I’m real, you are not
I do this, too.
Why do we find ourselves so compelled to defend out conception of Christian life by criticizing others or by calling others not real Christians? Sometimes it is done careful and with subtle references, but the message is basically the same: We are real Christians. Those others are not.
A recent blog post with a clever use of a story about raising chickens, muses about organic growth and discipleship. The writer feels compelled, it seems, to defend her prefered method of being a Christian.
So yeah, the missional church might not have large congregations of converts. Instead we are attempting to make disciples in a manner in which conversion is viewed in the context of establishing a long-term relationship with Jesus and with other believers which may never be reflected in the roster of a particular church organization.
Did you see the shift there? Small congregations are defended (justified?) by saying they value long-term relationships over numbers. We don’t force conversion. We let the Spirit work.
Now, I’m not trying to single out this one blogger or one church movement. Like I say, I do it, too. Other parts of the “catholic” church do the same thing. They point out that the Spirit must be with them because look at all the butts in the pews.
We have this drive to defend out ideas by dismissing others.
Paul wrote about needing to respect diversity and variation in the body of Christ. He wrote about different gifts. He wrote about having patience with those who are weak in faith or just plain wrong.
If we are confident that we are being guided by the Holy Spirit, then why do we feel a need to defend outselves by pointing out the speck in our neighbor’s eye?
Good point. I think I tend to “defend” small churches because I feel under attack.
John, I take your point but I think one has to set a context in Kingdom Grace’s case, in terms of the abuse she suffered in a megachurch. That might be why she defends this view so strongly.
I hear you, big. And I share some of Rev Mommy’s responses.
My point is not to condemn or stand above anyone.
I’m sure her reaction is sincere. I reacted to it because it got me thinking about my own reactions.
I can always justify my own actions and attitudes. There is always a reason for them. But when I move from saying, “My small church is a place where God’s grace flows into the world,” to saying, “All those people in mega-churches are groupies of celebrity pastors who do not really understand community” then I’ve moved from defending to attacking.
I’m no longer just saying that I found something true. I’m saying that those other people are false. Why do we feel compelled to do that?
Sure, Jesus did it. But – last I looked – we are not Jesus.
Hi John,
It’s nice to meet you. I would like to respond to a few of your statements and hopefully clarify a few thoughts.
My post was not intended to criticize a particular style of congregation. I have friends who I respect as christian brothers and sisters in many types of congregations, and the church that I attend most frequently is the local willow-creek style church.
The intent of my post was to emphasize that spiritual life and growth is a dynamic, organic process, and that “in general” it has not been approached in a way that directs people to grow into a spirit-dependent process of transformation. That is my opinion.
The paragraph that you quoted was actually an aside or tangent based upon recent blog conversations about missional effectiveness. I can see that it could affect how you interpreted the post. Can you see that if that paragraph were removed, the post does not attack large congregations?
What I meant with that paragraph is that in missional thought, fruit or effectiveness is not measured according to size of the congregation. It is saying that in missional thought, success is viewed from a different (not better) perspective.
In the context of what I was trying to say, I would add that it is equally important that missional churches also encourage inner transformation, life, and growth by the Spirit. I do not claim that they are the only ones who allow the Spirit to work.
I frequently include statements in my posts indicating that I believe that God is at work in many different types of congregations. However, I don’t say it in every post, and perhaps this is one where I should have been more clear.
The reason that I felt the need to clarify is that I really do value the diversity of the body of Christ. Is the mega-church model my preferred model? Nope. But I will likely worship there on Sunday with 1000 wonderful believers, and I would never consider them false or not real.
Hopefully I haven’t further muddied the waters.
Grace,
Thank you for stopping by and taking the time to clarify and expand on your thoughts.
I do see what you were trying to do. As I say, I do the same thing when explaining what I value. I make tangential and side comments that end up being dismissive of others.
There is a big debate over the Out of Ur blog that does the this from the other side from the one you are coming from.
I share your feeling that there are many diverse and valuable and Spirit-filled manifestations of the Body of Chirst. I am trying to more attentive in my own life to not extolling the glory of the foot by denigrating the hands and knees of Christ.
That is what led to my post. Thank you for your grace in responding.