As churches create more and more satellite campuses and turn to online ventures (see here for Out of Ur's description), I am struck by how evangelical churches have accidentally undermined their own relevance. Now, many of you might be all for these relatively new features of the church (internet services, satellite campuses, etc.), but I'm not interested in criticizing that. What I am referring to as a dying church has happened in many evangelical circles long before any of this has come about. Somewhere along the lines, building upon the enlightenment obsession with self (only to be outdone by the postmodern uber-obsession with self), the church became about the individual's growth and experience. We see this in the Great Awakening and the smaller early American revivals down through the history of evangelicalism.
An instance of this phenomena can be seen in this quote from Bill Hybels, founding pastor of Willow Creek, "We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become ‘self feeders.’" The church's task, in other words, is to make people independent, in a similar way that a parents task is to help children leave home and exist on their own two feet. But is that the church's task? What this is modeling, in my opinion, is the opposite of what the church needs to be doing - not to make people dependent upon a service for their relationship with God, nor to be turning them into "self-feeders," an odd term if there ever was one - but for the body of Christ to exist as a people, and individuals to exist within that as individuals within the larger body.
The problem in our day, as I see it, is that we have come to conceive of the church in a similar way we conceive of education. Our goal is to help people know right things and get them excited for their task. The form this takes is preaching and praise (almost fundamentally) in most evangelical churches. The problem we face today is that I can find "better" preaching online, "better" music online and can certainly find better community at the local Starbucks. Our big churches get bigger, not because they are reaching other people, but because they poach from the people who just want more, better and more sophisticated. We have spent so much time proclaiming a view of the church which is based on getting excited and getting information that my generation woke up and thought, "Well, if I can get information and excitement elsewhere, why bother with church?", and more sadly than that, much of evangelicalism doesn't have a response. The church, in many ways, has taught that it is just not that important.
I have been convicted for many years now that the spiritual formation conversation might as well die now unless it plans on speaking meaningfully into the church. While churches have been talking about it, I have yet to see real significant change. In fact, it seem to me, that all we've done is to feed the idol of growth, once again seeking to be "self-feeders" - to become those who "do this Christian thing" for the sake of growing personally - rather than for the sake of serving God.
What are your thoughts? This is certainly an evangelical/low-church problem, so those in other traditions feel free to share your experience or insights here.
Comments
I am by nature an optimist. I
I am by nature an optimist. I have seen the hand of God too often in my life to live in a state of despair and defeatism. But the state of evangelism in the American Church is such that I do have my moments when I wonder if the Church is headed down the path of many European congregations: decline and death. The facts of a 2004 research project I led are sobering. It takes 86 church members in America one year to reach a person for Christ. Now I realize that such statistical studies are imperfect, and I make no claims of omniscience, especially in matters such as the regenerate population. But if the research is even close to accurate, the reality is that the Church is not reproducing herself. In just one or two generations, Christianity could be so marginalized that it will be deemed irrelevant by most observers. Why has the American Church become evangelistically anemic? The research points to several possible factors. First, the Church and many of the Christians who serve in the churches have become doctrinally ineffective. Repentance is often avoided as a key truth of the gospel. Hell is rarely mentioned, despite its abundance of references in Scripture. And regenerate church membership and church discipline are sometimes perceived as relics of an old and irrelevant era. When these and other key issues are avoided or even watered down, the Church loses her power, and the gospel is no longer the gospel
Culture Issue
As a teacher, I despise even education being looked at this way...
I don't think this is a matter of creating self-feeders. I think that Hybels actually has a valid point, there. He isn't talking about helping people to become capable of being independent as much as he's talking about helping people grow beyond the baby bird mentality of, "I show up; you feed me." Most church attenders are consumers. Hybels wasn't happy with that, and I don't think we should be. Community ideally involves everyone working, not just a few.
But your point about the destruction of community is valid. Community doesn't even have the potential to exist when the individuality of getting stuff off the net or TV or wherever makes the actual congregation irrelevant. Suddenly the church no longer lives up to its original meaning - assembly or gathering. And we also begin to lose a critical aspect of the faith - relationality. Jesus 'n' me, just me 'n' Jesus. Problem...
But I don't think spiritual formation, in the long run, is merely creating self-feeders in a negative way, nor do I think that self-feeders and disconnection from God are connected in the way that you seem to be implying.
bwbuLRMiIgBsEhDLP
RvfoT8 , buy propecia online, order depakote, phentermine hcl, buy tramadol, order depakote,
Clarifying
Matthew, thanks for the comments. Let me clarify - since I agree with a lot of what you said. I don't like talking about education that way either, but that wasn't my intent. My intent was to put Hybel's statement in something of an ecclesial register. Therefore, pushing aside the issue of spiritual formation entirely, I am wondering what his discussion of "self-feeder" means for his understanding of ecclesiology. In its essence, I believe, church is simply the place where people get in shape - it is the spiritual gym. This actually coincides with his remark that Willow Creek was going to offer their members spiritual trainers (he used the gym as an example).
The church, as such, doesn't actually exist in that sense. Therefore, in order to "be faithful" as a spiritual gym, you necessarily have to: be cutting edge, exciting, relevant, etc. Therefore, as a church, your role is to offer people an experience, preaching singing, etc., and that is all church really is. I'm sure Bill would deny this, but that is what this seems to imply. In other words, if I were to ask, "Why bother showing up here at all instead of listening to sermons online, singing along with itunes and helping out at a para-church ministry?" I think the answer would only be able to be something like, "The Bible tells you to." The church, as the communion of saints, seems to have been reduced to a couple of events and experiences that I can find elsewhere.
Therefore, I think Hybel's is very happy people are consummers, just that they aren't consumming enough. A self-feeder is someone who consumes on their own, without relying heavily upon the church. I just think this is a sad view of church, and it has led to satillite campuses, internet services, etc.
Willow Creek
I guess I feel like time will tell whether or not Willow Creek's new direction is a positive one. The fact that the leadership realized that their tactics were producing something other than the ideal is a positive to me, and the desire to change that seems like a good thing. Will it happen? Maybe, maybe not. It's an uphill battle against the sin we already all carry around and the weediness (parable of the sower style) of America and its glittery promises of salvation.
I haven't kept up on what Willow Creek has done, so I'm speaking from ignorance, I'll admt. All I've really heard is that they publicly admitted that they'd botched the job and had had a wrong perspective for a long time. That to me seemed hopeful.
In the end, is the church going to kill itself by outsourcing its tools through electronic media? No. Is it going to create problems? Probably. But not enough to defeat what God is doing. And what He is doing reaches far beyond the media-saturated culture in America or even Evangelicalism or Protestantism. The church can't, in the long run, fail because it really is the only earth-bound vehicle for the ministration of that which heals the gaping wounds and holes in the heart. Nothing else works. At least not for long.
Self Feeders
While I don't necessarily agree with Bill's term of "self-feeders", I believe I understand at least part of the thought behind the statement.
I don't think the church has done a good job with people once they cross the line of faith in Christ. The church may throw them into all kinds of "ministry opportunities" which may or may not help the individual as they move towards being more like Christ. There is no way that the church can "program" spiritual growth because the number of individual paths is too enormous -- they may (and should) expose church members to different ways of growing closer to God but cerainly cannot say that one particular way is the right one for everybody.
So the individual needs to assume some responsibility upon themselves. They need to pursue walking with Christ in the way that God is leading them to do at the time. Maybe this way will involve service, or deep times of prayer, or reading different authors, or spending time with friends in a small group setting. But it is up to the individual to find out (through prayer, through Bible reading, through conversations with others along the journey) to figure out what needs to change in their life at this particular time and then to actually make that change. But they can't just sit back and wait for the church to lead them by the hand step by step -- it will not happen.
Let Jesus do the leading, you do the following, and the church showing you possible paths that you may take in the future.
Kyle this insight is tied to
Kyle this insight is tied to the previous post about numbers. And I think your frustration with the Evangelical world is accurate. If the discussion about spiritual formation does not make headway rather than being another evangelical fad it will die. Personally I expect that the job before all of us is to invest in the upcoming generation and bring to them solid spiritual formation. The rest of the church may disintegrate, but if we invest in those who will hear the message, who get the critique, then we will all have succeeded. Perhaps we are at the early end of the curve in a new post-protestant and neo-catholic reformation.
Fr. Matt Mirabile