I receive occasional emails from local Bible college lecturer John Yates. John is generally accepted as having a strong prophetic gifting and while I must confess that I don’t always understand all of what he says, this article had some great insights:
The second last paragraph summarises it:
The greatest obstacle to the advance of the kingdom of God in most of the West is not secularism, religious pluralism or Islam, but a resurgent Christianity. By this I mean a religion dominated by mega churches, super pastors and political influence. What we are most in need of today is a post – Christianity church.
Interested?…
Read the whole thing below:
The Identity Crisis in the Church: Christianity versus Jesus
Being a professional Christian for over 25 years (ordained in 1982), and having taught theology for about 15 of those, I am always amazed at the identity confusion amongst Australian believers. Relatively few seem to be conscious of what their union with Christ means, not only at a personal subjective level but in all spheres of life. Many struggle, self – confessedly, to live in a state of intimacy with God (contra, e.g.1 Cor 6:17, “he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.”). For some time I have come to the conclusion that at the root of the problem is not simply indwelling sin nor the forces of the world, but Christianity.
By “Christianity” I mean the construct of organised religious practice that developed in post – Constantinian Europe and was then progressively exported around the globe. It is the dominant form of religion we are familiar with to this day – church buildings, professional ministries, set services, academic training for ministry and so on. My agenda here is not to go over the usual ground covered by church renewal advocates, like the house church movement and the “emerging church”. Rather, I am interested in a more fundamental issue, Christian identity itself.
The Holy Spirit has been subjecting “Christianity” in Australia to humiliation for some years. One incident particularly comes to mind. In 2003 we had the very public scandal of Archbishop Peter Hollingworth resigning from our highest political office, Governor –General. This was because of his failure to deal with clerical sex abuse while he was archbishop of Brisbane. The list of scandals involving respected Christian leaders could easily be multiplied, but few commentators touch on the heart of the issue –we have become more focused on church culture than Christ. I think we are making disciples of the church more than disciples of Christ. This became very clear to me during a recent pastors breakfast.
Generally when the boys get together there’s talk about “who’s got the biggest” and “who can do it the best”; things were a little different this time as the guest speaker was not a church leader. His talk drew attention, amongst other things, to the creeping dangers of secularism and Islam. These topics excited the audience to a palpable degree, but I sensed their acute fear was not of Christ, whose “perfect love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18). In fact, the centre of the anxiety seemed to be the loss of our “Christian heritage”. No – one present seemed to imagine that the kingdom of God could grow whilst the influence of Christianity on state policy and structures be in decline.
While all this was going on I had an awareness that the Holy Spirit was drawing my attention to an earlier conversation at our table. One of the pastors related how he had recently taken the wedding of a divorcee whose first wife left him for another woman. It turned out that the repressed thought that had been traumatizing the man was, “Did I cause my wife to become gay?” The entire situation was permeated with confusion about gender identity – the woman was clearly not living in the truth of her femaleness, and her previous husband was uncertain about his masculinity.
Gender identity is generated in an oppositional or bipolar manner. Adam becomes aware of himself only after the creation of Eve, a helper “corresponding to”, or “standing over against” him. “A helping being, in which, as soon as he sees it, he will recognise himself.” (Delitzsch, my emphasis). Before the creation of a woman Adam is simply a name for humankind. It is in through the illumination, ““This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”” (Gen 2:23), that Adam becomes a self – consciously male person and Eve a self –consciously female. Whilst Adam was alone, it was impossible for him to know through introversion his gender identity.
Counselling experience reveals similar patterns. Where the male- female pattern of intimate bonding is not imaged in a human family the result is always some level of confusion about who we are as sexual beings and how this can find genuine fulfillment. Auto – eroticism in various expressions is a necessary consequence. This is more pervasive than we generally imagine, as a (Christian) psychologist said to one of my parishioners, “You need to stop masturbating through your wife.” Since the “one flesh” of marriage is a type of Christ and the church (Eph 5:32), the divorce/gay situation immediately spoke to me about the real spiritual crisis in our midst today that was being overlooked in the pastors breakfast.
The primary spiritual struggle in contemporary Australia is not between Christianity and secularism, or Christianity and Islam, but between Jesus’ kingdom and Christianity. At the root of the widespread apathy in the church and the broadly acknowledged lack of intimacy with God, is confusion between Christianity and Christ. Contemporary Western Christianity largely defines itself by its relationship with itself and its history. It is extremely introverted. This is indicated, for example, by the inordinate focus on leadership, ministry, church growth, gifts, the Bible, anointing, prosperity, revival etc. rather than on the person of Jesus and his living presence amongst us. ““To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: ‘The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands.” (Rev 2:1)
The people of God can only know their deepest inward identity as the Bride of Christ through an immediate and passionate awareness, in the Spirit, that Jesus is their Bridegroom (John 3:29; Rev 19:6 – 8). Where this is lacking, much of what transpires as Christian spirituality is simply “spiritual masturbation.” It may have the appearance of godliness, but is part of a religious culture that lacks the interpenetrative power of holiness (2 Tim 3:5). (For those with a trinitarian bent, it is not a participation in the perichoretic glory of God, cf. 2 Pet 1:4). Nothing less than a back to Jesus movement that emphasises the mystery of Christ at the centre of “our religion” (1 Tim 3:16) will see any significant change in the spiritual landscape of Australia.
On a practical note, for many years I have been teaching my students “the Jesus test”. When you are listening to a sermon pay attention to how long before the name of Jesus is mentioned, and whether he is used as an illustration of the principle being advocated or its substance. Practicing this rule has caused many of them (especially in Charismatic – Pentecostal congregations) much distress. “test all things” (1 Thess 5:20).
The greatest obstacle to the advance of the kingdom of God in most of the West is not secularism, religious pluralism or Islam, but a resurgent Christianity. By this I mean a religion dominated by mega churches, super pastors and political influence. What we are most in need of today is a post – Christianity church.
My thinking on this was confirmed by a recent email sent out about the British religious scene under the heading, “Excarnating Christianity, Incarnating Islam”. The Church of England Newspaper May 26, 2008 says, “Islam is being institutionalised, incarnated, into national structures amazingly fast, at the same time as …. the ‘excarnation’ of Christianity… out of state policy and structures”. Whilst this may be sad for those who sentimentalise about the loss of the fides historica (inherited conventional religion), it is surely a sign of the judgement of God on the human construct of privilege and compromise called “Christianity” and a preparation for a return to radical Christ- centred faith that disappeared from Western society long ago.dick tracy online
“No – one present seemed to imagine that the kingdom of God could grow whilst the influence of Christianity on state policy and structures be in decline.”
love this line. Chinese anyone?
“It is extremely introverted. This is indicated, for example, by the inordinate focus on leadership, ministry, church growth, gifts, the Bible, anointing, prosperity, revival etc. rather than on the person of Jesus and his living presence amongst us.”
I think it is problematic lumping all those aspects of church life into one sweeping statement.
Let me respond to just ‘leadership ministry and church growth”….if you are focused on those things, you are being outward focused. If you are focused on ‘the person of Jesus’ my apprehension is that that would be a catalyst to be inward focused…rather than what Christ calls us to be, outward focused. No one is going to say that we should not be focused on Christ, He is the author and perfector of our faith. But if we are focused on Christ, He will be calling is to be focused on leading, ministering and being concerned to see more people come become part of the body of Christ (Church Growth).
Sure – fair call Mark
I guess I am thinking the thrust of the message has some great currency.
I’m sure there is detail that we could debate, but the general idea is quite on the money I’d say
I agree, it’s bang on.
Pingback: AJS OPINION » Blog Archive » the issue is the church
Roo –
Maybe the author’s point in calling “leadership and ministry” focused as “inward” is that much of the church’s focus on “leadership and ministry” is really “marketing the church” – i.e. ministry to people to get people INTO the church. Therefore, it’s (often) inward-focused: focused on getting more butts in pews.
I personally don’t see HOW we as a church could put our focus on Jesus and then NOT turn out and reach out to the needy, the poor, the disenfranchised. By preaching leadership and ministry, we’re often urging people to be introverted: am I doing enough to please God? Versus, when focused on Jesus, and living loved, we can freely (and without compulsion) serve others.
Whats wrong with wanting to see more of the community as part of the body of christ? there seems to be this unspoken mistrust of pastors who want there to be more people in their church…surely if the ‘church’ is the earthly expression of the Body of Christ, to want more people ‘in it’ is a vital component of being a Christian? It certainly was a key component of the early church, they counted how many people came to faith….
I agree with your first statement of your second paragraph…but in regard to the second…
we are meant to please God….this is meant to be a focus for us…those who love God will show it by what they do. Good leadership, preaching and ministry will focus us on that.
“there seems to be this unspoken mistrust of pastors who want there to be more people in their church…surely if the ‘church’ is the earthly expression of the Body of Christ, to want more people ‘in it’ is a vital component of being a Christian?”
I have to agree with this statement by Mark.
When I first read this article above I both wholeheartedly agreed and disagreed with it…which is difficult to explain.
John definately raises some valid issues…but statements like the one Mark highlighted, “It is extremely introverted. This is indicated, for example, by the inordinate focus on leadership, ministry, church growth, gifts, the Bible, anointing, prosperity, revival etc. rather than on the person of Jesus and his living presence amongst us.” are, IMO, problematic. That makes it sound like people who are involved in those things AREN’T focused on Jesus the person…and on relationship with him.
Whilst I would nor could never argue those things have not been ‘abused’ in the past, and some people HAVE lost focus on Jesus, to tar everybody with the same brush there is plain wrong.
Reflecting on the above article, it makes it ‘sound’ like the majority of what we call ‘church’ today is wrong, is not focused on Jesus and is not bringing about the Kingdom. In saying this, I am generalising, and I realise that is what I have called John on, but I just want to point out that there are MANY churches today, using the principles that John highlighted, making significant inroads for the Kingdom.
Now I know I don’t hold anywhere NEAR as much credence as John, who has years of experience, study and practise to draw from, but in this day where there are more and more prophetic voices rising up and calling into question the modus operandi of church, I just wonder whether we are in danger of falling into ‘idealism’ without reality.
What do I mean by this? I mean that I absolutely love groups like Forge who are standing up and saying ‘hey, lets try something different’. I love the prophetic voice people like John are bringing…but I think we are in danger of calling for something that isn’t practical. Mainline churches just cannot nor will not change over night, so to call into question everything they do because it isn’t necessarily ‘ideal’ isn’t a practical response to the problem IMO.
What we should be doing is encouraging diversity. I dream of the day when Mega churches work alongside more grass-rootsy style churches. I see some church pastors embracing this.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that I agreed with this article in that, in an ideal world and if we have a clean slate, MAYBE we would do things differently. But I disagree with it in that I think that what we currently have CAN and WILL work. I’m not so much worried about the method as every church, no matter HOW they express themself, pray more, serve more and love more. I agree that we need ‘post-christian’ style churches to pop up, as they are, but I don’t think that has to be at the ‘expense’ of the way established churches operate. I wholeheartedly think it is a both/and, not an either or.
A spirit of ‘unity’, focused on the person of Jesus, open to diversity, in love, through prayerful faithfullness…that’s what I think we need.
“I dream of the day when Mega churches work alongside more grass-rootsy style churches. I see some church pastors embracing this.” – question; why would they?
Why would grass root groups want to hang with mega-groups?
Why would mega-super-over-comers want to support (and not ‘merge’ with) a grass-roots Forge-ey styled approach?
because ultimately we need to recognise that whatever different methods we employ…we are all part of the same Body, and maybe its when we celebrate what we have in common, instead of rail and rain against what we dont, that Christ is happy. 🙂
Its why I visit this blog, and support in prayer what Hamo is trying to do… not a mega church pastor though… ha! 🙂
Mark – I agree that simply wanting more people to be part of the Body of Christ is a worthwhile endeavor. But I think sometimes (not all times, certainly) the desire to get more people into church is more about church as a business than church as a Body or a family. In that sense, and that sense only, it CAN be introverted.
Also I agree with James that it’s dangerous to paint with too broad a brush. My only point in posting is that there are some (I’ve known some personally) for whom the focus on ministry and leadership is excessive and completely lacks Christ. It’s the Christian version of the human desire to be successful.
As far as “those who love God will show it by what they do”…
I would say, “Yes, but…”
The point is to love God.
We turn it on its head and make the point “showing that we love God.”
There is a difference.
In my experience, there is often (again, not all the time, not in all churches, and not by all people) a great “show” of loving God, but very little real understanding of loving him and being loved by him.
Sometimes we’re so busy trying to prove that we love God by what we “do”, that we won’t let ourselves actually “be” loved by him, spend time in relationship with him, etc. I think a lot of times our “doing” is driven by fear, not by love.
But again, this is some people, some of the time. Not all people, all of the time. I never want to paint with too broad a brush.
Hello! I found your website. My name is Anders Branderud and I am from Sweden.
I would just like to write some words.
Who then was the historical J*esus?
I am a follower of Ribi Yehoshua – Mashiakh – who practiced Torah including Halakhah with all his heart.
He was born in Betlehem 7 B.C.E . His faher name was Yoseiph and mother’s name was Mir? yâm. He had twelve followers. He tought in the Jewish batei-haknesset (synagogues). Thousands of Jews were interested in His Torah-teachings. Some Jews who didn’t practice Judaism where threatened. They decided to crucify him. So they did – together with the Romans. His followers were called Netzarim (meaning offshoots [of a olive tree]) and they continued to pray with the other Jews in the synagogues.
Christianity does not teach the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua. Ribi Yehoshuas teachings were pro-Torah; Christianity is anti-Torah.
If you want to learn more click at our website http://www.netzarim.co.il — than click at the lick “Christians”
Hasheim – the Creator of the universe – loves you. If you want to have a relation with Him you need to follow His Torah non-selectively.
Be blessed when you practice Hasheims Torah and His mitzwot!
Anders Branderud
Follower of Ribi Yehoshua in Orthodox Judaism
“Why would grass root groups want to hang with mega-groups?
Why would mega-super-over-comers want to support (and not ‘merge’ with) a grass-roots Forge-ey styled approach?”
Because ‘faithful’ Mega churches and pastors will be able to see God’s hand working in both styles.
The last church I was a part of, though not a ‘mega church’ by world standards is definately one of the ‘bigger’ Perth churches, is definately supportive of ‘other styles’ of church and are willing to both support in prayer, and monetarily, people who obviously have the call of God to try something new. They have supported people in the past, doing new things, with no ‘obvious’ benefit for themselves, and with no desire to take over or control. And it’s great!
Big churches should not be scared of new, post-Christian expressions and new expressions should not be scared of big churches. I believe we should accept and embrace both. Certainly, if I ever lead or am just part of a grass-rootsy style church I hope I can make significant partnerships with other churches, great and small. Likewise, if I find myself in a more mainstream church, I hope and pray I can support, encourage and partner with ‘newer’ expressions of church.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » The greatest obstacle to the advance of the kingdom of God?
“supportive of ‘other styles’ of church and are willing to both support in prayer, and monetarily…” – ie, go – do your thing! Don’t bother us with your details… (and vice versa).
Not much there about actually getting messy with each other and rubbing shoulders, which was my point.
I can’t imagine Jesus being interested in church growth. I can imagine him homeless and going out to people where they were, preaching and demonstrating the Kingdom of God.
I can’t imagine the Jesus being interested in leadership. I can imagine him being a servant.
I can’t imagine Jesus being interested in the Bible. I can imagine him being interested in people.
John Yates’ critique is too soft. I can imagine Jesus seeing the poverty and injustice in our world and going into our churches to reenact the cleansing of the temple.
We need to stop trying to make a kingdom of this world in Christ’s name. We must first seek the Kingdom of God. May His kingdom be with you all.
Pingback: Is Christianity the Problem? | Kouya Chronicle