tweneight

THOUGHTFULLY DRIVING THE PORCELAIN BUS

A Column by John S Schroeder

July 27, 2002

In the last couple of postings I have written about "unconditional" forgiveness and the need for intimacy, but as I worked on them and have reread them, they seem to lead me to a further discussion -- on Christian maturity. Maturity is a concept we do not hear much about anymore, unless it is in the context of incontinence or some other complication of being elderly.

We live in a youth-oriented culture today. Everything from advertising to sociology tells us that. The major preoccupation of our society with health (some might argue it is an almost idolatrous preoccupation) is born in a desire to "stay young." People want to be able to do all the same things at 75 that they did at 25.

Growing old can be debilitating, and I cannot blame people for not wanting to be debilitated. However, people today seem to have confused growing old with growing up. Increasingly, in an effort to "stay young" people not only look at the physical, but they also look at the attitudinal as well. People are unwilling to take on mature viewpoints on things. The signs are all around us. Consider a few examples:

The insistence on "unconditional" forgiveness -- remember in that column when I discussed, that as a child grows older a parent would come to expect more from that child? Demanding or expecting "unconditional" forgiveness is based in a desire to remain a child, and be treated in a childish fashion.

The lack of intimacy -- in that column I discussed at length how people avoid intimacy because it forces one to take a hard look at oneself. Part of maturity is discovering not only what one can do, but one's limitations as well.

Narcissism -- people are more and more concerned with themselves. Divorce amazes me in this arena. Most, not all, but most, divorces are rooted in one partner wanting something the other does not and must leave to achieve that. In other words, it is a selfish act. I have friends whose divorce sounded remarkably like my sister and I when we were kids screaming "That's my toy" at each other.

Politics -- I will never forget the Dole/Clinton debate in 1996. One of the audience members actually asked the candidates when they would figure out that the government is really the "parent" of the populace, and when would they get about the business of taking care of everyone. This was a grown man, obviously in his 40's looking for parent in the government!

Do I really need to go on? All of these are signs that we do not really want to grow up.

I do not think this trend bodes well for society and I think it may lie at the heart of why the church is declining today. I have already discussed that what is now considered "traditional" Christian viewpoints require that one be "broken" in order to achieve intimacy. If one views Christian faith as a relationship with God, then one wants to become more and more intimate with God, requiring deeper and deeper levels of brokeness. Thus it is fair to argue that Christian "maturity" is in fact more intimacy with God and more brokenness.

I have already discussed pretty thoroughly in the last column how many of the recent trends in the church do not lead to further intimacy with God. I think it also fair to say that those trends; therefore, do not lead to Christian maturity. I think this is borne out most apparently in the changes in worship. What is currently called "traditional" worship is the same as it was when I was a child. I also thought that it was "out of sync," "stilted," and "old." But a funny thing has happened as I have grown up. I have come to love it -- mostly because I have studied it. Because I have wanted more intimacy with God, I have endeavored to learn more about what is around Him. I have tried to learn about the hymns and the liturgy. I have studied the order of worship, to find out why it is the way it is. In that process I have come to love those things. But more importantly, I have grown more intimate with God.

This would be the primary reason I am concerned about the switch to contemporary worship. It is more than just a cosmetic change; it ceases to challenge people to more maturity.

It is this issue that is fundamentally at the heart of changes in the church. Is it better to pander to the society to attract as many people into the church as possible, or are we to call people forward to something more? To begin with, I am not sure that should be an either/or proposition. I don’t know why a church cannot accomplish both, but in my experience, these efforts seem to be mutually exclusive.

Part of that apparent mutual exclusivity is because I believe we are in a relatively unique time in history. Not since the Roman Empire has one political force so overwhelmed the world, and been able to provide its citizenry with such plenty. I personally think that it is that very "plenty" that makes us remain immature. When things are given to us, or at least are very easy to earn, it is like when we were children. Even those of us that had to earn our allowances as children did not work nearly as hard for the money as we have had to as adults. Since government has the power to redistribute the plenty, it is easy to see how the audience member in the '96 debate could make the statement he did.

In such a time of plenty, it is easy to see how a faith that calls one to maturity would not be well favored by the populace. And thus, if the institutions of that faith are to remain viable, they feel they need to lighten up on that whole call to maturity thing. Hence you have your apparent mutual exclusivity.

I have argued previously that Christianity is about the good of individuals, not the good of the institution. Obviously, based on that argument, I am going to vote for the church calling people to maturity rather than pandering to the populace. There is; however, another argument I would like to advance.

Christian maturity is attractive, and far less prone to the mistakes that the church has made in the past. You will recall that I have written about the amazing contradictions between the church's behavior and its message. I have since found this anomaly summed up beautifully in a quote from Martin Luther, "The church is a whore, but she's my mother." What a true, but damning statement.

You see, the reason the sort of things happen that render Luther's statement true happen is because of some immaturity in those leading or worshipping in the church. By definition, maturity -- not age -- brings with it experience and learning and a lower likelihood of making a mistake. The more intimate one is with Christ, the more likely it is one will hear when He is pointing out that some action or the other might just be a mistake.

You see there is a real basic disconnect. Jesus was God. Therefore, I cannot help but believe that he was an attractive individual. I don’t think God is ugly. Now, I think He was threatening to a lot of people, and thus they reacted negatively to Him. But it was His very attractiveness that threatened them. No, Jesus drew them in. So something is very, very wrong if the church is not. The church is supposed to reflect Jesus. If the church is not attractive, then maybe the problem is in the quality of the reflection.

The answer to drawing people into the church is NOT in pandering to the world, it is in gaining maturity and therefore presenting a better reflection of Jesus. Now we are getting down to a model where we have both. A group of mature Christians will naturally attract people to them because they will radiate with something not available in any other way. The road to maturity IS the road to church growth.

The caveat to this argument is that knowledge should not be confused with maturity. The reason I have come at this whole thing from the standpoint of brokeness and intimacy is that Christian knowledge does not equate to Christian maturity. Maturity in Christ is a result of brokeness that leads to intimacy with Him.

Do you want church growth? Here's a path for you. It is a road less traveled, but it is a road for me. Want to come?

With Love,