It’s become vogue within church circles to “deconstruct” church. Many authors have made quite a bit of money peddling their pablum. One, who comes quickly to mind, is Mr. Blue Like Jazz, himself, Don Miller. Upon first read I found myself enjoying the book quite a bit. There is much about institutional church that needs reformation. Now, a few years into the deconstructionist model advocated by Mr. Miller, I find the fruit of his assertion questionable. Actually, I find it completely lacking. I think within the confines of St. Andrew’s and I see how many people, finding resonance with Mr. Miller’s message, have checked out of church and are living, essentially, self-centered, self-pitying, vapid, lost, lonely lives. I can name dozens. Unfortunately, the New Testament gives an absolutely contrary picture – it’s impossible to be a Christian apart from the body; and warning – “do not give up meeting together as some are in the habit of doing.” Now, let’s be clear, there is much about the approach Mr. Miller and the other deconstructualists take that is commendable and helpful. I’m simply advocating a prescriptive approach that actually works – that doesn’t lead people into further introspection and isolation.
The Washington Post ran this fantastic article yesterday exploring these very themes. Here’s a clip and make sure to read the rest:
Here’s what Bono, Oprah, and the guru speakers on PBS won’t tell you: Jesus believed in organized religion and he founded an institution. Of course, Jesus had no patience for religious hacks and self-righteous wannabes, but he was still Jewish. And as Jew, he read the Holy Book, worshiped in the synagogue, and kept Torah. He did not start a movement of latte-drinking disciples who excelled in spiritual conversations. He founded the church (Matt. 16:18) and commissioned the apostles to proclaim the good news that Israel’s Messiah had come and the sins of the world could be forgiven through his death on the cross (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:14-36).
Related Articles
11 users responded in this post
Just a question, then why does is the New Testament focused on what happens OUTSIDE of the synagogue walls?
WOW!
And the best thing I read that keeps me coming back is “It’s a place to be challenged.”
I used to run from the challenge, I had all kinds of walls built up against challenge, now… I welcome it!
This idea harkens me back to Mike Breen’s New Wine presentation, the idea of the Horse Whisperer methodology.
I cannot deny that through the methods of Alpha, the clergy’s sermons, the extra opportunities to experiment, go deeper, be bold, get real…
I will admit that I get frustrated at times, but … I continue to push further and realize even more deeply my belief in the Power and Presence of a living lasting relationship with my Creator because of Christ’s sacrifice, and I am eternally grateful to the church who continues to show me more about that relationship!
Thanks Steve, to you and St Andrews (staff, leadership, and congregation) for continuing to be my horse whisperer to the Glory of Christ.
I just can’t help but keep coming back and askin’,
“What’s next God?”
I’m far from being an Gen X’er…but I did grow up in the era of hippies, Woodstock and the Beatles. The same thing that led me away from the church in my youth, looking for something that was missing, is the same thing that brought me back. I found what I was looking for in the beauty of the Liturgy, God’s word spoken from the pulpit, intimate friendships with people as hurting and broken as I was and the challenge of “there must be more than this”. I believe that same yearning for something more that burned, is burning, in me is what will lead those that are searching back to the truth.
Lydia,
Just a surface level thought to your question…I think the reason that the New Testament focuses on what happened outside of the synagogue is because Jesus spent most of his time outside of it. It doesn’t mean that Jesus was advocating not being part of the Body, the Church. I think he was instituting His church.
It’s pretty clear that those within the synagogue either shut him out, didn’t want him there, plotted against him, etc.
Post death and resurrection, and post institution of His church, it looks a bit different for us. I think that’s what Steve was aiming for in his introductory remarks to the article.
Oh yeah, and like Kenny said,
I pray now,
“God, set me on fire so that others WILL show up to watch me burn!”
Lydia, I’ll respond more fully when I’m not restricted to my iPhone, but let’s begin with this: you make a broad and sweeping generalization. It would be helpful to know what scripture references you have in mind?
I like how Miller makes most of us uncomfortable. Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box. This is not as a lone ranger, but arm in arm with our brethren, the community in which we exist, liturgical or not. Interesting article.
Let’s be honest(I include myself here). We all want entertainment at church. We want to know that it’s not going to be the same thing it was last week. We are petulent children bumbling around in a desert(40 years perhaps). God drops manna and we turn it into an entitlement program. We don’t want to hear that we are sinners. That we are the problem, not the “world” around us.
Some of us wouldn’t know the Gospel if it slapped us in the face. And some of us think the Gospel is this: Jesus came to Earth to heal my hurts and my wants he died on the Cross so that I don’t have to feel any pain. If I do X(spiritual development, vote republican, conferenc-ianity)he’ll do Y. I am sovereign over God and the language of my prayer life confirms it. i.e. I really don’t believe Jesus conquered death, therefore I need to squeeze every comfortable thing out of life I can before it’s over.
No wonder we need so many therapists. When you are on your way to hell you need to be made as comfortable as possible in the now.
Alas, real worship begins with brokeness. And really, how many Americans are “broken”. We got it pretty easy.
Jeremiah obeyed God and got beaten over and over. Ending up in ditches naked. He told God that “you have seduced me”. And still there is no evidence that Jeremiahs ministry ever produced one convert. Still he obeyed. “Name it and claim it….whatever”
A couple of things: First, I’d want to note that 21 of the New Testament books were written directly to churches to comprehensively address both the inside and outside dimensions of their corporate lives – and how they are integrated. 3 books of the New Testament are written to pastors addressing church structure, church life and their role as church leaders. 2 books appear to be written for a benefactor explaining the faith. 1 book was written to a brother Christian addressing the issue of a runaway slave. So, quite quickly I’d say that the New Testament writers were very concerned with what went on INSIDE the church. Where I agree with Lydia is that the synagogue – just like our churches – will lose the target and make the converted the primary arena of interest rather than understanding itself as missiological and making the mission of Christ our focus.
Secondly, I’d say that when I want to be challenged I turn to Tim Keller, Michael Horton (his book, “Christless Christianity” will do a number on you), Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll and John Piper. Donald Miller I find interesting, and generally comforting (though as I said, in the post, I find the fruit lacking – especially as I see so many of his devotees disengaging the body rather than building the body).
…not to mention the fact that when Jesus began his mission, he formed a community, which grew (and shrank at times) as they went. I don’t think he ever set them free from this. He did speak in synagogues, and the temple, as well as homes and streets and hillsides, and so did Paul and the other apostles. Steve’s points about the record of the New Testament writings, however, is the crux of the question.
It would also be good to search out some of Peter H. David’s writings on the early church, specifically the house church system, for more information on this dimension of the church. Being missional does mean being focused on reaching the lost and doing the stuff while advancing the Kingdom; but it is by no means a non-community mission. Part of the mission is, in fact, the establishment and growth of a community of believers. Paul has this as a significant goal to his mission, and Jesus himself, when near the end, made some passionate points about the critical value of loving one another in community.
I think that some of what it means to be missional in community has to do with not having to do just what some other group is doing, or the way they do it, or in competition with them so as to avoid becoming one more purveyor of religious goods and services in the shadow of the megachurch. (see George Hunsberger) Any group has to recognize its unique identity and calling through the Holy Spirit.
I would have to add also that I totally agree with Steve’s points about the fruit and therefore the value of the “deconstruction” of “church”. Back in the early 80s, when the “philosophy” of “deconstruction” had gained serious footing and followers in American academic and artistic circles, to even call it deconstruction was done so with a wince. The idea of something “deconstructivist” or being a “deconstructionist” was even more reprehensible to the hardcore devotee to its concept. Like Te Chi Chuan (Tai Chi), one cannot truly speak the truth. It was not an idealogoy. It was the dismantling of ideology, of notions of necessary structure, order, authority, meaning, and rules. One question would have been, “Who says this is the way we should see it or do it anyway?” It went right down to the way dwellings were being designed to the way rock stars were “writing” lryics. Is this what Donald Miller, et al really want to do with the church? If so, I wouldn’t hold my breath for a lot of fruit. I appreciate Steve taking it back to the source without implying the church doesn’t need to change.
Dwight, you nailed it. Thank you.