The Sydney Church scene is really polarised out here, the only way to have a decent chance of leeway I reckon is to be a part of a smaller denomination. Churches of Christ is that up here and I am very grateful to be part of a smaller movement that is seen as “non-threatening”.
Talking to a new and yet very close friend last night was a real eye-opener into the “Prosperity Scene” that many of the churches around greater Sydney are buying into, with all of its’ associated power games, leadership hierarchy ( “This is a Theocracy, not Democracy” – direct quote from a Church Leader), and financial rewards.
There is an entire, almost canonised, set of justifications replete with verses that legitimise the resultant “prosperity” (an all to narrowly defined concept).
Here is the thing that I can’t quite work out:
Jesus spent consistent time in regular contact with people who were suffering, in need and poor.
Most of these leaders do not.
Our society worships Power, Social Status and Wealth.
Jesus did not – in fact, after forgiveness, Jesus main topics were those three.
When the Church takes on and espouses the values of the mainstream culture it loses its ability to be the bearer of Good News. All it can then become is the “bearer of Good Advice” (Frances McNutt).
To this I add: A world in thrall to the gods of wealth, power and possessions is a world that in no way is good for the poor – they have to lose, so that others may win.
The gospel is good news for the poor (Luke 4:18) and an inconvenient truth for the rich (Luke 1:52-53 – God has pulled the mighty down from their thrones, and lifted up those of low degree. God has filled the hungry with good things; and the rich God has sent empty away).
Wow, how did we get to where we are, all reading the same book?
7 responses so far ↓
1 hamo // Mar 18, 2007 at 9:32 pm
sure doea make you wonder mate!
2 jenn // Mar 19, 2007 at 10:04 am
I want to hear more of your thoughts on leadership hierarchy. The ministry I work for believes that “blessing” or “anointing” comes from the leader and trickles down to the rest of us. The people/ministry will only be as “anointed” as the leader. I don’t know what I think about it yet, but I find myself uncomfortable with so much talk and then giving saying God did it. How can you argue with someone when they said God told them to do such and such?
3 Tim Jeffries // Mar 20, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Well we’re certainly not all reading it the same way … I guess that is a start to thinking about why we get to these different places.
4 Bec // Mar 21, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Hi Jon,
I was trying to find your email but couldn’t…can you shoot me an email? I’m now in Canberra and we come over to Sydney a bit.
I heard a rumour that an old colleague of my mother’s is researching the same, relatively niche area that I am in, and so I was trying to track her down…anyway, I asked a friend of mine whether he knew how I could get in touch with her, and in a roundabout way I then discovered that the person I’m trying to get in touch with is your mother-in-law. (we think, anyway). It’s a very, very small world!
*sorry for the completely irrelevant post*
5 JOn // Mar 21, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Hi Jenn, I like the idea of Paul’s church. He never addressed leaders (as there were none really). There were no offices, functions were assigned to gifts (greek -charism), So it really was a CHARISMATIC church, pure and simple.
Paul always went on about the body, not the individual too. I reckon that locking into roles is against the model of gathering that Paul understood and advocated.
I think centralising power at the top was precisely the opposite of what Jesus and Paul were on about (the only mention of Priest is in Hebrews (author unknown) and that states that Jesus was the last one, who replaced them all!
Yet, we now have guys who have more chutzpah than charism leading churches with very supersticious views ie ‘anointing’
Very excited that you asked for my views Jenn, I feel important, thanks!
6 Peter // Mar 23, 2007 at 5:18 pm
hey jon,
It would be nice to think that with the increased interest in social concerns that we are seeing in the church (and I for one believe that it is gaining momentum), that we would see a decrease in interest in prosperity and ME-FIRST Christianity…
That is not the case however, it seems to be getting more polarised as we go along… if we take my (soon to be former) workplace as a micro set of the church, there is a great increase in sales of books like the ones UNOH publishes, but at the same time the amount of books by authors like Miles Munroe, Dr Creflo Dollar Jr. & Joel Osteen are also in greater demand.
I think that the most unfortunate argument they have in their camp is that numbers = anointing, if you have a big church, it must be because the Lord is blessing it… it couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the church is feeding these people what they want to hear – could it?
7 Jon Owen // Mar 26, 2007 at 10:18 am
When the church mimics the highest values of western culture then it “takes the Good News and turns it into Good Advice” (F. Macnutt).
Everyone wants good advice, especially if it is good financial advice.
All of the authors you mention (I am pretty sure), just pedal good advice. Most of it is really asking us all to deny our wounds - they would call it “poverty thinking” or something like that.
It is popular to feed people junk religion, high in sugar, but there is a great long term cost.
No wonder they have big numbers, who doesn’t want lollies at no cost?
Paul’s churches were about a max of 40-70.
No more…
Leave a Comment