What happened to a Christianity that was for the poor, instead of the middle-class?
God blesses those who are poor and realize their need for him, for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs.
What happened to a Christianity that was for those without happy-smiley-faces?
God blesses those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
What happened to a Christianity that didn’t demand it’s rights in the public square?
God blesses those who are humble, for they will inherit the whole earth.
What happened to a Christianity that sought justice for the least of these?
God blesses those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they will be satisfied.
What happened to a Christianity full of mercy, grace, compassion, and love?
God blesses those who are merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
What happened to a Christianity without mixed motives and deep simplicity?
God blesses those whose hearts are pure, for they will see God.
What happened to a Christianity that wasn’t tied to wars of words and tanks?
God blesses those who work for peace, for they will be called the children of God.
What happened to a Christianity that was persecuted for having a dream of a better world for others?
God blesses those who are persecuted for doing right, for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs.Matthew 5:3-10
[from www.johnsmulo.com]
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Monday, September 3, 2007
Structured church: caring for the oppressed and impoverished? Or only for the 'unsaved'?
In all the sermons I've ever listened to (at least 250) there were maybe 3 that were specifically about Christian action to fight injustice and/or poverty and to be good stewards of our financial resources in this way. That is my greatest passion (and one of Jesus' key passions) . Yet most of the churches I've been to do not seem to share my passion for the poor (how could they, when they really 'needed' a new church cafetaria, or the latest music equipment 'to make church relevant to the youth'?) To escape the uncomfortable paradox between church financial spending and Jesus' love for the oppressed and the poor - Churches/ministers focus on 'spiritual saving' (evangelism) and ignore or extremely downplay the importance of physical saving (give the poor guy a loaf of bread!). Ghandi said: “There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.”
5 Problems I have with Sermons
1. Monologue is much less effective than Interactive learning (eg. house church style). Personally I often "tune out" when listening passively to a monologue-sermon. [so why do churches still prioritise sermons over small groups?]
2. Sermons are generally seen by churches and ministers as essential. However, preaching as we know it (regular monologues to believers) is not found in the bible (see 'The Problem with Preaching' post for a theologically sound article that confirms this). Because preaching is extra-biblical I dislike the high status preaching has been given, and as a result I distrust preaching.
3. I want to have the opportunity of responding/questioning/clarifying/disagreeing/discussing - which no person can ever do during a sermon (in most churches) - no one can interupt a sermon. If there is any disagreement/discussion, that happens in a private talk with the Preacher after the sermon - so if something in the sermon was false, controversial or misleading the congregation will not have the chance to have that message 'corrected', or to hear other legitimate opinions/views.
4. To me, the concept of preaching (done by one or a few regular people, usually male, and often 'theologically trained' but not always) elevates the preacher to a high extra-spiritual status, and disempowers the congregation. People learn to rely on this person, who is considered essential, to 'feed' them with weekly talks (sermons). This way there is a hierarchy (all people are equal under God. "But some are more equal than others") which I don't think should be there. Individuals feel less able to seek deep spiritual learning themselves when they are told they 'need' a weekly sermon. They also feel less able to do great things than their super-spiritual Minister. Subconsciously at least, the Minister's work is seen as the most important. And to increase this division, the congregation are the passive learners, most of whom don't teach others (eg. through leading small groups), but 'get taught'. Thus, the sermon-Sunday-service focus of most churches today downplays the importance of individual people (unlike the house church, where everyone brings something special to the group, and is heard).
5. I've found that most of the sermons I've listened to have not been very relevant to me. They may have been directly relevant to, perhaps, 10% of the congregation - but it is almost impossible to cater a sermon to the needs of the entire congregation (especially when the congregation is a mixture of 'saved ages ago', 'recently saved' and 'unsaved' people). I found sermons increasingly difficult to relate to because they seemed to be mostly aimed at church leaders, or men, or the 'unsaved'. I desperately wanted to hear more 'down to earth' sermons, instead of high-theological-thinking sermons. I also wanted to hear more women preach, in the hope that what they said would be more relevant to me. Less than 5% of the sermons I've heard were by women speakers.
2. Sermons are generally seen by churches and ministers as essential. However, preaching as we know it (regular monologues to believers) is not found in the bible (see 'The Problem with Preaching' post for a theologically sound article that confirms this). Because preaching is extra-biblical I dislike the high status preaching has been given, and as a result I distrust preaching.
3. I want to have the opportunity of responding/questioning/clarifying/disagreeing/discussing - which no person can ever do during a sermon (in most churches) - no one can interupt a sermon. If there is any disagreement/discussion, that happens in a private talk with the Preacher after the sermon - so if something in the sermon was false, controversial or misleading the congregation will not have the chance to have that message 'corrected', or to hear other legitimate opinions/views.
4. To me, the concept of preaching (done by one or a few regular people, usually male, and often 'theologically trained' but not always) elevates the preacher to a high extra-spiritual status, and disempowers the congregation. People learn to rely on this person, who is considered essential, to 'feed' them with weekly talks (sermons). This way there is a hierarchy (all people are equal under God. "But some are more equal than others") which I don't think should be there. Individuals feel less able to seek deep spiritual learning themselves when they are told they 'need' a weekly sermon. They also feel less able to do great things than their super-spiritual Minister. Subconsciously at least, the Minister's work is seen as the most important. And to increase this division, the congregation are the passive learners, most of whom don't teach others (eg. through leading small groups), but 'get taught'. Thus, the sermon-Sunday-service focus of most churches today downplays the importance of individual people (unlike the house church, where everyone brings something special to the group, and is heard).
5. I've found that most of the sermons I've listened to have not been very relevant to me. They may have been directly relevant to, perhaps, 10% of the congregation - but it is almost impossible to cater a sermon to the needs of the entire congregation (especially when the congregation is a mixture of 'saved ages ago', 'recently saved' and 'unsaved' people). I found sermons increasingly difficult to relate to because they seemed to be mostly aimed at church leaders, or men, or the 'unsaved'. I desperately wanted to hear more 'down to earth' sermons, instead of high-theological-thinking sermons. I also wanted to hear more women preach, in the hope that what they said would be more relevant to me. Less than 5% of the sermons I've heard were by women speakers.
"The Problem with Preaching" - a challenging article!
For a controversial, biblically based article - please go to http://www.edgenet.org.nz/ and click on the 6th link down, on the right, which says "The Problem with Preaching" (above it are several other great links to challenging articles that are also worth checking out, all relevant to house churches).
Do churches need structure?
Sure, I think they do. But how much structure do they need?
Classifying the prevalent building-based Sunday-services churches as "Structured Churches" is a common way to differentiate them from "House Churches". However even house churches have structure - they just have less structure. Some house churches have more structure, some have very little structure (the same goes for "Structured Churches"). Where the 'right' balance of structure/non-structure is I don't know. It may not even exist.
Classifying the prevalent building-based Sunday-services churches as "Structured Churches" is a common way to differentiate them from "House Churches". However even house churches have structure - they just have less structure. Some house churches have more structure, some have very little structure (the same goes for "Structured Churches"). Where the 'right' balance of structure/non-structure is I don't know. It may not even exist.
No Cost
The house church is one style of church which does not require any money to run. That's amazing! It is incredible the huge financial cost of running a 'structured' church, and to me it is a bit sickening how much of the congregations giving is neccesary to simply run the church - yet alone upgrade it, improve the cafetaria, improve the sound system. With a house church the congregation does not need to support one 'man (or woman) of God' financially (the full-time paid Minister). That's got to free up a lot of finances!
If you took all the money that goes down an average western 'structured' churches' "financial drain" every year - and instead, supported missionaries or aid organisations with all of that money - a whole lot more money would be able to directly support people in extreme poverty etc.
If you took all the money that goes down an average western 'structured' churches' "financial drain" every year - and instead, supported missionaries or aid organisations with all of that money - a whole lot more money would be able to directly support people in extreme poverty etc.
To each, his own
Some people for certain reasons love the 'structured' church, others love house churches. Neither is necessarily 'the best way to go'. I am not promoting house churches as the way everyone should go. But for those people discontent with 'structured' church styles and interested in the emerging church movement, I hope this blog will help them in their journey.
Two questions for you
1. What are your views of (for/against/mixed), and experiences of, house churches? If you belong to a house church - what is your group like? What do you 'do' for meetings etc?
2. If you belong to a house church - please post a comment giving your reasons for why you chose to belong to a house church instead of a 'structured' church. Thank you!
2. If you belong to a house church - please post a comment giving your reasons for why you chose to belong to a house church instead of a 'structured' church. Thank you!
What we do
Every house church is different, and is 'crafted' by the people who belong to it. But this is what we do in our house church meetings: We sing some worship songs (with a few guitars), then we listen to a 'deep, meaningful' song (often by a Christian band, but not always) and discuss what it means and what it tells us about God/us/life/the world etc. Then we usually read a bible passage (or few, with a common theme) and discuss it...
It's a lot like a bible study/home group that many churches run!
The difference? We're not linked to 'another' church, we don't have additional programmes that members are supposed to attend/assist with, we are low (no) cost, and we are very outward focused because of all this.
It's a lot like a bible study/home group that many churches run!
The difference? We're not linked to 'another' church, we don't have additional programmes that members are supposed to attend/assist with, we are low (no) cost, and we are very outward focused because of all this.
New Zealand House Church Network
www.edgenet.org.nz My dad runs this website, trying to link together all the housechurches in NZ. He has information and contact details for all the house churches that he knows about.
My house church (New Zealand)
I live in New Zealand (Devonport, Auckland) and we have a houschurch in my own home. We started it about 2 years ago, after my family left the 'structured church' where my father had been a Pastor. We meet on Sundays 10.30am, and have lunch together afterwards. The people who come: my family (8 people), 3 other people who come weekly, and 7 people who come often/sometimes. Most of the group are teenagers so it's a bit like a youth group. The 3 teenagers who come weekly (besides my own family) wouldn't be going to a church or a youthgroup if we did not run our house church. Everyone who comes were friends with us before they started coming to our house church. Our website: www.edgenet.co.nz. Blog: www.edgenet.org.nz/blog.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)