Shaun King, the founding pastor of The Courageous Church in Atlanta has resigned after 3 years. I've never been to the church and didn't really know of its existence until just recently, so it would be foolish to take sides and make generalizations. I assume that there's always more to the story than I could possibly know, so I want to keep that in mind as I write.
But, reading about the church and Shaun's resignation stirred up emotions and pressed some buttons inside. I don't know all that Shaun was leading the church through and how he was trying to develop the ministry, but his description of the church ministry as being focused on making disciples and the feeling that the church was not doing a very good job of fulfilling that mission resonated. He say, "Big buildings. Huge crowds, few disciples. I'm not with it. It's ineficient and just doesn't feel right with my soul. This is not a rejection of big buildings or huge crowds but is an indictment on how few disciples are being made in the process of it all. A better way has to exist."
The Courageous Church. What a name that is and what an expression of faith! It is a name that probably no church can really live up to and yet evokes something that we wish all churches would strive for. The idea of courageously forging ahead towards what you know is right no matter the cost and no matter the inconvenience is reminiscent of the church of the New Testament. It assumes that there will be suffering and there will be martyrs. In Atlanta, that wouldn't likely mean dying for one's faith in the midst of persecution, but it does mean living for our faith in such a "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead" way that one's life (and position, honor, comforts, etc.) is not really important as you strive for the goal. And, isn't that what Christ said when he told his disciples that anyone who strives to preserve their life would lose it and those willing to sacrifice their life would save it?
But, the reality is normally quite different when you look at the church overall. There isn't much risk taking even in small areas much less those that would risk our life. Comfort, peace, harmony, stability are far greater values than courage. The typical church is much more of an institution than a body (an organization instead of an organism). Most of the energy, effort, time, money, and man-hours goes into the maintenance and preservation of the organization and its property. Often, little goes into direct ministry to those who most need it. Those who most need it are usually not those who attend "the church" but are outside the walls. Look at the business meeting agendas (whether the governing members are called deacons, elders, trustees, or whatever) and see what items are up for discussion and what items take the most time. It's normally organizational details and physical plant issues. Ministry discussions are usually because of a problem or because someone wants to do something. Not much time is often given to the mission of the church (either what it is, how to accomplish it, or whether what we're doing is accomplishing it).
That certainly wasn't true in the New Testament Church. What we see there is not an organization (in fact, there seems almost to be nor organization at all) but an organism. They were putting their lives on the line and it wasn't just a theoretical possibility. It was very serious. But, it wasn't the brash, "I know I can do it," proud kind of courage. It's more of a humble pressing on in spite of the dire straits, like Frodo and Sam at the end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. There was no certainty of success and a strong likelihood of failure, but they just knew that they had to do it. Giving up was not a reasonable option. They were just a group of ordinary people who had heard the gospel and believed it. They didn't just believe that it was true or that it was the best thing they'd heard so far and therefore ought to be at least close to true. They didn't believe that it would solve their problems, get them a better job, give them health, or give them a good support group. In fact, all the evidence so far showed them the opposite. It was going to make their lives very uncomfortable and maybe painful, maybe even to the point of being stoned to death. What they believed was something quite radical and sacrificial. They believed that Jesus, the Jesus that the leaders in Jerusalem (Jewish and Roman) had killed, was the Son of God. The believed that, even if they weren't a part of the decision to kill Jesus, they were still eternally and alienated from God. The believed that he had risen from the dead and after the shock that a man could return from the dead, the next (and greater) shock was that instead of taking vengeance, this Jesus was offering a superhuman grace of forgiveness and acceptance.
Look at the response after Peter's sermon to the crowd at the end of the second chapter of Acts. They were struck with fear and said, to paraphrase Francis Schaeffer and Ezekiel, "How then should we live?" "What does this mean for us?" The conclusion was radical. This changes everything. Nothing comes close to this in importance. We cannot live as we once did.
That's courage, and of a kind that I've seldom seen in today's church outside of some areas where there is great persecution. So, when I read about this church and Shaun's desire to lead it into a total rethinking of what the church should be and read of his description of what he expected, I wanted to say a hearty Amen! The church should be making disciples and not just collecting warm bodies. I don't know the details of what he wanted to do, and maybe they aren't the best way, but still have to agree with him that something does need fixing. I applaud his courageous goals and his courage to step down when he felt he could not take the church there with him.
But, where do we need to go? I'd love to hear your comments. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment