http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWCDPpeE7xE

 

So here's it is. Really. Absolutely. Honest to God. My last xanga post. I'm a movin' to justinpatton.wordpress.com, as I'm sure that will help me in my resolve to quit thinking and writing about CCC-specific things. It's been an interesting time lately. Lot's of opportunities to function like people who have things in mind that are actually important enough to communicate about. Kind of fun, really, in a sort of painful way. But way better than being comatose in a church where you show up, smile, listen, smile and go home for 50 years in a row.

I wish I had some great manifesto with tons of absolute, irrefutable answers. But no one does. Best thing we have is the Bible in that regard - and certainly nothing any man says or writes comes close to that.

Honestly, it is times like the past few weeks at CCC that give me the most hope that we are capable of functioning - really functioning. What tempers that hope is the knowledge that very few others share such an interpretation of the past few weeks. I get excited when it seems we have communicated, at least a little bit, about a very difficult topic to address. Then I come back down to earth when I realize that, above all, comfort is what our flesh desires. And comfort does, undoubtedly, come easier if you value peace-keeping over peace-making.

I've seen it in myself a million times. I'll be having a great run of intimacy with God and all the while I know it isn't going to last. I know I'm going to do something that will eventually derail it and send me off into the wilderness for who knows how long.

And so it surely goes with the church, too. You leave a service and feel like, because of things said in both public and private over the course of a long period of ideological exchange, there's a lot of positive stuff going on. But that good stuff came about by a process that wasn't easy or pleasant. It was costly. And whatever the currency was that paid the bill, there's less of it around now because you (I) spent some of it.

But what does it really come down to? What are we doing? I'm still not sure I know. Community is good. Relationships are good. Jesus is good. Truth is good. But there's an unhealthy dose of humanity thrown into all of that which will surely mess up the most sincere effort to interpret the "best" balance of all these things. I know I'd mess it up for sure. And if you aren't sure that you'd mess it up, too, I'm not certain that I want to play with you.

If it's relationships first, bar none, then we're a social club that strives for biblical guidelines. And maybe that's all the church should be. But we are clearly trying to be/do more than that at CCC. Should we be? Maybe some of us are and some of us aren't, and that's part of the confusion.

If it's "truth" first, bar none, we just need to pick our denomination. If it's about a professional service, or the opposite of a professional service, ...then it's about the service. And on and on. Yeah, there's something wrong with everything. So does that then mean that nothing really matters? Pick your poison and get on with it? That's rather unsatisfying - for me anyway.

I gotta admit. I still wonder why the VAST majority of middle-aged men (30-50) who were once intensely involved at CCC at some point over the last 5-10 years (who were in, or were presumably en route to be in, some sort of serious leadership) - they just aren't anymore. Some are gone altogether, some are just smilin' and chillin' in the 5th row. I'm not going to list them. But I'd need to take off my shoes to count them all. Odd. Maybe they're all confused too.

Guess I'm just beating that same old dead horse I've been beating for years now. Sorry. Take solace in that fact that I am confused and still optimistic somehow. And that this is...

THE END.

--------

Believe it or not, I'm not an ignorant person. At least, not when it comes to church function. I am well aware of what can and probably will happen when the status quo gets challenged. And the truth is, yes, I am going for a power grab. I am trying to wrestle power away from whoever has it now. And give it to everyone. I admit it. I like the home church model. I like not having offices at all - no pastor, no worship leader, no liturgy, no concept of expectations that make you a good Christian at "our" church. And I am grateful to Brian Baldwin for publicly lending credibility to the idea that this model is not patently wrong.

But it is a preference. Just like professional church is a preference. I caught the first whiff of my disease around 1995/1996 at Christian Community Church. It was fostered by people like Bob Warren and Darrell Gibson. And by authors like Richard Foster and Frank Viola. I look at the institutional church - ALL institutional churches - and sorta feel like I've been there and done that. And I'm not interested in being there and doing that until I'm 60. So if there were ever a time where it might be okay to talk about this, it seemed like now would be the time. Clearly, this topic will always elicit strong sentiment, even during periods of "welcome input."

Yes, it is preference. Most of us have known this for some time. So we (and I) are figuring things out now; what our preferences are going to look like. I'm pretty sure I know what the outcome is going to be, but I'm committed to the process. And I'm committed to sticking my neck out for what I believe, no matter how likely it is to be chopped off. (my chances of becoming a successful politician? somewhere around a snowball's in heck...)

I do apologize to all the people who thought the meetings we are having were going to be about drafting a new vision statement. I tried to explain a little bit of why they weren't exactly going that direction on Sunday. I tried to explain that these meetings were called specifically to deal with a problem sentiment that had been identified, albeit in an indirect fashion. I completely understand how the vast majority of the folks who showed up were probably broad-sided by the other issues raised. This, again, is something I perceive as an example of our communication issue.

It may be that the hope was for a collaborative effort to create a group-generated vision statement - alleviating the sense that the lay person had no input. But several people (before and besides me) discerned that there was an issue deeper than simply giving the Body the sense that it had a measure of input on a new church document.

As for me, I think I've done about all I can or need to do with this debate. I will do my best to be around for future meetings, and am willing to reiterate anything anyone wants me to. But as far as forging any new ground, I'm going to leave that up to others. I am well aware that, for many folks, there is little more important than keeping the peace and preventing hurt feelings. But I've also heard (at leadership meetings) many a frustrated expression about folks who have left the church and questions about why "they didn't say anything" about their issues.

Could it be that they didn't say anything because they knew (even better than others did) that others really didn't want to hear what they had to say?

I have actually begun my first silly video: Dora the Explorah's Run for the Border. It is in production; I will post it soon. But until then, I have one more major line of thinking to get off my chest. Then I really want to put the CCC-specific attention this blog has had recently behind me. However, this is still the CCC blog ring and all, and we are in something of a communicative mood as a group here recently so...

At CCC we have tons of freedom. More, I would dare say, than ANY other organized, "meet-in-a-building" church in town. I say that because I know multiple small groups that have been told, "You are free to do whatever it is you think you should be doing." I know that lots of people have a chance to get up on Sunday morning (sometimes with no advance planning or notification) and take up MORE than 5 minutes to say whatever they want to say. We have multiple music leaders and multiple speakers. No doubt if a traditional seminary professor came to observe us, he would recommend putting an end to pretty much all the things many of us value the most.

All of this, I contend, remains true today for two reasons. First, it's who we are. This is who CCC is. We've changed a bit over the years, but not so much as to be mistaken for a "professional" church. The heritage of "amateur" church is still alive and well at CCC, and the very notion that we could ever look or function like First Whatever seems laughable. There are still enough people around with the early mindset that it currently creates and generates the identity of CCC for everyone.

The second reason is our leadership. Regardless of whether we were lead by a group of elders only (sans senior pastor) or elder-led and pastor-run (like we are today), the man/men at the helm have preserved an environment where all this is still possible.

We've definitely taken baby steps away from home, though. At one point, the church decided that it had had enough of the problems associated with not having a senior pastor, and that it was time to get acquainted with the problems that arise because of having a senior pastor. Several years ago our leaders decided that, as a church, we had unequivocally failed to evangelize in the fashion that God expected from us. To remedy this, we had several strategies, all with the hope of a measurable increase in the size of the congregation as proof that we were getting our evangelism on. We've paid more people more money and written more job descriptions.

Now, don't hear me saying that any of these things are wrong. They aren't. What they are, though, are steps away (in paradigm at least) from an intimate, "amateur" church and toward a more sizable "professional" church.

There have been other steps, of course, and there will be more. So what are the odds that, suddenly and without warning, we'll walk in some Sunday morning to discover we've become First Whatever? Slim, I agree. But let's take an imaginary journey into the future. What would be the biggest step toward "professional" church we could take?

I'll give you a moment...

If you said "hire a pastor to come in from outside the congregation" you'd be correct (as far as I'm concerned). So what do you suppose will happen when Jim steps down? We've already established the office and function of senior pastor. Given the nature of the near-complete power that we've given the position, a senior pastor could easily redefine us. Odds of a professional, seminary-trained pastor preserving the environment most of us have come to appreciate? Pretty small, I'd say.

Of course this is all hypothetical speculation. But think about it. We are closer to that possibility than ever before due to the baby steps we've taken to professionalize CCC. Some, I imagine, would see this as the best thing that could ever happen to CCC - to get a real, trained professional behind the helm. Thing is, if I wanted that, there are 300 other churches in town I COULD go to. Pretty much only one like ours. Only one that offers "amateur" church WITH the flexibility and freedom that comes from valuing the community.

Folks, we are drafting a new "vision statement." Traditionally there is absolutely nothing in a vision statement that would address any of this. Nothing about how we function or how decisions are made. Nothing about evaluating the manner in which our purpose is interpreted and by whom.

Okay, time for a perspective break. If CCC comes crashing down around us in flames... so what? I mean, from an eternal perspective, so what? Yes, it was a great run and a special place. My point is, there is nothing to FEAR. And if it sounds like I'm trying to scare you, I apologize. My only desire is to motive people to keep their eyes wide open during this time of welcoming input. Let's use it well, because it is rare and valuable. Let's not get lost in creating the ideal vision statement when there may be issues of greater importance to address.

Are there?

You tell me...

Who was it who said "Christianity is simplicity... on the other side of complexity"? So let me ask you, the individual Christian - does your church need a vision? If so, how simple or how complex? Do we make it up based on what we see in the immediate here and now (with little or no regard to scripture, because, let's face it, we don't know for sure if that book is even literal)? And if we're just going to go off of our amateur philosophies for how to be better friends to 100, 200 or 500 people... well, where'd that come from?

Communication is good; that's what I've longed to see at CCC for a good while now, and I think we had that at our meeting on the 30th. Though I get the feeling that even though we said the process would be long (creating a new vision), I'm afraid we are still jumping the gun with our plan to "start with the document we have" (current vision) and labor together (as good as that will be compared to the alternative) to edit the old vision into our new vision.

Why is that jumping the gun? Well, I'd suggest it's because we're assuming that the communication we experienced on the 30th is only necessary for a transitory purpose. And that once we finally get that vision that everyone feels they had a say in (and therefore have ownership of) we can REALLY get busy being the church (with our finely tuned new vision). The vision will be the thing we need, not the communication. Communication is only a means to an end.

I'd suggest that we were more "the church" in that meeting on Sunday than we could ever be. We did it. Yeah. So, um, why not do that regularly? Not just because we're "working on our vision statement" and when it's done we'll have no need to interact on such an honest level, but because connection and communication are important. Even without the stated end of a new vision statement.

Is it just me, or do you see the same thing happening at CCC (not in a few years - but in a few weeks... days... minutes...) after our shiny new vision is complete as we've had in the last 5 years?

We're not really addressing the problem head on to assume that all we need is the right vision statement. That approach has been picked for us. As I said at the meeting, I'm less interested in WHAT we do and more in HOW we get there. So HOW have we decided to work on a new vision statement? The same way we picked the cell church model. HOW will this new vision be interpreted? Well, unless we are insightful enough to build the "how" into the vision (which sounds a lot less like vision and a lot more like a constitution), the same way we've been doing it since Graham set us on the path. With one very strong personality shouldering the lion's share of the burden while a small cast of elders hold him "accountable" (read: prevent animal sacrifice on the stage).

Are we going to interpret this new vision together, too, or will that fall to just a few (or one)? How we function is an organic thing... it can be observed and evaluated. Not by a piece of paper, though. But by people who are involved.

Clearly, several major elements of our church will pass without scrutiny with the drafting of a new vision statement. We will still be either pastor-led or elder-led (that depends on which elder or pastor you talk to). We will still hold "confirmation" votes, where the body has the opportunity to tell the elders that we think they are good guys (vote yes) or that we are non-supportive ingrates (vote no).

So what?

Do I think we need a 100 page constitution? Well, lots of churches have those. And yeah, we might, if we insist on operating in the manner we have for several years now. But I'd rather see us simplify the paperwork. Pare down the superfluous and get to the main thing: Jesus. How much more do we need to add to Him? Does Scripture really mean that without a "vision statement" the people perish? Or does it mean without a vision (of HIM) the people parish? What (Who) are we looking to? Will the Holy Spirit guide us into all truth (as that pesky, might-not-really-be-literal-book suggests)? Might we have more time to interact with each other if we never HAD a vision statement?

Maybe our vision should be even more organic that MCF's. They write a new one every semester. Maybe ours should be every day. Then we compare notes when we get together. What do you suppose might happen if we threw that out as a possibility?

Too radical, I suppose.

Take a look at this:

We Quit Going To Church

Maybe I should try to be creative on my own first, but I haven't had any luck so far. I'm trying to think of a name for a radio show that would be SOMEWHAT similar to Car Talk on NPR, but instead of cars the topics would be religious in nature.

And no one would be calling in live.

Maybe email questions.

I don't know.

Anyway, Dana Carvey of SNL took "Church Chat" years ago so that's out. I'd love to hear some ideas, as I remain stumped.

Religion, American Style? (with the whole cheesy 70's theme music maybe?)