I am mulling a question posed by Erwin McManus via twitter, “Do we choose community? Does the community choose us? As outsiders are we willing to serve a people not our own and earn the right to belong?”  I have many strong opinions that arise from being a former church staff member and now a (former staff member) who longs for such “community” again.

(Disclaimer: there’s a bit too much of “I” in this post. Consider this an “opinion” article. :-)

I am no longer on staff at a church.  But I have been responsible for creating, connecting, and training folks into “community” groups. I have also been responsible for helping folks understand the need (and their responsibility) for creating community and missional living within and outside their individual spheres of influence.

So … I understand very well the frustration and difficulty church leadership has in propogating their vision for community and having members own the same vision.  I understand lack of resources, people and financial.

I also do not consider myself lazy or demanding in my endeavor to find community.

My initial response to reading the question, “Do we choose community? Does the community choose us?” was “Yes. Both”.  Yet the second half of the question has caused me increasing anxiety and distress.  Maybe because this perspective of “insider’s choice” is what I sense as the growing perspective of the modern, American church.  My understanding of the Church (Body of Christ) and ecclesiology doesn’t leave room for “choice”.

Now, Christians must “serve” unbelievers.  This is a foundational component of much of missions work worldwide, from medical missions to business as missions, etc.  And, as Christians we must serve one another (see John 13).

However, if Christian “outsiders” are required to serve Christian “insiders” in order to earn the right to belong … wow. I’m stumped. A “survival of the fittest” mentality becomes a natural progression. Only the strongest and fastest “newcomer” will break through the “Red Rover Red Rover” line of linked arms.

There is a natural, emotional reaction to this question because I’ve been surprised at the difficulty I’ve had in moving past “outsider” status after my move.  There are components to this reality that I own … I’m not a staff member. I’m single. Yet I’ve also observed that the casual newcomer is greeted not embraced, expertise and help is accepted when convenient,  churches suck (I include my “former self”) at followup, Sunday mornings are very lonely for visitors, and the average church doesn’t know what to do with “older” singles.

Attempts to simplify “church” and programs over the last decade have served to simplify “church” for the insiders while erecting barriers that outsiders must hurdle in order to belong.

I observed this while on a church staff.

Living the reality now.

Not fun.

Understandable.

Yet discouraging for those who long for a community.

(And yes … simplification is good. I’m a proponent.)

However, does the end justify the means?
I would argue that the answer is an emphatic “no”.

Addendum:
Part of my reaction to Erwin McManus’s quote was compounded by a blog entry by David Fitch called, “Should We Chase After Christians Who Come to Our Sunday Gathering When They Do Not Feel Welcome?: When They Will Not Come 2″.  The post hit a nerve because, well, I find myself in that description. Now, there is much I agree with in the article, namely, that leadership has spent an inordinate amount of time “chasing after” those who visit and do not return.  I also agree that creating a welcoming team that engenders a false sense of community is wrong.

I especially agree with:

“Community comes through understanding a common goal and becoming committed to it with other people of like mind and then struggling through the trials and pains of that journey together. It takes long-term commitment.”

The comparison of church to a “typical” family gathering was misguided, however, …

“We would not expect people to come to our family gatherings as strangers. More likely they come invited through a significant relationship. … They come with someone they already know well and can rely on them to navigate “the family” for them.”

… for those who come to church alone: whether as someone never married, widowed, or a husband or wife whose spouse will not attend church. These folks do not have a safety net. And if “insiders” choose the “outsiders” with whom they establish community, then those who do not have “navigators” into the inner circle are less likely to find community.

This isn’t about creating more programs for the church. It’s about guiding principles and how we expect staff and leadership to work them out.  What is Christ-like or missional about an “us vs. them” mentality for church leadership towards other Christians? I fear these attitudes point towards selectivism rather than including the “whole” of the Body of Christ.  Too idealistic?

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)