By Bishop Mike Rinehart
Here’s my hunch. Everything for me rises or falls on this bet. I’m putting all my eggs in this basket:
The turnaround of the mainline churches will happen when we in those churches care as much about those outside the church, as we do those inside. To embrace relevance, we will have to let go of survival.
That’s it. That’s all I’ve got. If I’m wrong, fire me now. I’ll die on this hill.
What does this mean?
My theory is that the mainline churches have ceased to be relevant to the culture, because insiders trump outsiders every time.
Decisions are made for the benefit of those inside rather than those outside the church. In every single decision, even the little ones, insiders trump outsiders. Take hymns, for example. Musical decisions are not made considering what will attract spiritually hungry outsiders, but what will please the card-carrying, bill-paying membership. Most church outsiders don’t care if you ever sing “How Great Thou Art.” They won’t be slightly offended by a guitar in church. Time and time again church leaders receive heat from church insiders upset about this or that, because the insiders are trying to recreate their childhood church experience or simply have a rigid idea of what church is supposed to be. Church leaders cave in to these insiders because try control the purse strings.
More facts on the ground: insiders are inherently change-averse. People don’t like change, especially those who have status in the church. Pete Steinke taught us that every church is an emotional system. Some people are benefitting from the system as it currently is. Some benefit emotionally. They are revered as church saints. Or they are validators to whom everyone turns for approval of decisions. They are having an emotional need met by receiving recognition. Or perhaps they are simply tirelessly defending The Tradition, regardless of how new or unhelpful that tradition may be. People in power, who have privileges in the current system, will resist change and make life really hard for any leader who seeks to be a change agent. Pastors are paid from members’ giving, so there is a potential conflict of interest. If they do the right thing, some leaders will end up losing their job (or up on a cross, to reference an often-told story).
Why is this happening?
Church structures were set up to preserve what exists, not change it. These stable structures work well when society is changing slowly, imperceptibly. If something is working, protect it at all costs. But what if it is not working? What if the rate of societal change skyrockets, and old patterns and structures no longer work? Peter Drucker once said, “When the rate of change outside the organization exceeds the rate of change inside the organization, the organization is doomed.”
What do we do about it?
Change. Adapt. The church has adapted, survived and even thrived in times of tectonic change in the past. It can again.
Stable structures are a high value in a stable culture, but when in a climate of rapid change, adaptability is the higher value. In a time of stability, experience is crucial. In times of change, experience can be a liability, especially if the experienced make the fatal mistake of assuming what garnered success in the past, will guarantee success in the future. What got you where you are now will not get your where you need to go in the future. Sorry. Leaders who don’t get this are in for some rough sledding.
Let’s face it, change is hard. Change, however is non-negotiable. The only constant in life is change. There is no growth without change. As someone once said, “The only one who likes change is a wet baby.” Any kind of change creates conflict. Leaders can only tolerate so much discontent. And even a little discontent sounds LOUD when you’re in the hot seat. So when things heat up, leaders circle the wagons, which is precisely the wrong thing to do. Instead, leaders need to sin boldly. Lead boldly. Look at any successful enterprise and you can be certain that someone, at some point, took a huge risk along the way. Nothing great is accomplished without risk.
“The trouble with Steve Jobs: Likes to make his own rules, whether the topic is computers, stock options, or even pancreatic cancer. The same traits that make him a great CEO drive him to put his company, and his investors, at risk.”
—Fortune Magazine
But risk is risky, and change is simply too difficult and painful. Most organizations won’t change until they’re desperate, like the alcoholic that won’t go to rehab until s/he hits rock bottom.
So what will give us the courage to take those risks?
This takes us back to the beginning. Churches will not adapt to the new realities until they care as much about reaching those outside, as appeasing those inside.
The world is hell-bent on destruction in countless ways. It is desperately in need of a church that offers a Way of peace, truth, compassion and hope, as opposed to the world’s way of power, materialism, exploitation and violence. It needs leaders willing to risk comfort, status and economic security for the life of the world and the outreach potential of the church. It needs a church that looks less like the Pharisees’ religion and more like Jesus’ ministry. It needs a church that is willing to sacrifice everything for those outside: buildings, budgets, sacred cows, traditions, structures. It needs a church that so loves the world, that she’d be willing to die for it.
So here’s the plan. New policy. Every decision, every single decision made by staff, council and every committee is made on behalf of those not yet here. Every sermon choice, every hymn, song and musical choice, every building and grounds choice, every spending choice is made with outsiders in mind.
When we become a church for the world, the outsider, when the pain of staying the same (and dying of irrelevance) for those already here exceeds the pain of changing (and sacrificing old ways) for those not yet here, we will be the church for which God incarnate came to this earth and gave his life.
Which is why pastors need to report to (and be paid by) the Bishop and not the congregation (see THE FRUIT WICH INREASES TO YOUR CREDIT: DOLLARS AND SENSE ON CLERGY COMPENSATION, J. Jeffrey Zetto, 1977 (as I best remember)). OR have an episcopal support system where Pastors can palapbly feel a Bishops’ ability to be ale to place them rapidly after the recalcitrant congegation “blows up.” OR have a ceibate clergy. OR a DINK cergy. St. Paul might have been married to begin life as a hrisee (as proto-Massad agent?), but by Corinth he is single … for a good reason.
Unfortunately, the scale and scope of the Bishop’s plan is inadequate to deal with the problem he has identified. The basic structure of the Lutheran Church is the root cause of the problem he has identifed. As a structure developed in reaction to Roman Catholism, the Lutheran church centers authority and decision-making at the congregational level — in the hands of the insiders. I do not believe that true change will take place unless the structure itself is modified.
I’m intrigued by your comment. How might you modify the structure?
Is the Bishop Catholic or Lutheran?- Joyce
Bishop Rinehart is the Bishop of the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
I believe these are TRUE and BRAVE ideas…. Not sure most Lutherans wish to change however. I for one would be happy to see lots of changes – in the weekly rote liturgy for instance. “But that’s what makes us Lutheran!”, I have heard – boring I say! At least our church, Christ the Servant, does someting for those outside the church. It feeds the homeless twice a month among other things. However I am not sure that is going to help the church grow.
My brother and bishop.
Thank you so very much for dropping this firebomb on our dried out hearts.
Your words are in full correspondence with God’s Holy Spirit who is in constant movement and blows where she wills.
Remember the seven last words of a dying church;” WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE IT THIS WAY.”
In Norway we have old well loved hymn that goes like this;”The church is an old house, which will stand even if the hills are crumbling.” I have rewritten that line many a time in my sermons;
“The church is an old house and should blown open”.
I understand the need for tradition and recognition and I love the old hymns, but that is me, a well paid insider. The unchurched don’t have this affinity to the old houses, they only experience us good old boys and girls as irrelevant and condemning and often even hostile to outsiders.
Jesus walked, lived and breathed among ordinary and poor and sometimes unfriendly people.
He saw them and loved them and he took their lives seriously. Dead seriously, that is.
Coming back to my old Lutheran church, I found that they had within the last years initiated a leadership reform, a democratic vestry election reform, an educational reform, a liturgy reform, a new bible translation and soon a new hymnal will be presented. One of the melodies to got with The Apostolic Creed is pure rap. Wonderfully crazy. Makes my head spin. I like that.
Big question; Is this only whitewashing the grave or will it bring new people into the old house? If that is what we want.
I believe that the church is everywhere we are. In our homes , at workplaces, at city squares and in the countrysides. We bring it with us and present it through our lives. If we are being led by The Holy Spirit, she may lead us into new and strange and sometimes scary places. We should not be afraid however because Jesus is there already.
Thanks again for your Spirit filled cry. I have heard it here on the other side of the big blue.
Much love to you and all the wonderful people of the synod whom I miss often.
Have a prayerful Advent and a blessed Christmas time.
Always your friend in Christ
Dagfinn Magnus
Pastor
Rev. Dagfinn Magnus — You rock for Christ! Enjoyed the fresh air of your comments! Melody, an Episcopal deacon…
Amen. I have been married to an ELCA pastor since 1967. He is now a ‘sufferer’ of Alzheimer’s Disease. If only I could convey to this forum how much he would agree with these sentiments. My husband taught for 43 years in an EPISCOPAL Seminary and was ignored by Lutherans. But he never was NOT Lutheran, which was celebrated by all. I am so happy to see something prophetic here. (I do SO love your name, Dagfinn Magnus. So incredibly Lutheran (ethnic variety). Yours at the foot of the Cross.
Sue, I was in Sewanee in the early 80′s as an undergrad. I am grateful to Don and to you for the support of his ministry. Prayers for you as you journey with Alzheimer’s. Ngraceandpeace@aol.com. Nancy Parsons
We sing Grundtvig’s “Kirken den er et gammelt hus” too! (Except we call it “Built on a Rock.”) (Or are you talking about a different hymn?)
Thank you Bishop MIke.
AMEN. Let’s also not make the mistake of labeling inactive members (ie. people who are related to or good freinds with active members who may be on the church council etc.) as true outsiders becuase they also recieve all the “benefits” of being a member adn would statnd to gain nothing, at leaset in their eyes, if the church changes to reach the true outsiders. Most of us insiders do not percieve the slow spiritual death that is occuring within us if we aren’t reaching outward and riskign our place in the church or is society. thank you so much for saying this and i am on that same page in thouhgts and actions.
Thank you Bishop, I’ll be sharing this with my church leaders and congregation. I look forward to continuing to partner with the synod as we move through change to be an “outsider” church. Blessings.
Janell? I am Hector from Chicago…
I commented below. Blesings!
There re tHIse of uS At Advent who have been saying this fr years & many have already left our membership, it is hard to change when the Pastor is controled by the purse string.
Thoroughly enjoyed reading your words– truly music for every soul longing to see the face of God. speaking about faces, you have a very nice one– especially your genuinely unpretentiopus smile. Thanks. And may God delight in you, your family– insiders and outsiders, and transform us all for the sakes of humanity and of our earth, through the spirit of Christ.
Yes, these words sound correct and good, but why do we have more outsiders than insiders in the first place? Why has society been so passive year after year to why people act and do the things we do, i.e. things that harm people, words and actions? I am convinced politics has gotten in the church leaders minds causing them to forget the 10 commandments therefore it has lead us to where we are today. Change is good but not just for the sake of change. Change should bring about better results, not worse. Look at our country now! People make excuses for everything they do and try to justify it with anything without reason. This is what happens when the family unit is destroyed. Pray that the pendelum will swing back the other way to where people love one another without cratering to evil.
” It needs leaders willing to risk comfort, status and economic security for the life of the world ”
Yesterday evening I attended the World AIDS Day Commemoration held in Tranquility Park, downtown Houston, the same place as the Occupy Houston encampment. Across the street in front of CIty Hall, a rousing gospel choir was rehearsing for the Mayor’s Holiday Celebration and Tree Lighting. The entire scene appeared a real mishmash. But as I read your post this morning (informed by my recent reading of Rob Bell’s “Love Wins”), I realize that indeed it is through the church that last night’s scene could be transformed into one of harmonious congruency. The Occupy Movement is calling for corporate executives to do exactly what you are calling leaders in the church to do…risk comfort, status and economic security. I really doubt that corporate executives will willingly change, but I do believe that the church can lead the paradigm shift of society’s values with leaders willingly divesting themselves of their interest in the status quo and looking to include those on the outside. The World AIDS Day Commemoration highlights those on the outside, namely the poor nations of Africa where the disease is still ravaging families or here in the U.S. where stigma still lurks over the shoulder of those living with HIV. Through the voice of the church talking about caring for self and others, especially in sexual relationships, and encouraging assistance for life-saving drugs and through the arms of the church openly embracing those living with HIV, the AIDS Day stated goal of zero transmissions, zero deaths, and zero stigma by 2015 can be met. And why is it the church who can do this? Because of the message in the songs that we were hearing the gospel choir rehearse…God came to live with us as Jesus and though he was killed by the leaders he challenged, God had the last word (pun intended) through Christ’s resurrection. The church brings last night’s scene into congruency only as we, while singing praises to our God, remember that being baptized into Christ’s life and death and strengthened by his body and blood, are the body of Christ in the world today, standing in solidarity with the Occupiers, caring for those with HIV/AIDS, and working to bring to reality a world where power does not exclude, but ensures peace and security for all. How fitting that last night’s scene was in Tranquility Park, named after Tranquility Base on the moon, representing how humans can reach beyond what we think may be our earthly limitations. With God’s help, we can reach beyond the limitations of our selfish desires and reach that world of peace.
Bishop Mike, thanks for your enthusiasm in encouraging pastors and members to reach out of the box. It was great! Just what the church needs. I find that people in churches are so nested and so are pastors. They can’t see outside the nest. Very few members go to Bible study, very few go to church, so why are they members? I’ve always said people join churches for baptism, marriage (which is almost out these days) and funerals. Some of the words in old hymns are likely not even understood by children since they are in old English. Keep at it and hopefully the pastors, first of all, will catch on fire and pass it on to their members who will reach out to others inside and outside of the church.
There is a reason you were elected Bishop. This article is clear evidence of the foresight you bring to the table. It is up to the leadership both inside and outside to find balance and common ground. Otherwise, it is the same old story of empty pews and frustrated members.
Hurrah! I can see that events have transpired to bring you to “enough is enough” and you have staked a position with “fire in your belly”. We all need this. You have proposed a very specific, interesting and challenging plan in your penultimate paragraph. What will we do if we consider every decision in the light of those outside? I say let’s give it a try. I know of one Lutheran church which seems to do this – Light of Christ Lutheran in La Porte. This congregation is small, growing, and thinks of outsiders first. I suspect that Jesus might feel welcome there. May His Spirit guide all of us in this complex task. Oh yes, I must say that your web page and the opportunity to respond certainly reflects looking for honest input – thank you.
Arnie Kaestner
Arnie, it is good to hear of such a congregation, and I imagine their attitude may have something to do with every “member” is a minister not the receivers only of ministry. So they go out and live as ministers, and share the Good News, coming back to share what they have seen happen.
Mike, you are sooooo right! Anyone reading the Gospel knows Jesus clearly told us He came for those who didn’t know Him.
Love it!
One tiny quibble- I find that the “outsiders” who come to Grace love “How Great Thou Art” and other hymns they’ve heard in movies, or remember a grandmother singing. It’s the older songs less in popular culture that tend to bore them crazy.
But I’m very much reposting this for others to read!
Yea….I can see how the mainline churches haven’t changes over the years…no significant changes to accomodate the culture….no changes that match society….still those out dated archaic beliefs and approaches….look now the way they did 50 years ago….
I like this, especially the ideology behind it. I think (in worship, not necessarily in other aspects of ministry) we should seek a happy medium; the old venerated members of the church can’t be cast by the wayside to make way for new younger members, but at the same time we can’t chant our way into the future. I don’t know, find a balance. I’m a teenager and I like hymns, but maybe I’m bizarre. Anyway, I like this
That is exactly what we did over the seventeen years I was in Chalmette. And, BELIEVE ME, there can be a lot of heat! And you inevitably lose some members when you increase your OUTreach. Some will even come after your family members. But in the long run, you become a healthier and more vibrant congregation. Thanks for you thoughts, Mike!
I will add the fact that many congregations (and some clergy) are not engaged with evangelism. Lutherans are still hoping to gather the scatter Lutherans. Eangelism is just one more program, and outreach is somethig that we have done always. The real elephant in teh room is that we are not trained to be evangelists and servers (laya nd clergy). And now taht we know it it is bit too late to try to change the culture. If we ask a member of te congregation (lay, seminarian, clergy) to articulate their faith in few words, we will normally (most likely) get a thelogical answer, but not a personal experience of Christ in their lives. How then can we reach to others? Yes, we can do lots of social ministry, but there are many other organizations that do teh same thing (even better because tehy have teh personnel and mney to do it very well). So what is waht we as teh Body of Christ could do well (because we have it and we have it aboundantly)? To share Christ in word and deed. One congregational leadrs once told me taht they give away over 300 bags of food in teh community but they never engage in a conversation with the people who receive teh food. They do not know thier names. When I asked them whay they give away food, they only said because thais a good thiong to do. I agree that reaching out and connecting with the people outside the church building is crucial in mission and ministry, but if we are not able to tell what difference Christ makes in our lives we are missing part of the great opportunity that we have to work with God in the Kingdom. Blessings to all!
Hector,
I completely agree with you! The church I attend has completely confused hospitality with evangelism. When even simple thoughts of mentioning the name of Jesus to a stranger are mentioned to these members, they run and hide. They quite simply don’t want new people in “their” church and they want things just as they are, at least until they die. Pastors are not the only ones crucified for trying to get evangelism training and action going; members who bring up such subjects suffer also. The church I attend fails to realize that they have one small band of four prayer warriors actually, physically praying. Most, if asked what Jesus has done for them in their lives get a deer-in-the-headlights look and simply cannot articulate their own testimony. But they don’t want to learn how to do this either……what time does the potluck start…is more on their minds. Instead of trying to continue this poor man’s country club style of church, we need to look inward, pray for revival, and remember what it is we have to offer the world; the one thing that sets us apart from other social clubs – Jesus Christ and the salvation he brings. This is what the world is seeking in all the wrong places. First prayer, then revival. Revival doesn’t come from what hymns are chosen; it comes from doing what Christ told us to do in the Great Commission.
thank you so much I appreciate for your words. Blessings in your ministry!
BTW, sorry for the typos…I was in a hurry when I saw the blog but I did not want to miss the chance to share my thoughts.
Bishop Mike, you are spot-on. As someone who recently pastored a dying congregation I can say that the root issue was an insistence that the insiders would decide; and the outsiders were welcome as long as they conformed to the norm set by the insiders. That attitude was so entrenched that the neighborhood had undergone decades of significant changes while the congregation had fought change tooth and nail. It’s time for a church-wide calling of the question, “Do you want to change and seek the Spirit’s guidance, or do you want to die and seek the Spirit’s comfort?”
I actually had a member say to me (in a now dead church) “They are welcome, but they need to know that we do things our way, and they can take that to the bank,”
This is revolutionary stuff but is only one side of ministry. A wise pastor will unite with visionary leaders and engage in bold mission, but will also have an eye out to also minister to the pew dweller who sees little interest in mission. That’s the difference between an evangelist and a pastor.
Absouletly brilliant. Amen and Amen. Thanks Bishop Rinehart for leading.
Pastor Geoff Sinibaldo, St. Micahel’s Lutheran Church (ELCA), New Canaan, CT
Thank you, Bishop.
I am a pastor, and I agree with everything you have written. I have attemped, in my very imperfect way, to share this vision with the congregation. In fact, that’s the problem.
As of January 1, my salary will be reduced to 60% of what I have been receiving. The biggest complaint – I’m spending all my time outside the church. It isn’t true, but I fully admit that I spend time outside the congregation; I spend time outside the building.
Yes, there are people who “get” what I’m talking about. Yes, there are very supportive people who are struggling with what it means to be “In Mission for Others” (as our national church proclaims).
But there are enough traditionalists and “squeaky wheel” power people to induce enough fear into enough people to squash anything that might bring about a new direction.
Bottom line for me – I have no fear about the ministry of the Gospel to which we are called; that will always be there, and there will always be a few crack pots around to do the crazy “following Jesus” thing. I do have some trepidation as to whether many, if not most, of our congregations, will have the faith to follow that call.
I went through all these comments after reading what the Bishop had to stay and your comment stuck out for me. It is nice to celebrate prophetic statements as a way into the future realization of change. I agree that trepidation about the “Cost of Discipleship” is the bottom line, most leadership and churches want “stability and comfort” while they study the radical ideas to gain clarity… What you have come to realize is that your community is making things clear for you… it’s not about them outsiders…
Blessings on your faith and courage, the future will reward your commitment.
BTW. I am an Episcopal Lay person who has been doing public ministry work with the “Outsiders” in coffeehouses, bookstores, and community gathering places since seminary (35 years ago). I am presently working as a “Fresh Expressions” consultant to the Episcopal Diocese of S. Ohio, and outsider myself… with some resources to create outsider conversations on faith and culture… You can contact me or see links to my ministry work by going to LarrBourgeois.me
Jeff Zetto, The bishops are voted for and paid by the congregations, And quite frankly very few of them are as forward thinking as Bishop Rinehart is. The fastest growing churches (granted growth does not equal transformation) do not have bishops, or denominations for that matter. There is no logistical solution to this problem. It is a problem that will only be solved by a grand spiritual paradigm shift, the kind that the Holy Spirit does.
Yes and will we speak a word when we notice this happening. It is not always easy for we are fearful of not filling the plate with needed dollars. Our culture lives with a sense of entitlement yet if we do not change we will be changed. So as I hold this invitation and notice how I put my needs first may I be reminded to wonder how it might be different.
A thoughtful essay, Bishop Rinehart. Thanks for sharing it. Can we test your first proposition, that mainline churches will turnaround when they “care as much about those outside the church, as we do those inside”? For example, do Joel Osteen or Rick Warren, two pastors who we could call successful if the measure is the size of the church, care more about those outside their respective churches than their congregations?
Would your essay apply equally well to the ever diminishing volume of persons attending events associated with an art culture versus a pop culture? If one wants to appeal to the masses, produce Beyonce on your stage. If you want musical arts, a community has to go back to that archaic, 18th century invention called the orchestra.
If the congregants in flourishing churches want to attend feel-good worship services, jump around during “praise” music, wave their arms and shout “amen” and “hallelujah” every third sentence of the sermon, replace the organ with guitars, drums, electronic keyboards, so be it. Should mainline churches be expected to dive to the lowest common denominator to keep up membership?
I don’t pretend to have the answers to my own questions, but I think I’ve settled on 2 truths, at least for me: (1) it’s ok if the religious community is divided. Times do change and we have to recognize that, what today may be considered a “high” service, is well past its prime. Many churches deal with this tension by having both traditional and contemporary services. Perhaps such a combination is a recipe for failure in due course, as one church may not be successful in having two personalities. Perhaps churches need to declare one style or another to preserve a truer brand.
(2) Each church has to take its own core values and membership growth efforts very seriously – - even scientifically. There is too much room for mixed messages to attempt to do so denomination-wide. Every church needs to identify what makes it unique, and build a message, yes, to outsiders, around those values. Then the right people need to be in place to ensure the growth systems work and measure progress scrupulously. When churches think about themselves as an organization, and apply time-honored building and growing strategies to the church, most churches will grow.
The future I forsee is the continued decline of the mainline churches. And that’s ok. The pop-culture churches will always win, no matter how hard the rest of us work. I see the mainline churches merging, first within denominations, then between them. The mainline will preserve a higher church service and there will always be those who seek that out. For those clergy who measure size of congregation with success, it is they who should jump over into the pop church pulpits.
I remember an issue of the Houston Chronicle 12-13 years ago, where on the same front page it was announced the building of a new baseball stadium, and the cut backs needed, due to lack of funding, for the Houston Symphony Orchestra. Personally, I was outraged. But these are our times, and I suspect it has been this way for centuries.
Again, I appreciate your thoughts. You’ve discussed a topic I’ve given much thought to the last couple of years as I’ve been trying to help my church grow.
Gregg Gerlach
So true. Many today don’t want to put anything into church membership or participation and expect only to get the warm fuzzys and it makes” ME feel good” experience rather than worshipping God. They want the entertainment and reward stuff and don’t talk about Chtist crucified.
Yes, there are people truly hurting to
whom we must do a better job at
ministering to and with being inclusive of.
Certainly times change as does language, but some connection with the saints of old, angels and arch angels as we gather for worship and receive the Sacrament should be made visable to those actively participating. I’m not sure that is possible in the non denominational mega church style.
Your comments accurately describe almost every “church” I’ve ever been connected to, whether evangelical, catholic, Anglican, congregational, Lutheran, Christian [sic], Bahai, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Unitarian, and so on and so forth. Thanks!
dave bühler PhD • providence college
Relevance can be a very subjective issue. While I agree that we need to take the message of the gospel to the world in ways that they can understand, I am wary of the church becoming like the world instead of in it. Who drives the agenda of the church? Certainly not the values of the worldly.I have seen to many quasi-worship services that mirror rock concerts rather than worship. Don’t get me wrong, I am a product of Larry Norman and contemporary music in the church. I am just concerned with real transformation, both for unbelievers and non-believers. Therefore; each fellowship must follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit, whatever that might mean for them. I guess the question for me is; will the church change the world, or the world change the church?
Dear Bishop Rinehart,
Your challenge is, of course, exciting. Could you flesh it out a bit and share with us how we should go about “exegeting” those on the “outside”? Rick Warren offers one model with his “Saddleback Sam”. I’d like to assume, however, that that is not what you are suggesting (it does “work” to generate members for his congregation).
It is, of course, a perennial challenge to us as the Church beginning with the establishment of the diaconate in the Acts of the Apostles. Dietrich Bonhoeffer suggested the true church is a church for others.
I see the Church as the Body of Christ giving itself to the world over and over again. And, through this self-sacrifice the Body is being lifted up and drawing the world unto itself.
I do think that dynamic growing congregations happen beyond issues of style and taste. I am also convinced that groups of insiders who are ultimately concerned with communicating the Good News of Jesus Christ experienced in the liturgy and in the acts of the Church growing out of the liturgy will be exciting and attractive. People excited by their relationship in and with God are lights on a hill with or without an organ, a guitar, a dance, pews, folding chairs, etc etc etc.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts as to my original question of how to identify, analyze, and exegete those who are “outsiders.”
Blessings on your ministry of oversight,
Rev. Scott A. Moore
Erfurt, Germany
The vacuous drone of “Praise Music” which validates pietistic, simplistic, non-theological claptrap, as if it had anything to do with religion, is already a function in full force elsewhere and bears the seeds of its own morbidity, one would hope. Please, let’s don’t go shuffling off down that path or to the “Christian Rock” format which might, eventually, bore us all to death. Six centuries of music claims much more than tradition or the intransigence of “old-timers”; it claims the enraptured spirits and the hearts of believers to whom the experience of the holy is a mind, body and soul encounter. It is also one of the attractions which draws people to us.
And bores young people to tears, with it’s stilted language and archaic melodies. I’m a late-comer to church, and when my kids say they can’t stand the music, I can’t argue with them.
That is a presumption you make. One of the most ancient rites, Compline, is sung every Sunday night at St. Mark’s in Seattle. Much of it is sung in latin and the place is packed with people in their 20s. It is a large cathedral and because there is not enough seating, people sit on the floor. I’m not suggesting that one type of music should dominate because we are blessed with quality music in all spectrums. However, I think part of the issues of churches who try to grow by changing musical styles is they make assumptions about what people actually like. I argue that people need to stop worrying so much about music selection in drawing “outsiders” in and figure out what the real needs are. We have yet to do that and I don’t have the answer.
I think we really need to stop “pigeon-holing” young and old people as to what they want or desire.
I was not bored to tears by the “stilted language and archaic melodies” as a youth even though as a Generation Xer and not a born Lutheran it was often assumed that I would not. As a pastor, I have had more than one confirmation student tell me that they prefer the “traditional” service and music over the “contemporary” services everyone is trying to tell them they should like; and, more than one person has been attracted to Lutheran churches because it has a connection with a past and hope for the future in Christ that is bigger than the shallowness of the present culture.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is what is relevant in all times and places and that Gospel transforms. Granted, those “inside” the church need to remember it continues to transform us. However, as Christians who confess that Christ comes to the world through Word and sacrament, we cannot simply be everything the world wants us to be in order to more popular. Popularity and success by the standards of the world are not the same as being relevant to the world, just as pandering to popular culture is not the same as evangelism and being “in” the world is not the same as being “of” it.
Not all contemporary church music is vacuous; nor are all the old hymns exactly intellectual masterpieces. With all due respect, Mr. Lockerman, all hymns all the time sounds just as boring as you claim you find all contemporary music to be.
I’ve never selected music based on what I think will keep the congregation entertained. Church music selection is a sacred process that helps deliver spiritual nourishment to anyone — insiders, outsiders, martians, whatever — who walks through the doors of our church. I cannot imagine our church without the beautiful traditional music, but there is no question the new music has a connecting effect on “the new people” in our church. There’s plenty of positive feedback from the long-timers as well.
I am not a theologian, but I know my Bible encourages, affirms, and validates multiple forms of human expression in worship to include hand-clapping, raised hands, dance, use of the word “amen;” and musical instruments to include skillfully played percussion, strings, flutes, and horns, among others. I have yet to find the chapter and verse that declares The Hymnal or only music written within a certain era to be the sole acceptable forms of worship. God’s Word is for all the ages; our music should be as well.
Oh my dear Mr. Lockerman, I’m so sorry to read your post. I think your comments are coming from one who does not like change and wants your church to remain exactly as you have always remembered it. That’s ok, but when your generation passes on, who will be there to continue keeping your church as you remember it and think it should be?
I was hired by a United Methodist Church in 2010 to create a contemporary worship music experience, while working closely with the Pastor. This was a very traditional church and had many elderly and traditional members in the congregation. It was a little tough at first. While playing music, I could look into the congregation’s eyes and see the disapproval. As I blended the service to include more traditional hymns, performed in a more contemporary way, I noticed the members were singing out more and more. The feedback was very often positive. As a taught the new worship songs, the words of those songs were heard. My “offering” song was always one that reflected the word’s of that day’s scripture. As time went on, the attendance for the “contemporary” service grew! I learned so much.
What did I learn? The people truly embraced the change in their church. Even those who didn’t particularly like the contemporary style of music saw the positive impact it had on their church. I too, had to make some changes to my original plans of music so all the people could hear the message. I saw that the people of this congregation were very loving and graceful. The “Praise Band” grew and so did the attendance and membership at that church. I do not take credit for membership growing. I give that credit to the wonderful people in that congregation who embraced change and to a Pastor who was fearless about reaching out to the outsiders! The church grew because the “outsiders” could see the hearts of the “insiders”. Praise music did not bore them all to death.
May your heart be filled with music. God Bless you.
Yes, yes! Amen!
Reading all this makes me cry. As a pipe organ builder i see and visit many many churches. Often I visit and worship with a congretion. When I walk in the door there often is a greeter. They say hi welcome and thats it No one else speaks to me and say hi ,take time to MEET me. This is especially so in the Lutheran churches. COLD is the word. In Christ there is warmth I think the church, the building and what fills it is important. It is our security blanket. That by itself is good. Christ did not say ” Come to me, or follow me, and I will give you whatever you want” I think there is something about picking up a cross and follow me DO WHAT I DO! Much harder then it sounds. Life is full of little details. Life is full of small things that make a huge difference. I have learned that when I do get to meet with a committee that if I bring anything of faith, believe, or passion in Chrsit into my discussion I will loose the project 90% of the time. The church needs to understand that of we do not practice our faith from within we will fail on the outside. We are failing big time, thats why we do not fill our churches. But then if we truly study Rev. we will understand. If we do no shine, there is no light to follow. If we do not lead by example, no one will notice. If the Holy Spirit does not live in us we are dead.
Pieter
Amen, brother. Keep making organs — they’ll be “hip” again soon, once our culture begins to miss them.
In the meantime, may the Lord Himself (the real God, and not the culturally explained-away version of a god Americans once worshiped) inhabit the praises of His people. The Spirit must fill the church!
As I read early church history, worship was a gathering of “insiders”. It could take three years of instruction before an “outsider” became an “insider”. At some periods, worship services were held in secret because they were illegal. Christian worship was not meant to be a means of bringing in the “outsiders” so we shouldn’t let those who know the least about Christian worship (the outsiders) determine what we do. I believe that many Roman Catholics and Orthodox congregations are growing without “playing to the unchurched crowd,” but by maintaining the integrity of their historical worship practices — and doing it as well as possible. Like many service clubs, the attitude is, “If you want to become part of us, you need to learn and participate in our ways and rituals.”
For the most part, what I read in the Book of Acts is that individuals reached out to the unchurched. They were sent out from the “insider” gatherings to be ministers and evangelists in the “outside” world. The gatherings were not evangelistic crusades, .e.g, Billy Graham’s; but a time of fellowship and strenghtening of the believers. This Christian faith and fellowship were so important in their own lives, the couldn’t help but share the news with anyone who would listen.
Many folks have taken the rich treasure of the gospel and buried it within their own lives (to keep it safe?!?) when it has been given to be shared in ways that it will grow.
I agree that the church (as the people) needs to be spreading good news through words and deeds to those outside its fellowship; but I’m not convinced that messing too much with the worship historical worship service is the proper path to take.
Thanks for your column, Bishop Rinehart.
I find the “insider/outsider” language perhaps unhelpful to those whom the insiders call “outsiders,” especially having been an outsider and now being in the dubious position of being an “insider” (i.e., potential clergy) who has been waiting 5 years for a first call because I’m an outsider (openly gay candidate for first call). I am both an insider and an outsider, and I think there indeed is a lot of energy wasted around pleasing the insiders. But there are insiders everywhere: in business, in politics, in condo associations, and most definitely in religious communities. The balance of power always falls to those who have pride of place or position, money, or the power to say you’re in or you’re out!
If we keep this insider/outsider language, what would an “outsider” bishop look like? Could you see yourself as an outsider bishop? How would a bishop make every decision first thinking of how it will affect “outsiders”?
Thanks for your further consideration of this topic.
“The turnaround of the mainline churches will happen when we in those churches care as much about those outside the church, as we do those inside. To embrace relevance, we will have to let go of survival.”
Bishop Rinehart, three cheers for your opening statement, and I commend you for taking the risk to say this. At the same time, can’t help but note that what followed your opening statement continues to speak, unintentionally, to survival. Even your plan, “Every decision, every single decision made by staff, council and every committee is made on behalf of those not yet here,” speaks from an attractional model of operation. What can we do, what should we do, to get people to come to church?
I suggest an approach that is similar but radically different: As churches we should care about those outside the church, yes. But let’s approach this by caring for, empowering, supporting people outside the church—that is, people who come to church already, who are Christ’s ambassadors of hope, faith and compassion in the world.
What I’m talking about goes by many names. The Priesthood of All Believers is the oldest name; Ministry in Daily Life is newer. People who have given up on the church (because we have been so focused on institutional survival) are now calling it Spirituality in the Workplace.
I am convinced that the turnaround of the mainline church will happen when we care as much about life and ministry outside the church as we do inside. Renewal will happen when we get serious about sending people “in peace” to “serve the Lord” instead of worrying about how to attract more people to come into the church. To do this, we will indeed have to let go of survival because such an approach does not directly support the institution (though I’m convinced it will bring new vitality) and because our current measures of effectiveness (counting people and ministries in the church) won’t justify our existence.
I commend to your reading “People are leaving the church on purpose” http://centerforrenewal.wordpress.com.
If you really want to serve those on the outside, stop making claims you can’t back up with evidence. Such as that the lot of humanity is to be created sick and then commanded to be well, that we are by nature so completely depraved that blood sacrifice was required to redeem us in the eyes of the being that created us…. you know what? Never mind. It’s far too great a stretch. You Episcopalians are harmless enough. You don’t picket the funerals of dead soldiers, and many of you are just fine with teh gays. Just sit in your pews and be cool. Not being jerks is the most any religious group can do for the rest of us.
This is a good dialectic. Still, the issue before us is basic to the revelation we claim… that Christ is Lord. Then, what do we mean by that? I am pleased to be worshiping both with and without guitar and my little congregation goes along. We’re learning to worship God. That’s what we are, born “to the to the praise of His glory.” Thanks for the discussion.
Hello Mike,
I appreciate your bold statements and believe this is the appropriate direction the church needs to attend. You make the initial statement that the turnaround of mainline churches will happen when people pay more attention to outsiders than insiders. By what kind of turnaround will this really look like? Have we already created an expectation for what conditions this turnaround will take such that when it begins we can say, “see, there it is, and now we’re back on track.”
Now initially, who wouldn’t be for this? It’s a legitimate argument to begin when all the strategies under the assumptions of Christendom have led to the entrenchment for the church’s supposed demise. In fact all organizations struggle to keep up, the church of course, at quite a slower rate. My concern has to do with the balance of attending to what is uniquely the church’s role in relationship to the world that the church also occupies. And so, a couple questions I’m interested in pursuing include the following: What is peculiarly the church’s task and how does this intersect with the world that God loves in such a way as to not deny both? Is there a sense that God’s Spirit is actually doing something in the world? And if so, what would be the conditions by which we would know that was and is the case? Why is “relevance” the category you turn to as the primary driving concern for the life of the church? Is the Spirit’s leadership about “relevance” or about “repentance”? Now, I suppose I’m starting to sound like an insider, the very one who needs to “sacrifice everything for those outside”. How relevant is it that the one who finds their life is the one who denies it? How relevant is it that dying to self is a part of the promise that will begin happening when the Spirit takes hold?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not disagreeing with the call to attention in the direction you’re heading, I’m just longing for more specifics about exactly what it is that this means and implies both for the church’s centered life and its engagement in the world. How is it, for example, that church’s are not hearing the Gospel as God’s promise for an enlarged horizon for engaging in the world God loves? I think the terminology you use already begins to get us off to a misdirection. This is the case because what do “insiders” and “outsiders” offer as a helpful reference point? Don’t these perpetuate the very categories you’re fighting to get out from under? I’m wondering if we can think about the gap more theologically as that between God and the world, and not between the church and the world, as if God is giving us something to do in the world as God sits back and watches us. So the priority of the question becomes one of attending to the competing Gospels that are being argued for in the world and asking, “is the the Gospel of peace, truth, compassion and hope.” This is the discernment of the Spirit for churches, and not merely a clerical concern. How else will the church then recognize that God is in, with, under, for and against the world, without abdicating the church’s gift and task for engaging the primacy of its own life through the Gospel for the sake of the world’s relevance?
As a pastor for twelve years in the Grand Canyon Synod, working in a Suburban community, campus ministry, emergent ministry and as an interim, I have seen and experience the frustration of much of what you articulate. That is precisely what drove me back to PhD work for congregational mission and leadership concerns. I have personally been converted at a coffee shop by an “outsider” who called himself a Jewish agnostic even as I was writing Alpha Course lectures. I share your concern and heart, but I don’t want to give up the fact that the Spirit has a particular mission that offers leadership around which our own life as church is not only necessarily bound to, but even dependent upon for the future that God is already bringing.
Blessings and Peace in your leadership of the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit!
As a minister for 18 years, I have seen churches with my religion just slowly start to fall apart due exactly to what Bishop Rinehart has shared. The sad reality is that these churches when push comes to shove want change, but only talk about it. Furthermore, I believe that MINISTERS of these churches also are adverse to change as well. They want the new comers but are afraid of them. If the new comers are God’s children, when then is there to be afraid of, especially since a minister is the caretaker of the House of God?
makes good sense to me-
implementation is another matter- isn’t it?
In the end, isn’t this all just a very eloquent restatement of the driving philosophy behind the seeker-sensitive/megachurch movement? Is the decline (numerically, influentially, financially, etc.) of denominational churches directly proportional to the amount of navel-gazing we have engaged in over the past several decades? Absolutely! Is the answer to our problems to worry less about ourselves and more about those beyond our doors? That depends.
It depends on what our purpose and mission is. If our purpose and mission is to get bigger (i.e., to have more and larger congregations, to have more finances pouring into the denominational structures), then yes, the answer is to discern what people outside the church want, and simply give it to them to the best of our ability. We could learn that from virtually any introductory level business course: to increase you customer base find out what potential customers are looking for and give it to them (unless you’re a guru like Steve Jobs who can tell people what they want before the know they want it, which is even better). I’m sorry if the business terminology sounds crass here, but let us be honest about what we are really saying.
If, however, our purpose and mission is to live the Great Commandment and fulfill the Great Commission, then I’m not so sure. Excellent critiques of the attractional church model (which is what this article advocates) have been offered in recent years. Leonard Sweet’s “So Beautiful” is a prime example for those interested.
The problem with our denominations is that we haven’t done either very well for quite some time. We’ve laughed and scoffed at the megachurches, saying “They have quantity; we focus on quality,” but we’ve been lying. Now that we’re finally waking up to the fact that the emperor (that would be us) has no clothes, it’s as if we see our brothers and sisters in their megachurches and gulp as we admit, “They must have been right all along.” But what if they weren’t? What if we actually had been focusing on quality (in terms of the relationships we are helping people develop with Jesus) all this time? I think the picture would be different. I don’t think the answer to our problems is to embrace the methods of attractional church. Perhaps the answer is to actually do what we claimed to have been doing all along?
What if instead of devoting our attentions and our energies to attracting more people we invested ourselves in providing people with more and better tools to become more fully formed followers of Jesus Christ who love God with all they have and are, and who love their neighbors as themselves? I wonder if in the end we won’t actually wind up attracting more people that way anyway? Isn’t the life of Jesus incarnated in the life of one of his disciples ultimately more attractive than the best program money can buy?
Some will argue that attracting people is important, because we’re reaching people for Jesus. No, we’re not. If we’re bringing people into churches more focused on growing bigger and attracting more than they are focused on helping people grow into the likeness of Jesus, then we aren’t reaching people for Jesus… we’re reaching people for us, for our own egos, to make ourselves feel good. In the end, we aren’t “saving” any souls, because we can’t save… only Jesus can. In a perverse way attractional churches are often more narcissistic than the most insulated, isolated, navel-centric congregations you can think of.
Others will say I am creating a false dichotomy; that we can focus our efforts on attracting people while at the same time focusing attention on helping people mature in their Christian faith. I will grant that these two are far from mutually exclusive agendas. But in the end there will be times when they find themselves in conflict with one another. If we set up the former as our ultimate goal, the latter will always be sacrificed when push comes to shove. Furthermore, there is no guarantee the former will lead to the latter (in fact, there is a great deal of information indicating it won’t… Willow Creek’s reveal study would top the list of witnesses for the prosecution). Yet I have a suspicion the same cannot be said for the inverse.
Should we care about those beyond our doors? Absolutely! We should care so much about them that we aren’t willing to settle for simply offering them baptized versions of what they’ll find elsewhere in the world. We should love them too much to think that any program, regardless of how exciting it may be, is the best we can offer them. The world beyond our doors deserves the best we have to offer, and the best we have to offer is not some gimmick. The best we have to offer them is Jesus, living in and through his disciples. Everything else is trinkets and baubles.
Some will argue that attracting people is important, because we’re reaching people for Jesus. No, we’re not. If we’re bringing people into churches more focused on growing bigger and attracting more than they are focused on helping people grow into the likeness of Jesus, then we aren’t reaching people for Jesus… we’re reaching people for us, for our own egos, to make ourselves feel good. In the end, we aren’t “saving” any souls, because we can’t save…on only Jesus Can.In a perverse way attractional churches are often more narcissistic than the most insulated, isolated, navel-centric congregations you can think of.
Others will say I am creating a false dichotomy; that we can focus our efforts on attracting people while at the same time focusing attention on helping people mature in their Christian faith. I will grant that these two are far from mutually exclusive agendas. But in the end there will be times when they find themselves in conflict with one another. If we set up the former as our ultimate goal, the latter will always be sacrificed when push comes to shove. Furthermore, there is no guarantee the former will lead to the latter (in fact, there is a great deal of information indicating it won’t… Willow Creek’s reveal study would top the list of witnesses for the prosecution). Yet I have a suspicion the same cannot be said for the inverse.
Should we care about those beyond our doors? Absolutely! We should care so much about them that we aren’t willing to settle for simply offering them baptized versions of what they’ll find elsewhere in the world. We should love them too much to think that any program, regardless of how exciting it may be, is the best we can offer them. The world beyond our doors deserves the best we have to offer, and the best we have to offer is not some gimmick. The best we have to offer them is Jesus, living in and through his disciples. Everything else is trinkets and baubles.
In the end, change is coming. It is inevitable. I think ultimately what denominations have to decide is what will drive that change. Will it be driven by a desire to attract more people, or will it be driven by a desire to do all we can to be the manifest presence of Jesus in the changing world we live in? I fear what we are hearing more and more is the former. I hope and pray, good Bishop, your voice is among the latter.
I agree completely. You couldn’t have said it better. Thank you for such a thoughtful response.
I don’t want to be part of a church that is simply trying to figure out what the “others” want and give it to them. I do want to be part of a church that is interested in making Christ real to all, whether “in” or “out.”
Thank you for your words Bishop, I would like to add an addendum to your article. I believe change will happen when we start concerning ourselves with the community the insiders are called to embody. Yes we should reach out to the outsiders and think of them, but if we fail to authentically live as a community that cares more about the others in it than our selves, what are we reaching out with.
You know a congregation is in trouble when insiders who share the vision for the Church, which you are affirming, Bishop Rinehart, are treated like outsiders by the rest of the congregation and ignored.
And what should be the response be of that part of the Church Universal who share the vision? We should be working and praying that such troubled congregations experience a renewal of the Holy Spirit that changes hearts and causes the members of the congregation to look outside themselves instead of inside!
You hit the ball waaay out of the park!! I have served Episcopal congregations for 31 years, and the times we grew were when we planned events and services specifically to attract new people- special services for kids, all-Beatles music Sundays, MLK day with gospel choir- these all filled the church up with visitors/new people. We stripped all of the “Episcopalese” out of our services so that new people had a fighting chance to understand our worship. Did they care about proper liturgy and correct theology? Not in the least. Outside people would rather have an “adventure in faith” than a pre-packaged religion manufactured by far-away experts. The Episcopal Church no longer needs uniformity in its liturgy- it needs caring loving Christ-people who welcome their neighbors.
I found this article to be rather interesting. See as an “outsider” I suppose, I recently investigated a Lutheran church. The hostess, was kind enough to inform me – before getting to know me that although the church changed it’s opinions about homosexual pastors, they didn’t and they didn’t really like women pastors either. Oh and not to forget to bring them my tax return so they could tell me how much money I had to give monthly. Needless to say, the Bishop knows what the problems are, but judging by your responses, I am not exactly sure all of you think that these things are keeping “outsiders” away. You don’t want us to be “insiders” if we don’t agree with the way you do things.
Thanks for starting the conversation Bishop. I agree with your premise but think we need an even more radical change than what you’ve proposed, http://bit.ly/solJTf.
I am sure the bishop means well but frankly this is nothing but the same sort of rhetoric that mainline leaders have been espousing for years. “Our focus needs to be on the outsiders…” Blah blah blah. No bishop, the focus first and foremost needs to be on Christ. While his points about the hurdles that “insiders” put up is true, I don’t think the solution he offers is that much better. And no I am not saying we should ignore the outsiders but if we are to be the church of Christ (which the bishop seems to think we should) then maybe we should start by asking whether we are focusing on, oh I don’t know, Christ. The fact that the bishop says that the only constant is change indicates to me that he has lost sight of what it means to be a Christ-centered church. Otherwise he might have said that the only constant is Christ in an uncertain world. The reality is mainline churches are losing members because these members realize that the mainline churches have simply resorted to trying to mimic the world. These members are leaving to churches that are more Christ-centered, biblically-grounded, confesssional and, dare I say it, conservative.
To focus on Christ, congregations will have to focus OUTSIDE the Church as well inside.
Jesus is there outside with those who are hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, and impriisoned. If we don’t find Him there, we won’t find him in our congregations.
While there is much to commend in this post, and the comments are many and I only had a moment to read them so forgive me if I am redundant. I struggle with a deeper issue that we have in the ELCA and other mainline congregations and that is those who are at least nominally already inside the church. If you took the numbers of individuals that are on church rolls in comparison to those who actually worship, right there you have enough work to do for generations. In part could it be that the reason that those who are “outsiders” don’t want any part of church is that we honestly don’t really take very good care of those who are already considered “in”?
We talk about change, change for the others sake, and yes many of your points are spot on, but I have also seen pastors who charge in full of ideas for change, often quite good ones, but those they are to lead, to walk with. to learn with and grow with are left in the dust because the focus is the change itself, so much that the support to do this type of work, crumbles at best, and at worst often explodes.
I don’t think this is a case of either or, it is a clear case of both and. I know it is more exciting to bring in change, to have fresh blood, but (at the risk of sounding overly pious) the blood of Christ was shed for all, old and new, in and out. To focus on one or the other only brings death, relevancy has nothing to do with it, its about relationships, and it is hard work, maybe we need to focus on the work of faith and less on the manner in which it finds its groove?
you are so right. Even in the Episcopal church. My spouse a clergy person is homeless now and me very close to it, a part starting a new carreer. The insiders won;’t look to to the outsiders because of mere uncomfortableness. They have no problem ruing clergy lives because they cant pay you. It will be a blue Christmas. Christians don’t want to be real Christians. Clarissa
Mike– I’d like to quote you for my next newsletter… can i, with your permission?
T Blair
Second Presbyterian, Baltimore
Dear, Mr Blair.
I don’t think you need his permission to quote something published. Just cite it correctly with the date you read it and you should be fine.
Peace,
Scott
(I’m coming at this from a musical angle, but I suspect this is just one facet among many.)
I recently wrote a report about the state of music in a particular local church (Church of England), where the minster was keen to change things, including giving a strong outward focus in general. But the established music was basically very inward focussed (traditional in style in this church) and anything modern was regarded as more fringe than central. The mindset was one of “let’s occasionally go to the fringe (modern for this church) but basically retreat to the centre (trad. for this church).” There was a profound mismatch between the objectives of the church and the implementation of its music.
My very starting-point in the report was to focus on the 167 hours per week that we spend outside church, and the music that we, and our day-to-day “secular” friends, listen to; and to suggest that there should at least be a common meeting-ground of that with our church music. That was by no means to suggest any sort of large-scale transition to “modern” music, but to highlight that our church’s music, as well as having one viewpoint of being “holy” and separate to the world, desperately needed also to be “incarnational” and engaged with the world. There can be a tension here, but that is a tension we are called to live with and explore, not to shirk.
In such terminology, it is easy to match “holy” to “traditional” and “worldly” to “modern”. But (as will become clear) we should be wary of that labelling trap.
We can look at modern megachurches with their modern music-styles and be tempted to ape their content and presentational styles. Yes, they attract people. But another, perhaps surprising, area of church growth (at least here in the UK) is in the traditional major cathedrals, whose musical styles are very, very different from the megachurch.
But might, actually, these two very different types of growing church share more in common in their music than is at first apparent? I suggest a possible area of musical commonality between them, from which we might learn. They both do their music, albeit in very different styles and ways, to a high standard of “performance”. (I’ll unpack that word shortly.) I suggest that in today’s world, whether we consciously think about it or not, that we are attracted by good performance and that we shy away from things done badly. To proclaim, share and live the gospel, I think we ought at least to acknowledge that aspect of our nature, and see whether we can learn from it.
So (from a musical perspective) I think our adaptation needs to recognise that whatever we do, in whatever style we do it, we need to do it well. And THAT is much of the problem in today’s music in many churches: we spend far too much time debating the “what” of our music (trad. vs. modern, etc.) but we shirk, duck and avoid the hard issue about how well our music leaders “perform” it. (That’s where both the trad. cathedrals and the modern megachurches seem to score well.)
Let me unpack my use of the word “performance”. I am a passionate believer in congregational singing: in getting congregations to sing, and to sing well: “performance” in the good sense. Part of that is that we, the music leaders, must play and sing the music (our “performance leading”, if you like) in such a way that it specifically enables the congregation to sing confidently. In the modern church-music scene that generally means refusing to use microphones (which dominate and drown the congregation) but rather giving a clear, not necessarily loud, sung lead. (The congregational singing in modern churches with amplified bands can be very poor!)
Returning to that particular church that I described earlier: the outward discussion of the music focussed on the content: trad vs. modern. But the heart of the problem was that its chosen style was being “performed” poorly, not focussed on developing congregational song. The tiny number of week-by-week music leaders were the remnants of a much earlier, larger choir; no-one had joined them for many years. Nor, sad to say, did anyone want to join them, despite the fact that there were several in the congregation who could potentially have helped shape the music and congregational song, given the chance.
Let me give a totally different, and completely non-musical, illustration of the same “performance” thing. Some thirty years ago here in the UK, a major movement, part secular, part church-led, developed to highlight awareness of the gross injustices of international trade and the exploitation of workers in third-world countries making goods for us in the West. In those early days of what we (at least here in the UK) now call “Fair Trade”, we were all young and keen and idealistic, and a good start was made. But, in reality, the quality of the goods was poor and the range limited. We, the insiders, were committed to the cause, but the unfamiliar quality of the goods made it hard to engage outsiders into the reality of the movement. Fortunately, this lack of quality (equivalent to poor “performance” of church music) and its implications were recognised, and the action was to continue the “fair trade” (which by definition included long-term commitments to suppliers) but radically increasing the quality (“performance”) of the goods. This became a win-win; the trade picked up, western consumers could engage with decent quality products and many more producers in the Third World could benefit from the long-term commitments and justices of Fair Trade; Fair Trade has now been established in every major supermarket for many years; the underlying movement had been largely led by outward-focussed churches.
Fair Trade is a “success story” of outward-focussed churches. Can we apply such ideas more widely to the life of faith that we, the community of Christ, are supposed to live in the world for an hour on Sunday and 167 hours during the rest of the week?
I agree that the quality of the music is more important than the style. Most congregations cannot compete with what folks are hearing from the professionals on their static-free iPods. (Some congregations can’t even manage a static-free sound system.) I’ve heard it argued that congregations might be better off with a part-time minister and a full-time music director.
However, the quality of music is only the first step; the second is that the people in the pew are willing to talk about it to the “outsiders”. I believe that the reason “contemporary” style services often grow is because the attenders are excited about it tell others about this “different” service. When folks get just as excited and vocal about an exceptional organist, I think that those services will also grow in attendance. I’ve been at a couple worship services where there was a standing ovation for the organist after the postlude.
Perhaps a change of language can aide this conversation.
Rather than simply drawing an insider/outsider dichotomy, maybe we can look at three unique images of the church: family, army, and business. Like a family, we are brothers and sister one to another, caring for the very least among us. Like an army we have a vital mission from God that commands our attention, proclaiming the good news of Jesus the Savior. And like a business, we are called to be good stewards/managers of the resources that God entrusted to us. No one image trumps the others; they need to work together. Congregations tend to emphasize one image over the others, but I am guessing God has empowered gifted people in each arena. As a pastor I need to be a juggler, keeping all three images moving and active.
Having served in a Lutheran mega-church in the 80′s and 90’s, one key factor in our growth was “we counted new members.” We devoted time, energy, staff, conversation to reaching new members. The entire church seemed to be excited about reaching out. And we always had a pipe organ.
I don’t know how much more Mainline churches can engage themselves in the Social Gospel and put “All Are Welcome,” “Fully Inclusive,” and “Open Doors, Open Hearts, Open Minds,” etc., on their signage before you will consider them compassionate enough toward outsiders.
My thoughts: Mainline churches will have to provide a VISION for the people to get excited about old-school denominations again. Right now (at least since the Modernist movement), Mainline churches are the lowest-common-denominator when it comes to doctrine — in other words, we don’t want to offend or look fanatical, so we water everything down. That’s not to say that Mainliners can’t find consensus with a majority of Americans whose beliefs in the Divine are in flux. The trick is how do you get people excited about compromise and tepid faith in an amorphous Judeo-Christian-flavored deity? The non-churched expect more.
The mission of the Church – and thus churches – is to preach Christ, and Him crucified, not to be relevant to the culture. The moment that a church takes its eyes off of Christ and His work and starts worrying about its appearance is the moment that it starts to die. Sure, megachurches are “relevant” – they have the latest music, lots of emotion, and they address all of the pertinent social issues. But they neglect to preach the Gospel, and the congregations are often going to church to their own damnation. What is worse is when a minister attempts to preach “relevant” sermons, and actually goes against God’s Word! Too many preachers embrace the world’s sexual, moral, and ethical fads when they should be warning their congregations against them.
I know it has been done in the past, but what do you think of encouraging outsiders, and by that, I mean complete outsiders, to your church and have these outsiders provide honest reviews about what the church service is like? I am familiar with Jim Henderson’s Off The Map group and his work with atheist Hemant Mehta, which involved Mehta providing through feedback to church leaders about what he like and didn’t like about their church.
A few thoughts:
Risk is necessary, but bringing up Steve Jobs is a bad example. The risk he took on treating his cancer probably shortened his life unnecessarily. Then again, Jobs could have been tired, knew he was going to die anyway, and decided that doing something that wouldn’t help wouldn’t hurt.
While an organism that doesn’t change is dead, we need to remember that there is nothing new under the Sun. Certain patterns and needs are not going to change, as people are still people. Whatever we are going through now has happened before.
This may make it sound like I am against change. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need to make sure we have something appropriate in place to make sure we are not substituting what we think the outside world wants for what the outside world wants. Sometimes we are surprised at what the outside world really wants.
In Seattle, Washington, the 9:30 pm compline service at St. Mark’s Cathedral has been going for around 50 years (http://www.complinechoir.org/). You don’t find a guitar, projection screen, or microphone in sight. You do find that the cathedral filled with teens and 20-somethings. It has been this way since the beginning.
These are the same teens and 20-somethings that are going to dance clubs on Friday and Saturday night.
Everything about that compline service is “wrong” when we read about what we need to do to attract new people. But, it does attract new people.
Maybe it could be because the people doing it are faithful to themselves, and not trying to fake it for the benefit of others?
Again, do not think that I think that there is only one way to do things. Praise choirs can work. That said, here is my humble list of a few things what would help:
1. A renewed and active diaconate (as understood by the historic church, as an order of ministry). A deacon is supposed to take the church to the world and to take the world to the church. We need called and ordained deacons that are free to tell us what they see.
2. Don’t turn liturgy into therapy. Yes, sometimes good liturgy can be therapeutic, but that is a side benefit, not the main benefit. If group therapy is needed, then say and do so. The reason to go to therapy and liturgy are different.
3. There is nothing wrong with buildings, unless the building is the center of your church life. Good things can happen in buildings. However, our buildings the public must feel invited and welcomed in our buildings, and we need to leave the buildings to serve the public.
Great article, ten years too late. A lot of people have been saying these things for a long time, and they’ve been systematically brushed aside, marginalized and run out of the ELCA. I applaud Bishop Rinehart for saying these things, but this is nothing new or earth-shattering. In fact, it’s just a little sad. Too many pastors who believed these things have already been abused to the point of leaving ministry altogether; too many lay people who wanted their church to be this way have already given up and left. Why didn’t the ELCA Conference of Bishops get together ten years ago and make a commitment that every bishop in the ELCA would preach this message in every congregation in their synods within two years? Back then it might have changed something. Now, my fear for the ELCA is that it is too little, too late.
I agree that as a church to “embrace relevance, we will have to let go of survival.” It seems to me I’ve read somewhere that those who seek to save their lives will lose it and those who lose their lives for the sake of Christ and the Gospel will save it.
I do, however, take some issue with the focus of your article and many of the responses. It is not primarily about style or focusing on insiders or outsiders. It is not primarily about systems or Tradition or a rapidly changing culture. It is not primarily about outreach or being relevant.
It is about the proclamation of the Gospel. If we are being faithful in that, then congregational leaders won’t have to worry about losing their jobs because of spending too much time on folks outside the congregation, because that is the place their members will be ministering anyway! If we are faithful in proclaiming the Gospel, then the Holy Spirit will move and lives will be transformed whether that proclamation comes in organ led worship or one with a band.
I believe we have lost sight of this over the years.
I have grown up in the Lutheran church and have served as an AiM for 14 years in all kinds of parishes. I saw, to one degree or another, the same kinds of struggles in each, and I wonder… If our peculiar Lutheran understanding of the Gospel is correct. If I cannot, by my own understanding or strength, believe in Jesus Christ my Lord of come to him. If it is indeed the Holy Spirit who calls and enlightens me and the promise is that Spirit is present when the Gospel is proclaimed. If that is all true and we have been doing that, then should not the transformed lives be apparent? If those transformed lives are not to be seen, then either we’re wasting our time and there is no god… or maybe we haven’t been proclaiming the Gospel.
Yes, we need to proclaim in a way that can be heard and understood. Yes, that proclamation will include the Law which will cause some people discomfort and distress (it’s supposed to!). Yes, we need to change with the world around us. But the main thing is the proclamation of the Gospel, through word and deed. In many ways I don’t think it matters how we do that. It just matters that we do that.
It’s wonderful to see that there are some within the “mainline” church who are taking their heads out of the sand and at least trying to figure out what is the issue. It is commendable that you are clearly trying to understand the problem. Unfortunately, it seems to me that there is a fallacy in your theory especially regarding your questions of “What does this mean?” and “Why is this happening?”
First, it seems to me that the why has more to do with the inception of the mainline church. Ask yourself who put together the Nicene Conference and I believe, if you are truly honest with yourself, you will acknowledge that at that time, there was a plethora of sects practicing “Christianity” and few of them agreed with one another on what that was. The “Orthodoxy” was invited to confer with Constantine, a pagan Roman Emperor who had an agenda. Since the Orthodoxy had adopted the Hellenists’ religious model of an elite priesthood which provided an organizational structure that Constantine could relate to and use in his own quest for power, it is only logical that the Orthodoxy would be chosen and promoted by Constantine at the expense of all other sects which were eventually driven underground and over time, eliminated. The evidence is there in the “Dead Sea Scrolls” and the Gnostic Books etc. The mainline churches are structured to control rather than to promote the spiritual awakening which Jesus preached. There is plenty of historical evidence that it was not the Romans who considered Jesus a threat but rather the Sanhedrin and the Sagacies because Jesus was such a free thinker and was impacting their livelihood and giving rise to general questioning of their authority and relevance.
It would seem that the what is that people are tired of the same old idea that they are not worthy and are sinners and are going to burn in hell for eternity that the mainline church has preached for centuries and are hungry for the truth that Jesus taught and has been misinterpreted for far too long because of the mainline church’s need to control and maintain it’s power. It really is a house of cards and is about ready to fall.
Some starter ideas: Beer cans with bible verses at the bottom? Beer bottles with bible verses hidden inside? Perhaps we can have drive through churches for those on the go? Drive through get a extra spiritual meal #4 with a devotional, prayer, and blessing. You could supersize that to include the sacrament. Or, to really win the crowd, have male and female strippers paint bible verses on their bodies while leading worship, that could really draw the crowds of unchurched….the possiblities are endless if we can free ourselves from the archaic and outdated things like liturgies, creeds, and…doctrine. Get more ADHD driven worship and eliminate theological language…imagine what we would have….church that wouldn’t even feel like church anymore.
The way I look at it is that we are to worship God with praise and thanksgiving, with gratitude and acceptance of the great outpouring of love manifest in Jesus the Christ. As the Body of Christ, we are to be about Christ’s work in the world, reflecting that great outpouring of love.
I am a Disciples of Christ and belong to a progressive, warm and hospitable congregation. We strive to reach out to the community in which we sit, as well as the greater community of our State, Nation, and indeed, the World, with our hearts, souls, and bodies.
The problem is that we “reside” in a New England Congregationalist style building, built in 1950. Maintaining this facility is draining our budget. I would love to see us raize the building, construct something much simpler and more user-friendly, and then with the savings in our budget get even busier being Christ in the world.
Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening because of the power-holder contingent that is fearful of such drastic change. I am saddened by that attitude because it will most likely kill a very significant congregation in an area where Christ’s love and hospitality is so badly needed.
I am hopeful hearing such voices for change, however! Thank you!
Good thoughts, but there’s an underlying assumption that may or may not be true. I’m not sure that a numerically declining church is failing, or that a numerically increasing church is succeeding. How many people come, are served, or become members is still placing success in parochial reports. Rather, how is God’s kingdom revealed in our neighborhoods? How is Christ’s forgiveness made real to the people living around us? In what capacities are mercy shown?
Bishop, you are right in calling the church to live for those outside our membership, but the measure of success cannot be whether they join us or not–rather, whether we, with Jesus, join them.
You are only half right and that is why the mainline church is not turning around. They get the social part, but forget about the gospel. Let’s love everyone, but not tell them why. That’s why the mainline church will struggle until it understands and lives out… Seek first the kingdom of “God” then all these things shall be added unto you.
As long as we think “church” we are going the wrong way. “You are the salt of the earth.” A little salt is good; a lot of salt is toxic. Every time Jesus became popular he got discouraging of the masses who seemed to want to follow him. I think Jesus never intended a church or a popular movement, especially a movement so culture drunk.
And when you’ve been ordered by the Deacons/Elders/Consistory/Wardens not to preach about change anymore because the people think you’re scolding them? It’s time to move on, this is a church that has decided to die.
I believe the whole premise is wrong. If the bishop wants to save his and other mainline churches by persuading outsiders to come IN, even as Bjorn suggested, to give their critique, he’s missing the point, which is for the churches to be going OUT. The goal is to make Christians, not church members, or does everyone take that for granted? Remember the days when Paul Jonggi Cho led a church in Seoul that had hundreds of people gathering to pray EVERY DAY, IN THE MORNING, BEFORE GOING TO WORK? There is a Church Planting Movement based on making disciples and letting them form their own churches in their own cultural setting. There are disciples in the mainline churches who are ministering to the marginalized, but to expect them to re-grow the mainline churches is wishful thinking.
I am an ex-Lutheran atheist, so I guess that makes me somewhat qualified to speak on this topic. I found this article through a FB post of my bro-in-law who is a Methodist minister.
First, I do agree with Pete Steinke that churches are an emotional system. I would go so far as to say that almost all religion is based on emotional hooks, with little or no factual basis. But, then again, I’m an atheist, so I understand if you disagree. As an atheist, I also consider most religions to be on the cafeteria plan. They tend to pick and choose the tenets they follow based on changes in society, though generally lag a decade to a Millennium depending on the issue. Don’t get me wrong. I’m very glad that most religions these days don’t support slavery, animal sacrifice, or treating women and children as lesser beings. I do wish they would keep more up to date.
That said, I do agree with the Bishop that churches need to change to attract new customers. The Mormon church has done so successfully and are enjoying a resurgence. When bigamy was looked down on, they adopted monogamy exclusively. When the black revolt of the sixties came, they changed their doctrine concerning the status of blacks. And they’ve managed to soften other aspects of their tenets to make themselves look more normal. Of course, they also have a huge investment in recruiting new members.
From studies I’ve seen, Lutherans aren’t the only ones lagging in membership. This seems to be pretty much across the board. Catholicism is on the rise in the US only because of Hispanic migration. In Europe, membership is falling. Though, the numbers are sketchy because, like most religions, they more freely add people to their doles than remove them. I was actually baptized a Catholic, so I’m probably counted as a Catholic by them and a Lutheran by my old synod. Since my wife is from Iran, I’m probably also counted as a Muslim. But statistics are showing a greater percentage of empty pews, no matter what the stated membership is.
The need for change isn’t the only consideration. Guitars in church aren’t new. We had them when I was church-going, which was decades ago. But keep up the change. I consider the musical choice cosmetic, but there are other changes happening in churches that bring them closer to humanistic ideals. That is a good thing. I think the main reason that churches have been so good at staying stagnant and still keeping the membership is that they really had little scrutiny. Religions have operated under the presumption of goodness. Critique of religious tenets was not only considered rude and offensive, in some places and times it was worthy of the death penalty. That shell of sanctity has pretty much shattered, though you’ll see many adherents still riling whenever any slight is aimed their way. Bill Donohue comes to mind for the Catholic church. He’s a one-man army against anything that doesn’t hold Catholics in the highest regard. Unfortunately for him, the stories of pedophilia and baby stealing have irrevocably tarnished the Catholic reputation. Well, the Inquisition and the Dark Ages did, too, so maybe I shouldn’t say “irrevocably”. Society does have a short memory. On the Protestant side, there is a side-show of religious extremists ranging from Bachmann to the Westboro Baptist Church that are just begging for public religious critique. This, I think, has hurt religion even more than books written by the “New Atheists”.
So, when deciding how to revise your song list and musical instrument collection, remember how outsiders view the church at this time. There are very real reasons why people are keeping a distance. The main thing that needs to change in religion is its attitude. The idea that “The world is hell-bent on destruction in countless ways. It is desperately in need of a church that offers a Way of peace, truth, compassion and hope, as opposed to the world’s way of power, materialism, exploitation and violence.” implies that those who aren’t members are evil people. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the church is not the sole source for peace, truth, compassion and hope. It has to recognize that there are many ways to that goal. I agree that there is an unbalance of power, to much value placed on possessions, exploitation of the weak, and way too much violence. However, much of it comes from religious people. In fact, I would say that a person’s religious beliefs are a poor predictor of their morality. I’ve seen good and bad Christians and good and bad atheists. Nazis were mostly Lutheran. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, both atheists, are giving half their wealth to charity. And there plenty of counter examples. In short, we have to find common ground to address common issues. This requires a baseline standard for dialog that doesn’t rely too much on “God said so”, which is a fine pat answer for insiders, but doesn’t cut it outside the church walls.
Hope that helps some and gives some outside insight.
The last sentence pretty much says it all.
Bishop Rinehart,
Thank-you for your meaningful thoughts on this topic. I’d like to bring forth that the true Gospel is never irrelevant. I believe the Body’s focus need not be on superficial exterior relevance, but on preaching the word — the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit to any who will hear.
God Bless You,
Greta
My husband and I have served in many congregations over the years as Youth Pastors. And several of those congregations have let us go because we spent more time reaching out to those “outside” of the church, mentoring the youth from inside to reach the “outsiders” and we ourselves lived outside the box of church…..you have hit the nail on the head and I pray that everyone that reads this message will support and encourage their church to live outside the box to reach those outside the walls of their church!
I live in WI where we have 5 bishops and 5 synods. My synod is dealing with shrinking resources, and so what monies they have go to fund the office and their staff, and less and less go towards ministries (such as Lutheran Campus Ministry in Madison, WI). Congregations are not the only ones who need to live by this message, but the institutional agencies need to as well. I wonder if we need to consolidate those 5 synods down to 1, 2 or 3 and then use those resources for ministry to people in need. But which synod will volunteer to go first? It isn’t so easy in the particular.
Through a relationship that I have been blessed with, I have been introduced to Athletes In Action, which is a ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ. As a Lutheran pastor, I would have ignored what they were doing because I don’t agree with their theology. However, through this relationship with a woman I now affectionately call “my daughter”, I’ve been forced to listen, watch and withhold judgement because of my love and respect for this young woman. She is an example of someone outside the church who faced techtonic changes and events in her college life, where a Christian reached out to her and ministered to her. AIA and CCC are on to something, although I could never truthfully ascribe to some of their theology (like creation in 7 days, only men can be pastors, etc). AIA and CCC has such a poignant way of empowering Christians to reach out to the people around them with the gift of Christ. Their organization is lithe, flexible. They see themselves as unfolding a movement of Christ in the world. They also have numerous people who willingly offer themselves up as “missionaries” to do ministry on college campuses—and these missionaries must fund themselves!!!
One of my favorite quotes reminds us that Christians are not curators– those who protect objects from the past. If something is cared for by a curator chances are its value lies in its historical significance not in its relevance to today’s world.
Thank you. This is as clearly stated as can be. Let me just push you a little further. Decisions made within the church with those outside the church in mind still suggest that “church” is mostly about worship, fellowship, and the internal system of intra-congregational power and well being. Are you willing to say that every decision needs to be made with those who will never be “in” the church but who are part of God’s creation in mind? Whatever we do in worship and when we gather “as church” needs to be done with the motive of sending Christians out into the world to live as servants and witnesses. I think your post is implying that, so I’m just inviting you to a Part-II post. As for dying on this hill, Michael, you already died and were raised. Thanks for expressing baptismal fiestiness. Blessed Advent.
To point out that what the bishop is saying isn’t new, on August 13, the 2003 Churchwide Assembly adopted “Sharing Faith in a New Century: A Vision for Evangelism in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.” Documents and helps on that initiative are available through the ELCA website. Most of this evangelical emphasis was overlooked because homosexual issues took center stage. Perhaps now we can revisit that topic with the same fervor that many had in regards to homosexual relationships.
The question of “how” congregations are to make the shift from fearful nesting to a vibrant outward focus remins unanswered. My own bias is that congregations, especially mainline, need to recover a contemplative spirituality. The required interior liberation from our fearfulness is something we cannot accomplish. Only via a contemplative interior consent to the transformative activity of the living Christ is this possible. See Merton/Nouwen/Keating
I speak out of the the Weslehyan tradition. The passion that drove John and Charles Wesley and the most eloquent preacher of the early movement, George Whitefield, in England during the Eighteenth Century and that drove the circuit-riders that crossed the frontiers on the American continent on their horses was singular: They wanted to save souls. Every aspect of society and theology has changed since then. The Church’s theological task is unsettled and unsettling, but fundamental to focusing its mission. Honing a world-view and consequent vocabulary that makes sense to those for whom common theological language is unfamiliar is a basic task. Berating the Church for not doing this or that is simple. Creating an energy and model for addressing the world that exists nowadays is hard.
Pingback: Our purpose « Colin Cameron
I have to say, when I go to a church, I’m not fond of the word “relevant”. I’d rather find a church that is focused on the Gospel, gathered around the sacraments weekly, doing works of justice and mercy in daily life, and intentional about welcoming others. I suspect those churches do just fine even when their worship style is ancient.
Relevant would mean having meaning for us right where we are- nothing to do with ancient or modern or postmodern worship. We do live in this world and should not turn our backs on it to worship (except for the in this world but not of it part). My fairly liturgically formal church uses the Book of Common Prayer and orders of worship that go back to ancient roman rites –they speak to us where we are. My point was that the emphasis seems misplaced if it is on defending the old and failing to find ways to offer what is of ultimate worth to the world.
The thing is, becoming part of any community involves learning how that community does things, it takes some buy-in, it has a learning curve. I think there is value in conserving the tradition of the church– it deserves respect and defense, *as long as* the Gospel is preached, the sacraments are administered, justice & peace is lived out in the world, and a hearty welcome is extended to all, including new people. But that does not mean that the ones who are welcomed will have no challenges in becoming part of the community. Living with other people is always challenging.
I do not think there should necessarily be a seamless-ness between church and society. I do not think “relevant” should be the defining characteristic of the Church. When we are focused on Christ and his Gospel, we necessarily DO care for others, welcome new people, do works of justice, and so on. But we focus first upon Christ and his Gospel, and upon loving God and loving the neighbor. That is our Christian vocation. That is the radical thing about us, which makes people want to join.
Thank you.
We are called to be faithful, not successful.
I experience the truth of your words in our 2011 U.S. culture, particularly in my small town in the Midwest.
For insiders, comfort with what is ensures that there are only 2 answers to every question: No, because we’ve never done it that way. And, No, because we’ve always done it that way.
I’ll never forget last summer as good church members gathered in committee upstairs, bemoaning the few people left in the pews built by immigrant Swedes, downstairs in the fellowship hall 200 frightened Latinos gathered to talk about the small town’s new immigration law that had consequences for all who appeared to be Latino.
“There came a time when the risk to remain tight in the bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.”. Anais Nin
I agree with most of what you say. In a clergy meeting the other day one of the pastors stated that he did not allow any music copyrighted before 2000. My first thought was, I guess he only wants people 21 and younger. That leaves out a lot of people.
Back in 1968 I was on my way to advanced flight school and then to Vietnam. I remember stopping at an old Lutheran Church that had a graveyard on the west side. (I still have a picture of the church.) Even though it seemed very old it was a life changing event for me. It provided peace, comfort and a moment with God to clear my thoughts and prepare for what lay ahead. And I was not a fan of old slow songs.
What we sing in church today is a very difficult task to complete. Should it be CW, Jazz, Blues, Rock, Rap, New Age, Classical, or, or, or, or what! Some of the “old stuff” is filled with emotion, some of the new stuff beets a different kind of emotion. Sometimes what the outsiders need is not a new kind of music, they need someone to sit with them and be quiet.
I like the movie “Drum Line” for several reasons, but the best is the line something like, “some of the old and some of the new … honoring our past with our present.” We are not going to throw out our scriptures but we interpret them in today’s world. We should not throw out our music, we need to update it. One of my favorites is the updated version of “Come, Ye Sinners, Poor and Needy” like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEpDFA7LAy8
The Gospel is always relevant and, like you say, it is for those outside the church and for those inside the church. Sometimes, I think the ones inside need it more.
What Bishop Rinehart writes is a need if the mainline churches are to effectively minister and survive and not die on the vine. A few years ago I read some statistics comparing two religious groups with which I have been personally associated. These are the Disciples of Christ and the Baptist Bible Fellowship. Back in the 1960′s the DOC was approximately 1,000,000 in membership while the Baptist Bible Fellowship which began in about 1950 was around 500,000. When this article was written a few years ago the statistics were reversed: The Disciples of Christ had decreased to around 600,000 while the Baptist Bible Fellowship had increased to around 1,000,000. What a change and the question is…. WHY? In my opinion, having personal experience in both groups, here is the difference which created this drastic change.
1. First lets deal with the Disciples of Christ. From 1967 they became more organized in their political structure from the national on down to the regional and local church level. This change had been coming about for a number of years and culminated in the regional level having a great amount of influence and power over the local church, especially in areas such as pastoral change. The DOC seminaries became more liberal in their teaching which influenced the local churches in the area of Biblical teaching/truth. This subtle change slowly but effectively influenced the local Churches over the years and liberalism increased. The Churches did exactly as Bishop Rinehart stated, they protected status quo as did the denominational structure from a regional and national level. However, the primary killer was the liberal status which denied the Biblical heritage from which the DOC had its beginning as taught by Barton Stone and Alexander & Thomas Campbell. Form and function no longer met the needs of the people while the Biblical area decreased at the same time. The Great Commission as stated in Matthew 28:19,20 was being served based on a warped viewpoint of what it should entail. This was the final straw which brought about the decrease of the Disciples of Christ between the 1960′s and today.
2. In the Baptist Bible Fellowship the opposite was true in comparison to the Disciples of Christ. Where the DOC held to liberal viewpoints of the Bible the BBF clung to conservative theology and practiced a Biblical viewpoint of the Great Commission based on Matthew 28:19, 20. Consequently what they did was center their ministry around the Great Commission. Yes, they became “other” centered as Bishop Rinehart suggests but the key was the focus on mission not method. For this reason alone the Baptist Bible Fellowship grew and new Churches were started throughout our nation. This trend continues today in the BBF.
SUMMARY:
One can dispute the summary of this writer but what can not be disputed is the fact that the Disciples of Christ have decreased in numbers (and are continuing to do so) while the Baptist Bible Fellowship Churches have increased in numbers (and are continuing to do so). In examining the reasons it also can not be disputed that the DOC and its Churches are liberal in their theology while the BBF is conservative in their theology. One holds to a liberal view (the DOC) of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19,20) while the other practices a Biblical conservative viewpoint (the BBF) of the same Great Commission.
If a Church group becomes “Other” centered and stays liberal in their theology they will still die eventually, it will just be a slower death. However, if a Church is “Other” centered and is not liberal in their theology they will grow. God will bless because the mission the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19,20 has been followed from a Biblical standpoint!
Ted H Welch Sr., Pastor
Filllmore Christian Church
THD, Baptist Bible College
Springfield, Missouri
Yes, we need to focus on the outsider. Yes, we need to be in mission to the world. My concern is that we so often define that as “What’s currently popular in society.” And that is hugely problematic. I believe that the church needs to be other than popular society, for at least two reasons: first, because the values that make it “popular” are precisely the ones that lead away from Christ-like love of God and neighbor, and second, because the church almost never does “popular” as well as the world, and when we do, it’s usually because we have sold out. So, then, the challenge becomes, what is the third option: not church insider focus, not popular wannabe? How do we communicate with the outsider?
I agree. And I add that we also need to keep growing those inside. The outsider who decides to stay and the people who have been inside for many years as a seed unsprouted, need to be watered so that we can sprout. For the ideal to occur, the church reaching out to those who aren’t part of some Godly group, the disciples inside need to understand that sharing does not decrease oneself but actually grows our own faith.
Amen. Paul Harvey said: “We are no longer fishers of men but only keepers of the aquarium.”
It’s interesting that the churches that are growing by leaps and bounds are very conservative churches. They certainly do not “adjust” to the modern world just to appeal to new members, yet they draw in many members. Maybe what people crave is strong moral guidance and strict spiritual leadership regardless of what is popular in the modern world. We should change but not in a response to what is popular and not just to bring in members. We need to look at our beliefs and stay true to the original church as set forth by St Peter. Have we drifted? Another Reformation?
I’m just glad I’m not an “insider” in this person’s church. I don’t sense much love for them. Although I do wonder what kind of people in the communities of his experience have led to this attitude. My experiences have been quite different. Lovely, committed, and eager to serve God people equally deserving of God’s love and grace from all of us, and they have been very mindful of others – in and outside alike.
The writer’s proposition creates a paradox: If we treat outsiders as we do insiders, do we treat outsiders with the same prejudice and disdain as the insiders railed about in this writer’s article? Then what do we do when the outsiders decide to become insiders – lump them as evil too? Sounds like good reason to return or remain on the outside to me.
About songs to sing: Any community that sings has to sing songs that someone has taught them. Everyone in attendance of any event where participatory singing is to be done has to place their personal subjective favorites list on the shelf in favor of a meaningful communal list. As a result, communities develop their own memory bank based on their collective experiences and inputs. …But then they’ve become “insiders”. Rats. So we basically can’t sing since “insider’s songs” are exclusive, and “outsiders” don’t know songs. This explains why the church seems to want to give up the idea of singing in favor of entertainment. Or we could just be wise about teaching songs that are worthwhile, high quality and NOT in any one taste pallet which shows preference over another. We can do a better job with the songs (hymns) time has gifted us with. I won’t believe that it’s about style (and have learned that the hard way). It’s about enthusiasm of the invitee to song, and the recipients willingness to enter in by singing. (but be careful: don’t become an ‘insider’!)
My hope is that as church we will discard the notion of “in” or “out-siders” – as it makes no difference to God. We are all pilgrims in various places in the faith journey. We all serve and are mindful of others in a variety of ways – including any decisions we make. Why create another point of prejudicial exclusion?
May God be glorified for your thoughts
Bp. Mike —
I’m responding to your blog after also having read Clint Schnekloth’s piece where he advocates thinking about the church as a “centered set,” not a “vacant set.” Part of his point is that insiders can’t stop being insiders even if they’re convicted (as I am) that “insiders trump outsiders every time.” I think the main question is this: “for whose sake does the church operate?” It’s clear that, most of the time, the church (in all its expressions) serves itself. It’s also clear that some of that is necessary — we need to be nourished by the means of grace in order to have anything to give anyone else. But all too often we stop (I stop) at the point of getting what we need and forget that God serves us in Word and at Table so that we are equipped to go and do likewise. When we do remember that the “Sending” is still part of the Mass, and act on that, we “go in peace” as insiders for the sake of the outsiders.
Some of those outsiders may just become insiders. There’s a risk to current insiders in that, because the outsiders-become-insiders will change what it means to be an insider. My hunch is that this is one of the primary fears that perpetuates “insiders trump outsiders every time.” But if we can embrace what the outsiders-become-insiders bring to the table (or is it the Table?), there is blessing in it for everyone.
Thanks for your provocative post. You’ve got the whole church thinking!
I am commenting today because I went from “insider” status to “outsider” status in my former church.
Yes, I am a former Lutheran. Born and Bred! I was on every committee at one time or another in those churches. I was a real “insider” but felt something missing. I found what was missing when I was introduced to in-depth Bible study at a neighbors church. The missing link. These studies had practical life applications which allowed me to see God’s hand in my day to day struggles, joys and routines. I wondered why I had never been exposed to this in my church? I felt like an outsider after that…inside my own church. If it didn’t say Augsburg Printing company on it, we weren’t really supposed to trust it…..
Today the “Outsiders” are mostly unlike me. Most have never stepped foot inside a church. Yet they show up. Do they feel accepted? They are hurting and need a relevant church to give them hope to get through their week, their crises, their hurts, their fears, their sorrows. They show up in our churches and are watching us. They want to hear and see how God’s gift of salvation has impacted your life. If insiders cannot be vulnerable and “real” with outsiders….they won’t be back. Outsiders need to know that you hurt just like they do, that you make poor decisions just like they do. That Christ’s love and grace are real and meant for them.
When outsiders can trust you, then they may be open to trust God and look deeper into what this Christian thing is all about.
I now worship in a Denominational church whose mission is: to BUILD a loving community that follows Christ in order to REACH the community that is all around us, both locally and globally.
-The pastors and staff make all decisions based on this mission statement. If it doesn’t fit the “build” or “reach” framework, it isn’t done.
-The “teaching team” (pastors) prayerfully consider and discuss with the whole staff what the message series will be….a theme that goes on for several weeks with applications to utilize and think about in our regular outside lives. Retreats and prayers are held by staff to take time away with God and listen to what He is leading them to.
-The teaching team intentionally avoids political hot topics. History has shown that those sitting in the pews (“venues” as we call them) are representing countless viewpoints. Speaking on “hot topics” from a position of “power” (the “platform” or pulpit) would be divisive and take the outsiders and insiders eyes off of Christ, the center point of the reason we are there in the first place. Christ’s message of truth and hope is what they come to hear not a church bodies political viewpoint.
-The staff intentionally choose language that is neutral in order not to confuse/turn off the 60% in the pews (venues) who are there “kicking the tires of Christianity”.
An outsiders ears tune out when churchy words are used, and so they say “message” instead of “sermon” etc….
-The downtown worship venue rents space in a bar/theatre in order to be easily accessible to the people in that community. A “venue” that is neutral and not at all “churchy” for those outsiders who would never step foot inside a church building.
-Each year the church shuts down completely on a Sunday, and we “do worship” in service projects all over the city.
-Through these projects the mayor of our city publicly stated that “one line item of his budget was removed because of the service of these people ” (the cost of cleanup after an annual college block party and the painting of several schools in the cities public school system).
-What if every church in our town could erase a line item from our cities budget?
-Also, there is no collection during worship. There are boxes on the back walls where monies can be deposited. This church does not want to guilt anyone (insiders or outsiders) into giving when the offering plate is passed. God desires a cheerful giver, and we respond privately in our giving. Guess what? A balanced budget each year!
-Communion? Is offered to all who place their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. And it is gluten free bread, and grape juice (which my recovered alcoholic husband appreciates). In our travels, my husband has had to only take the bread at certain Lutheran churches because only wine was offered for Communion.
-Our church has a Care Team (staff and trained volunteers) present at all times, on call for people (24/7) with any need or concern. This is printed in the bulletin and is promised to be confidential care.
-And the church does not want more members. The majority of attendees call the church their home, but aren’t pushed into becoming a member. The only benefit to membership is the ability to vote….if you become a member, you will not be asked to fill out a “tithing sheet” or hounded to join a committee. This church wants members who desire to grow in their faith. Again, back to the mission statement: toBUILD a loving community that follows Christ in order to reach the community that is all around us, both locally and globally.
-This church encourages attendees (no need to be a member here) to join “life groups” where the message of the week can be discussed and applied to our daily grinds of work, home life.
I could go on and on, but all to say that I am blessed to be connected to a church body whose purposes revolve around sharing Christ’s message of salvation to our outside community. I am supported and encouraged to study God’s Word and given opportunities to do so inside the body of Christ followers. I have grown in my relationship with God through this process and am excited to reach out to the hurting world around me to serve those in need. I no longer feel like an outsider inside my church.
I’m a dissillusioned soon-to-be-former insider. I too have found a Bible based, Spirit filled church where my prayers are more important than my volunteer time.
I’m keeping the list of your church’s activities – AWESOME! I epecially like this one:
-Each year the church shuts down completely on a Sunday, and we “do worship” in service projects all over the city.
And yet I bet that even that one would be little more than rhetoric if it was out of context of your church’s mission statement and willingness to pray about things before simply adding another program.
For me, the key sentence is the following: “The turnaround of the mainline churches will happen when we in those churches care as much about those outside the church, as we do those inside.” We can’t afford to pit insiders and outsiders over against each other. This is binary, fallacious thinking. You’d be hard-pressed to find anybody on the faculty of our seminary who’s more concerned about “outsiders” and about social justice in society than I am! However, that doesn’t displace–and shouldn’t be pitted over against–my abiding and deep concern for persons already inside any given congregation. I’m a trainer in the Stephen Ministry program; it’s designed to train laypersons in Christian caregiving to persons in and around the congregation. Our congregation invested in this because the charter members were aging and getting frail, and the pastor alone couldn’t do all the caregiving that was needed. The decision to invest in Stephen Ministry was to addess the needs of “insiders”–as well as outsiders who might eventually join. I’ve taught in seminary for three full decades, and studied in-depth the history of my field for the last century. What has happened time and time again is the proverbial swing of the pendulum. For once, let’s avoid that mistake!!! Let’s promote holistic “third way” thinking and theology that synthesizes the two sides that seem to be polar opposites, but really are not!! We need to show how the wellbeing and flourishing of people already inside the church is deeply tied to and interrelated with the wellbeing and chances for flourishing of people outside the church. If you tell congregants that decisions are going to be made on the basis of OUTSIDERS and not insiders as well, you’ll lose them from the outset—and rightly so, because posing such a binary is silly in the first place. The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that feminist writers are way out in advance in overcoming these false oppositions. Read their stuff!!
Amen! we have two choices… to go on faith or go on fear. Apply that to the attitude of caring for ourselves and others, fear comes into play more often.
Your posting was listed on a what’s hot tab in wordpress so here I am after reading your posting. I feel after reading your writing that you wish to embrace change and engage those outside as well as within the church. Let me preface my question with a little about myself I am a 52yr old heterosexual male who has read quite a few books on theology. Today I read that 25% of Americans are gay so by embracing change do you accept gays to your church? If a gay couple wishes to marry would that be acceptable or verboten? It’s quite alright if you don’t allow this post to get through but I was just wondering what your feelings truly were on the subject. I realize it’s quite controversial to many however to me I say, live and let live. I only wonder if some churches in America are adapting to the reality that their are gay people who are in fact worshipers of God who would like nothing more than to be accepted by a church they could proudly call home. What might be your thoughts on this?
As a member of a congregation within the TX-LA Gulf Coast Synod, Bishop Rinehart’s synod, I can speak from my congregation’s experience. Since 1996, my congregation has been a Reconciling in Christ congregation, a program through Lutherans Concerned/North America, and we state that we believe that God has called us to love everyone, regardless of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity and expression. Over a decade ago, a gay couple in our congregation married and in 2005, we formally adopted a policy that our wedding guidelines would apply to weddings involving all gender combinations. These policies are especially appropriate given our location within an area of Houston with a high percentage of GLBT persons. I think Bishop Rinehart supports any congregation that ministers to and is inclusive of all those in its community.
I was with you 100% right up to the last line of your excellent article when you wrote…..we will be the church for which God incarnate came to this earth and gave his life. The things jumped off the page at me. Jesus was not God incarnate any more than we all are. Jesus came to this this earth the same way we all got here. And Jesus did not give his life, it was taken from him by the Romans and the Religious leaders of his day who didn’t like his message. Yes the church needs to care about the outsiders, and many of us are outside because we can no long remain inside because of the Christian dogma that says God incarnate, Jesus came, and Jesus gave. We want a church that concentrates on Jesus’ message not his divinity or his being sent to save us.
Dear Jim,
If you start taking parts of Scripture out as unworthy ot not relevent, then you might as well join one of the other non-Christians sects wandering around the world. Scripture tells us truth and the truth is that Jesus was incarnate, the very Son of God who was one with God the Father. Take that away and you have nothing which means that I must now pray for your soul!
Rev. Miller, I appreciate your prayers, but would much prefer for you to get some up-to-date religious scholarship about the Bible. Many books are out there that will help you to understand the context in which it was written, and will help you understand, as thery have for me, that it is not the Word of God. In fact God doesn’t write books, nor cause “His” words to be written for “Him” by others. The Old Testament is merely the mostly mytholigical history of the Jewish people. The New Testment is best understood as man’s attempt to describe the life and meaning of the man Jesus who brought the message of a loving God to the people of those times. And it is the teachings of Jesus that we need to know, understand and follow if we can. Not because he was God’s son, but because he was right about how best to live our lives in relation to others, all others. Let me finish by saying that you cannot know anything about the Bible by reading only the Bible.
Thank you, Bishop, for your thoughtful essay. I appreciate and agree with your perspective and offer an unfortunate, yet real tension.
In a congregational polity (I am UCC) not only is the Pastor tied to the purse-strings of the congregation, but her/his continued ministry is also at the mercy of the congregation. The unfortunate reality is that the Pastor may spend significant energy navigating how challenging he/she can be. If a congregation becomes too upset with “change,” then they vote to fire the Pastor. It is there way of maintaining homeostasis in the system.
Or as GBShaw said, “There is no progress, only change.”
Mr. Lockerman, you had to be part of the conversation. Every time someone brings up change in the Lutheran church, a cry goes out to protect our 400 years of worship music.
Where would we be if Martin Luther did the same? I’m not suggesting that the songs he wrote or otherwise introduced into the liturgy were bar songs (as in drinking songs). He introduced worshipful hymns that could be sung by the congregation. He modernized psalms, used German folk tunes. and adapted some from the Latin service – in German so the people could sing them and relate to them.
I’m 60 years old and I don’t relate to organ music. It’s ok sometimes. Classic hymns and organ settings are part of the culture of the Lutheran church and I respect those who want to worship in a traditional style.
But worship comes in many forms. Traditional settings are wonderful. Is it so wrong to fill up a church and bring the message of Jesus to people who want to worship with contemporary music in a contemporary style?
The only thing that will change people, outside or inside the church, is the power of the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, seeker friendly or traditional are irrelevant. They are both man made systems, as we try our best to do “church” the way we best think it should work. But I tell you from personal experience, both in my life and the lives of others I know and work with in ministry… It is when a person experiences the power and miracle of God’s love in a personal way, everything else is just a hamster wheel. It can be a nice and pretty and well-intentioned hamster wheel, and maybe even a well-built and well-working hamster wheel, but a hamster wheel nonetheless.
Even social justice, with all of its talk today and genuine nobility, without individual liberation is good, but not God. Yes it is true that faith without works is dead, but works alone cannot save a soul or the world. It is better to get into heaven with one eye, than to go to hell with both.
The bible says it is the goodness of God that leads a man to repentance, not the relevancy or system of the church. After all, the Church is the people, not the institution and its system. Fixing the institution and the system will not fix the Church. When we as Christians humble ourselves before God, really pray and seek the face of God…and experience His real love and power, however that may come, that’s when our issues within the lower case C church will begin to resolve.
But ultimately, the good news is that the Church is more important than the church, and we can all affect the Church, even if not the church, because each of is the Church.
Seek God. Pray. Fast. Flee from Sin. Experience God and His power in a real way. Be transparent to others, and they, too, will overcome by the blood of the lamb and the word or your testimony (and later their own testimony). This is the bible. This is being the Church. Let every effort, whether it be seeker friendly, social justice, or tradition be lead by the Holy Spirit in the lives of the Believers.
Let us be more concerned about our relationships with God than how to fix the church. Because if we get our relationship right with God – a real intimacy and transparency and holiness – that in and of itself is fixing the Church. And as we each begin to fix the Church (ourselves), the church (the institution) will begin to heal, and the world will follow.
I heard a preacher from India say this, and I paraphrase: “The world depends on the Church.” And I’d like to add a clarification. “The world depends on the Church, not the church.”
That is it for now. Pardon any typos.
I belong to a different denomination than the one that hosts this website, and I got a link to this (terrific!) opinion piece from my minister. When I went to the home page to find out who owns this site, I could not find anything that would answer my question, only “Texas,” Louisiana,” and “ECLA,” an acronym with which I am unfamiliar. The website owners would do well to look at their home page from the “outsider” point-of-view, as the author so forcefully tells us.
Ben, Bishop Rinehart is the bishop of the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod (think – diocese or Presbetery) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. They synod covers southeast Texas (from a little west of Houston to the Louisiana border) and South Louisiana (from the Texas border to the Mississippi border and basically the foot part of the “boot”).
Hope that helped!
I disagree with the good Bishop in as much as I believe that the church has moved too much to the left under the guise of becoming more welcoming to those on the outside. The biggest problem as I see it is that the church has moved into a mode of being too much wound up in the world and not focusing on what is in store once we leave this earth. We have whitewashed sin so much, even in the ELCA and other mainline denominations that those on the outside are not informed of the results of not turning back to God, the God of Creation and Jesus Christ who is their source of salvation. Think what kind of a church we would be if we came out of our sanctuary closets and proclaimed the gospel from the sides of the road on in colorfull parades likes others have done in recent generations. Jesus Christ will not be washed away by the liberalism of today’s world and woe to all who think and practice otherwise!
I think the Bishop’s message sounds nice, but is based on the ‘insider’ fear of dwindle. ‘We’re not what we were and so we’ve got to be relevant.’ Not so. I think — rather, we have to know what we offer and we have to have confidence in what we think we bring to the oecumenical table… if we die, we die; but those who seek to keep their life will lose it and those who lose it will find it… won’t they? Christianity won’t be over or done with if our institutions die, so let’s quit worrying about it. There are plenty of ‘relevant’ Christians out there and they’re doing a great job. We need not recreate this or be like ‘them’.
The value of stability is an important one. Stability isn’t the same as ‘fearing change’.
The value of humility is another good one. Do we really want to be a big Church?
The value of being theocentric in worship is another good one. What does God want when we worship Him?
The biggest thing we can do as a Church is remember that identity is important. What does it mean to be a Christian… a Lutheran, and Anglican etc. Who are we corporately? Do we ‘like’ who we are corporately? I think Lutheran have a very important voice in the oecumenical choir. Anglicans do too. They might not be popular at the moment, but there’s nothing wrong with holding firm while the fashions come and go. And there’s nothing wrong with dying if that’s what God wants for us. But in the mean-time, there’s nothing wrong with being who we are — so how about we act like it and embrace our heritage, our way of being Christian etc. And then we can communicate who we are, what we like about ourselves and then make meaningful invitations to those who might also find it meaningful.
The formerly main-line Churches need a self esteem boost. We need to quit trying to be something we aren’t (people can tell) and we need to be ok with what God’s plan has been for us in this place and in this time.
I was quite depressed at the bishop’s first post and all the “likes” which followed. The bishop needs to study the “milleniums” and the “Gen-xers.” They are not joiners. Tearing down the faith traditions of the insiders will not bring the outsiders in. You will move some insiders out.
A young acquaintance is active in one of the mega churches where they fill the auditorium several times on Sunday morning. I asked him how many members they had. “Actual members?” he asked. “600.” Who are the insiders? Who are the outsiders? Would the gospel message be any different if 80% of those in the pews were insiders rather than outsiders?
Do we somehow fulfill our Christian mandate only if we entice the outsiders in, so that we can preach to them in a proclamation couched in the third use of the law, “Now that you are…, you are expected to…” If I sit in your pew and hear the message that “All have fallen short…” and that “Christ died for me…” and I go out the door believing that. Am I an outsider or an insider? Who made the rule that I have to be in that pew every Sunday to be an insider?
Such arbitrary distinctions have sucked our energy, have derailed our message. We need a reformation, but moving checkers on the board will not accomplish that.
Another obvious distinction in this discussion is that there are insiders and insider-insiders, i.e., the clergy who speak in another tongue. One of the biggest challenges in relevance is being able to tell the “old, old story” in the language of the texters. Just read though all these responses once more. How much of the language used assumes you know what I know. Every pastor over 45 should rehearse his/her sermon with two Millenniums. That might do more to bring outsiders in than moving the checkers.
I would challenge the bishop to hire a temporary staff person to answer the synod office phones for six days. Take your staff (every person) off-site for six days of prayer and Bible study focusing on what is your mission in the world today. No one is permitted to leave. No cell phones. No communication outside the group. No discussion of church or congregation structure, no discussion of programs. What does God expect of this synod staff in this culture. Not HOW you fulfill God’s expectations, but what are you begin called to do. What is gospel leadership. Search the Bible, pray without ceasing. A reformation will begin with you.
When you complete your spiritual exercise, select 10 congregations and ask them to do the same. Group five or six solo pastor parishes together and continue. You will start a reformation.
Listening for the voice of God will provide clearer answers than moving the checkers on the board. When you have moved the checkers some will still be red and some black. God is color blind.
Mike & Friends,
Christ died on the cross – for the sins of the world. What if the action that was taken from that one event and used as the calling card for an entire movement was no more significant than the Sermon? The resurrection was another day – do you not think it is possible?
The rebirth is happening all around us. Humanity is waking up in droves. Luther’s gift was born of a wonderful culmination of unprecedented change. The paradigm shift brought about by the expansion of knowledge is once again changing humanity. Mike, you are correct that the rigid structures fail, but it is not the structure that needs attention it is the connection with creation. Christ said that we must die to ourselves and be reborn of the spirit. This is not a once in a lifetime deal. Every day the barriers that separate must die. The old ways will pass. Just look at the hymns of Luther, the lyrics could carry a warning for excessive violence. The understanding of each relationship between the Creator and humanity will ultimately be different, but just as we abide Christ and the Creator, we are able to experience the same presence through the spirit. The constant change occurs where creation first happened, in our hearts.
Eric
Pingback: Food for Thought | Coventry and Nuneaton Methodists (Unoffical)
There is a great amount of truth here.
Dear Bishop, A facebook friend posted this, and that’s how I came upon it. I am not a Lutheran, but was raised in the Methodist church, which is probably similar. I am so impressed by your comments, because at times, I am concerned that the mainline traditional churches will eventually die, rather than change. I certainly see this happening in my Mother’s church, which is the church I was raised in. At some point they will probably be forced to merge with another congregation to survive. I have seen new pastors, whose ideas were on more of an outreach attitude, be pushed out by the congregation. I currently attend a much larger non-denominational church in a larger city. And at nearly 60, there are times that I am now feeling like one of the old ones in the service. But one of the reasons I was drawn to this church 20 years ago, was because of the money they put into children and outreach. The results are phenomenal!! Our congregation is at least 60% of 30 year olds or younger. And they truly are excited about the things of the Lord and hugely involved. To those Pastors out there who are afraid of this, or think they can’t afford it, I say you can’t afford not to do it. That is if you want the tradition church that you are a part of to survive. What is our calling as Christians anyway, if not to reach the lost. And if your church is excited about Jesus and the gospel, then the sheep will go out there and get other sheep, which is how it ought to be. Go ahead and make someone mad if you have to, but for goodness sake, reach out. There is a lost, hurting, dying world out there, that needs our message. It truly is good news!! I will be praying that the Lord will keep this alive in you. allelujah!!!!
We are in this world, an everchanging world, but are we of this world? Does our Lord and Savior change to fit the current climate? Outsiders are more important than insiders? Really, isn’t our goal to make everyone insiders, part of the church? Do we disregard those who are faithful members? Is there some reason why tradition in liturgy and music is bad? Can’t we have that and some modernity? Is it too radical to love those in the church community as is, and reach out to those outside? Seems like we can swing too far one way and lose some of the faithful in our attempt to be modern.
Very insightful and timely article. This is precisely the reason I’m giving up on my Lutheran church despite years of putting in the time & effort to influence and being shot down over and over. Oh well, I’m now growing and learning and developing relationships in another church whose vision is to reach all un-churched people in our community. My prayers are more valued there than my ability to serve on a community or play the piano. I’m no longer simply a worker-bee that can be taken advantage of… Yup – pretty disappointed by those 10+ years of Lutheran church membership…
I have read your words with a sad heart, because I see the same situation in my own denomination, the Episcopal Church. I think this is simply true for the Church in general… I believe that it is not, however, just a case of needing to change our vista of focus from inside to outside, but that we desperately need to somehow have our hearts converted once again to the true nature of our purpose as human beings… namely, to get our own egos off the throne and put God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) back there. Within each of us resides the Image of God, but we have hidden that image by the various character traits of our humanity. Sin = “I want what I want, when I want it!” If we could again place that image of God at the center of our soul, and then turned to recognize the image of God in each other, our hearts would be full as well as our Churches…
I pretty much agree with you. Jesus was all about the outsider, the marginalized folks, so the church should be too.
Many years ago at some unremembered church workshop I heard the words “who people see up front is who the church is.” So if I walk into a church and see an old white guy up front, the church–no matter what else happens or who fills the pews–is an old white guy church. This could be mitigated some by having a non-old white guy as liturgist, but not completely.
In addition, who do we quote? If the sermon references are all from straight white men (as, unfortunately, yours seem to be in this article), someone like me will think, “Oh, this is a church that is all about straight white men. And… it’s not about me at all.” And I’ll walk out the door after the service and never come back again.
Well, Jesus didn’t sit in the temple and insist people come inside to get his teaching or a healing. He intentionally went outside to the marginalized and taught, healed, served, fed, challenged, freed, and loved. Why do we insist that people come inside the church to get Jesus if He was always outside? Makes no sense to me.
I completely agree. Thank you for sharing your insight and wisdom. I pray this message will be far-reaching and will prick the heart of every devoted follower of Jesus Christ and goad us with unceasing effort to repent and execute with confidence the calling to the ministry of reconciliation instead of being motivated by man’s opinion.
Blessings to you.