LET'S TALK ABOUT . . .




                                             "UNINTENTIONAL OUTCOMES"




CNN hosted a documentary by Morgan Spurlock on Sunday night about a new movement out of England.  It is in response to the trend away from attending what might be termed "traditional local churches."  It is an attempt to offer an alternative.  This movement calls their gatherings Sunday Assemblies.  Its boast is that it is "religion without God."  While it does not call itself a "church" it meets on Sunday, holds small group meetings at other times throughout the week and even follows an order of service.  It is a church with an avowed atheistic stance that worships the creature rather than the Creator.  It worships humanism.


This is nothing new, but it is certainly "right out there and growing."  In modern church history did we ever intend that the exodus from our local churches or such movements would be the outcome?  Of course not!  As I watched the show I had to wonder if, in fact, what is happening is the result of misguided trajectory in some of the trends in modern church history.  Perhaps my musings were merely the product of having written about trajectory in my last blog.


Let me illustrate.  Decades ago, during what was called the Church Growth Movement, the trend was to shift church paradigms "corporately" from Body Life, meaning functioning as the Body of Christ, to a corporate business model for doing church.  A shift in trajectory!  As those at large in society are feeling increasingly needy they will look for places that offer them something toward meeting those needs, resources for helping them deal with all the pressures and stresses in the face of their needs or, at least, a worthy distraction for a few hours per week.  


As such, the church became more of a consumer of resources than a committed giving entity within society.  Historically, the church functioned as one of the social agencies in society before those agencies existed apart from the local church.  A shift in trajectory!  So many react to what the church projects it needs in order to sustain its existence, to survive (attendance, offerings, volunteers, etc.).  In light of the fact that many of them are just trying to survive themselves, they are not drawn to a local church that is just trying to survive. They want to go to church and receive something that helps them face another week of whatever life brings. They long to thrive in a thriving church.!


It is interesting to me how many people have an instinctive sense of who and what the local church is supposed to be.  They know it is supposed to be a reflection somehow of the God it preaches and worships.  If they embrace the projected paradigm it becomes about what God and the church want "from" them, more than what both want "for" them.  The "for" them part should be the focus and the "from" them should be the effect of a correct focus on the church's true identity and trajectory. 


Can we trust once again that if we correct and refine our focus, the effects will follow and the identity of the church will be as it was intended to be?  I believe the organic identity of the church is primarily about "being" before "doing." We should never assume that either God or ourselves have completed the "being part" so we can merely focus on "doing church."  Are we merely to accept that "being" is related to what is called the Universal Body of Christ and "doing" is reflected in the local church paradigms?  I certainly hope not!


I had a friend who was completing an education degree years ago at a local university. She told me  her history professor announced to the class that he was sitting on the edge of his seat waiting to see if the church could reinvent itself one more time in history.  He was an avowed atheist.  I wonder if he would embrace the Sunday Assemblies idea of being an atheistic church?


I wonder if what those gathering at these assemblies are really looking for is invitation and inclusion without condemnation.  A church without God would be a church without Divine guilt and shame; it would eliminate any need to deal with the reality of a God or His Christ. In a society that is becoming increasingly narcissistic and entitled, perhaps one of the trends we are seeing more of is to think of ourselves apart from many forms of guilt or shame.  There IS a difference between a healthy sense and a toxic sense of both of these entities.


What is interesting to me is that the church, both universal and local was never intended to be the dispenser of guilt and shame from the pulpit or any other ministry.  It has always been its mandate to acknowledge or reflect the reality of both the healthy and toxic versions of guilt and shame and offer the resolution of both in Christ. 


We live in such complex times on so many levels.  We need to consciously and intentionally work at refining our language, our foci, our trajectories and our projected outcomes.  This is not easy at the best of times; it is increasingly challenging in difficult times.  Work at it we must!


Until next time . . . this is, Just Janice!