A story written by Hans Christian Andersen in the 1800’s reminds me of many religious organizations of today especially those with long traditions, however not just limited to them. I know of some fairly new groups with the same mentality.
The story is about an emperor of a prosperous city who cares more about looks and clothes than military pursuits or accomplishments. The emperor hires two men, who unbeknownst to him, are con artists. The con men promise him the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they tell him, is invisible to anyone who was either stupid or unfit for his position. The Emperor cannot see the (non-existent) cloth, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they dress him up and the Emperor then goes on a procession through the capital showing off his new “clothes”. During the course of the procession, everyone pretends to be in awe of them because none wanted to seem stupid until a small child cries out, “But he has nothing on!” The crowd realizes the child is telling the truth but no one would speak out. The Emperor, however, holds his head high and continues the procession through the city all the while relishing the accolades of the people who did not want to look stupid either.
Perhaps you are aware of or even participating in this deception in your church. A leader stands before the congregation and declares how wonderfully successful all the programs are. You sit there and wonder within your own mind; how can this be because you have not seen the results being spoken about? Sometimes you even question your own sanity. Sometimes you ask yourself; am I in the same organization this guy is talking about. Other times you question your spirituality. Have lost my spiritual insights? Yes you know the program is in effect, but you see no affects of it.
You are hearing others making the same boasting remarks as the leader. It would seem you are the only one who can see the “naked program” and you don’t want to look stupid, (unspiritual) so you go along with it. Inside your spirit is in turmoil because you cannot fathom how such show can be made when little or nothing is being accomplished.
If this is another one of those catechisms “speak things aren’t as they were” it serves to confuse and deceive more than bring about the objective. It is one thing to employ faith to living in the spiritual world but quite another to ignore reality.
For the blind man Jesus healed, his was reality. “I was blind but now I see” is a statement of reality. No one could question his healing, it was evident. He could declare it everywhere and anywhere.
A church program that goes on and on, year after year with the same meaningless results cannot honestly be declared wonderfully successful by anyone.
Any leader who continues to proclaim such is unreliable or deceptive. They are deceptive to the point soon enough, no one would believe any report from them. Yet if you attend a church on a regular basis you know someone like that.
We all know of many such church programs that continue to function, using valuable resources and manpower yet remain impotent. They have been in place so long most everyone considers them sacred and to remove them would mean blasphemy even though they are “naked”.
It is a responsible leader who will see and accept the malfunction and make changes. It is not acceptable for the leader to continue to parade the “naked” program through the church community. Someone must stand up and say, “But it has no clothes”.
August 27, 2009 at 9:15 pm |
I spoke with a women tonight who identifies each church fellowship by the means that were used to harm her. She is not without fault and she acknowledges this truth. Her orientation to churches are the result of some comfort but mostly rejection. That is it.
I needed an example so she tells me of the following story:
We were without much food. We did have some rice so we decided to go to the lake and catch some fish on a Sunday afternoon. We fished until we realized that the time was getting late. We had to throw everything into the car and rush to attend the evening service. Without thinking, we entered the church building in our cutoffs, tanktops, and sandles. Our hair was tied back and we smelled of summer lake. We didn’t have our Bibles. We were a simple family of one mom and two small kids who were excited that we would have fish with our rice. Although we sat in the very back, nearest to the exit, we were still pointed out as an example of someone NOT welcome in this church. We left and have never returned.
I asked if the fish & rice was satistactory for dinner. She smiled and said that they gave God thanks for their meal.
August 27, 2009 at 11:17 pm |
The jargon of speaking things that aren’t as though they were strikes a chord within me. Church institutions are like any other businesses in that they must surround themselves with people who buy into the program. In addition, they must present themselves in a successful manner in order to draw the public to the institution. After all, nobody wants to attend a church that is in disarray, unless it is his/her job to turn it around. But for the most part, churches boast about their programs, ministries, conversions, missions, etc., in order to get customers to buy into their program. On the surface, things look great, but what happens when one digs a little deeper?
Someone recently asked me if I thought the church had lost its way. I really had to stop and think about it for a while because I had to determine within myself what the church is. If, by the church, they meant that body of believers that meet together with single purpose to edify the body of Christ, to build one another up, to advance the Kingdom of God by equipping one another for His service , and basically, representing Christ on earth, then I say, “No, the church has not lost its way.” If, by the church, they mean that institutional organization designed to do the same as above, then I would say, “Yes, I think so.”
I recently read “Detoxing from Church”, an article written by Jason Zahariades in which he received some sound advice before he established a new missional community. In the article he talks about the jargon you referred to about churches being successful. He suggests the church has become similar to an organization designed to meet consumer demands. He suggests that if leaders “can design an organization that satisfies the consumer needs of a couple hundred people… well, then we must be doing something right in God’s kingdom. And the more people we reach, then the better we are.” That struck me.
It seems to me that some churches have that corporate look — more like a provider of religious goods and services if you will. A place where the “pastors are CEOs, the leaders are entrepreneurs, and the members are consumers”. If I hadn’t taken a step back, I probably wouldn’t have seen it, but the institution has developed an appropriate menu of goods which it feels are best for the consumer’s needs, and then they distribute them accordingly. Every so often, they change the menu to keep up with the culture. Many writers have compared the church to a fast food restaurant.
Following that train of thought, I could use McDonald’s as an example. McDonald’s is one of the most well-known and successful fast food chains in the world. What kid (at least in America) didn’t grow up recognizing those golden arches? I remember one of the slogans on their marquee read, “Over __ million served”. I suppose today that they have served billions, maybe even trillions of people across the world.
Originally, the restaurant offered a limited menu. It consisted of hamburgers, french fries, soft drinks, and milk shakes. Through the years, as competition increased and consumer demands changed, different items were added to the menu. In some ways, McDonald’s could be considered an innovator in the fast food market. Not only is it a highly successful business, McDonald’s is also a very successful philanthropist. McDonald’s established Ronald McDonald Houses which benefit cancer patients, established wellness centers, and has contributed millions of dollars to charities around the world. In short, McDonald’s has served billions of people in many ways. No one can dispute McDonald’s success, nor can anyone argue McDonald’s philanthropy.
Although McDonald’s success is unquestionable, there may be a cost. Recently I viewed a program called “Super Size Me”, which is a documentary about health concerns of McDonald’s food. The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia giving a brief description about the title:
“Super Size Me is a 2004 documentary film directed by and starring Morgan Spurlock, an American independent filmmaker. Spurlock’s film follows a 30-day time period (February to beginning of March 2003) during which he only eats McDonald’s food. The film documents this lifestyle’s drastic effects on Spurlock’s physical and psychological well-being, and explores the fast food industry’s corporate influence, including how it encourages poor nutrition for its own profit. Spurlock dined at McDonald’s restaurants three times per day, sampling every item on the chain’s menu. He also “super-sized” his meal when asked. Spurlock consumed an average of 5,000 kcal (the equivalent of 9.26 Big Macs) per day during the experiment. As a result, the then-32-year-old Spurlock gained 24½ lbs., a 13% body mass increase, a cholesterol level of 230, and experienced mood swings, sexual dysfunction, and liver damage. It took Spurlock fourteen months to lose the weight gained from his experiment.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me
An interesting side bar in the documentary was that Spurlock claimed even though he became sicker and sicker each day, his body craved the foods that were destroying his health. His contention was that fast food industries contribute to the obesity epidemic that’s hit America. They serve foods that are addicting in order to sustain a customer base, while corporations line their pockets with the profits. Their marketing division has done an excellent job of creating a menu of products that consumers need. “I’m lovin’ it” is one of their most recent slogans. Millions of consumers still devour McDonald’s products. However, if you read the labels of the products, you will find most of the items aren’t healthy. In Spurlock’s case, they were harmful. Of course, his diet consisted of McDonald’s menu items only.
How does all that relate the church institution? Like McDonald’s, one can’t deny the church’s successes. The institutional church has maintained its relevancy with modern society. Menu items have been added to keep up with the culture. It is more equipped now than it ever has been to reach the masses, especially since the upgrades in technology. Millions of people could testify to the benefits they have received from the church’s “menu”. But, like McDonald’s food, if people would take time to check out the labels – I mean get down to the real ingredients of the goods and services the institution provides – they would find something totally different than what is advertised, and too much of it would be damaging to their spirits. The products and services offered by the institutions are very addictive, and the marketing directors (pastors) have done an effective job of creating consumer’s needs. Millions of people buy the goods every week until they realize what the label really says. Then, they discover its harmful effects, and they move on to a different institution that provides a different menu, which on the surface is more suited for their well being.
Churches who boast about all they have done for mankind, but won’t take time to read the ingredients on the labels of their products, are truly speaking things that aren’t as though they were, and not in the Biblical sense.