Why revitalization is not the answer
In his new book A Second Resurrection, author and consultant Bill Easum says we may need to rethink our attempts to revitalize churches, because revitalization isn't enough:
Is it possible we have underestimated the seriousness of Western Protestantism's situation? What if the metaphors of reformation, renewal, and revitalization don't get to the heart of the problem? What if the situation is much worse than those words describe? What if the vast majority of congregations in the West are spiritually dead and God no longer considers them churches? What if God has one foot out the door of most of Western Protestantism? What if the vast majority of churches are like the church of Laodicea in the Book of Revelation? What if God is about to spit us out of his mouth?
Reformation, renewal, and revitalization assume some pre-existing foundation of faith from which to raise up a new church. But what if that assumption isn't correct? What if that assumption is part of the problem?...
Easum concludes that most institutions have "ceased being the church," and that except for a remnant, the people who make up the institution are spiritually dead.
Is Easum being too harsh, or is he right?
I think he is absolutely right. I attended a men's breakfast at a large Vancouver BC area evangelical church recently. There were 88 men in attendance. Of the men attending I would say 75 or more were married. They asked the question. How many of you men have regular devotions with your wives ? 8 men put their hands up. I asked 2 men at my table who were married but did not put up their hands why they didn't have devotions with their wives. They both said "We are so busy we don't have enough time." I asked them, do you have time to have dinner with your family? They had no answer for me.
I did not put up my hand. I have a good excuse. I'm not married. If this unscientific survey is representative of the spiritual state of married men who make up the majority of our churches the instiutional church is in big trouble. If the church is cold or lukewarm God will spit it out.
Perhaps this is why the North American Church is in such trouble today.
I think he may be right. But what does he then recommend doing, if this is indeed true?
Phil:
If I remember right, he talks about the importance of pastoral leadership - as well as about staging a coup to displace those who are in leadership that are part of the problem.
I think that we all need to take more leadership in helping the church grow. John Wesley encouraged leadership from thousands. He expected that everyone had a part to play in helping people become better Christians and help others with practical needs as well. The problem has been that we have hired "professionals" to do the job we all should be doing. We have become lazy and expect someone else to do all the work. Many do help with the work but most people are so busy with their own lives that they have little time to help others. I can fully understand this. We live in a very busy world with too little time and so many responsiblities. However I do think we could make some time. How much time do we spend watching TV, on the internet or other sometimes mindless pursuits. I am as guilty as everyone. God warns us that if we are lukewarm or cold in our enthusiasm the Church will be spit out. The Church has suffered as a result. It is a shame to see how people that practice other religions make us look very lax in our commitment. Why we don't see this reality and act I am not sure. The Church has tried very hard to make changes and become more culturally relevant. I don't think this has been the problem though. I think we just have gotten too focused on Sunday worship and making it more relevant instead of focusing on personal relationships with people. 86% of people come to Christ through friends and relatives. If we can fully understand this and take personal responsibilty to help grow the kingdom I believe we will succeed.
Maybe the paradigm is wrong. Jesus said quite a bit about how the greatest would be the least, and went out of his way to show that to lead was to serve. We (the church) seem to have picked up from the world the idea that to lead is to be the boss, make decisions for other people, use their time and resources as we know is best. But Jesus said the greatest would be the least, and Paul expanded on that to say that the parts of the body we should show most honour to were the ones who seemed least honourable. We are all called not to lead- to see how much we can get others to follow us where we think they should be going- but to serve, to find out what others lack and wherever possible fill the gap.
Staging a coup (because I know that I'm right, someone else is wrong and I'm prepared for you to get beaten up to prove it) doesn't sound overly like the servant idea Jesus left us with.
As for "the church is dead, long live the church", following Jesus is a relationship. To expect that in any church there won't be people for whom the relationship is all show is folly, particularly where it is the unofficial religion of the state. The long history of the church is of a number of movements that start off driven purely on faith, accumulate wealth/followers/influence from people with good intentions, and then attracts nominal followers who want the power associated with that like flies to meat. This crop always has had- and will have- its weeds.