CL lay out their church's history and its early
eminence in seeker-sensitive circles. They had been lauded by Willow Creek (WC)—the
leader in the movement—as an example par excellence. (CL are grace-soaked
and careful to praise and avoid criticism of WC, focusing on what they learned
from WC; the ability of that method to reach those who have been burned; and so
on [25-27].)
Their journey began with a.) concerns about
"feeding the monster" every week in putting on the Sunday
"show" (27-28); b.) bone-chilling fear through an epiphany that they
could (more or less) do what they were doing without God (24); and c.) two authors
who provoked them to think differently (Lyle Schaller and Dallas Willard). Once
on the new path, they partnered with Willard, immersing themselves in his
teaching on the preeminence of discipleship.
The problem: the way they “did church"
communicated a "gospel" in which "accepting Jesus was required
but apprenticeship to him was optional. It didn’t matter what our mission
statement said about turning nonchurched people into fully devoted followers
of Christ. Discipleship was a department of the church, but not a central tenet
of the gospel we proclaimed. So while we had ministries geared toward
discipleship, the heart of the church was to attract more people and help them
make decisions for Christ. Once they did, we hoped they would assimilate into
the life of the church." (56-57)
Unfortunately, attraction and hopeful assimilation
were not sufficient for the tasks and opportunities at hand. Then CL ask this rough question: “If
someone attended our church for three months, would he or she say discipleship
is one of our central concerns?” (58) Their answer was “no”, bringing them
into turmoil as one called to fulfill the Great Commission.What is the answer for your church?
The broader problem: “We have trained
Christians to be demanding consumers, not disciples.” (85) How can any of us plant so
many seeds of consumerism and expect the fruits of discipleship? “Attracting
people to church based on their consumer demands is in direct and irredeemable
conflict with inviting people, in Jesus’ words, to lose their lives in order to
find them.” (35) If Americans are champion consumers, why shouldn't we
expect churches to be tempted to respond to this angle (72)?
Beyond that, “We
weren’t really an alternative community with countercultural values. We were a
composite of suburban America, consumerism, and Jesus. We blended right in.” (142)
It’s difficult to imagine how this approach will be sufficient in a
post-Christian culture.
Along the same lines, Willard contributed
the foreword and does what Willard does— asking penetrating questions and pointing
persistently to the vital importance of discipleship within the ministry of
Jesus and a faithful replication of his ministry and God's plan within our
lives. "How do we present the radical message of Christ in a church that
has catered to the religious demands of the nominally committed?" (9) How
do we actually do Mt 28:19-20's Great Commission? "We must intend" to
do it and then "lead out people into that intention". In sum,
"our central message—our 'gospel'—must be one that has a natural
tendency to produce disciples of Jesus, not just avid consumers of religious
goods and services. Disciples are self-starters in kingdom living...And then we
organize our 'meetings' of whatever kind, around that intention and that
message." (10-11)
CL also note one of the ironies I’ve seen
on the ground. For all of the critiques leveled at Joel Osteen in particular—or
health/wealth gospel folks in general—the large seeker-sensitive churches at least
flirt with a health/wealth gospel of another sort: “We live in a church culture
where external success is self-justifying. If more people are coming to our
church, this is obviously a sign of success, and God must be pleased.” (67)
While one is not required to compromise the Gospel and the Great Commision to
have a large church, it’s certainly a danger.
And it represents a temptation for leaders as well. CL express
concerns about the connection between consumerism and an improper ambition in
pastors (79). But George Barna’s research seems to indicate that pastors don’t
intend to feed the monster of consumerism. Only 1% of senior
pastors and discipleship pastors thought “today’s churches are doing very well
at discipling new and young believers.” More optimistically, 8% thought they were doing
“very well” and 56% thought they were doing “somewhat well.”
Unfortunately, Barna also finds a staggering chasm in
the perceptions of the discipleship efforts offered by the local church. In
contrast to pastors, 92% of church members surveyed
thought their church “definitely” or “probably” does a good job! And 38%
preferred to “disciple on their own”—as if that’s a viable option. All of this
points to incoherence about discipleship in the pew—and vast room for
improvement on vision and strategy from leadership.
Our churches should be a place where you can
encounter God and worship Him; learn how to disciple with Jesus; walk with the
Spirit; and live in robust Christian community. Growing a big church on a lousy
foundation is not consistent with the Great Commission and will not succeed in
the Heavenly economy. Our church leaders should be fulfilling Ephesians 4:11-12
and II Timothy 3:16-17, preaching and—more important—casting vision and establishing plans
to make disciples and disciple-makers.
As CL looked to make these dramatic changes,
things got dicey: "We
had to decide how to manage the tension between the message of self-denying
discipleship and the reality of a congregation full of highly trained
consumers…confronting consumerism, prioritizing spiritual formation…broke an
unwritten contract we had with our congregation…we provide people with programs
and weekly services that satisfy their religious needs and preferences, and
they continue to attend and support the church with their time and money…We discovered
that people weren’t necessarily coming to church to be formed in the image of
Christ…More sobering is the extent to which we had oriented the church around
the concerns of those who were minimally interested in being apprentices
of Jesus. We should be aiming for transformation and disciples who live out
their faith with a contagious attraction. Instead, too often, we end up with
moderation and nice people who are only able to invite others to church to hear
a professional speak and perpetuate the cycle." (117-118)
CL offer a few warnings and try to get
their readers to avoid certain excuses for moving forward. First, it may not “feel
right”—at least initially. Spiritual growth requires a lack of comfortableness, which can be especially unsettling if one has not walked this path previously. “It is
spiritually formative to be dissatisfied and unable to resolve that dissatisfaction…When
we don’t get what we want, we are more acutely aware of eternity. We are more
apt to remember God. We learn what it really means to trust him.” (117)
Second, CL note a possible way to resolve
this tension that itself falls short of the goal and the opportunity: “…we may
not be experiencing transformation, at least we are frustrated by our
complacency. We are satisfied with our spiritual dissatisfaction.” (120)
Third, Willard talks about fear of works-based
salvation getting in the way: “People quickly
become worried about this…But most of us would not have to worry about
perfection for a few months at least…many people in evangelical circles are
more stirred up over perfectionism than they are about people continuing in
sin.” (GO, 63) Or as CL note: “Our passivity in our spiritual
growth is a hangover from the Reformation. We are afraid of turning grace into
works. So instead, we turn grace into divine magic.” (121)
Two other small things. First, if you’re in
a setting where church leaders have little or no vision (or little or no plan) for
making this happen, you can still be effective at making disciples and
disciple-makers in your spheres of influence. “Hungry individuals and small
groups scattered throughout the congregation can pursue this…and subversively
infiltrate the culture of the church. Over time, hopefully, the infection
spreads…” (49) They also borrow a “beachhead” metaphor from Dallas Willard (GO,
xiii) to illustrate the idea of making a small difference that can powerfully
multiply from its origin.
Second, CL share their model of co-pastorship
(91-94). They don’t recommend it for everyone and won’t commit to doing it again if
they ever split. But it’s a novel approach that should probably get more consideration.
They point to “shattering the celebrity syndrome” as a fruit of their
partnership model. This has worked for me and Kurt too; neither of us can take
credit for DC—as we try to extend the glory to God.
In closing, having been teaching recently on
the first half of Ephesians, let me make a few connections. In Ephesians 2:14-3:13,
Paul writes about the mystery and wonder of Jewish/Gentile unity and the
amazing work done by Christ in establishing the Church. Sure, Jesus died to
save us, individually for our sins. Sure, Jesus died for all people, so that
the light was shared more forcefully and effectively with the Gentiles. But as
Paul argues, the formation of the Church is a crazy miracle that was meant to be
shown to the world and the principalities (3:10).
As John Stott puts it, if God
put the Church at the center of things, how dare we put it on the periphery. A
believer shouldn’t ignore the Church and the local church is commissioned to
greatness not mediocrity, mission creep, or a great show on Sundays. If the
Church is meant to be a nation, a family, and a temple (Eph 2:19-22)—add I Cor
12's body if you want—we are to be built up into maturity, so that we can experience
the fullness of God and extend that to those around us.
The stakes—and the
opportunities are too great—to whiff on this question. Follow the approach of
Jesus: focus on the 12, make disciples who can make disciples who can make
disciples.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home