Living as the church (or in the church?)

[caption id="attachment_112" align="aligncenter" width="560" caption="Could this be our new home?"][/caption]

So this is just kind of funny. For months we've known we would probably be moving up more to the Boulder/Longmont area and for most of those months I've pseudo-jested about finding an old empty church to rent to live in. The thinking on our part centered on how wonderful it would be (and ironic in this case) to find somewhere that has enough space that we could offer for other former church staff members whose journey following Father is leading them out of a church vocation, to come and stay with us at no cost until they got back on their feet working some other job/career.

So, we'll likely be moving in the next month or so and have ramped up the looking process. Today while Julie and her best friend Amy were out and about looking at areas and availability of rentals in those areas they found this! Unbelievable. Could that pseudo-jesting have been based on the prompting of Father instead of me thinking I was being funny.

It would be something to be able to respond when asked where we go to church, "GO? What do you mean, we live at the church!" and really mean it!

Leaving vs Pursuing

Reading the reminder article posted by Jeff McQ at Losing My Religion: Re-Thinking Church today prompted me to understand something more clearly. Many folks want to know (whether it's the few how actually ask or the apparent many who ask others) what led the Kendall's to leave the church or more commonly "what happened"?

There IS a lot of discussion and exploration about alternative forms of gathering as the body of Christ these days. I'm afraid to say that in many instances some of what's driving folks to explore alternatives is the same thing that has fueled church hopping for decades. Someone get's their feelings hurt and shazaam, it's time to look for another church. It's often couched in all kinds of other surface reasons... we're just not being fed, or folks just never really reached out to us, or something similar. So there appears to be one group who are exploring alternative "church" types due to dissatisfaction with the "church" they were part of before.

Our experience has been very different. We love the friends and "stuff" that was going on at our "church". It was a great place with tons of amazing people and lots of cool events and programs. For us, following Jesus required us to leave the walls of what we had always known as "church" because we could no longer follow Him and stay there. Stuff He showed us about walking with Him and His Way made what we saw going on there in His name a stench to our nose. No one mistreated us. No one was ugly to us. No one chose the wrong color of carpet. We just could no longer stomach what was being done there as really about the Kingdom as much as about a kingdom. Not as much about persons as people. Reversals of parables and stories were showing up all over. The one was left for the 99. The mite was no longer mightier than the millions. The treasure was left covered up in the field so the previous pursuits of so much potential could be pursued. We could no longer stay where we were and pursue Christ because following Him was taking us outside the traditions and established ways of doing "church". Some would say we became disgruntled on some level, but having been in church work for decades this was no disgruntled church member leaving because his or her feelings were hurt. This was, "I'm not so sure 'church' is supposed to be what we've made it" and in order to follow Christ into exploring what He meant we had to remove ourselves from the addicting influence of the show.

The interesting thing is He has not allowed us to pursue another way of doing "church" but instead only Him. Because we are in Colorado, there is every a-typical opportunity for church around us. While we treasure every opportunity we have to gather with other Christ Followers, He has not taken us to a house church, a missional gathering, or any other form of a programmed event where people get together to be a "church". Don't get me wrong. We do purposefully seek out opportunities to be together with other Christ Followers. Dinners at the house seem to be the most common type, but any occasion to hang out with other Christ Followers is at the top of our list of stuff to do.

So, how about you? What led you to that new "church"... Christ or frustration?

Several have asked...

Several have asked and others want to know but don't ask. I'll answer anyway. The question is something like, "Why don't you go to church anymore?" While I won't spend time rehashing the journey that brought me to where I am (read the rest of the MyWalkBlog entries if you are interested in that), I'll instead answer the question for those who will to some degree admit they at least partially agree that "church" as we have always known it does not accomplish the mission that Christ left with His followers, but who would challenge that I should be "inside" applying what God has shown me as a fix for the "church". Today I was catching up on some blog reading and came across the following section of a post titled Is Deconstruction Enough? Wayne, being challenged whether he really wanted to be known as one of the guys who convinced people not to go to church on Sunday morning says as part of his response:

The reason church life grows stale is because we’re looking for institutional solutions, not relational ones. If we equip people to live loved of God and live as lovers of people, the church will spring up all around us. It probably won’t be contained in a specific meeting or building but will grow wild and free and bear fruit in the interconnection, collaboration, cooperation and submission of brothers and sisters who are being changed by Jesus. That can look like a hundred different things. But once I begin to describe some of those things, I know our tendency as humans to prefer replicating a model to following the Head! We love to construct things, not build up people. The New Testament points us to building up people in Christ and seeing what expression that takes. I don’t think it works the other way around. (emphasis mine)

And there you have in a nutshell my answer. I remember several years ago, when following God on my journey brought about some interesting developments in our own group. The church we were attending immediately wanted to find a way to replicate what was going on in our group through months of praying and following by putting together a handbook, having a training session, and watching the Spirit of God take that group exactly where we were headed because we were following God.

One of the key questions I remember the church leader asking after I told him our off-shoot groups followed no curriculum was "but how do we control what goes on in the groups." My response? "If you think you control the groups that meet on campus because they all meet at the same time each week and because you put approved curriculum in the leaders hands your nuts." Do you see it... "But once I begin to describe some of those things, our tendency as humans is to prefer replicating a model to following the Head!"

Other than the simple fact that Jesus, the Head, has not led me back to an institutionalized gathering, I'm confident that any attempt to change the institution, as others have suggested, from the inside out though it would be the result of a small group learning how to walk in intimacy with God, would be subjected to tendencies and efforts to replicate the model and not the following of the Head that truly brought about the change. Besides, ultimately, those who have "gotten it" begin to struggle with being inside the institution themselves and we all know how that "movement" would sit with those who lead the institutions.

Pursuing Christ Outside the Walls!

Counter Assumption

In his article, The Cult of Mac: Neuroscience shows Apple's impact on the brain is the same as religion, the author Skye Jethani cites research and opinion based on that research toward addressing what he sees as consumerism affecting the church.

"Apple is (as we've proven using neuroscience)...a religion. Not only that--it is a religion based on its communities. Without its core communities, Apple would die--it is already facing strong pressure as the brand simply is becoming too broad (losing) its magic. What's holding it all together is the hundreds if not thousands of communities across the world spreading the passion and creating the myths."

I was glad to see he came back and explored the opposite side of things... as he puts it "If brands have become religions, is the opposite also true? Have religions been reduced to brands?" Skye affirms that he does believe this to be true. I have to admit I was already thinking in this direction as I began his article (but then, that doesn't surprise those of you who know me, right?).

Could it be the same thing that makes humans in general vulnerable to consumerism in the first place is the same thing that contributed to the rise of a religion out of the relationship focus Jesus lived and taught while He walked the earth?

What's really intriguing about this study, and about Apple being dubbed "a religion", is more what it says about religion than it is an indictment on Apple or any other strong brand, right? Does the study show that people are generally pre-disposed to a system of belief about something? And, if so, could it suggest that when Jesus left the disciples without a religion per se, that in the absence of one, the people who by nature are predisposed to systemization rather than relationship, unknowingly began to layer the system, or religion, back onto that which Jesus spent three years striping away?

Not alone out here in the uttermost parts...

One of the interesting parts of my journey has been the initial isolation you feel when you begin the trek down a different path. The further I go down the path the more I come across others who are on the similar journeys. Today I discovered the blog of Jim Palmer. Just reading his current post, "you can't get there from here (or can you)", I found myself excited. One of the sentences that got me really excited was this one:

i don’t feel the need to cling to the label “Christian,” and i am okay with people who don’t think i am one.

I too have gone through a period where I was not quite sure what I had become and didn't know how to answer the question "are you a Christian"? I can say that the only folks I've come across who question my relationship to God are those who are typical church goers. Especially those with whom we attended church or served on their church staff at some point. Most think we've had some deep hurt from the church and have turned our backs on it. We get that blank look that comes after you tell them and it's obvious they are hoping we'll get over it at some point and return. But when you've had steak you can't settle for SPAM any longer when you don't have to.

On the other hand, when we come across unbelievers or others going down this same path we are on, we don't get those questions or the stares. And oddly enough, the unbelievers just notice something "different" about us and because we're not all "churchy" they actually open up and pour out their souls to us. The opposite of the reactions we used to get, and never noticed before because we were too church-strung, of the blank stare and obviously trying to think of an answer that allows them to slip away from the encounter never to have to see us again.

So, as Jim I don't cling to, and actually shy away from, the term "Christian" these days because of the association that it conjures in the mind of others. I've landed on the term Christ Follower. It's much more descriptive of where I am and where I am headed.

Grow Spiritually = Active in Small Group and Still in Church

As I began to wake up from my years of Churchianity I began to really struggle with the rhetoric we hear week in and week out (or day in and day out if you are a really mature Christian -tongue in cheek-) about spiritual growth. In a recent article on his blog, David Landrith, pastor of the church I used to attend for quite some time and by all the standard measures of church success a highly successful place, kicked off an emphasis on getting everyone involved in a small group (amazing this is a whole article and they finally decided not to call it Sunday School... something they said would never change while I was there). In the article he makes note of the following (my excerpts with surrounding stuff removed)...

to grow spiritually...

the value of being in a small group...

...five times more likely to be active in church than those who attended worship service alone.  They also found that more than eight out of ten of the members who were active in a small group were still in church 5 years later.  However, only two of ten were still active in the church five years later if they attended worship services only.

The reality is that most life change occurs in a small group!

Note the beginning of the excerpts set up the premise that he's going to talk about spiritual growth. Then he quotes the president of LifeWay about the value of small groups and how going ensures you'll still be going five years down the road whereas those who only take a small dose each week were so much less likely to be as active.

So, what's wrong with this? Where's the growth, other than the number of folks filing through the doors each week of course? We are talking about growing spiritually, right?

So, here's the unquestioned assumption here not being challenged is "are those who are still involved five years later actually walking more like Christ (not do they go to church more often, tithe more, walk and talk like 'us')?" While I would submit there are a handful who truly live more like Jesus I would also submit it's not the small groups, or the worship services that changed those lives. In fact, I would submit that those lives would have been changed even apart from the millions of dollars it took to "make it happen" through weekly experiences at the church. Those individuals, given a genuine one on one relationship with another believer would have grown and saved "the kingdom" millions of dollars.

David, I don't know if you will read this or not. And I hope that, if you do, you won't be offended that I chose to blog about this rather than write a personal email. I sat and listened to your preaching for about a year and a half as I had begun to awake from my Churchianity. I heard the inner struggle you too were going through coming through in your own preaching. I heard you lament that you stayed awake at nights knowing the lack of impact all the weekly efforts were really making in the multitude surrounding you. Of all the churches I had been a part of and visited, Long Hollow seemed to have the most potential for turning the tide and throwing out the business-focused church growth questions and evaluators and trying to truly find a way to measure and evaluate personal spiritual growth. I hope God will continue to allow you to be tormented with those questions rather than, as it appears in this article, settling for the numbers=growth model which has paralyzed those who call themselves believers for decades. It was through torment like that I was awakened and realized God was doing something brand new and I wanted to be a part of it.

Let me challenge you to read the book Plan A. And There Is No Plan B. by Dwight Robertson. Specifically looking for the illustration about the man who invented the game of checkers. I believe churches, like the emperor of China in that illustration, would be offended that any believer would "ask for so little" as to invest themselves into two others, who would in turn invest themselves into two, who would eventually, the pattern continued, change the world. Why do we always have to find more productive ways of doing it ourselves when Jesus gave to us The Way and showed us how to do it.

Projecting the familiar on to that we've not experienced

So as I cruise the Internet reading various blogs I continue to astounded and marvel at the pervasive habit of projecting the tenants of something with which we are familiar on to something we've never experienced.

Okay, guilty as charged. I too did this for a couple of decades. From the time I began to make my way into "full time ministry" I interpreted everything I read in the Bible through the filters of stuff I saw and understood around me. In other words, when I read "church" in the New Testament I projected what I saw a church to be in my culture and time onto what I read. Almost as if the Ephesian "church" looked and functioned just like First Church Anytown I was familiar with. They had Sunday School in the morning on Sundays right? Well, that's a little too simplistic but you get the idea. When I read "pastor" I projected what I had always known as a "pastor" back on to what I was reading. When I read Paul's letter to the church at Galatia I read it envisioning a group of people gathered on a certain day seated in orderly fashion where a designated person read the letter as part of the "service" being conducted. I envisioned a "pastor" speaking

That's a dangerous flaw in the way we read and study. I know, I know, that's why we do all that deep Bible study and ferret out the meanings and culture and history. But the fact remains, my impression of what the New Testament Christ Followers were like was tainted by my own experience. I knew nothing else.

Last year I began to escape the decades of filters that had for so long kept me from understanding the life and ministry of Jesus and what He left to his disciples. The mission He left them. Not the mission I was taught being projected back on to what He said at the end of Matthew, but more of what He was truly saying to them. Since then, my eyes have been opened to understand things from my reading that had before never quite connected. Now, the rationalizations I had made as to why something I read in the Bible didn't seem to fit with other stuff I read in the Bible began to no longer be necessary.

I'm anxious at some point to try once again to learn to read Greek and may attempt (yeah right) Hebrew. I'm wondering how much of what we read in a translation could be skewed by that which the translator is familiar with and takes on today's meaning rather than the meaning for which it was written. I know. I know. This is a Pandora's box. But nonetheless, one worth considering.