Brant Hansen at Letters from Kamp Krusty has been writing lately about his decision to leave his local church and start a new home church of sorts. I have appreciated his honesty as he has chronicled his framework of thought concerning his decision to leave. You can read his post here which I think shows some of his best writing on why his is doing what he is doing.
I as read what he has written I would boil it down to this: He is leaving because the church is full of people who are sinners. Church leaders have made dumb decisions and our current form is full of trapping that have gotten us way off course. I'm sure he would qualify this statement much more thoroughly, but at it's essence I believe that is what is boils down to. Thus the question for him becomes, since we are all sinners, doesn't it follow that the new form of "house church" that he has chosen to embrace will soon fall to the same fate of sin infected people trying to figure out how to do church best? Sin is the issue. It is something that we have to constantly rage against and declare war on, but this side of heaven it is something that will never be defeated in whole.
Is there somehow an assumption on his part that one can create a certain type of church utopia? There are certain people you are going to go on vacation with and there are certain people you are not going to go on vacation with, just like there are certain churches where you fit in and certain churches where you will not. I get this. But is there a type of form idolotry going on here? If we all could just choose to follow this certain type of church form, namely, informal house meetings, then we would all be better off? I'm not saying that this is what he is saying, but I am just wondering if it is the case. If the answer is yes, then I would say that the focus is wrong, form is never the issue. People are always the issue and people will always be sinners this side of heaven. We don't have a church problem, we have a sin-infected people problem. People make up the church, forms of church don't make the church. Thank you Jesus for the gospel.
I know that I don't know his situation very well so I could totally be missing the point, but these are my initial reactions. I would encourage you to read his post and judge for yourself whether my question here is valid. I think we all would be well served to wrestle with the issues he raises.
6 comments:
"He is leaving because the church is full of people who are sinners."
Hey man. If I were you, I'd go back and have another run at it. I think (though I could be totally misunderstanding you) that this is a gross mischaracterization of what Brant is saying.
Maybe email him and/or search through his blogs for some of his previous comments on this topic. Brant's not running from sinners. He's not even running from The Church. He's simply stopped interacting with "church" in the way that most of us have been taught to. You could say that he as stopped "going to church" in order to focus on "being the church"... or some kind of little wordplay like that.
best,
-j
Thank you for the response, I think it's fascinating, and it helps me.
I'm actually the world's biggest anti-utopian. I'm serious. Irony: I've even been a mainstream talk-radio host, and my rejection of utopian ideas was a central organizing principle of my show.
I talked with a pastor-friend a few weeks ago who said he struggles with lust and ego. He said he, and the other leaders have walls set up to protect them from internet porn, because you can't play with fire -- you have to understand your nature.
I asked: What hedges were put up around ego? Since he struggles with ego -- we ALL do -- what's up with putting yourself on stage, in front of hundreds, some adoring, each week as the star?
This is just one example how the form of what we do may produce the results we get. Just like our founding fathers recognized human nature, and thus formed a model of government to guard against it, doesn't it make sense to say, "You know, the current way we're conceiving of things may be flawed, and the results we get may be linked to this?"
-- especially when these forms are rooted in our culture, not in the movement that Jesus intended. Seems like we should re-examine them.
Anyway, there's another crack at it. This is a tough, tough issue, and I REALLY value those who say, "But wait..." instead of remaining silent and just thinking "That Brant...what a jerkface..."
Best,
Brant
John,
I think I am being misunderstood. I understand how my statement may sound harsh. That is not my intention. Believe me, I work full time in the church as a worship pastor and I know full wel that the church is full of sinners, of which I am definitely one. I probably should have reworded my post. Thanks for the correction.
What I am trying to get at is there is no perfect system no matter what. If we are running from a certain form of church we'll probably find that in the end we are running from the way that form is played out by individual sinners. Not by the form itself.
But I also see that certain people will resonate better with certain forms. I get this. I like more informal church, other like more formal, etc.
My only caution for Brant was to make sure you understand what you are "leaving". Is it "the church" (as one of his blog titles says) or just a certain type of church. If it a certain type (mega-church slickness) then maybe be more explict about that. I my impression was that maybe he is leaving organized church completely. This is impossible unless you are going to sit in your house by yourself, but even this could have elements of organization.
A couple other issues - what about church discipline and/or submission to church leadership. Historically this was one of the primary functions of going to church. I know that I personally have a great need to this type of accountability in my life from the elders at my church. This is not to imply that Brant think that he is "super-spiritual" and doesn't need accountability. It just seems that historically and Biblically (1 Cor. 5, Matt 18, etc) that a structure for church discipline is pretty important.
What do you think?
Brant,
Thanks for your humble response. I hope you did not feel attacked. That was not my intention. My only point is that whatever form of church we choose we have to be somewhat realistic about it and know that since WE as humans are doing it will always have flaws since we are all sinners.
It seems to me that church worship is a pretty big deal to God in the Bible, but based on the NT we have a great deal of freedom in terms of how it gets played out. When I read the Bible it seems that a couple things should be primary in our meetings together
1. Preaching of the word
2. Singing
3. Loving each other
I think if these things are happening then we are on the right track.
As a guy who has worked in the church (mostly the mega types that you describe) I just know that no matter what form we choose based on our critiques of what is not working, it will still be messed up. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't change, but just that we should be realistic about it.
In terms of your comment about ego... Just cause a guy struggles with ego doesn't mean that he should not preach, etc. Almost all gifts have a dark side. As worship leader I can struggle with ego as well, does that mean I am any less called to lead the church in singing? Probably not, but that I need to really focus on ways to fight against my flesh in this way (scripture memory, friends speaking into my life, etc). Again, to use the overused catch pharse, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... I know you have heard that one before, but it's all I could think of. I'm not sure that what we need is form change as much as church leaders and followers need a HEART change. This should be the emphasis I think. Thus, if the gospel is not primary we are a sunk ship.
I hope to continue this discussion with you! Let me know what you think.
Hey Zach,
I think that, as Brant said somewhere here early on, it's difficult to be brief and also to be completely understood. No need to worry, when he says they stopped going to church, the emphasis is on "going". : ]
And I think the issues of discipline and accountability have been pretty well covered in the comments section already, so I'll leave what's said, said. (and go pick up my pizza! mm...)
My point in posting here was not so much to "defend" Brant as to encourage you to delve deeper into what he is saying. It is well thought-out, and valuable. I hate the fact that many (not that you are necessarily one of these) will miss Brant's meaning and go charging off... turning the discussion, Life of Brian-style, into an argument about whether we should follow the shoe or the gourd. : (
best,
-j
In the words of Rob Bell, if you ever find the "perfect" church, you better leave before YOU ruin it!
Post a Comment