The [Un]Faithfulness of the Church

Not long ago, one of the preachers at my church asked what an "effective" church looks like. Right off the bat, I'm uncomfortable with the wording of the question. I have been sufficiently influenced by the works of John Howard Yoder and William Stringfellow that I am suspicious of words like "effective" being applied to the church. Are we called to be "effective" or "successful?" Would you use those words to characterize the life and ministry of Jesus? I don't know.

"Effective" connotes not only success, but efficiency, productivity, and a bottom line. These are words utilized in the business world, in which there are products to be manufactured and sold, employees to be managed, customers to satisfy, advertising campaigns, etc. I am not comfortable with applying these worldly words to the church because the church, according to Jesus, does not operate according to the world's usual practices. (See John 18:36).

It would be more appropriate, it seems to me, to ask what are the indicators of a "healthy" congregation, or better yet, of a "faithful" congregation. Randy Harris, an excellent preacher and professor at Abilene Christian University, stated that a healthy congregation would experience downward mobility, that is, Christians living in smaller houses, buying less, giving more. Second, a healthy church shows hospitality to the poor. Members would welcome people into their homes who are unable to return the favor. Thus, the gap between rich and poor is diminished. Third, the congregation is increasingly diverse. This, of course, is the mystery of the gospel, different people living in community with one another based on the guiding principles that in Christ, all are one and there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female.

In my own mind, there is a simple way for measuring the faithfulness of a congregation. Though it may not be foolproof or provide all of the relevant information, I think in most cases it should be a generally accurate method of assessing a church's faithfulness to its vocation. The question is, of the money that is given to the church, how much stays within the church to pay ministers and electric bills and fund construction projects, and what percentage is funneled outside the church walls to help people in need?

Prophets like Amos and Jeremiah did not respond kindly to people who built great buildings while other people were starving. Human needs are more important than bricks and mortar. If eighty percent of the budget pays professional ministers, while only ten percent is given to the poor, I think the church has a problem. Some folks have drawn a really hard line on this sort of thing, saying that the money the church holds back from the poor constitutes theft.

I don't think I'm the only one who looks at what a church spends money on as a guage for measuring that church's faithfulness. I have a friend. I guess he would say he is a Christian, maybe that he has a Christian worldview, whatever that means. I don't think he really is though. Faith is not really part of his consciousness. Anyway, he told me not long ago that he and his wife tithe. I was blown away. Never expected it. He said they tithe to the Nashville Rescue Mission, and he added that there was no way he would ever give to the church. I didn't push, but I suspect the reason that he would give to the mission and not the church is because he perceives the church as being unfaithful. He knows that if he gives money to my church, for example, a whole lot of it will go to pay our ministers or pay for our big nice building. And that's not what the church should be spending money on. My friend knows that the money he gives to the Mission, on the other hand, is more likely to be used to help poor people. The Mission, while not perfect, is more faithful to its calling than the church.

P.S. As I have reflected more upon the topic of a congregation's "effectiveness," and in light of the writings of Will Campbell, with which I am currently familiarizing myself, I feel the need to add additioanl thoughts. It seems to me that an "effective" church, as that term is commonly understood and utilized in the world, would be one that attracts large numbers of wealthy, influential people. Now in order to accomplish this, the gospel will have to be compromised. The Old Testament will no longer include the Jubilee requirement of Leviticus 25. Prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and Micah will have to be ignored because they are critical of the rich. Many of the sayings of Jesus will be discarded as well, such as woe to the rich, selling possessions, not being able to serve God and money. Likewise, the story of the rich yuong ruler and the rich fool who built bigger barns will be cast aside, or at least explained away. In place of these hard teachings will be a watered-down version of the gospel, which emphasizes what you believe rather than what you do, and the eternal destiny of your soul rather than your life on earth

An "effective" church packed with wealthy, powerful people will spend lots of money on itself. It will build luxurious facilities in a prestigious part of town. It will offer various services designed to maximize the comfort of its members. For example, it will likely have some kind of a recreational facility where its members can exercise. It may also offer a media center to entertain its constituents. Perhaps it will even host a school for members' children so they do not have to interact with the larger culture. An "effective" church will resemble a country club that offers self-help classes loosely based on Bible verses that are taken out of context.

An "effective" church will seize political power and influence wherever it may be found. It will likely achieve such influence by focusing on so-called "moral issues" relating to individual sexual practice and by ignoring issues of systemic injustice, such as poverty, homelessness, unfair labor practices, and mass incarceration, in which a large number of the church's members are directly or indirectly complicit.

A final characteristic of an "effective" church is that it has an organized and systematized message, a theology, which, rather than liberating its members, serves to keep them under control. The message may be one of guilt, self-righteousness, or cheap grace. The important point, however, is that it provides the church members with a satisfactory paradigm for processing their reality. This leads to a sense of stability and security among those in the pews. And so long as the members are secure, pacified, and have a sense that they belong to the group that is, over and against other groups, "right," then they will be easily controlled by the church leaders who depend on the church members for their very livelihood. The Way of Jesus is traded for a belief system. Thus, in an "effective" church, the gospel is reduced to a tool of social control.

Suffering in Haiti

The news about the earthquake in Haiti and the subsequent reaction of a certain prominent Christian are what finally made me decide to start another blog. I felt like I needed to write down my thoughts.

Pat Roberton opined that perhaps the earthquake struck because Haitians had made a pact with the devil, as though they were deserving of this tragedy. I'm sure some folks agree, and some don't. I was reminded, however, of a little exchange Jesus had with his students about suffering. The text is John 9:

As he was walking along, he observed a man who had been blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that caused him to be born blind?”

Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned. This happened so that the works of God might be revealed in him. I must do the work of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

After saying this, he spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he spread the mud on the man's eyes and told him, “Go and wash in the pool of Siloam."

So he went off and washed and came back seeing.

Jesus' followers, in effect, asked the question that was raised by the story of Job and by the Psalmist and by everyone around the world even today as we heard about and struggled to process the Haitian earthquake. Why? Why do bad things happen? Why do people, innocent, hapless people, children suffer?

It's a valid question, a hard question. But it was not a question that Jesus was interested in answering in this instance. Jesus seemed to indicate that it was the wrong question to ask about the blind man. Rather, the most relevant question for Jesus is what good is God going to accomplish through the suffering? As was his custom, he reframed the issue, spun the situation on its head, and refocused the attention of his hearers not on the evil they could not comprehend, but on the power of God at work in the person of the blind man. Jesus then went on to channel God's glory into the suffering and redeemed it.

I think Jesus' response to his disciples is instructive for us as we consider suffering and injustice now. Our focus should be on God's redemptive power. As Paul reminds us in Romans 8:28, God is capable of bringing forth good from any set of circumstances. Even in the midst of death, there is the promise of resurrection.

One final word about Jesus' response: he acted. He did not end the encounter by blessing the blind man and telling him to believe that God was capable of accomplishing good. Instead, Jesus allowed God to work through him and healed the man. For the church, the body of Christ, the second incarnation if you will, we must not only believe that God can redeem suffering. We must be prepared to act as God's redemptive agents to work in the midst of suffering and injustice. God brought about healing through the person of Jesus. So it is with us. Jesus isn't walking around healing folks anymore. The world is left with us, the church. God works good, but He chooses to do so through his people.

The task of the church then is to trust in the grace of God to redeem any person or situation, while at the same time being prepared to be used by God as channels through which that redemptive power flows. To this work the church must tend in Haiti, in prisons, in factories that employ unjust labor practices, among the homeless, the elderly, the sick and dying. Lord, have mercy on your church.

Here We Go Again

I tried this a few years ago. I thought it would be helpful to kind of keep a diary. I was having a lot of new thoughts about God and faith and stuff, asking a lot of questions. I think Brian McLaren referred to it as "deconstruction." So I started a blog. www.prestonthinks@blogspot.com.

Well, I enjoyed it for a while. I found getting my thoughts out to be kind of therapeutic. But after a while, I had to stop for two main reasons. First, I started feeling like I didn't have much left to write. I guess I kind of got it all out. Second, people started reading my little blog. And they left comments. And sometimes they disagreed with what I had written, which I found annoying. And sometimes they agreed totally, which I found affirming. But either way, I discovered that I was no longer just writing to get my thoughts out. I was writing to get a reaction. That did not seem helpful. So my blogging experience went from being a therapeutic exercise to being kind of a self-indulgent rant. So I threw in the towel.

But now I kind of feel drawn to journaling again. I've been thinking some more and feel like getting it out. So I'm jumping back into the blogging saddle. We'll see how long it lasts.