The Accessibility of God
Have you ever looked at the social institutions of our world and simply asked the question, “Why?” Why is this here? Why is this run the way it is? Why does this group of people seem to thrive under these conditions while others don’t? At times we realize that our current situations are in place because of actions implemented in the past, but our exploration of those first causes are rare. We think that the problems of our society are unique to our time and place – and some are. However, when we look at history, we realize that certain problems have always plagued us. During my time at Asbury, my church history professor once told us, “Very few problems we face today are unique to us. If you really look at the core of the issue, you will find that most of our problems are the problems of the past, just in a different package.”
As I was reading through Bebbington’s work, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, one section popped out more than anything to me: The accessibility of the church and who attends. Bebbington, “Large towns with a similar class structure possessed similar rates of churchgoing. Again, more detailed analysis of the returns has shown that where middle-class inhabitants were numerous, church attendance was higher. Conversely, in the poorer parishes, attendance was lower” (109). This sparked an important question in my mind:
Have we restricted God’s “accessibility” to the middle and upper classes?
What fascinates me about this trend that Bebbington points out is that when one reads through the Gospels, there is a strong push that the Kingdom of God is to be accessible to the poor. The church should be accessible for all, although it must be recognized that people will choose to not access it. However, when one looks at the way the church has developed, it is not farfetched to see that the church has become a place for those with power and privilege.
Our churches are catered to a consumeristic mindset that prioritizes programmatic elements for the powerful within the church. The other night, I was listening in on a conversation between my housemate and a friend of ours who is on staff at one of the international churches in Hong Kong. My housemate serves on the production team and was sharing about how on the coming Sunday, the worship team would have members from the refugee community playing in the main services. This sparked the question of why they only get to do this two or three times a year. Our friend thought for a moment and then shared his experience pastoring a multiethnic church in San Diego. He explained how his previous church would incorporate multiethnic worship once or twice a month and work to integrate the various cultures into their worship services. He paused and speculated that part of the reason the church in Hong Kong does not do something similar is because it would ultimately mess with the formula of what the church’s worship is known for. As I listened, I couldn’t help but reflect on how often it seems that our churches do not want to endanger the identity they have formed for fear of alienating their primary audience or churchgoers.
Throughout my high school and university years, I remember sitting in the business meetings of my home church in Kentucky. My friends in the youth group and I would sit in the back, always excited to see what one particular person would bring to the table, as this person’s family was considered one of the pillars of the church. Every decision the church made was ultimately filtered through this person’s family because if it wasn’t, then they would make a show of force or rally the troops to support their side of the cause.
Every church has these members – whether they be elders, deacons, or generous tithers. We must be careful to not transform the church into the image of key individuals within a congregation. We must be wary that we do not fall into the trap of becoming churches that require people to conform to our individual expressions of the church so as to exclude them fellowship. Homogeneity is easy to attain, but it does not represent the multifaceted expression of God’s vision for the church.
With this in mind, another question is raised: The relevancy of the church. This is a question I hear so many of my non-Christian (and even Christian) friends wrestle with. What is the point of the church? Does it have any real relevancy to it? For some people, it does. But for others, it doesn’t. Why is this? Does it come back to how the church caters for specific groups of people while excluding others?
Bebbington writes, “But when all the obstacles to churchgoing have been reviewed, there remains a fundamental explanation for the alienation from the churches. As a recent historian has put it, the otherworldly preoccupations of the churches were too distant from the needs of day-to-day living” (113).
I have heard the church criticized for being so inward focused, that it has forgotten its mission. And while it is true that churches speak a specific language that makes sense to its members, there is a message that the church has for the world. It is a message of hope. Hope that all things will be made new, that all tears will be wiped from our eyes, that there will be no more death, sorrow, pain or crying (Revelation 21:1-5). This is a message for the world to hear. It is a message that is not relegated to a single group of people, but is accessible to all should they choose to accept it.
- What are the barriers have we made that need to be removed for this message to reach the world?
- What are the golden calves we have set up on our high places that need to be removed?
- Where is the message of Hope for those who are not like us?
About the Author
Dylan Branson
Small town Kentuckian living and learning in the big city of Hong Kong.14 responses to “The Accessibility of God”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dylan,
You ask some tough questions that truly should be answered. I did a study several years ago on leadership within the church. Part of this study was trying to understand the different leadership mindsets that differed from a small church and those of a large church. One curious side note came to the surface during this process was why wealthy successful Christian businessmen tend to attend large churches or avoid church all together. It came down to that fact that they could blend in at a big church and in smaller churches they were often expected to give large sums of money. The other reason for their lack of involvement was that the structural governing part of church was often ran poorly leading to lack of confidence toward the church. I saw this lived out when the Bible College in Canada that I teach at was creating a US board and funding was being solicited. A few wealthy businessmen I know chose not to support the school feeling the ROI wasn’t worth the money due to the small size of the student body. Is it possible that success and wealth make a person less open the gospel message? What causes a level of skepticism in those with money? In those with higher education? What is it about those in a lower income that draws them to the church? Does capitalism and the health and wealth gospel play a role is this?
All good questions. I wonder as well if the wealthy/celebrities attend large churches simply because they DON’T want to be known. Some friends of mine said that when they moved back from the mission field, they specifically chose a bigger church because no one knew them and they could blend in. If you attend a smaller church, it’s more than likely people will recognize you as they get to know you. I would think that would also add a measure of unrealistic expectations to the wealthy. I can almost hear people saying, “We have this big project that needs to be done. Can you help fund it? Or can you sponsor it?”
Of course there’s also the mindset we carry within the church that numbers equals success. The more people in a church, the more successful it is. We tend to shaft the small churches out of the way, deeming them as “failures.” I’ve seen many friends of mine in ministry stressed out because they were losing numbers and they felt that this meant that THEY were failing. If anything, I think this is a mindset that HAS to change, but it’s hard when people want objectivity.
Whether we look at consumerism, from different negative or positive positions, the question What and what do we consume? Therefore, we analyze consumerism, its effects and consequences, in the Latin context, with some Latin American nuances, especially the visible consequences that affect our society.
Three months ago, we have seen in our church a constant problem, which affects relationships in families and their spiritual life: bank debts, for which many live working hard to pay them suffering inevitable consequences in the breakdown of their family relationships.
Joe, with these various pressures that consumerism/capitalism has caused (whether it be financial, relational, etc.), how has your church engaged with it in the lives of your congregation?
Dylan,
Bebbington also noted how wealthy individuals were able to purchase a pew, usually closer to the front, and the poor were relegated to stand in the back, if they attended at all. Often it said they worked, or preferred to use their leisure time going to sporting events. Seems football (soccer) was a distraction long ago, also. But I have to believe the poor were able to find acceptance as a fan of a local football club, whereas in the church they were isolated or minimized based on socio-economic status. Bebbington also noted churches even went so far as to sponsor their own football teams to try and entice people to come back into the church fold. I’m not sure how effective that was, especially if division continued between the have/have nots.
I agree, in many ways we have created a middle-upper class religious structure that might care for the poor (charity), but doesn’t actually welcome them in their doors for relationship. Your questions at the end are excellent. I’ll be pondering them before our zoom chat. Hopefully we will have time to discuss this more:)
I find it ironic that the purchasing of pews relegated the poor to the back when today we fight to sit in the back. #backrowbaptists
But yeah, even then that shows an ownership within the church. It struck me when I was back in Kentucky over Christmas that my family has always sat in the same pew. It may not have our name on it, but people know “That’s where the Bransons and Williams” sit or “That’s where the Gregorys will sit” and so on. As I’m typing this, I realize that the same has been done in the church I attend in Hong Kong. My friends and I have consistently sat in the same spot (or within a few rows of it) for the last year and a half or so. Of course, if someone sits in our row we don’t say anything about it, but there’s also a rotation of people who come in and out since it’s an international church. Some things to ponder…
Creatures of habit…:)
Dylan, these are great thoughts. After living in a blue-collar neighborhood in Denver for 7 years, I have become increasingly burdened for that socioeconomic class. Blue-collar is often overlooked as the middle to upper class are the “influentials” in the city, and many heed the call to care for the poor, but there is the next step or two up that ladder that finds this people overlooked. They often have a strong sense of place and family that would make a gospel movement very accessible and powerful if it took root. Whitefield’s open-air preaching debuted in the mining communities of England. Might there be a model (not the method) of emphasizing an overlooked people group?
I’m hesitant to use the language of “model” or “method” when it comes to reaching “overlooked people groups” (mostly because in my mind it objectifies the people involved or runs the risk of turning them into a project (which I know you’re not insinuating in your comment by the way)).
I think it’s more actively seeking to build relationships with those who aren’t like us or shifting the paradigm in our minds of seeing them as people made in the image of God. I just finished reading a book called “The Church of Us vs. Them” by David Fitch (highly recommended) that spent a lot of time talking about the need for the church to have a presence of love in communities. He talks about how we create “banners” that act as rallying points and how we use them to mark our tribes and to alienate others. I would think that one of the first steps would be taking down our banners – especially those that isolate us from others or cause us to view people as “The Other.”
At times we realize that our current situations are in place because of actions implemented in the past, but our exploration of those first causes are rare.
This point is what humbled me Dylan. I had never take time to find out if I agree with the label being imposed on me. i’m not sure now! Maybe there’s is another one out there – believer? Christ follower…?
When I was in college, I noticed a trend among my peers that they would come into our school bearing whatever label their religious upbringing gave them (General Baptist, Southern Baptist, Methodist, etc.) but by the time they graduated or left, they had dropped the label of their denomination. Some simply referred to themselves as “Christian,” others as “Christ-follower,” and a few would simply say, “I love Jesus.” One of my professors noticed this as well and made a comment once about his this worried him. He said by doing so, he felt they were disconnected themselves from the tradition and heritage in which they were raised and were simply floating along without a foundation. His point was when people say they are Baptist or Methodist, we have a framework of what that means in regards to establishing an identity, making it somewhat easier to evangelize. However, when people take away their label, they often lose their specifics. So for the ones who identified as “I love Jesus” for example, what does that actually mean? What are your real beliefs?
While I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with these labels, it still begs the question of why we identify with that versus something else.
Having spent most of my professional ministry in churches made up primarily of middle and upper-middle class families, I was struck by your questions. When I planted a church, we constantly asked new people, “how can we meet your needs?” We were trying to grow the church. But as soon as they got involved in the church, we’d tell them, “it’s not about you, it’s about reaching new people.” I wonder if this mindset and approach is actually a contributing factor to the church-shopping that happens as people move from place to place simple because it’s more fun to be the recruit than it is to be the recruiter. Whatever the case, it’s certainly clear that lately we’ve made the church way more about individuals than we have about Jesus.
That’s an interesting observation, John. Maybe part of it is a commitment issue? I think when we attend somewhere long enough and people begin to recognize us, there becomes a spoken/unspoken expectation that we should become involved in what’s going on around us. At the same time, maybe it’s also that new people in a congregation are treated like an exotic animal/endangered species to where we want to marvel or cater to their needs to make sure they find a home there. Some people like the attention, which could be a fuel to their constant church shopping, or maybe they don’t like it and want to keep moving so they find anonymity and don’t have to commit to the cause so to speak.
Bryan
Thanks for the questions asked about the Church position in the society. However, members are sometimes not a ware of what the Church entails. They know attending and paying brings the understanding of being a staunch member.
Thanks