detectors and handbag searches at the doors.

What we must realize though, is that the medium is the message. What do armed security forces visibly patrolling properties say? It reinforces a fortress mentality of churches. It says to the world this is an us vs you situation. It sends so many wrong messages.

And to me, it reinforces the message that churches are selling security in the first place. I believe an unspoken, implied message of so much of what passes as church is selling security. Come to church somewhat approximating weekly, tithe, etc and feel secure in your eternal destination. Now, I know what is said, but the medium is the message, or in older terms, actions speak louder than words. When membership "covenants" or however expectations are spelled out occur, the message ends up being eternal security in exchange for being a good member, despite our words about grace vs works.

Truthfully, though, the walk of a follower is about having eternal life now. There are no promises about security and safety. In the U.S. we get a false image of things -- worldwide, by some estimates, 1 in 200 who profess to be Christian will die a martyr's death. When you take out of those numbers the Americans and others who don't live in countries where Christians are physically threatened, those numbers get frightening. And even in the U.S., being a follower of Christ can threaten one's economic security in certain career fields -- Hollywood, politics (in certain states), fields with high percentages of homosexuality among those in the field, higher education, etc. Traditional churches will not readily appeal to those in some industries, nor the way the culture is going, it will not appeal to future generations. What is needed, whether we realize it or not, is something resembling the underground churches of China and India.

While this is not a reason to pursue redemptive communities, which should be pursued for their own merits, it is a benefit evangelically. Small communities provide a better medium for the message than the megachurches, and are more likely to survive the future than the megastructures.

Is the business world discovering the truth? Redux

Related: http://redemptivecommunities.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-business-discovering-right-model.html

Came across some reading on leadership styles within business, and some modern theories basically say there needs to be a mix of five styles of leadership with different balances needed during different phases of a business's life cycle.

1) The entrepreneur, the groundbreaker and strategist who initiates
2) The questioner, who disturbs the status quo and challenges a business to move differently
3) The recruiter, who takes the organization's message to the outside and sells it.
4) The humanizer, who cares for those inside the organization
5) The systemizer, who articulates the structure and company policies etc to those inside the organization.

Interestingly, the apostle Paul wrote about five roles of those equipping the church, which could be defined as:
1) The apostle, who pioneers new missions and oversees their initial development
2) The prophet, who discerns the spiritual reality of a situation and communicates them in a timely fashion to prompt needed change
3) The evangelist, who communicates the gospel message in a way to prompt response
4) The pastor, who cares for those in the church.
5) The teacher, who communicates the teachings of Christ.

In both cases and in many ways, these are functions more than offices or roles, and some may contribute to more than one function at times.

Interesting the obvious parallels?

Most traditional churches in the West, however, seem to have suppressed the apostle, prophet, and evangelist roles in favor of the pastor and teacher roles. Many of the APE roles are to be found functioning, it seems though, outside the church, in parachurch ministries.

Businesses that don't have the balance of leadership appropriate for their phase of the life cycle are typically ones in trouble. ...

Walking with God part deux

I ask all the readers of this blog/note to visit this website and prayerfully consider attending either a live event, or the yet to be announced (as I write this) simulcast.

http://www.ransomedheart.com/ministry/walkingwithgodtour.aspx

Invitation

I ask all the readers of this blog/note to visit this website and prayerfully consider attending either a live event, or the yet to be announced (as I write this) simulcast.

http://www.ransomedheart.com/ministry/walkingwithgodtour.aspx

To be fully restored, an element to it is restoring relationship with God as it was originally intended. To be ransomed, to be redeemed, to be restored -- these are all words we use to discuss what is involved in salvation, but these words are all words about returning to an original state.

Before the fall, Adam walked with God in the garden. There was conversational intimacy. Jesus said my sheep hear my voice. His work on the Cross was about undoing what was done in the fall. We can hear from God, and to be restored to what God called us to be includes being restored to that intended relationship.

I have just found out there will be a simulcast and webcast of the Nashville event on April 13th. Details will follow, and I will update this post if the info is not on that link I gave. If you aren't near one of the cities listed, set aside April 13th and await the list of churches that will host the simulcast. Even then if none are near, consider the webcast.

Church and oppression part I: Lording it over you

25Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28 NIV)

So how did we stumble into forms of church that do just what Jesus referred to as an action of the Gentiles? Our churches typically have officials that exercise authority over the church. But Jesus said that the "great ones" are to serve.

Ephesians 4 talks of the "leaders" of the church, the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. But rather than "leading" or having authority, Paul writes that they are to "equip". In other words, according to Ephesians 4 the pastor has (or pastors have) the duty to equip, not rule. They aren't "in charge".

But the typical church structure has an authoritative body over it. Now, atypically, sometimes this body is less authoritative in practice and is really about equipping. I've been blessed to be a part of two bodies that were such (or maybe I was just less of a innovative renegade type then). But I've also been places where I've felt led to do one thing, and the pastors (or elders) have said "no" or hindered. It wasn't in their plans, or in their mindset.

Now, that's not to say that a leader should permit anything that someone feels inspired by God to do. But it does require a bit more work than "no" or lording it over. As a servant, not an overlord, these equippers should spend a season (or find someone to spend a season) with the person to see what is that desire and what God is up to in that person. Once clarity of what God is up to has occurred, the equippers are to help equip the person. In some cases, it may mean supporting the person in leaving to go elsewhere to do it.

Yet too often what really happens is the church represses someone, denying them from doing what they feel should be done. Independence in thinking is squashed. It "doesn't fit the vision". And rather than helping someone or a group find another place to be what God is calling them to be, they are left either repressed or abandoned to find somewhere else.

Is it no wonder that so few volunteer at church? The roles are cast by the authorities and too often you might as well be a puppet given the amount of freedom you aren't given in the role. It seems to have grown worse in recent years, as churches struggle to find volunteers they react in the opposite way than I think they should -- they simplify the tasks and provide "scripts" so all a volunteer has to do is show up and perform it. In reacting to the lack of volunteers, they've take the duties and removed any need for individuality, uniqueness, or creativity in the roles. Is it no wonder their volunteer crisis grows worse? What is needed is an environment that encourages and equips the disciple, and lets the Holy Spirit determine roles and how they fit.

Walking With God

I've been wanting this week to briefly review Walking With God, John Eldredge's new book and tying it to community.



In WWG, John opens his journals and life from a recent year and discusses how he walked with God in that year. He shows how he pursued God, how God pursued him, the battles, the conversation with God, etc. Though for years (decades?) I pursued my walk as one of accumulating knowledge, in the last five years or so I've come around, came from knowing much about God to knowing God. Conversational intimacy is possible, and John illustrates it (and the struggles with it) in his book. I've found story much more powerful at transforming my life these last few years, definitely more so than theology and theory. Hearing these stories (again in some cases -- I worked with John's ministry in the middle of the year recorded in the book) help me see how I can too develop a bond with God.

A little more than a decade ago, I learned a lot about church from a man named Ronnie. A few of my favorite quips that I use are from him. One I don't use so often that I recall hearing is that most churches mostly consist of people who know people who know people who know people that know God. In other words, churches too often consist in attendance of mostly people some distant from a personal relationship of God. Sort of like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon if you don't get the reference) except with God and relationships instead of Bacon and acting. Sadly, it is often more than six degrees. Now, must people in churches know something about God, often a great deal, but real relationship they are farther off.

There is some evidence that this wasn't the case in the first couple of centuries after Christ's visit to earth. In fact, since persecution frequently occurred, often it was tough to get into a church! One often came to know God first, before they were told a when and where. While short of practicing the same (such as Christians in China, India, and many muslim lands may need to practice the same), what if we did practice something closer to that? Do we lose something in the "attractional" mode of evangelism, where we expect others to join us then know God? What if we knew God, helped others to meet him, then included him in our communities?

And what if in knowing God, we followed his direction and guidance in forming community in the first place? Rather than follow centuries old traditions that began centuries after Christ (see the book Pagan Christianity for some documentation of it), what if we walked with God and let him guide us to community? In other words, what if we took Christ at his word? Look again and scriptures and see that Christ instructed us to love and to train and teach others. He said he'd build his church -- we have no such instructions to build a church. If we would just love and teach, and let God form the communities ...

Secular v spiritual revisited

Last night I finished John Eldredge's new book, Walking With God, and I'm also in process of reading Frank Laubach's Letters from a Modern Mystic. Both gave me some new thoughts as it pertains to this topic. (I actually have another blog post to do later this week that relates WWG to RC more directly).

John Eldredge is relatively well-known, so I won't go into who he is, but Laubach was a missionary to the Philippines in the 30's who entered an experiment of connecting each minute of his life to God. He wrote of this to his dad, and those letters were published in a small volume in 1937.

I'm read so far about six months into Laubach's attempt, but the last letter I read of his sparked the thought -- this is really about bringing the kingdom of God into each and every moment of our lives. Thinking of God practically in parallel to each moment and thought we have ... this is a way of bringing the kingdom of heaven to our lives.

If we did this, what would happen to our "dedicated" times to God? Our quiet times? I think they'd radically change, wouldn't they? Many days, they'd be much shorter. They may focus on other spiritual disciplines than they do now (more reading and studying for instance, and less prayer). As a community, this ingraining of spirituality in everything we do, what would that do to our gatherings?

I wonder if they wouldn't bring more missional aspects to our corporate gatherings. If we are always thinking of God outside the gatherings, we are likely to attach more of God to our other activities and bring more of our outside activities into our "oasis" that is our gatherings. We bring needs and opportunities we might not have spotted without this constant connection, and seek more equipping to handle them, to reach others, to bring redemption to "real life".

But that could only work if our gatherings allowed some very open communication. An order of worship, a monologue teaching, a song service as we typically have them -- how do we express this missional aspect with so much "orderedliness" in our gatherings? Order is appropriate, but orderliness?

Just a pondering ...