This is a continuation of the thread on Brandon's post at The Cultural Taproom from yesterday.
"This willingness to just abandon those who are more comfortable with old thinking so you can do it your own way comes across as incredibly arrogant."
I actually view it as the opposite of arrogant. Arrogant to me would be believing I am right and trying to lead, manipulate, or force people to be church in a way they don't need to. I don't view house church so much as I am "right" but as a valid expression of Christ's body here and now. I do apologize that I might come across as arrogant in defense of it being a legitimate example of Christ's body, a defense I wish I never had to make. Likewise, that house churches are viewed as illegitimate comes across as arrogant to me. There should be enough room in the kingdom for "house" and "sanctuary" churches.
A good leader would make the congregation want the proposed change by showing or creating a vision of what that change would create. I guess I am somewhat lazy and would rather start a church rather than try to change a church because I enjoy being in a group of like-minded people serving together without the struggle (although planting a church is a struggle of a different sort) of getting there. To me, changing a church is so much more difficult than planting a church. To others, I have heard the opposite. I would not confuse my character flaws of laziness and selfishness as arrogance.
Planting a church that does things differently to reach those, whether men or women, that are turned off by the current system while allowing those who participate in the current system to continue to do so seems very loving to me. There is enough room for everyone to worship and be the church the way they feel led to. My personal experience has shown that house church is an answer to the question asked on how men can find a love for being the church. When you ask how the collective whole can reach more men, I consider house churches part of that collective whole and a good answer to that question. If house churches reach more men, the Church as a collective whole has reached more men. I don't see that divide between "house" church and "sanctuary" church; both are part of the Church, just different expressions of Christ's body.
There might be other ways to reach more men. I just proposed the one I knew because you asked how it could be done; it is the only one I know because I have had the experience of more women and less men in all of the other churches I have been part of. I did not expect to have to defend house church again as being a legitimate way of being a church or as part of the collective community of Christ. I just tried, albeit apparently too confrontationally and ineffectively, to explain why I think that might be the case.
I agree that figuring out how to reach more men is a tough and important question. I am struggling with transforming a church right now. I am not really focused on reaching men but on how we can reach anyone. My not-so-novel conclusion is that it all has to start with prayer, but some times the cliches are right. My first proposal for a prayer group was shot down; me and another deacon are proposing it differntly this Sunday. I found it disturbing that anyone would reject a prayer group meeting in the church, but I think it is important enough to try again before giving up.
I also believe that no answer would be universal. There is no universal "men's ministry" that can be plugged into every church that would work. What might work in your church would probably not work down here. So if you are struggling with how the local church you are part of can reach more men, I would suggest starting a prayer group for discovering that ministry.
I hate the phrase "house church" because I do not typically refer to the other church as "sanctuary church." Both are just church, but for clarity's sake, I used the phrase throughout this post. I am also not currently part of a house church but think they are very effective at being the body of Christ.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Prepare yourself for more generalizations and stereotypes.
After thinking about this, it occurred to me that men are more drawn to what is "cutting edge" or radical. That might be the result of cultural conditioning (the males are expected to develop leadership qualities). That might be what you were observing with more men being drawn to the house church.
Or it might be a result of the desire for adventure.
Yeah, kinda the same thing
There are so many variables in real life that it is nearly impossible to discover which one or ones were the influencing ones. One of the principles in historical studies is that there is no independent variable. I think this is a great example of that principle.
Post a Comment