Is It True of the Church, Too?

9 Responses to Is It True of the Church, Too?

1. John says:

   March 2, 2012 at 6:31 am

   Jay, I very much appreciate this post. Whenever I hear people, especially those younger than myself, say that the 1950s were more innocent, I can barely keep from getting in their face and screaming “You have no idea what you are talking about”.

   I was born in 1950, and I can remember hearing parents and relatives talk about sex scandles in the church, about abusive marriages, and, and this is before the radicals popularized drugs, those secret visits to the Emergency Room in the middle of the night by church members to get that shot so they could sleep. And to top it off, my introduction to porn when I was 8 years old was by a friend who found his father’s stash…his father was a deacon in our congregation.

   My father was a conservative, but he had enough good sense to keep from making the past more holy than the present. Whenever he would hear kids talk about the “good ol’ days”, he would respond, “I’ll tell you about the ‘good ol’ days….they weren’t that good”.

   It took me a long time, but I have become better at being where I am. Oh, I certainly enjoy my memories of my parents and siblings in the house where we grew up. But for me memories are mini vacations; I enjoy them for a time, then get back to the present. Am I perfect at it? Definately not. But the present is where I find God; the present is where I daily meet his little ones; and, while a sweet memory of singing “Jesus Lover of My Soul” as I learned to sing harmony from my mother and grandmother lodges in a special place in my mind, if I just pay attention, I can see the love of Christ in the faces of so many right now, faces I once was told, “They are not like us.”
2. Dwayne Phillips says:

   March 2, 2012 at 8:43 am

   Absolutely true.

   The church exists here and now in the middle of the American culture. As much as we try otherwise or at least claim otherwise, the culture affects us and how we read the Bible.
3. Charles McLean says:

   March 2, 2012 at 11:54 am

   Consider the man who was reared as a believer, developed a strong individual faith as a teenager, and has showed knowledge and leadership in areas of volunteer teaching and ministry for thirteen years in his congregation. He has a solid marriage, a good career, a positive reputation in the neighborhood, and he has three children who are widely regarded as “great kids”. Elder material, eh?

   An elder? He’s only 33 years of age.

   Now, if I had posted the second paragraph first, I would bet that our initial internal response would have been, “No, you probably wouldn’t want a fellow that age as an elder.” If I had not mentioned his age at all, we would have said, “Well, he sure meets the qualifications.” Why the difference in our perception of what makes an appropriate “elder”?

   The current gerontocracy which rules the CoC in most places is clearly contributing to its decline in vitality, impact, and numbers. Some of the exodus that this denomination is experiencing is simply because intelligent, mature believers under 35 realize that they are expected to sit quietly and do their church chores as directed by the elders for the next 20 years before they can speak up and start really impacting their congregation in the same way they impact the rest of the world around them. They rightly see this as stifling their own gifts and callings, as dismissive of what the Spirit has done in them, and not of God.

   Here is an analogy for current church leadership to consider. You are 80 years old and ready to step aside from the family business you have owned for 30 years. The business has been in decline, and needs to be revitalized. You have to decide between two successors: Pete is 60, has 20 years in the business, has been your vice-president for ten years, supported and developed the current business, and is ten years from retirement. Pete plays golf at the same course as you and is active in your political party. The second candidate, Jake, has 15 years experience, has new and untried ideas, a high energy level, and is your brightest department head. He is 40, 30 years from retirement, and is a little pushy at times. You butt heads occasionally. Jake is active in Little League and is building on to his house.

   Who do you hire? If you follow conventional wisdom, you decide to give the older guy the job. The younger guy will just have to “wait his turn”. What are the odds that (a) the business will make revitalizing changes and (b) that the younger guy will stick around very long? And what are the odds that the status quo will be maintained and the decline will continue, accelerated by losing that bright department head?

   Sadly, if your “business” is a local congregation, the older guy always gets the job. The alternative is not even really considered.
4. Bill Ehlig says:

   March 2, 2012 at 3:22 pm

   I was born in 1952. This outline of the decades is grandly oversimplified, but recognizable.

   That is it is recognizable if you were born Caucasian and middle class. If you were something else, the outline is . . . someone else’s story.

   The US Census tracks a different country than the one I knew as a child. The current numbers of the Census present many changes. Among them is the fact that over 20% of the population of this country do not speak English in their homes. That 20% is not exactly Caucasian or particularly middle class.

   But it is growing.

   There are those who are fearful of where the country is going. That is understandable. It is not going to a place we have lived before. May we go with God into our future.
5. Cathy says:

   March 3, 2012 at 10:51 am

   Charles: At 33, he sounds like great deacon material. His kids are, at most, in their early to mid teens, which is too soon to tell whether his children are believers, by most folks’ standards.
6. aBasnar says:

   March 3, 2012 at 1:13 pm

   The younger guy will just have to “wait his turn”.

   Yes, the younger one will have to wait … and to grow. That’s the Kingdom, not a company, Charles. And the Kingdom is led by elders (see, the name indicates: The OLDER ones) under the headshgip of Christ who will never retire. SDo the church is always in the best hands. But when we start turning things upside down according to conventional worldly standards, we are in danger of destroying God’s work.

   Alexander
7. Bob Brandon says:

   March 4, 2012 at 6:46 am

   No, it’s still a congregation, not the Kingdom Itself. To be fair, there are many eldership (mine, for one) who are worried about turning into gerontocracies. The congregations determined to live in their own past will literally die out. Young folks will tend to seek out other groups of believers where they believe they can be useful, because they won’t stay put if they can’t. Many are in fact doing so. Much of this is desire is based on seeking out what is best (or as “best” as they can get) for their children: we, for one, drive past a local congregation we once attended that’s so dysfunctional that we would rather drive thirty miles to go where our children can get (as well as for ourselves as well) the spiritual food and community they need. A faith in old age and seniority is as destructive of the church as it is of any business, and it’s an ersatz faith in the entitlements of this world, not a hope in the eternity of the next. “Wait your turn” is nearly always a denial of the gifts of the spirit in the lives of the younger.

   Cathy, as for being “too young” to be “believers,” many elders have baptized children in their teens or younger. That was certainly the case in many congregations in middle Tennessee where I was born and reared.
8. Charles McLean says:

   March 4, 2012 at 6:45 pm

   I see the usual unsupportable prejudices remain. That was rather my point.

   Cathy says we can’t tell whether or not all this fellow’s kids are good Christians or not. Frankly, that kind of logic can easily keep the door closed until the kids have kids of their own. I have five children over 20 and one under ten. Are we to wait to see how my youngest turns out before we know what kind of parent I am?

   Alexander asks for “elders”, but I think merely defines this as “not younger than me”. He says this thirty-something needs to grow more, presuming that age equals growth, which is not a warranted conclusion. I must say I have experienced too many elders who claim to have 20 years’ experience as a believer– when they really have two years’ experience ten times over.

   Oh, and the idea that any change from our tradition can be presumed “worldly” is a tiresome canard. I don’t get this idea of a 33 year old elder from the world, but from the burgeoning church in the developing world, and frankly, from the level of maturity and spiritual insight I see in many believers under age 30.

   I will agree with Alexander that the true elder should be able to continue serving into old age. I have seen some congregations use the term “elder emeritus” for elders who no longer feel able to do the active work of a shepherd, but whose wisdom and counsel are still very much needed. The wise need not be shipped off when they are too old to supervise all the operational functions. In fact, it seems to me that they are the best people to advise the newer shepherds.
9. Jerry says:

   March 9, 2012 at 10:44 pm

   Alexander,

   There are two Greek words for older. Presbyter refers to one who is older in age. The other, the word from which we get the English word “geriatrics” refers to one who is losing his vitality. His mind is going; his strength is going; he is infirm and weak. This is the man described in the last chapter of Ecclesiastes – just after the Preacher said, “Remember now your creator in the days of your youth, before….”

   The presbyter is one who has experience and wisdom. He is not a novice. This is the elder in the church. The geriatric is one who is frail and “losing it.” I have seen many of these who once were good elders, but became “geriatric” – and continued to hold on to a position to the detriment of the church. Such men should retire – or be asked to retire.

   I heard of a church who spoke of such men as “elders, emeritus.” They were still held in high regard. At times, the other elders might consult with them about various situations – but they were relieved of the day to day duties of the elders. It was good for them and for the church.

Comments are closed.