One in Twenty

“The idea that fewer than one percent of Americans are being called on to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq and that we’re sending them into combat again and again and again — for three tours, four tours, five tours, six tours — is obscene. All decent people should object.” ~New York Times

“Over 1,700 pastors left the ministry every month last year.  Over 1,300 pastors were terminated by the local church each month , many without cause.  The number one reason pastors leave the ministry – Church people are not willing to go the same direction and goal of the pastor. Pastor’s believe God wants them to go in one direction but the people are not willing to follow or change.” ~Pastoral Care, Inc.

It’s been said that only one in twenty people in church really get it.  That’s five percent – better than the percentages of those bearing the human costs of our so-called war on terror.  But is it enough?  Is it really worth the cost?

When I first read the New York Times article referenced above, I was shocked – and outraged. We, the comfortable, are satisfied to sit in our comfortable homes and pay the financial toll, while less than one percent of our citizens pay the physical, emotional, and social costs.  These numbers alone tell me that we don’t have the will to win this war.  It is outrageous for us to assume that our military volunteers can carry this load alone.

It was about a year ago when I first read the Pastoral Care article quoted above.  As soon as I read it, I knew the end was near – but I didn’t want to believe it.  At first, I tried to get some of my leadership team to realize the threat and the problem, but like kids in a school yard, as soon as they smelled blood, they merely joined with the bullies.  It was a strange and surreal event to watch – and worse to be in the middle of it.

Of all the churches I’ve been a part of, I’ve done the math.  One, two, three, four,  and – five.  It seems as if it always works out to about five percent are really catching the vision and willing to do what it takes to move the church further down the path.  Before you accuse me of being a pessimist, stop and catch your breath for a second.  Actually, I’m a realist – with a healthy dose of optimistic visionary within.  For of those one in twenty, few are living up to their potential – but at least they are headed in the right direction.

But what about the rest? Well, good question.  Some are seeking.  They truly are looking for the right answers, but it hasn’t clicked yet.  A lot of people at church are serving – and the value of this should not be overlooked.  Service is one of the best ways for us to achieve healing from that which oppresses us.  However, there is a significant part of the bell-curve who are simply taking up space – and they aren’t too interested in moving either way.

Don’t get me wrong.  These middle of the road folks serve a good purpose, but at what cost.  They provide significant critical mass  to the church, for without them, the place would seem empty.  They pay the bills – at the very least, they pay their own way.  They provide stability to the community – as faithful church attenders, they are at least trying to be moral.  But does this group have too much say in the direction, values, and vision of the church?

Maybe we should let the leaders lead.

It’s said that “a person convinced against their will, remains of the same  opinion still.”  The significant majority of church-goers, are not that interested in mission, vision, and values discussions.  They are content with the status quo – and in fact, desire the status quo.  Seeking to move this mass forward, poses a serious challenge.  Because most churches are set up on democratic principles, it is almost impossible to get the church membership to agree to anything risky, challenging, and expensive.

In fact, the whole leadership structure becomes quite co-dependent. The people elect/hire their leaders.  The leaders need the people to follow, but the people won’t follow, if they don’t agree with the leaders.  So the leaders have to tell the people what they want to hear, or they lose their position as the leader of the congregation.  This leads our churches to seek decisions that are the least offensive, least progressive, and most stable.  Yet, churches were never meant to be stable.  Churches were meant to be manifestations of God’s character and love.

Parents would never sit at home if their children were at risk. Friends of the parents would do everything in their power to help their friends if their kids were at risk.  Yet, those who refer to themselves as friends of God – or, followers, seem to show little of any interest in the needs of others – especially non-members! It appears that church exists for their comfort, their wants, and their perceived needs.  Most church budgets are directed towards the maintenance of the building, schools, camps, and institutions of the church.  Very little, if any, funds, are used to impact those outside of the membership.  This is typical of institutions – and not really all that unexpected.

It is this disconnect between what the church is charged to do, and what it actually does, that is so frustrating for visionary leaders/pastors.  According to the article cited above, it is the number one reason most pastors leave the ministry.  It certainly was true in my case.

“My struggle with today’s churches centers around this mediocrity”

There is a growing  circle of churches who reject the democratic for of church governance.  Adopting a leadership-driven model, they are avoiding the mediocrity of the least common denominator.  Decisions in these churches are made by those who don’t just talk the talk, they also walk the walk.  The leadership of these churches are held to a higher standard of character and spirituality.  The popularity contest that we call politics is minimized.  Leaders are free to lead, as they are led  by God.

My struggle with today’s churches centers around this mediocrity.  While providing a safe refuge for those looking for safety, today’s traditional churches serve a place for that group of people.  Those that crave the status quo.  However, I don’t crave the status quo.  I see the church’s purpose as a standing army, preparing for battle.  That battle comes in many forms:

• personal and corporate transformation
• public service for those in desperate (and not so desperate) situations
• combating the evils of society
• vindicating the character of God
• helping others to achieve daily and eternal victories

This is what I’m looking for in a church. I’m looking for a group of people who are willing to do what it takes to answer the call of God.  To go beyond the mere comfort of a safe community – and to charge ahead in this journey we call life.

What are you looking for?

Tweet

Share

Save