Is the modern church known by love or glitz?
A buddy of mine in his youth ministry internship stopped by tonight, and we talked about the Church, his in particular--how it too often treats youths as numbers and doesn't follow up with discipleship. This church spent twenty grand--that's $20,000--for its youth ministry worship facility. He listed off all the cool equipment they've got, and I just sat there, gawking. Every time I get into a discussion about the church, a column from this summer's Relevant runs through my head. Dan Haseltine has got a point, I think. Please read the whole thing here.
The Church spends a fortune to create the perfect setting for non-believers to "experience the Gospel." (As if we have anything to do with it!) We Christians are quick to give a meaningful head-nod and an amen to the idea that what truly impresses non-believers is our behavior--for good or ill. So what if we decided to toss that plan for new comfy pews and a $2000 projector--you know, for those obligatory movie clips--in favor of some uncomfortable wooden benches and an overhead projector, and use the money instead to provide fresh water and medicine to starving orphans in Africa, or to pay for two months' worth of food at the local rescue mission? It may hurt our "presentation," but would it really hurt our witness? Then the next time a non-Christian wonders aloud why our church doesn't have that glitzy, "seeker-friendly" atmosphere, maybe--just maybe--he'll be impressed by our explanation, and maybe he'll know we are Christians by our love and not our coffee bar.
UPDATE: Is the modern church known by love or glitz? Part II
church, discipleship, relevant, relevant magazine, dan haseltine, social justice, evangelicalism, aids, africa, rescue mission, god, christianity, poverty, love
Is there a voice speaking into these tragic and inexusable corners of the globe where thousands of children die in the war for a louder voice? It is a real fight to have a scream or a cry louder than the one telling us which creature comforts and luxury items we do not possess and NEED. It is the struggle to yell above the noise that has distracted and bent the ear of the Church into justifying an expedition of technology, trends, fashion and indulgence at the cost of thousands of lives each and every day.As an evangelical, social justice is hardly my strong point. But I am slowly realizing how imporant it is when used Biblically. (Thank you Dan Lambert and Richard Foster.) Make no mistake, I don't think that what the church currently spends its money on is unimportant, necessarily; the approach just isn't holistic enough for its entire calling. Sure, spending money on internal church needs is totally acceptable. But when American Protestant churches spend 2 cents of every incoming dollar on missions, as opposed to the 70 cents per dollar that a Korean church gives, something is wrong.
In our world today nearly 200,000 people die from CURABLE diseases and other factors surrounding extreme poverty. About 6,500 people die every day from AIDS, a preventable disease that finds its greatest and easiest prey among those who live on less than $1 a day. And that kind of prey is abundant for the feast. Millions of people live without access to safe, clean water sources. In the United States, we, the body of Christ, have taken steps that ensure these kinds of troubling statistics will keep on growing. The contemporary Church has found ways to look into the eyes of a starving child and say, "We have done enough," and our church community needs a new coffee bar and comfortable seats.
The Church has been sold a lie that they are now investing in and perpetuating across the Western world. The lie is that technology, entertainment and comfort are core necessities to tell the Gospel story. The problem with this thread of thought is that it just is not true. I have never heard a person in remembering their journey from fear to faith recall the types of screens, the light show, the fabric colors or thread counts, or even how techno savvy the sanctuary was or how the conveniences of great coffee and high-speed Internet access stirred their heart to a place where they could examine their life and soul and see that they were a wretch and that God alone could save them.
Our God is still a God of relationships. He has set forth a Gospel that thrives in the rich dirt of one person loving and serving another with the help of compassion and mercy. And the Gospel does not need our technological wonders and brilliant sanctuaries to enhance it or make it relevant.
And we can sit on hard chairs or put our worship lyrics up on an ancient overhead projector or drink bad coffee or find ways of captivating hearts through genuine and authentic expressions of the Gospels that affect the lives of sinners without the laser show. We can live... (and "live," being the vital word in this phrase) without the latest creature comforts and trendy entertainment gadgets and even without a huge magnificent church building... if it means that lives will be saved, that children will be pulled out of forced prostitution, that babies will not die from drinking unclean water or that an HIV-positive mother would not have to pray that her HIV-positive children would die before she died for fear of leaving them as orphans.
There is a cost to end poverty... and many of the contemporary churches today spend that on an electric bill every month. There is a dollar amount that gives an entire community freedom from the deadly effects of malaria, and I have been in churches where that dollar figure is spent on sound systems and state-of-the-art concert lighting. It would cost roughly $3 billion to keep all the people in Ethiopia free from famine. We have spent nearly seven times that much on new church construction in a year. Can we make better choices? Do we trust God and believe the Gospel is powerful enough on its own? The Gospel speaks with a voice so authentic it needs no comforts or displays of trendy brilliance to swarm the hearts and minds of weary souls. If we believe this to be true, we must examine the reasons for our spending and choose to become the voice for better stewardship."
The Church spends a fortune to create the perfect setting for non-believers to "experience the Gospel." (As if we have anything to do with it!) We Christians are quick to give a meaningful head-nod and an amen to the idea that what truly impresses non-believers is our behavior--for good or ill. So what if we decided to toss that plan for new comfy pews and a $2000 projector--you know, for those obligatory movie clips--in favor of some uncomfortable wooden benches and an overhead projector, and use the money instead to provide fresh water and medicine to starving orphans in Africa, or to pay for two months' worth of food at the local rescue mission? It may hurt our "presentation," but would it really hurt our witness? Then the next time a non-Christian wonders aloud why our church doesn't have that glitzy, "seeker-friendly" atmosphere, maybe--just maybe--he'll be impressed by our explanation, and maybe he'll know we are Christians by our love and not our coffee bar.
UPDATE: Is the modern church known by love or glitz? Part II
church, discipleship, relevant, relevant magazine, dan haseltine, social justice, evangelicalism, aids, africa, rescue mission, god, christianity, poverty, love
1 Comments:
Thank you for your challenging post. Here are some questions I think it raises:
1. How far should modern (western) church leaders go in downsizing their consumption or in reducing technology? Why is it enough to go twenty years back (overhead projector)? Would you go forty years back (chalkboard)? Back to truly “biblical methods” (stick in dirt)? Why or why not?
2. When is it appropriate to use anything close to current technology?
3. What criteria should a leader use to decide where to spend ministry dollars?
How about those 15-passenger vans my church uses to haul the youth group three miles to the rescue mission to fund and serve dinner to the homeless on Tuesday nights? That no-frills van which moves 15 people into frontline ministry cost the church $15,000. Fifteen bicycles with lights would cost less than $3,000. Or should they just walk, carrying fifteen flashlights from Wal-Mart ($15.00)?
4. When it comes to ministry tools and strategy, what should be considered substandard or unsafe (and unacceptable)? What is minimal? Basic? Comfortable, luxurious? And do appropriate standards have anything to do with the cultural context, or are they universal globally? (And should “safety” necessarily be the bottom line? What if David the shepherd boy had elevated “safety” above obedience to what God told him to do? When he faced Goliath he didn’t choose “safety” with just a sling out in the open when a sword and helmet and shield were available. Good thing for Israel. But I wonder if he got blasted by his peers or leaders for being unsafe.)
5. When you observe a church or an individual Christian consuming (or ministering with technology) at a certain level, how do you know what criteria they used to make their decision? If we start asking one another, we will probably uncover some waste or inefficiency. But we also just might learn something about how the Lord has led another person. That would be a win / win / win. (The third win is for those who’d benefit by the extra resources freed up for additional ministry because we asked the questions.)
Certainly we (as individuals and churches) consume at levels that far exceed our “needs” and, therefore, have far less to use in ministry (to the poor, or in any form).
6. So what would you offer for guidelines on how one should decide when to consume, when to give, when to save for giving later, when to invest for multiplied giving? And when we do consume, what should our consumption level be? How do I choose?
When the farmer harvested his crop of grain, he ate some, sold some to meet his non-food needs, gave some to the needy, stored some for his family’s (and his needy neighbor’s) needs in the coming winter and low-harvest years, and also held some seed back for next season’s planting (investment, so that he could do all of the above the next time around).
Rather than investing or storing some seed for tomorrow, should he have given away that seed today? If he could spend ten percent of his harvest this year to buy a farming implement that would double his harvest next year, should he?
7. Suppose we decide to forgo carpet in our new youth room and opt for a cement floor so that we can send the carpet money (that we would have spent at Home Depot) to the building project fund at our sister church in Mexico City. They take the cash and buzz down to Casa Depot and buy… carpet for their new youth room. Hmmm. Shouldn’t they have fed their poor neighbors? Are we responsible for what they do with our gift?
8. And who really owns our stuff anyway? If I believe that what I have is truly God’s stuff and that I am simply a manager of His treasure, my personal consumption and ministry spending should reflect that. Should I spend thirty bucks on dinner at Chilis with my friend when we could eat at McDonalds for eight? Or should we buy groceries and eat at home for five? Or should it be oatmeal for two dollars and send twenty eight to missions? Should your management of God’s stuff look the same as mine?
Your post has defined well the target we have missed (Spirit-led spending). Can you show us how to shoot our arrow straighter?
Post a Comment
<< Home