I just read a phenomenal post with some great thoughts on Derek Webb and his new album, Stockholm Syndrome. iMonk aptly point out:

I love Webb. I consider him immensely talented. His current work is ground-breaking and I hope millions of young Christians listen to it and identify with it. But I have some thoughts.

I saw Webb live several years ago on the Mockingbird tour. He was genuinely entertaining. Today, even though I’m a fan, I’d think twice or more about whether I wanted to sit through an evening of Stockholm Syndrome. Not for a lack of creativity or artistic talent. Far from it. And not just because I’m not a fan of electronic music.

I’m just not sure I want to be pummeled by the law- and the truth about the church and culture- for an hour or two. And make no mistake about it, on the “law-Gospel” continuum, this is law and prophetic denunciation, delivered with relentless consistency. No one else is saying this stuff and Webb doesn’t miss his punches. His pleasant voice betrays his very unpleasant message. We are a captive church that is now identifying with the values of our cultural captors, and it’s not pretty. Our treatment of the gay community provides a painful example. . . .

…. Webb is an artist, and I respect his freedom to create and I encourage you to get and listen to Stockholm Syndrome. As a Christian, I want to give Webb all the artistic room possible, and my soul needs to be jolted as much as anyone. But I’d like to pray that Webb has a Lutheran turn in the near future, and finds that speaking of law and Gospel, prophetic intensity and Christ’s love are things that can go together in art and must go together in life.

I really have been enjoying Webb’s album, but I along with him I often fall into the Law-end of the spectrum. It’s much easier to point out problems than to effect lasting change by the power of the Gospel and grace-motivation (as opposed to guilt-manipulation). Perhaps our frustration stems in a sign of the times, it seems to be shared my most in my generation – almost an outright hostility towards institutional church. At the same time, is it somewhat warranted?

In a recent comment I wrote:

. . . .few churches spend more on outreach than they do on building costs and salaries. What if churches began in homes until they were big enough to move into a building but could still pay more out to outreach than to administrative issues? For instance, if a pastor makes $25,000/yr and a mortgage for a building (or rent/lease) costs $25,000/yr, then automatically that is $50,000/yr spent sustaining a building and full-time staff. Instead, those desiring to lead churches could work a regular job and pastor from their home until they are able to spend more on outreach than both of these combined. And I know $50,000 a year is actually pretty meager compared to what most spend annually, especially once you factor in things like printing costs, utilities, sound systems, powerpoint projection systems, building and grounds maintenance, etc. Let’s face it, that’s a lot of money that could be spent on things like food pantries, homeless shelters, and other ways of meeting physical needs while presenting the Gospel to people. And people who work at regular jobs could support this and meet in several homes. I mean, people are already paying mortgages, why pay for another one? That’s my issue, the institutional church model is not the best way – nor is it really good stewardship. The problem is that as churches grow, they typically don’t spend a larger percentage of their money on outreach, either. They spend more money, yes, but not a larger percentage. The trend continues, most of the money goes towards a larger staff, better technology, and other comfort-items for pew-sitters. It makes me sick.

Did you know that over one thousand million [1,000,000,000] people in the world do not have clean water. Many more people must travel very far distances to gather clean water each day. Do you know how much money it would cost to supply clean drinking water for a village? About $2,000. That’s the average cost of a well for one town/village. A 2005 New York Times story noted that people all over the world spend sixty four thousand million dollars [$64,000,000,000] on bottles of water each year. Many of the people buying this bottled water already have clean water supplies. But the New York Times story also noted that if these groups had just one point seven thousand million dollars [$1,700,000,000] more each year, all people in the world could have a clean water supply. Americans spend enough on bottled water to supply it for the entire world several times. But churches can’t contribute to such causes because the NIPSCO bill was a little too high this month from running the air-conditioning on Sunday morning. . . .

I really wonder if institutional ministry really is the best way to do things. Everyone agrees that real ministry and discipleship occurs in small groups, so why not invest in that rather than the Sunday morning financial drain? Then again, maybe I’m being too harsh. Then again Jesus said some pretty harsh things to church people. . . .

Be sure to read all of iMonk’s post, it’s very good.

Related posts:

1. Derek Webb's Stockholm Syndrome
2. Paddington Bear Thoughts
3. How Important Is The Building?
4. Thoughts on Steve… Epitaph
5. Great Quote