These are thoughts gate-crashing my mind of late, as posted in the comments of Steve Addisons blog - I just wanted to cath them here.
Why is it so? Why can’t a Church handle success as we define it – affluence, influence or (political) power well? Is it because we have ill-defined the definition of a “successful church”?
The Jews were waiting on a powerful, influential strong messiah when Jesus came – but his ministry was just the opposite…meek, weak, his influence rejected by those in power, humble and lead to his own demise and death.
Could it be that the local congregational Pastor (also layperson) who spend his time visiting nursing homes, counseling, doing funerals and spending time with mourning families, doing scripture lessons in the local school etc – could still be closer to Jesus than the well remunerated mega (or giga) church pastor who is mixing with the politicians and has a television ministry?
I don’t want to sound negative – but these are just questions on my mind. Are we supposed to be successful, or authentic...Upwardly mobile and influential, or downwardly mobile (and incarnational in EC speak).
I’m wondering is the Church that gravitates towards success and the successful – being faithful to its calling?
Are we supposed to 'decline' offers of worldly success as Jesus did in the desert or are we supposed to capitalise on them inorder to have maximum impact? Why is all of Church history stacked against Churches that become 'successful'?.
No need to answer - just thinking it through.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
1 comment:
nothing like starting the week off with an easy question Lionfish
those same rumblings have been in my mind the past year too
one could be politically correct and say both types of churches you mention have their target demographic :)
being human, we tend to think the one we support is the preferred one
seriously, I wonder if the Holy Spirit is speaking to those who have 'ears to hear' about this and many other things
but as you say, no need to answer . . . so just thinking through some more . . .
Post a Comment