Offices Or Passions, Desires, and Points of View?

Why Should/Shouldn’t My Church Embrace Change? Part VI

Should we envision evangelists, shepherds, teachers, prophets, and apostles of Ephesians 4:11 as church offices and leadership titles, or are they diverse passions, desires, and points of view found in common believers in Jesus Christ?

Ephesians 4:7 & 8 reads, “7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it says, ‘When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men.’”

He gave ”gifts to men’” to equip the saints for works of service. These saints will worship by giving back their gifts to the Lord and to other saints that will build up the body of Christ to attain unity of the faith and acquire the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature the brethren into the fullness of Christ. . That’s receiving and giving; that’s being fluid.

The gift of evangelism became prevalent in the 1950’s as “You must be born again” became a popular theme, but the church opted to train their clergy to become professional evangelists rather than equip the saints to evangelize.

The 1960’s introduced communal living as believers tried to nurture and care for one another, but five respected Christian pastors formed the Fort Lauderdale Five in an effort to bring stability. Instead their influence became too controlling and dictating for which they had to repent of spiritual abuse.

The 1970’s was the decade of the teacher, and I think every professional clergy thought of himself as a teacher whose cassettes and CD’s could be purchased. Unfortunately the laity who bought all those tapes, did all those Bible studies, and earned Biblical degrees became frustrated when the clergy refused to give up their pulpit or gave them no outlet to release their teaching voice or passion.

The prophetic movement of the ‘80’s began as a grass root movement among believers but quickly turned to super pastors now not only being evangelists and teachers but also prophets. Again the prophetic voice among the laity became silent.

By the end of the century, many mega-church pastors, overseers, and bishops bestowed the title of apostles because they oversaw networks of independent churches or denominations. I have never met one of these apostles who were laity because only clergy were qualified, yet I have met many believers who see the big picture of the Church and network believers in serving one another.

The purpose of the five fold, “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service,” has been lost. A fluid, fivefold church would have emphasized giving and receiving among the saints. One’s weakness is another’s strength. All five NEED to RECEIVE from EACH OTHER and GIVE to ONE ANOTHER. The fluidity of giving and receiving is central to building relationships through the five fold.

I ask, “Who is your church investing in?”

The data of your local church budget will reveal that answer. Most church budgets support the building and maintenance, and salaries and professional development for staff, and program needs. It feeds the organization, not builds up the organism, the believers. Is your church investing in you and your fellow believers or in the building, programs, and the professional staff?

The five fold is about relationships which bring Jesus into believer’s lives. It is for birthing, feeding, nurturing, and caring for the organism through “service”, not for keeping the organization solvent and running smoothly.

Is My Church Fluid Or Structured?

Why Should/Shouldn’t My Church Embrace Change? Part V

 Is my church fluid or structured?

I have a simple definition for worship: “Worship is giving back to Jesus what He has already given you.” We, as believers in Jesus Christ, are only stewards here on earth, so giving back to Jesus, worship, should come natural. Worship is the ebb and flow, the giving and receiving. The Holy Spirit receives from the Father and the Son and gives it away to the saints, the believers in Jesus Christ. Jesus, as a man, did the same while on earth as an act of worship to His Father. As believers we are to do the same.

Since we are free to worship anywhere at anytime, one does not need a formal structure or a designated place in order to worship. Unlike the organizational church structure where you are told when to stand, sit, sing, be reverent, pray, greet one another, give financially, take notes, listen to the sermon, respond through an altar call, and leave after the benediction, worship flows naturally among His people. If you are given an original song, sing it; a Biblical insight, teach it; a word from the Lord, prophecy it; an urge to pray for some one, lay hands on them, or give them a word of encouragement, just do it!  Obedience to the Holy Spirit is the key to being fluid.

The majestic mystery that drives a fluid service is found in the thread that is sewn through the tapestry of worship by the Holy Spirit who speaks with clarity. You can always find a message, theme, or lesson taught by the Holy Spirit, which brings awe, anticipation, excitement, and a reverence among those participating.  

A fluid service of worship builds and reinforces relationships, strengthens believers’ faith, and taps into the heart of the Father. That which is unseen that is birthed in faith and released among God’s people strengthens the Church. Jesus allowed Thomas, who doubted, to physically see and touch his wounds to boos his faith. That single act sealed their relationship for eternity.

Relationships among peer believers are also strengthened by being fluid. Confession to one another brings healings and repentance. The laying on of hands can produce powerful results, for the “touch of faith” can produce a powerful bond. God’s love flows through personal touches! That flow from the river of life is being fluid.

 In a fluid service, what the institutional church reserves for only the clergy can be done by any believer in Jesus. Any believer can participate in baptisms, share in communion, pray, and share the Word of faith with one another. It allows the flow of Jesus, the flow of the Holy Spirit, to bring life to the organism. It encourages the giving and receiving among the saints as a body called the Church. If brothers and sisters in the Lord are willing to “lay down your life for your brethren” (I John 3:16), then the flow of God’s love will administer to and threw his believers and become a natural thing to do.

There is life in being fluid that produces an expectancy, anticipation, and assurance that the Holy Spirit will speak, flow, and move! The organized church says, “No way!” to the saints being fluid fearing they may lose control, swing from the chandeliers, bark like dogs, fall on the floor, speak in tongues, etc. The organized church believes that stability can only be achieved through proper leadership being in control, so they stifle the flow among the saints in an effort to control. As the tap of control is tightened, the flow is reduced to a drip and finally one last drop.

So I ask, “Can you as a believer in Jesus Christ trust the Holy Spirit, or must you trust only the control of your church leadership?

Is My Church An Organization Or An Organism?

Why Should/Shouldn’t My Church Embrace Change? Part IV

The Church in the book of Acts is active, alive, vibrant, moving, expecting the unexpected, walking in faith, and led by the Holy Spirit. It is a narrative about men figuring out this new Jesus movement. Although founded in Judaism, “Behold, all things are new.”

Acts and Paul’s Epistles reveal the Jewish faith as being stagnant, ruled by tradition and self imposed laws, cautious and highly organized, while governed by a top heavy hierarchy. It was slow, cumbersome, avoiding the unexpected while demanding control, seeking a Messiah, and persecuting this new Jewish sect called the Way. Acts also records life being birthed amongst this highly regulated religious world. Without God’s Presence in their Temple, they were just going through the motions. Spiritual life in their system was lost, but God was birthing a new spiritual organism in their midst, the Church. God majors in birthing, and He gave new life to a faith that had lost its way. He gave them their promised Messiah, Savior, King, and High Priest in Jesus, yet they rejected him.

Organisms have life; organizations provide structure. Organisms have movement while organizations, often stagnant, live off the benefits of their structure. Organisms build peer relationships and multiply; organizations use hierarchal leadership to support their structure. Unfortunately, organizations often stifle organisms in an attempt to control. It is easy, yet unwise, for growing organisms after multiplying to seek organization and structure. Structures rise, and structures fall. The Twin Towers that rose above the New York’s skyline have proven that.

I ask, “Is my church an organism built on relationships, or is it an organization built on structure?” Of course, I want to answer, “organism built on relationships”, but I know better! The Church is relational, saints as equal peers growing into the image of Jesus Christ, but in actuality, it is often all about structure and organization.

We seek safety, comfort, and stability from structure, but usually at the cost of personal relationships with our peers.  We often are willing to sign covenants agreeing with stated tenants of faith, theological proclamations, rules and regulations, and agree to disciplinary procedures in order to become members of a religious institution rather than working on building intimate peer relationships with other believers in the faith.

The clergy/laity divide is evident in this struggle. Laity, as an organism, thrives on building relationships with other believers while the professional clergy thrives on elitism through organizational, hierarchal structure for leadership. The clergy demand for laity loyalty and financial support to maintain the organization has often sucked the life out of the organism.

Throughout church history, the organization often snuffed out sparks of organism life, calling them heretical. They have opposed almost every movement of God outside the sphere of their control, but since the Great Reformation, the sparks eventually became flames of revival that caused change and brings the organism back to life.

Today, would you classify your church as an organism or an organization? If your answer is an organization, but you wish it to become an organism, your only option is to embrace change!

Is Changing Church Culture Really That Difficult? Yes!

Why Should/Shouldn’t My Church Embrace Change? Part III

 The American church finds itself numbed by affluence. “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing.” (Revelation 3:17) Yet it is experiencing spiritual decay, complacency, severe apathy, and has become ineffective.

Today, the health clinics and hospitals founded by the church to meet the needs of the poor have become huge private, for profit, health conglomerates. Even the government’s efforts through the Affordable Health Care Act have dwarfed any of the church’s attempt.

Churches were known for taking care of the poor, but now the secular government has taken on the cause. Soup kitchens have given way to the Federal Food Stamp Program. Orphanages replaced by Children’s Social Services. Caseworkers and probation officers replaced Christian ministries while the homeless and mentally ill have been abandoned by both the church and the government.

The prophetic voice of Revelation 3:17 cries out, do you “not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.”  In spite of this warning of revelation, the church is still slow at embracing change and being relevant.

I have been a product of Christian church culture all my life by being raised, attending, and being active in church. I know nothing else. What scares me is that I find myself leery to embrace change the older I get, yet after experiencing abusive church leadership several times, I find myself currently not attending any form of institutionalized church. Instead my wife and I met with another couple around a round dinner table while experiencing a time of healing, spiritual revitalization, and trust building. The Lord is showing us the power of building relationships in Jesus with each other. After much discussion, crying on one another’s shoulders, praying, seeking the Lord, and just hanging out, we have learned to allow the Holy Spirit to teach us his written (Logos) and living (Rhema) Word. We have again been challenged to “trust the Holy Spirit,” something we had lost when enabled under abusive leadership. Because of embracing change, I now feel like a bird in flight, freed from his cage of religious security, while soaring into a new faith adventure with others.

Not only is the church slow to embrace change, but so am I, because change produces challenges, conflicts, transitions, uncertainty, unexpected surprises, and unpredictability. It forces you to forfeit control to faith in Jesus and the leading of His Holy Spirit.

I thought this blog was about the church, but it is also about me personally, for the church and I are interchangeable if it is built on relationships, which are central to the gospel. After a life centered in church culture, I find change also difficult. Yes, changing church culture is a big deal, its personal, and can be difficult.

Change!

Why Should/Shouldn’t My Church Embrace Change? Part II 

We seldom run towards change; we flee from it. Why? Stability and comfort are found in the familiar.  Fearful of the unknown, we seek control. Historically, the church has disciplined, expelled, and even burned at the stake those who advocated drastic change.

The church still sings hymns by composer dead for over 150 years. The order of worship has remained the same for hundreds of years. For centuries the church celebrated mass in Latin, a dead language no longer spoken by anyone except the church.

Traditions are part of religion’s tapestry. Tradition and oral history still rule the day in the Jewish faith. Even in Jesus’ day in a Temple with a functioning priesthood who celebrated festivals and feasts God’s Presence was missing, so they relied on their traditions to bring stability. They still do today!

The church was skeptic of the Jesus and Charismatic Movement that impacted my spiritual life, opposing the principle of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the gifts of the Spirit, and speaking in tongues.

The older one gets, the more one resists change. When set in one’s ways, one leans on the dependable and avoids the unpredictable. This mindset usually opposes change and a spirit of revival.

What would happen if a movement of God affected the church as it did to Judaism in Jesus’ day? 60 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, the Temple and Jerusalem would be in ruins, and Israel would be a scattered, homeless, persecuted people for 2,000 years. Rabbis, not priests, would maintain oral history, holidays, and hold on to their traditions to maintain their faith. Judaism looks nothing like it did in Jesus’ day.

Revival produces change that often destroys existing structures while building new ones. During revival the doctrine of the Priesthood of Believers has challenged the clergy/laity structure of the church. Martin Luther advocated the Priesthood of Believers but was unwilling to change existing church structure when revival did occur.

Since the 1800’s, the five fold has reemerged in the church through revivals but has been opposed by the clergy who later embraced them by making them hierarchal offices of leadership. Can the church embrace the possibility that maybe evangelists, shepherds, teachers, prophets, and apostles are not offices or titles but diverse passions, desires, and points of view found among normal believers in Jesus? What would happen if the church took seriously the call of Ephesians 4 to “equip the saints for works of service”? That would require a tremendous amount of change and new mindsets!

Would my local church embrace such a metamorphic change? Could it lay aside old structures that once were effective and useful for newer structures that would be built on peer relationships? These are the questions we will ask and attempt to address in upcoming blogs. Is this all hypothetical theology and paradigm prognostication, or should we be taking the question of “Should or shouldn’t my local church embrace change?” seriously?

Are Churches Infallible?

Why Should/Shouldn’t My Church Embrace Change? Part I

In the archives room of old denominational church I starred at a 1911 black and yellow photo of the Sunday School orchestra, 100 strong! Incredible. Now only a handful over 100 people attended this church regularly on Sundays. Where have they all gone?

I recall hearing Larry Lea call the nation to pray the Lord’s Prayer while offering books, workbooks, teaching tapes, etc. on the topic. His popularity propelled him into the forefront, as his Texan congregation swelled into a mega-church until scandal brought a collapse, and numbers drastically fell. Where have they all gone?

A local pastor took his church from humble beginnings and built it into a mega-church seating thousands. A choir of over two hundred sang in one of two services. After years at the helm, the founding pastor decided to retire. His replacement immediately faced challenges as soon as he took what appeared to be a prestigious position as Senior Pastor of this large church. Scandal broke out in his staff and worship team, and today only 1/3 of the seating capacity is used in only one service. Where have they all gone?

Mark Driscoll started in his garage, and grew his ministry into a multi-campus Mars Hill network of churches in the Northwest, boasting over 12,000 in attendance before the rubber bands of an abusive leadership environment snapped bringing its downfall and his resignation in less than a year.

The largest local evangelical church in our area, who even hosted a young Billy Graham, released their pastor for not giving enough altar calls. He had more of a pastoral heart as a shepherd rather than being an evangelist. Half of the congregation left with him forming a new church, now a mega-church. The former church has since dwindled to under two hundred attenders and even did a name change. Where have they all gone?

There are so many other examples that I could give. As churches grows in number, they begin to believe that they are infallible, maintaining their large numbers forever. History will prove them wrong. Many large churches often have a charismatic pastor. When he leaves or retires, numbers dwindle. Churches who offer excellent programs, professional sounding music, and highly entertaining sermons see their numbers dwindled when people feel like only a number. Still others have phenomenal children’s ministries and high powered youth programs, yet they dwindle when the twenty-somethings leave for college, career, and to experience their own spiritual journeys.

History records that a church unwilling to embrace change is doomed to become traditional and eventually will see their numbers dwindle. As a local church becomes highly organized and institutionalized, it loses its identity as an organism. Churches are not infallible. Many American cities now host an abundances of church buildings that have witnessed suburban flight, reducing their numbers. Many majestic edifices of past glory days now sit as beautiful mausoleums of stain glass and empty wooden pews.

In the following series of blogs I will ask you, “Is your local church willing to embrace change?” Historically the church is reluctant to embrace change, opting to remain steeped in tradition, guided by institutional regulations, and cemented in unbending theological doctrines, tenants, and beliefs. Let’s look at the state of the Church today and what it may look like if it is willing to go through a period of transition and change. What will that change produce? What will that change look like? Are we willing to embrace change, or will we continue to sing with conviction the old hymn Give Me That Old Time Religion because “it is good enough for me.”