Moving from cosmetic to fundamental change in the laity

Each year I attend conferences and read books about the future of the church. I hear about how the future of the church will be smaller and more missional. The church will need to shift from making congregation members to Disciples of Jesus. The church will be more lay driven and rely upon bi-vocational ministers. I hear about the house-church movement, the Emergent movement, the Mega-church movement, the Neo-Monastic movement, and even those hinting at a “bowel movement” to flush out their disliked theology/philosophy/generation/leaders.

In all this conversation about all the different movements that the church is experiencing or needing, there is a bit of doctrine that clergy publically affirm but privately call into question. The past few years more and more clergy are beginning to speak out against this false teaching but it still is defended by many.

What is this doctrine? It comes in many variations but the gist is this:

The clergy are just not beginning to see what the laity have known and have desired for a long time – we need to change the way we are the Church.

Of course the Church of the future will be different than the Church of the past or present. No one knows what the Church will look like, although that does not keep many of us from speculating. The idea of a changing Church is not really up for debate any more.

What is up for debate is the first part of this doctrine – the laity know and desire a change in the way we do Church.

The Diffusion of Innovation Curve. How do we get over the tipping point with our laity to have an early majority of lay members embrace fundamental change?

Lay members of the church are not dumb they know that change is needed. However, the number of laity who understand what type of change is required is much less than what is needed to create a change that we all agree needs to happen. The laity that I have encountered, even those who acknowledge change is needed, express only cosmetic change.

When we talk about a fundamental change to the way we do Church we are talking about willing to close our beloved Church in order to birth new communities. We are talking about willing to personally engage in a lifestyle change to integrate the spiritual practices/disciplines. We are talking about willing to set the spiritual formation of our children at the same priority level of the educational formation of our children.* We are talking about willing to disentangle the American Dream and God’s Dream, Capitalism and the Beloved Community, patriotism and support of “the troops” from one another. We are talking about willing to see the Creeds not as litmus tests for “orthodoxy” but as poems penned to describe the indescribable. We are talking about addressing the social issues of human sexuality and identity, war, and income inequality. We are talking about addressing the theological issues of the atonement, theodicy, and the authority of the Bible.

These are some of the questions of fundamental change that we need to address.

And these are not the questions that I hear laity asking. Questions of fundamental change are not questions that keep laity up at night. But I can tell you, they haunt this clergy person every day.

---

*Why there is a culturally acceptable parenting approach to let our children choose if they are going to attend a faith community but do not let them choose to attend school is beyond my understanding.

Reclaim Christmas by looking to Halloween

Halloween By the Numbers. (2013). The History Channel website. Retrieved 10:50, October 31, 2013, from http://www.history.com/interactives/halloween-by-the-numbers.

Pope Gregory III declared that November 1 as "All Hallows Day" in the Church calendar. As such, the night before, October 31st, becomes "All Hallows Eve". Just like we make a big deal about Christmas Eve, so too the Church made a big deal about All Hallows Eve. 

The Church created Halloween. It is a celebration of those who have died and a preparation of the All Hallows Mass that is the next day. 

Over time Halloween is co-opted by secular motivations and now we have a sugar driven market "holiday"  that is as far removed from the reverence of All Hallows Eve. 

Halloween, in this respect, is just like Christmas. The Church no longer has the claim on Christmas. It is now removed from the Church in such a way that our economy actually depends on the commerce of Christmas - beginning in November.   

For as far as Halloween as drifted from the Church calendar, the Church seems to be making steps to reclaim Halloween via Trunk or Treat.  

I know moving to the church parking is does not change the "idolatry of sugar" and trunk or treat looks, on the surface, just a more efficient way to get candy. What I want o highlight is that the Church is impacting culture in a way and at a scale that the Church used to do with greater frequency. 

When the Church is responsible for changing customs, traditions and habits (even in the practice of Halloween) then the Church is reclaiming its role as a culture maker. 

For all the condemning of the consumerism of Christmas. For all the critiques to "put the Christ back in Christmas". These actions have little effect on the practice of Christmas. If we want to change the way we practice Christmas, then we need to create a new way to practice Christmas. 

If we really want to be sure we all remember "the reason for the season". Don't change your profile picture.  

Instead take a page from Halloween and change the way you practice Christmas.  

Are we better off with changes rather than just change?

Girard is a thinker who brought to my awareness that if the tension of world is not dealt with then the "social fabric will burst". The dominate way we deal with tension in the world is by scapegoating someone or something. Through the discrediting, removal or killing of the scapegoat the tension is released and the group is brought to a temporary peace. But because this "remedy" requires ongoing violence towards the people within the system , Girard reminds us what Jesus said, "a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." Thus this cycle of violence is leading us toward destruction and not toward the promised peace. 

In order for this system to work the group needs to be unified against the scapegoat. The majority of people have to believe that "this" or "that" is the reason there is tension in the community. You cannot have a witch hunt if there is not a mob who believes that some (not all) people are witches. 

If unity of the mob in their disdain of the scapegoat is required for the cycle to "work" then what would happen if the group could not unify against an agreed upon scapegoat? 

Would this mean that we would have to deal with our tensions in ways other than by identifying and destroying a scapegoat?  

When I was in seminary I was trained that to make changes in the church one must be slow because too much change too fast creates it hard for the church. We were told that "change is hard" and so any change must be approached with care and follow up. Over the past year I wondered if the slow rate of change actually gives people a ready made scapegoat that people all agree is "the problem". 

When there is one change in the system it is clear to everyone that the change is being made and then everyone is focused only on that one change. Everyone who is angry about the change builds a backing because everyone is focused on this one change. Those who are not angered over the change can be caught up in the growing frenzy as they see what looks like a growing number of people who are really upset. 

Soon enough, there is a mob unified against the change and there you have a mob against a scapegoat. And the mob will do what mobs do to scapegoats. 

The church I am in ministry with has gone through a number of changes one after the other. Staff changes, worship changes, infrastructure changes, structural changes, leadership changes all happening over the course of the year. What has become clear at this stage in the game is the grumblings that I hear are minimal and fractured. That is to say, there is not a unified mob.

Does multiple changes refract the tension in the community so that the community cannot rally against a single scapegoat? And if the community cannot rely upon the scapegoat mechanism to resolve the tension, does the community find healthier ways to deal with the tension?