although I may like the later chapters, I didn't so much like the intro and 1st one.

Alright, so I promised myself I would do my best to keep track of this book I’m reading, “The Great Giveaway” by David Fitch. I suppose I could create an account on www.goodreads.com but I guess this will do for now.

I got through the Intro and Chapter 1 in the past few days. Honestly, I struggled with some and enjoyed it some. I am hoping it gets better though. So far, mostly bringing up issues in a way that is written more like complaining than simply explaining it.
The book is based on a contention that church in North America (being the US and Canada, hello, where’s Mexico? j/k, he explained that) has “given away” being the church by farming functions of the church out to parachurch organizations. (paraphrase) and also we “adopt models for doing these functions from American business.” (pg 13).

First, what I didn’t like. He doesn’t appear to be concise. A lot of repetition going on, where I found myself in the early stages of the book wanting to skim. And he uses words like “simulacra” where could have just used “representation”, but that’s technical/grammar stuff. On to some meat!

He writes, “evangelicals are prone to farm out the functions of the church whenever it is more efficient. Our modernist confidences allow us to freely use models of ministry from the secular sciences whenever they seem ‘to work better.’ We are after all only seeking to minister to individuals more effectively.”
He says evangelicals “borrow concepts and definitions of what we are to do and be from society at large as opposed to engaging these things critically out of who we are as the “called out people of Jesus Christ”. (page 18)
To this I say, “Yeah, what else is new in the church?”
The first Christians did the same thing where it seemed to be convenient too. You know the phrase “Jesus is Lord!” Hmm…where did that come from? Did not the early Christians steal that phrase from the Romans’ claims that “Caesar is Lord.” I do believe it is so. And there are other examples of things the early Christians did that was somewhat taken from the society they lived in. (Son of God ascending to the right hand of God? No other name under Heaven by which people can be saved? 12 days of Advent? ALL originally directed to Caesar, not Jesus.) So why should we be all worked up about a church adapting to the culture it resides in. It ended up working for Paul and the early church didn’t it? Or is the Roman Empire still the world’s most dominating force and way of Christ has vanished? We took what someone else was doing and made it better! How about offering this up…couldn’t we eventually figure this out so that we are shaking things up for the greater good, instead of saying “woe is us, our formats and programs look like Apple Inc., Ford, and Morgan Stanley”
But I also don't believe what he is saying is correct in evangelicals are looking for more ways to minister to individuals more effectively. Actually, far from that. If anything, its to package together something and given to a group of people, not overlooking discipleship, but overlooking accountability. And yes, discipleship and accountability are different if you ask me.

His claim is that taking something from the residing society is wrong, but doesn’t really say why. Maybe he will explain it in later chapters, which is why I will continue to read it. But then again, if everything is based on that premise, then I probably won't accept much of what he has to say.

He writes later in chapter 1 that evangelicals basically define success as two things.
1. Number of attendance
2. 2. Number of decisions.
To which I say, “well done, sir!”
Thank you for pointing that. I was just going to write a book myself that says “wouldn’t it be nice to hear someone ask (when trying to see how successful another church is), ‘how many people are being discipled in your church?’ vice ‘how many go to that church?’
Ok, so I wasn’t really going to write that book, but the over spiritualizing part of me, which I simply call “the flesh”, has been wanting to.
Didn’t Billy Graham (or his ministries) say that 1 out of 10 people who accept Christ really start living the way of Christ? With that in mind, if a church is 10,000 people, isn’t it safe to say at least 1,000 are walking in faith in Jesus everyday? How do you measure someone’s faith? Or better yet, why would you want to? Is this not a judgment call we should run away from? "Lord, these people aren't at my level of faith! I can't count them as truly being discipled."
He says that decisions are individualized, but not how. At least, I haven’t seen that at “my megachurch.” Everytime I’ve seen an altar call, its done with the whole church present and the people who do accept Christ are prayed with immediately and encouraged to find a place to get connected in the church. So, I can’t honestly say it’s the church’s fault for not trying to reach out. But at the same time, I, personally, along with some other friends I know, have been not followed up on after going forward and either (a.) accepting Christ or (b.) went forward for prayer. There's room there for an argument. Let's talk about how to fix that, not just say the whole system is broke.

Individualize, individualize, individualize. I’m gonna be seeing that word in my sleep. I think it was used twice in every sentence of Chapter 1. Ok, maybe not every sentence, but a lot.
God said “the man to whom much is given, will have to give much.(or much will be required).”
To David here, it seems he’s writing, “to whom much is given, greater will be wrong.”
He does measuring how big the church is get rooted in the autonomy of the individual? Is he saying the bigger the church, the easier to get left on your own, in the mix? I listen to “megachurch” pastors online all the time, and NEVER have I heard the words or ever been encouraged or left with the impression that I am on my own in the faith. Not once have I ever left a large church without at the same time asked to get involved somewhere or plugged in somewhere. Whether that be join a ministry, find a Bible study, or keep coming to church! The point is, as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it. If people are accepting the faith in masses and only pursuing that faith by the handful, why should the finger immediately be pointed at the "big bad business building of a church."

What I have seen is not finding where to get plugged in at, nor being told I should attempt to get connected as the problem. The problem is accountability with the other believers that you meet at the (insert gathering of your choice here). ,
Its not church that we don’t know how to do, its accountability, which is only a small portion of church, not the whole thing.
I, for one, am glad we have thousands of believers gathering together to acknowledge “Jesus’ Lordship and live under that in anticipation of the final consummation of his reign over all the earth” (beautiful definition of ‘church’ btw. Page 19).
Isn’t that what the early church did too? Get together in big groups and learn the way together?
I’d like to ask Mr. Fitch when did he hear “the body of Christ is a set of programs and activities volunteered for?”
Ok, so I’ll assume he was left with that impression from somewhere. I can see how a “Latest Greatest Book Study Campaign” can replace the ideals, goals, and mission of a church. I can’t say I’ve seen it, but I can see ‘how’ he would gather that. That ‘how’ is he looks up a church online and sees a big banner advertising a program that is about to start, but yet has to search for the beliefs of the church, with no further exploration.
Now, had he actually gone to the church and participated in it, he would have actually realized that its all about God and Jesus and how we are to live our lives, aka discipleship. Oh wait, I’m assuming that, huh? Hmm. I’m starting to get this whole Fitch thinking process down. In just the first chapter too!

I loved the questions he had on “qualitative measures of community”.

1. When is the last time someone spoke a hard truth into your life?
Was it done in love?
2. When was the last time you confessed sin to someone you felt safe with in this community?
3. When was the last time you prayed with someone over an issue of needs or discernment in this body?

I’ll stop with these 3. Now, I think they are great in measuring quality, but not of the church being the church. I would more likely apply those questions to the aspect of accountability within the church, not the whole church itself.
Is accountability or discipleship the bottomline of what church is about? Yes and no. Jesus told us in the great commission to go and make disciples of all nations, did He not? Of course discipleship should be something huge we focus on, arguably THE thing we focus on. But, I’ll also say “no” because, again, of his context.
The early church gathered together and learned the word of God, as we do on Sundays. Was that their discipleship method? People were free to ask questions then and there were they not? They didn’t have internet and online commentaries to go home to, so they were essentially forced to learn everything then and there, among the masses.
To me, what the author is saying is that discipleship is not hearing a message on Sunday, but getting a private one on one let me lead you by the hand every step of the way til your deathbed mentoring by the pastor, which is not ever gonna happen, I dare say even in a small church of 10 people.
I would actually consider the hearing of the message and lessons to learn from a passage of scripture as actually being a part of being discipled, where I’m lead to believe that David Fitch excludes that, or somehow knows what every pastor teaches every week and says they are preaching the wrong things. (Sure, pal. I'm gonna believe you on that one.)
One of the things I like about the big church is that a large number of people are being taught the same thing, learning something together. Its not like if they had a real question about the message, they couldn’t ask someone about it right after the service. Maybe in church today, asking questions about the message is not encouraged or spoken of, but Fitch didn’t say that either, I did.

I do like at the end of chapter 1 where he mentions to turn to “measuring the life being lived in Christ, evidence of his salvation in our midst, marriages saved, sexual abuse ended.” And on and on with other great things to work towards. But to measure that?

Just because we measure things the way we do, doesn't mean we're not bringing about the way of Christ. Hope is within me and my friends. I believe the community is being restored and renewed and loved and justice is being made more aware of these days. But he's not pointing that out. I believe God's kingdom is still more compelling to people, even in the megachurch, even using a format a businesses use, because I witness hundreds every year come to know Christ. And I see testimonies of people who accepted Christ within the past year reaching out to others who just became Christians too.
Jesus is still making a better world through "living out the faith" believers.
The goal is to not seek who's asking the hard questions, but to ask the hard questions.
The goal is to not seek safe community to confess to, but to be safe community. And not to measure success, but to simply live the faith.

I can only leave this blog with summing up how I would measure church. And its not 50 pages worth of material, it’s a sentence, a question.
My measurement of the church would come from asking, “if your church was to shut its doors and leave town, would the community of non believers in the area (1) notice? And (2) care?”
May the effect our group of believers in Christ and acknowledging His Lordship be for God’s glory, that all man can see His grace and love through us, regardless of our (God honoring) styles, sizes, and varying methods.


Alright, I’ve gone way over what I was planning on mentioning. On to chapter 2!

the good ol' first post.

I suppose often times when someone begins a blog, it would only seem natural to discuss reasons behind, history of, and expectations perhaps? Allow me to not break any chains according to the laws of blogs. 

Many of my friends, alot smarter than I, have created blogs and have found them as an out to what they learn, randomly find, and sift through on the internet, books, and other forms of collecting information. Again, i'll continue in this method as you'll come to see the things that spark interest in me. And what remotely interests me better fascinate you! (I'm only kidding. Most of it probably won't.) 

Why the name "progressing reservations"? I have alot of thoughts, idealogies, philosophies, theologies that have come down the education pipeline and I've learned that the more information my brain gathers, I may have become more reserved at the same time in what i've known to be "truth." I always thought knowing more would make me more founded, but for some reason, it hasn't come to fruition yet. (honestly, i blame the poor education system and subculture of "the south" I grew up apart of in Louisiana for this. I have often felt tremendously behind the learning curve simply based on that alone!) So this blog is a learning process, an education of life, and an experience to be had.  What you may read as my opinion one day may lead me to believe the exact opposite sometime in the near future. But may the journey be forever engraved in the digital world of blogs. 

grace and peace,

eB