Essential Services?

Essential Services?

reflections on reimagining "church"

by Troy Cady

            Last Friday the President of the United States authorized the reopening of churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship for regular services. As we are in the midst of a pandemic, he identified these gathering spaces as places where “essential services” are provided.

            Since this announcement, I’ve followed with interest (and with some sadness) the various responses I’ve read from my brothers and sisters in Christ here in the United States. On the one hand, I am delighted by the countless ways local congregations have creatively adapted in the midst of this crisis. On the other hand, I am saddened by the way I’ve seen Christians tearing each other apart and I am saddened by actions that indicate to me little more than a selfish and consumeristic disposition. The church is called to serve not our own interests, but rather to serve the common good. 

           

A little background

I write this as someone who spent 12 years starting new churches in Europe and the past 10 years serving in various capacities vis-à-vis local congregations and regional initiatives. It is no exaggeration to say that the 12 years I spent in Europe and the years I spent as a regional coach/trainer here in the United States have transformed my vision of the various shapes the church can take.

            As a start-up leader, the teams I led had the advantage of experimenting with the way “church” looks and feels for both regular church-goers and for those who are not accustomed to “going to church” regularly. This experimental mindset carried over as I transitioned from Europe to the United States, and I am proud to say that those I have had the privilege of coaching in new endeavors have relished the opportunity to think of “church” in different forms. Though the churches these innovative folks are leading today do not resemble what normally comes to mind when most people think of “church,” I am happy to say these new forms of “church” are thriving in their own right and serving the common good in ways that are truly inspiring.

In what ways are church services “essential services”?

Because of my experience with experimental forms of “church,” I have to ask myself: “In what way may we understand ‘church services’ to be ‘essential services’?” Put another way: to what extent are “church services” essential to the life of the church, anyway?

            When I was working in Europe, I and the teams I led came to the conclusion that (at least for our context) “weekly church services” not only were NOT essential to the overall vitality of the church, they proved to be a distraction in our efforts to embody what it means to truly be the church. We discovered that churches could spend all their time planning church services (and putting so much emphasis on going to church services) but completely miss the point of what it really means to be the church.

How we experimented and what we learned

So, we decided to try an experiment. We asked ourselves: “What would it look like to strip away the ‘weekly church service’ aspect of being the church and reimagine other ways of being the church?”

            Before I describe what we learned from this experiment about the relationship of the church’s ultimate essence to the programmatic aspect of weekly church services, I would like to mention that we did not entirely jettison church services, nor did we dismiss the importance of “gathering.” Some of the churches I led met monthly or twice a month for a large group church service—and we DID practice a weekly rhythm of intentionally gathering in various formats for worship, learning, fellowship and outreach.

            With that context in mind, I can attest that nothing upsets Christians (especially evangelicals) quite like the act of messing with their cherished Sunday morning singing and sermon-hearing. It is sad to me that we have come to associate the word “church” so much with “church services” that, were I to ask 100 Christians how they could sustain life together as a church without depending on weekly church services, probably 99 of them would not even be able to envision such a phenomenon (or at least envision it in a way that is sustainable and life-giving). In fact, I wager that most would think something like: “What’s the point? What would we do without church services? Isn’t that what the church does? We hold services. That’s how it has always been.”

            I’ll be honest: this lack of imagination and willingness to try something different troubles me and grieves me deeply. It smacks of selfishness and consumerism. And it is one of the reasons I feel that in this season of crisis (and once the season has immediately passed) most churches will experience a temporary “revival” (of sorts) for a short period of time but will gradually succumb to “business as usual” over the long term—content to serve the “needs” of those who enjoy church services, but deaf to the deeper calling of the church to serve the common good over her own interests.

            Out of years of experience with alternate forms of church, I assert that weekly church services, in fact, are NOT essential to embody what it means to be the church. That’s not to say the church doesn’t gather. That’s not to say the church neglects worship. And that’s not to say the church neglects teaching and fellowship. But it begs the question as to the mode of our gathering, the form that “gathering” takes. And it begs the question as to how worship, learning, community and outreach take place. These dynamics that enable the church to flourish and sustain herself do not need to happen in the context of a “church service” and I have seen first-hand that, in fact, “church services” are one of the worst ways for these dynamics to be nurtured.

Rooting out the dysfunction

Part of what troubles me about the “traditional” form of church is that church services too often simply reinforce a consumeristic (passive) relationship between a church’s congregants and the church’s “hired leadership.” This set-up is dysfunctional in at least three respects.

           

1. It becomes a sick system whereby a church’s congregants exercise control over the paid staff to deliver a good enough service or a) the staff person will lose their job, and b) the congregant will just go find another church where they will get what they want. It’s capitalism in the guise of religion and it is a disgusting disease that has plagued the American church for some time now. You can be sure the Spirit of God grieves such a condition.

2. The other side of this sick system of control, ironically, goes the other direction, too. Some people put their paid staff on such a high pedestal that they become incapable of thinking for themselves and “feeding” themselves. Thus, in many churches, the pastor wields a level of control that borders on “abusive” (and, indeed, crosses that line too many times).

            It is idol worship “in the name of Jesus” (if that were possible). In this scenario, people equate the pastoring (shepherding) function of the church so much with one individual (usually the “lead” or “senior” pastor) that the church fails to activate the many pastors/shepherds (and other gifted individuals) in her midst.

            Ironically, this happens because we have put such a high value on the word “pastor” that the church has, in fact, cheapened the word, stripping it of its fuller meaning.

            What’s even more tragic is that the word “pastor” does not even occur in the Bible. The one place you will find it in English translations is in Ephesians 4, but some feel it is mistranslated from the Greek manuscript. In every other instance where the same Greek word is used, it is best translated “shepherd.” Yet, in Ephesians 4, we substitute the word “pastor.” It is sad to note: that single, small choice has caused incalculable harm to the church. Wrongly understood, it is one of the reasons most Christians divide the church into two categories: “pastors” and “laity” (which means, “the people”).

            But the church is not to be divided like that. Every person in every church has a gift to offer and no gifts (and no people) are to be treated as more important than others. And whenever anyone exercises their gifts they are to offer them humbly to others as acts of self-emptying service. The text in Ephesians 4 which I have referenced goes on to say that God gives these various gifts to the church (to ALL the people in the church) to “equip” and “build up” the church so she may reach full maturity (that is, so she may flourish).

            But, in a scenario wherein people put the pastor on a pedestal (and, hence, cannot function without their “pastor”) the exact opposite is happening. Instead of the church growing up to full maturity, her members continue to be dependent on this “special” individual, thereby perpetuating a co-dependent relationship that is (I must say again) sick, sick, sick.

            If one tries to change this system, people begin to protest that they need to be “fed” more and they are not being “fed” very well. This complaint, however, misses the point of what it means to grow to full maturity. When someone grows to full maturity, they should be able to feed themselves. The fact that churches today have so many congregants who need to be “fed” all the time by this one “special” person tells me the church is filled with Christians who, quite honestly, have never grown up—perhaps because they’ve never had to grow up…because they keep being fed by their “parent.”     

3. When church boils down to a few paid professionals providing a service for others, it sets up a scenario where the practice of faith equates to mere intellect and emotion. This is why our experience of church today amounts to little more than a time and place where we are reassured in simply “believing” the right things (thinking “correct” thoughts about God) and getting filled back up emotionally so we can cope with the “hostile forces” of “the world” in which we live. This is precisely why many churches fail to nurture significant relational connections between the church body and the communities in which they are situated. In other words, churchgoers are too often very good at living within their own little church bubbles.

            I contend this is why so many of those who leave the “traditional” church experience their exodus as a world-enlarging phenomenon. Sadly, many churchgoers opt to sustain “the known” (that is, the structures within which they feel comfortable) out of an unconscious desire to feel safe and secure, never realizing how the very system by which they are propped up emotionally and intellectually is the system that is holding them back from truly flourishing both individually and collectively. That is why, to most regular churchgoers, what I am writing feels threatening, dangerous, even heretical.  

            A church without weekly church services? Preposterous!

            All I have to say is: you will never know what’s possible until you try it…and you can trust that, even if you fail, the Spirit of God is still big enough to keep you safe and secure in the love and grace of God.

Church: just imagine!

The reason I am writing this now is because I believe the church has a great opportunity to try something new. What do we have to lose? It’s a great time to experiment. So, I want to encourage church leaders and churchgoers to activate your imagination as to just what the church can become.

            In my own context, I’m happy to say the congregation in which I serve has been trying something new in terms of our gathering rhythms and structures. It’s far from perfect, and we have many improvements to make if it is to be sustainable and life-giving. But we are on the way and we are learning as we go. And we can extend grace to one another (and patience) in the going.

            And, surprise, surprise…we are already seeing good fruit being borne as various members of the church use their gifts to build each other up and reach out to others. To be honest, when I have read each week what is happening in our smaller (decentralized) gatherings, I’m inspired and humbled by the amazing things people are doing. The church is coming alive. And we’ve only just begun! Just think what’s possible if we continue imagining new ways of being…months and years from now.

            Church: I invite you to re-think the truly “essential services” God is calling you to offer…humbly…creatively…not just for ourselves…but for the common good.

            Amen.

………………………

Troy Cady serves part-time at Grace Covenant in Chicago. He also runs a ministry called PlayFull whose mission is “to help people and organizations play from the inside out”...imagining new and free ways of being and living.