Sunday, February 28, 2010
The Soul of a church
There seem to be three types:
1) Those that are defined by the minister.
2) Those that are defined by the congregation.
3) Those that are defined by a continuing identity that survives turnover in the pulpit and pews.
Which do you find most satisfying?
1) Those that are defined by the minister.
2) Those that are defined by the congregation.
3) Those that are defined by a continuing identity that survives turnover in the pulpit and pews.
Which do you find most satisfying?
Comments:
<< Home
As a Catholic, it's no secret that one priest can move a congregation to great things. But it's the unity of the entire faith that provides me with a sense that what my church is doing is special. 1 billion people praying the same way, believing the same tenets, and working towards the same goal, is really powerful stuff.
I have my "alone time" for sure, but knowing I'm a part of something so great is the most satisfying to me about my church.
I have my "alone time" for sure, but knowing I'm a part of something so great is the most satisfying to me about my church.
# posted by 
: 1:28 PM
: 1:28 PM
Number three--neither minister nor congregation should define anyone's faith journey. Personalities are always a let-down because they are only too human.
d) simplicity of operation, starting with a limited menu, equipment designed to do one thing well, people trained to do one thing well and control of operational costs.
That's what it said on the Church's Chicken website anyway.
That's what it said on the Church's Chicken website anyway.
Seems like a no-brainer. #3 is best, but by far the hardest to achieve. Options 1 and 2 are really both about individuals, whether a single individual (1) or a group of individuals (2). When the identity of a church is based on something strong enough to take the focus off individuals, something new has been created, something bigger, that transcends individuals. It can't really be dissected or replicated. There's something of "mystery" in it. Which is a big part of what faith is about. Long comment, but you happened to touch on something I've been thinking about lately.
I'd say it's extremely dangerous for a local church to be based primarily on the pastor. You know what I mean if you've ever visited a church where people constantly talk about how great the pastor is, but don't often mention how great God is. In the Acts of the Apostles, most of the big decisions about church management and doctrine seemed to be made by several leaders together. There were sometimes some heated confrontations (e.g. Paul confronting Peter about Jewish traditions), but it worked out better in the end.
Post a Comment
<< Home
