It's the universal pronouncements that so many pastors like Matt Chandler seem eager to offer that really put me off. It has a veneer of openness but ultimately rests on the mindset "Here's the problem. We've traced the boundary. Now, here's our five-step plan to fix it."
I think there may be other reasons that people become "dechurched" (I like the term). As one who is pretty much dechurched at the moment, I'd rewrite Matt Chandler's statements for myself and a number of others who have expressed similar sentiments to me:
"I did every moralistic standard produced, weathered bad luck without blaming God, and then I looked around, and saw the salaries of the pastors, the wasteful spending of the congregation, the insular approach to family and finances by the average member, the tentative distanced approach to missions, the underplaying of transformative approaches to charity, the increasing worldliness of our public Appearance and appearances, the downplaying of theological insight, the distressing nationalistic fervor that puts 'country' in the same breath as 'God,' and ultimately the way I was allowed to live as I saw fit as long I met the public checklist, and I realized: 'This isn't unique. This isn't life change. This is simply a subculture, one easy to leave and reenter.'"
Church growth has become a commodity; spiritual insight a cottage industry.
I'm not frustrated with church, particularly the doctrinally-conservative, evangelism-minded slice that appeals to me on emotional, spiritual, and theological grounds, because I did what I was told and didn't get what I expected. It's because I realized I wasn't being asked to expect much. And what I was asked to expect seemly greatly out of step with what Scripture promised.
If Matt Chandler says "The Gospel is assumed" and the "nature and character of God is assumed," he and I may have different definitions of "assumed." If he means that the older members, particularly those charged to guide the others spiritually, often neglected leading people to the wellspring of Scripture in favor of bullet point doctrine, then I might agree. But further than this, one cannot internalize the character of God and produce weak-minded congregations.
I would argue that the churches Chandler is describing are not assuming the Gospel, but have settled for a weak vision of God that allows them to maintain their local socioeconomic culture (be it left-wing, right-wing, middle/upper/lower, whatever) and add church to the list of things that make them feel self-actualized.
But maybe I and my like-minded associates are such a minority, the question about how to reach us isn't in anyone's minds.
I understand Matt Chandler has talked to more dechurched people than I have. But in the end, he and I can only rely on our experience, and if someone takes his word over mine, it's because they're treating Matt Chandler's experience as theirs by proxy. But when I see people in my various circles drift as I have, it's often because of intentional sinfulness or deeper dissatisfaction for the state of the church than "What it told me to do didn't keep me from having bad days."
It's the universal pronouncements that so many pastors like Matt Chandler seem eager to offer that really put me off. It has a veneer of openness but ultimately rests on the mindset "Here's the problem. We've traced the boundary. Now, here's our five-step plan to fix it."
ReplyDeleteI think there may be other reasons that people become "dechurched" (I like the term). As one who is pretty much dechurched at the moment, I'd rewrite Matt Chandler's statements for myself and a number of others who have expressed similar sentiments to me:
"I did every moralistic standard produced, weathered bad luck without blaming God, and then I looked around, and saw the salaries of the pastors, the wasteful spending of the congregation, the insular approach to family and finances by the average member, the tentative distanced approach to missions, the underplaying of transformative approaches to charity, the increasing worldliness of our public Appearance and appearances, the downplaying of theological insight, the distressing nationalistic fervor that puts 'country' in the same breath as 'God,' and ultimately the way I was allowed to live as I saw fit as long I met the public checklist, and I realized: 'This isn't unique. This isn't life change. This is simply a subculture, one easy to leave and reenter.'"
Church growth has become a commodity; spiritual insight a cottage industry.
I'm not frustrated with church, particularly the doctrinally-conservative, evangelism-minded slice that appeals to me on emotional, spiritual, and theological grounds, because I did what I was told and didn't get what I expected. It's because I realized I wasn't being asked to expect much. And what I was asked to expect seemly greatly out of step with what Scripture promised.
If Matt Chandler says "The Gospel is assumed" and the "nature and character of God is assumed," he and I may have different definitions of "assumed." If he means that the older members, particularly those charged to guide the others spiritually, often neglected leading people to the wellspring of Scripture in favor of bullet point doctrine, then I might agree. But further than this, one cannot internalize the character of God and produce weak-minded congregations.
I would argue that the churches Chandler is describing are not assuming the Gospel, but have settled for a weak vision of God that allows them to maintain their local socioeconomic culture (be it left-wing, right-wing, middle/upper/lower, whatever) and add church to the list of things that make them feel self-actualized.
But maybe I and my like-minded associates are such a minority, the question about how to reach us isn't in anyone's minds.
I understand Matt Chandler has talked to more dechurched people than I have. But in the end, he and I can only rely on our experience, and if someone takes his word over mine, it's because they're treating Matt Chandler's experience as theirs by proxy. But when I see people in my various circles drift as I have, it's often because of intentional sinfulness or deeper dissatisfaction for the state of the church than "What it told me to do didn't keep me from having bad days."