Individualism versus Groupism

While working in Korea for three years I was able to experience a different worldview that paid homage to the group rather than the individual. Being a good individualistic Canadian, I was surprised by the ease at which another culture fit within a group mindset.

One of the stories that highlighted Korean group thinking was from the late 70’s. Korea was still reeling from the economic devastation that had plagued them since the Korean war in the early 50’s. Shortages were a way of life and jobs were scarce. The government suggested that 1 or 2 children per family would strengthen future job security. There were no laws written to enforce this rule but almost without exception Koreans complied and it was rare for me to teach children that had more than 1 sibling.

As North Americans we are branded by the rest of the world for our brash individualism. What’s in it for me has become the motto for our individualistic preoccupation. Individual rights are brandished about without any historical thought that individualism is a rare and dangerous form of personal expression. If our government suggested we should only have 1 or 2 children, an election would surely sweep out anyone who had the audacity to dictate what goes on in our bedrooms. Ironically, the average Canadian family has just 1 or 2 children.

Does Christianity lean towards groupism or individualism? The answer is obvious when a Christian asks another Christian this question, “What church do you go to?” Belonging to a group is synonymous for many, with being a Christian. When you can’t answer this question with the name of a church or a pastor, there is often an awkward silence that ensues.

I would suggest that Christianity is really more about individualism than the modern and historical views reflect. The very nature of Jesus was that of a radical individualist who did not fit into any particular group’s mindset. One of the striking pictures that flows throughout the gospels was that He didn’t come to please any group, from that of his own family to the ruling religious elite of his day. Any group that tried to adopt Him as one of their own found Him leaving them just as quickly. He wasn't against any person that belonged to a group, His message really was unconditional love. He simply would not be shackled by the limited misrepresentations that groups inevitably enshrine and then enforce.

If this is true and we are to become more like Jesus, how can we put on the cloak of a group and say we are responding to that call in our lives? In Luke 18:9-14, the tax collector went home justified while the Pharisee was completely unaware of his self righteousness. It seems that while the Pharisee could fit well into his particular group, he didn’t fit well with God’s desire for him.

I remember being asked this question shortly after being hired at a church: “If it comes to defending the group or an individual, what would you choose?” My answer, which I thought was the only way to truly reflect Christian leadership, was the individual. I didn’t even consider the group as a worthy choice. I would later learn that the correct answer, if you wanted to be trusted, was “the group”.

It may seem that I am arguing for individualism over groupism and to the degree that religion inevitably makes icons of groups, that is true. I am not naïve in thinking that individualism can’t easily take one down the path of selfishness and carelessness. Don't forget that the deception of greed for the tax collector was less damaging than the self righteousness of the Pharisee within his group.

Even now, I still feel the unease of not being able to identify with a particular group. (It’s hard to shake off 30 years of indoctrination.) But I am finding that it’s ok to love Jesus and to love others without identifying myself with any particular group.

Aftermath!

In my previous post, Simple Math, I demonstrated that it was easy and possible for 1 person to reach 8,000 people in 50 years. The point being that they didn’t do it by themselves. They also wouldn't need the glory of keeping track of the number of people who came to Lord.

So what does this mean in the context of local institutional churches? It would seem that there is a lot of emphasis on numbers and how many people are in the sheepfold every week. In fact the message of loving God and loving others has been translated to mean that our mission is to corral all the sheep into little sheep pens so that a man (a pastor) can show everyone how much they need him.

Lots and lots and lots of money is spent for the sheep pens. It’s interesting that pastors dream of building the best sheep pens so that they will seem relevant to our society. Let me state this as clearly as I know how: there is nothing relevant to an unbeliever about taking the best part of their week and going to an expensive building that is dedicated for the express purpose of listening to some guy espouse his personal views about God. Has no one heard of podcasts or blogs?

Onlookers must truly scratch their heads when they see people devoting 10% of their income for that strange pleasure. I wonder what would happen if you used 10% of your income to bless those same onlookers?

The bottom line is that pastors think people are too simple minded or sheep like that they couldn’t influence one person over the span of 10 years to become a Christian. That would be too simple and would get the job done without them being needed. They like the idea that building buildings and having a name is what gives the sheep a sense of well being. This is supposedly done to the glory of God but I think the glory is really about how good or how bad of a job some guy is doing.

If a pastor manages a church of 1,000 people, some people would say he is an incredibly gifted leader. But the reality is that if every believer were to reach out to those within their sphere of influence and win one to the Lord every 10 years, the whole wide world would be Christians within 50 years.
Question: But where would you look after all these people?
Answer: Houses and Tim Horton's. Duhhhhh!

It’s true the New Testament writers never said we shouldn’t build buildings to corral the sheep. (Maybe it is just a coincidence that they never built one building!) They probably just thought that nobody would be narcissistic enough to waste that much money on such a limiting idea. They may have taken Peter's words seriously and understood that they were like living stones being built into a house for their God. 1Peter 2:5

They also knew that people were carnal but I don’t think they considered that a mature saint would be so vain as to need followers looking to him weak after weak after weak. I did this stuff, on both the receiving and giving ends, and I’m appalled that I called this giving God the glory.

Why is it so difficult to do the math?

Simple Math, Simply Love

Imagine a young woman who falls in love with Jesus. She knows him to be kind, gentle, and loving. She leads a normal life with one exception: she loves to talk about Jesus when someone asks about Him. She becomes friends with a young man who doesn’t know Jesus. It isn’t long before he too falls in love with Jesus and accepts Him as his savior.

Eventually the young couple gets married. Their lives are normal while at the same time others are noticing how kind and giving this couple is. They seem to have a gift of generosity and bless many people in practical ways and yet they don’t seem to lack for anything because of their giving. They have many friends and some of them want to know more about this Jesus that seems to be very important to this couple.

Some of their friends give their lives to Jesus and at the end of 8 years there are 4 people who know Jesus as their savior. At that rate of growth (25%) how many people will know Jesus 52 years after the young woman first fell in love with Jesus. Answer = 8,192.

Is it possible to imagine that this story is true for the first 12 years? ie. 8 people loving Jesus after twelve years. Why is it difficult to imagine this story being true for the next 40 years? It is simply believing that one person can introduce another person to Jesus every four years.

1 = 1
4 = 2
8 = 4
12 = 8
16 = 16
20 = 32
24 = 64
28 = 128
32 = 256
36 = 512
40 = 1024
44 = 2048
48 = 4096
52 = 8192

Founding Pastor

Mark was an energetic lover of God. He was 32 when he felt led to launch out into church planting. He had graduated from a great seminary and had been on staff at one of the most innovative churches in the land. Not only was he academically smart, he was well liked by his peers and was known for his passion for people and Jesus. He was an excellent communicator, visionary, and capable administrator. Essentially he had it all and not only did he talk the talk but he walked the walk.

Mark settled down to his task of reaching a thriving community that had few churches. His disarming personality and genuine passion soon brought in a core group of new believers. Mark was actually quite dispassionate about believers coming in. He didn’t want somebody else’s religious baggage interfering with the young Christians that he was discipling.

The new church experienced unprecedented growth and people were thrilled that they had such a dynamic pastor leading them. The core group of believers that Mark had first reached were the key leaders in the church and everyone was excited about what God was going to do next. Mark never seemed to run out of fresh ideas while at the same time he didn’t overload the church with too much change.

Mark had been at the church for 20 years. Things had never been better and miraculously the church had not lost its original mandate of reaching the lost. But something happened to Mark that was to have a significant change on his relationship with the church.

Without seeking after this experience, Mark was flooded with an incredible joy that overflowed with him speaking a new language. Mark was shocked and knew that this was what the Bible called speaking in tongues. He had never been one to bad mouth this experience but it was still well known that his church wasn’t into that kind of stuff. They were a practical, loving church that was truly interested in reaching their world for Jesus.

Now Mark had a dilemma. He now knew that he had been naïve and wrong about tongues. Surely his leaders would understand that he couldn’t help what God was doing. Besides he was the one that had nurtured them and taught them the fundamentals of the faith. So in his naïve zeal, Mark exuberantly let the church know he spoke in tongues.

OOPS!

Group Consciousness

Group consciousness is a mysterious force that negates an individual’s right to personal growth and choices. It defies scrutiny and often deifies itself. In its most innocent form it looks like a model railroad train hobby group, in its most malevolent form, it is the reason for the existence of wars. Star Trek did an episode about this power in an episode in 1969.

Kirk and crew have been lured by a cry for help to the dangerous rim of the universe while at the same time, Kang, a Klingon warlord, has been lured there as well. Klingons end up on the Enterprise. Phasers are transformed into swords and the natural tendency to protect cultural differences escalates into bloody hand to hand combat. Each group is convinced they are right and their hatred for each other becomes their reason for living and killing.

Spock breaks through the emotional forces that have gripped these two factions and realizes that there is an entity on board that lives on hatred and violence. The more they fight the stronger it grows. Spockian logic brings them to their senses and when they put down their swords and begin to laugh with each other, the entity flees from the good, good, good… good vibrations.

Here's a picture of the mysterious entity that invaded the Enterprise and is wreaking havoc on its unwitting pawns.



Kang makes a profound observation, “If Klingons are going to kill humans, we will do it because we want to, not because some entity manipulates us to do its bidding.”

He wants to be driven by his cultural heritage rather than some alien “entity”. My point being that he is still being driven by a group consciousness that swallows his individuality.

Church groups live with this mantra as well. The rallying point is not Jesus but rather their collective group think. How can you test this? Just ask a question that threatens any one of the myriad of core values (other than Jesus) of a church group and see if you are welcomed in Jesus name.

Why would God ordain and endorse so many factions within His body?

Insecure Pastors

Pastors have some tricky politics to wade through in the normal duties that they perform. I've encountered more than a few who are deeply insecure with all of that stuff. I can certainly testify to have having been there and felt that.

Pastors are blamed for many things. They do things too quickly, too slowly, their sermons are too light, too deep, they don’t visit enough, they meddle too much.

I remember getting chewed out by a long time member because I didn’t preach enough hell fire and brimstone. She thought it was very uncaring to not give people a good dose of the guilts. How on earth would they toe the line without some good old fashioned guilt to motivate their sinful hearts?

Another time I was encouraging the congregation to pray together during the service. That week I was confronted by a group who had never shown any sign of vocal disapproval and was emphatically told that if I ever had them do that again (pray with each other), that they would leave the church. I chickened out and never did that blasphemous thing again.

Pastors need to demonstrate growth in the congregation and therefore, if there are no conversions, the impression is that he just ain’t got it.

“Hey, there’s sick people in the hospital, why aren’t you ministering to them.”

“Did you see what his kids were doing the other day, what kind of pastor is he?”
“He didn’t attend my second cousins engagement party and I specifically invited him. He never cares about us.”

Bob was found out doing some horrible deed, “Why did the pastor appoint him to the building committee. I guess he just doesn’t have very good discernment.”

“Did you say a raise? I say keep him poor, that’s the way to keep him on his knees.”

If he is not doing something: interpreting, planning, visiting, counseling, facilitating, final wording, praying, he is not earning his keep.

Protecting the pulpit is a major part of the job description as we couldn’t handle some differing perspective. "Why are there so many different views anyway, doesn't everyone know that we're right? And besides it's the pastor's job to do the thinking, we're just dumb sheep." I personally think that that line of protecting the pulpit is really more about not rocking the boat, than anything else.

“Church growth. Hmmph! What about the quality of the people? Keep the riff raff out and keep me comfortable." (This is actually one of the most common but unacknowledged characteristics of the small, one pastor led church)

Some guys actually do break through the average size and grow to 1,000 – 5,000 – 10,000.” For him, it’s a different problem. Who’s got the goods to speak into his life and now he’s more alone than ever.

Sometimes the toughest churches for pastors is those nice, tightly knit churches of between 60-150. Everyone has their scorecard out and has been well trained by previous pastors to not let anyone mess up the system.

And then there's the pesky competition from the large church down the street that makes him an easy target. They do everything so much better. And at the same they don’t want to lose the “closeness” that they share together.

All he knows for sure is that he has been called to the ministry. After a few years the blame game either wrecks him and his family or he becomes professionally aloof with a thick skin and a gleaming smile that no one can get past. His salary is sufficient and besides, that’s all he’s trained to do.

But the hook is in and he’s obediently right where God wants Him to be. After all, the sheep need a shepherd and a shepherd needs his sheep. It really is a wonderfully confusing, codependent relationship and since its God’s plan, who can argue with it?

Eventually a comfortable rhythym of give and take, a steady salary and enough new innovative programs are copied to satisfy the desire for "safe" change, ease in. Everyone is happy enough with the status quo and besides, they do hear his word preached every week.

This must be God’s plan since 80% of all churches are in the 100 or so range. If the Holy Spirit wanted something different then surely He would have shown us something different.

But then one day it happens. The pastor gets a visitation from God telling him to shutdown the whole kooky mess.

Not too many guys would be secure enough to be obedient to that call.

Question: Just hold on there compadre. God couldn't, I mean wouldn't, I mean...... Could He really do that?

Answer: I'm not sure if God would be secure enough to ask such a thing.

Is Christ Divided?

When I look over the vastness of the body of Christ within the world, my heart weeps over systems that demand adherents to hold onto a broken shard, thinking it is THE church. Billions of dollars have been spent to build pedestals where these fragments can be codified and idolized. I understand that this is the normal way of doing business and I have repented for being part of this mass distortion.

A friend that passed away last spring really set me on a journey to look beyond what the godless emperor Constantine established as the norm for church practices for the last 1700 years. (Constantine established the first church buildings which necessitated a paid clergy to support them.) My friend asked me two simple questions:

Why do we need a name?
Why do we need a building?

Most churches have never asked these questions. However they have asked, where and when should we build a building and what should we name ourselves? Unfathomable amounts of time, energy and resources have gone into these questions which were never asked nor answered by any New Testament writer.

When I thought about it I realized that the New Testament only refers to Christians by geography and attaching themselves to a particular name was unheard of. (Not quite true. Paul scolded the church in Corinth for aligning themselves with personalities.) Therefore, what is considered normal and necessary today can only be considered extra-biblical at best and scripturally unnecessary.

My friend's two questions are actually rooted in scripture and carry with them the inference that they are signs of rebellion and lack trust towards God. These questions began with the building of Babel, to the Jewish people's demand for a king, to Paul saying, What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?" 1Cor 1:12,13 (NIV)

One of the greatest indictments against Christianity has been the sectarian and elitist separation that is the most easily recognized attribute for those who seriously look at the whole of Christianity. It seems that every local church creates its own subculture to define itself. For the seeker or new Christian the message is clearly that they should learn to conform to one of the models that is presented. At one group, subjective prophetic language must be accepted in order to fill fully accepted. At another group one must fully reject that approach in order to belong. Another group demands the acceptance and submission to hierarchal leadership. The list of 30,000+ denominations would be too burdensome to go on with.

Pastors and people give the impression that one must belong to one of these diverse groups, never realizing that they are forcing people to make choices that are sometimes polar opposites. Naturally, the group you choose will tell you that you have made the correct choice. I feel like I am standing on a mountain viewing these opposites and crying because Christ should not be divided this way.

Each system demands that the leadership protect it and cause people to conform to its image. The words, in Jesus name are used as a by line in every church group, making it appear that Jesus is quite schizophrenic. Within any particular group what they consider normal and vital is really just some guy’s interpretation that he has managed to enforce or convince a group to adhere to. This enforcement is said to be for the protection of the people but it is really for the protection of the system.

I used to work in a church that had a policy manual as thick as a Bible. It could be conveniently ignored or rigidly enforced in order to support whatever mood we leaders were in that day. Sometimes we mock the Pharisees of Jesus' day for their rigid enforcement of their policy manual, the Talmud. Are we any different?

When people begin to explore outside of their group’s boundaries (speaking in tongues, remarriage, women in leadership, prophetic leadings, raising of hands, styles of worship, doctrine, tithing, cultural dress, missions, care for the poor…) the only thing they can do with integrity is leave quietly. Way to often, friendships cannot survive even a quiet leaving. The travesty is that when Paul asks the question, “Is Christ divided?”, the answer is yes.

The best of those in leadership end up subjugating themselves to the system to which they are a part of and sometimes have created. I’m not saying this support is done grudgingly; in fact it is often done with naïve, idealistic passion. Nevertheless, their mission, backed by significant resources, is to support their flawed system. Eventually and inevitably idolatry is the result because no system is the whole of Christ. I don’t know any leader that thinks that what he is doing is a form of idolatry and yet if they look at other systems they can see the idols (hindrances and limits), quite easily.

With the free flow of information that we now have access to, these systems can be easily observed, but not so easily dismantled. Religion is incredibly resilient against real change. The common theme through these systems is for the seeker or new believer to change to be like us. Not quite what Jesus modeled when he humbled himself to be like ordinary folk. For the religious elite of His day, the cross was the only answer to someone who was not like them.

Many leaders still tend to think in terms of how to build a better mouse trap (there is no end to conferences and books about closing the backdoor) in order to gather people around themselves. (They would say it's not about them, it's about Jesus. Let's give Jesus a clap offering. Ugh!) But the shackles are beginning to loosen. Thankfully, keeping people ignorant and isolated is no longer an easy weapon to wield.

Pastors can still control a few but the people themselves no longer have to accept their religious intimidation. It is no longer necessary or beneficial to build beautiful sanctuaries for one man to stand on his pedestal dispensing his peculiar brand of Christianity to the adoring throng. Even so, human nature being what it is will allow this to continue: “give us a king”, is still a common cry.

When I was doing my toolmaker apprenticeship I wondered why the term journeyman was used to refer to the skilled trades. In an earlier time when a man finished his apprenticeship he was immediately fired from the company. He had to journey to find another job within his field in order to gain more experience. The point being that no singular place could ever give someone the full expression and experience that the specific trade demanded. The only way to do this in church systems is to break, vilify, cast out, leave quietly or dethrone in order for people to mature into the full expression of the body of Christ.

The one who leaves is seen as rebellious and the group condescendingly mouths the words, we'll pray for you. That's not really true: usually in an ironic twist, no one even notices when someone leaves. How shortsighted that people can talk of an infinite God that can be so easily packaged within the limits of a finite group?

Leaders don’t tend to lead for a time and then get out of the way. But the model is there in scripture for those who want it. The gilded cage of a paycheck makes it difficult for pastors to actually apply this principle.
John the Baptist said,
"He must increase, but I [must] decrease. John 3:30 (NKJV)
Jesus said,
"But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away." John 16:7a (NIV)

Jesus did not say He would build a system and call it church. He did say, He (not a pastor) would build His church. Peter defines what Jesus meant by this, (notice we are the many stones but there is only one house)
1Pet 2:4 (NIV) As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.


What am I trying to say? Pause for a while to learn to from others but don’t become rooted in the limits of finite people. It really is ok to be a journeyman, learning from various and diverse members of the body of Christ, about the one pearl of great price. Jesus did promise a comforter (not a group) that will guide you into all truth.