first and foremost...

In this blog, I have not only attempted to wrestle with the paradigm that shapes so many of our congregations, but I have also attempted to wrestle with some of the theology that shapes or at least supports the paradigm. My hope is that you have not viewed this wrestling as just another “intramural religious debate” that leads to nothing substantial. Undoubtedly, we could argue certain theological conclusions for years and even if we came to finally agree, we may not be any closer to living this way of Jesus than when we started. However, if the paradigm is to be shifted, and I believe it needs to be, it will take theological shifts to get us there. This is why I have wrestled with some of our theological conclusions –not to simply argue fruitless points, but more so to free us from fruitless conclusions that divert and leave us missing the point.

In danger of being overly simplistic, let me describe two perspectives. The first is this: I go to church to worship God, to learn, to connect with others. I want to reach others, bring them to church and help them know Jesus and be saved. This world is not my home, it is fallen, and I strive to be light and live as Christ in it, all the while longing for heaven. The second is this: Worship is the thrust of ones’ living. It is a combination of attitude and action. I gather with others and merge my life with theirs for encouragement and growth in this way of Jesus. I strive to not just tell others about Jesus, but I believe that actually bringing peace, kindness, joy and the like to my community/world through solutions that tangibly impact is more important than talk. I live as a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven now and am full of anticipation of they day when God will make everything new.

These two views have similarities, but their differences are more than rephrasing or word order. Their differences are rooted in the theology behind them. Phyllis Tickle says it much more sophistically in an article found here.

“Within the next eighteen to twenty-four months, denominations and established communions and the Christians who constitute them will decide, consciously or simply by default, whether “church” is first and foremost an experience of communal bonding, spiritual and religious expression, growth in concert with the ages, radical obedience, adoration, and transport or whether it is first and foremost an institution—one that does business and has structure and also structures which are to be supported, and one that is a means for organized interface with, and shaping of, the world external to it as the best means of effecting the Gospel’s principles upon and within culture.”

She admits the risk of trying to put a timeframe on it, but the point still remains. Overtime and maybe sooner than later, congregations, leaderships and individual Christians are going to decide “consciously or simply by default.” Is “church first and foremost an experience of communal bonding… or first and foremost an institution?”If you have read this blog for any amount of time, you know I have attempted to poke a lot of holes in the institutional paradigm and have even offered some alternative approaches. I believe it has been first and foremost an institution to the detriment of communal bonding, spiritual and religious expression, growth in concert with the ages, radical obedience, adoration, and transport. Yet, I realize that there are many institutions running their model successfully and, while I may take issue with some of their “product”, I by no means would simply write them off as valueless. I know a number of guys who think in institutional terms that place highly skilled preaching at the center of a highly planned worship service as the crux of a successful and thriving church organization. I don’t fit in that camp anymore, but I am not arrogant enough to completely marginalize them.

But, we can’t just plug away at doing church stuff and minimize this honest struggle to “arguing issues” or just wonder why “it all has to be so complicated” and “why it can’t just be about Jesus.” It can’t be that simple because you bring a whole host of theological conclusions to what it means to love Jesus and so do I. As individuals we have to decide what we think church is first and foremost. This may cause us to become increasingly uncomfortable in our congregations and it may eventually cause us to leave even if we don’t know where we are going. Even for those who are by no means struggling with the institution to the point of leaving, the question is still valid. I realize that the institution will remain and while it may move closer to the former description offered by Tickle than the latter, there is no way for it to become completely un-institutionalized. I’m ok with that. But, what I write against here is the institutionally loyal mindset that simply offers defense and annoyance in the face of skepticism. As I have said, I am not looking for the institutions to disappear, but a healthy dose of wrestling with the question of what is the church first and foremost and a willingness to confront theological conclusions that keep it stagnant would be a nice change.