Warning: this one may be a bit ‘ranty’ (my new word:)
Part of the reason for this blog is to do a debrief for myself about the years I have spent working in churches. If you are the kind of person who will get easily offended by some looking at the ugly side of what I, and others did, then please don’t read any further.
My first degree was a Bachelor of Social Sciences majoring in Psychology and Sociology. By and large I enjoyed the subject matter, but at some stage I became very disillusioned by what, I felt, Psychologists did.
Let me explain.
I don’t think Psychologists really want anyone to get better. The moment you get better, you won’t come back anymore and pay them the R1000 an hour you’re forking out. It may sound like a cynical view but I think there is a lot of truth to it. I have seen too many people I know only get worse and worse the more time they spend with mental health professionals. When you speak to them they come over all helpless and weak, as if they have no agency over their own lives. It drives me nuts. I would have been a terrible (or brilliant, depends how you see it) Psychologist, because I would have listened to a lot of people and given them a very short and stern speech about ‘getting over themselves’. Then I would send them on their way. I think people quickly become obsessed with their own pain, and many mental health professionals only serve to keep them sick.
I remember hearing a study done in the US where people who were considered mentally unwell were followed for a year and their progress measured. Of those who went to visit a Psychoanalyst, 44% were well within a year. Of those who saw a Psychotherapist, 53% were well within the year. Of those who went to a Psychiatrist, 61% were well within a year. But the kicker is that of those who saw NO ONE AT ALL, 73% were completely well within a year. Is it just my cynicism or may there be something to this? (This is the Hans Eysenck study if you want to look it up).
I finished up my Degree but never took it any further. In fact I left pretty jaded about the whole discipline. Can you tell?
So I moved on to do a degree in Theology thinking it would be a ‘pure’ discipline, one filled with all the right motives. Its not only the reason I studied it, I believed I had a call to do the work (I believe I still do), but I was looking forward to a world where people mattered, and ego and money meant nothing.
Unfortunately I don’t think that is true anymore.
I think churches often commit, wittingly or unwittingly, the same crime as most Psychologists: they keep people dependent on them and obsessed with their own pain.
I sat with someone the other day who, spirituality said he was dying because he hadn’t been to church for a few weeks. He felt empty and like he needed to get to church right away. While you may applaud this I felt like I was speaking to someone who was confusing church for spirituality. They are not the same thing. If you didn’t have a church to attend (and any number of life situations could make this possible) would your spirituality collapse? For some I believe it would, and it would be the fault of people like me.
We (us Pastor-types) were trained with all the theological answers and when we speak we make you think that you could never connect with God like we do, or read the scriptures like we can, and its rubbish! We hint that to spend time away from church is to spend time away from God, often because we just don’t want you to leave, and we know you might. In a hundred ways a week we will remind you how much you need to be here, at this church, and no other. We keep you believing that you have to keep coming back to us to be healthy spiritually, because without us you can’t do it.
Church shouldn’t be your spirituality, it should be something your spirituality drives you to be a part of.
There’s a big difference!
If you’re not healthy without it, you’re probably in it for the wrong reasons. Its not a crutch, it should be an expression of a spirituality that is blossoming every other second of the week. No wonder we have so many sick and anemic (thanks Rob:) churches!
I agree that we should be part of a community (in fact I’m getting hungry for one already).
I agree that we should be with people who are on the same road as us, but not so that we have a safe group of friends, but so that we can kick each other’s butts towards actually being what God meant us to be; people who get involved with Him in making the world right again; in spiritual ways sure, but also in the most practical, “hands-dirty” kind of ways too.
Which brings me on this:
We obsess about our own pain in church too… ‘how wounded we are’… ‘how much we need healing’. But does it ever get done to the point where we move out and get on with living life and changing the world, or are we always navel gazing and feeling sorry for ourselves? Paul (Apostle) had to deal with some serious inner demons but we don’t read about it, because the guy was too busy running around changing things; trying to connect people with God. Did he deal with stuff? Absolutely, I have no doubt, but thats not the part of the story we tell. I wonder if some of us have any other part to tell sometimes, outside of us being wounded and hiding out in churches. Come on! There’s more to it than that! We’re meant to be so much more.
Its why most of our churches are so inward looking; because we’re trying to create such a bubble for ourselves to keep us protected from the rest of the world and its ‘nastiness’ that we’re missing out on our main purpose which I believe is to get out there in the thick of it and change it for the better. Is it a coincidence that most of your churches have 80% of their budget pointed back right back at themselves? And that’s 80% if you’re lucky!
I get mad not because I dislike church, I just dislike what we make it. We ruin it by making it about ourselves and our pain. Pastors have to stop ‘babying’ people and rather push people to own their spirituality. I think Paul called it eating meat instead of drinking milk. You’ll get resistance though, trust me. It will make your colleagues nervous.
To everyone else: get on with it and get off our asses! Own your spirituality everyday. Deal with your issues, with God, aggressively. If you need help, ask for it, but with the view to taking some ownership of your own story, and getting on board with what God is trying to do, because He desperately needs some who aren’t too busy staring into their own navels.
(church) “should be an expression of a spirituality that is blossoming every other second of the week”
Well said Sean.
I think we have to motivate ourselves and others to get past our ‘stuff’, yet also make room for God to heal genuine pain that disables us somewhat. Healing can begin in church, on our own, or while were trying to bring healing to someone else.
BTW, your flickr photos are really good (to my philistine photographer’s eye)
Nothing offensive-you’re speaking your mind & perspective, and from your point of view its unique. What should church be? I’m reading “You see bones-I see an army”(Floyd McClung) It ticles my thinking, something in me says ‘Amen’, the soup kitchen we had in Windsor; That’s church! The guys whose (drunk)wounds we patched (Remember Rose and was it Kaptein or something like that with their ‘karbokse) That was church.
Ciao
Spot on Sean. Enough said.
Sean – I think you just put into words what I have been failing to properly articulate for a while…
Interesting post, Sean
I’ll be honest and say I largely dislike posts like these. Not because I disgree with you ( in this case, I strongly agree ) but because people who read these often use problems like this shy away from the church.
If you recognize this is an issue, find a church that doesn’t do it! Or at least, attempt to change where you are currently at.
In saying exactly the same thing, I would’ve written this post a little differently as your introduction kind of implies that this a leadership inflicted state when the real truth (well, in my opinion) is that most of the time, it comes from people just being pathetic and not “getting over themselves”
Bro-that is a really solid blog! I dig your thinking and you are right=people play church to feel secure in there relationship with Christ but they dont go to church because of the expression of their inner spirituality. I wont lie=>your comments made me think. Good work!
Sean, I really do appreciate and can also identify with some of the pain and disappointment you feel in relation to your experiences of church. I also understand that your posting of these thoughts may be cathartic for you, but I think it would be even more beneficial to you and your readers if you could elaborate on some aspects of what you’ve written about, specifically what the Bible teaches the church should be. I’m with Joel, above, in knowing the sad truth that people who have not understood the nature of God’s true church are quick to give up on it when they feel let down by it.
Like you, I have studied psychology and been disillusioned by some aspects of it. But I’ve not been disillusioned so much by the hypocrisy and insincerity that you perceive (I don’t think that such hypocrisy is universal; I do think the methods of psychology can help people; and my sincere desire was to help people); rather, I’ve been challenged by the realisation that secular psychology cannot minister to the whole person or provide ultimate answers. I’ve been continually challenged that only the gospel of Christ can heal a person where it truly matters and provide the answers that truly matter. (This is not to discount the value of psychology or of sincere psychologists, who I think perform a noble role which can be God-honouring.)
The expression of church you’ve described, where “churches keep people dependent on them and obsessed with their own pain”, also clearly doesn’t minister to the whole person or provide ultimate answers. But that’s not the kind of church that the Bible envisages; I’d honestly say it’s not an expression of the true church. A lot of your “rant” focused on others’ motives (the apparent motives of psychologists and of church leaders) and the things you see in church around you – things that church shouldn’t be. But I don’t think that you’ve really dissected the true problem of such a church: that it neglects the gospel – that Christ died to pay the just penalty for our sins, that by grace through faith in Him we might have forgiveness and eternal life – in favour of “treating” “patients”. And with all due respect I think that is a serious omission in such a church and in your post.
I think you, and we, need to go beyond the false motives and the failings of some people, and beyond the shortcomings experienced in church, because they don’t define what “church” is. While ultimately Christ will present the church “as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Ephesians 5), in the interim the local church, full of humans as it is, is not yet perfected (as all too bluntly shown in I Corinthians, for example). But the church is not a human institution; it is God’s plan, and it’s precious to God – so precious that “Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her,” as we remember this week. God defines in His own terms what church is, and reveals that in the Scriptures.
I think you get to this a little near the end of your post, although I’m left wondering what you mean by things like “own your spirituality” – perhaps you could put this propositionally in terms of what the Bible teaches, since so many people (as you have expressed) have a wrong idea of what God’s church is, and of how it should be expressed in the local church. I want to try to capture what God’s church is against the descriptions you’ve provided out of your own experiences, and against what I know of the context in which you’ve been involved.
Against the kind of church you’ve described, the church the Bible envisages is one where people mature as one body; a church where people grow in knowledge and understanding of the ultimate answers only God can give; a church which is firmly focused on teaching, proclaiming, and living the gospel of Christ rather than focused simply on our felt needs. The pastor-teachers God gives to His church are “to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:11ff)
Paul was that kind of pastor. Wouldn’t it be wise to consider what he saw his own mission in the church to be? This is what Paul writes in Colossians 1:25-2:3 (selected verses):
“I have become [the church's] servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness… We proclaim Him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ… My purpose is that that may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in Whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
As communities, churches are meant to be places where Christians mature in their love for God and each other, first and foremost as they are taught the riches of God’s truth revealed in the Bible. While the idea of churches trying to “keep people dependent on them and obsessed with their own pain” is patently wrong, we are to remain dependent on God’s truth as revealed in the Bible, for “man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God”. It’s desperately sad that in many churches today an almost humanistic/social agenda has arisen where the psyche is ministered to and worldly needs are met, but the soul is never challenged with the truths of the gospel. A lot of churches today seem to focus on well-being and social welfare initiatives – and indeed we as Christians need to be concerned for and active in the world around us, and typically we are not concerned enough or active enough. But when “church” becomes just a foil for a social welfare institution dressed in religious robes, then it ceases to have any relevance apart from as a social welfare institution, and it ceases to be an expression of God’s church; indeed, it deceives people and offers false security and vain hope. When “church” becomes just another means of self-actualisation for people, instead of teaching that we are completely and utterly dependent on God’s grace, it ceases to be church and is, in a word, diabolical.
As I’ve said, the body of believers, the church, should be attentive to and compassionate about people’s emotional and physical well-being. And if you’re disillusioned about the way in which that takes place, sceptical about whether such fellowship is possible, or doubtful of its importance, I’d strongly encourage you to read Larry Crabb’s “The Safest Place on Earth” and to meditate on Ephesians.
God’s church is called to be active to alleviate the great physical and emotional hardships and suffering in the world around us; but, more than that, God’s church is His instrument today by which the world comes to recognise its greatest need: to know Christ as Lord and Saviour. And, as is the refrain throughout Acts, it is the Word that grows the church; that must remain the focus of every pastor-teacher and be the desire of every Christian. Prayer and the ministry of the Word are the pillars of the church; that is the clear message of the Bible (see this in practice in, for example, Acts 6). Most of the problems that churches face, including those you’ve mentioned, ultimately stem from sidelining the teaching of the Bible, from regarding its eternal truths as anachronistic or culturally relative curiosities, from replacing the Bible’s agenda and teaching with the preacher’s own agenda and thoughts. Few stop to think how arrogant it is when a preacher puts forward his own views instead of teaching God’s truth revealed in the Scriptures.
I agree 100% with you that “we ruin [church] by making it about ourselves and our pain.” But more than that, we ruin church, and our lives, and the lives of all who have not understood the gospel, by not making church about the gospel. To be very frank, in the church situations you’ve described, where if I understand you correctly this kind of church has apparently become more about people and their pain than about Christ and His gospel, the alarming warnings to which you maybe alluded, written to the Hebrews who had become “dull of hearing”, probably are appropriate to echo: “In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness…” This is the true problem, the true crime, of a church where the gospel is not faithfully taught.
I pray the upshot of what you have experienced will be a renewed passion for God’s Word; and for your readers, or others sharing your pain, to desire that God’s Word be faithfully taught. Without it, the church cannot exist. Love you, bro.
“To Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever. Amen.” – Ephesians 3:21
I agree completely with Marcus! Your blog is good but it does need to be more spiritually based – if you’re gonna rant about churches – which you do so very well! – then you should back up your writings with Scripture.
A lot of churches nowadays are sadly exactly how you’ve described, but there are a few healthy ones still remaining. Read in Acts (especially chapters 2 & 11) about the first churches – this model is what we should base our churches on.
The three most important pillars of Christianity are prayer, the study of the Word of God and fellowship. Notice in Acts how important it was for believers to meet together – this is how we should be today, not so we can focus on ourselves and our problems but so that we can focus on God and His glory!
Church should be the place where we can learn more about God and go away convicted but hope-filled. It should be the place where we discover God’s grace and how it relates to our lives. Where older men can teach younger men, older women can mentor younger women and we can all encourage and rebuke each other, as instructed in Titus 2.
Likewise it should be the place where purity and righteousness is upheld, as that is holy and pleasing to the Lord, and therefore if anyone is caught in unrepentant sin the measures exhorted in Matthew 18:15-17 should be brought about – not to alienate a believer, but to bring him back in to the fold and to the wonder of God’s forgiveness. What would a church be if they ignored blatant sin? Yet many of them do! Nothing changes however – read about the churches in Acts, Philippians, Revelation … to see how people fared even just after Christ’s ascension – it didn’t take some of them long to retrain the focus on themselves, earning rebukes from Paul and John!
My point is that true Biblical churches should follow true Biblical examples – such as the church in Antioch, which (having at least 7 points in its favour) is easily the best church in the Bible!
Don’t look to men and get disillusioned with us and our practises because we are not perfect yet – we are only striving for perfection and to follow Christ with all our heart, mind and soul, but until we meet Him face to face one day and live with Him eternally we will always fall short of the glory of God – Rom 3:23 (now read it in context – Rom 3: 21-31
) but hope in Christ alone and fix your gaze on Him!
Keep on writing these blogs Sean – God is definitely using them for His glory and that is the ultimate goal any of us can ever have – to live for Him, to serve Him and to give Him glory!!
Your response to me is typical of church attitude. You spew back at me stuff which we can all repeat and completely ignore the comments I’ve made. How long will church mindless repeat pious platitudes and ignore the problems? We’re not perfect should never be an excuse not to take an honest look at ourselves.
As to your response to not using scripture; you obviously aren’t reading very carefully because I spoke through almost the whole story of scripture in that blog! Is your problem with the fact that I didn’t literally quote? Which version am I aloud to quote from then? Why is that the magical formula for validating a ‘spiritual blog’?
@ Kayt
“Likewise it should be the place where purity and righteousness is upheld, as that is holy and pleasing to the Lord, and therefore if anyone is caught in unrepentant sin the measures exhorted in Matthew 18:15-17 should be brought about – not to alienate a believer, but to bring him back in to the fold and to the wonder of God’s forgiveness.”
Just take a few min and step back to read your post, specifically the quote above… humans dont know how to do this without alienating people. Surly Jesus said to love these people instead of ‘bringing about the measures exhorted in Mathew’?
infact the more I think about it, its the reliance or thought that scripture is 100% true that often weakens the Christian point of view – like all texts you should never just take what it says at face value – i.e as you have done above, you risk the chance of contradicting yourself badly by using a text that is supposedly infallible…
I could write forever on this – might do to someday – but for now ill recommend you read a book called ‘Velvet Elvis” by Rob Bell, will make you think about how you view scripture
Sean, i’m all for taking an honest look at ourselves and at the church, and, honestly, it strikes me that that is what Kayt is after here, too. i think she and i have adopted the same standard for that honest look at ourselves and the church: what the Bible teaches. We realise we and the institutional church don’t measure up well to that standard, lament our failures, and fall on God’s grace.
But far from ignoring the problems (read her second and fourth paragraphs, where she succinctly picks up on much of what you initially wrote about), Kayt pointed to the answer: Church as the Bible describes it. What other standard is there for validating discussion about what the church is to be? The church will only heal and be relevant to the world as it faithfully adopts those Biblical essentials to which Kayt referred (cf. Acts 2:42).
Applying the very best minds and motives to the church and its problems will not make it a better church if it ignores God’s model. You may feel you fit in better, but it will be a false and idolatrous church if it rejects or ignores the Bible’s model of the true church. The church exists on God’s terms and for His glory, not on our terms for our comfort.
To those following this discussion, i would strongly suggest reading John Stott’s “The Living Church” (IVP) and Mark Dever’s “What is a healthy church?” (Crossway). Both authors carefully present what the Bible views as “church” and how that should look today. They come from different traditions and don’t agree on every particular, but their commitment to letting the Scriptures inform their thinking is exemplary.
Daniel, i’m curious to know how you interpret that pericope in Matthew 18. Here are my thoughts.
Jesus indeed is talking about how to love these people. The “measures” He prescribes (and the language is prescriptive) there are to bring about reconciliation, not alienation. First, there is reconciliation to the party wronged (v. 15: “If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.”) But moreover, there is reconciliation to God and unity in the body of Christ. Forgiveness by those wronged is implicit. This is Christian love in action. All of this is to be done in a spirit of love and openness, to avoid the kind of embarrassment and alienation that otherwise happens when people gossip about others’ sins, and to bring back a brother.
It may be that such a person rejects the invitation of reconciliation, and finds himself alienated. But that person is in no worse position than if he had not been confronted with his sin — either way, he has rejected reconciliation. It is more loving — of the wrongdoer and of Truth — to extend the invitation of reconciliation than it is to ignore the wrong.
“Defend the Bible? I would sooner defend a lion!” — CH Spurgeon.