Two weeks ago I wrote about how I saw a disturbing tendency to strike out on our own into new expressions of church, than we are to try to bring about change from within our own communities. A good conversation ensued and since then I’ve read a number of other posts, most particularly one on Alan Hirsch’s site, about similar subjects.
The general consensus is that trying to revive a dead church is simply too big a waste of time. There are too many hurdles to try to clear and too much deadwood within the people holding the congregation back to make it a worthwhile experience. People suggest that the only result is burnout for those trying!
But this fills me with a righteous anger. It makes me look at the lives of those who are blighted by years of spiritual neglect at the hands of others; those who simply haven’t been taught the fullness of the Gospel through no fault of their own. It seems that the consensus is simply to write off these faithful, but unfulfilled, Christian lives as a form of collateral damage in the spiritual war because trying to heal them is simply too difficult.
Am I simply too naive? Is it really right to give up on whole groups of Christians simply because its easier to plant new congregations than it is to revive old ones?
I think the issue here is time…very few people have the time (or patience) to invest in a place to lead it through transformation. I remember reading somewhere once that the transformation of a dying congregation can take up to 7 years - if not longer. Human tendency seems to be to look for the easier route, to search out the quick victories. Planting new is a long, costly, and complicated process, but at least you don’t have to deal with old Aggie or Stan who don’t ever want to move the chairs.
In many ways, the whole ALOVE thing was almost an attempt to completely restart the Army…but got watered down before it was properly launched. The words used more than once were ‘revolution, not evolution’.
More righteous anger, brother!
I’ve had an e-mail on this subject after this post that is making me think more about the situation.
The experience I have in my last 3 corps is that new expressions of missional living have been built up alongside, in fact almost within, the old expression. Care has been made to avoid trampling on the feelings of those within the old expression, whilst being uncompromising on the standards of ministry that the Church is called to.
This feels like a valid form of revitalising old communities of believers.
I’m still trying to ease out some of the thinking I have on this subject, so please accept this is by no means a finished thought, and please add to the conversation if you have a view!
Completely agree with you…I’m an evolution man. I think the most effective form of change management is the one you have suggested. We’re having a similarly great debate at the moment in our Diocese about youth church and fresh expressions and how we move the church forward on this issue.
Sometimes it is more complicated however over issues of tradition. As a SA DYO I had a fair bit of flack over the decision to present a more culturally engaging youth councils from people beyond the age bracket. So those within the ‘old expression’ weren’t as open as I had hoped to the ‘new expression’ even when it didn’t physically affect their own worship! Do you know what I mean?
I understand fully what you mean, Martin!
In fact this is used by some comments that I’ve read recently that support church planting as the primary focus of future church building activities. They seem to act as if trying to change the minds of people set in their ways is not simply difficult but impossible and therefore is not worth the effort!