American/Ugandan/Christian Culture?
Yesterday I read the Declaration of Independence and it got me thinking about some questions that I have been asked by some of my close Ugandan friends. They love Americans and they love the church but we are trying to see what part of our church is American in nature.
We have looked at the traditional hermanutic, worship, structure etc
"Autonomy" This is a word that we, in the US, have used to describe our American, Independent, No one is going to tell me what to do, pull yourself up by your own boot strap mentality. It comes from our pioneer spirit. We stand on our own two feet. We ride "em hard and put 'em away wet".
Like many in the church of Christ who headed west on the Oregon trail and built their own log cabins by felling the trees on their newly claimed lands. We are tough. Self reliant. We are the like the ones who "get going" when the going gets tough.
We have our own leadership Independant of anyone else
We have our own land
We have our own buildings
No one has authority over our leadership and we don't answer to anybody.
Are these American values or Christian values?
Are these American values that we have Christianized or Christian values that we have Americanized?
I work in a culture that does not value independence the way Americans do. There is no such thing as a "family unit" in this context...it is the extended family that is valued.
A couple or individual who gets rich on his own is seen as selfish if he is not openly helping his "relatives".
No two people can decide to get married on their own. There must be permission from the families.
Problems are solved by the group not just the individual.
For there to be a "brotherhood of churches" that are independent of each other makes no sense to my Ugandan friends.
They cannot understand how an eldership of a church can operate independently of other elderships. (One Ugandan described this as the "cowboy mentality."
As one said, "elderships in the states are not accountable to anyone except to those that they are leading...that doesn't make any sense. Is that the way it was in the Bible? What about the Jerusalem council? How do churches in the states justify their independence when they read about things like that?"
Another question I have received deals with the number of Churches of christ in our different towns in America that do not work together. How can you have so many churches of Christ in one place with different leaderships? In the Bible we see the church of Antioch or the Laodocia or the church of Corinth, the New Testament mentions the church in such and such a city. Paul however mentions a church that meets in someones house in that same city. Even Revelation mentions the churches by city. ...If the Lord sees you as one church why don't you work together? Why are their so many different independent churches of Christ? (Let alone other groups of believers.)
What do you think?
posted by Jeff Cash @ 8:51 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Actually I feel that American culture is similar to Roman culture. The terms that they quoted "Justice" "Liberty" "Fatherland", and others sound like ours. Christian culture was based in Eastern honor/shame which we do not talk about in the US. I think there are differences.
I also think that is why we are having trouble reaching our younger culture here in America. The things that are important to me and my generation are not important to younger people. It has caused us to rethink how we present the Gospel. In fact it has driven me back to the Biblical text to (to borrow a word from NT Wright) "think afresh" the text.
One example is evangelism. Acts shows the church growing. The current evidence shows the American churches of Christ (as well as other denominations) stalled out or declining. So what has been our response? We have justified it rather than going to the text and asking--what are "we doing wrong." Then repenting. Then going after this generation. We expect them to conform to us (because we are right) rather than getting on our knees and repenting and asking God to lead us.
Just my perspective.
Ron that is well said!
You have outlined a great plan for what we should...
1.Go to the text and ask what are we doing wrong.
2.Repent
3.Go after this generation
I do not believe that the church reached it potential in the 1950's or 60's.
I think the best is yet to come!
We need to stop blaming others, stop talking badly or judging other churches. We need to focus on those who do not know the Lord.
We need to convert people to Jesus not just our church. We need to love each other and get serious as a church about reaching out.
THANKS RON
I am encouraged by your words!
Leaders should lead by example
At every elder/deacon meeting - go around the room and talk about your top 5 unchurched friends. Problem #1 - you don't have any unchurched friends, you're too busy doing church. We've got to get out of the salt shaker.
Hold each other accountable, before you discuss football or the budget, or the state of electricity in Uganda ...tell me about your unchurched friend. Have you been able to move the friendship to a deeper level? What works, what doesn't, share, celebrate, and pray.
You should be inviting your unchurched friends into your home and into your life. Invite them to go to a ball game with a couple of your church friends.
If you coach soccer, coach to the glory of God. Wear a shirt with a bible slogan. It's not in your face, just subtle stuff -
----
Then get the church leadership on mission. What can YOU do on Sunday morning to make sure that when my friend shows up he goes home feeling that this was a good use of his time? I put a lot of my personal feelings at risk when I got my friend here - I'm expecting my entire church family to rally in support.
If my friend only shows up once - will he get a nugget of useful truth - that makes him want to come back again? Is the sermon real, relevant, no sugar coated, does it make you think?
Do we make him stand up, wear a nametag, or other embarassing stuff?
Do members say hi, or do they visit amoungst themselves.
Don't assume he has a bible, and don't assume that he can find 2nd Timothy. Don't assume he understands communion. If you pass a collection plate be sure that you explain that this is for members only - when a visitor attends that's gift enough for us, we don't need your money.
At Exxon every meeting starts with a discussion on safety. At my local church every meeting starts with a discussion of the people we have personally invited to church or home group this week.
If you don't have an unchurched friend GET ONE, you'll love doing business with JESUS.
This is a really late response - I have not been into the blog world for a while. Actually the autonomous nature of our church organization is not "cowboy," but is the result of two forces. One was the reaction to the abuses of the pyramidal central authority of the Catholic and Anglican churches and the other was the pattern of the 1st Century church. The movement to congregational automomy did not originate in the U.S., but in Scotland, and it is not exclusive to the churches of Christ. The largest group is the Southern Baptists, although they have their annual convention which in some ways dictate policy. The most recent move away from it in the churches of Christ was the Crossroads/Boston/International Churches of Christ which had a central authority and one man at the top - Kip McKean. It resulted in a shameful abuse of power. That is the problem when authority is focused toward the top of a central governing "board" in one man or a few, power corrupts whether elected, appointed, or inheirited (as in royalty). That also happens as the result of the cultural form of the tribe, which puts a man at the top and calls him chief or king or some other such title with all power. The result has been that when someone who has been immersed in the tribal system rises to an important position, in the government or the church, he assumes "all power." When the governing authority is corrupted, the whole organization is corrupted, but if a local eldership is corrupted, only that congregation is effected.
There is no pattern or authority in the Bible for a hierarchy of government. We see individual churches appointing elders and making decisions. I do believe that there was more cooperation between those congregations than some would allow in the modern church, however. Being in Christ was the important issue, and they were all a Christian brotherhood scattered across the known world, but there is no record of one congregation or group of brothers dictating to others. Yes, Paul sought the advice of the elders and apostles in Jerusalem for matters relating to the Gentile churches. The New Testament had not been written and most of the Apostles were in Jerusalem, so that was the natural place to go for advice. We probably should be more open to seek wisdom where we can find it, starting with the Bible. In Revelation John wrote to individual congregations which indicated an independence among them. Paul wrote to Timothy telling him to see that elders were appointed in the individual congregations.
We really don't know a lot about the structure in individual cities, but it is likely that they mostly met in small groups, in homes, and there is a good chance that an eldership was appointed for the church in that city. There were only a few large cities as we know them in this century and the small groups probably cooperated with each other, considering themselves as one body.
Yes, elders should be aware of the effects of their decisions on the lives of their members as well as the effect upon the whole brotherhood. Yes, I believe that elders should be interdependent seeking advice and help from each other individually and between congregations. Yes, I believe that we can and should work together on projects larger than the abilities of any one congregation. Yes, I believe that there should be more accountability between elderships, but not authority over them. Our accountabililty is to God, our wisdom is led by the Holy Spirit, with our faith in Jesus Christ. Our leadership should be in submission to God and each other.
One more idea. You mentioned in your response to Ron that we need to convert people to Christ, not just the Church. I agree, and think that we need to convert the people who are IN the church to Christ.
Post a Comment
<< Home