Do you want your church to be a family?
Or do you want your church to be a purpose group?
If you want it to be the first one, then you cannot have a vision or a goal. If you want to be the second one, then you’ll need a vision and a goal.
You can’t be both. Not at the same time.
As soon as you introduce vision and goal to a community, it cannot be a family. The healthy family is a place free of agenda, visions and goals. It is, as I’ve said before, pointless. It doesn’t serve a purpose or fulfill an agenda. Once it does, it is no longer a free family, but a power unit wielded by the visionary.
This is not to denigrate the purpose group or church. However, we need to be clear that even though this purpose group may only experience family-like moments, it will not and cannot be a family-like community. This is also not to say that a family-like community cannot achieve things. But the things they do accomplish will be spontaneous, situational and maybe even uncontrollable.
You have to make a choice.
My name is David Hayward, and I am the nakedpastor. I am a graffiti artist on the walls of religion.
Hmm. I disagree. What about the question: “what sort of family do we want to be?”
Family is culturally defined. If you want to be the sort of family that can be created out of people from different races, classes, etc you are already beginning to shape what it means to be family in a way that approaches “vision.” If you decide that your new way of being family assumes “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” (which isn’t assumed in American families, but is assumed elsewhere) then you, again, are blurring the line.
Thanks for putting into words what I’ve been thinking about lately. One of the great struggles that “church leaders” struggle with because of their training to be “men of vision.”
I’m discovering in our little community of faith that this issue still lingers and we’re all struggling to figure out what is more important. For me, it’s about being a family.
peace…
What about a sports team? The kind that joins together with a common goal, to play the best they can, to win a championship, let’s say? They work together, endeavor to achieve their common purpose, and at the end, win or lose, amidst the cheering and the crying, they say “we’re family, man. We did this as a family.” What about that?
I believe it’s possible for a group of like minded people to join together, call it church, worship together, support one another AND to have a common vision. Maybe it’s to serve the community around them, to build a hospital in a third world nation….and when the goal is realized, amidst their own cheering and crying, they hold one another and say “this is my family. We did this together, as a family.”
Even in my own little family of three…we support and love one another…but from time to time, we have to have an agenda. “This house is a mess, let’s clean it.” Or, “the flood in the basement is going to ruin our investment, let’s save the building.” Or “Mommy is sick, all Mommy’s jobs have to be done by one of us.” Or the very un-spontaneous, “This teenager needs money to get through college in the next four years”, and the whole group works together for the common goal. It’s still family, one person doesn’t have to be wielding control, we just work together for a common purpose because we love each other.
Your comments are way too general; they paint a swath that is far too wide. Just because you see value in a pointless, visionless, agenda-less church doesn’t mean that there’s something inherently wrong with a church (or a family) that does have these things. It also doesn’t mean that the people who are part of such a church are unable to call themselves a family. The two ideas can definitely co-exist.
This is some seriously heavy stuff for me to think about David.
It’s making me rethink my family relations as well as question myself and my intentions in regards to my recent attendance at the Universalist Unitarian church in my area.
I love a good challenge and this post certainly forces me to think outside the little box I’ve made for myself.
@heather C,
Great point, but is it possible that one can conflate long-term vision with short-term projects and/or goals?
In other words, can it be that some will definitely see this as a difference not just of degree, but of kind?
I believe what gets lost in these discussions is the fact that we, followers of Christ, are called to make disciples. That is the agenda on our plate as a family of Christ followers. This should cause us to examine our goals and agendas in relation to what Christ has already told us to do.
peace…
@Gibby Espinoza,
I’m an atheist, but I completely get what you are saying.
You make an excellent point that is often overlooked by many (most?) Christians, but is it possible that there are different paths/means by which one may make disciples? Does it have to be a rigid agenda or can it be something else?
@The Godless Monster,
You bring up some good questions. The reality of life is that all of us are disciples of some sort of belief/philosophy/organization. Depending on what we engage in or trust it may be rigid, or flow in some sort of organic rhythm.
As a Christ-follower, I don’t see the value in a rigid agenda, but other do see it differently. Everything begins and should continue with a relationship of like-mindedness, but not group think. That quickly kills any organic movement of spiritual or intellectual growth. At least that’s how I see it.
to All,
These questions I pose aren’t rhetorical. I’m very much in a confused state at the time being. My concept of who is and isn’t my (personal)family is going through a major overhaul (I was seriously betrayed by soemone close to me) and I’m beginning to question why I’ve been attending a church lately as an atheist. Well, not so much WHY, but I’m wondering now if I really thought this through. I enjoy the interaction with ( mostly) like-minded people, but do I know if I am looking for more than interaction or am I expecting this to be a group with vision and purpose beyond just hanging out and being nice? Sometimes, I wonder if I’m trying to “have my cake and eat it, too”…
@TGM,
I appreciate your transparency and I surely don’t see your questions as rhetorical. If we lived close to each other you would definitely be part of my family. Why? Because like you, I too question everything. I’ll admit that I can be very cynical and skeptical, and I don’t have all the answer. Still, one thing I have no doubt about is that Christ is the one I follow, yet I can’t explain it.
My hope and desire is to love as he still loves. To show grace and mercy as he has and to be willing to lay my life down as he did.
We all have tendency to want to “have our cake and eat it too…”
@Gibby,
“Everything begins and should continue with a relationship of like-mindedness, but not group think. That quickly kills any organic movement of spiritual or intellectual growth. At least that’s how I see it.”
Well put. At some point, however, someone has to be the alpha dog IF the church/family decides they want to achieve something as a group that could not be accomplished well by individuals.
In many ways, I see the problem with the so-called atheist “movement” is that it is comprised of lone wolf types (like myself…but I’m trying to change) that resist organization and authority. You’ve probably all heard the analogy that organizing atheists is like herding cats. It’s true.
@Gibby,
Yeah, I see what you’re saying. I’m afraid that I am following a personal pattern of behavior in which I set the bar too high for others (and myself), and then get upset when others just do what comes natural as human beings.
@TGM,
Thanks for the props. Yeah, in every movement there are leaders. The issue is whether they are mentoring others do to what they are gifted to do, or are they controlling things for their own agenda? This kind of brings us back to the thoughts that David brings up in the original post.
peace…
I suppose this depends on how you understand family, a concept culturally changing all the time. I think I’m beginning to understand why you make this distinction so sharply, but “family” smacks of hierarchy, exclusivism, and subservience of some to the goals of the dominant member to me. I’m sure that’s not what you mean– but it has been what the theological tradition has meant. I still have trouble with this term.
So you are saying that families can’t have a vision or a purpose statement?
I was stymied by your assertion that families don’t need vision or goals. My personal family has a vision and goals. Why wouldn’t a “church family” need them as well? My family has monthly/weekly meetings (as needed) where we make sure that we’re all on target to meet the individual and family goals. It doesn’t seem overly structured to me.
It’s okay to compare a family to a sports team. But what if one day one of the members doesn’t want to play. Or can’t. Or is upset by one of the rules and can’t in good conscience participate in the sport? Then they are excluded from the “team”. Is that a family? No.
One of the things that bothered me about my last church movement I was in, the Vineyard Movement (forgive me friends) was the constant emphasis on the poor, and how many times people who ministered and sacrificed etc. to the poor were elevated and lauded. I’m not against helping the poor. Indeed, it is one of the most important things we can do. But there are times when we can’t or won’t or shouldn’t. Even the gospels portray Jesus in this way sometimes. The point being that we can’t commit ourselves to a “cause” without sacrificing our commitment to what is more important… what is needed NOW. I can’t tell you how many people were destroyed by agenda and causes simply because they could not subscribe or would not for reasons beyond explanation.
For instance… when “my” people attended conferences that constantly emphasized ministry to the poor, they were laden with guilt. But I had to remind them, over and over again, that they were the poor he was talking about. And maybe you can’t abandon your kids and go live in Africa to help orphans. Etc, etc. People should be able to freely choose when to sacrifice. Otherwise it is tyranny. And the church seems to relish the use of tyranny. Sorry. I said it.
Such as?
oh boy, I couldn’t agree more with your statement: “People should be able to freely choose when to sacrifice. Otherwise it is tyranny. And the church seems to relish the use of tyranny.”
This statement of yours solidifies my idea that we are on the same page.
I am still processing your original post about family in terms of how the analogy really plays out regarding what a family is, and isn’t.
Thanks for inspiring some more needed introspection.
Dave…odd process of thought. There is nothing wrong with vision/mission/goals for a family or a church. Really? You need a second blog to go deeper into this one…maybe the shriraz got the better of this blog.
what kind of argument is that? and it wasn’t shiraz. it was a 2007 qwam qwmt meritage from the okanagan.
i wish i had time to blog about things that tick me off
ahhh the okanagan. good wine….ontario is great (niagara region)
i dare you NP….be naked about family
Agendas can be counterproductive. The last church I was involved decided it needed a youth ministry. The staff minister and some other people were sent for special training, money was spent etc. etc. The youth ministry flopped. Why? Demographics. We needed outreaches to the elderly, the homeless, the disabled, and families with small children but these weren’t included in the vision. Fluidity is necessary with spirituality.
preacherlady….feel sorry for your leadership’s ability to see what the need is…actually happens in actual life….sometimes we miss this boat…but in actual life we can not mask it in “god given mission”
dave…challenge…be naked about family….all things…everything….nothing covered…if not….you are not really naked.
i’m not sure what you mean about you mean about being honest about family. what’s that got to do with it?
Dave, I’m thinking this particular train of thought of yours needs to be more carefully refined. It’s not as well honed as I’d expect from you. The analogy and the terms you use in it aren’t even that well defined (just as an example, when you use the word “family” in a positive sense, there are so many for whom family is an entirely negative thing that it would make no sense to them. When you later on challenge the comparison of a sports team and a family, and talk about a member of a team being put out, then claim that this is “not family”, well, yes, for many, that actually IS family, and people get “put out” of families all the time. There are a lot of people for whom being part of a group that has an agenda to help others would be a far sight better than the thing they’ve called family all these years.)
Your definition of the word “church” here is also rather muddled. You criticize an entity/organization that has a goal of helping the poor, for example, and praise a very nebulous entity that exists entirely for the purpose of “being”. Personally, I think lauding and praising people who are involved in helping the poor is not a bad thing, and I don’t think they’re lauded and praised quite enough on most days. They tend to toil without recognition at all.
Define church a bit better, Dave, and your argument might be clearer. What I’m hearing here, and forgive me if I’m entirely off the mark, is that your vision of church is a very comfortable, pointless place where you can sink in, lay back, have no purpose or goal or agenda, and congratulate yourself that you’re free to navel gaze while all the other busy beavers are working their way into a frazzle, helping those poor people.
I really am seeking to understand what you’re trying to say, Dave. I’ve seen churches that yield power in a destructive way, and I know you’re trying to point that out. But to inequivocally say that family and agenda can never co-exist, and to not define your terms clearly, just isn’t that helpful.
Near exactly to what I’ve been thinking and struggling these 2 weeks… esp as the yearly “Vision Sunday” service is getting so close now…
Your thoughts have always inspired me.
Sared your work on my blog (chinese blog)..
heather: thanks for your thoughtful response and challenge. it is difficult to write about this issue because it is so so dear to so so many. in my opinion, it has become a default way of thinking. personally i think it is destroying community. it is hard to write about and articulate, as you’ve pointed out. you could type “vision” in my search box on nakedpastor and read up on all i’ve written. that might help. i’m also feeling challenged to write a book on it.
Family means blood ties or very close emotional ties that one person feels to another.So you can experience “family” outside of your immediate small group whom you live with but I don’t think it can be forced. We attempt to fabricate that in churches but it doesn’t always work, in my opinion. Great post David…Crystal.
This post is NOT TRUE. Our family went on a vacation together. This took purpose, planning, even a vision. Without those things, the vacation would not have happened. Once on vacation, we did all kinds of things that were spontaneous. But going on that vacation could not have happened spontaneously.
As John said, there’s nothing wrong with goals for a family.
Come come fred. Let’s be honest. You know that’s not what I’m talking about. I made it clear that things still happen and get done. I plan on going to bed tonight. I plan on working this year. I have plans. Churches can have plans. They can plan on meeting on Sunday mornings. etc. But the talk about Vision with a capital V that I’m critiquing is totally different.
Well, it’s easy to make general statements and, when faced with a myriad of exceptions, backpedal with “you know that’s not what I’m talking about.”
It was not clear to me that that’s not what you were talking about–whether in terms of family or church.
We “introduced a vision or goal” to our family: what do you think of going on a cruise? It didn’t take a lot for unanimous buy-in to that vision and so there was never a “visionary manipulating a power unit.”
Was there loss of freedom? Of course! We had to save money. We had to be at certain places at certain times. We had to pack bags (and make sure that the liquid content in our carry-ons did not exceed a certain amount). We lost sleep getting up early to get to the airport. We lost a lot of money making this happen–money we could have spent on a lot of other things. We achieved something that was neither spontaneous, situational, nor completely uncontrollable.
But it was WORTH IT. Not only was it enjoyable, but it just may have created more opportunities for spontaneous relational experiences than we might have achieved otherwise (but then, it’s not about “achieving,” is it?).
If this ISN’T what you’re talking about, then WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Fred: There is a significant difference between envisioning an event and envisioning an identity, personality or image. I think that’s closer to what I mean to say.
maybe like the family where the parents make the kids dress a certain way because “we have to project an image”, as opposed to the family that allows their kids to express their own unique personality through clothing, makeup, hairstyles, etc, even if it is a little uncomfortable for the parents. That family can still plan a cruise while allowing everyone their own personal expression of who they are – just like little “c” churches can plan activities while not applying pressure to conform to the “vision” of church management.
?
I get what you’re saying if, for example, you’re expressing frustration about how churches will have self-appointed visioneers who afflict their congregations with goals that are often arbitrary, subject to change, and ultimately self-serving.
And I get how “serving the poor” or whatever can easily fall into the same pattern.
I may be misreading you since, outside of this particular post, I’ve never commented here before. But I find your concept of family to be rather status quo and laissez faire.
In other words–you accept the path of least resistance when defining “family.” If family is just people without aims or goals who simply exist, organically, together without expectation, then family is simply a group of people who are homogenous and pre-formed by a larger culture of habits, attitudes, and practices.
What happens when, for example, a middle class American finds themselves trying to be family with a poor Mexican? Or, less drastically, two people find themselves being family with each other in ways that don’t presuppose homegeneity?
Such people need some vision greater than themselves to bind them together.
Among Catholics, it is commonly understood that every community–particularly religious orders–have a unique charism. It is that Spirit-endowed character that shapes who they are. It is, essentially, a vision to which they aspire. It can often be coercive–people can feel forced to conform to a vision. But it can be beautiful.
So, to me, it isn’t a choice between vision or family. It is a question of who gets to say which vision and how they get there…it is a question of who and how the family loves. It isn’t an either or.
After all, an average American family that doesn’t expect stuff from each other is a myth. Any such expectationless and visionless group is a myth. Because even if they aren’t stated, there is a driving vision already at play–whether it is the American Dream or the desire to have a good recreational life together, etc. The question isn’t whether or not a group of people have a vision, but how intentional they are at shaping it together and how loving they are to one another in the shaping of that vision.
One more thought for NakedPastor: I’ve never know the Vineyard to be over-committed to the poor. But maybe the problem you’ve had is that you see the poor as an abstract group rather than people who are a part of your family.
i think from all the comments that we can agree that perhaps “family” is a bad analogy. my family experience has been positive. i’ve obviously used that analogy through my own rosy lens.
Dave,
“i think from all the comments that we can agree that perhaps “family” is a bad analogy.”
I’m not so sure it is. What some folks are missing is that a group comprised of people outside of ones immediate family is a distinct unit by virtue of that group having an agenda, declared or undeclared.
A family does not have an agenda, so to speak, it just is. Whether the bonds are biological or not, a family is a family by quite a different set of criteria than a church or similar organization. Can there be some overlap? Sure, but in normal circumstances not enough to completely blur the line of separation between the two the two. It’s when people start to confuse one with the other that problems occur. Cults are a perfect example of this.
Ya, family works for me. Or a clique of friends (in a good way). But some people have strong negative feelings about family. I really struggle with communicating this visionless issue. It’s a hot topic for sure because so many people are so in love with it. Or it has become as necessary as air.
excuse the typos…talking to vendors and typing at the same time.
Wow, I’ve only skimmed through most of the comments (all of NP’s, tho), and have a totally different understanding of this than when I read the original post. At first I thought it explained much of the difficulties our congregation has had the last few years – that they want to be a “family,” without any vision/mission, but that church is supposed to have vision. Now, it seems the point is that neither family nor church should have vision – that church should be like family.
I suspect a more nuanced approach which carefully identifies “vision” (or purpose or mission…) might be more appropriate. “A family which has no clear vision” is itself a vision of what family can look like. Some families look like that, others don’t. My wife and I have a clear vision of what we want our family to be, which includes raising children who are inquisitive, respectful, and in lifelong relationship with Jesus. Certainly not all visions are appropriate for a family (nor too many for one family), but it seems some certainly are.
As for the church… I like Reggie McNeal’s take on it: “The church doesn’t have a mission, God’s mission has a church.” It seems to me that, for a particular congregation, their “vision” is what part they play in God’s larger mission. But there seems to be too much written in the Bible about the purpose of God’s people to reduce the church now to “just” a family with no vision. This doesn’t mean that one vision is as appropriate as another – nor does it mean that the vision will be a good fit with all members of that congregation. It seems the emphasis on the poor mentioned earlier could just be a vision some people didn’t fit well with, and it is okay for them to seek a different congregation whose vision fits their own life better, or that this emphasis on the poor was just a bad vision for a congregation… neither makes vision, in general, bad for a congregation.
Maybe another helpful piece would be to add who it is that gets to help decide what the vision is? I know our family’s vision would be much different if our kids (7 & 4) helped decide… but I assume a time will come when they do help set the direction of our family.
Thanks for stirring up some interesting thoughts for me, and for allowing the conversation to happen here in your comments!
I’ve been thinking about this family thing in churches. How many times on a Sunday morning did I sit in church ( after doing my part in praise and worship up there on the performance stage ) and feel like crying? I held it all in because I knew that the machinery of my church “family” was not going to stop because I was hurting beyond all words. Nobody noticed that I was down. I absorbed nothing in the message or the notices of things to become involved in. I was dead among the so called living. Yes, there were the occasional altar calls or prayer requests but they were rather rote and quickly over so I didn’t bother with those.
In a real family, one notices when a member is not themselves and usually they are rallied around and comforted. Time is spent with them and everything stops while they are loved on. That is, if the family isn’t dysfunctional. I grew up in a dysfunctional family so know the signs. The church I attended was dysfunctional, in my view. You can’t call it a family when people leave constantly and don’t even want to reveal why. Even the leaders had no interest in knowing why in the end because they wouldn’t admit that they had anything to do with the steady exodus of their members.
I understand what you’re getting at with this whole family thing in churches. If you haven’t been there, you cannot know. Family is the wrong word to use for churches unless you are part of a closely knit geographically based church congregation. Perhaps, then, it might be correct to call your gathering a family. Like in the old days when there was a church on almost every corner.
Hey! I’ve just remembered something. When Henry Ford started rolling cars off the assembly line for ordinary working class people to afford, that’s when true community broke down. That was the death knell for community churches…Crystal.
I go to a church that doesn’t have a vision. At least, I really couldn’t tell you what it was if we had one.
I go to a church that is (and by that I guess I mean “feels like” or even “functions like”) a family. In this case, we are like a healthy family, but with our spats and disagreements and misunderstandings and hurt feelings as well.
So, I feel like I should have something useful to add here. But I’m not sure I “get it” any more than anyone else, so maybe I’ll just describe it and see what people think.
Our community has about 10 regular attendees, the weeklies or biweeklies. We have other more irregular attendees. We belong to a much larger network of people, formally and informally. I couldn’t hazard a guess at how many, probably a lot, but only a relative few that I would have met in person.
It’s not that we get nothing done. Things happen, mettings and activities, events. But I couldn’t say that’s the focus. We don’t try to get things done. We do what we think would be interesting or helpful to all or some of us, or someone else.
The purpose… well, I’m not sure we really have a purpose.
Honestly, I have a deep love for each and every one of those people (much easier, admittedly, when there are so few of them). And I feel loved by them, too. If they are in need or in pain, I want to help. And we do all help. But we never had, maybe never needed to have, a meeting where we decided that the church’s purpose should be to help people, both inside and out, or what that help is supposed to look like. If we did have such a meeting, we might decide that isn’t the purpose, because it isn’t everything.
Those ten peoplen (actually, five couples), though, span a wide range of socio-economic circumstance and challenges in life.
No one vision for our church could allow us all to participate, let alone equally.
We’ve all found our own ways of pursuing our goals for our lives and of reaching out and helping others. We are too diverse to do otherwise. We are more like a support group for people who want to live better and be better people.
Yes, like a Christian support group, where we wrestle through our faith and care for one another and also help each other in achieving our goals or help each other to help others. But we each have our own goals, and even visions, that probably look little alike.
A great deal of good has come out of this community, but the community is unlikely to get the credit, as the church has accomplished more indirectly through its members’ lives than directly. And that’s just fine with us.
All I can say beyond that is that having experienced this, it wouldn be hard to be in a church that did it any other way.
Maybe to clarify how I see the family/vision thing:
My spouse and I absolutely have a vision for our family. We know what kind of lifestyle we want, what kind of marriage, how we want to spend our time, where we want to live, how many kids we plan to have, how we’re going to pay for their college education, when and how to retire, what things and experiences we’d like to have. Lots of plans, goals, and a vision, a picture of what we want our life together to be like at different stages of our lives, and concrete thoughts and efforts on how to get there that impact us everyday.Some formal, some informal, some more rigid and fixed than others.
Whether of not the specific plans are good or not, whether we follow them, or some day throw tham out and do something else entirely is not really the point here. (Besides which, bnothing goes exactly according to plan, for better or for worse.)
My extended family – my mother, my father, my brothers, my brother’s partner, my other brother’s girlfriend, my mother’s husband, by step brothers, my cousins, my aunts and uncles, their spouses… – are family.
We absolutely do not have a vision. If my mother called my up and said that she thought we should all be X, or even that we (or any subset of us) should decide collectively to be something together. I would politely tell her to shove off.
I still do things for and with my family. Care about them. We plan things together. But we are a family that just is.
My church an extended family made up of units of immediate families that have plans and visions and goals. I care about their plans and visions and goals, but they are not my visions or plans or goals.
If my pastor called me up and said that he thought we should all be X, or even that we (or any subset of us) should decide collectively to be something together. I would politely tell him to shove off.
I still do things for and with my church. Care about them. We plan things together. But we are a church that just is.