There are two articles I've been sitting on, not sure how to frame them for a post. It hit me today that they could be related.
The first one is about a cosmetics line in Singapore whose goal was to help us "Look good for Jesus" and "get tight with Christ." Some Christians complained and the company halted sales though. You can read the story HERE. What confuses me is... how could someone complain about marketing Christianity - haven't they ever been to a Christian "bookstore?"
The second article (HERE) is about a survey in the U.S. and how the religious landscape is in flux. Droves of people are leaving both Protestant and Catholic Christianity; some are switching churches; some just leaving altogether. I didn't really read anything that I didn't already know. Of course, I always forget that I'm probably considered an "insider."
So I'm wondering.... do you think there's a correlation between these two things? I mean, has the market-driven church created this exodus; or do we need more Christian cosmetics? Or do they have nothing to do with each other? I think a lot of people think the answer is to look good for Jesus but have nothing to do with the church. Not sure how that can happen since he says the church is his body. Maybe it's just being transformed into its more natural self. I dunno.
6 comments:
Dan (or should I call you Aw-nold? ;-),
What if the shift isn't "away" but more into the relationship-oriented models we're seeing in house/pub/whatever-churches? You recently wrote that you don't think there's such a thing as a "leaderless church". I agree. You also wrote that you get paid to do the things you'd probably do anyway, because you love and feel drawn to what you're doing, but getting paid for it is nice because it allows you to concentrate fully on those things. That's cool - it's GOOD to get paid for what we love to do. But what if the landscape's shifting means that you may, THROUGH NO FAULT OF YOUR OWN other than inheriting "the church" at this point in her life, end up doing it for the love of it, and working somewhere else (much as I volunteer because I feel drawn to it and love it but have to work to feed my family)?
Right now I am sticking to my church for a variety of reasons. But I have to admit I really feel drawn to the smaller, more relational model. And that model probably isn't ever going to be able to pay people to lead (even though it will need and find leaders).
Just thinking out loud, not trying to throw rocks or suggest you made the wrong career move, because personally I don't think you did, from what I can tell having never met you. What do I know? I'm just some dog you know on the Internet. :-)
Per the Christian cosmetics, I have nothing to say about that. Whatever. It's so far removed from what's important that I don't think God gives two hoots, and neither should we, one way or another.
Jim,
You very well may be right. I actually used to think I was going to go the way of a bi-vocational pastor. For the first 5 or 6 years of being a pastor that's how I actually thought it *should* be. And it's possible that may still happen. However, lately I've began to question this. I think it's certainly possible for people to do this, and do it well. But I also think many people underestimate and devalue the role of true pastoral ministry. And by that I don't mean "church ceo"... but true 'holy men of God' so-to-speak. And it's not that someone can't be bi-vocational and still be holy; but when I speak of our churches needing better leaders, I'm generally talking about them as needing to be more holy. People of prayer, contemplation, wisdom, etc. And I think there is biblical merit to providing for people to serve in these capacities because of the benefit they can provide for the church and society.
So, while I'm not disagreeing with you, and I very much understand what you're saying... I am becoming less and less sold on even what the house/pub/whatever churches that people are talking about represent.
I've had a post brewing about this for awhile. It may be time to drag it out. Thanks for raising the topic.
Blessings my friend.
Dan,
I think you are right. My beef is with "pastor as CEO". I would much rather have "pastor as rabbi/sensei/teacher/holy man". Let the elders (or church council) run the church. Except even in churches where that's supposed to happen, often the pastor is still in charge through his "sway".
Make it happen! Sweep the nation with your idea! Except wait - book, tour and celebrity status doesn't quite fit that model, either.
Hehehe. Yeah, it's quite the conundrum, isn't it. :)
Has the "market-driven church" driven people away from the faith? You betcha it has. By resorting to cheap marketing tricks, we are, in a not so subtle way, letting people know that the Gospel message is so boring in an of itself that nobody in his or her right mind would come hear it for the sake of hearing. We have become an ADHD culture that needs a new "bump" or boredom sets in. The problem is, that all the marketing techniques are simply that--gimmicks intended to draw people in. That might be fine for dish soap, or cosmetics, but the Gospel has power of its own that soap and cosmetics don't. It's as if the world has said, "Man, that church message of salvation is sure dull", and we believers all agreed! When we resort to cheap trickery and trinkets, we have to keep changing the tricks to get people past the boredom they soon feel with that.
I feel it is also demeaning to our Lord, who suffered horribly for our sake. To make light of that is to make light of Jesus. The cross was a horrid instrument of torture that God Himself allowed Himself to be put on for us, and what do we do? Make cross popsicles and other such nonsense. Isn't that cute? Sorry, there is nothing cute about the cross and what it represents. Many Christians obviously don't take Christ seriously, but use Him as a tool to make them the coolest dude on the block. You don't see Mohammed emblazened on footwear, teeshirts, and lipstick, becuase his followers have too much respect for him. Shouldn't we feel the same about the One True God?
Anonymous,
Ummm... yeah. Well said. Excellent point about the lack of Mohammad mockery. Care to take the mask off? Who are ya?
Post a Comment