Church... now serving its xx billionth customer
"So how do we do it?" was the earnest question.
And as the speaker tried to explain it was about principles rather than getting a template, a thought formed in my mind and I put my hand up.
The speaker indicated for me to speak.
"The problem is that when people say they want to improve church, they are really wanting to improve the event, and not the people."
Whether it is school, church or another organisation, we often don't step far back enough. Their goal is usually how can we keep doing things essentially the way we always have but get a better result. Too many people seem to be just too invested in how things are - even if they say they are not.
So I was at a conference last weekend about how do we contextualise Jesus' story and mission to the different sectors of Australia (that is how do we present the message of Christ and help people grow as followers of Jesus wherever they are particularly located in Australia). It was a given that huge sections of Australians (and by implication Australian Christians also) aren't receiving what Jesus has to offer in ways that are relevant or understandable to them.
The evangelical speaker, internationally renowned, was pushing the point that the main mission of the church (that is the people of Jesus) should be about making disciples and not evangelism, that is our purpose is to concentrate on making robust 'little Christ's.
He had explained the Christian church in 180AD had processes (catechisms) whereby people who wanted to be followers of Jesus could not make a profession that "Jesus is their Lord and Saviour" until they had completed a training period of at least 2 years and sometimes up to 5 years. The time duration didn't depend on that individual, but when the elders and his sponsor/discipler decided he was ready.
Then the question was asked how do we do that in today's context.
In addition to the above point about church being 'people not event', I also commented that the church seems to be obsessed with mass-delivery systems, as if it can't be successful unless the processes could be delivered to large numbers of people at the one time. Anything that could not be delivered to the masses didn't seem to register as being a viable way of 'doing church'.
[I'm having trouble writing this blog at this point. One of the reasons I've resisted writing blogs is that on one level it can often encourage vanity. There is a certain level of 'oh, aren't I clever that I came up with this idea and recorded it down' or 'look didn't I show that person or those people how clever I was by saying that at the time.' No matter how I try to write about this situation, it still comes across along those lines. And by writing this aside, I can compound my ego-masturbation further by implying 'oh, look how humble I am by trying to downplay how clever I was in that situation.' Lord, forgive me.]
Anyway, the speaker who is much much wiser than I, and probably realised I wanted to say more at this stage, allowed me to vent my more ignorant views instead of talking from his much greater experience...
"I think the problem is people are only thinking about making disciples on a mass-delivery scale and I don't think that is effective at all. It has to be on a one-to-one basis. It has to be long-term. Jewish Rabbinic discipleship, was like what Jesus did with his disciples, the students lived with their teacher over a long period of time, eavesdropping and spying on their teacher, seeing them in a huge range of contexts, watching and remembering how their teacher reacted to all those circumstances. Too often the church talks about becoming Jesus' disciples in largely mystical terms, something completely nebulous and unpredictable. We can use 'spiritual' terms in our explanations and sound like we are saying a lot, but in fact we are saying nothing. Sure, there is the work of the Holy Spirit and aspects of how God works that is completely unpredictable. But I don't think God made it too hard for us to get it.
To make a disciple is a quite simple. Spend time one on one with them over a long period of time in a wide range of circumstances - not to just talk, but share in real life experiences - be involved in the practical aspects of each other lives."
A couple of days again I was speaking to a friend who had read my blog and said not everyone can become a school teacher. And I agreed.
In fact, just being a school teacher as a Christian isn't discipleship either. Sure I have long-term exposure to many, but again it has to be a one-to-one process long term. Being a school teacher however puts me in a space long term where I can be observed, spied on, and eavesdropped in many different circumstances. Sure there is still a disparity between who I really am and what I am on about and what my role as a school teacher sets me up as - but I do have some opportunity to help them see past the facade every now and again.
Because of the fragmented lives most of us live today, many of us don't get to see other followers of Christ live out their lives as 'little Christs' in different circumstances. That is why I said to my friend, the best thing he can do (and by implication, any one else that calls themselves followers of Christ) is to adopt a disciple - whether that is someone who identifies themselves as a fellow follower or not is irrelevant - and spend a lot of time with them long-term (ie years) - doing life together and on occasions talking and reflecting about that. Our job is to help them understand what it really means to live as a follower of Christ. It's up to them and the Holy Spirit whether they make a lasting commitment to Christ. To force them to make a commitment prematurely happens way too often as it is, and probably goes a long way to explaining the high drop out rate from Christianity.
My friend complained he was more flawed than I and was worried he didn't really have that much to offer others by being a discipler. I said that helps his prospective disciple to feel like he can identify more with him. And by being deeply involved with another person genuinely striving to be more like Christ, will result in his student posing ideas and questions that will push him further along. We learn more about our faith when we actually have to engage it in real ways. For the majority of Christians, their faith is largely an intellectual pursuit with some moral guidance thrown in.
I also commented that like the 12-step process, discipling some one else, helps us with loving our neighbour as ourselves - as it forces us to think more and more about others rather than allow us to remain self-absorbed as we naturally tend to.
So despite our natural tendencies to think about church, discipleship cannot be yet another mass-delivery system of the church. But if every one in a church community was to become an active discipler of one other, that community would affect many.
Impractical? Ineffective? Too hard to get everyone on board? Just an excuse to spend time with others not really achieving anything of worth? Comments?
And as the speaker tried to explain it was about principles rather than getting a template, a thought formed in my mind and I put my hand up.
The speaker indicated for me to speak.
"The problem is that when people say they want to improve church, they are really wanting to improve the event, and not the people."
Whether it is school, church or another organisation, we often don't step far back enough. Their goal is usually how can we keep doing things essentially the way we always have but get a better result. Too many people seem to be just too invested in how things are - even if they say they are not.
So I was at a conference last weekend about how do we contextualise Jesus' story and mission to the different sectors of Australia (that is how do we present the message of Christ and help people grow as followers of Jesus wherever they are particularly located in Australia). It was a given that huge sections of Australians (and by implication Australian Christians also) aren't receiving what Jesus has to offer in ways that are relevant or understandable to them.
The evangelical speaker, internationally renowned, was pushing the point that the main mission of the church (that is the people of Jesus) should be about making disciples and not evangelism, that is our purpose is to concentrate on making robust 'little Christ's.
He had explained the Christian church in 180AD had processes (catechisms) whereby people who wanted to be followers of Jesus could not make a profession that "Jesus is their Lord and Saviour" until they had completed a training period of at least 2 years and sometimes up to 5 years. The time duration didn't depend on that individual, but when the elders and his sponsor/discipler decided he was ready.
Then the question was asked how do we do that in today's context.
In addition to the above point about church being 'people not event', I also commented that the church seems to be obsessed with mass-delivery systems, as if it can't be successful unless the processes could be delivered to large numbers of people at the one time. Anything that could not be delivered to the masses didn't seem to register as being a viable way of 'doing church'.
[I'm having trouble writing this blog at this point. One of the reasons I've resisted writing blogs is that on one level it can often encourage vanity. There is a certain level of 'oh, aren't I clever that I came up with this idea and recorded it down' or 'look didn't I show that person or those people how clever I was by saying that at the time.' No matter how I try to write about this situation, it still comes across along those lines. And by writing this aside, I can compound my ego-masturbation further by implying 'oh, look how humble I am by trying to downplay how clever I was in that situation.' Lord, forgive me.]
Anyway, the speaker who is much much wiser than I, and probably realised I wanted to say more at this stage, allowed me to vent my more ignorant views instead of talking from his much greater experience...
"I think the problem is people are only thinking about making disciples on a mass-delivery scale and I don't think that is effective at all. It has to be on a one-to-one basis. It has to be long-term. Jewish Rabbinic discipleship, was like what Jesus did with his disciples, the students lived with their teacher over a long period of time, eavesdropping and spying on their teacher, seeing them in a huge range of contexts, watching and remembering how their teacher reacted to all those circumstances. Too often the church talks about becoming Jesus' disciples in largely mystical terms, something completely nebulous and unpredictable. We can use 'spiritual' terms in our explanations and sound like we are saying a lot, but in fact we are saying nothing. Sure, there is the work of the Holy Spirit and aspects of how God works that is completely unpredictable. But I don't think God made it too hard for us to get it.
To make a disciple is a quite simple. Spend time one on one with them over a long period of time in a wide range of circumstances - not to just talk, but share in real life experiences - be involved in the practical aspects of each other lives."
A couple of days again I was speaking to a friend who had read my blog and said not everyone can become a school teacher. And I agreed.
In fact, just being a school teacher as a Christian isn't discipleship either. Sure I have long-term exposure to many, but again it has to be a one-to-one process long term. Being a school teacher however puts me in a space long term where I can be observed, spied on, and eavesdropped in many different circumstances. Sure there is still a disparity between who I really am and what I am on about and what my role as a school teacher sets me up as - but I do have some opportunity to help them see past the facade every now and again.
Because of the fragmented lives most of us live today, many of us don't get to see other followers of Christ live out their lives as 'little Christs' in different circumstances. That is why I said to my friend, the best thing he can do (and by implication, any one else that calls themselves followers of Christ) is to adopt a disciple - whether that is someone who identifies themselves as a fellow follower or not is irrelevant - and spend a lot of time with them long-term (ie years) - doing life together and on occasions talking and reflecting about that. Our job is to help them understand what it really means to live as a follower of Christ. It's up to them and the Holy Spirit whether they make a lasting commitment to Christ. To force them to make a commitment prematurely happens way too often as it is, and probably goes a long way to explaining the high drop out rate from Christianity.
My friend complained he was more flawed than I and was worried he didn't really have that much to offer others by being a discipler. I said that helps his prospective disciple to feel like he can identify more with him. And by being deeply involved with another person genuinely striving to be more like Christ, will result in his student posing ideas and questions that will push him further along. We learn more about our faith when we actually have to engage it in real ways. For the majority of Christians, their faith is largely an intellectual pursuit with some moral guidance thrown in.
I also commented that like the 12-step process, discipling some one else, helps us with loving our neighbour as ourselves - as it forces us to think more and more about others rather than allow us to remain self-absorbed as we naturally tend to.
So despite our natural tendencies to think about church, discipleship cannot be yet another mass-delivery system of the church. But if every one in a church community was to become an active discipler of one other, that community would affect many.
Impractical? Ineffective? Too hard to get everyone on board? Just an excuse to spend time with others not really achieving anything of worth? Comments?

4 Comments:
At 12:44 AM,
Anonymous said…
Andrew
I read your thinly veiled attack on BB in your article on the BBV deeper website. It shows that you not only left BB but you kicked it in the head on the way out. Like the church you belittle the committed people who do their best to seek Jesus. You litter the net with writing about loving Jesus but slap his bride in the face. I don’t like worship at the local Catholic Church but I love the believers as brothers and encourage them to seek the lord personally. Post modernism never existed Andrew there is wrong and right and you are wrong to hack on believers. IF you want to go on some spiritual quest do it don’t spit on your former brothers in arms just because you put your sword of truth down and picked up a poison pen full of bitterness and resentment.
You talk about kids at your school hearing you and getting to know you bit by bit. Hear is a bolt A kid from Shep Baps at state youth games was in our tent this year and his commitment to church or lack of it he used the views of one of his teachers a MR Chua as evidence you don’t have to go to church as a Christian. Are you decipleing him and the 10 other kids that may have herd you ramble your liberal post whatever crap to whoever ????? Or are they just being led away that little bit more from there community? BY YOU.
Church is imperfect Andrew we all are get over it. If you want a new way of doing church try joining one and making it relevant. The kingdom needs you to focus on others and the lost. Your gift is not introspection but a passion of building up. So how about the pity party ends and we both commit to the Advancement of Christ’s Kingdom. Church or not, Brigade or not.
Get of the brothers back and get on with the job.
Your brother in Christ
Love
Dan Crozier
At 1:23 PM,
Andrew Chua said…
Dan,
I love your passion for the church and it would be great if more people who gather within buildings on Sundays had the same amount of passion. I've also really appreciated the longevity of it, Dan. You've certainly inspired many people to seek Jesus further.
I'm a little surprised at your comments though and think you have misunderstood my intentions - sometimes my poor literary skills fail me.
Regarding my article on the BUV deeper website, I assumed anyone could see it was satirical in nature. It states that BB is about bucking the general trend of the philosophy underlying contemporary Christian youth work - and that is what makes BB useful (and ultimately fruitful)!
This is all in line with the new 'branding' of BB - to differentiate itself from most local church youth work - which states BB is about "long term training = long term results" - and that the training is for leadership and mission in the real world.
Not having much to do with me these days, I can understand how you can jump to some fairly erroneous conclusions.
Since moving to Shepp I've been regularly part of two long-standing local congregations (of course, attendance doesn't actually equate to involvement). This usually works out to be three 'services' each week - one of which I regularly preach at (most students know these is what I am involved with as aboriginal kids can be fairly loud and often ask me about the aboriginal church I attend).
It is precisely because I am in these systems (and regularly in touch with other church leaders), that I recognise their inherent exclusiveness to the majority of Australian population. This is not an attack on the people involved, who are extremely well-intentioned followers, but at the system we've inherited post-Constantine (versus the New Testament support groups style of the Bible).
I am very impressed with your continued involvement with Mitcham Baptist as the leadership there are intimately aware and continue to struggle with these very same issues. Transforming each member to be missional (that is, equipping all members to see themselves as the ministers and missionaries of Mitcham Baptist where ever they live, work and play) is one of the primary goals of your church leadership.
All my comments are about achieving the very same aim. How do we equip all people to work in partnership with God in bring about His Kingdom or God's original dream into reality? My assertion is that our underlying philosophies to achieve these aim is out of sync with the Biblical story (and although post-modernity has some useful contributions to make, it is, like all human understandings of worldviews, flawed also).
I know that church is flawed because humanity is. But like the cliché "All Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven" - this cannot be an excuse to shut our brains off, and accept the status quo - because history has shown, the church has been an accomplice to many injustices and flawed thinking - because it was too obsessed with defending itself and existing structures rather than honouring God with all their hearts, and minds, and strengths. On the other hand, the vast majority of all great social justice movements (ie orphanages, hospitals, hospices, anti-slavery and other labour laws, racial celebrations, and even safe building codes) can be traced to faithful obedient Bible-believing Christians trying to implement what it means to be God in their world for their time.
The world is stuffed - largely due to apathy and selfishness of humans - and more of the same is not going to improve anything. People who call themselves "Christ-like" do not have the option to leave the world unchanged. To do so is to deny our very identity.
So, if you are serving God in line with his mission (such as in Luke 4:18-19) and encouraging others likewise, then be assured you have my full support - and you're welcome to disregard any of my rantings. However, at this stage, the vast majority of 'Christians' feel that is not what their lives are fully dedicated to... and it is to them (and those that want to help them), that my rantings are directed.
Apologies once again if you feel your faithfulness was being attacked... there are too few enough workers for me to shoot my brothers.
From a very flawed individual with limited language skills,
andrew
At 9:52 PM,
Anonymous said…
Andrew I was wrong ....
I didn't pick up the sarcasm,
and most of the rest of the rant came out of a one off conversation with a kid I didn't know.
I also broke my rule of no email after 11:00pm
I do love you as a brother Andrew
I don't agree with you or have to.
I believe the churches God has put on earth to take the message forward the next 100 years are here already and scary as it is for some, they are big and have convenient visa card options.
You may not agree that’s fine. The leadership of MBC may not agree, that’s fine. God has enough room in his house for us all. I just hope he has sound proof walls in my gangs rooms wouldn't want to wake the rest of the family up I hear it is quite large.
My intention was to encourage you to press on towards the prize... so I am not going to apologies for that. However since you are and I made the mistake thinking you where otherwise I unreservedly apologies. Sorry Andrew
P.S I still think that you are a little fruity, but as we all know some fruit can be quite valuable in deed.
Catch you around Banana Boy
Your Brother in Christ
Love
Dan.C
At 3:42 PM,
Andrew Chua said…
No hard feelings Dan. I'm used to being misunderstood every now and again by lots of people. Thanks for the gracious apology.
I do believe that churches are the medium that God affects the world - my issue is that people have forgotten what the 'church' is. When asked they say the 'church' is the people - but practically whenever they talk, they always talk about it in the context of a building or an event or a program.
So many people are saying they want to improve the 'church' but whenever they say that, they are talking about the event - not the people.
God is about personal intimate relationships - but so much of modern church doesn't reflect that but is about dealing with people as groups or in group settings - a'la mass delivery systems.
I write this blog knowing full well I'm going to get some flak because it attacks the status quo. But I don't think much of the status quo is what God intended nor in line with church practice in the Bible.
Continue to be a blessing to others Dan, and in all you do and how you do it always reflect Jesus,
andrew
Post a Comment
<< Home