http://qbsblog.wordpress.com
Peace,
qb
Friday, February 20, 2009
qb moved his blog
Just in case you monitor this channel, qb moved his blog over a year ago. If you're interested in joining the other two people who read it, you can find it at
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Pimp the Church
Nobody actually reads this blog, but if they did, they might wonder what "enculturated" means.
What qb means by enculturation is nicely (if a bit blandly) phrased by WordNet: "the adoption of the behavior patterns of the surrounding culture." It's a sociology word often used synonymously with "socialization," as in children learning to play nicely by learning the norms of their surroundings, but qb is using the term in the more loaded sense, as an epithet.
Not as in, "becoming all things to all people, so that by all means I might win some," as Paul put it; but as in, "making every effort to be as indistinguishable from commercial American culture as possible so that my Christianity does not threaten or offend...and in fact proves to be profitable."
* * *
This morning's reading in Kenneson's _Selling Out the Church_ got me to thinkin' about what happened a couple of years ago when our Bible class, of which I was chairpersyn at the time, decided to put together a brochure for internal use only. It was two-color and stripped down with lots of text, which violates every principle of modern marketing. We had no intention of using it to market King's Couples (that was our class' name) to people who were not already in the room; we just wanted to use it to explain what convictions underlie our teaching and our class activities.
To demonstrate good faith, I floated our brochure by the staff member overseeing Adult Education. He thought it was OK, so we went with it - again, for internal use only, after the fact, for folks who visited our class and might have questions about what they had seen and heard. But it wasn't long until I fielded another call from him. Turns out the Powers That Be (PTB) up the food chain a little bit wanted all of the Bible classes now to put together their own brochures according to a graphically similar template so that the PTB could put them all in a rack out in the foyer. Our class leadership wasn't interested in that - let me use the technical term for my reaction: peristaltogenesis - but the PTB were persistent. We held our noses and went along.
That sequence of events came to mind this morning, uninvited, and something clicked. What is the true (as opposed to the stated) motivation for positioning a church in the religious marketplace and adopting what Kenneson and Street call the "marketing orientation" for the way we conceive of the church?
I think it's this: we want lives to be changed (a good thing), but we want our church to get the credit for it so that other people - people hunting for "authentic Christianity," or something - will think that what we've got going is the real thing. (After all, if it weren't the real thing, lives wouldn't be being changed, now, would they?) And they'll come and join us. Cynics might add: and they'll bring their children and their debit cards with them.
In other words, we make it about the church: what we can do for people, if only they'd come and place membership with us. And then we can say - as our Senior "Pastor" and our elders have recently said, multiple times - look, we don't have time for your little snits, we just had 50 baptisms last week, so we must be doing something right.
It reminds me of a scaled-up, corporate expression of what Paul was decrying in the church at Corinth.
For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. (1:11-17, NASB; emphasis added)
When Christ returns to take us home, I kinda doubt that Harvey Porter and Bobby Hise are going to have a sign printed that says, "Montgomery Avenue Church of Christ was where qb was baptized back in '76; ain't we the cat's meow!"
Yeah, I secretly loved it when people voted with their feet and came to King's Couples. But it ain't that big a deal, and I don't get any feathers in my cap for it. In fact, I'm more than a little embarrassed by it. (If folks came to our class for any human reason, it was for SW's great teaching, nothing I'd done.)
My main concern is that you come to know Jesus. Throw in with Him, then find a group of people who love Him and walk through life with them as witnesses of what He's done for you.
And you folks who think you have to differentiate yourselves in the religious marketplace in order to grow your numbers: would you ever consider rethinking that whole deal? Kenneson and Street would be a pretty good place to start.
qb
What qb means by enculturation is nicely (if a bit blandly) phrased by WordNet: "the adoption of the behavior patterns of the surrounding culture." It's a sociology word often used synonymously with "socialization," as in children learning to play nicely by learning the norms of their surroundings, but qb is using the term in the more loaded sense, as an epithet.
Not as in, "becoming all things to all people, so that by all means I might win some," as Paul put it; but as in, "making every effort to be as indistinguishable from commercial American culture as possible so that my Christianity does not threaten or offend...and in fact proves to be profitable."
* * *
This morning's reading in Kenneson's _Selling Out the Church_ got me to thinkin' about what happened a couple of years ago when our Bible class, of which I was chairpersyn at the time, decided to put together a brochure for internal use only. It was two-color and stripped down with lots of text, which violates every principle of modern marketing. We had no intention of using it to market King's Couples (that was our class' name) to people who were not already in the room; we just wanted to use it to explain what convictions underlie our teaching and our class activities.
To demonstrate good faith, I floated our brochure by the staff member overseeing Adult Education. He thought it was OK, so we went with it - again, for internal use only, after the fact, for folks who visited our class and might have questions about what they had seen and heard. But it wasn't long until I fielded another call from him. Turns out the Powers That Be (PTB) up the food chain a little bit wanted all of the Bible classes now to put together their own brochures according to a graphically similar template so that the PTB could put them all in a rack out in the foyer. Our class leadership wasn't interested in that - let me use the technical term for my reaction: peristaltogenesis - but the PTB were persistent. We held our noses and went along.
That sequence of events came to mind this morning, uninvited, and something clicked. What is the true (as opposed to the stated) motivation for positioning a church in the religious marketplace and adopting what Kenneson and Street call the "marketing orientation" for the way we conceive of the church?
I think it's this: we want lives to be changed (a good thing), but we want our church to get the credit for it so that other people - people hunting for "authentic Christianity," or something - will think that what we've got going is the real thing. (After all, if it weren't the real thing, lives wouldn't be being changed, now, would they?) And they'll come and join us. Cynics might add: and they'll bring their children and their debit cards with them.
In other words, we make it about the church: what we can do for people, if only they'd come and place membership with us. And then we can say - as our Senior "Pastor" and our elders have recently said, multiple times - look, we don't have time for your little snits, we just had 50 baptisms last week, so we must be doing something right.
It reminds me of a scaled-up, corporate expression of what Paul was decrying in the church at Corinth.
For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. (1:11-17, NASB; emphasis added)
When Christ returns to take us home, I kinda doubt that Harvey Porter and Bobby Hise are going to have a sign printed that says, "Montgomery Avenue Church of Christ was where qb was baptized back in '76; ain't we the cat's meow!"
Yeah, I secretly loved it when people voted with their feet and came to King's Couples. But it ain't that big a deal, and I don't get any feathers in my cap for it. In fact, I'm more than a little embarrassed by it. (If folks came to our class for any human reason, it was for SW's great teaching, nothing I'd done.)
My main concern is that you come to know Jesus. Throw in with Him, then find a group of people who love Him and walk through life with them as witnesses of what He's done for you.
And you folks who think you have to differentiate yourselves in the religious marketplace in order to grow your numbers: would you ever consider rethinking that whole deal? Kenneson and Street would be a pretty good place to start.
qb
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Kenneson on Joy II
If joy requires a willingness to be open to something beyond one’s self, then it should come as no surprise that people deeply rooted in the dominant cultural ethos have a difficult time experiencing joy. We are encouraged from an early age to seek our own pleasure above all else. Such relentless pursuit of personal pleasure is what the dominant culture means by “the pursuit of happiness.” Each of us is urged, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, to pursue our own individually-defined happiness; in almost every case, we are called to pursue that which promises to give pleasure to each of us as individuals. The dominant culture also has enormous power to form our desires and affections. If one doubts this, simply consider the following questions: Where did we learn to desire what we desire? Where did we learn what we should want out of life? Or what we should wear or eat? Or what we should look like? Or what car to drive or house to buy? Or what we should do with our time? Although most of our desires have complex sources, we would be naive to doubt the significant impact that the dominant culture wields in shaping - and in many cases fabricating - those desires. (Kenneson, _Life on the Vine_, p. 65)
* * *
Kenneson has touched on something that has caused qb a great deal of discomfort - some might call it “cognitive dissonance:” a screaming disconnect and obvious incoherence between two competing strains of thought in his brain - especially in the last 3-4 years. (That that time frame coincides roughly with the war in Iraq is no coincidence.)
qb is in awe of those brave souls who, as we say, “put themselves in harm’s way to protect our freedoms as Americans.” A friend of mine - he is not a close friend, but he is a friend, and our Bible class walked closely with his wife during his two tours in the Green Zone, ferrying VIPs with big targets on their chests from point to point in the city of Baghdad - exemplifies the “freedom warrior,” loves his God deeply, wants men to love God with all of their hearts, souls, minds and strength. He is one in a long line of those whose love for America and Americans (and, more to the point of daily duties, his platoon buddies) puts them continually between bristling Kalashnikovs and the innocent women, children, infirm and aged, the oppression of whom is blood sport in that region of the world. These warriors’ love for their fellow mankind expresses itself in a willingness to lay down their lives for those they love, even from a distance, which is a form of the Jesus way (John 15:13). In many concrete ways, I am not worthy of them.
So my quarrel is not with the fighting man or woman, the warrior, the freedom fighter per se. No, my quandary goes backward in time and backward in reasoning, to the great American premise set forth in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Consider that for a minute. Ponder it deeply. Have you ever questioned that premise or any of the elements that comprise it?
We know that all men are created equal. Anyone with a moment’s reflection will be able to point to passage after passage, especially in the New Testament, that affirms the essential equality of men before God. There is no quarrel here, and America, for all of its faults and foibles, consistently leads the world in demonstrating its commitment to equality. Not perfectly, but at least demonstrably. And when we fail, we wring our hands about it because that kind of failure offends our collective sensibilities. We have no shortage of prophets who persistently remind us of our egalitarian aspirations.
But what about the assertion that the “pursuit of happiness” is...
...our fundamental “right?”
...an “inalienable” right?
...a right with which our “Creator” has “endowed” us?
...a right that is “self-evident?”
Where do we find support for the notion that the right even exists? And even if it does exist, what witnesses would we call to confirm that God, not man, conferred it upon us? And is it not a bit far-fetched for a Christian to suppose that any such “right,” assuming that it exists, needs no evidence to support our assertion? Finally, what causes us to think that no other claims that our fellow man might set forth could be thought to trump our right to pursue happiness?
I wonder if we can put much stock in such a bald, sweeping, breathtaking assertion. I wonder if perhaps the Greeks, with Jesus looking on approvingly, might have asked us to substitute “virtue” for “happiness” as we drafted our Declaration. I wonder if there is any possible way that a successful, virtuous, God-pleasing nation can survive as such when its founding documents venerate something as formless and fluid and subjective and individualistic as the pursuit of “happiness.”
Upon reflection, does it not sound more like a recipe for the moral anarchy of Romans 1:18-32 and Judges 21:25 - “each man did what was right in his own eyes?”
Kenneson has not asked us to abandon the American political experiment. He has not asked us to spit on the graves of men and women who have paid an unfathomable price so that Americans might be politically free. He has asked us, however, to consider the extent to which our souls and desires have been formed by potentially disastrous premises and the conclusions and corollaries that flow from them. He has asked us to consider the extent to which those premises and corollaries shape our community of faith. He has asked us to consider the extent to which the church of Christ has been co-opted by distinctively American assumptions about what it means to be fully human. And he has asked us the provocative question - admittedly, a frightening one - are our premises correct?
Kenneson might well have asked us to consider whether or not the kind of joy that Christ sets before us as a promise can even be realized apart from suffering.
It might be well for us to consider one last question while we’re at it. If our premises are not right, what are the odds that we will ever reach the correct conclusions?
Just musing aloud,
qb
* * *
Kenneson has touched on something that has caused qb a great deal of discomfort - some might call it “cognitive dissonance:” a screaming disconnect and obvious incoherence between two competing strains of thought in his brain - especially in the last 3-4 years. (That that time frame coincides roughly with the war in Iraq is no coincidence.)
qb is in awe of those brave souls who, as we say, “put themselves in harm’s way to protect our freedoms as Americans.” A friend of mine - he is not a close friend, but he is a friend, and our Bible class walked closely with his wife during his two tours in the Green Zone, ferrying VIPs with big targets on their chests from point to point in the city of Baghdad - exemplifies the “freedom warrior,” loves his God deeply, wants men to love God with all of their hearts, souls, minds and strength. He is one in a long line of those whose love for America and Americans (and, more to the point of daily duties, his platoon buddies) puts them continually between bristling Kalashnikovs and the innocent women, children, infirm and aged, the oppression of whom is blood sport in that region of the world. These warriors’ love for their fellow mankind expresses itself in a willingness to lay down their lives for those they love, even from a distance, which is a form of the Jesus way (John 15:13). In many concrete ways, I am not worthy of them.
So my quarrel is not with the fighting man or woman, the warrior, the freedom fighter per se. No, my quandary goes backward in time and backward in reasoning, to the great American premise set forth in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Consider that for a minute. Ponder it deeply. Have you ever questioned that premise or any of the elements that comprise it?
We know that all men are created equal. Anyone with a moment’s reflection will be able to point to passage after passage, especially in the New Testament, that affirms the essential equality of men before God. There is no quarrel here, and America, for all of its faults and foibles, consistently leads the world in demonstrating its commitment to equality. Not perfectly, but at least demonstrably. And when we fail, we wring our hands about it because that kind of failure offends our collective sensibilities. We have no shortage of prophets who persistently remind us of our egalitarian aspirations.
But what about the assertion that the “pursuit of happiness” is...
...our fundamental “right?”
...an “inalienable” right?
...a right with which our “Creator” has “endowed” us?
...a right that is “self-evident?”
Where do we find support for the notion that the right even exists? And even if it does exist, what witnesses would we call to confirm that God, not man, conferred it upon us? And is it not a bit far-fetched for a Christian to suppose that any such “right,” assuming that it exists, needs no evidence to support our assertion? Finally, what causes us to think that no other claims that our fellow man might set forth could be thought to trump our right to pursue happiness?
I wonder if we can put much stock in such a bald, sweeping, breathtaking assertion. I wonder if perhaps the Greeks, with Jesus looking on approvingly, might have asked us to substitute “virtue” for “happiness” as we drafted our Declaration. I wonder if there is any possible way that a successful, virtuous, God-pleasing nation can survive as such when its founding documents venerate something as formless and fluid and subjective and individualistic as the pursuit of “happiness.”
Upon reflection, does it not sound more like a recipe for the moral anarchy of Romans 1:18-32 and Judges 21:25 - “each man did what was right in his own eyes?”
Kenneson has not asked us to abandon the American political experiment. He has not asked us to spit on the graves of men and women who have paid an unfathomable price so that Americans might be politically free. He has asked us, however, to consider the extent to which our souls and desires have been formed by potentially disastrous premises and the conclusions and corollaries that flow from them. He has asked us to consider the extent to which those premises and corollaries shape our community of faith. He has asked us to consider the extent to which the church of Christ has been co-opted by distinctively American assumptions about what it means to be fully human. And he has asked us the provocative question - admittedly, a frightening one - are our premises correct?
Kenneson might well have asked us to consider whether or not the kind of joy that Christ sets before us as a promise can even be realized apart from suffering.
It might be well for us to consider one last question while we’re at it. If our premises are not right, what are the odds that we will ever reach the correct conclusions?
Just musing aloud,
qb
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
The Pastoral Mandate
18 months ago a brother introduced qb to Thomas a Kempis, which turned qb loose into a season of dwelling in the more contemplative, reflective literature. It has been deeply enriching. Time will tell, or course, whether it has been equipping as well. The modern names will be familiar: Peterson, Nouwen, Foster, Andrew Murray. And there is a common, insistent, pastoral strain, often invisible but ever present, that runs under the surface of their writings.
"Never forget, O man of God, that suffering is the norm, not the exception. And the gospel that you preach, through the way you live as well as what you speak, must be congruent with that."
* * *
What is the "remnant?" It is a broken people awaiting promises that never seem to come. It is a suffering people awaiting relief that is always around the next corner. It is an oppressed people awaiting justice that always seems to tilt the other way. It is a sinful people groaning for transformation that ever eludes our grasp. It is the Jesus way (Peterson's phrase). It is the way of community, of "life together" (Bonhoeffer's phrase), a life of tantalizing prospects that never materialize, a life of moving from one enslavement to another. The life of the remnant is a life of always seeking and seldom finding, a life toiling under Pharaoh and Ahab and Jeroboam and Sennacherib, Herod and Manasseh and Pilate and Domitian.
Does that ring true to you?
Is your gospel - I mean, the one you really live, the one you really believe - congruent with that? Or is your gospel the gospel of Osteen, the gospel of 21st-century American dreams, the gospel of plenty and harmony and entitlement, political freedom and unlimited blessing in the here and now?
In the midst of it all, the life of the remnant is a life of never ending, always abiding joy, in no small measure because of the fellowship - the fellowship of His sufferings, the fellowship of "two or three" in the midst of whom Jesus is pleased to dwell.
That, my friends, is our task as shepherds-in-training: to come to an understanding of life that is congruent with Jesus' experience, and then to communicate that understanding by the way we live and the words we speak into the lives of others, the buildings we build and the songs we sing. The pastoral mandate is ruthless realism: we are fallen, profoundly broken.
And yet...
qb
"Never forget, O man of God, that suffering is the norm, not the exception. And the gospel that you preach, through the way you live as well as what you speak, must be congruent with that."
* * *
What is the "remnant?" It is a broken people awaiting promises that never seem to come. It is a suffering people awaiting relief that is always around the next corner. It is an oppressed people awaiting justice that always seems to tilt the other way. It is a sinful people groaning for transformation that ever eludes our grasp. It is the Jesus way (Peterson's phrase). It is the way of community, of "life together" (Bonhoeffer's phrase), a life of tantalizing prospects that never materialize, a life of moving from one enslavement to another. The life of the remnant is a life of always seeking and seldom finding, a life toiling under Pharaoh and Ahab and Jeroboam and Sennacherib, Herod and Manasseh and Pilate and Domitian.
Does that ring true to you?
Is your gospel - I mean, the one you really live, the one you really believe - congruent with that? Or is your gospel the gospel of Osteen, the gospel of 21st-century American dreams, the gospel of plenty and harmony and entitlement, political freedom and unlimited blessing in the here and now?
In the midst of it all, the life of the remnant is a life of never ending, always abiding joy, in no small measure because of the fellowship - the fellowship of His sufferings, the fellowship of "two or three" in the midst of whom Jesus is pleased to dwell.
That, my friends, is our task as shepherds-in-training: to come to an understanding of life that is congruent with Jesus' experience, and then to communicate that understanding by the way we live and the words we speak into the lives of others, the buildings we build and the songs we sing. The pastoral mandate is ruthless realism: we are fallen, profoundly broken.
And yet...
qb
Friday, July 13, 2007
A Rant on Small Groups and Success
A family member recently asked me to give some thought as to how to start and sustain a small group.
"Small groups" are an enigma, wrapped as they are in a cloak of artificiality, especially at the outset. I'm not sure of any of the "hows." All I know - contingently, of course - is that my family member's instinct to run from the teacher/class paradigm is spot on.
I'm not even sure what constitutes a "successful" small group. We (I) tend to think, first and foremost, about such nonsense as (a) how many show up "faithfully," (b) how long the group persists and (c) how well the group becomes known by word of mouth of the participants. But all that is vanity, chasing after the wind; or, to be perhaps more charitable, all of that is but a surrogate for the real question, (d): are we growing to be more like Christ, or not?
Perchance I'm overanalyzing this. And to be sure, I have the good (!) fortune of participating in two small groups who pass the (a, b, c) tests above. One of the groups has grown qualitatively into a meta-community that actually likes to be together outside our normal meetings, and as word of our possible move to CO has spread, there have been expressions of dismay that indicate some degree of contribution to the group's development. But it is still that: a group, a meta-community, not yet a bona fide community. That's what I mean by "artificiality." It remains contrived. We bleed together only rarely, and usually in the artificial context of a Sunday night meeting over Scripture, not in the midst of actual life happening.
Don’t get me wrong: I love those men, I love their families, and I love our gatherings. I have learned a tremendous amount from them, and they have refined my thinking and my ways of thinking.
So as you might have gathered, the questions surrounding "how to do a small group" elicit a lot of angst here. I just don't know. I don't like settling for positive answers to (a, b, c), and it's not enough to identify an individual or two in the group who can answer (d) in the affirmative. I would rather be able to answer (d) in the affirmative at the community level WITHOUT some charismatic individual ("teacher," "small group leader") having a reason to take credit for it.
It appears to be an article of faith for just about everyone that "every enterprise needs a strong, visionary leader to succeed." That notion is not even questioned. But I do question it. The words of Jesus leave me little choice.
qb
"Small groups" are an enigma, wrapped as they are in a cloak of artificiality, especially at the outset. I'm not sure of any of the "hows." All I know - contingently, of course - is that my family member's instinct to run from the teacher/class paradigm is spot on.
I'm not even sure what constitutes a "successful" small group. We (I) tend to think, first and foremost, about such nonsense as (a) how many show up "faithfully," (b) how long the group persists and (c) how well the group becomes known by word of mouth of the participants. But all that is vanity, chasing after the wind; or, to be perhaps more charitable, all of that is but a surrogate for the real question, (d): are we growing to be more like Christ, or not?
Perchance I'm overanalyzing this. And to be sure, I have the good (!) fortune of participating in two small groups who pass the (a, b, c) tests above. One of the groups has grown qualitatively into a meta-community that actually likes to be together outside our normal meetings, and as word of our possible move to CO has spread, there have been expressions of dismay that indicate some degree of contribution to the group's development. But it is still that: a group, a meta-community, not yet a bona fide community. That's what I mean by "artificiality." It remains contrived. We bleed together only rarely, and usually in the artificial context of a Sunday night meeting over Scripture, not in the midst of actual life happening.
Don’t get me wrong: I love those men, I love their families, and I love our gatherings. I have learned a tremendous amount from them, and they have refined my thinking and my ways of thinking.
So as you might have gathered, the questions surrounding "how to do a small group" elicit a lot of angst here. I just don't know. I don't like settling for positive answers to (a, b, c), and it's not enough to identify an individual or two in the group who can answer (d) in the affirmative. I would rather be able to answer (d) in the affirmative at the community level WITHOUT some charismatic individual ("teacher," "small group leader") having a reason to take credit for it.
It appears to be an article of faith for just about everyone that "every enterprise needs a strong, visionary leader to succeed." That notion is not even questioned. But I do question it. The words of Jesus leave me little choice.
qb
Monday, July 09, 2007
Leaving the Ninety and Nine
This little news nugget caught qb's eye this morning. Substitute...
..."local church" for "Sprint Nextel;"
..."members" for "customers," "clients" or "subscribers;"
..."church" for "service;" and
..."elders and pastors" for "customer service."
Making those substitutions, you end up with a pretty good snapshot of the current, corporate state of the evangelical megachurch.
I Corinthians 12 notwithstanding, the bottom line in this church paradigm is: people are expendable. People are fungible. People are what they do (/give). Lose one, gain another. Easy come, easy go. Fly with the eagles; avoid the turkeys. (Yes, that last one has been said, in so many words. Here in Amarillo. At my home church. By a senior member of leadership.)
And you know what? Nobody who derives his living from running the machine will deny it, because "expressing concern about the agenda" and "disagreeing with the leadership's direction and vision" are blithely equated with "complaining," and then the people lodging the "complaints" are dismissed as so much dead weight. Who needs 'em? We've got work to do, ground to cover, facilities to build!
It's all so tidy, so inpenetrable, so soulless.
Jim McGuiggan has written wonderfully on related matters. Check out http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/reflections3.asp?status=Church&id=644 for a brief glimpse of his thinking.
qb
____________________
Sprint Hangs Up on High-Maintenance Customers
Monday, July 09, 2007
Sprint Nextel Corp. (S) is breaking up with about 1,000 subscribers the company finds to be too high-maintenance, according to news reports.
The third-largest wireless carrier sent letters dated June 29 to the dumped clients stating: "The number of inquiries you have made has led us to determine that we are unable to meet your current wireless needs," according to reports.
The disconnected customers called customer service an average of 25 times a month, a rate 40 times higher than average customers, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Customers have been given until the end of July to find new service.
..."local church" for "Sprint Nextel;"
..."members" for "customers," "clients" or "subscribers;"
..."church" for "service;" and
..."elders and pastors" for "customer service."
Making those substitutions, you end up with a pretty good snapshot of the current, corporate state of the evangelical megachurch.
I Corinthians 12 notwithstanding, the bottom line in this church paradigm is: people are expendable. People are fungible. People are what they do (/give). Lose one, gain another. Easy come, easy go. Fly with the eagles; avoid the turkeys. (Yes, that last one has been said, in so many words. Here in Amarillo. At my home church. By a senior member of leadership.)
And you know what? Nobody who derives his living from running the machine will deny it, because "expressing concern about the agenda" and "disagreeing with the leadership's direction and vision" are blithely equated with "complaining," and then the people lodging the "complaints" are dismissed as so much dead weight. Who needs 'em? We've got work to do, ground to cover, facilities to build!
It's all so tidy, so inpenetrable, so soulless.
Jim McGuiggan has written wonderfully on related matters. Check out http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/reflections3.asp?status=Church&id=644 for a brief glimpse of his thinking.
qb
____________________
Sprint Hangs Up on High-Maintenance Customers
Monday, July 09, 2007
Sprint Nextel Corp. (S) is breaking up with about 1,000 subscribers the company finds to be too high-maintenance, according to news reports.
The third-largest wireless carrier sent letters dated June 29 to the dumped clients stating: "The number of inquiries you have made has led us to determine that we are unable to meet your current wireless needs," according to reports.
The disconnected customers called customer service an average of 25 times a month, a rate 40 times higher than average customers, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Customers have been given until the end of July to find new service.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Marketing the "church"
Philip Kenneson has written a marvelous book, _Life on the Vine_, and he has challenged me to think of the church in these terms. Imagine a congregation that refuses to market itself according to the current norms but that makes itself available under the web radar with the following statement:
We have no central personality directing our affairs in the capacity of a CEO-style, full-time "pastor." What we represent is a community of faith that (a) models these characteristics and (b) helps others, by example and patient teaching, to exemplify them as well. If you visit us, you can expect to see personified in our members and our community love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
You, as our guest, have the right and the responsibility to judge us against that standard; and if you elect to invest your life and that of your family in our community, we commit to you that we will love you deeply as we love ourselves and our Lord, and we will exert ourselves under Christ's guidance to help you develop those same virtues as a follower of Jesus.
As opposed to:
We have a campus valued at more than $20 million; a Senior Pastor who has written X books and who teaches dynamically and relevantly from the Word; and a wide variety of programs and initiatives for young and old alike to serve your needs.
Which community wins your allegiance?
qb
We have no central personality directing our affairs in the capacity of a CEO-style, full-time "pastor." What we represent is a community of faith that (a) models these characteristics and (b) helps others, by example and patient teaching, to exemplify them as well. If you visit us, you can expect to see personified in our members and our community love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
You, as our guest, have the right and the responsibility to judge us against that standard; and if you elect to invest your life and that of your family in our community, we commit to you that we will love you deeply as we love ourselves and our Lord, and we will exert ourselves under Christ's guidance to help you develop those same virtues as a follower of Jesus.
As opposed to:
We have a campus valued at more than $20 million; a Senior Pastor who has written X books and who teaches dynamically and relevantly from the Word; and a wide variety of programs and initiatives for young and old alike to serve your needs.
Which community wins your allegiance?
qb
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)