Responding to Shame / Guilt of Missional Church
Friday, February 13, 2009 at 2:16PM This post contains my response to Josh Bode's blog on shame and guilt in the missional church conversation. To see Josh's blog entry, CLICK HERE.
Josh's piece is well written and helps identify why we feel awkward talking about declining churches. It also explains why I sometimes feel "beat up" when I hear the missional gurus talk (and I'm even in a congregation that most in our community would describe as missional, growing, and experiencing seasons of refreshing).
Perhaps a better place to begin (than setting new goals) is where Nehemiah did upon hearing that the people of Jerusalem were in great trouble and shame:
Nehemiah 1:4-10
4 As soon as I heard these words I sat down and wept and mourned for days, and I continued fasting and praying before the God of heaven. 5 And I said, “O Lord God of heaven, the great and awesome God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, 6 let your ear be attentive and your eyes open, to hear the prayer of your servant that I now pray before you day and night for the people of Israel your servants, confessing the sins of the people of Israel, which we have sinned against you. Even I and my father's house have sinned. 7 We have acted very corruptly against you and have not kept the commandments, the statutes, and the rules that you commanded your servant Moses. 8 Remember the word that you commanded your servant Moses, saying, ‘If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the peoples, 9 but if you return to me and keep my commandments and do them, though your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there I will gather them and bring them to the place that I have chosen, to make my name dwell there.’ 10 They are your servants and your people, whom you have redeemed by your great power and by your strong hand. 11 O Lord, let your ear be attentive to the prayer of your servant, and to the prayer of your servants who delight to fear your name, and give success to your servant today....
The place to begin to change is first of all a place of repentance - and of mourning and fasting and praying.
I am moved by Nehemiah's first act upon learning of shame - he mourns.
Perhaps one key for the RCA's continuing decline to be reversed is to begin with acknowledging reality: we are in decline. Perhaps a second step is fasting and mourning and praying. Nehemiah did so for four months before taking any action.
I am all for setting the bar high and setting goals. I think the RCA needs some. They can offer challenge, inspiration, even hope. But the goal is not the achievement of benchmarks, it is the increasing in our love for God and our love for others. To that end there is always room for confession and repentance. Even in Nehemiah, the goal was not the building of the wall, but the restoration of the covenenat, which takes place in the second half of the book.
It will be wonderful if the RCA grows again; it will be even more won if times of refreshing come by God through his Spirit and Word and the church is renewed to be the presence of Christ in the world.
Thanks, Josh for your good work to stir the conversation.
Jon Opgenorth
Trinity Reformed
Orange City, Iowa
Reader Comments (4)
Dear Jon,
Thanks for your Nehemiah reference. It reminds me that in the research on shame the only way to heal it is through griefwork, which begins and ends with living in reality (in some new, transformed way). Griefwork ends in increased social cohesiveness and vitality. What if our denomination had found a way to do griefwork. . .maybe our paranoid polarizations and lethargy would even lift some. We'd certainly be a model for the American civilization nowadays suffering the same shame malady.
Another thing I've been thinking about is our use of the word "decline." It seems loaded to me. By certain criteria the denomination has been in decline. But perhaps by other criteria it has not. James Hillman says somewhere that shedding is a kind of growth. There are lots of kinds of growth.
The problem with the potential shaming power of the missional language, it seems to me, is that it is significantly inept at blessing the strengths of the church. I can see two problems with that. First, we waste our resources on our weakest gifts. Second, people are far more motivated and inspired by blessing than by shame.
I wonder if Our Call has missed an opportunity to inspire more constructively, is all.
Josh
Interesting thoughts, Josh.
I wonder what other criteria you have in mind to define us as a denomination not in decline. It might be a fun exercise on these blogs to come up with other criteria.
While decline maybe a shame word, I don't think it needs to be, and it isn't my intent to do so. I am not afraid of looking at numbers and realizing there are fewer people in our pews, fewer dollars for missions, fewer people coming to faith in Christ. Nehemiah himself uses the word "shame" to describe the condition of the exiles.
Nehemiah's genious, in my opinion, was not so much the building of the wall as it was the restoration of the covenant and the later reforms. However, the building of the wall was an immediate, physical reality that galvinized the people. And it was done, arguably, by expending the people's resources on something they weren't good at.
Our Call does, I believe, serve as a galvinizing instrument. With the addition of "Multiracial" as another goal, it further gives us some tangible footholds in forward momentum. In our context - 90% homogenous - that goal has been helpful in focusing my eyes where I may not have done so before. It is paying dividends in our congregation and, I trust, the kingdom.
Have a blessed week.
Hi Jon,
So I think you're righter than I was when you (if I am understanding you). . .
1) want not simply to generalize that decline has to be a shameful word,
2) suggest that that putting resources into weakly-gifted ares is not always a bad idea
3) propose that galvanizing itself may have some value apart from the instrument of galvanizing
I think that all three of those things are complicated, and the important thing about each is the spirit in which they are done or said.
About #1 I have no need to defend my generalization. You may be right.
About #2 I really don't know anything about the subject. I wouldn't be surprised if I am wrong.
About #3 the jury is still out for me when it comes to Our Call. I do think that most any random project can galvanize. I worry, though, because I think that some resonate with a people more naturally and joyfully than others, and some require large amounts of denial to keep going.
Let me think about the criteria thing. Will put some in this blog when I've got a little list.
Josh
HI again, Josh,
On #3, galvinizing for galvinizing is not worthy, and you are right to be concerned. The Natural Church Development folks have always said that you focus on your weakest area (of 8 criteria they define as healthy for every church).
What I like about Our Call is that I do believe it was birthed in prayer, asking God where we need to listen to him over the next 10 years. It was not meant to be a once-for-all-time essence of the church. If we perpetuate it as a permanent goal, that may be unbiblical, just as Nehemiah continually building a wall would miss the point. It was important for a season, but the covenant's renewal and subsequent reforms were the main work of Nehemiah's "building."
Blessings to you,
Jon