iMonk posted a quote from Deyoung & Kluck’s recent book, Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion
Consistency is not a postmodern virtue. And nowhere is this more aptly displayed than in the barrage of criticisms leveled against the church.
The church-is-lame crowd hates Constantine and notions of Christendom, but they want the church to be a patron of the arts, and run after-school programs, and bring the world together in peace and love.
They bemoan the over-programmed church, but then think of a hundred complex, resource-hungry things the church should be doing.
They don’t like the church because it is too hierarchical, but then hate it when it has poor leadership.
They wish the church could be more diverse, but then leave to meet in a coffee shop with other well-educated thirty-somethings who are into film festivals, NPR, and carbon offsets.
They want more of a family spirit, but too much family and they’ll complain that the church is ‘inbred.’
They want the church to know that its reputation with outsiders is terrible, but then are critical when the church is too concerned with appearances.
They chide the church for not doing more to address social problems, but then complain when the church gets too political.
They want church unity and decry all our denominations, but fail to see the irony in the fact that they have left to do their own thing because they can’t find a single church that can satisfy them.
They are critical of the lack of community in the church, but then want services that allow for individualized worship experiences.
They want leaders with vision, but don’t want anyone to tell them what to do or how to think.
They want a church where the people really know each other and care for each other, but then they complain the church today is an isolated country club, only interested in catering to its own members.
They want to be connected to history, but are sick of the same prayers and same style every week.
They call for not judging “the spiritual path of other believers who are dedicated to pleasing God and blessing people,” and then they blast the traditional church in the harshest, most unflattering terms.
Hmm, sounds a lot like me sometimes. While I still don’t feel that the institutional church and its corporate methods are the most effective way to do ministry, I can’t negate the fact that there are many Christ followers in those institutions who are children of God, and thus His Bride, the Church. Lord, give me the grace to present both Law and Gospel as I exhort your Bride, and continually humble me so that I do so according to your will, not my own.
No related posts.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Just commented on facebook to you that his criticisms and responses sound like your way of thinking about the church. What do you think of what he had to say? How does he address these issues in the book? I’ll be interested to hear more about what you read.
The tension here reminds me a lot of Frank Viola’s two interviews on the Neue podcast. Perhaps if we’re humble enough, both institutional and non-institutional folks will see that it’s not enough to follow an institutional or non-institutional model but that we need Christ in both, and that we need Christ if we are ever to see a different model that is neither.
in Christ,
jW
this list is interesting… basically it’s just pitting one set of stereotypes against another, and in the end doesn’t address any of the real issues or problems dealing with the “institutional” church…
I guess that’s not surprising, because when you talk to most people who are very defensive of their religious institutions, they do often tend to try and deflect real conversation by characterizing any “criticisms” as petty or selfishly-motivated. Even using that word “criticisms” is a way of characterizing in a negative way… “Criticisms”? I thought we were to hold up everything according to the standard of God’s word?
Overall, I think this list (and probably the entire book from which it comes) really attests to what we have encountered anecdotally, that people within “the I.C.” tend to lump together everyone who is “outside the box”. Many people have no concept of the distinctions between those who are of the “emergent” strain, (who dig liturgy, the arts, etc.), and the social action folks (whom he characterizes as trying to “bring the world together in peace and love”) and finally those who are simply trying to be obediant to what the Bible actually teaches. (and we don’t hear a single response to the many, many legitimate biblical objections to the I.C. in this list, do we…?)
I wish I was at the point where I no longer chaffed at things like: “They want church unity and decry all our denominations, but fail to see the irony in the fact that they have left to do their own thing because they can’t find a single church that can satisfy them.” but I’m not there yet….
“Do their own thing!?!” Jesus, give me patience!