When Church is an Exclusive Country Club
John Stackhouse has a post on an article that points out that those in the US evangelical community who are corporate, political, or media elites don’t go to church, at least not in the conventional sense:
“[E]vangelicals who have attained positions of influence in culturally significant institutions, from business to politics to mass media, don’t go to church nearly as often as what he calls “populist” evangelicals.Instead, he says, they belong to home study groups, to friendship circles, and (here’s where things get a bit sinister) to invitation-only fellowships of similarly powerful Christians.
There’s lots to dislike about this picture. It’s one thing to be elite: some people are much more successful in certain things than the rest of us, such as gaining power in mainstream institutions. It’s another thing to be elitist: to think of oneself more highly than one ought to think, to keep out the rabble and to keep oneself to fellow “right-thinking” people.”
At this point though Stackhouse turns around and defends the bigshots, saying that, “evangelical elites can’t find churches worth going to.” He points out that preaching, music, and organization of most churches is, well, mediocre and elite types just can’t get into anything mediocre. I have news for Professor Stackhouse, it’s not as if you need to run a Fortune 500 company to notice these things in some churches. Moreover, I think this surrenders to the mentality that courses through American evangelicalism that sees believers as consumers and church as a market. Rich people don’t drive Camrys, they drive the Lexus, and just as Toyota diversified its brands and image, so should the church. Or something. I think it was C.S. Lewis who warned that you sort of miss the point when you attend church strictly as a critic, Stackhouse seems to give wealthy people a free pass on this behaviour though since they aren’t satisfied. Am I missing something?
This is a very tough question, but I have always agreed with Stanley Hauerwas who suggested we “stay with the church that hurts us.”
Thats a great post, Dan! lol
Ominously similar to this: (from 1 Cor 11)
But in giving instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you… . Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? OR do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? … Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment…
I know, not directly relevant, but given that earlier Paul says “If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are” (referring to schism) and then in the section I quoted above he links the upper-class’ mistreatment of the poor as division, it’s not a stretch. For the rich to separate themselves from the poor in such a manner will without doubt bring judgment.