Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Missional in the Bible Belt

In The Jollyblogger's archives is a good post called Eclipse of the Gospel in the Church. In it David Wayne builds off this Marcus Honeysett quote:
"At some point in the life of most local churches a critical point is reached when the core fellowship of those committed to gospel vision are outnumbered by a fringe who are there for quite different reasons, be it spiritual comfort, kids activities, personal support, or whatever. Regardless of the particular type of church government, all fellowships struggle to maintain focus around core vision when the fringe, be they believers or not, outnumber the gospel-oriented core. It is very hard to maintain focus, or alter any aspect of church life to reflect the gospel needs of a fresh generation, when the majority are committed to maintaining their comfort. When this happens "Christians" have been replaced with "churchgoers" who assume they are Christians."

Um, yep.

Expanding this beyond an individual congregation, I would say this is a predicament for all gospel-centered churches in areas where the inordinately attractional church is king, particularly in the Bible Belt, where Christianity is "cultural" and the church with the most toys wins.

Wayne follows up:
That seems to be the nature of the beast when it comes to the church. The Exodus people of Israel quickly forgot their redemption and pined for their leeks and onions and devolved into complaints and idolatry. So much so that God had to let a generation die out before they could enter the promised land. And, if you read through the history of Israel it's easy to see how quickly the pattern that Honeysett describes here happens. The people of God forget or jettison their identity as redeemed people, and they jettison a redemption-driven agenda for other agendas. The church in Corinth is a good New Testament example of this.

It's probably just something we have to accept and accept that getting the gospel into the church is an even greater priority than getting it into the world. I remember vaguely hearing Tim Keller talk about Redeemer in Manhattan. Redeemer is well known around the world as a leading light in gospel based, missionally driven ministry, yet if I remember correctly Keller said there were probably only a third or a little more at his church who were really getting the whole gospel-missional thing . . .

So the point is that our first and greatest battle is to gospelize the church.

We are in a weird -- but frequently exhilarating -- position where the gospel is scandalous even to Christians.

So many of our brothers and sisters want the compartmentalized spirituality (putting in their religious time on Sunday mornings), the six steps to such-and-such messages, and the superficiality of apathy towards real community, that missional thinking and living, gospel-saturated and Jesus-centered messages, and the demands of relational intimacy freak them out. This stuff is a foreign language to them, and I see it constantly in the so-called "Christian South," where "everyone" is a Christian, "everyone" goes to church.

Once upon a time, reading on a Nashville church shopper's blog, I noticed a commenter urging her to look for a church that focused on Jesus. Her reply was, "I've already found Jesus."

This is the default mode of Bible Belt Christianity. I've got my ticket punched, just give me the show now. I need a dynamic speaker on Sunday mornings, a rockin' band on the stage, a full service childcare facility, a big youth group, a coffee bar near the sanctuary, etc.
I've got Jesus already; give me something that matters to me now, something "relevant," something applicable.

And there is a never-ending appetite for this stuff because this stuff doesn't fix or fulfill anything. Seven steps to conquering conflict in your marriage won't eradicate conflict. So there's always demand for seven more steps next time around.

What I find especially ironic about the churches catering to gospel-unawakened Christians is that they claim they exist for the unchurched. They are the ones actually reaching lost people, they say.
The data does not support this, of course. The number of megachurches has increased; the number of Christians has decreased. This does not compute. And when folks like Sally Morgenthaler start looking at the research, what they find is that the attractional machine, which purports to be for the lost and unchurched, basically just ends up attracting Christians from smaller or less "exciting" churches.

Should missional church pastors care? Do we want these folks?

Speaking for myself, yes. Except, I want to win them. They're no fun as they are. ;-) But frankly, as they are, they don't want what we've got anyway. To the cultural Christian, there is nothing attractive about a small church that expects relational community, practices regular neighborhood service, highlights the cost of discipleship in every message, has a minimalist menu of programs to partake from, and gives most of its money away (precluding a "nice" facility and assorted bells and whistles). But I want to reach them. All Christians are family. I love the big-C Church dearly.

There are some who would say the missional communities should just write off their attractional brothers and sisters and focus on reaching the lost. I defy false dichotomies. And while I never poach (I've never invited members of other churches to mine before they themselves have first expressed interest in visiting), I pray and preach AND BLOG and try to live a life of witness so that my churched brothers and sisters will begin to crave the gospel and gospel-centrism in their congregations.

The more churched converts gospel-centrism receives -- we're talking about revival here, by the way -- the greater impact for the kingdom among the lost and "least of these" there will be, in the Bible Belt and beyond.

If indeed cultural evangelicalism in the Bible Belt is dying, what do we do about it?

7 comments:

Bill Blair said...

Jared,
I don't really have time to elaborate, but trying to do missional in the Bible belt is, well, interesting. There is such a strain trying to think through providing services, like good children's stuff, and calling people to self-sacrifice. I highlight the children's stuff because that almost seems non-negotiable here. It is like some parents want to live missional themselves, but want amenities for their kids. We are close to figuring out a balance there (at least for us), but it is a challenge.

I guess I did have time to elaborate. ;-)

salguod said...

"I pray and preach AND BLOG and try to live a life of witness so that my churched brothers and sisters will begin to crave the gospel and gospel-centrism in their congregations"

It's working. Reading you regularly has changed my thinking of what my church should be, and it's made me more appreciative of the good, Jesus focused preaching we get on a regular basis.

Bobby Capps said...

Keep going, we're hard at it in Mississippi. Attractional has its place. But lots of people will never hear or see the Gospel if the missional guys don't do their thing.

We love it. Our people are fulfilled... the people who won't "go" to church are getting the church to come to them. Win Win.

The Bible Belt is starved for Missional... least they are here.

Rob said...

Great post, Jared. I hear ya!

aggieben said...

Jared - I just found your blog last week (interestingly enough, it was in my recommendations list in Google Reader), and have been sucking in as many posts as I can ever since. I find that your approach to the gospel and church (without knowing any details of how you actually "do church") resonates with me, so I'm curious:

What would you say to someone currently plugged in at a church that has shades of these problems you mention? For example, in my church, there exist those who are gospel awakened and those who aren't, and one collective failure is that both sides fail to submit to the authority of scripture and to love each other. One the one hand, there is a group that has a huge authority problem and will twist (or ignore) scripture every which way to avoid being held accountable to other brothers or having to submit to any kind of authority (you know..."The Holy Spirit disciples me") or submit to anything that disrupts their comfort, and on the other hand, there's a group that is so afraid of offending that they refuse to confront even the most blatant sin in a biblical way, or to even teach the scriptures authoritatively in hopes that the revealed word could change hearts. For example, in one particular case, steps 1-2 from Matthew 18 has been performed ad nauseum on one individual (to no avail), and yet we won't complete the process. Of course, discussion of church governance is taboo, particularly the word "Elders" (nevermind what the Bible actually says - we have to defend our Baptist identity, you see).

I've contemplated leaving, but I'm hugely conflicted about that. I've been at this church long enough to have true fellowship with a core group of brothers, despite our collective problems, and it would be painful to break that fellowship. At the same time, we have a broken leadership in this church and consequently fail to be what Jesus intended the bride of Christ to be. I realize that any other local body would have some or many of the same problems, so I'm not entirely sure there's anywhere to go - not to mention that church migrations might very well be the mechanism that allows unhealthy churches to stumble along.

Jared said...

AggieBen, I don't know if this post may apply to your situation, but I have written on "What to do If Your Pastor Doesn't Preach Jesus" before, which touches on some of these same issues:
http://gospeldrivenchurch.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-to-do-if-your-pastor-doesnt-preach.html

One I would say, going by your description, and I say it delicately because I don't know your church obviously, is that it doesn't sound as though there is much gospel wakefulness in your church. Gospel wakefulness produces both humility and confidence. And it sounds like one side in your church lacks humility and the other lacks confidence.

My first inclination in situations like that would be to stay and continue to work patiently, gracefully for the good. But I know there are times when that is just not feasible b/c of heresy, stalemated or unhealthy conflict, family concerns, etc.

I think your heart is good to want to stay if you can. This is a good indication that you are probably free to leave if you can do so in good conscience.
I can't be the Holy Spirit and know what you should or shouldn't do.

But, yes, you're right: the dearth of gospel wakefulness is something that affects most churches. There's no perfect place and switching places is often just switching one set of problems for another.

You sound like you've got a good spirit and thoughtfulness about the predicament. I pray you can be a good missionary for the gospel even in your church, no matter where that ends up being.

Jared said...

Oh, here's another one I forgot about.
"Should I Stay or Should I Go?"
http://gospeldrivenchurch.blogspot.com/2007/11/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go.html