On quoting Jim Rutz

            Previously, in one of the five minute commentaries, I quoted the 30 dichotomies between western traditional church and what the author, Jim Rutz, called “open church” in his book, Megashift, which appears extremely similar to what I and many other writers have called simple or organic church.  I thought I’d take a moment to say that, while I believe that what he has said in the 30 dichotomies is valid, it in no way implies my agreement with what Rutz has said about society and politics.

            At this point, I was about to quote the humanist/atheist philosopher Voltaire’s famous quotation, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” when, in proper fashion, I decided to fact check my memory.  First, without fact checking, I would have said “disagree” instead of “disapprove”, although that is trivial.  Second, according to www.quotationspage.com, while the above statement contains a summation of Voltaire’s opinion, and was written as a quote in a book in 1906, there is no evidence that he actually ever said or wrote these exact words, although he wrote something quite similar.  I am really not in a position today to fact check that website.  That said, and with the recognition that I probably agree with far more of what Rutz has written than Voltaire, I must point out that the quote doesn’t align me with much of Rutz’ modern day prophecying, in a secular, opposed to Christian, sense of the word.

            Particularly, I ran across Rutz’ prediction that we will discover how to run cars on water, and from that, the economies of Middle Eastern countries will collapse, and from that, so will the structure of Islam.  My training is not in the natural sciences, so I cannot say whether there is good science to back up the first prediction, although I have seen on tv or read little blips that imply that there might.  If such a thing were to happen, and global warming might begin to reverse, and I believe that there is good recent history that creator God has made this world in a way that is to a degree self-healing in a way that science is only beginning to attempt to understand, all that would be nice.  Could the two conclusions come from the first premise?  I can picture it in my mind, but in and of itself, the premise would need many other occurrances to bring about the economic collapse, and even that would be dubious as to bringing about the second, without many other occurrances.  Of course, there is nothing in the prediction that is ruling out the many other things happening. 

            Even if I believed that, I am not sure that saying so publicly is advisable.  I think of the prophecy of Agabus recorded in Acts 11:28 about a coming famine.  Since Acts was recorded years later, I am certain Luke included it due to Agabus’ having heard the Spirit correctly, as proven by intervening history.  Rutz has shown a penchant for including some ultra-conservative political ideas.    At this time, in this culture, even if I was in agreement with them (and I have not taken the time to read and consider most of them, one way or another), personally I see such as interfering with communicating the message to a lost and dying world.  I also recognize that not doing so is part of what the Spirit has put on my heart to do and not do, and (at best) another person seeking to live for Jesus can have some opposite aspect of life upon their personal calling.  Also, neither you nor I can judge whether any person other than oneself is following, at one’s best, the Spirit’s personal direction upon their unique giftings (by this, I mean that one is first called to accept Jesus’ gift of salvation, then we are called to learn how Jesus taught us to live for Him, as shown in the Bible and by the Spirit in our spirits, and, if we have been faithful to that, and unfortunately many believers appear to live their lives without pursuing the second, then the Spirit can place a part of God’s work upon one’s heart, which is, in some way, connected to what He has given us, maybe physically and mentally, which includes a genetic part and also includes our life experiences and the spiritual aspect, and as spiritual gifts, which may be greater than the 25 or 26 enumerated in the Bible).

2158--Rutz' 4 models, 30 dichotomies

2158—30 differences between IC and SC

            My name is Tom; this is Simple Church Minute.  In Jim Rutz’ book, Megashift, Rutz describes our American, business modeled institutional churches, the most numerically successful our society has begun to call megachurches, as a blend of four Western iconic models.  

The first icon is Harvard, where the professor is a preacher, the lectern is a pulpit, and the students are parishioners. Trouble is, they can sit and take notes for forty

years, but they'll never graduate, never get a degree, and never ever

become professors themselves.

The second is Hollywood, with its stage, entertainers, polished performances, costumed

singers, applauding audiences, etc. All the church needs is popcorn.

The third is IBM, where a board of directors runs everything from the top down,

where permission to do things is denied or granted by the CEO and committees, where finances are the overriding factor behind policies, and where the institution competes with other churches for market share.

The fourth is Wal-Mart, whose aisles and aisles of tempting merchandise offer

something for everybody. Seeker-sensitive mega-churches, with their

array of 100 and more programs, mirror beautifully the “consumer heaven” ideal of

Wal-Mart. 

A common attribute that flows from modeling church like a combination of

Harvard, Hollywood, IBM, and Wal-Mart is that it is consumer driven. Just as a business

cannot survive without market consumers, neither can a business structured institutional church survive without spiritual consumers. Although a business is “for-profit” and an institutional church is “non-profit,” both are similar in that their economies are built on and sustained by consumerism.

            From this, Rutz later lists 30 dichotomies between the Western traditional church and “open church” the phrase he uses for simple church.  Those are:

1. traditional church—5% of the people participate, open—100% open worship, sharing, and ministry.
2. Traditional—meetings are programmed; open—meetings are open, spontaneous
3. Traditional—meets in a special building, most people sit in rows; open—meets in homes, offices, dorms, whatever
4. Traditional—format is boring (his word, not mine); open—every meeting different
5. Traditional—pastor centered; open—Christ-centered, Spirit-driven
6. Traditional—clergy and laity divided; open—all the people are united
7. Traditional—based on tradition; open—based on Scripture
8. Traditional—emasculating from ministry; open—empowering for ever-wider ministry
9. Traditional—2/3 women; open—slightly more men than women
10.  Traditional—most decisions by decree; open—most decisions by consensus
11.   Traditional—led by one pastor or board; open—led by elders
12.  Traditional—people are passive; open—people are proactive
13. Traditional—people are controlled; open—people are free (to follow the Spirit)
14. Traditional—inquirers must visit church; open—members go to outsiders
15. Traditional—expensive; open—inexpensive
16. Traditional—emphasis is on a large meeting; open—emphasis is on small groups
17. Traditional—denominational oversight; open—apostolic oversight
18. Traditional—building is a private empire; open—building the Kingdom
19. Traditional—doctrine is a flag and battle cry; open—doctrine is an anchor and foundation
20. Traditional—structure fosters isolation, loneliness; open—structure fosters teamwork and closeness
21. Traditional—Jesus is the guest of honor; open—Jesus is the host and emcee
22. Traditional—hidden sin often lingers; open—a community of righteousness
23. Traditional—self-image of the people are as sinners; open—self-image is of the believers as saints
24. Traditional—the goal is perseverance and stability; open—goal is overcoming and victory
25. Traditional—spiritual immaturity is normal, spiritual growth plateaus; open—spiritual maturity and growth is consistently stimulated
26. Traditional—leadership limits expansion; open—leaders are created continuously to promote expansion
27. Traditional—churches are isolated and weak; open—encourages area teamwork and city elders who know and encourage each other
28. Traditional—fossilizes over time; open—always reforming, learning, and growing
29. Traditional—institutional hierarchy; open—family-type relationships
30. Traditional—your presence is irrelevant; open—you are needed, loved, and important

You can contact me at simplechurchminute@yahoo.com or at 757-735-xxxx. A transcript of this commentary is posted at tevyebird.blogspot.com, as the entry for October 12, 2011. You can find out more about simple church in this area at www.hrscn.org.

==============================================================

Ideas quoted are from Jim Rutz, Megashift, p. 111, 115.

 Much of the exact wording of the first part of this commentary is from Steven S. Lyzenga, ASSESSING THE STATE OF SIMPLE CHURCHES IN THE USA  REGARDING RELEASING RESOURCES TOWARD FINISHING THE GREAT COMMISSION, p. 68, 103-104, which can be accessed at http://house2harvest.org/docs/Simple_Churches_Releasing_Resources_S_Lyzenga.pdf.