Being at the School of Congregational Development is wonderful. This is a chance for me to soak up lots of ideas in a short span of time and to engage in lengthy, meaningful conversations with all sorts of different clergy. There are lots of issues with The United Methodist Church right now, and with the Church in general as well. Not that these are solvable problems, but is good to be talking about them and having the conversations. The time has also been good for me as a chance to think about the struggles of my own churches and what they are going through.
One of the things I have been thinking about and wrestling with this week is what it means to be a church. The United Methodist Church is looking at launching a new effort to start hundreds of new churches over the next four years. I think this is a wonderful idea. I believe that the Christian faith offers something meaningful and relevant to the issues of today. What I am not sure about is what is means to be a church today. As the denomination looks to set goals around church planting and growth, by necessity it has to define what it means by a church in order to measure it. The challenge I have with this is that I think our understanding of church is changing. Is a network of house churches one church, or thirty? What is the difference between a worshiping faith community and a church. Certainly in the past stained glass windows and buildings, very physical elements have helped define a church for us. We always sing about a church not being a building but being the people.
Which people? John Wesley said that the world was his parish. He did not hold to the ideas that the message of the Gospel should be confined to arbitrary boundaries established by people in the church. Instead he wanted to take the Gospel to anyone who would listen and even to people who would not listen. I think the very of churches that we have today violates this principle. I think we begin to limit our understanding of the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ. If the message of the Gospel is meant to reach the world, the way that we establish churches today seems to instead create an understanding of us and them. Those of us in this church instead of that one, this denomination instead of that one, or even this faith instead of that one.
With the rise of a digital age and new ways of thinking about things I think it is time for us to get rid of our older understanding of church. I know there are some strong Biblical ties to it, but I like more and more the simple understanding of a faith community. I think this holds better to a sense of what we are trying to create. The language of church has been wrapped up and bogged down in buildings and structures, both physical and bureaucratic. To me the language of faith community is living and breathing in a way that the church is not. A faith community sounds organic and vital, which is how I desperately want the Church to be. The Body of Christ is meant to be alive; I want language that helps to make it so. I am not sure I know where this is all going, but I know my mind is racing, and my fingers are striving to keep up with the pace. I don't know that I have reach an end to this thought, or am at a new beginning, but for now I feel the need to pause at this point, the issues still swirl around me. What does church mean anymore? Who is a part of a church? What does this mean about membership? What does this mean about inclusion in the body of Christ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
When we finally built the Light of the Lakes church building it felt like finally arriving at the promised land after years in the wilderness. So many of us were so excited and happy to have a real "church" and thought of growth and fellowship in our own building. Since then, I have seen the struggle to make the annual budget and have wittnessed a new couple come into our church only to leave because of our debt. I often think about all the need right in our own membership and wish we had the resources to help. I agree with you Pastor Jeff. The church is not a building, it is, indeed, the people and their hearts and their need to spread the word by helping others. When we were in the "wilderness" and without formal church building, we're weren't any less happy. I think using financial resourses for people in need may be the calling rather than more half-full church buildings. Just a thought.
Chuck Nelson
Jeff -- These are good questions. When I started praxis we didn't have a building not any desire for one, and I figured out -- after awhile -- that the model we were developing was really house church. If I'd kept up with it I would have started a connected ring of house churches. Was it church? We thought so.
Membership is also starting to go fuzzy on us, and we will see changes in that understanding in the next decade or so.
Keep asking. Something new is coming.
Post a Comment