In the movie, Conspiracy Theory, Mel Gibson played a whacked out cab driver who was obsessively on guard against the thousand and one conspiracies that big brother was involved in. Turns out, that he really had been the target of government brain washing and that his delusions were actually more real than anyone realized. His hilarious escape from the villain, Patrick Stewart, goes down as one of the great escape scenes of all time. Hey, it was just a movie, there really are no conspiracies that anyone has to worry about.
I remember friends of mine who got saved a few years ago struggling with what it meant to be Christians. They were told that they needed to go to a Sunday service in order to mature as Christians. The conflict for them was that Sunday morning had been a traditionally family oriented time that was a wonderful respite from a very chaotic week. They enjoyed sleeping in and then having a casual brunch with their children, followed up by a walk in the park or some other such inane pleasantry.
Becoming Christians ended up meaning giving up the family time that they had carved out of a busy week and rushing off to church so that they could learn to have a stronger family. When they voiced their concerns over this new set of priorities, long time Christians looked at them with a puzzled look, wondering why they didn’t understand the cost of being a disciple of Jesus. Getting them to change their misguided family value for true Christian values was of the utmost need in their lives. They wouldn’t survive as Christians, if they didn’t embrace this new subculture.
They felt like they were fighting some form of conspiracy against their family. If they protested or questioned at all, they were looked at as either naïve or rebellious youngsters, who didn’t fully comprehend the wonders of knowing Jesus.
In our mad dash to prop up our Christian subculture, is it possible that people outside of church circles are seeing the conspiracy to try to get them into a lifestyle that has no appeal to them whatsoever? Are they asking the question about the emperor’s new clothes and finding that Christianity, as it is projected, has very little substance associated with it. Have they heard the stories of lack of authentic friendships, authoritarian control and self serving spending?
Have they uncovered the conspiracy of their needing to change while the rituals of church should never change?
Is it possible the people are not rejecting Jesus as much as they are rejecting the inward, exclusive cultural dogma of church going Christians?
Is there a conspiracy to keep people out of the kingdom of God in order to prop up cultural church norms?
Likely not. It's just a theory.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
The Church or is it Crutch?
Institutional churches (churches that define themselves by having a pastor and a building) average between 80-125 people. Fewer than 5% of all churches grow beyond the 400 attendance mark. The typical staff to congregation percentage is about 1 staff member per 100 people. The average church has a full time pastor and a part time secretary.
The average church sees very little numerical change year after year. Some churches do experience increase but that usually means that some other church experiences decrease. I called this the “circulation of the saints” in a different blog.
It is estimated that only 1% of all people who have made some form of profession of faith can be found in any church 10 years later.
Churches average about $1,000 per person per year in giving with 80-90% of that amount going to the care of themselves. (salaries, buildings, programs)
For a fuller description of these stats you can go to “The State of the Church: 2006”.
Essentially nothing changes from year to year.
What is incredible to me is that the people in these churches are incredibly gifted. They can raise families, run businesses, acquire degrees, keep a job, excel as entrepreneurs and perform well as high level managers in demanding fields. They are teachers, factory workers, nurses, plumbers, doctors, engineers, lawyers, electricians, researchers, machinists... They are great fathers and mothers and take their roles seriously.
It is amazing to me that we can take this wealth of human experience, put them into a building with a highly trained minister and literally accomplish very little, year after mind numbing year.
Sadly, to suggest, in even the smallest of ways, that these same people could likely do as good a job as is being done, without a pastor and a building, would mean that one is no longer faithful to the teachings of the Bible.
The average church sees very little numerical change year after year. Some churches do experience increase but that usually means that some other church experiences decrease. I called this the “circulation of the saints” in a different blog.
It is estimated that only 1% of all people who have made some form of profession of faith can be found in any church 10 years later.
Churches average about $1,000 per person per year in giving with 80-90% of that amount going to the care of themselves. (salaries, buildings, programs)
For a fuller description of these stats you can go to “The State of the Church: 2006”.
Essentially nothing changes from year to year.
What is incredible to me is that the people in these churches are incredibly gifted. They can raise families, run businesses, acquire degrees, keep a job, excel as entrepreneurs and perform well as high level managers in demanding fields. They are teachers, factory workers, nurses, plumbers, doctors, engineers, lawyers, electricians, researchers, machinists... They are great fathers and mothers and take their roles seriously.
It is amazing to me that we can take this wealth of human experience, put them into a building with a highly trained minister and literally accomplish very little, year after mind numbing year.
Sadly, to suggest, in even the smallest of ways, that these same people could likely do as good a job as is being done, without a pastor and a building, would mean that one is no longer faithful to the teachings of the Bible.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Trust and Faith
Trust and faith are wonderful words. Biblically they have the same meaning. My personal preference in our modern hearing of these words is trust. Faith is sometimes turned into a noun referring to a particular belief system. That seems rather dry and clinical to me. Trust seems more dynamic, almost like it’s a living, breathing exchange between two people.
I remember years ago having my kids stand on the kitchen table and asking them to jump into my arms. Their willingness to trust me to catch them was an overwhelming joy to me. I had to be careful to keep an eye on them after teaching them that lesson, as sometimes they would even jump without my asking.
Some people are desperately trying to have faith in God and are somewhat bewildered as to what it means. They feel its all them and focus on having more faith. That seems like a rather worrisome approach.
I like trust as the way of knowing God. What’s amazing to me in this whole dynamic is not that I trust Him, but that He, with unlimited, unconditional abandonment, throws Himself into my arms.
Why? Because He trusts me.
I remember years ago having my kids stand on the kitchen table and asking them to jump into my arms. Their willingness to trust me to catch them was an overwhelming joy to me. I had to be careful to keep an eye on them after teaching them that lesson, as sometimes they would even jump without my asking.
Some people are desperately trying to have faith in God and are somewhat bewildered as to what it means. They feel its all them and focus on having more faith. That seems like a rather worrisome approach.
I like trust as the way of knowing God. What’s amazing to me in this whole dynamic is not that I trust Him, but that He, with unlimited, unconditional abandonment, throws Himself into my arms.
Why? Because He trusts me.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Cost of Baptisms
Here’s an interesting site detailing all of the numbers regarding religions in the world. The site’s focus is about Christianity and how it is doing.
They had an interesting line that I thought was noteworthy.
61. Cost-effectiveness (cost per baptism, $) …. $349,000.
They had an interesting line that I thought was noteworthy.
61. Cost-effectiveness (cost per baptism, $) …. $349,000.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Paid Clergy: An Act of Separation
As one who has been there and done that, I think there is something lacking when a paycheck is attached to ministry. I am not saying that those who are receiving a salary for ministry are corrupt.
It’s more like a negative symbiotic relationship that is created. I pay you so now I can control you. I’m your leader and therefore I can control you back. In some circles there are poor people living vicariously through their pastor, while he drives his Cadillac.
It would be difficult picturing Jesus accepting a weekly salary for what He was doing.
It also makes giving into either a mindless process where I give in such a way that I don’t know how the money is being used. Or my giving is done in order to pay someone to look after my spiritual well being. I can’t imagine Paul speaking to a slave who has just received salvation, saying to them, “OK, now that I’ve led you into this way of life, you get to pay me for that experience.”
The sad reality is that most money taken in through churches goes into buildings, programs and salaries. Very little, percentage wise, (10-20%) is actually given to those who are truly in need.
Paul was speaking to the elders in the churches of Ephesus telling them how they were to live there life regarding the care of the churches that they were in. This is 4 years after planting the church in Ephesus.
Acts 20:32 (NIV) "Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33 I have not coveted anyone's silver or gold or clothing. 34 You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. 35 In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: `It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
This is an established church with established elders. What does Paul instruct them in? He said he worked hard to support himself and those that were with him. He then looks at the elders and says this is what they are to do as well. Get a job and help the weak.
He didn’t say, “Teach the weak, tithing, so they can pay your salary.”
Sadly, what has happened is that when a salary is given there is a separation between clergy and laity. Some ministers desperately fight to feel like normal people not wanting that separation. Some ministers like the separateness. No matter which way it is done, there is definitely a separation when money is exchanged.
One of my deepest regrets when getting paid is that I accepted a salary that was paid, in part, by beautiful people who were in even more desperate need than I could have personally dreamed of. I am not saying that those in need should not be able to enjoy the grace of giving. I am saying that there giving should not have gone to my salary.
I repent of ever having received a salary for ministering the free gift of the gospel that was given to me. I fall on the mercy of God and ask His forgiveness.
It’s more like a negative symbiotic relationship that is created. I pay you so now I can control you. I’m your leader and therefore I can control you back. In some circles there are poor people living vicariously through their pastor, while he drives his Cadillac.
It would be difficult picturing Jesus accepting a weekly salary for what He was doing.
It also makes giving into either a mindless process where I give in such a way that I don’t know how the money is being used. Or my giving is done in order to pay someone to look after my spiritual well being. I can’t imagine Paul speaking to a slave who has just received salvation, saying to them, “OK, now that I’ve led you into this way of life, you get to pay me for that experience.”
The sad reality is that most money taken in through churches goes into buildings, programs and salaries. Very little, percentage wise, (10-20%) is actually given to those who are truly in need.
Paul was speaking to the elders in the churches of Ephesus telling them how they were to live there life regarding the care of the churches that they were in. This is 4 years after planting the church in Ephesus.
Acts 20:32 (NIV) "Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33 I have not coveted anyone's silver or gold or clothing. 34 You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. 35 In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: `It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"
This is an established church with established elders. What does Paul instruct them in? He said he worked hard to support himself and those that were with him. He then looks at the elders and says this is what they are to do as well. Get a job and help the weak.
He didn’t say, “Teach the weak, tithing, so they can pay your salary.”
Sadly, what has happened is that when a salary is given there is a separation between clergy and laity. Some ministers desperately fight to feel like normal people not wanting that separation. Some ministers like the separateness. No matter which way it is done, there is definitely a separation when money is exchanged.
One of my deepest regrets when getting paid is that I accepted a salary that was paid, in part, by beautiful people who were in even more desperate need than I could have personally dreamed of. I am not saying that those in need should not be able to enjoy the grace of giving. I am saying that there giving should not have gone to my salary.
I repent of ever having received a salary for ministering the free gift of the gospel that was given to me. I fall on the mercy of God and ask His forgiveness.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
What Did Jesus Teach?
A simple question. It will take you between 6 and 10 hours to read through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Ok, got it. Now let’s move on to higher pursuits, like solving world hunger, equality for all people, justice for all, peace on earth, my trivial pet peeves…
Wait a minute. Let’s go back to the first question. What did Jesus teach?
Listen to what He taught through an excerpt by T. Austin-Sparks.
http://www.austin-sparks.net/english/books/001448.html
"(I would like to send you to your rooms to put your answer down on a piece of paper, and I think it would be very interesting if I were to read out all the answers later on!)
However, the answer is: Himself. He is His own subject. Jesus was always the subject of His own teaching. He related everything to Himself. He said: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6): "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:14): "I am the bread of life" (John 6:48): "I am the door" (John 10:9): "I am the resurrection, and the life" (John 11:25). He is His own subject. He spoke about many things, but He always related them to Himself. He said very much about His Father, and we may come to see something of what He taught about Him, but He always related the Father to Himself and Himself to the Father. He said: "I and the Father are one" (John 14:9). He spoke much about the Holy Spirit, but He always related Him to Himself. He said much about man, but He always related man to Himself. His own favourite title for Himself was 'Son of man'. He said much about life, but He always related it to Himself and never thought of life apart from Himself. He said much about light, about truth and about power, but always in relation to Himself. He was His own subject of teaching."
Back to my own blundering way of asking questions. If Jesus taught about himself and He is the entire reason for the Bible's existence, why shouldn't our conversations centre on Him?
Wait a minute. Let’s go back to the first question. What did Jesus teach?
Listen to what He taught through an excerpt by T. Austin-Sparks.
http://www.austin-sparks.net/english/books/001448.html
"(I would like to send you to your rooms to put your answer down on a piece of paper, and I think it would be very interesting if I were to read out all the answers later on!)
However, the answer is: Himself. He is His own subject. Jesus was always the subject of His own teaching. He related everything to Himself. He said: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6): "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:14): "I am the bread of life" (John 6:48): "I am the door" (John 10:9): "I am the resurrection, and the life" (John 11:25). He is His own subject. He spoke about many things, but He always related them to Himself. He said very much about His Father, and we may come to see something of what He taught about Him, but He always related the Father to Himself and Himself to the Father. He said: "I and the Father are one" (John 14:9). He spoke much about the Holy Spirit, but He always related Him to Himself. He said much about man, but He always related man to Himself. His own favourite title for Himself was 'Son of man'. He said much about life, but He always related it to Himself and never thought of life apart from Himself. He said much about light, about truth and about power, but always in relation to Himself. He was His own subject of teaching."
Back to my own blundering way of asking questions. If Jesus taught about himself and He is the entire reason for the Bible's existence, why shouldn't our conversations centre on Him?
The Name Game
Name 1 pastor in the New Testament.
Name 1 evangelist in the N.T.
Name 1 prophet in the N.T.
Name 1 apostle in the N. T.
Name your pastor.
Name your evangelist.
Name your prophet.
Name your apostle.
Many people use Ephesians 4:11 (NIV) It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers”, to prove the office of pastor.
Based on that reasoning, this passage also proves you should be able to name your evangelist, prophet and apostle.
My point is this. We need to be consistent in our approach to the Bible.
If the pastor’s role is the most significant in our modern day churches shouldn’t the New Testament reflect that same significance as well?
Name 1 evangelist in the N.T.
Name 1 prophet in the N.T.
Name 1 apostle in the N. T.
Name your pastor.
Name your evangelist.
Name your prophet.
Name your apostle.
Many people use Ephesians 4:11 (NIV) It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers”, to prove the office of pastor.
Based on that reasoning, this passage also proves you should be able to name your evangelist, prophet and apostle.
My point is this. We need to be consistent in our approach to the Bible.
If the pastor’s role is the most significant in our modern day churches shouldn’t the New Testament reflect that same significance as well?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
