Sometimes things get better by stewing!!! It's been months!!! Now let me finish this puppy!!!
Question #5:
"How has the business world's desire to be "functional" gradually been adopted by the church and how has this tended to dehumanize Christians?"
Question #5:
"How has the business world's desire to be "functional" gradually been adopted by the church and how has this tended to dehumanize Christians?"
"FUNCTIONALITY" - THE BUSINESS WORLD
As businesses get larger, they become more sluggish. Their products become less "tailored" and more "commoditized". They become less able to accommodate the smaller customer with specific needs and they are forced to become more of a "one size fits all" producer. Another problem lies within. Because of the size of the business, there has to be more of an infrastructure in place to ensure that the business can function properly. As the number of employees grows and the number of levels increase within the infrastructure to accommodate growth, it becomes more difficult to disseminate “information” (of which would include the business plan and “vision” of the company) down through the ranks to the lowest level employee. A business's sole purpose is to be productive and grow. So these substructures become necessary for the business to properly function and keep everyone on the same page. As the company continues to grow, the environment for an employee becomes less and less intimate and the employees themselves become more and more like a "number" instead of a "name". This is the necessary by-product of ensuring that the company remains growing and profitable (i.e. - "functional").
"FUNCTIONALITY" - THE CHURCH
As churches get bigger they run into some of the same logistical problems. Size alone dictates "some" (if not most) of the amount of intimacy a church possesses. You can't avoid it. The amount of intimacy there is within a church is inversely proportional to the size of that same church. Also, the larger a church grows, the more it is forced to put into place structures that will assure that it still remains (forget about intimate for the moment) "functional". Now I am not saying that structures are bad. There has to be some amount of structure for a church to operate. But the larger a church grows, the more the substructures increase between pastor and parishioner. The more substructures in place, the more difficult it is for the actual vision of the church to filter down through those substructures. Thus, the more difficult to have a vibrant and "spiritually" growing church. I will refrain from asking the question “how big is too big?" because I do not have a quantifiable answer for that in my own mind. But I think the logical answer would be: "The size of your church should be no larger than what will allow that same church to properly pass along its vision." You can't continue forward with growth if your congregation is not ready spiritually - possessing the intended vision of the church. A church should be more than physically "functional". It should be physically, spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally "functional". If it lacks any of these aspects it should cease growing "physically".
A church should evaluate itself by "spiritual" standards of growth and not "worldly" standards of growth. But spiritual “productivity” is not always measurable. Again, what would the world say of the Israelites in their 39 years in the wilderness? If your church did not physically grow in 39 years, would you consider it "unproductive"? What if you knew that the individual people within that church were more "spiritually mature" in that same amount of time? "Spiritual productivity" is not measured in the amount of “physical” converts created, but rather how whatever we do advances the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven. Some of this does involve “evangelism”, but there is an equally important process of “sanctification”. These have to work together and feed off of each other. Remove one from the other and they both die.
But this is not the only aspect with which the church has chosen to be “functional” similar to the business world. Again, as businesses get larger, they become more sluggish. Their products become less "tailored" and more "commoditized". They become less able to accommodate the smaller customer with specific needs and they are forced to become more of a "one size fits all" producer. I have to wonder here whether or not the evangelical church now finds itself in a similar plight within its larger churches.
I am not sure what came first here – the chicken or the egg; whether the size of certain churches necessitated the advent of a “one size fits all” message to the postmodern culture, or that a “one size fits all” message was developed in an attempt to minister to a post modern culture which brought in more converts and thus increasing the size of the church. It could be both. But, regardless, I believe that a lot of evangelical churches have gone down the path of being forced to generalize their ministries and their message due to, or for the sake of, “physical growth and physical productivity”.
Look at the recent advent of “multi-functional” facilities and “programs” within the larger evangelical churches. These are concerted efforts to “evangelize” and “minister” to others based on interests in the world outside of the church.
"BLURRED DISTINCTIONS” BETWEEN THE CHURCH & SOCIETY
I’ve alluded to this before – specifically talking about the physical properties of churches (church architecture). But I just continue to see a further and further progression of “blurred distinctions” between the church and our post modern society at large. Forgive me if some of this is repetitive from previous blogs (that’s what I get for not writing for 5 months), but church continues to seem like going to any other function. There’s that word again.
Again, I feel like a lot of what we do now in our churches is in rebellion to what we used to do. We rebel against perceived “negative” aspects of the church in which we grew up and exchange these “negatives” for what we deem “positives”. But what we have really done is gone to the other extreme; the pendulum has swung completely to the other side. I see competing values in Scripture that are being pitted against each other instead of properly working together.
Paul speaks in one instance of being all things to all people so that he might win some. But Scripture also speaks of being a light on a hill – a place set apart and holy. Now both of these analogies are true in their own right but not over and above the other. It just seems that the church in which we grew up was so focused on the “being a light on a hill” that they became too inward focused and did not see the needs beyond their walls – what we today would call “unproductive”. As a rebellion against that, our new churches seem to focus on being all things to all people to the neglect of the covenanters within their walls – all for the sake of being “productive” (productivity being measured in how we are affecting the non-believing world around us).
But this notion of being productive seems to have rendered the Church as a place of multiple activities as opposed to a place set apart. Church is a multi-functional facility. Church is no longer a holy place where one comes with respect an awe of God. Church is a place where the outside world can come and attend programs similar to what the outside world offers to itself where people can come as they are. Church is not a place of silent meditation. Church is a place of visible activity and visible productivity.
Again, I feel like a lot of what we do now in our churches is in rebellion to what we used to do. We rebel against perceived “negative” aspects of the church in which we grew up and exchange these “negatives” for what we deem “positives”. But what we have really done is gone to the other extreme; the pendulum has swung completely to the other side. I see competing values in Scripture that are being pitted against each other instead of properly working together.
Paul speaks in one instance of being all things to all people so that he might win some. But Scripture also speaks of being a light on a hill – a place set apart and holy. Now both of these analogies are true in their own right but not over and above the other. It just seems that the church in which we grew up was so focused on the “being a light on a hill” that they became too inward focused and did not see the needs beyond their walls – what we today would call “unproductive”. As a rebellion against that, our new churches seem to focus on being all things to all people to the neglect of the covenanters within their walls – all for the sake of being “productive” (productivity being measured in how we are affecting the non-believing world around us).
But this notion of being productive seems to have rendered the Church as a place of multiple activities as opposed to a place set apart. Church is a multi-functional facility. Church is no longer a holy place where one comes with respect an awe of God. Church is a place where the outside world can come and attend programs similar to what the outside world offers to itself where people can come as they are. Church is not a place of silent meditation. Church is a place of visible activity and visible productivity.
I just don’t get the sense of entering a holy place when I attend churches with multi-functional structures and facilities. Add on the things I have previously mentioned: songs that speak to the immanence of Christ as opposed to the transcendence of God, loud/active music as opposed to meditative and reflective music, functional cookie-cutter buildings as opposed to ornate structures with visible elements of good and evil, a “come as you are” mentality as opposed to a “come reverent and awe struck” mentality, and you can see where we look more like the world than the church. I am not saying the pendulum should swing back to the other side, but are we really any better off at the other extreme? And if I as a Christian feel this sense, then how could I expect a non-believer to feel any differently with no frame of reference to even raise similar questions? What kind of God are we presenting to non-believers? Is it a biblical God? And have we indeed abandoned the notion of the church being “a place set apart” for the sake of trying to be “all things to all people” for the sake of functionality in an effort to simply physically grow?
Does this make sense? My thoughts have strayed a bit between numerous ideas here. But I think the points I make have some merit. Bottom line - anything that raises "evangelism" over and above "sanctification", or anything that raises "physical" growth over and above "spiritual" growth, or anything that emphasizes functionality of the "masses" over and above the functionality of the "individual" by default dehumanizes Christianity.
Does this make sense? My thoughts have strayed a bit between numerous ideas here. But I think the points I make have some merit. Bottom line - anything that raises "evangelism" over and above "sanctification", or anything that raises "physical" growth over and above "spiritual" growth, or anything that emphasizes functionality of the "masses" over and above the functionality of the "individual" by default dehumanizes Christianity.
