Customer Reviews

Who Stole My Church: What to Do When the Church You Love Tries to Enter the 21st Century

5 star:		(48)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Who Stole My Church? is a book that's both the same as, and different from, other books on transitioning churches.

That's not particularly helpful, so let me explain. It's the same as other books because it covers some of the same ground: changes in culture, life cycles of organizations, the history of musical innovation within the church, and the bell curve that divides people into innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. This is helpful information, but it's ubiquitous. But that's not the unique contribution of this book.

Who Stole My Church? is different from any other book I've read on transitioning churches because it's a story, or parable, of real people who resist change in dialogue with an older pastor who leads them in processing what's happening. I said that they're real people, but I need to make it clear that this is a fictional book. But they're real in the sense that I've met every single one of them. In fact, sometimes I had to put this book down and shake my head. Was MacDonald spying on the church I pastor a few years ago? MacDonald writes as someone who knows how people struggle with change within a church. He's been there. I wish this book had been written ten years ago. As a work of fiction, it's very true to life.

This book may help the late majority and laggards to understand why churches must contextualize, even though this is a painful process. I especially like it because it's written by someone in their peer group. Those who are struggling with change will recognize themselves in the book, and will also probably feel that they have been sympathetically portrayed.

This book will also help pastors understand what's really happening as people react to change, and it may provide a model for both groups to come together and process what's happening.

I really hope that pastors who are thinking of going into an established church to lead change read this book. It will give them an idea of what they're in for.

Who Stole My Church? doesn't do everything. It doesn't help sort out what shouldn't change, and how much change is too much. It doesn't provide all the answers to what's faddish change versus significant change. It doesn't present a deep theology of the church, and it doesn't unpack all the resources of the gospel that will help us in the process. But it succeeds in what it sets out to do. It tells a story of a church that's struggling with change, helps both sides understand what's going on, and provides an example of how the resulting conflict could lead to greater health rather than disintegration. If you're in a church struggling with change, or thinking of pastoring one, you'll find this book helpful.

MacDonald's book is a treatise on how individual congregations can best meet the needs of those around it under the extremely thin disguise of a story. There are characters and something of a plot, but it's mostly all a conceit for MacDonald to get his point across.

The plot, if it can be called such, is this: MacDonald places himself as the pastor of a fictional church, one that recently had something of a set-back. The leadership tried to pass a series of changes to the way the church did things, only to have some of the oldest and most faithful members push back. MacDonald, rather than rail on them, suggests they meet to discuss the changes and why he feels they're necessary. The title comes from the plaintive cry of one of those members at that first meeting.

If we're trying to judge this book as fiction, it falls flat. As a matter of fact, I'd even be tempted to say that this shouldn't be called a "novel" or a "story" or anything like it. It's more like a Platonic dialogue. The characters, while distinct, are foils for MacDonald. They eventually come around to enthusiastically see things his way. The only holdout is depicted as a reactionary and something of a jerk (more on why this bothers me in a bit).

In terms of nonfiction, this book gave me a lot to think about. Lutherans (especially my kind) are a stubborn bunch. There's an old joke that goes, "How many Lutherans does it take to change a lightbulb?" "CHANGE!?!?!" We tell that amongst ourselves because it's true.

But MacDonald makes a strong case that sometimes, change is not only necessary, it's healthy and good. Every congregation should take the time to reevaluate what they're doing at one time or another, if for no other reason than to make sure that everything is still working the way it should. That process may be painful, especially if people discover that something isn't working right, but then, it's sometimes necessary to go through "growing pains."

But there is a problem with the way MacDonald presented his argument. Since he did so through a story, he could simply have all the characters come to agree with him in the end. They all become "enlightened" enough about his new, better way of doing things that they all fall in line and become enthusiastic for the new ways. The only person who doesn't is depicted in a very harsh light afterwards, so much so that MacDonald insinuates that he's almost an abusive husband and not really a Christian.

That's unfortunate, because it leaves the impression that if you don't agree with MacDonald's analysis of how churches should adapt to the 21st century, you're somehow less of a Christian. I would strongly disagree with that assessment. It might have been better if some of his "discussion partners" had ended the journey unconvinced but willing to go along with it. Or better, if some of them made it clear that they still didn't like it, still thought he was wrong, but weren't going to leave the congregation. Simply put, MacDonald set himself up for everyone to pat him on the back for his keen insight.

Had he presented his argument in a standard, non-fiction sort of way, people could evaluate his ideas and take them or leave them. Now, with the fictional story format, a person who doesn't quite buy his arguments is left with the impression that perhaps the problem isn't with the ideas, it's with them and their faith. Not cool.

In spite of that, it's still an intriguing read. I can only hope that more people read it. For people of the younger generation, it's a good insight into the way the older generation thinks. For people of the older generation, it's an argument for why "We've always done it that way!" isn't a valid argument. And for pastors, it's defintiely food for thought about how we should conduct our various ministries.

For many 'boomers' (myself) and older, we are frustrated and disappointed with the direction OUR churches have taken. We have worship bands instead of choirs, praise and worship songs on the screens up front instead of majestic, rich hymns sung out of a hymnal, sermons with power point presentations and, yes, even movie clips instead of three point sermons, casual dress (I'm referring to the Pastor) instead of a respectful suit or dress and those are just for starters. Is all this change the slippery slope to an apostate church or meaningful change to connect with a very different generation coming into the church? Those are some of the questions Gordon MacDonald addresses in his book, which is really a parable. It is Gordon and his wife, Gail, the real people, interacting with a small to medium sized fictional church in New England somewhere going through a traumatic time for the older generation. It starts with a congregational vote on a proposal for a new high tech sound and multi-media system. The staff and council are shocked when it is voted down. Gordon asks a group of those that he knows voted against it if they would meet with him. They are hesitant, thinking that he is going to try to change their minds and talk them into voting for the new system. To their surprise, he just wants to listen and discover where they are coming from. This first meeting turns into months of meeting and sharing and searching for what happened to THEIR church. As they begin to understand that the church really belongs to JESUS who paid for it with his blood, they begin to see things in a different light. The turning point seems to be when they meet together with the high school worship team that gets to lead the service whenever there is a 'fifth' Sunday in a month. Both sides vent their frustrations and hopes which turns into a remarkable dialogue between two groups generations apart physically and light years apart culturally. In the end, this group discovers what it means to really be 'the church'. No matter how long or little you've been involved in the church, no matter whether you're a lay person or staff, this will be a valuable book in answering the question so many are asking, WHO STOLE MY CHURCH? The future of OUR church just might depend on whether we can satisfactorily answer that question. [...]

There's a saying from the world of casino gambling, "The house always wins." That saying often came to mind while I was reading this book. Gordon MacDonald is the house & he will win. The outcome of this fictional church scenario is obvious from page one.

MacDonald had written a novel in which he casts himself and his wife as the only "real" people in it. The various lay people are all characters created by him. The plot revolves around a New England congregation whose membership has just turned down a proposed expensive revamping of the sanctuary to accomodate more "modern" worship. The pastor is shocked at the resistance to his plans and sets up a meeting with a group of members (in their 50s & 60s) who opposed the plan and are resistant to all the changes he has made. The group(named the Discovery Group) embarks on many weeks of meetings in an attempt to get at what the issues really are affecting this fictional congregation. That's the set-up and the idea is that MacDonald explains and gently cajoles the group to his way of thinking. MacDonald apparently is an exponent of the "change or die" theory of church growth.

I have two problems with this book. One is with the way he handles his fictional scenario. The other is with the substance of his argument.

Simply put, this novel is rigged from the beginning. MacDonald has created his own parishioners and he makes them do his bidding. While the characters in the group all know their Bible(and one is a Wheaton graduate!), none of them is as educated or knowledgeable as the pastor. So there is no one who can take him on intellectually. The one character who refuses to go along is presented as a bad person -- a hot-tempered potential wife beater("he's never actually hit me, but ...") and a phony Christian to boot!

The other problem has to do with the substance of MacDonald's argument. He views all change as good by definition. He also sees all problems as generational -- young v. old. Surely it's much more complicated than that. There's also something pathetic about a 60-something pastor who desperately wants to be hip (and thinks not wearing a necktie is the way to do it!).

He spends a lot of time on the so-called worship wars (really the music wars) and tries to show his group that the traditional hymns that they love were once contemporary and even controversial in their day. But he fails to grasp the larger point which is that the great hymns are still being sung hundreds of years later while the junk quickly passed away. People love Watts & Wesley because they're great, not because they're old.
He gives no indication that he has any objective standards of liturgy. If it's new it's good; if it's traditional it's bad. There are objective standards that any liturgy, whether modern or traditional, can be judged by. He seems to be clueless about this, and gives no indication he knows anything about the work of writers such as Marva Dawn, Thomas Long or Ronald Byars, who deal with these same issues in a much more substantive way. MacDonald may not intend it, but he veers perilously close to the view that worship is essentially entertainment for non-believers.

Having come from a church wrecked by precisely the kind of change Gordon MacDonald describes in "Who Stole My Church?", what I found most insightful was the author's mindset, and in three ways. There's a fourth way -- how MacDonald unfairly frames the people opposed to change -- that other reviewers have cited. (And it's not just aging Baby Boomers who are concerned about what's happening in churches or who are adverse to forced change -- let's not forget the massive amount of change the Boomers brought to American society in the first place.)

First, the pastor discovers in his weekly meetings that he doesn't really know the people of his congregation, and while he doesn't explicitly make the point, what he learns is that people don't resist change. That's something only consultants, and unfortunately a lot of church consultants, believe and teach to unsuspecting pastors and elder boards.

What people resist is change being forced upon them, with no explanation, no communication, no understanding, and no opportunity to discuss, influence and pray about. "Don't tell the congregation what you're up to" was a church consulting tenet exposed in, all of places, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. It was also a tenet that was steadfastly followed at my own church, with ultimately disatrous consequences.

A second aspect of the author's thinking that bears consideration is church leaders embracing group-think: "We get it; the congregation doesn't." Convinced they're right ("We're the new Willow Creek for our city"), any question or concern is quashed. Group-think by leadership, particularly when it's accompanied by no communication, is what creates the conflict.

The third aspect MacDonald accidentally reveals is the influence corporate restructuring and the vast secular literature about business change has had on the church. Quoting Peter Drucker is only a tiny indication. Citing S-curves is straight out the business consultants' handbooks. No one asks whether the philosophy and practices of business is appropriate for the church, because so many church leaders occupy influential positions in business.

I'm glad I read "Who Stole My Church?". It helps me understand what is often going on the minds of many local church leaders when this kind of change is undertaken.

I was initially drawn to this book because I thought it might present a balanced analysis of current trends toward "contemporary" worship styles that increasingly abandon traditional elements of church life as "inauthentic" and "irrelevant." However, from the book jacket it is plain that this book has an agenda: "Any church that has not turned its face toward the younger generation will simply cease to exist...We're not talking decades, we're talking just a few years." With that level of gravity, then, it follows that any reluctance on the part of older Christians to abandon ANYTHING in church life that purportedly "turns off" younger generations suggests that those older Christians may not even have true faith.

The book is an engaging story-like chronicle of a hypothetical pastor and his congregation in New England, as the pastor works to get the congregation to accept the necessity for changing the church's name and eliminating hymns, choir, Sunday school, etc., and allocating funds for a $150K "state of the art" audio/visual system for worship. The pastor gathers a number of older congregants for a weekly Bible-study like meeting called the "Discovery Group" to examine worship styles and reasons for change (ironically, this group epitomizes the old fuddy-duddy approaches of having regular meetings, an agenda, coffee and dessert, etc.). But it is not truly a dialogue, since the pastor is intent on convincing the group that their treasured worship elements are actively repellent to younger generations and so to insist on them is against the spirit of Christ.

I found the prose to be reminiscent of Jan Karon's Mitford series in evoking a small town congregation and pastor. But the overall story is camoflauge for a mindset that draws upon secular business-world fads and analogies, and peppers it throughout with inaccurate and selective history.

The title of the book is part of the argument - there is no MY church, only God's church, and it is indicative of our selfishness to think of "our" church. But that is a bit of a sham argument, because who speaks for God? Evidently it is those self-appointed individuals who have foreordained that the church has to transform itself into whatever market-driven media venues the secular world attracts the current generation into. It all just seems to be a bit of a self-serving argument. After all, hymns are in the public domain and no one makes money when they are sung - but "contemporary" artists get a royalty every time their arrangements are displayed on the Powerpoint screens of your local worship center. (I learned this from my local church's worship leader.) Is there then a little bit of bias involved in Christian media companies creating an imperative for churches to move to this format?

The book suggests that the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70 was due to God's abandonment of it because of "inauthentic" worship styles. This seems quite a stretch - in fact Christ condemned the Jews not because their worship style was inauthentic, but rather because they had "sold out" to the prevailing worldly authorities - having corrupt commerce in the church along with deals with Roman power. It in fact was the zealot resistance to this, which Jesus modeled when he made a whip of cords, which eventually resulted in Vespasian's suppression of Jewish revolt and destruction of the temple.

Similarly, the book suggests that the protestant reformation was based on changing worship styles. This also seems to be a bit of stretching one's history. While Luther was a skilled musician and later wrote a number of hymns, his reformation was not over worship styles but over basic doctrinal truth over the understanding and application of grace. Similarly, there is selective history (p. 95) suggesting that hymns were a 17th century invention of Isaac Watts (yet Luther wrote hymns in the 1500's).

There are elements of postmodern thought and business-world analogies applied to the church. It is suggested that the church should emulate the business world (p. 84) in "ruthlessly" cutting "unprofitable" programs - and church choir is held up as an example of an "unprofitable" program. On p. 86, there is a portrayal of the church as "...a church with a million programs, none of which is doing anything but keeping people busy." There is a monotone stereotype of the younger generation (p. 116) that "thinks that personal experience is everything" (in other words, no universal truth/meaning/fact). This is postmodern philosophy accepted as established reality. (P. 72) "During these last decades, relationships have become increasingly important in terms of what one might or might not believe. People do not trust words" (i.e., facts). The conclusion to be drawn from all this is placed in the mouth of one of the characters (p. 137): "...I have to give up my songs and sing theirs so that they will be strong [in Christ]." This is the main theme of the book distilled into one sentence.

This book pretends to portray a dialogue but it is really a foregone conclusion. One wonders where the proponents of "relevant" contemporary worship will find themselves in 10-20 years when the world's fads have shifted and the shoe is on the other foot. It is the fruit of a fundamental error in thinking to assert that God's church will "cease to exist" based on what we do or do not do. That is presuming too much significance on our part. God will never allow His church to cease to exist. It is a symptom of a narcissistic and self-centered generation attempting to remake the church into its own image, that suggests this. The church should provide a counter-cultural alternative to the world's images, not cater to or try to imitate them into fooling people to attend church. As in every age, people have a fundamental hunger for the God-shaped hole within them, that only God can fill. Their hunger will drive them to the church, if it remains true to its principles. While modern value-neutral society may have produced generations of ideologically feral children whose reality is totally self-referential, the fact remains that ultimately this will be the food that does not satisfy, and the church should stand ready to provide the spiritual food and drink that Christ provides when they come seeking, as surely they will.

In the end, it is not about worship styles. The book makes a good point that these have evolved over previous centuries. But this does not justify efforts to railroad whole congregations into accepting forms of worship which they do not find meaningful. If business-world numbers alone are to be the standard of justification, then the modernizers should not forget that in terms of sheer demographics, it is the seniors who are the most numerous mission field, and in general they are closer to their eternal destiny. By this book's own arguments, then, the church should be transforming itself into the external elements calibrated to appeal to the greatest numbers of potential converts, rather than driving them away with music and forms which they find actively repellent. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, thus undermining the validity of the book's basic assertion.

Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). So why draw worship methods from the world's latest fads? The church should instead compose worship elements from the best and most excellent of all ages, and it stands to reason that the bulk of this consists of the cream of previous centuries, with a sprinkling of the best contemporary works. For the church is about eternal truths, not the silverflash of latest media trends which are here today and gone tomorrow. Worship should be calibrated to draw one's mind to otherworldly realms of peace, reflection, and God's glory, not immerse congregants into a faux rock concert jam session.

Notwithstanding this book's biased presentation, I do feel that it is an illuminating work that will inform older generations of the mindset of some younger media- and culture-driven factions, so that they can see in one presentation the full extent of the modernists' agenda for their church. As such, it is important for all to read, if only to clarify where they stand rather than be unsuspectingly and gradually led into a worship format that they feel does not facilitate expression of their genuine adoration of God.

Outstanding book! It's as simple as this. God is literally using this book to bring healing and hope to our church. It's helping our Senior Adults understand the consequences of their stonewalling behavior towards change and helping our young people empathize with the pain of our Senior Adults. God is using it to change hearts in ways I have tried and failed. We are passing about 20 copies around to our people. Many have come up to me, their pastor, and asked, "Are you sure you didn't write this. This is our church exactly."

Thank you Gordon MacDonald for speaking into the arena of church change in a way that people actually listen - a story - instead of facts, logic, and reason. God is bringing renewal to our 93 year old church. Thank God and Thank Gordon.

A fitting subtitle for this rather manipulative book might be, "How the Troglodytes are Ruining Your Church". As many reviewers have pointed out, the outcome was clear from the beginning, although the book pretends to be a dialogue where different points of view are given a respectful hearing. Pastor Gordon MacDonald forms a discussion group of older, disgruntled change-resisters and dubs it the "Discovery Group" - putting us on early notice that it is principally they who have the learning and discovering to do. In fact, the Discovery Group is a little like an AA meeting that meets in the church basement once a week. Their concern over where their church is going is treated like an addiction to tradition, without any consideration of the possibility that in some ways, at least, they might have a point. There are at least two episodes where the lesson is: if you oppose change, any change, you oppose Jesus. The book never discusses the ways in which some change might be bad.

One of these episodes comes when they read the scripture where Jesus rejects the temple, and predicts that not one stone will be left standing. MacDonald asserts this was because the Pharisees could not embrace change, but this is a clear misreading of scripture. It was not because the Pharisees resisted change that they failed to please God; it was because they resisted Christ. There is a big difference.

On the topic of music, MacDonald reasons that young people have changed, and music must change too. But he makes the mistake of admitting that someone born in the mid-20th century could love a hymn written in the mid-18th century. Then why is it that someone born in the late 20th century is justified in hating the same music? If Ted can love a 200-year old hymn in 1960, why can't Jason love it in 2005? The obvious answer is that Ted was taught to love it, and Jason was not. Whose fault was that? The church leaders from Jason's childhood, most of whom are still at it.

The book does have some good points, particularly when the generations come together, accept each other where they are, and work together toward a common goal. Of course we should accept a new person wearing dreadlocks, and not storm out in anger just because someone touches a drum. But these issues deserve a rational discussion and evaluation using scripture, not MacDonald's brand of overt manipulation. The one real "failure" in the pastor's group, the unrepentant stick-in-the-mud, is characterized by bitter, red-faced anger, suspicions of wife beating, and a failure to ever have come to Christ. Elsewhere the author implies that a person who resists even the most dubious change in the church is not really a follower of Christ. So much for dialogue.

In spite of the controversy engendered by the book, I think almost everyone would agree that some change is necessary and good from time to time. I don't rule out change just because it is new or uncomfortable. It doesn't really matter what a church does, or how much it changes, as long as it is led by the Spirit of God. But by the same token, It doesn't matter how extensively a church embraces change on a business model, if it is not Spirit-led, it is either doomed or merely irrelevant in God's sight. Reinvented churches can be just as spiritually dead as traditional ones, just with more noise.

My husband and I co-pastor a church in a conservative denomination (you may see a review pop up from my husband when he remembers to do this) anyway...

We are in a cycle of change and we must change and change has been going well for the past three years or so. We've successfully become outward focused instead of inward focused, we are intentional about how we set up our worship space, what we call things, how we welcome people and quickly engaging them into the family. Our church is in a low income neighborhood in one of the most expensive cities in America. We attract 95% men, mostly homeless or previously homeless and a great deal of current and former addicts of all kinds. A mostly male church is not a normal thing in America, infact most are heavier on the female folk and place emphasis on women's ministry and outreach. We have some women... I think I can name 10 or so. Most of our men are divorced or never married so few of the women are connected to any of the men in the congregation.

Of the folks who come (male and female) most are completely previously unchurched and many others had negative experiences as young people and have been away from the church for a very long time.

Enough of that...

This book was phenomenal, fiction or not, because it brought to light what the older folks are thinking (we have a few of those) and what the younger people were thinking, how important is the name you call yourself as a church, etc. My husband and I bought one copy of this book when it came out and since we both wanted to read it right away he had to read it to me outloud so we could share it - which actually proved a great opportunity for both of us to share and discuss it (and turn off the television for the few days it took us to read this in the evenings). We have recommended this book to our pastor friends and those we know who are struggling with the church they attend but do not pastor. I have blogged about this book on Facebook, Xanga and Myspace because I believe it can be a great launching pad for the same kind of real discussion and possible rebirth for an older church the way the fictional story lays out. Please read this book!

The first 20 pages hits the nail on the head on what my feelings are about my church. I do not like the new "praise music" with the praise band (7/11 songs~seven words sung over and over eleven times); the plaid shirt & Dockers my minister has now chosen to wear for Sunday worship; the enthusiastic traditional hymns I love are gone (occasionally a traditional song is sung but to a different tempo with guitar accompaniment); the choir sings to canned music while the big organ & grand piano sit silent; no longer do we have a Sunday evening service or a mid-week Bible Study/Prayer Meeting. All these things are clearly stated by the factious group of seniors in the book. Then the pastor gathers this small group of seniors together for a series of meetings to "solve" their concerns & frustrations. He kindly tells them they are "has beens", they will all be gone in about 15 years & it's time for the younger generations to assume responsibility~~get use to how things are~~times have changed. The needs of the older generation are of very little concern; they have been life long church leaders, prayer warriors, they have lived a full life walking with the Lord but now it's time for change at their expense. He gives excuses for the changes & attempts to lay a guilt trip on the hurting seniors for not joyously embracing the new changes. I want to leave church on Sunday feeling like I have contributed to the worship service plus feel like I have been fed/nourished/rejoiced but instead I feel empty/frustrated/hurt. I'm sure I'm not alone, this change is occuring all across America in just about every denomination. I know, "When we all get to heaven, what a day of rejoicing that will be", but in the meantime I'm still here on earth feeling empty when I leave church on Sunday morning.