When I first came to
VHF in 1995 I was determined that we
would concentrate on people rather than running a range of programs. It all
sounded so right that everyone embraced it enthusiastically. After all I was
called to View Hill Fellowship for this very reason, to transition the
Fellowship from a program based church to a cell church. I am sure that none of
us really realised what was involved at the time.
This emphasis on cell
church was a reaction against the programmatic church which was virtually
universal at the time. Many, in many churches, had used programs in the church in
a way which resulted in the program being more important role than an active
relational life with Jesus and His people. The “means” had become the “message”.
People were crying out for the reality of a relationship with Jesus. Instead,
the church was providing program after program which resulted in several
unintended outcomes.
Church had become engrossed in the latest and
greatest programs coming largely from the USA: church growth, evangelistic
programs, worship seminars, etc. We poured over the books coming from the
“successful” mega churches. Rick Warren headed the list.
Once people had
completed each program, there was one more folder on their bookshelf. That was
finished, now what's next?
Most churches were
like this, to one degree or another. In the case of VHF there was a desire to
discover a more relational form of church life. It was in this context that i
was called to VHF to transition the church to a cell based church.
The process started
well, even though I began the changes far too early albeit at the encouragement
of the leadership and members. This was a major error and one which would
bedevil us for the whole time there, and ultimately torpedo the transition. I
had not yet built enough “emotional capital” in the church. This takes time, at
least a year or more.
Once people started to
really see what was involved in the transition, they began to retreat to the
more comfortable position of a programmatic church. Relationships are far more
difficulty to negotiate. This is particularly so when it is expected that those
relationships were to be subject to the greater relationship with the Lord Jesus
and His call to make disciples. This ultimately involved people seeing that
they were being called to reach out to others, involve these new friends in their
cell, and move towards multiplication once the cell got to such a size where
very close relationships could not be achieved. Such cells could not grow
beyond about 15 or so people if closeness was to be maintained.
Ultimately there was a
reluctance to reach out and grow since this meant a perceived break in existing
relationships.
All attempts to
continue along the cell church model failed and we soon retreated into the familiar
program based church, even though we called it cell based.
Subsequently I have
come to see that this is a common story in democratic countries. The cell model
seems to work best in societies which are more controlled, the so called
“command economies.” In such societies people are used to being told what to
do, and will do it. However in democratic societies there is no such pressure
to conform. We are used to doing whatever we want to, and heaven help anyone
who tries to tell me otherwise. After all, I am free to do whatever I want to.
Such is the attitude of most people in democratic societies. We will reach out
to help others, but only as it suits me and my situation.
In such a society,
church usually becomes one of the activities I will be involved in on a
voluntary basis , as I have time and interest. This might sound like a parody,
but it is not far from the truth. If it were otherwise there would be many more
people active in sharing the gospel in a sacrificial way. “Go” would replace “come”
in our approach to spreading the gospel.
There is much more
analysis of those 12 years at VHF which will have to wait for another time.
From my current perspective, outside of leadership in the
parish system, I see other issues at play, which I could not even see, let
alone evaluate, when I was within that structure.
The main issue is also
the most controversial. The very system within which we operate virtually
guarantees a retreat into “safe” life in the church, and against an
evangelistic lifestyle. Our structures encourage, or even mandate, a “come”
mentality rather than “go into all the world “ view. We call on members to come
to church so they can be evangelised and so add to the membership of the
church. This leads to seeker friendly churches, “back to church” Sundays, special
guest services and so on.
Don’t get me wrong.
Numbers are important, they represent people. It is important that the church
grows numerically as well as spiritually. But this is not what we see when we
examine church life in our society. We see a shrinking church, with some
wonderful exceptions. We see growth being by transfer from other churches
rather than by conversion. We see people making their choice of church based on
what is best for the children, or other activities. There is a dynamic that is
attractive in a “busy” church. We can have activities that suit our needs. But
is it what Jesus instituted?
However, is this what
church is meant to be? I don’t see this in what little we know about the early
church, or what we see in other societies where the gospel is heard for the
first time. It seems to be a problem specific to areas where people are
relatively well off, where being a Christian is easy, where people are many
generations from the initial introduction of the gospel. It is not a problem of
first generation Christians, by and large, or where being a Christian involves sacrifice
and persecution.
Comfort and security are
two of the main obstacles to a vibrant faith. It has been so throughout
history. Even in the early life of Israel, Moses warned the people about this
danger.
When the LORD your God brings you into the land
he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you--a land with
large, flourishing cities you did not build, houses filled with all kinds of
good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive
groves you did not plant--then when you eat and are satisfied, be careful that
you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of
slavery.
(Deu 6:10-12 NIV)
Nominalism is only a
short distance away from vibrancy and dependence on God for everything.
This is a matter of a
faulty ecclesiology which is very hard to counter. Jesus’ commands are ignored,
or watered down, rather than being obeyed. Ecclesiology is the forgotten
discipline of many churches which are faithful to Biblical precepts in most
other areas. I have written, and will continue to write extensively on this.
Another obstacle is
the pressure that many young families face in raising a family and pursuing a
career. The amount of time people can devote to church life is under great pressure.
This is not a comment on their Christian life which should be on show in work,
family and every other part of life. Church life is, rightly, subservient to
family life. However, even with this caveat, some hide behind work and family
and use these as excuses rather than reasons for low engagement with the
church.
It is precisely in
this time when your family is young that lasting attitudes are made. This is
the time when children notice what their parents are doing and saying and so judging
what church really means to them. This is the time that the church needs to be
equipping parents to teach their children, not sending their children to Sunday
school for the church to teach them. Sunday school is a good place for children
to have fun and join with other children, but it is not the place that God
intended for the faith to be passed on. That belongs in the family, and more
precisely, with the father. The church’s role is one of equipping.
This equipping role is
not just the equipping of families to minister to their children, but for all
the members to be equipped for whatever role God has shaped them for, not just
church work. This is one of the main missing ingredients in our ecclesiology.
The few hours a week we spend in church are meant to be the “engine room” for the
rest of the week. We are meant to be equipped for whatever we spend our time in
during the week; work, family, leisure, community work, etc.
It is interesting that
it was only when I stepped outside my role of parish leadership that I saw this
as clearly as I do now. I certainly preached this, tried to model it by
championing member’s roles in society and tried to disciple people along this
line. But I did not have the passion or
ability to swim against the tide of society and church culture to see it
achieved. I wonder how much of this was an unconscious dependence on the parish
for my “salary”? It is certainly easier to speak of these matters when you are
not dependent on the people for your livelihood, but I think it is a larger issue
than this. I believe it is a spiritual issue where you are blinkered to some
issues when you are in the midst of them.
This is the issue with
culture of all kinds. When you live in, or under, a culture, you are often not
aware of the effects of that culture. It is something you imbibe by merely
being in it. That is one reason that we find other cultures hard to understand
yet those in the different culture are perfectly at ease. Such is the
difficulty with cross cultural evangelism, or at an even darker side, the
reason for fear and intolerance of foreign cultures that we see in our country
at the moment with Muslim immigration. In earlier years it was an intolerance
of Southern European immigration. Even earlier it was an intolerance of our
indigenous people. Whatever the different culture involved, it is hard to leave
our own culture behind.
This is also true of
church culture. When we were born again of the Spirit of God, we were born into the Kingdom of God. The culture of
the Kingdom is as different from our normal culture as that between any other
culture you can name, say Ethiopian for an example. The problem arises when we
know that we are born again, yet fail to move into the Kingdom culture and
instead keep within a church culture which is more influenced by tradition than
we care to acknowledge.
A careful reading of
the New Testament should make us aware of this, but the power of the practiced
culture of church is very strong. How are we to fully understand the teachings
of Jesus about the Kingdom of God? We read the parables but miss the main point.
In fact Jesus said that this would be the case when His disciples asked why He
spoke in parables.
The disciples came to him and asked, "Why
do you speak to the people in parables?" He replied, "Because the
knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but
not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance.
Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why
I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though
hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of
Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be
ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise
they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their
hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' But blessed are your eyes because they
see, and your ears because they hear. For truly I tell you, many prophets and
righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear
what you hear but did not hear it.
(Mat 13:10-17 NIV)
The parables were
meant to HIDE the truth from all who would not come with faith, a radical and transforming
faith, a faith that was prepared to forgo everything for the sake of Jesus and
the gospel of the Kingdom, even to the point of death. So we use the parables
as cautionary tales rather than the radical teachings that they are.
There are many other
passages in the New Testament that can’t be understood in any other way as
well. For example,
As they were walking along the road, a man said
to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." Jesus replied, "Foxes
have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his
head." He said to another man, "Follow me." But he replied,
"Lord, first let me go and bury my father." Jesus said to him, "Let
the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
Still another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and
say goodbye to my family." Jesus replied, "No one who puts a hand to
the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God."
(Luke 9:57-62 NIV)
I have been crucified with Christ and I no
longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by
faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
(Gal 2:20 NIV)
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified
the flesh with its passions and desires.
(Gal 5:24 NIV)
But whatever were gains to me I now consider
loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because
of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have
lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found
in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that
which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God on the
basis of faith. I want to know Christ--yes, to know the power of his
resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his
death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I
have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press
on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers and
sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I
do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on
toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in
Christ Jesus. All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of
things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make
clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained. Join
together in following my example, brothers and sisters, and just as you have us
as a model, keep your eyes on those who live as we do.
(Php 3:7-17 NIV)
And there are many
more. In fact the whole of Jesus’ teaching emphasises the gulf between the
culture of the world and that of the Kingdom of God. Unfortunately, since the
time of Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century, the church has
increasingly imbibed the culture of the surrounding society. It is even seen on
the pages of the New Testament with Paul’s admonition to the Corinthian Church.
They had become worldly.
Brothers and sisters, I could not address you
as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly--mere
infants in Christ.
(1Co 3:1 NIV)
This is an almost
universal problem, but it is not one we are to tolerate.
The way of the Kingdom
of God is not the easy road. It is difficult. It does require sacrifice. It
will mean that you will be swimming against the tide of society and much of the
church. But it is the only way that is acceptable to Jesus. His love for us
demands that we give our all for Him. Our love for Him must overcome all
opposition from whatever source it comes.
Further blogs will
address the issue of ecclesiology in more detail. This is one of the missing
points of the Protestant Reformation, and the key to a productive life in
Jesus.
