Another guest blog for your enjoyment!
This past week, my college ministry had a guest speaker from a ministry in New York. He is a part of an organization known as Christ Communities. Now I know nothing specific about this man or his ministry, so any venturing I do into specifics is pure speculation. But what I heard I was not too impressed with. This ministry is basically a community “infiltrating” organization, where there main goal is to go into already existing ministries and build relationships with lost people.
The basic gist was this: to REALLY be effective for the gospel, we need a new strategy. what we need to do is go dark, like Jack Bauer (his words, not mine) did in-between seasons 3 and 4 of 24, and infiltrate the enemy base camp. While the analogy obviously breaks down (lost people are not “the enemy”) it is a good picture of what the ministry tries to do. Instead of using “church” to reach people, we go to where the lost are: the bars, the coffee shops, even apartment complexes, and reach lost people.
Now, to be fair, I have nothing against trying to meet people where they are at. I think that it is a good Idea to go to the bars, to the coffee shops, and meet people that don’t necessarily agree with our faith. And really, I don’t know enough about this guy to really defiantly say anything about his ministry. But through out the “sermon” (if referencing John 1 in passing can be called preaching the gospel) I couldn’t help but feel uneasy. I never heard him say he had a church home. Never once here him say that he pointed people in his community towards one. The one time that he did reference it was in a negative connotation, talking about how people from the south would move to the north and plant churches that resembled ones like home, and were ineffective at reaching people. I always had this feeling that while he didn’t say it, there was a disdain for the established church, that it wasn’t doing a good job reaching the lost, and that we should just cast it aside like its out-dated. But I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, seeing as he never said any of those things, I really couldn’t in good conscience say anything against him for things I was unsure he himself believed.
What really has me disturbed is a conversation I had about 2 days later. I was hanging out with some friends and for one reason or another I was asked what I thought of our speaker. So I , as tactfully as humanly possible, said that while I didn’t disagree with anything he said, I don’t see why we need an alternative to the established church to reach lost people. I agreed that we needed to build communities, but I don’t understand why we had to divorce that from the church.
We had a little civil back and forth discussing it, when one of my friends tells me “Todd, I understand what you mean, but you have to understand that that doesn’t work in New York. People hate church at immediately disrespect you when you bring it up” (paraphrased). I was a little taken aback by the statement, but was not willing to start a debate in mixed company, so I, as tactfully as possible, agreed to disagree. Rethinking my friends statement, there are numerous things I could have brought up, not to mention the Brooklyn Tabernacle which seems to be doing alright for itself
Now, I understand what my friend meant, that the church, historically, has a bad reputation with lost people? But whose fault is that? And does it really call for us to give up on the establishment all together? Is the church going to be stronger if we break down into these subculture communities, going “Dark for Christ”?
This is a classic case of making the system the scapegoat for the faults of the participants. Is communion really offensive to the lost world? Is tithing, Worshipping, praying in one place really that distasteful? Seems to me that there are other belief systems that do that and they don’t have a problem with people shunning them for there hypocrisy. Its not the fault of the establishment of a worship service that has lost people hating the church, its is the actual “body” that has done this. We have, over the years, become known as hypocritical, inauthentic and pious. But instead of trying to change things from within the church, people would rather try and start something new, something fresh and more appealing to the lost person. I’m pretty sure that if you were to plant a church in New York City, and the people in this church were to be willing to be transparent with there lost friends, and were to show others the Love of Christ, that that church isn’t going to do badly.
I heard in the same conversation that most churches claim to have community but really all they have is a country club mentality. While this maybe so, does a group of believers coming together and talking about life and what it all means really constitute as church? If so, then why does Paul give us elders in the pastoral epistles, the timothy’s and Titus? Why are there so many instructions for an establishment that really just doesn’t “get the job done”? So yes, while you can have church and not have community, community does not equate church. If my generation would stop looking at the system to fix the problems of the body of Christ and start looking at there hearts, I’m pretty sure they’d find that a system is only as good as those who use it, and though it hasn’t been used all that well in the past, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work. Paul seemed to think it was a good Idea, and I’m going to stick with the guy who had that whole “revelation of God” thing going for him.