Today is Tuesday, two days into Passion Week, two days after preaching on the traditional passage of Jesus' triumphal entrance into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1-11). I admit though I am not feeling very triumphant today. I still see snow outside on the ground. I lament the realities of uncontrollable situations. Regardless of how I feel about the wonderfully intricate water crystals still dotting the landscape, this is a great week indeed. The preparations for Easter are underway. It is truly a blessed time.
Today I find myself perplexed due to further reflection upon Sunday's preach. Why has Jesus' entrance been traditionally called the triumphal entrance? I realize the implications of the donkey (Zech 9:9) and the symbolism of the palm waving (Judas Maccabeus was welcomed in this manner as his dynasty was set up lasting a hundred years) but the triumph is not until Sunday. The real victory is not until the realization by the disciples that the tomb is empty. So why the naming of the entrance in this way a week before the true triumph? Regardless, I am fascinated by Jesus in this passage as he rides into Jerusalem with a purpose. Knowing where this ride will ultimately take him - he still rides. Knowing the danger, knowing the risks, knowing the cost - he still rides into Jerusalem. We know how the story ends - Resurrection! True triumph. This event catalyzes the disciples to go from from fearful to fearless. Fear is no longer an option for them as they now know the risen Lord. Fueled by their faith in him and the hope they now possess they commence the amazing spread of this gospel message (Gospel means good news). Many are met with a torturous demise, but they did so boldly. The result - God's Church, followers of Christ, grew. The numbers grew in a staggering rate (over time some exaggeration has probably occurred - but staggering nonetheless) considering the opposition, the risk and the danger. Truly inspiring.
Where is his church today? Where does it stand today? What is it doing today?
The answers to the these questions are given by many. From inside the church and from outside the church. There are conferences held and speeches given, studies conducted, polls taken all in an effort to answer these questions. I will not list any statistics here as there are too many and they are easily found on the internet. What I will say is that most of them, if not all, will claim that the church in the West is in a freefall. Many studies will say that decline is evident in all denominations. This is no surprise to most as the conversations that take place at administration levels for most denominations is confirming of this. Ask them.
Is the talk about the demise or the decline of the church true?
(The book Freakonomics has taught me that there is often another truth at play). It should be noted that there may be some factors to be considered and accepted before the shout of decline occurs. Generational, cultural and social paradigm shifts have changed the world's reality. This has affected not only the role but also the appearance of the church today. Also how studies are conducted can cause the outcomes to be somewhat skewed. If a declining Sunday attendance is noted it may simply be the result of more people needing to work on that day to accommodate job expectations.
What if it is true?
What if the church in the Western world is actually diminishing? If it is we should probably move the conversations toward the why. Why is it in decline? Has the church become fearful? Has the church lost its sense of purpose? Has the church run its course in this part of the world? Many will have great thoughtful researched answers for these questions - I just have a thought - "If you are not taking ground perhaps you are losing ground." Perhap it boils down to just another question - "has the church become too defensive?" Has the church become to worried about what it has? Have we become too protective of what has been gained? (okay that's a few questions) This may sound odd coming from a hockey fan and player where many times I have heard "the best offence is a great defence" (watch the New Jersey Devils) but I am not so sure in this case.
In a book called The Empire Strikes Out a man named Sir John Glubb and his book the Fate of Empires is cited for his research into past empires particularly their rise and fall. Glubb has put the rise and fall of empires into 7 stages. He claims that with few exceptions most empires go through the same basic life cycle. The first stage is the conquest or outburst stage. The beginning time when caution is thrown to the wind and taking new ground is done with great energy and courage ( disciples?). This stage is followed with one of great initiative and enterprise. Achieved quickly and with a "reckless bravery". With every stage more is accomplished until the need to conquer is replaced by the need to protect. The energetic time of conquest has reached its zenith. Now begins the time where there is something to lose. Attack is no longer the goal. The ability to counter-attack is lessened as walls are built and procedures created to defend what has been achieved and attained. From this point stages of affluence and decadence follow which usually signals that demise is on the horizon. Of course by this time no one can see that the forest is burning all around them because they laud themselves with past victories and intoxicate themselves with their arrogance of superiority.
Does this look familiar in any way to the current alleged situation with the Western church? To an extent, at least.
During my reading of Glubb's findings it struck me that it might be applied to organizations and denominations and not just military/ruling empires. My fear is that the Western church may be following this cycle. I am not suggesting that God's church has become defensive or even God himself so much as I am suggesting that those tasked with its leadership may have. It appears at times that there is less concern with taking new ground and more with protecting what is already attained. Is the concern of saving those places that were once bastions of kingdom business but are now only worn reminders of what once was preventing the taking of new ground? Are the risks associated with new conquest too intimidating for the current church? Is the cost too much for what can be achieved? (Could it be any more than it was for the disciples in the first century?) Has retreat been sounded? Is the slogan "All the World for Christ" no longer the goal?
"If you are not taking ground perhaps you are just losing ground". A worrisome thought and not very triumphant.
If this is true and the western church has lost its zeal and is hurtling toward becoming obsolete or worse oblivion, does it matter?
I heard it said once - "God's mission has a church not God's church has a mission". It is God's mission, it cannot decline. He will make a way. For spectators this should ease their panic. For disciples this should ignite to action.
God has invited us to partner with Him as He redeems the world. Whether the West continues to respond is irrelevant as God will not be thwarted. Not by those outside the church and certainly not by those inside.
The Great Commission has been given (Matthew 28:19,20). It sounds like something for the fearless. It sounds like an opportunity to be triumphant! Any takers?
0 comments:
Post a Comment