I forget the numbers, but it is something crazy like 53,000. Fifty three thousand sounds right. Hard to imagine there is even that many people in the american church, but 53,000 per week are leaving it. A little different than the church in Acts, in fact, it seems, there is a bit in the american church that is different than the church in Acts. The old church was growing, was led by the Holy Spirit. I should say, the young church, the olden days church, the JEWISH church, this movement started by illiterate Galilliean fishermen was growing…like a literal wildfire. Power and healing and tongues. Led by uneducated men, a little crazy that these men started such a movement…they didn’t even go to seminary!
They had not read a book on church growth, had not studied another church’s phenomenal business plan, to me the only way the church could grow then is the only way the church can grow now…the power of the Holy Spirit, and a little bit of crazy risk taking by those who lead it. Proven principles and procedures can be thrown out the window, with a little, uh, courage and faith. A little courage and faith in the Holy Spirit, in the God of the bible that we tote to church to see if the ladies recognize such a Godly man, the bible we use to validate our lifestyle, the bible we use to condemn others (hmm…I am more than a bit guilty here, but God is working on a lot in me), anyway, what was my point? We are missing something, something obvious. What are we doing wrong? I am not sure, it just seems the church is so different than it should be, why are so many people leaving it? Why do we go to churches in the jungle and there are, just like in america, 40 women to 8 men? How have we spread the american church to places like the mountains in northern Thailand?
Why did the spiritual leaders in the New Testament get crucified and the spiritual leaders in the United States drive fancy cars? I don’t know, honestly, and I don’t know how to change it…changing things might effect the budget, might affect people’s comfort levels some. It is like the sermon I heard on depression and how Paul also faced some rough emotional times. Paul was even depressed to the point of wish he were dead, if I remember right. Just like many americans. Just that Paul was a bit, uh, whipped…and getting stoned was a little different in his day. I guess I don’t really understand the difference, out here we can still get ice cream or even a beer when the going gets ‘tough’. What did Paul do without Paxil or a Lamborghini? Can we begin to recognize that we are a little off of the track that Paul wrote about when he said to imitate him as he imitates Jesus? And people don’t want to hear our religious beliefs? Go figure.
Seth gave me another book by Richard Rohr yesterday, called “From Wild Man to Wise Man”. Richard Rohr is the writer of the book I have talked about a lot called “Adam’s Return”. I like his stuff as much as I like John Eldredge’s stuff…and I wonder with writers pointing out the obvious, why don’t the leaders of ‘Christianity’ take this seriously? Why do we stick with such ineffective principles? Oh yeah, because we are a bit conformed to the world…the spirit of Jezebel, which I have recently heard about has snipped the testosterone from the church, rendering men useless and women hungry for the strength the man was created to offer. But this topic is so offensive, huh? This unisex church, like a mullet haircut, fits everybody but nobody looks good in it, but it sure makes people uncomfortable, doesn’t it? And Comfort is our God, our own personal comfort, which is what is taught by the church’s actions, so of course a good follower of this philosophy is more comfortable on his couch on a Sunday morning, thus one more empty pew seat. A pew seat will never be comfortable anyway, so why do we preach comfort for ourselves? The church will follow its own leaders, I think that is obvious, and the lives the leaders live…enough said.
So where was I? The path God is leading me on, the path God is leading my family on…the obvious path, doing things a bit differently and inviting others. Men need something more than the church will offer. A man can only lead as far as he has been, is my understanding from leadership books, so we wonder where are the men in the church? Where is a church with balls? (I am sure what I just said is offensive, but what is most offensive, the word ‘balls’, my thought that the church is lacking them, or is it offensive to think that God made men to be men and the church has no idea how to produce men with balls still intact? Does a man living in the strength God gave him scare the status quo? I think so, and I am determined to become this man, because I have been covering my parts trying to survive for 32 years of American Christianity and I am tired of it.
The second chapter of Rohr’s book is titled: “Is There Such a Thing as Male Spirituality?”. Rohr asks about the term, is it ‘new?’, ‘strange?’, ‘wrong?’, ‘unnecessary?’. Male Spirituality. Don’t men and women come to God the same way? (my opinion is ‘no’, men come to church either dragged by their mothers or wives) Rohr is convinced that men and women take different paths, because of the revolutionary (my word, not his) idea that men and women are different! In my experience there was only one man in my church who had the foggiest idea that boys need to be taught how to be a man, by a man, and he was eaten alive by the church, obviously still leaves my head spinning. But, anyway, according to Rohr, men and women PAY ATTENTION TO DIFFERENT THINGS! This is no revolutionary idea when a woman gives a book to her husband on how to communicate to her, you know, ‘men are from mars, women are from venus’ type of thing, but when it comes for men to do something different than a woman it is scandalous. I am getting off topic here, but I am trying to figure out the topic, because I believe it is where God is leading me, and I honestly would say that I have the man who the church chewed up to thank for giving me his heart for men to learn how to be men, and not perfect ladies with a bit of an issue in the hairiness (I wanted to use the terms hirsute or hispid here but got lazy).
So, to quote Rohr: “Moviemakers know that, book publishers know that, advertisers know that, salesperson’s know that, almost everybody knows that except the clergy.”
I apologize, in jest, for being offensive here, anyone reading this should have known I was overdue for something along this tone, sometimes I just need to get so fed up with the status quo that I might get off my lazy butt and try to do something about the problem, so this is another pep talk and a commitment to pursuing the ‘different path’. (I always liked that Robert Frost poem about the path less taken).
