Out of the Matrix, Part I

More than two years ago, I wrote this blog post called The Red Pill:

"The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you to the truth."

"what truth?"

"That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind."
So states Morpheus in a famous scene from The Matrix. After opening a small silver box and pulling two pills from it, Morpheus continues.

"This is your last chance. After this, there is no going back. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

and Neo takes the red pill.

But before the pills decision, Neo faced another choice. Kidnapped, Neo is offered the chance to leave, but Trinity asks him to trust. Neo asks why he should. Looking down a street being pounded by rain, Trinity says "Because you have been down there, Neo. You know that road. You know exactly where it ends. And I know that's not where you want to be".

slowly Neo gets back in the car.

Looking down the road of conventional church in America, you are looking down a soggy street. How compelling is it, really? More vision statements, shows called worship, building and capital fund raisers. Is this really what Jesus died for?

You read the New Testament, the account of Acts especially, and wonder why the conventional church pales so in comparison. You hear stories of the church in China, India, and underground in Muslim nations, and wonder at the power. Why not here, where you are?

to adapt what Morpheus says at one point in the movie "Let me tell you why you are here. You are here because you know something. What you know you can't explain. But you feel it. You've felt it your entire life. There is something wrong with the church. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind"

Lately, I’ve thought on how I can relate to those who accuse me of being “wounded” when I discuss with them the many ideas I’ve expressed in this blog. They are quick to dismiss those who take these stances. I thought the way to do it is to tell my story, to tell how the splinter rose in my mind, while at the same time, refuting this “wounded” talk.

In the beginning

Ok, a bit pretentious, but to start …

My family was the “Sunday” only church types only. Typically went, but only for “service” on Sunday AM. My dad had been raised among the Southern Baptists, my mom with “church of Christ”. Around 1977, shortly after moving to a small town in Florida, that switched. We were befriended by a church of Christ minister, who doubled as a Red Cross water instructor, as well as volunteering as a Boy Scout Scoutmaster. In short order, we were the “every time the doors were open” types.

For those not familiar with coC, it is one of the most heavily “bible study” bible only types of churches you will find. I remember in college at Florida State going to a leadership luncheon for denominational college outreach ministries, and our table of coCers had all but one raise their hand when asked “who’s read the entire Bible?”. The only other hands up in the place belonged to the “professionals” and one other. And the bible may be a two edged sword, but in the hands of the coC, it can be a club as well. And I wielded that club myself at times.

The coC would pound you with biblical reasons for everything it does. But thanks to a coC preacher who was a bit more open minded taught me to challenge the “party line” to verify it. The more I read (I’ve read the bible cover to cover probably more than 25 times in a dozen translations, and the NT more than 40 times), the “splinters” arose. This is the roots of much of my challenging you’ve read in this blog. I am in part a creation of the form of corporate church referred to as the “church of Christ”. At first this lead to a more ecumenical approach to spiritual life. Other than some questions about the whole “Sunday service” thing, it was all challenging of the coC. But I did stay with the CoC, just less judgmental and with more grace.


“Model” citizen of the corporate church

In a lot of ways, I was the model corporate disciple. Once a settled married man with a permanent job, I threw myself in being a good “Christian”, in that corporate sense. Substitute Sunday school teach for adults (did it for high schoolers for the summer while in college), benevolence committee, small group leader, on my way to being a deacon. That church suffered one of those “grow our church” v. “grow the kingdom” “splits”, and we left to be a part of a church start. I was soon on the leadership board of that church (this time a non-affiliated church).

Northeast was a great church (may still be, but since I can't testify first hand of the current state …). The attitude was in growing disciples, including freeing them to serve as God made them. My role there was very much as a coach. I had oversight in benevolence, and if someone wanted to do something in those areas, I had the role of equipping and encouraging. We saw tremendous growth in disciples by freeing them to be who God called them to be, rather than being cogs in the machinery of another’s vision.

North Carolina

A job change led to a move, and in North Carolina, ended up with a non-denom church type of place, about a year and half old place meeting in a movie theatre. Attitude on serving was everyone was to serve in the way God gave them vision for first, but also in a way that helped corporately (no one is envisioned with the mission of “sweeping” – but it has got to be done). I was given the room to gather some men and cast a vision for men’s ministry. Great attitude by the pastors in the whole thing. It was really the first sort of large ministry not started by the pastors, so it was a learning curve for the church as we lived out the value of letting people serve as God led, not as pastors envision.

Maryland

Little did I know that this was a pair of rare experiences. Unemployment led to a move to where jobs were (Maryland). Tried a large non-denom with three services first. Seemed promising, but there were a lot of growing pains being experienced by that church, and other issues, so after six months we tried again elsewhere. Stayed at the second church for three years. It seemed open at first to those with their own visions, but that turned out to be in words. We saw that church grow more and more bureaucratic, more and more ministry controlled by the staff instead of freeing the people to live out how God plants vision in the lives of his people.

For reasons other than churches, we decided not to stay in MD long term. Just wasn’t “us” to be there. But while we left for Colorado, we would have left that church anyway. Partly I had bucked hard against the shackles for long enough, partly all our closest friends there were “deserting ship” as a new pastor came in and cast a new “vision” for the church. Kind of sad, as the church had an incredible mix of slightly conservative (politically and in “faith” values/beliefs) to quite liberal; this allowed for quite invigorating discussions in a “safe” manner. But in the “new vision” process, there was quite the shift toward liberal, and the openness kind of died. It became more of a toe the line sort of place. Despite the lack of freedom to serve, it was a time of growth.


The start in Colorado

So we ended up in Colorado. And we were checking out churches again. Must have visited a dozen or more. Talked to others about theirs. It seemed each one I visited the entire conversation with anyone was about a marketing survey. You know, ‘is this your first time?’ and then when you answered yes, it was ‘how did you hear about us?’ (that is, what of our advertising/marketing worked). That’s if anyone talked to you.

Then there was the church that had you doing the typical staring at the back of heads, with the irony of the sermon being on how we are a family. Understand, this was a church of about 25 people, in a room with folding chairs. We could have turned this into a circle easily, but got to have those rows of chairs. Finally gave up looking at corporate churches, aka institutional churches.

Part of the reason for giving up was a growing of one of those initial splinters of the mind. I alluded to before in mentioning the whole "Sunday service" thing. In "verifying" what the coC was trying to teach, I looked hard at what New Testament church worship services looked like. And couldn't validate it from scripture. You have to look Old Testament to find anything resembling it. The first century seemed to gather to "encourage and spur one another to love and good deeds". The gatherings, other than when a (visiting) apostle was in town, seemed more like a family gathering. Yet modern churches center around a scripted praise service. As Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost observed, it seems centered around making Jesus admirers, not Jesus followers. And another aspect is this feeding of a corporate (aka pastor) vision rather than the equipping of the saints for the work they find.

In part two (assuming only two parts), I’ll talk of the “detox” from the church culture, the false alternative of many “organic” churches (not all – there is much good there), discussions with those of like mind and experiences, detail some of the most disturbing "splinters", etc.

Originally posted at http://restoringheart.blogspot.com/2010/07/out-of-matrix-part-i.html

Ready, Set, Go

(link) This entry at Free Believers Network awhile back got me thinking a bit about why I haven't blogged much lately. I think it is in part due to how in part I've moved on, but I also kind of focused this blog in another direction than I moved.

Like the author of that piece who got branded on relationships and wasn't allowed to speak elsewhere, I've let myself self-brand this blog in a direction, but my thoughts have been in another. Yet that's no reason to limit it. I let the idea of "restoring heart" be limited to trying to break the bonds that the institutionalism that crept into expression of church brought with it. That's limiting. It doesn't cast a view of alternatives, of hope, of what freedom means.

I also note that I slowed down in blogging drastically around the end of October. Interestingly, that coincides with a few events in November. One was returning to a Gary Barkalow event on finding one's calling. I did this as a refresher; I originally did one in December of 2006. Great freedom in these (for more on Gary's ministry, visit http://www.thenobleheart.com). At this event, I met some who've found freedom from the bonds so often imposed by institutional forms of church, some despite still being involved in institutional forms, as well as others who've walked away from it. There was one younger man who was a former associate pastor who had found his freedom from institutionalism. Others intrigued by the concept of freedom we experienced, but didn't quite get what the alternative looks like. They felt interested, but couldn't see what they were walking toward.

Then in early December, I had some couples over to my house. Couple of couples actually. One pair were intrigued by the concepts of freedom we discussed. Another was simply trapped. This other couple was actually accusative, claiming that without offering people a "church", one doesn't love people. They just couldn't see this is about offering God without the intermediary.

All this is to say, it set me to thinking about how do you get men and women to see church as something God builds, not something we "plant", not something we strategize about on God's behalf. I find it refreshing that the younger generation, and those who work closely with 20 somethings, see this so easily, but the older generations don't. The younger who remain faithful can take or leave the institutional trappings so easily. Yet there are fewer and fewer of that generation who remain faithful, or who ever become faithful, burned by institutionalistic trappings. How can we ever simply present Jesus, without imposing what church looks like?

It is interesting that really, if we look at the first century church in a more chronological fashion, they presented Jesus, crucified, buried and resurrected, first. They presented to non-religious folks a Jesus who accepted before he called for repentence. Jesus came first. We see the churches that arose, and speak of Paul and his like as church planters. But they were no such thing. They preached Jesus. They fostered community among those who accepted the offer and promises of Jesus. And Paul - on return trips - recognized what was already present. No appointment of "pastors" upfront. If one examines the "qualifications" of elders and deacons in context, Paul was speaking of recognizing the leaders and servants already there. They didn't step into the role; Paul recognized the role they were already performing. Community/church arose organically - the apostles merely identified and recognized what God had done.

This is the challenge we need. To step back, simply love and disciple, and let community arise. We need no grand plan. Jesus presented none. Peter, Paul, and the rest didn't either. They merely loved, accepted, and preached Jesus. They recognized and identified the work God did from there.

So, I think I want to speak more of a vision of God. An old one. The true one. Not a God that one gets to through a professional class, or through an institution, but rather a God one relates to directly, and a church that forms when walking in the footsteps of Jesus. That's not to say I won't ever speak against the trappings of institutionalism. Sometimes, some need to be riled up. As Michael Douglas recently said, a man needs to be able "to see the absurdity of [a] situation, which ultimately allows you to solve it" (Men's Journal, May 2010 issue). In order for me to fully comprehend it myself, I've given some thought of writing these words in a book form, to organize it. If I do this, much if not all will find its way into the pages of this blog.

This blog "reposts" to my facebook page. If you read this there, I invite you to come comment at the original posting at http://restoringheart.blogspot.com/. Links, pictures, formatting etc often get lost when they get reposted on facebook.

Church hospitality

Hospitality is a word that comes from a Latin word for "guest". A Christian that worships God does so in part by practicing hospitality (see prior post). But do we do a good job?

In the movie Patch Adams, Patch obtains a home and uses it to practice hospitality to the sick and ailing. This gives insight on why the same root word for hospitality gives us the word for hospital. The powers that be in Patch's world accuse Patch of practicing medicine without a license, but his defense is he is just practicing old fashion hospitality, helping the others as they help him.

Jesus Christ said he came to heal the broken-hearted (a poor translation giving the modern meaning - perhaps better to say "wounded at their core"). The author of Luke thinks this so important that Jesus saying that is a part of Jesus' first recorded statements in his ministry. So sad that this is so little a part of church life.

In the early years, the meetings of the disciples were for the disciples. Today, many churches practice "evangelism" by making the meetings the place they encourage the membership to invite people to. If that is the case, shouldn't the meetings be a place of ministry, as Jesus modeled, rather than a "worship service"? Luke describes the purpose of Jesus ministry by opening with the quote from Isaiah 61 about freedom and healing. But most services I've seen are about "get in, sit down, keep quiet, sing along if you want". It's not a very hospitable atmosphere.

To model Jesus, we need to concern ourselves more with healing and freedom. Jesus and the apostles said precious little about "worship" of God, but much about continuing the mission of Jesus. He came to seek and save what was lost (not the lost, but what was lost). It's about life, healing, and freedom. If we practiced and pursued that, I believe in this day and age, we'd have no need to spend an extra dime on "evangelism". More to come on that latter point ...

Wound thoughts

With a recent Boot Camp, that organic conference, a meeting with a man named Bart, and beginning a new church with others, a lot of thoughts float through my head. After being off-schedule for two weeks, I think this week will be off in another way -- extra posts to catch up.

This thought came during a meeting with Bart on Friday at CPK. Readers of John Eldredge's Wild At Heart and especially those who've been to a Wild At Heart Boot Camp know of what is called a wound. These are more or less psychological wounds that change who we are and keep us from the glory God intended for us. Typically these come in our youth from our dads or a father figure. As I heard my Psych 101 professor said one day "we all spend our entire lives recovering from our childhood".

One such wound with me was what was essentially a poor example of a friend my dad was to other men. That combined with other "wounds" kind of resulted in a "vow" that friends and friendship had to be earned. One way that came was being the guy with answers and provoking ideas. Talking with Bart on Friday about what I liked to do, I came to realize that despite about four years of awareness of that, I still practiced a behavior that resulted from such beliefs -- reading almost exclusively non-fiction.

So I'm weighing a strategy of breaking that -- right now I'm thinking I might give up reading any non-fiction book (other than the Bible and referencing commentaries and the like and possibly work-related books) for a year. I'm leaning toward making it simple -- doing it for a calendar year starting Jan 1, 2009.

Let you know the final call on that and how it goes.

A new view of "church"

Those who know me know that I believe there is something fundamentally off about church as it is practiced in America. There are really too many points to make about what is wrong to summarize here, but you can find many a thing looking through the history of this blog.

I've come to realize through a transition in thinking that the alternatives I was advocating were wrong, at least in the details. This was really climaxed in thought in May. If there was one spark in this shift, it was sitting around the fireplace at Ransomed Heart's "Advanced Boot Camp" with a group that included a couple of my regular readers of this blog, and Craig McConnell. Craig and I have had off and on conversations around this topic and some others, but it had been one on one. I don't know if Craig's thinking had shifted, or he brought out a nuance of it in a group, or I had never noticed his use of some words, or just what, but something he said struck me. It was the way he used the word "church", talking of it breaking out at times when disciples are gathered. Now, the way he used it and means it may differ from the reaction and resulting developing conclusions I've come to, so please don't treat my words and thoughts as his. His contextual use of the word "church" and the way I took it (he could have meant something entirely different) is the topic here.

So just what does it mean, "church". There's an analogy I read in the preface or intro to Frank Viola's new book Reimaging Church that describes beautifully the kind of shift in thinking. Early scientists trying to study our solar system were baffled in trying to compute orbits and the like. Until Galileo. The problem was that early astronomers were trying to make their computations geocentric, that is, centered around the earth. Galileo proposed that they should be heliocentric, that is, centered around the sun. Galileo was treated as a heretic for his thinking, due to a false belief that the Bible taught that the earth was central.

In many ways, I think I've been trapped by some remaining "geocentric" thinking. So I've proposed or sided with new ways of structuring church, new hierarchies, etc. I've advocated some great concepts, like organic church, but treating it as a different way of structuring things. That misses the point, I now think.

Now, after that discussion around a fireplace, I picked up a copy of Jake Colsen's So You Don't Want to Go to Church Anymore I had owned but not read yet, followed by reading The Shack by William P. Young. Both are novels, but they expose a different way of thinking. Looking at church as much more relational, much more embedded in life, rather than a separate entity shoved to a building on a street corner that one visits occasionally, or even a separate structured time in a home.

What is this new view of church? It is really hard to put into a few words. The words one would like to use are often loaded with alternate meaning that will throw off the reader. Other words are entirely biblical, but in practice their meanings have been twisted. But let me attempt it anyway, and I invited conversation to help express this better.

In some ways, the church as the body of Christ is an extension of the Trinity. When we look at the scriptural descriptions of the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we don't see a hierarchy, but rather a community which complements each other. As we read through something like I Cor 11-14, we see a community about the mutual edification of one another. Paul in his Corinthian letters doesn't address a hierarchy, but charges each member to be about what he describes to do.

And while we see regular meetings, I don't think the regular meetings are central. Jesus is. It is about relationships, to one another and to God. If meetings are central, relationships aren't. The meetings feed the relationships. They help maintain them. Interesting, there isn't a single description or instruction about the gatherings being worship, but there are plenty about edification, encouragement, spurring on one another to love and good deeds ...

When it comes to hierarchy, it is every member ministry. Some do have roles, but Paul described them as for the equipping of the saints, not lording over them. Jesus even described that we shouldn't be like those who lord it over one another (Matthew 20:25, see also I Peter 5:3).

What it really comes down to is this: if we are following Jesus, our communities will arise as they should in our contexts. That, I believe, is what happened in the first century. Looking at what happened then should be limited to seeing how they contextualized to their society being the body of Christ.

The problem is, many of us have such an embedded thoughts influenced by the way things have become rather than what was intended. I still struggle with this, and at times, struggle with being "anti" the way things have become.

Thirst III: Relationship

Whereas we are created in the image of God, a study of human nature shows we do have two fundamental characteristics of God.

1) God is creator. Studying healthy humans, we see that we all have a way we want to create, build, organize, rule, author, etc. This is the need to impact.
2) God set, "Let us create man in our image". God is community (a threesome), Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God functions in community. We are meant to function in community -- community with God, community with others.

We see this as fundamental to human nature. Psychology 101, if you have taken it, shows a great number of disorders, especially depression and depressive disorders, are caused by a lack of social interaction, or mitigated with social interactions.

So, church should be good, right?

Then why are churches some of the loneliest places on Sunday mornings? Why do we think "performances" are what Jesus intended for "services"?

Thirst II: Impact

Perhaps Part II should be about relationship, but the church speaks so much of that (not necessarily accurately), that perhaps the impact thirst should be addressed first.

Scripture is ripe about impact. It starts in the first book, Genesis, chapter 1. We are made in the image of God. Before the fall, we had dominion of the earth, though we gave that away. Throughout scripture, God is referred to as King, and John 1 tells us that we are given opportunity to become children of God. What do mature children of a king do? Typically, they reign in some area of appointed authority on behalf of the king, and in time they inherit the kingdom. In Matthew 25, we see those on the Son of Man's right invited to take the inheritance, the kingdom prepared. If we inherit a kingdom, what do you do with it? You rule.

Children of a king, those who inherit a kingdom, their actions impact, intentionally or not. We are meant to impact the world. We thirst to do so.

Between now and when we take positions of ruling, we are learning to impact. To learn, one has to make an impact in the mean while. If one goes back earlier in Matthew 25 than the sheep and the goats story, we see the parable of the talents. The two men who took what they were entrusted with and grew it, they got more responsibility in their master's domain. We are preparing to inherit the kingdom now. What do we do with what we are given?

So we are created to impact, we long to fulfill our creation, and we are being trained in impacting. Our thirst for impact is a part of the equation for preparing for life when we inherit the kingdom.

Thirst

Thirst is a recurring theme in the scriptures, and Jesus refers to himself as the water

13Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." John 4:13-15 NIV

What is the thirst, or longing, that is referred here to? Larry Crabb, a professor of counseling at Colorado Christian and well known author, suggests it is two fold: thirst for unconditional love, and thirst for impact. We deeply long for unconditional love, and to make a difference.

Jesus is supposed to be the answer to both. Though we, or perhaps rather the church, talks about relationship and seems to often skip over the desire for impact. Why is this?

Don't take Crabb's word for it. The challenge to make a different world, to assist Jesus in the greatest mission ever, is all over the New Testament. One of the most amazing (amazing in part due to how much it is ignored and seldom preached) passages in scripture to me is John 14:12

I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. (emphasize added). NIV

In the coming days, I'll post on both sides of the thirst equation, and what it means for a restored heart. For now, let me say that I believe that one of the reasons that church attendance is 61% female is due to the typical church's emphasis on relationships over impact. Women, in general, are more inclined toward relationships and community, while men in general are more inclined toward making a difference. Church also skews older -- again, generally the older you are the more you care about relationships, while the younger are more about making a mark on this world. This could well be why church plants tend to have a higher percentage of the younger and men: in those early days, there is more promise of making an impact.