Over the last while, I've been engaging in a debate (both in the blogosphere and face-to-face) about the merits of "church". This has led to a label of me arguing the "pro-church" position on these issues. The fact that there would be a "pro-church" view implies there is an "anti-church" view, which I presume would have to be the opposing position. I presume this implies "church" as a "structural building with traditional Sunday services", although I would be interested in hearing what the actual definition being referred to is.
This blog post is largely, although not exclusively, inspired by this post. Reading it will help in understanding the topics on which I am commenting.
I'll start by disagreeing with the statement: "There's no problem with the programs, it's a problem with the people." To imply that nothing is wrong with church programs is a wrong statement - or at the very least, less than perfectly true. More accurate might be "Church programs, though not perfect, can be valuable tools in growing, reaching and encouraging people."
Programs might be (and most probably are) flawed, but people unequivocally are flawed. That's why it's a prima facie, de facto problem with the people. If people were perfect, there would likely be perfect programs. Unfortunately, people aren't.
I'm not saying traditional church (or its associated programs) are perfect. I'm just saying it's pretty darn good. They help many, many people. And people are pretty darn bad.
You know what? I'm immature, incompetent, unwilling, rebellious, selfish and lazy, in addition to being slothful, greedy, lustful, weak and cowardly. Among many, many other "not-so-nice" labels. That's just the start. Throw me a few more and I'll sign up for those too. I am a complete and utter sinner, and the only reason I'm on this earth today is by the unconditional grace of God, without which I would be even more decrepit than I am today, as I am utterly and completely deserve to be burning in hell for eternity, and thanks to His great mercy, I have been given new birth.
In my prideful opinion (missed that one in the first list), there is a great degree of personal responsibility in each of our lives, period. And we shouldn't expect the church to do any of it for us. At the end of the day, we're not responsible for what the "church" did to us, or what quality of "programs it offered" - we're responsible for our actions and our own spiritual health.
Although saying "there is no problem with the programs, it's a problem with the people" might be giving the programs too much credit, I don't believe it's selling the people out at all. The programs aren't sinfu - but people are.
I am not willing to attack people, because I have no right to. How dare I point the finger at another when I am guilty as charged? The parable in Matthew 18:21-35 feels directly on point.
That's not an exercise in self-flagellation, simply an honest assessment of myself. I'm a broken individual, ergo, I will inevitably create broken programs.
If the people are the cause of the programs, then let's work on the people as opposed to blowing up the programs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
http://bobhyatt.typepad.com/pastorhacks/2007/11/80-20-and-the-o.html
The above is a pastor's blog who is working hard and I think agreeing with what you're saying.
He addresses the Pareto Principle in his blog. It's interesting that with all that has been researched, spent and tried that he is finally going to get it done right.
I'm not sure why others think that prayer and guilting people into action will overturn this principle, when most people agree that it is an inevitable result within systems.
Have no fear of programs and church services disappearing or being blown away, 98% of Christians agree that these things are vital to their faith.
I can't cut and paste the link, can you email it to me?
Good post. I quite agree that we people are all flawed. The question is not which group is more flawed - the church programs or the people. The question is, how do we most effectively help people grow?
We're all flawed and church programs don't seem to help us grow too much if the majority are still inactive and uninvolved. Maybe if every person had a mentor or a close friend...
If you click on your title you'll see the full link in my comment box. Cut and paste should work fine after that.
Sorry, are you defending church programs or the welfare state here? I'm confused.
Wait, was Mike's question actually a subtly clever retort?
Post a Comment