If you are bothering to read this, then you know the kinds of things writers and speakers come up with, including those who think nothing should change. Some argue for a collective model of relational community where justice reigns and we all live like the book of Acts describes with “having all things in common.” Some suggest a postmodern, emergent model that will make room for the angst of the generations of young people and adults alike who have no room for absolute truth. Others suggest the house church model where we find accountability and acceptance in a double handful of close-knit relationships.
Still others advocate a multi-site, multi-plex, mega marvel with thousands in attendance in locations all over town, or even all over the globe. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that any of those are not valid expressions of the church. What I am so afraid of is that whatever our solution is today, we will have a single choice of one of only two options: We will either institutionalize our current solutions into just another tradition among so many, or we will find our solutions temporary at best.
With something as universal and as all-embracing as the gospel, do we need to have it nailed? And if we do nail it down, won’t it fall off within ten years anyway? In a culture where the latest technologies and advancements are passé within a few years or even a few months, do we need to have it carved into stone tablets? Or do we need it written on our hearts which are pliable and open?
What I have observed in our community is that not all answers apply to all people. What I have observed often in the larger church world is that we are answering questions no one is asking any more. So, not only do the answers change, but maybe the questions change on a regular basis too. If that is the case, then what if we’re asking the wrong questions?
Now I have a friend who wonders if “wrong questions” even exist. He asks, “Aren’t all questions good questions?” In my experience, no. As mentioned before questions that no one else are asking may be useless. Also, it depends on when and where you stop asking and start answering. What if your assumptions with which you begin are skewed? Won’t that lead us to ask wrong questions?
For help here, it would be wise to look at the Ladder of Inference developed by author and Harvard Business School Professor Emeritus Chris Argyris. You can watch a short video of the concept here. Or you can read about it extensively here or here.
I will try to summarize it. But do some research for yourself. It will be important that you understand this concept as we journey together.
2 comments:
Interesting post, Jeff. I don't know why God would create all this diversity in the world, if He didn't enjoy it!
Many people don't realize that before the Reformation there was a lot more diversity in the Church than after the council of Trent.
From different Monasteries and their followings, to the University of Paris, firebrand preachers in Florence, and Princes of the Church acting more like secular leaders than the Servants of the Servants of God!
I think it may be that the Reformation caused both camps to desire more homogeneity as a definition method so to speak.
'We' do Church this way, and 'they' are wrong!
Maybe we are still in that mindset?
Br. James Patrick
†Deo adjuvante, non timendum
†With the help of God, there is nothing to fear
As I prepare my comment,I am reminded of my lack of education and knowledge of what some schools call "Church Administration". However, Pastor Jeff, your comment of "...as universal and as all embracing as the gospel, do we need to have it nailed? and if we do nail it down, wont it fall off...?" has caused me to think. I cannot imagine the sleepless nights pastor must endure to try to create an environment for the Gospel to thrive without putting names on pews. Our society, our culture, our humankind is in a state of change, constant change. A church that requires conformity, unity, mega trends and presentations with all the techno genius of a rock concert, are nailing down the gospels and the people. While it is more difficult, wouldnt it be better to be a church known for loving and accepting...and evolving. A live thriving entity that changes to adapt to life while supporting the lives it touches. I know this is not as philosophical as is necessary, but thank you for the 'thought provoking' blog......
Post a Comment