A High Rhetorical Value
Gibbs and Bolger clearly believe part of the problem is that we’ve failed to contextualize the gospel (applying it in an appropriate, understandable way) to post-modern, Western cultures. However, elsewhere Gibbs is careful to reminds us that in doing so we must remain true to our core mission, stating,
“The church must re-establish the priority of the Great Commission” (Gibbs: 2005:89).
In other words, to put it bluntly, we are in this condition not only because we’re irrelevant to our culture, but because we’ve failed at the one thing that would most ensure our relevance: teaching people to actually be like Jesus Christ. Furthermore, we have all failed; there is no current denomination or tradition that is exempt from the woeful statistics regarding lack of Godly character. Moreover, despite our doctrinal differences, all denominations have a strikingly similar church model:
- We work to attract people to large gatherings.
- We require very little for them to join us (often we expect nothing whatsoever).
- We ask them to sit passively while we provide information and entertainment.
- We do our best to cater to their needs.
- We attempt to motivate them to change their lives based on the information.
This is often called the “attractional” model of church. As leaders, we assess the effectiveness of this model according to how many people we attract, and how much money we collect. Our measures of success have nothing to do with character.
By contrast, character is a major measurement of success in Jesus’ gospel. Therefore, I want to assess our dominant model of church by asking three questions based on The Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20) and the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7):
1. Is making disciples our first concern?
Honestly? No.
While we employ lots of rhetoric about disciple making, the truth is that our first concern is protecting the institutional viability of our churches. In other words, what matters most is protecting the money because it’s the money that pays the mortgage and the salaries. Having been in professional ministry for 15 years – in two different churches of very different size and style – I can personally attest to this. No honest pastor would disagree. None of us like it, and many try to change it, but the reality is that keeping the budget on track requires a minimum level of attendance and giving. Consequently, the tasks to which we give the majority of our time and money every week are directly related to attracting a crowd and keeping a crowd.
Attracting a crowd of people, and then making sure they remain happy, tithing constituents is not how you make disciples.
2. Do we follow the inside-out praxis of spiritual formation?
No…and it’s entirely because of the model.
Because our concern is attracting and keeping a crowd, we first bring people into a setting that is outward. From there we work hard to inspire them toward Godly personal devotion and engagement with the surrounding community. However, so much energy and resources are spent crafting an attractive church experience that little is left for helping people cultivate a genuine Godly character. This is an outside-in approach to spiritual formation that is largely devoid of praxis precisely because most people never make it to the realm of acting on their faith in tangible ways, and then reflecting upon their actions.
The vast majority of church people spend the vast majority of their time sitting in church listening to stories being lived-out by the vast minority (usually, the pastor and other leaders). In such an environment, very little changes.
3. Are we actually making disciples?
Yes and No.
Many people’s lives are transformed in attractional churches. I’m one of them and maybe you are too. However, in any typical church the percentage of people that are demonstrating a progressively growing and tangibly deep commitment to God and the community of faith is strikingly low: roughly 15-20%. This is based on consistent volunteer service, small group attendance, and tithing in typical churches – which are generally the only significant discipleship-oriented metrics we have. This roughly corresponds with Pareto’s Law, also known as “The 80/20 principle.”
In other words, for every 100 people in church there are generally only 15-20 who are deeply engaged in their faith. In church leadership we often refer to this as the difference between “the crowd” and “the committed.”
Sadly, those who are being transformed into disciples (the committed) tend to plateau early in their growth because typical churches spend most of their time trying to keep “the crowd” happy. Unless, that is, they are identified for leadership development, in which case there are often more resources available to them for in-depth training.
Yet the problem of character development persists even for leaders. Christian leaders are notorious for leading lives that are long on charisma but short on character. In recent years numerous high profile Christian leaders have demonstrated that no amount of formal academic education or ministerial success ensures genuine spiritual formation into the likeness of Christ. Furthermore, studies on Christian leadership reveal that most leaders don’t “finish well” in their ministries, and most of those failures are due to moral failures or character deficiencies (Clinton:1994:9).
Therefore, the church faces a critical question. How can we effectively make disciples who become people of deeply pervasive Godly character, just like those described by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount? One thing is certain: What we’re currently doing does not work. Failure to successfully answer this question is leading us toward the practical irrelevance of the church in the Western world.
Technorati Tags: discipleship, Eddie Gibbs, Sermon on the Mount, training, virtue
Over at The Outbox, Clark Cowden give a brief synopsis of Eddie Gibbs’ latest book, Church Morph. Those of you familiar with Gibbs will already know what this book says, but for those who don’t, here’s a choice snippet of Clark’s excellent summary:
