Building mentality

Posted on October 31, 2006 by me

Okay, it’s been awhile and I still haven’t finished my last series of posts on “entitlement,” but I’m going to switch topics for this post. I will continue, I promise, and will even say some positive stuff about pastors.

Our church has just decided to buy a building. It’s a nice building, and a good deal, financially speaking. But, I’m concerned that it will only enforce “ghetto” thinking (or, the “building mentality”) in the church. I’m concerned because that’s already the leadership’s mentality: get people into the building as often as possible.

What they don’t realize is that by getting people into the building, they are pulling people out of homes, and out of neighborhoods, where the “world” is. They think it’s building community; what they also don’t understand is that you don’t build community by putting people into a building. By doing that, the value that is taught is that community happens “in the building,” not in the homes.

Pastors talk alot about community, as well they should. Community is a good thing – an essential thing, for the Church. However, the reason they talk about it so much is because they don’t understand it. The traditional, liturgical church understands that community exists “theologically.” That is, by sheer nature of being “the church,” community exists. Perhaps more on that later.

Today (or tonite, more accurately) is Hallowe’en. And, as usual, our church is having a big “alternative” celebration (that looks exactly like Halloween) and is encouraging us all to come and bring neighbors to the building. Again, they are pulling people away from their neighborhoods, in perhaps what is the best opportunity all year to interact with your neighbors. Imagine, a night when people of all faiths or non-faiths are out walking around, knocking on doors, and giving each other candy! And, what to “church people” do? They run and hide in their buildings.

It’s wrong. We’ve always let our kids trick-or-treat, and for years we’ve walked around with them, meeting neighbors and having fun. Sometimes we serve hot chocolate to the trick-or-treaters. But, we insist on not hiding from our neighborhood, even on this “most evil” of holidays (un-holidays?). We usually end up at the “building” as the kids’ friends are usually there, and they play and have a good time, too. But, we do the neighborhood thing first.

If I were a pastor, I’d want to do everything possible to encourage people to get out of the stupid building and be “Christians” in their neighborhoods. Some pastors agree with me – there are those, for example, who would rather have you stay home from church on Superbowl Sunday and fill your house with non-Christians than hang at the building. It’s radical, I know.

Now, I’m not about to sacrifice any chickens or dance naked under the full moon. It’s way too cold for that in Oregon. But, I will answer my door and give away candy – in fact, I just took a break and did just that.

Posted in Church | 4 Comments

A note about exegesis & hermenuetics

Posted on October 15, 2006 by me

I have not attended seminary (which is probably obvious to some of you). I have not taken any class on either exegesis or hermeneutics. I don’t read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or Latin; at times I barely speak English. However, I do try to read the Bible as objectively and honestly as I can, and according to generally accepted principles of exegesis and hermeneutics. So, I thought this would be a good time to explain how I try to read and understand the Bible.

Exegesis is, for those who don’t know, is a Greek word meaning “to draw the meaning out of.” Strictly speaking, it refers to drawing the meaning out of a text, based solely on the text itself. However, often the word more broadly to mean the use of all available information to draw the meaning out of a text. It sometimes is used interchangeably with hermeneutics, which refers to the philosophy of methods of interpretation and exegesis.

On the flip side we have eisegesis, which means to put meaning into the text. This is not necessarily invalid; however honest scholarship would demand the identification of “hunches” about meaning, apart from exegetical opinions. (Unfortunately, eisegesis seems to have become the preferred study method for some preachers, often to the exclusion of exegesis.)

Gordon Fee says that exegesis “… answers the question, ‘What did the biblical author mean?’ It has to do both with what he said (the content itself) and why he said it at any given point (the literary context). Furthermore, exegesis is primarily concerned with intentionality: What did the author intend his original readers to understand?” (New Testament Exegesis, p 27.)

Now, of course, to go any further, you have to agree that it’s important to determine what the author intend his original readers to understand. Some, relying, for example, totally on the Holy Spirit’s revelation, may not care, believing that God will simply reveal to us what He wants us to get out of the passage. I am by no means discounting the importance of the Holy Spirit’s revelation, which I also hope for; however, I also believe that we have been given “all things pertaining to life and Godliness,” which includes the ability to think and reason. Some Eastern religions would tell you to turn off your mind and simply feel; Christianity involves the mind whille constantly reminding us that there is something beyond our intellect.

It seems fairly obvious to me that a 1st Century Jew would have a completely different grid than a 21st Century American of European descent, and that even should we come up with a perfect Greek to English translation, we’d walk away with different understandings of the same passage. Therefore, taking some effort to look beyond a simple rendering of an English translation makes sense if we are really wanting to understand what is being said. (I do not assume that the Holy Spirit will do all of that for us; if it were so, I doubt there would be so many different denominations.)

Now, adding to the problem, we all have our own internal “noise” which clouds our picture of what is being said. This noise is not necessarily a bad thing; it consists of our worldview, our presuppositions, our understanding of the way things are. This forms from what we are taught, and changes as we learn. As we read the Bible, we understand it based upon what we already believe. We can’t even read John 3:16 without understanding it based on what we already understand.

So, as much as possible, I try to recognize my own “noise” and filter that out; it’s not always easy, or even possible, to do. But, I try to the best of my abilities to read and to understand (with the Holy Spirit’s help) with someone else’s eyes. In doing so, I am finding that my grid has and is changing.

And, I always consider the remote possibility that I still could be wrong …

Posted in Church, My Own Personal Religion, The Daniel Amos Chronicles | 5 Comments

The Entitlement Myth, Part 3 – On Professional Christians

Posted on October 12, 2006 by me

In my last post, I started a discussion about the sense of entitlement that pervades much of the western church (and spreading, as we “evangelize” the rest of the world), dealing in particular with the issue of paid, “professional” Christians. Most of us take for granted that pastors, etc. should be full-time paid positions, and often are paid considerably more than the congregation’s average income. Having this filter firmly in place, we then read the Bible, interpreting it accordingly.

Let me say again, that I am not necessarily opposed to paying pastors and missionaries. I am, however, challenging the presumption that this simply is the Biblical way things should be done, or even the best way for everyone.

A historical analysis would suggest that in 1st Century Israel (and the surrounding Roman Empire), no one would have interpreted Matthew 10:10, 1 Cor. 9, or any other passage to refer to a “professional,” full-time status as pastor, etc. For example, it is my understanding that Jewish priests served in rotation, and while they received remuneration for their scheduled service, they had crafts or trades to support themselves when they weren’t in the Temple. This is good, not only for the Church, but also for the minister.

We currently have a situation where many, many people have, at an early age, decided to become pastors or missionaries, as a vocation. Certainly, most don’t expect to become rich; however, being single-minded, they are devoted to their goal and get their various degrees, and go out in search of a church. This is now their only viable means of support and they have, to various degrees, become a burden for the church. It is their expectation to find other Christians to provide for them so they can serve the Lord. These, for the most part, are good motives, but the strategy is defective.

I have had more than one middle-aged pastor confide in me that they are now in fear of being without a church, because they see no other way to make a living. The same issue applies to missionaries. It is a terrifying thought; starting out with an understanding that they are entitled to full-time support, they have become completely dependent on the church; they either have no other training, or are now too old to “get back in the game” when the church fails (or turns on the pastor).

This can lead to various abusive situations. For one, the church is now in a position to abuse their pastors, and to some extent, many churches have. Perhaps not in ways we’d think, but for example, simply by demanding their full attention to the church (leaving other vocations behind). I know of some churches who even insist that the Pastor’s wife doesn’t work, further hindering (and controlling) the pastor and family from providing for themselves. Furthermore, this dependence means that the pastor will often bow to whims of the church, because the church now holds the pastor’s future in their hands.

Also, we then have situations where the Pastor needs to focus on organization-building (rather than on really pastoring. The congregation, in a very real sense, becomes a group of “giving units.” The pastor needs to keep people “happy,” not for their sake, but for his. And, of course, a hugely successful “ministry” can often become a financial “blessing” for the pastor. This situation can often be an actual conflict of interest for the pastor.

I do know pastors who are partially or even completely self-supporting apart from their church; I’ve known at least 2 pastors who took no salary from the church whatsoever (and were marvelous pastors). It’s really a much healthier situation. And, it keeps pastors in touch with the real world; someone who’s spent 20 years in a church office has really forgotten what it is to work a 40+ hour week, then have to fit in church activities in their spare time.

NEXT: Entitlement for the rest of us

Posted in Church, The Daniel Amos Chronicles | 7 Comments

The Entitlement Myth, Pt 2

Posted on October 10, 2006 by me

Okay then, let’s continue with The D.A. Chronicles…

I know what I want
I know what I need
I want a miracle
I know what I need
I know what I want, I know what I need, give me
(A new car!)

I’m one of the king’s kids (He wants a blessing)
I’m one of the king’s kids (He wants a blessing)
I do deserve the best (Keep on confessing)
The very, very, very, very Best
I’m one of the king’s kids
I deserve the best, I want
(A new car!)
– Terry Taylor, “New Car!”

From Doppelganger, the 2nd in Daniel Amos’ The Alarma! Chronicles series of albums, New Car! addresses one of the more irritating aspects of American Pop Christianity, this concept that we are entitled, by virtue of our salvation, to a superlative life on this Earth. We’re the King’s Kids. Our Father owns the cattle on a thousand hills. God’s not broke. And so it goes…

How about this one:

As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.”

Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” Luke 9:57,58

So, is this negative confession? Jesus also said, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” See? There you have it, abundance! Of course, to anyone who’s studied John, you can easily see how Jesus was constantly talking about the spiritual in contrast to the Jews’ focus on the physical.

This “gimme” Christianity is essentially bad Pentecostal theology (which is a somewhat redundant phrase) combined with American materialism, consumerism and individualism. This attitude is not unique to America, by any means; the British Imperialism of the 19th Century comes to mind. Regardless of origins, it’s a problem.

This sense of Christian entitlement is prevalent in our current church system; we have a whole class of “professional” Christians, who believe that by the sheer nature of their title, they deserve to be supported by the church. This, by the way, is not Biblical; that is, if you read the New Testament without filters. Many times I have been quoted the “double honor” verse in support of paid, professional Christians. Considering that I have often worked 20 hours a week or more as an unpaid “lay” Christian, my response is, “so what’s 2 times zero?”

“A worker is worthy of his wage.” Well, cool! Considering that most churches couldn’t exist without dozens of volunteers, many of them making way less than the pastoral staff, let’s do something about that!

I am not being facetious. I am also not reacting out of a “sour grapes” mentality. While I was on the board of one church (and also putting in many, many hours a week in various roles), I actually drafted a policy which prevented me from getting paid. I know a former well-known pastor, who was for a time the head of a very large denomination, who after stepping down from that position told me that he could no longer Biblically support being a paid pastor, and had to look for “alternative” employment. I am not alone in my thinking.

This sense of entitlement has also worked its way into the missions organizations, to the point where anyone who decides to go on a missions “vacation” expects others to pay their way. If you are like me, you may get several of these requests for support a year. Now, I think many of these excursions are totally valid; however, the mentality that says, “I’m going to tour a mission field so you should give me money” is, I think, defective. Consider Paul’s attitude, who chose not to be a burden to the church.

(Now, I have diverted slightly from a pure discussion of the Christian entitlement mentality, but I’ll deal with that next time. I figure, let’s start at the top and work down.)

What I am not saying

Before I end this post, let me offer this: I am not saying that it is wrong to pay a pastor, a missionary, or some other “ministry” position. It is the philosophy behind it that I am challenging.

I have a lot more to say, so tune in for next time where I discuss how these systems actually abuse those they intend to support.

Posted in The Daniel Amos Chronicles | 3 Comments