The Challenge Facing the Church

6 November 2006 by Gil

“The greatest challenge facing the local church in the next 50 years is the same one that we’ve never quite met in our last 50 (or 2000) years: to enable our congregation to be half as interesting as Jesus.”

Will Willimon
United Methodist Bishop of North Alabama
via Christianity Today

Posted in church | 19 Comments

19 Responses to “The Challenge Facing the Church”

on 6 November 2006 at 9:581 Erica

Just watching Oprah today Gil, and thought it cool that to date the RED campaign has enough money to administer medication to 15 million pregnant women in Africa. Minx. (that means awesome)
on 7 November 2006 at 3:472 Paul Morgun

Well thank goodness Erica that american materialism is saving Africa…what a joy…
on 7 November 2006 at 4:243 Paul Morgun

i realize that there is good coming out of this, i just think there is a better way to give…erica…
on 7 November 2006 at 5:334 Nick Boschman

if the church can do half as well as Jesus on any of his characteristics (passion, love, kindness…) it would be incredible.

i agree that people should give out of love, at least american materialism is doing something for someone, it’s destroying america but at least it might help some people in africa
on 7 November 2006 at 6:435 Paul Morgun

touche, Nick
on 8 November 2006 at 4:296 jc

american materialism is killing america? i am not sure what you mean by materialism[it usually describes a theory that only matter exists]. maybe you mean capitalism. i am not sure. i am not sure what the big objection to the red campaign is. there are all types of charities already that you can just give to. the red campaign is just trying something different to expand ways in which a person can give and there by expand the total amount of charity.

maybe one would wish that people would just give without trying to get something out of it [like a gap hoodie or an ipod]. but i think people always give to get something out of it whether it is an ipod or a great feeling that you have helped somebody.
on 8 November 2006 at 4:307 Paul Morgun

“but i think people always give to get something out of it whether it is an ipod or a great feeling that you have helped somebody.” -Yup thats the same, buying something for yourself or helping some one…
on 8 November 2006 at 11:478 Naomi

I can see why people think this campaign seems a little stupid, but come on, however you get the money is all that really matters isn’t it? I mean who really cares if people buy their 10th Gap t-shirt if this time they are going to donate some of the proceeds to a good cause? At least they are sending some money to help people instead of just adding to their profit margins.

“i realize that there is good coming out of this, i just think there is a better way to give…” Yes but you are coming at it from a Christian point of view and you have read what Jesus asks you to do, so of course you think there is a “better way to give”. So who cares if Joe Blow from Edmonton sees the compaign ad and thinks “Cool! That seems like a good cause! Instead of the white iPod I was going to get I will buy the red one”. Is anything really wrong with that?
on 9 November 2006 at 12:549 jc

i would like to know as well what is actually wrong with buying an ipod and having ten dollars go to charity. i don’t think i understand the moral principle here.

is it wrong to buy an ipod?
is it wrong to give to charity?
is it wrong to to do both at the same time?
on 9 November 2006 at 12:5810 Paul Morgun

That is exactly why I made the comment Naomi you quoted…I see the GOOD in this…but when we intentionally give that is better…I hope this doesn’t seem like I have a ’cause’ against product red, I just find it sad that this is what it comes too to help other people, speaking of which, desire for justice and to help is not a ‘christian perspective’ it’s a human one, in fact Christians are often the last to act. So with all that said and done, don’t take my comment as a plea against product red…you are right in what your saying…my comment was sarcastic because I think it’s defeating to think that this is the only way people will help in America, but as I said I understand the intentions are good, and yes if it actually does help and the dollars don’t get sliced and taken away by the gap corparation and actually do help someone in need then great.

PS - never realized everyone was so pationate about buying IPOD’s and such…there is nothing wrong with that and much has been assumed into my sarcastic original remark…I thought the second blurp explained it, guess not…I am not going to say more on this topic…I think there is miss communication…hope this essay has cleared things up…
on 9 November 2006 at 1:4211 jc

paul morgan, sweet man… i am picking up what you putting down.
on 9 November 2006 at 1:5312 Jeffrey

Interesting conversation. I don’t know much about this, nor am I good at discerning what methods of marketing are good and godly and which ones are not (perhaps none are?!). But I do have an opinion about some of the language that is being used in this conversation. In particular, someone said (and others implied), “but come on, however you get the money is all that really matters isn’t it?”

Hmmmm. No? Do we really think that the end justifies the means? As long as the final goal is met, it doesn’t matter how we get there? This actually has become a N.A. Church problem. We have forgotten that how we get there is just as important as the end goal, perhaps more important on occasions.

What would the death and the resurrection of Jesus look like if he lived a terrible life?

Like I say, this is not a commentary on this red thing, which I know little of. Just wanted to reflect on our ability to process and to highlight our values. Perhaps the conversation didn’t really mean to say what I think it is saying…
on 9 November 2006 at 4:3213 Gil

I think this campaign is certainly one with flaws but I think it depends on your starting point. If you say: ‘Well people are going to shop anyways, we might as well try to make something good out of that,” then I can applaud the effort (even while I disagree with the LEVEL of consumerism in our society).

If we think the campaign is some kind of an effort to INCREASE consumption as a way of helping Africa then I think we have to ask ethical questions about how sustainable our current lifestyle actually is.

If I need a pair of pants, and decide to buy a ‘red’ pair instead of the alternative then I would think that’s a good option. If I think I’m doing something ‘moral’ by gorging myself on consumer goodies then I’ve missed the point.

I think it’s easy for people to criticize efforts like these because of the real ethical questions that they raise. And I appreciate the reminder that ends matter as well as means. But in crises like the one in Africa, it’s hard for me to object to people doing whatever they can to make a difference.
on 9 November 2006 at 4:3614 Paul Morgun

I for one would applaud you wearing RED PANTS!
on 9 November 2006 at 5:5415 Naomi

Considering it was I who made that comment (”but come on, however you get the money is all that really matters isn’t it?”) let me explain….I hear many people say negative things about this campaign or imply that because someone is buying something in order to give something is a bad thing. Why? I do realize that giving for the sake of giving is the better way, but do people really give to just give and not get anything out of it? (jc made some comment about this too I believe) We get tax receipts from church to use on our income tax returns. Now I am not saying people only give to church in
order to receive income tax receipts but we are getting something out of it. At some point doesn’t it just matter that we are doing something about a
cause? If your child refused to drink milk but would if you added chocolate would you? Well, if campaign Red has realized that in order to get money from people they have to “sweeten” the deal a little what is so wrong with that? And so the comment “but come on, however you get the money is all that really matters isn’t it?” came from that. I realize most of the people
on this blog are reacting to this campaign, or others like it, looking through the lens of Jesus. (Paul did mention that it is a “desire for justice and to help is not a ‘christian perspective’ it’s a human one”) While I would agree with this, it still comes out as a “Christian” worldview. Other people that don’t really care about what Jesus said probably wouldn’t have an issue with buying something in order to give some proceeds to charity. I think our thing is the “materialism” issue and that is why I don’t think it matters how this money is coming in when “RED campaign has enough money to administer medication to 15 million pregnant women in Africa”. So at this point does it really matter how the money is coming in, from buying iPods or Gap t-shirts, when 15 million people can be helped that couldn’t before. I would rather see these results than no
results because people aren’t being “human” enough to just send money to a campaign asking to help those in Africa.
on 9 November 2006 at 7:0316 Jeffrey

Thanks for clarifying Naomi. I didn’t mean to imply that if there is even the slightest impure motive for a desired result that it should be considered bad or wrong. And I apologize if that is how I was understood. I guess my point was that we too easily go for the goal while carelessly and recklessly stomping over the things in life that we value (which is a commentary on what we value!). I’m not commenting on Red Campaign as I stated earlier, just in general. So when I read the comment, I reacted.

My emphasis is that we need to weigh the motivations and certainly the consequences of our methods, even if the desired results are things that we can’t pass up.

ps. I like your comments about giving to the church, perhaps we should stop giving receipts and see what happens!
on 10 November 2006 at 12:1317 jc

i think that part of the problem in this discussion is that those who find something distasteful about the red campaign and about ‘materialism’ have not clearly said what is morally improper with it. consumerism/materialism/capitialism drives our economy and creates wealth so we can make pills to give to people and give to charity. i also do not agree that the end justifies the means but i think naomi was clearly making her comment particular to the red campaign. for example i think its fine and great that bono to advocate giving through a method like the red campaign but i think it is immoral for him to go around capaigning for taxdollars to be involuntarily used for these causes. -jc
on 10 November 2006 at 6:1218 Erica

Holyyyyy toledo…. and I thought the Oprah comment was a simple comment… Paul - your comment was funny; and all the other comments made me aware of something I’m realizing more and more as I learn the “ways of the world…” we’re all too busy talking about what doesn’t work and why we think it doesn’t work and not busy enough doing. In a nutshell I would have to say that regardless of the ‘materialism’ or ‘motivations’ behind this campaign that does not change it’s root. It is a campaign. A campaign dedicated to doing something to stop a heinous problem that we all sit here debating about. I’m not down on anyone; TRULY I am not… I would just say that I for one would stand up and applaud any movement that is positive and attempting to provide a positive change in this world. As long as we sit back and gripe about the negativity and the wrongs ; we refuse to allow hope room to breathe. There is a time of course for wisdom, discernment, yadda yadda and then the time comes for us to zip the lip and do something out of what we claim to say. PS: Dana says you should all call MCC and give them money - hehe. I am young. I am idealistic. At times I don’t sound or feel so smart - I certainly have a GABILLION things to learn… but I just gotta say; booyeah youthful enthusiasm that has yet to die. (Oh yeah, and MCC rules <– Dana Fern is my roommate after all).
on 13 November 2006 at 7:3119 Anonymous

The red campaign doesn’t seem so bad ethicly when considered in the abstract but doesn’t your opinion change when you consider it on a personal level?

Personally, I would be ashamed to admit that I first required an ipod before helping a dying brother.