Satire Too Close to Reality

In a clever piece of satire, featuring characters from "The Office," Inner Revolution tells the tale of Scranton Community Church — a congregation that ceases meeting in favor of offering conferences and online resources. Though meant in jest, the article is not far from the truth. In his recent article, "Churchcasting Kills Community," Drew Dyck talked about his friend's potpourri style of getting "church."

At first I found it tough to argue with his new mode of spirituality. As he pointed out, going it alone had some major advantages to the conventional Sunday service. His pastor's sermons had always been a little short on substance. But now he had his choice of the best pod casting preachers in the world! Then there were all the problems at church: hypocrisy, infighting, gossip — you name it. Online, he could avoid all the flaws and foibles of church life. And of course there was the convenience that the internet affords. He was able to read devotionals, listen to speakers and sing along to the best praise music at any time, all in coziness of his own bedroom. With all that at your fingertips, why struggle out of bed early every Sunday?

In his book Revolution, George Barna claims that parachurch organizations, or "mini-movements" — not churches — are leading the way in spiritual transformation. Barna predicts that within 20 years, congregational-style church will dissolve in favor of small "pods" of believers living out biblical principles. The fictional Scranton Community Church illustrates this change.

While spiritual transformation is good no matter what the catalyst, the abandonment of physical churches in favor of individuals drawing from many mini-movements seems problematic. Many biblical instructions regarding the conduct of leadership, the protection of doctrine, the order of worship and the structure of accountability would be completely lost were all churches to go the way of Scranton Community. Still, if churches fail to fulfill their biblical calling, the rise of mini-movements seems inevitable. Churches need to step it up, before they lose the opportunity.

HT: Jollyblogger

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Sam said the following at 4:26 PM on Nov 27:

Well said, Suzanne.

As a 20-something myself, I'm having a hard time getting plugged into my church. I moved to Colorado in May of 2005 and was referred to a wonderful church. The teaching is amazing and so is the worship. Fellowship...not so much. I've gotten involved with the women's ministry, but it's really geared to married women or moms. I'm neither! While I value mature input, sometimes I want to talk about where I'm at spiritually with people my age, people who understand what I'm going through.

That's why I love Boundless so much. ;o)

I've gone so far as to meet with the small group pastor and the leader of the women's ministry. I was told the church would "pray" about stepping out and trying to reach people my age. As I look around church during the weekend service, I wonder what there is to pray about. It's always wise to see the Lord's counsel, yes, but at the same time I see so many of my friends who aren't involved in getting plugged in at church because there's not a clear group for us. My friendship is only a good lure in; it won't hold them when they get into a group of 35 year old, stay-at-home moms....(Please know there is nothing wrong with being a stay at home mom. I just know that I'm not the only unmarried person in my group of friends. No one is married and we're all mid-20's. Most of us ARE unmarried and therefore can't always relate to a mother's problems.)

We're not ready for the singles group (maybe not ready to admit it?) nor are we really in the same place as the college/career group, which inevitably is more on the college side. I think it's a real flaw with the church (not just my own - but all) that my demographic (mid-twenties, post-college, pre-marriage singles) isn't being pulled in. We crave something deeper. We do crave fellowship and, instead of getting it in a godly atmosphere, we're seeking it elsewhere.

No wonder there are so many articles about 20-somethings putting their faith on the shelf post-teen years. (See Barna study from September of this year.) It's hard to stay strong in your faith, particularly after college, when you don't have a good support system to lock into.

2. Jacob said the following at 6:16 PM on Nov 27:

I wonder if the 21st Century evangelicalism isn't having an identity crisis? Isn't the question that the Emergent movement is forcing us to ask "What is the church?" What does it mean to gather together and fellowship? What does it mean to worship God together? What does it mean to teach the commandments of Christ and the Apostles? If worship is just about me singing a few songs with the lights turned out, why do I have to go to a church to do that? If sermons are just about what I can get out of it, why not just pick and chose between podcasts. We already know that we can get together with our friends for coffee or to go to the movies. Church has to be about something more than "me." I grew up as your generic conservative non-denominational evangelical and yet, I now feel very uncomfortable in evangelical worship services. It seems like everything is about "me." What ever happened to God and contemplating His eternal attributes and divine nature? American Christianity has lost something...and I desperately hope we figure out what it is.

3. Leah said the following at 2:30 AM on Nov 28:

Very true what Jacob said. However, it's definitely not restricted to evangelical circles.

Since I'm Australian I can't speak concerning American churches. However some churches have put their finger right on the problem and are fighting it. My church for example is actively striving to sing less of those "me" songs. One thing that has struck me in recent months about our church (which emphasizes its focus on others rather than "me") is the amount of prayer in a service. Every second or third item is prayer- usually about people in the congregation who may be suffering, about national issues (drought, war, politics), about an ethical issue of particular concern (eg. Australian or American states that may be legalising abortion, or homosexual marriage), yet praise of God and thanks pervades every area.

It was there in the prayer about our drought- thankyou Lord for the rain we *have* had- it was there in the prayer for the young couple who just had still born twins- thankyou Lord for your grace and the limited time they had with their daughters, and for your son's sacrifice that means we will see them again- it's there in the prayers about ethics- thankyou Lord that abortion has not yet been legalised.

Prayer, when used properly, puts the emphasis back on God and what he has done for us. Of course there's always the pharisee's prayer, but when a church hits upon a problem, prayer can be a powerful solution.

Back to the main topic of the post- we are to encourage and build each other up in our faith. Discussing a sermon we have all heard together, or songs we have sung together, gives more opportunity to spur each other on and encourage each other. You aren't as likely to hit upon these topics during your coffee break together.

4. Suzanne said the following at 9:52 AM on Nov 28:

Jacob,

You make an excellent point about the American church's identity crisis. How you define, "What is the church about?" determines how you live it out. If church is about spiritual encouragement, podcasts can do the trick — maybe even better than traditional evangelical services. But I think what we're losing is the concept of many parts working together as one body (1 Cor. 12). We become more together than the sum of our parts. If we break up the body, we lose our impact.

At the same time, this question of "What is the church?" is perplexing. A group of friends and I were recently having a discussion about church discipline. If one in our close circle of friends is sinning, do we bear the resposibility of enacting church discipline (e.g. breaking off fellowship)? What if that person is not connected to a local church? Do we, a group of Christian friends, act as "the church" in that case? These are difficult questions to answer.

5. Ame said the following at 10:45 PM on Nov 29:

i find this discussion interesting. i can relate to sam, though i'm in a very different place in my life.

i have a friend on staff at a med-to-large church whose responsibilities include creating new "ministries." i mentioned i have been told that the church does not know how to "minister" to widowed and divorced. she said that is true. then i asked her, "have you ever asked a widowed or divorced person how you can "minister" to them?" "uhhh, no," she said.

perhaps, in trying to minister to so many in their individual circumstances, we need to minister to each other as a family. i taught in a bible study once to women of all ages and was astounded at how God took the words He gave me and used them cross-generationally.

would i help my sister if she were in a different "place in life" than i? can i not help another in the same way?

while trying to become more "flexible" to meet more individual and circumstantial "needs," it seems the church in general is loosing a lot.

i was married 11 years before i had my first baby - that was interesting. i was not "accepted" by the married with children group. then i had one baby and found that having a girl excluded me from those with boys ... and having only one baby excluded me from those with multiple children. UGH! then you get into home schoolers vs. private christian schoolers vs. public schoolers ... it's crazy.

what if we put everyone's name in a hat, shook it up, then randomly drew to sort people into groups to teach and study and learn and support ... well ... like a family.

sam and i could be in the same group. i could step out of "me" and into her world to let her life be about her. we could find a place to "relate" through the holy spirit living inside both of us, and we could both grow and learn in intimacy with our God and with each other and with others.

why do we have to be alike to be in a "group?" why do we have to be alike to care for another, to develop relationships with others? why does the church work so hard to force us into these "groups?" sure, we need support from others in similar places, but we were created to need the whole body of Christ. why is that so difficult?

and why, once a "family group" is created, do we exclude anyone else from "joining" our group? then, if the "group" gets too big, the church splits it. UGH.

6. Dr. Ransom said the following at 8:27 AM on Nov 30:

I would take issue with Barna's interpretation of the "Revolution," based on others' reviews, and my own skim-throughs, of the book; and knowledge of Barna's past and presents views of Church.

Like many Christian authors, Barna diagnoses problems well enough, but overall seems not to offer long-lasting, solidly Biblical solutions.

In "Revolution" he basically says it's more than fine and dandy that parachurch movements and individual belief are replacing Church and this is the wave of future faith.

Nine Marks Ministries reviewer Greg Gilbert wrote:

------------------------------

Barna would like to define his Revolutionaries as a group of Christians who embody all the best virtues, passions, and characteristics of biblical Christianity, and he would like to argue that the local church really has little or nothing to do with it.

[. . . I]t doesn’t seem to me that jettisoning the local church is the way to address its problems, especially since the whole thing was ordained by Jesus Christ in the first place.

[. . . I]f this Revolution is so sweeping, so unstoppable, so nationwide, where is it? Barna says there are 20 million people involved, but he never interviews a single person who would identify with his Revolution. In fact, the closest he gets to that is making up his golf-course Revolutionary, David. If there were anything really happening worthy of the super-heated language Barna uses throughout this book, it should not have been too hard for him to find at least one or two Revolutionaries to interview for it. Nor should it have been too hard to come up with some real statistics about where these people are, and how many of them have really abandoned the church. But there is no such research here.

[. . . I]t seems to me that Barna is doing nothing more interesting than declaring that his Revolutionaries are *all the best Christians*. [. . .] Moreover, it doesn’t matter whether they’re involved in a church or not. If you’re a great Christian—church or no church—then you’re a Barna-Revolutionary.

[. . .]

If [Barna] had ever been a part of a healthy, vibrant local church, he wouldn’t find it so easy to declare the local church expendable. One only wishes that before he published this book, he had found a church where the Word of God is faithfully preached, where relationships are strong, where non-believers are coming to Christ, and where believers are being strengthened and built up in the faith.

Meanwhile, I might attempt a response to you and your friends' question, Suzanne:

"If one in our close circle of friends is sinning, do we bear the resposibility of enacting church discipline (e.g. breaking off fellowship)? What if that person is not connected to a local church? Do we, a group of Christian friends, act as 'the church' in that case?"

Sure, a circle of Christian friends, of course, doesn't exactly qualify as the Church. One's ecclesiology here is important: for in this context, a true "church" in the local sense would be basically defined as a (regional) "organized religion." (For those who recoil from that term, I ask, would you prefer "religion" slipshod?)

A circle of friends has no overseer, elders, deacons and "official" recognition and other elements, as a local church by the Biblical definition does.

Yet it seems the principles are the same. Firstly, just about everyone (I'm unaware of any exceptions save One) in a group of friends will be sinning. :-) The problem would be with continual, blatant, unrepentant sin, which the friend refuses to discontinue even after others attempt the steps advocated by Jesus (in context, for sins against you) and later, Paul (in context, for sins against God):

1. Broach the subject privately and hope for resolution there.
2. Get backup, hoping others may help and strengthen the case, along with providing witnesses for the effort.
3. Take it to the church (no place now for secretive "negotations" or quasi-gossip).
4. Absolute last resort: disfellowship the rebel, perhaps while still pleading for repentance in non-church settings. (However, even then, the issue may become personal: Christ did make allowance for cutting off ties with a "brother" who refuses to admit personal offenses, as if he were, in the original Jewish perception, "a Gentile and a tax collector.")
5. Consider him/her outside the Church, even "delivered up to Satan," unless he/she finally repents.

(attempted condensation from Matthew 18: 15-20 and 1 Corinthians 5)

Meanwhile, regarding Jake's comment: the "Emergent" movement, while making some good points about the state of the problem (like Barna), too often fails to offer Biblical and even long-term pragmatic alternatives. D.A. Carson's book "Become Conversant with the Emerging Church" is a gently written yet uncompromising portrayal of the movement -- its positives, yes, and its profound negatives. Justin Taylor, too, writes and speaks well on the topic.

Went a little long there ...

7. Esther said the following at 10:59 AM on Dec 20:

I attend a small church, with sound teaching, a good mix of ages and walks of life, plenty of activities, frequent conversions and baptisms and emphases on sound doctrine, fellowhip and evangelism.

However, there are still many times when I feel like I just go to the service, sing the songs, hear the sermon and walk out, without having been really present, either with my fellow worshipers, or with God. It is so easy to just get into the groove, avoid confrontation, have shallow cliched conversations with a few people, and pat yourself on the back for "being involved" in church. Having had that experience, I can understand why some young people may feel that virtual church is just as good. I understand that actual, interpersonal fellowship is vital for growth as a Christian, but simply attending a local church doesn't guarantee that will happen. No program or style CAN guarantee it. Are we like the Pharisees, arguing over what constitutes work on the Sabbath? Jesus said it didn't matter, as long as you were doing the will of the Father. But of course, He was one of the most disturbing revolutionaries in all of history.

One of the things I find amusing about the idea of "revolutionaries" within the church, is that every church now functioning, was once considered revolutionary. Look at the worship songs vs. hymns debate for a recent example. As humans, we adapt and try to create a comfortable position for ourselves. It is very exhausting to be continually on the edge, consistently challenging things. So, the revolutionaries (if they exist) will probably push a few limits, challenge some ideas, and eventually create a pattern that they are comfortable with. They will probably feel that they are on the creative edge, until their children start to challenge their parents' "revolutionary" ideas. My personal sense is that as long as the purpose is to seek to live more in line with Scripture and God's revealed truth, challenges to the status quo will only help keep the church going in the right direction. G.K. Chesterson had a thought in his book Orthodoxy that has comforted and challenged me over the years. To paraphrase: The church is like a top spinning through history, being bounced from one extreme to another, with various forces pulling it in different directions. But generally, the direction has been towards Christ. From the view of any one point in time it can seem like we're heading into one extreme or another, but on the whole, things balance out.

I have faith in Christ's ability to draw his bride to himself, and believe that there may be things the church could learn from these "revolutionaries" about what it is that the Body could be doing better.