Notice they said "Church" does not work for me". By that they mean this kind of church really is not for me. They said nothing bad about Jesus. Interesting, is it not? Is it possible our church culture can be a barrier to learning about Jesus? If you ever worked in other cultures you soon realize much of our "church Culture" is foreign and meaningless to many whole tribes, and ethnic groups of people. Same is true here also.
What is the response of the newest, hippest, live band, most amazing program, church, to people who have "Come to church" and find they really can't drag them back to this?
Then what?
Is there anything after that?
Nope! 99% of churches and church people will say, "Well, we tried".
We truly believe that church is a "one size MUST fit all".
We are learning that is not true. And like good missionaries, we are contextualizing the church for a new context. The diversity in expression will have to be accepted as some point because it has nothing to do with changing the doctrine or ordinances. It's simply letting church be what it should be. A peoples natural cultural expression of Faith in Christ assembling in his name. We don't tell them how that should look.
"As we’ve already pointed out, the relationship between the traditional Christendom mode of church and the world around it can best be described as being fundamentally attractional. The church bids people to come and hear the gospel in the holy confines of the church and its community. This seems so natural to us after seventeen centuries of Christendom, but at what price and to what avail have we allowed it to continue? If our actions imply that God is really only present in official church activities—worship, Bible studies, Christian youth meetings, ladies fellowships—then it follows that mission and evangelism simply involve inviting people to church-related meetings.
In fact, this is one of the core assumptions that the attractional church is based upon—the assumption that God cannot really be accessed outside sanctioned church meetings or, at least, that these meetings are the best place for not-yet-Christians to learn about God. (Blog note: would never say we "believe" this. we know its not true. However, iit is the lens by which we act, and criticize , with, so it is what many "believe") Evangelism therefore is primarily about mobilizing church members to attract unbelievers into church where they can experience God. Rather than being genuine “out-reach,” it effectively becomes something more like an “in-drag.”
Now, we are not suggesting that people can’t experience God in a church service. Of course they can, for in the preaching of God’s Word and the worship of God's people his true voice can be heard. But if the church limits God’s agency in this world to particular times and places that the vast majority of not-yet-Christians have no access to, or no desire to attend, then the gospel is effectively hobbled. God becomes mute to the vast majority of people in the Western world,
people who cannot interpret the church culture that has effectively imprisoned the good news within its cultural system. The only means to evangelize people becomes organizing little “patrols” to go into the world in order to rescue them and bring them back to the safety of “church.” Many westerners in our post-Christendom era report that they’ve tried church and found it wanting. If they don’t want to go back, what then?
If they won’t come to us, we have to go to them.
(The Shape Of Things To Come: Innovation and Mission For The 21st- Century Church. Michael Frost & Aln Hirsch, Hendrickson, 2003. pp 41-42)
No comments:
Post a Comment