As the son of a minister, I’ve been to my fair share of churches in my lifetime. My father would get invited to preach at a different church, I would go to my friend’s church, or I would visit churches after a move in order to find a community of faith. Because I grew up in church and am well versed in “Christianese” (both the language and the etiquette), sometimes I don’t realize just how weird churches can be.
I read this post and it made me laugh out loud several times, both because it was funny and because I agreed with him. I had been thinking about this for a while and when I read this post it seemed to bring some of my thoughts together.
I work at a restaurant in downtown Philly. The other servers are my age and we have chances to talk and hang out on a daily basis. These are people who either (a) grew up in the church, hated the church, and left or (b) aren’t into religion. My favorite part of my job is talking to them. They have become not just co-workers, but friends. Because they are my friends, I constantly think about being a picture of Christ in their life through how I relate to them.
I also wonder how they would react if they ever came to church with me. I am blessed by having an amazing community of faith called liberti here in Philly. I would not hesitate for a second about bringing my friends there. No church is perfect, including liberti, but one thing liberti does well in contextualize itself to the culture. If you live in one of the neighborhoods where liberti meets, you feel at home. The people talk your language, they greet you with open arms, the pastor’s are “real” people, and the worship is inviting.
Some of the other churches that I have been to and know of are not this way. When you step into the church you are tele-ported into another world (most likely, the world that existed either in the post-Reformation era or the 1950’s-70’s). This world is comprised of escapists hymns (”I’ll fly away, oh glory, I’ll fly away”), puppet shows, effeminate worship leaders (usually quoting Matthew 18.19 out of context), pastors with quasi-mullets and fake smiles, flannel boards, special music, skits, and organs. Basically, places that you dread going to and places where you would never want to bring your friends.
Some of these churches simply will not change. It’s somewhat of a paradox that Protestant churches have such a distain for the tradition of the Roman church but will take a bullet for the KJV and the Celebration Hymnal. I guess as long as the tradition isn’t written down in the canons of the church than it’s ok to perpetuate. Because they will not change, they force those who come into the church to change. Those who come into the church need to change their musical taste to hymns written 100 years ago, change their entertainment preference to puppet shows and cheesy skits, and change their wardrobe to suits and shiny Church shoes.
“Come to Christ…and conform to our church culture.”
There’s got to be something wrong with that.
I’m not saying that the “Would I bring my friend here?” test settles everything for churches and I’m not saying that every church needs to look the same. I just don’t understand why churches do no contextualize themselves to their culture in order to reach people with the gospel. Instead, they continue “doing church” in a way that was contextualized to the culture 20-50 years ago. They are seeking to live in a world that no longer exists. Who does this serve? Does it serve God’s mission in the world, or does it serve the naively construed “safety” that people find in doing things the way they have always been done? Are we seeking to glorify God or vindicate our own preferences?
My father said in a sermon recently that for far too long the church has acted like the world but has looked differently when they should have always looked like the world but acted differently. This does not mean a full embrace of the world’s systems, epistemology, and worldview. It means speaking their language, being involved in their world, wearing their clothes, “becoming all things to all men.” It means giving up our preferences for the sake of God’s mission.
Someone else gave up his status for the sake of God’s mission. Someone else wore the clothes and spoke the language of the people he came to reach. Someone else got involved in the crap of the world in order to save it. Someone else rebuked those holding onto an external form of religion and, instead, met people where they were at. Who was that?
Of course when people come to Christ they are not going to continue being the same person. God, who began his work in them, will continue transforming their heart and mind until the parousia. Heart and mind; not clothing style and musical preference. The church needs to remember this. When people come to Christ they do not also have to conform themselves to some archaic context that, for some reason or another, the evangelical church has placed onto a pedestal in the “beyond challenge” zone.
Perhaps this attitude is the result of some backwards thinking. The church is not an end in itself; the church is a means to an end, which is God’s restorative mission of the redemption of the entire world. Christ indeed said that he will build his church, but why? So that the church can be this weird subculture that as more in common with my great grandmother than with me? Or so that the church can continue the mission of God’s redemption in the world?
A church that understands that they are not an end, but a means to an end is going to look different. It is going to be outward focused instead of inward focused. It is going to be doing anything it can to reach people with the gospel, not doing anything it can to maintain its unspoken traditions. It’s going to be missional, not ingrown. In the word’s of Christopher Wright,
Mission is not ours; mission is God’s. Certainly the mission of God is the prior reality out of which flows any mission that we get involved in. It is not so much the case that God has a mission for his church in the world but that God has a church for his mission in the world. Mission was not made for the church: the church was made for mission–God’s mission (The Mission of God, 62)
10 July 2007 at 4.22 pm
Art – Was this post inspired by your trip to Grace? It eerily reminds me of my own church.
10 July 2007 at 5.23 pm
“My name is Art. Welcome to my Velvet Elvis.”
Looks like a good painting to me.
11 July 2007 at 10.11 am
Art,
I have enjoyed reading your blog the past year or so. Somehow you have managed to come over to the dark side!
I want to say that I agree with the theme of this but after being here ideologically for a certain amount of time I do find myself asking some questions like “don’t all institutions ask people to convert to their traditions?” I am sure when you hit that prosetgious campus you were greeted with a pride of tradition that you were asked to embrace and appreciate. This leads me to think that maybe what we feel (again, I totally agree) is so wrong with the lack of contexrtualization within the walls of our protestant churches is that the traditions are not old enough and therfore worth appreciating.
In other words, I am wondering if true contextualization is mixing reelvant traditions with present culture without the wierd. Most protestant traditions are just to new and come off to wierd to translate. However, most emerging churches are combining ancient liturgical practices with the tattoos and body percing culture!
So I am starting to conlude that the real problem is the abandonment of older and more tested traditions for the embrace of relativley new traditions is what gives us the creepies. This might explain why many young peolpe I know are attracted to the Catholic church. I mean, who doesn’t like going to one of those very ancinet looking buildings to worship. I’ll take that over and above the cold sterile drywall look anytime…and I think so will non-followers.
11 July 2007 at 2.40 pm
Hey Brother,
I concur with your edict that churches must contextualize to reach their culture. Although, I don’t think most churches are digging deep enough. I have been thinking alot about this recently, and trying to figure out what the hell we have EMERGED from. We pretty much still go to our parents church except for a few aesthetic formalities. We can change the music, we can light candles, wear clothing from H&M at the pulpit and joke like Michael Scott during our sermons…but, have we really changed anything? It’s all an aesthetic change. In the worlds eyes you can dress the devil up like a woman, and attempt to make love to it…but it’s still evil. To our friends the church is still evil. It still is an institution of cyanide laced kool-aid drinkers.
What the church has not changed (certain churches like the one mentioned above) are the power structures and relationships. They have only re-affirmed the definition of insitution no matter what the flahy website proclaims. The church your right is flawed, not one is perfect. I lament that there never be a church I enter that I don’t witness back-stabbing, gossip, and utter bullshit that happens when you put a bunch of people together in one room. I am not innocent. But, I think we need to question what is different in this new generation of churches that proclaims postmodernity faster than it kneels to Christ.
11 July 2007 at 2.58 pm
I know and I could agree more with the premise… funny thing though, in NY the people we talk to up here who are not evangelicals think that emergent churches are ridiculous. Most are Catholic and they expect church to be a certain way. Many have said to us that when they visit some of those churches they are turned off by “christian” rock music and all the bling-bling. As much as my preference may be for our own church to progress more I’m happy that they meet our community where they are. It seems that sometimes being more like the world in style can actually be a stumbling block- based on their own personal backgrounds and their expectation of what church should look like. Who knew?
Mine too but Scott is sick if me rolling my eyes everytime we go somewhere and it is quoted out of context! LOL
Really I think you just have to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit and how He is leading the pastor to set up a church. We don’t all live in a Metro area and a certain mold is not effective everywhere. God created us all diverse and I think therefore all chruches should be diverse as well.
Matthew 18:19 out of context is your dad’s pet-peeve
12 July 2007 at 7.33 am
Mars Hill sings Ill Fly Away
=)
My pastor and I were talking and he thinks contextualization, and the idea of being missional, are going to become the hot issues in our denomination.
Here is the problem, if you are ministering in an area over like say 10k people, you are limiting who you are reaching by embracing one culture over the other, and many people would rather have everyone feel a bit uncomfortable and a bit relaxed, than have a certain group love it and a certain group hate it. So they figure its better to also be a different culture rather than alienate some group.
On this side of contextualization I can really relate. Im not sure how Barnabus and Paul contextualized at Antioch, but when we get to Acts 13 and read of the leaders in the church we see this amazing multicultural church. I feel like the question is how do you speak to many cultures, both on their own and together.
Do parts of the world have a meta-culture?
13 July 2007 at 7.35 pm
Amen and Amen! That Dad of yours must really know what is going on in life! Sitting next to you in Church (for readers it was not the Church Art or I attend) let me see once again how out of touch many Churches have become….I love you boy
15 July 2007 at 6.13 pm
I am considering posting a blog site and was purusing blogs when I ran into yours.
You make several good points and have perhaps spurned me on to actually publishing my blog.
The subject of my blog will pursue how I perceive life based on my interpretation of both scriptures and day-to-day, nuts-and-bolts living here on the big, blue ball.
I’m a plumber and I live by four basic rules. Everything in my life seems to boil own to one of these rules. They are: 1) Poop (et al) runs downhill. 2) Payday is everyday. 3) Keep your fingers out of your mouth. and 4) If at first you don’t succeed, use brute force!
That pretty well covers most circumstances.
Where does Jesus fit into all this? Easy. He made all the mountains. He also had some part in making gravity, I suppose. Did He make the poop to roll down the hill? Well, sort of and sort of not. That’s where you have to have some perspective.
For instance, when things are not going per plan, you might be tempted to throw yourself upon the mercy of the 4th law. If you stop and think perhaps, “WWHD?” then maybe you’ll pray before using brute force. I’ve tried it both ways. Both ways work, but praying first usually saves some skin from my knuckles.
Well, I’m still thinking about all this. Thanks for the time investment.
:O)
19 July 2007 at 8.30 am
[...] week Art Boulet wrote a post called “conform to church and convert to christ” the post was interesting and it got several comments, including one from [...]
16 August 2007 at 9.31 am
“far too long the church has acted like the world but has looked differently when they should have always looked like the world but acted differently” – beautifully said. I miss my former pastor.