That's sort of what Chapter 4 feels like.
Obviously, the author has some bones to pick with how the traditional church operates. In this chapter, he lays out thirty areas that need to be reformed in the Mega Shift. If you are like me, you may have been turned off by some of the sweeping generalizations he makes, and maybe you questioned whether some of his criticisms were credible. Perhaps our criticisms are valid, or perhaps sometimes he hits a little too close to home.
Our responsibility in reading things like this is listen to what God is saying to us through this book. Even if 29 of his critiques are wrong, perhaps there is one that the Spirit wants to highlight for Chi Alpha and/or Lafayette. So what do you think? Are there any of his points that you think are particularly applicable to our situation? What are some areas that you think God wants us to Shift into?
And one more set of question remains. Do you think that the individual house churches are the only answer to these issues? Do we have to entirely throw out the structure of the historic church and start over? Or are there ways to incorporate the Mega Shift elements into our existing churches?
Can we be like Frank "Cannonball" Richards and take the punch to our gut and keep standing?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TlytmtStpdg
6 comments:
In my opinion it's really not that big of a step to incorporate this megashift stuff into our current setup. Just tweak the system so there's more emphasis on praying with/for each other. Instead of having the sermon be the "main event" have the sermon as something that will lead us into prayer.
I think this will change our expectations from worship and a sermon, to prayer and seeing God work in people's lives.
And no, I don't think house churches are the only answer. I like the big church sense of community. We just need to spend more time praying with each other.
This wasn't one of my favorite chapters because of the broad generalizations and criticisms of the current set up of the church, and because 30 things is a big list...it was a lot of information. But that's just me :-)
I could see how some of his points were valid, but it was more so when I consider the kind of church I grew up in, which was VERY traditional. The church I attend now is very different than that, and even though we do follow order and there is tradition in there, there is also a lot more freedom to flow with the Spirit. Maybe there is still too much structure, I don't know...maybe we should ask God and check out what the Word says :-)
But, all that to say, I definitely don't think we need to throw out the traditional church all together, and I actually think the idea of house churches combined with "traditional" church works pretty well. I think the "proper" term for that was a cell church. If we are supposed to be a part of the body of Christ, I think it's important that we meet as a body and just be together and worship together. I also see how it's important for us to be held accountable and be to "known" to people in church. And the HOME groups system we have at Bethel is really where I started to grow and be known. So the entire body meets together, but then you have a smaller group that meets separately where you really get to know the other people, pray with each other and learn from each other. It's also easier to step out in faith in smaller group settings, which then gives you the confidence to step out in faith when God wants to use you in "big" church.
Here's the thing though. It takes effort to do that, and it takes a desire on our part to want to take more time to share our life with other people and be used by God. I think it's our attitudes that need to change, not necessarily changing the system. Yes, some people do need to be shaken up a bit, but God needs to do that - enter in PRAYER!!! :-)
That's a lot...and it reminds me of what I like about Chi Alpha. Most of us are involved in other churches, and Chi Alpha is sort of like our "small" group, and then discipleship is a subset of that. It's a place where we learn, encounter God, pray with each other and encourage one another, and then we can be mature and ready to be used by God in all kinds of other settings!!
I definitely think we can aspire to healthy change in our churches and in Chi Alpha without totally ditching the system. It's too easy to say that there's an "old church" and a "new church," implying that we'd better abandon the old for the new. I just think that'd be a huge waste!
The main thing I was encouraged by in this chapter was his insistence that every Christian has something to offer to the body, not just the pastor(s). I have aimed for this in leading worship in Chi Alpha - I try to give lots of opportunities for people to minister to the body in non-threatening ways. But Nicole, I think you're right that the easiest place for the individual members of the body to minister to the whole is in small groups - it's much less intimidating.
I think it's sorta weird that the writer wants to abandon the vocation of pastor and make it pretty much a lay person job, with the other offices of the church being full-time, yet traveling ministers. It just seems like a very narrow view of how the Kingdom should work. And it seems like it makes accountability difficult.
Allie, I like your thoughts, but I'm wondering if you could elaborate a little on what you mean by "making accountability difficult"?
“By the time you finish this chapter, you may have the impression I hate traditional churches. Not so. I’ve dozed peacefully through countless worship services and have been greatly refreshed” (112).
That pretty much sums up James Rutz’s feelings on traditional churches!! In my opinion, he was overly-aggressive and needlessly demeaning to those who follow more traditional formats of worship. I agree with him that we must follow Christ—not tradition—but I don’t believe we need to bash part of the Body of Christ to get our point across. After reading this chapter, I feel like the author has some issues of his own that are coming through. For example, his heading on page 112, “When you’re a nobody all your life, it hurts.” I think he has a strong call on his life, and perhaps he got really frustrated growing up in a traditional church environment where he couldn’t fully walk in his calling. He was probably treated as a nobody. As a result, I think he’s swung too far to the opposite side of the pendulum and thrown out the baby with the bathwater. There’s nothing wrong with tradition or church leadership as long as it facilitates true worship. Where we’ve gone wrong is when we follow tradition instead of the leading of the Holy Spirit when He wants to bring change. (Incidentally, I don’t believe any of our local AG churches fall into Rutz’s condemned category of “traditional church”—each church has home groups to facilitate individual growth, wants congregational participation in services, etc., and I know the heart of each local AG pastor is to be open to the moving of the Holy Spirit.)
Another personal problem that I think is coming through the author’s writing is his skewed view of authority. He basically is saying we need to abandon traditional church models and not have any more leaders in the church. We’ll all just flow and follow the Holy Spirit. It all sounds good, but the truth is in any gathering of people, you must have a leader to bring about order. Who decides where the meeting will be, when it will start, whether the gifts being used are of God, or whether the doctrine is getting off? If everything is led by consensus, you will eventually have chaos. There must be someone who is accountable to God for the group. What if God hadn’t appointed Moses to lead the Israelites but instead left everything to consensus? They’d probably still be wandering aimlessly in the desert! Jesus Himself commissioned leaders in the church. After Peter denied Christ, Jesus restored him by instructing Peter three times (once for every denial) to “feed My sheep.” That’s what a pastor does—feeds sheep!! Who was it that stood up on the day of Pentecost to explain what was happening and to call unbelievers to repent? Peter, the one commissioned of the Lord to give oversight to the sheep in the new church!
While it’s true that the word “pastor” is not found much in Scripture, you still see many examples of spiritual authority in Scripture. God delegates His authority even in the Church. Consider Hebrews 13:7,17, “Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith….Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
Or, take into account 1 Peter 5:1-4, “To the elders among you….Be shepherds (pastors) of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must , but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.”
While it is true that Jesus is the ultimate head or Chief Shepherd of the Church, He still calls leaders and delegates his authority to them. No, leaders are NOT to consider themselves superior to the sheep as explained in 1 Peter 5. Jesus said the greatest among us is to be the servant of all. Jesus Himself gave us the example of coming to serve, to give His life away. A true leader in the Body of Christ is one who has been through the school of brokenness and does not aspire to leadership because of the title but rather is one who wants to serve the Lord in whatever capacity will best build His Kingdom—whether that’s scrubbing toilets, teaching children, or preaching a sermon.
The author suggests throwing out titles that “elevate” clergy, but I don’t think the issue is with titles. I think his issue is more with those who serve in authority and love the title. I hate that, too!!! Titles for the sake of titles and elevating man is disgusting! However, it is proper to show respect where respect is due. For example, in grade school, I never called my teachers by their first name. When I taught high school, my students addressed me as “Miss Seiler,” not Linda. Why? Because I wasn’t their buddy; I was their teacher. I could still be loving and friendly towards them, but it was understood I was an authority in their life, not a peer. Likewise, it would not be appropriate for me to phone the President of the United States and call him “George.” He is “Mr. President!” Nor is it appropriate for me to call my parents by their first names. I honor them by honoring their title. God-given authority needs to recognized and honored—not to elevate the person but to esteem the Lord’s calling on their life and to help us submit to them as unto the Lord.
That being said, I actually agree with a lot of points Rutz shares:
1. We need small group fellowship to facilitate more life sharing and individual growth (hence, discipleship groups)
2. Our large group meetings need to be open to unscheduled interruptions of the Holy Spirit!
3. We WANT students to share testimonies and encourage the rest of the Body each time we meet!
4. We WELCOME the gifts of the Spirit and anyone who has a word from the Lord!
5. We WANT to equip students to do the work of the ministry so that XA is not pastor-centered or staff-dependent but an organic body that expands the Kingdom everywhere we go! (2 Tim. 2:2)
6. We must have mobile ministry and go where the people are! (that’s why we meet on campus in Stewart as opposed to a local church or house off campus)
Hopefully, this entry helps alleviate any consternation on the part of those who read chapter 4 and were quite disturbed. I knew when I suggested we read Mega Shift together that Rutz holds to these views, but I felt like the overall message of the book—empowering the Body to do the work of the ministry and believe for signs and wonders today—was important for us to hear. And it gives us an opportunity to read/think critically. You don’t have to believe everything everyone says just because they wrote a book or have a PhD after their name. We must learn how to be led by the Spirit and think with the mind of Christ. Additionally, I hope you’re convinced that my heart is not to be a “controlling” campus pastor but rather one that will empower you to reach your full potential in Christ as we build the Kingdom together!
Although the read towards the end of this chapter wasn't as easy as the beginning, there are some things that really spoke to me. I thought the account of Esther's healing was awesome, and I was wowed when I read how God spoke to Reber about the symbolism present. I think it's more common than not to view Christ as secondary to the people, the traditions, the structure, etc. It places a barrier between the people and God, and nobody knows what's on the other side. I was raised in a Protestant church and I can attest that I never felt like I was talking, walking, praying with God and the Holy Spirit, but AT Him. It really excited me to read about restoring Christ as the one and only head of the church, and allowing Him to set the tone, make the program, and work through people. I went through Appendix II in the back of the book where the author continues his...rant of the traditional church. It was interesting to read how the traditional church has evolved over time, although I'm not sure how accurate the info is, but interesting nevertheless. I do not feel that the presence of a leader or pastor at the head of the church is at all a bad structure! I feel that as long as God is the focus and that He is accessible to all people, that grace is not awarded or found through people, that something is right. Good stuff. But at the same time, I think God wants to use all people, we are all parts of one body, and we all serve a purpose, we all can be used by the Lord and when he has taken over the church and the body, I imagine he can move all people with a harmony that cannot be found anywhere else.
Post a Comment