-----------------------
The author writes about his view of church but explains nothing about the Bible, any Bible principle, or even what the Bible explains about church. He doesn't quote the Bible at all, and provides but a single irrelevant Bible reference.
The author writes about his view of church but explains nothing about the Bible, any Bible principle, or even what the Bible explains about church. He doesn't quote the Bible at all, and provides but a single irrelevant Bible reference.
His purpose is to defend his tradition. He wants church to look like the church he wants, based on what church has looked like for centuries.
Your church shouldn’t be too easy to join.
This is probably counter-intuitive to many, we spend such a lot of time trying to remove barriers to welcome people into church (Term switching. Joining church is not the same as welcoming people into church.)
and often in really helpful ways, but let me try and show you my thinking.
Nor is this a bait-and-switch where I’ll end by saying the point is that you have to die to join the church (in repentance) and then rise again with Jesus (in baptism); though that’s true too. (Term switching again. His local church is different than The Church. People do not "join" The Church, the people are The Church.)
My point is one I’ve made a few times: welcome requires walls. (At least the author makes some mention of Bible verses in this link.)
You cannot welcome people without a threshold for them to come over. If joining your church doesn’t mean anything—if there are no duties to being part of it—then it’s not possible to be part of it. (The author will make many assertions like this without giving us any reason to accept them. Having a "threshold" is not the opposite of having "no duties to being a part."
Nor is this a bait-and-switch where I’ll end by saying the point is that you have to die to join the church (in repentance) and then rise again with Jesus (in baptism); though that’s true too. (Term switching again. His local church is different than The Church. People do not "join" The Church, the people are The Church.)
My point is one I’ve made a few times: welcome requires walls. (At least the author makes some mention of Bible verses in this link.)
You cannot welcome people without a threshold for them to come over. If joining your church doesn’t mean anything—if there are no duties to being part of it—then it’s not possible to be part of it. (The author will make many assertions like this without giving us any reason to accept them. Having a "threshold" is not the opposite of having "no duties to being a part."
As Christians we are already a part. We are already included. There are no further duties to be welcomed into the fellowship of the saints because we are already there.
He. 2:11 Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.
The author is attempting to mark out territory where there's more for a person to do in order to fellowship in his church. His standard is higher than God's standard. He has hoops to jump through in order for Christians to join up with an institution created by men.)
As a result, it’s very difficult to welcome people, because you have nothing to welcome people into. (This does not follow from his statement. In fact, it is false. A church that receives Christians into its fellowship but does not have a culture that puts obligations on these Christians is still a church.)
Some churches are a little like a bunch of people in the park who say, “welcome to our park!” and you shrug and listen to their singing for a bit and then wonder off because it isn’t their park at all. Welcoming people to public shared spaces doesn’t make sense, there’s no threshold to cross. (Here is the problem, finally articulated by the author. His church is HIS space, not "public" space. HE has standards and requirements. Christians are not welcome until they do the list.)
Some churches are a little like a bunch of people in the park who say, “welcome to our park!” and you shrug and listen to their singing for a bit and then wonder off because it isn’t their park at all. Welcoming people to public shared spaces doesn’t make sense, there’s no threshold to cross. (Here is the problem, finally articulated by the author. His church is HIS space, not "public" space. HE has standards and requirements. Christians are not welcome until they do the list.)
Welcoming people to my home makes sense, there’s a threshold to cross to enter a different demesne: my household has a set of rules to it. To be welcomed is to come into this different geography with its unique culture and be told you can be here too. (We do not accept the applicability of the author's analogy. The Church is family. They got saved, there are in the family. They are coming into their own house, [i.e., the gathering of the saints, wherever they gather], and should have no other requirements other than what God has said about it.)
Welcome doesn’t require that you adopt my culture, just that you enter into it while you’re in my home. Even then, most hosts don’t insist you do as they do, but that itself is an element of the culture that says that guests are given honour.
We all know this intrinsically. You got to someone’s home and however much they tell you to ‘make yourself at home’ you are unlikely to start sticking your feet up on the table and belching (I assume that’s how we all behave at home). It’s natural to stay slightly watchful while you try and figure out the rules of this place and largely follow them. Often we just ask (that’s much easier), or we try and pick them up by observation. It’s what induces that fish-out-of-water feeling when their home is very different to yours rather than a little. I’ve had that experience in Nigerian friends’ homes, the culture is starkly different and I’m scrambling to keep up (asking is a good idea). They tell me they’ve had the same experience in my home. I imagine if you went to someone’s house for dinner and there was too much cutlery, you’d feel the same (start on the outside, I’m told).
Welcome doesn’t require that you adopt my culture, but joining my household would. (A distinction without a difference. And notice the use of the word "my.")
Welcome doesn’t require that you adopt my culture, just that you enter into it while you’re in my home. Even then, most hosts don’t insist you do as they do, but that itself is an element of the culture that says that guests are given honour.
We all know this intrinsically. You got to someone’s home and however much they tell you to ‘make yourself at home’ you are unlikely to start sticking your feet up on the table and belching (I assume that’s how we all behave at home). It’s natural to stay slightly watchful while you try and figure out the rules of this place and largely follow them. Often we just ask (that’s much easier), or we try and pick them up by observation. It’s what induces that fish-out-of-water feeling when their home is very different to yours rather than a little. I’ve had that experience in Nigerian friends’ homes, the culture is starkly different and I’m scrambling to keep up (asking is a good idea). They tell me they’ve had the same experience in my home. I imagine if you went to someone’s house for dinner and there was too much cutlery, you’d feel the same (start on the outside, I’m told).
Welcome doesn’t require that you adopt my culture, but joining my household would. (A distinction without a difference. And notice the use of the word "my.")
If you came to live with us there would be a greater sense that in this house we do things like this. I’m sure many would be similar to others and I imagine some would be quirky (I have no idea what they are, you’ll have to ask anyone who’s lodged with us). (Apparently the author is attempting to defend the way his church does abiblical things which other Christians must assent to.)
The church is the household of faith, God’s house. We don’t read from household to church because that’s backwards, we should learn how to structure our own households in God’s house, but we can apply the thinking I just described. People can be welcomed without adopting the church’s culture—and I don’t mean just what churches call culture but also their actual culture: like singing and eating a piece of bread and calling it Jesus. (This is church?)
The church is the household of faith, God’s house. We don’t read from household to church because that’s backwards, we should learn how to structure our own households in God’s house, but we can apply the thinking I just described. People can be welcomed without adopting the church’s culture—and I don’t mean just what churches call culture but also their actual culture: like singing and eating a piece of bread and calling it Jesus. (This is church?)
But, to join they must adopt it wholesale.
That’s what joining a church is, saying ‘this is how we do things here,’ and then expecting people to learn to behave the same way. (The author seems confused. "Joining" a church is the same as becoming a member? Has a committed attendee not "joined" the church? Hasn't a person who persists in attendance adopted the culture and practices of the church?
That’s what joining a church is, saying ‘this is how we do things here,’ and then expecting people to learn to behave the same way. (The author seems confused. "Joining" a church is the same as becoming a member? Has a committed attendee not "joined" the church? Hasn't a person who persists in attendance adopted the culture and practices of the church?
Is the way a church does things more important than the people who attend? Is a person's conforming behavior the standard for church membership? Is membership really that important?
The author doesn't answer any of these questions.)
They can challenge the culture of course, and often it will be that outside challenge that causes a church to sit up and realise that they’re swallowed a camel while straining gnats (Matthew 23). (Members can challenge this culture? Attendees cannot? A member must adopt the culture of the church, even if the church has erred? The author has a very strange attitude.)
So don’t be too easy to join. What do I mean? I’ve seen churches, up close and further away, where that culture isn’t communicated; they don’t even try and communicate it. The same goes for doctrine, there isn’t really much to speak of, so they don’t try and communicate ‘this is what we believe in this house.’ It can be under the guise of helping people to join.
It has an impact, perhaps unintended. If you don’t teach a culture, then a culture will still be taught and it may be a culture that you didn’t want taught. The strange behaviours that seem to be the most important thing that people start to ape because no one has thought through what it means to join here.
More importantly though: you’ll gather a crowd quickly if you’re easy to join. That’s rarely helpful. That crowd will believe 11 different things for every 10 people in it. (Um, the same thing exists in your church, sir. The diversity of belief is in fact a strength and not a weakness. Otherwise, how can a member of your church change the culture?)
So don’t be too easy to join. What do I mean? I’ve seen churches, up close and further away, where that culture isn’t communicated; they don’t even try and communicate it. The same goes for doctrine, there isn’t really much to speak of, so they don’t try and communicate ‘this is what we believe in this house.’ It can be under the guise of helping people to join.
It has an impact, perhaps unintended. If you don’t teach a culture, then a culture will still be taught and it may be a culture that you didn’t want taught. The strange behaviours that seem to be the most important thing that people start to ape because no one has thought through what it means to join here.
More importantly though: you’ll gather a crowd quickly if you’re easy to join. That’s rarely helpful. That crowd will believe 11 different things for every 10 people in it. (Um, the same thing exists in your church, sir. The diversity of belief is in fact a strength and not a weakness. Otherwise, how can a member of your church change the culture?)
Some of those people will start teaching what they believe as though the church does. They aren’t malicious, no one told them the church doesn’t think that. People start to get confused as preaching and other formative settings pull in multiple different directions. (Church people iz soooo stooopid...)
There are beliefs that are difficult to co-exist in the same church, and you’ll probably have them. Eventually this will cause an explosion that could have been avoided by clarity, (Church explosions are always bad...)
as everyone involved thinks that they are following the church’s teaching (since we all assume the church agrees with us until told otherwise, why wouldn’t it? We’re very reasonable people).
They will also be all over the map culturally too, importing whatever they’ve brought with them from elsewhere. They’ll be hard to lead. (Ah, so we finally get to the real reason the author is telling all this stuff. He wants an easy church to lead. A variety of perspectives from a variety of people is not easy. He wants his church to be conformed, safe, and uniform.)
To clarify slightly, I’m not suggesting that none of these people should come to your church and if you made it really clear what they were getting into they’d go elsewhere. A pure church doesn’t exist. Some wouldn’t join you if you were clear. Many probably would still join because they joined because you have good kids work, but they’d know where the church stood. They wouldn’t teach against it. They might even be persuaded over time, though some won’t be. They’ll be much easier to lead, and you won’t have the inevitable blow-up some years down the line.
Welcome requires walls, so don’t make your walls so invisible that people think they’re inside when they’re outside; and don’t build a house without walls, there will be nothing to put the roof on.
They will also be all over the map culturally too, importing whatever they’ve brought with them from elsewhere. They’ll be hard to lead. (Ah, so we finally get to the real reason the author is telling all this stuff. He wants an easy church to lead. A variety of perspectives from a variety of people is not easy. He wants his church to be conformed, safe, and uniform.)
To clarify slightly, I’m not suggesting that none of these people should come to your church and if you made it really clear what they were getting into they’d go elsewhere. A pure church doesn’t exist. Some wouldn’t join you if you were clear. Many probably would still join because they joined because you have good kids work, but they’d know where the church stood. They wouldn’t teach against it. They might even be persuaded over time, though some won’t be. They’ll be much easier to lead, and you won’t have the inevitable blow-up some years down the line.
Welcome requires walls, so don’t make your walls so invisible that people think they’re inside when they’re outside; and don’t build a house without walls, there will be nothing to put the roof on.
No comments:
Post a Comment