The Church, Inc. (NASDAQ: WWJD) - The Dehumanization of Christians (cont.'d)

Question #1:

"How has the business world's concern with production and "end results" tended to manifest itself within the church?"

The "Purpose-Driven" Church?

Now before you start getting all defensive, I am not here to start slamming the book "The Purpose Driven Life". I couldn't "hammer" it too much even if I wanted to because I have not read it. But I have read some "sleeve cover" type excerpts that give a synopsis of the book and some of these trouble me. For instance, here is one:

"The Purpose-Driven Life is a manifesto for Christian living in the 21st century...a lifestyle based on eternal purposes, not cultural values. Using biblical stories and letting the Bible speak for itself, Warren clearly explains God’s five purposes for each of us: We were planned for God’s pleasure, so your first purpose is to offer real worship.We were formed for God’s family, so your second purpose is to enjoy real fellowship.We were created to become like Christ, so your third purpose is to learn real discipleship.We were shaped for serving God, so your fourth purpose is to practice real ministry.We were made for a mission, so your fifth purpose is to live out real evangelism."

A few observations here.

First, I have always been leery of the title of this book. I think back to sermons I have heard about "being led" vs. "being driven". The differentiation here being that "being led" infers a sense of dependence on the leader (God) whereas "being driven" infers a sort of inner force that propels you (other than God). I guess you could argue that God's Spirit can "drive" you from within, but there still seems to be the assumption here that in being driven"you" almost certainly know where "you" are going (assumption here is that you think you know where God wants you to go) whereas "being led" does not make such an assumption ("God lead me where you will."). It's a mentality thing.

Now, if I had to guess, I would say that this sort of terminology (in the excerpt) stems from the fact that there is the perception that allot of churches tend to be inactive as far as having a major impact on people's lives and society in general. So there is the urge here to create terminology that will light a fire under people to get them off their duff. I can certainly sympathize with that. But does putting emphasis on what we need to be doing (fulfilling our purposes) over and above who we are meant to be (children of God created for His glory) really address the problem? It's almost like there is a mentality here that says "OK, we've got some Christians who don't want to do anything. If we cannot quickly make them understand who they are so that this will create a true and lasting sense in them of what they are created for, then we cannot take the time to nurture this understanding and vision because nothing is getting done in the meantime. But we can at least (by throwing out these purposes) get some effort and production out of those who also may not have a proper understanding of who they are in Christ, but are at least type "A" personalities who want to be "productive" even if their efforts are with good intentions for the wrong reasons."

Second, this excerpt seems to insinuate that there are "THE" five purposes for each of us. Not four, not six, but "5" (I hate putting limits on God). I also find it very interesting that these five purposes all concern things that we are to "do". I cannot help but think here about the Westminster Catechism. Compare these five purposes with what the Westminster Catechism states right from the beginning. It addresses the question - "What is the chief end of man?" It answers by stating that "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." Boy, that sounds pretty selfish and non-productive. Again, notice the difference in mentality here. If I had to comment as to which mentality speaks "grace" to me and which mentality speaks "works/righteousness" to me, there is no question here. I think the Westminster catechism rightly focuses on our ultimate purpose being who we are rather than what we do. Hopefully, what the excerpt implies about the book does not actually spell out that way in the book.

Third, we get back to the idea of the "One ring". The excerpt states that the goal is a lifestyle based on eternal purposes and NOT based on cultural values. Again, the intent seems to be good, but the means by which one is directed to live their life ("purpose driven") is a vehicle steeped in a cultural value of the business world - that value being "productivity". Are we again taking a value from the business world in our postmodern culture (productivity) and trying to wield it for intended good only to have a greater evil prevail - an evil that obscures the true meaning of the Gospel by confusing our true purpose as Christians with the fruits of the Spirit. The "things we are to do" are NOT our "purpose". The "things we are to do" are by-products of fulfilling our true purpose which is a proper relationship to God.

Again, I am really sparring with the mentality of an excerpt intended to promote the book and not the mentality of the book itself. I apologize for that, but I think I am onto something. I will leave it to those who have actually read the book as to whether or not anything I have said rings true here. Maybe the book actually has a chapter completely related to "vision". I don't know. But my point is this, anything that subjugates the humanness of the Christian and his relationship to God for the sake of something else (such as the things a Christian should be doing: the production of converts, caring for the poor and needy, etc..) dehumanizes Christians.

I'll give you an example. Recently, my church was planning an expansion to its current facilities. Several of the leaders met to discuss this effort. It was debated as to what exactly we should do since the congregation was not entirely on board with this effort. Now part of the problem was that the congregation had not been properly informed of what the intent here was and the elders correctly tried to address this. But with some of the congregation still not on board with the expansion plan, the discussion of what to do continued. I specifically remember one person standing up and making a point something to the effect of "we need to do what we need to do. We need to expand our facilities to accommodate the increased numbers that are attending our church. Whether or not the majority of the congregation is on board with this or not does not matter. We need to move forward."

Now, even if expansion is the correct thing to do (which this isn't a "given" by any means as I'll get to this eventually in a few BLOGS from now), what is actually being said here is this - "It doesn't matter whether or not the majority of the congregation has a vision for this expansion, what matters is that we move forward because it is more important to be "productive" (expanding out facilities) with a few people than "unproductive" (taking the time to properly educate the congregation and nurture them to spiritual maturity so they might be brought alongside the process) with allot of people. It is more critical to bring more people into the church for the sake of evangelism than it is nurturing those within the church to a mature faith. It is more important to have allot of shallow Christians than to have a few mature Christians. Productivity within the church is about concrete numbers of converts and not unquantifiable spiritual growth." This might sound harsh. I do not think this covenanter intended to mean this, but I think this is the subconscious mentality behind his argument.

The "Purpose Driven" Purpose of the Church?

We the Church should not only be concerned with people coming to faith, but also with the "process" by which people continue in their faith as well (the process of spiritual growth). "Yes", we want to evangelize the outside world, but evangelism is not the "end" of it. Indeed, there is no "end" until heaven. Heaven should be the goal and not conversion:

Philippians - Chapter 3

12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

We need to be concerned with the "process" by which we meet that end:

Philippians - Chapter 2

12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling..

Has our focus on evangelism (winning converts to Christ) placed entirely too much stock (no pun intended here with the business theme) in bottom line numbers of converts at the expense of nurturing (bringing to spiritual maturity) our congregation members already within the Church? Does our congregation feel like valued members of the Church as we nurture and spur on their growth in Christ, or do they feel like a "resource" merely to be used either to bring others to Christ or fill positions of need within the Church? Do those converts we bring within our church walls feel like members of the Kingdom of God or do they feel like mere "numbers" as they are left to fend for themselves as far as spiritual growth is concerned? I understand the pendulum swing away from the inwardly focused church who cared little for, and were not willing to be physically and emotionally involved with, the "monetarily" poor and needy. But the pendulum has seemingly swung completely in the other direction. Are our evangelical churches now so outwardly focused that the desire to be involved with the "monetarily" poor and needy has made us completely abandon the "spiritually" poor and needy - our own congregation. Have we abandoned covenanter spiritual growth with the subconscious mentality that it is unspiritual to even bring into question our own "spiritual" needs when there are those who are poor and hurting in the world with "monetary" needs and yet unsaved?

This mentality works its way down through the various levels of our church. Subconsciously, do we think it sinful to entertain the idea of hiring teachers for our Sunday school (if there is a need) when that money could have gone to missions? Is it subconsciously sinful for us to consider diverting money away from missions and the caring of the monetarily poor if there are critical needs within the body that need to be met (and maybe met first)?

This is the subconscious mentality that I see in the evangelical Church today. But we need to be holistic. It does no good to show people the straight and narrow path if we then in turn have no concerted effort to help them along their journey. And I mean more than giving them initial directions such as "Yeah, now you want to walk down the road about 3 miles and you'll see a small group on your right just past the oak tree. They can (we hope) give you directions for the remainder of your long journey toward spiritual growth!" (The reason this small group is three miles down the road is because that's most probably where the first person sent along their way stopped not knowing where to go from there and now everyone that follows congregates there). We need to walk alongside of people throughout their journey.

Bottom line (again, no pun intended): If our end goal is merely "salvation" (and not "sanctification") and if we desire more Christians only so that we can gain more Christians (converts), then we not only dehumanize the new converts by treating them as simply a "number" to be added to existing numbers, but we also dehumanize the Christians already within our congregation by treating them as mere "resources" with which to gain more converts.

To Be Continued….Question #2 next....