Wednesday, March 3, 2010

The Sanctuary Video



17 comments:

  1. You know, I've thought and prayed on this long and hard, and have really tried to figure out what it is I don't like about the name The Sanctuary, and why I can't help feeling that it does *not* line up with the vision.

    Over the last few days I think I finally found what it is that really bothers me, and it may come off as a bit silly. It's the word "The". Every scripture reading Ronn read in that video, every time he said it himself, he said "a sanctuary". Every time. "A sanctuary." When we call ourselves, as a church, "THE Sanctuary", it strikes me as being completely opposite of what I understand the intent to be.

    We are to be a sanctuary. As a people, as a church, as families, as individuals. Using the word "the" implies "the only", at least in my mind. As in "This church is THE sanctuary. There are no others."

    Like I said, I thought and prayed long and hard about this. I don't think I would have been even remotely as bothered if it had been proposed as Sanctuary Church, or Sanctuary of God Church, or even simply Sanctuary. I still do not like THE Sanctuary. I'm perfectly OK with a name change, especially to one that aligns with our new vision. I do not think this name, as it is at the moment, does that.

    Maybe that's being overly critical on fine details. But I can tell you with great certainty - a few years ago when I was not a believer, I would never have set foot into a church that called itself THE Sanctuary. Just upon hearing or seeing the name I would have thought "well, there's a church that thinks a bit too highly of itself." And that would have been that.

    I'm pouring my heart out here, and I know I'm putting myself out there by putting my name on this. I want to make sure that everybody knows that never has my dislike been against any individual or group of individuals. I really hope nobody takes this personally. I'm honestly trying to present some constructive criticism that can be worked with.

    If you'd like to email me personally, I'm at j.a.invergo@gmail.com.

    Thanks...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good video. My life has been going through a lot of changes these past months and I've been between jobs and I tried customer service a few weeks ago and God was with me and the position ended but at least I didn't get fired. I prayed for God to open a new door and on March 8 I will be starting a temp job at Insurance One and doing data entry. It won't be long term but something to keep busy. It's in Burr Ridge, IL and not far. Everything in life is seasonal but God is forever! Only time will tell when I will find the permanent long term job but grateful to get by and I've been surviving these past months. I pray for everything and I know god has a plan for things. Praise God!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I’ve been praying and thinking on this name change and I’ve refrained from comment either way until now. Please, hear my heart.

    My initial reaction was, “Oh great. Here we go. The Naperville Evangelical Free Church changes their name to “The Compass”, the newly forming church in Aurora is “The Edge” and now we’re getting on the trend bus and changing to “The Sanctuary”. If this name change is about a “The ________” trend, I want no part of it.” But I know I’ve got a history of being a voice of dissention. Instead, I prayed and waited.

    Then week 2 came, and Ronn gave more of the explanation that originally he wanted to give with the initial proposal for the name change. His explanation reassured my concerns that this was not about a trend; the purpose of this name change is to have the name better reflect the vision of building homes of faith. And I can get onboard with a name change to match the vision of the church. But I was still unsettled on some level with this particular proposed name change. Still, I prayed and waited.

    The term “sanctuary” has been coming up, over and over recently, even not related to the proposed church name change. Several of my friends are having their relationships and marriages implode. I find my prayers for friends are that they find a sanctuary from their troubles. Work is just plain nuts, and I pray often for a safe zone, a sanctuary from the constant political chaos.

    But “a sanctuary” and “The Sanctuary” are not the same things, not by a longshot.

    Growing up, I went to a Lutheran church. The building was divided into 3 sections: the fellowship hall, the narthex and the sanctuary. When I hear “The Sanctuary”, that is what I envision. That place, with the pews, the candles, the big wooden altar and the huge cross at the front of the room. I think of that place, the holiest part of the church’s physical building.

    When I think of “a sanctuary” I don’t think of a building. I don’t even think of a certain type of room in a temple or church, although that is one of the definitions of “a sanctuary”. I think of an abstract place of refuge from the storm. I think of a place in a heart where lost hope is found. A sanctuary is a holy place, set apart and different from the rest of this world. A sanctuary is distinctively OTHER, and that is what we are all called individually and collectively to be. Our homes of faith can be a sanctuary. So can our lives.

    “a sanctuary” or something like that lines up with our vision perfectly. “The Sanctuary” to me brings up images of a physical location – which is the opposite of the intent with the proposed name change.

    Thank you, Justin, for bringing the “The” topic up. You’ve eloquently voiced your objections to that, and I appreciate the thought you put into your explanation and your courage for speaking out on this. While I agree with your rationale, I can’t claim it was my own. Reading your thoughts was just the lightbulb moment that finally clarified what was bothering me about the name “The Sanctuary”.

    I’m also not trying to stir the pot or offend anyone. I know a great deal of time and effort has gone into this endeavor, which I appreciate from everyone involved. If you’d like to contact me about this, please email elyag213@hotmail.com. Thanks for taking the time and hearing my heart in this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like the proposed name. I feel like I've heard the heart of the leadership and know they feel this change is God-led. "THE" does not bother me in the least. I think this name fits our new vision and I feel blessed to be a part of a church like ours.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I admit I hadn't thought of "THE" issue at hand. Interesting, and I can totally appreciate what's being said. I too share the concern about seeming "haughty" or "holier-than-thou" to the community we serve.

    Having given it a couple days of thought, though, here are some counter-points to my empathetic consideration of the use of the word "The"... Not meaning to raise the level of debate... just "rounding out" the discussion, as I've argued with myself about the use of the word over the past couple of days.

    1) I go to "the store". I go to "the office". "The" is sometimes simply an article and that's all.

    2) We are indeed called to be "The Body of Christ". Jesus Christ IS, according to what this church considers to be sound doctrine, THE way, THE truth, and THE life.

    3) It doesn't seem to me that calling a church "The Sanctuary" in any way claims exclusivity, or a corner on the "sanctuary market". Rather, we are called as believers and people of God to "build a sanctuary" for God... which takes us right back to our vision, "Building Homes of Faith". The proposal is to name this congregation after our higher calling, to be a part of The Sacntuary that God calls us to be, not to be in and of itself the one and only Sacntuary to all mankind.

    I guess I just don't get the feeling that saying, "The Sanctuary" in lieu of "A Part of the Sanctuary that God Calls Us All to Be" (ok, I'm being silly here), is really painting an inaccurate picture in the community. We're naming ourselves, again, after our vision... not claiming to be THE ONE AND ONLY anything. (Although, I feel I need to add that we should not be ashamed that this Jesus we proclaim IS "the one and only".)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh... sorry... forgot to add to number 2) above... The early church indeed called itself "THE Way", naming itself after Jesus. It didn't claim to be the means of salvation... It only claimed to KNOW the Way, and to share that Way with others. Similar to what we're doing with "THE Sanctuary".

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tyson, as long as you don't go "The Jewels" we are good.

    It is just symantix but at the same time it is important. It is different when someone with extensive Bible knowledge and experienced faith can see INTO the name to know the meaning behind it and get the relevance. But that isn't everybody. Are we going to have a church full of only long time Christians? That doesn't address the vibe/image that will come across to people who are seeking.

    ReplyDelete
  8. by the way, I can't spell and now everybody knows it, so there. sound it out....

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't understand why we need a name change to Build homes of faith? Why can't we let our actions speak to the community. What if our vision changes are we going to change the name again? I am not convinced that this is the way to go and I do agree with "hellolittlepeepers". It is not going to look that way to those who are seeking. I also agree with Justin, about the word "the". I say leave the name as is and just do the work we are called to do.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 2 thoughts I want to offer as points of discussion, in response to the responses to my response... :) Not meaning to speak for anyone but myself here, but here goes...

    First of all... I personally don't want a "seeker sensitive" name, or worship, or preaching, or anything, for that matter. We're not a church who sugar-coats the hard stuff of the Gospel in order to make it more "palletable" to those who don't know the bible. That's not how we're called to love our neighbor. Yes, we may be rejected because we claim to know THE way or claim to be a part of THE sanctuary of God. And Jesus was rejected because He claimed to BE these things. If someone is truly "seeking", they will seek beyond a name. Just like when I was seeking out a church locally (although I already knew the Lord and had a firm understanding of the Bible), the name "CrossTown Church" actually turned me off. But as we said already... "it's just a name". I visited. And the rest is history.

    Which brings me to my final point. To me, the issue at hand is much bigger than "to rename or not to rename". It's a bigger question as to whether we trust that this is indeed what the Lord has laid on our leaders' hearts. And if we vote "no", against the recommondations of our leaders (pastors, elders, and directors-- all of whom are unanymous on this, if I'm not mistaken), then we are either saying that this is NOT God's will, and our leaders got it wrong... OR... there is a REASON why God had them recommend the change and then had us, the congregation, vote it down. Either way, we've all got some 'splainin' to do as it pertains to "followership" in the church, and what it means to seek the Lord in unity together, should we go against the recommendation of our leadership. There are plenty of reasons to like or dislike a name, a logo, etc... whether it be the existing one or the one being set before us by our leaders. And it is healthy to voice those concerns. But at the end of the day, we are being asked by leadership to either accept or reject their proposal.

    This is not a name issue to me. It's a unity issue. And frankly, I thank God that He's given us something as harmless as a name change, which we can use as an exercise in trust in leadership and unity in the body.

    I LOVE this church. Wish I could be there to worship with you all on Sunday. Can't wait for next week!

    -Tyson

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have been following this conversation over the past few days and I'd like to start by saying thank you to everyone who has been "brave enough" to voice their opinions. It has been interesting to hear others point's of view. I have to admit, that this conversation is exactly what I'm struggling with. I want to follow my elders. I want to be on board with our pastors and our ministry directors.

    My first response to this on Valentine's day was one of introspection. What was I being asked to do? I believe I was being asked to seek the Lord on whether or not The Sanctuary was something our church should change our name to. As I began said seeking, I found that the ugly part of me wanted to have it's say. I wanted something we, as a body, built up. I wanted the chance to vote on weather or not we should even consider a name change. I wanted a choice of names, that could be voted on. I wanted some pie too. Notice all the "I"'s? Early last week I found myself on my knee's again, my God pointing out to me how selfish I had been being.

    So I asked two friends, Godly men, not connected with our church, what they thought. I presented the idea to them as well as I could, trying not to be biased. One who happens to be in church leadership at his own church, said "well do you trust the elders of your church?" Of course I do, I love those guys. "There's your answer." It was a much longer conversation than that,over some excellent enchladia's might I add, but still, that's what it came down to.

    My other friend directed me to the book of Acts. Where Paul (formly Saul) and Silas brought the good news to the Bereans. Acts 17:11- Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

    Explaining this, Matthew Henry wrote "They not only heard Paul preach on the sabbath, but daily searched the scriptures, and compared what they read with the facts related to them. The doctrine of Christ does not fear inquiry... Hmmmm.... interesting. Paul, while in Berea, was subjected to a daily fact check. PAUL. Ok, so me "fact checking" the leaders of the church seems biblical.

    My second friend continued(FYI-I have more than two friends, but for these purposes, let's just stick with these two) "That said wisdom is always proven right by her actions, and time will tell if a leader has lasting fruit even in something like a name change. This covers everything from process, to implimentation." What my friend is saying here, I believe, is that it's ok to vote one way or the other even because of the way this name was presented to the body of the church.

    I'm not gonna lie, the first two weeks I was totally in the corner of voting no. However, the more I'm on my knees the softer my heart turns. Continuing to struggle with this is really growing me in my relationship with Jesus. And maybe, just maybe, that's the whole point.

    -struggler

    ReplyDelete
  12. I do think that either way we have some talking to do. This has raised a lot of questions for people and I think they need to be talked about. Nobody wants to go against the leadership of our church, or at least I'd like to think so. I don't think it is personal at all. But it is kind of an awkward position to be in to be asked to pray over a decision to see if we agree enough as a body to vote on it, to see if we are hearing the same things from God, but then to somehow be made to feel disloyal for not supporting the leadership if the vote is no. Maybe it is our own issues making us feel disloyal. Maybe it is comments taken in a certain way. Either way it seems to come down to do you trust the leadership of the church? If that is the case, then why ask us in the first place? I know that many people have left other churches and come to ours because it is Congregational lead, so to hear, 'hey just go with this, trust the leadership' it might rub people the the wrong way in a big way.

    I also do agree with you Tyson. I don't want to be a sugar coated church. I don't want to cater to any one group. That doesn't mean that I want to intentionally turn off people though.

    My question is so what then? We know what happens if the majority votes in favor of the name change. We have a new logo and a new name. If the vote is no, then we don't. But what then? What happens to the concept of a name that fits our vision? Does it have to be all or nothing? Maybe it does, but that does seem to be a little disheartening.

    And now...find the misspelled words.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Great comments, Em. I agree that it is a complex issue, and it is great to be able to have this discussion. I love our new mission and vision, and trust our leadership and elders and stand behind them 100% when it comes to leading our church. I actually lean toward the church being completely elder led, but our bylaws state that we need to vote to change our name. I personally think the name sanctuary for a church comes with too much baggage. I personally think that CrossTown still best reflects who we are to our community, and I do not think that the name change is necessary to solidify who we are to our neighbors. Living life with our neighbors, and inviting them to join us in this journey is who we are, and is what has made us strong to this point. I like the logo, and would not be opposed to changing that, but we would not have to vote on that, we have a creative team for that. As a side note I voted against the name CrossTown some 9 years ago, and if my vote carried we would be Newsong West.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If you have questions about the name change and want discussion, there are meetings to attend. These were announced weeks ago. Call the church or check the connection.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes and I have been unable to attend the meetings because of schedule conflicts. I wanted to go this morning but I just couldn't go without sleep today and the meeting was scheduled during my sleep time for the day. This blog has been another venue and way to have a discussion about this topic. The point of this blog is to generate discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "And if we vote "no", against the recommondations of our leaders (pastors, elders, and directors-- all of whom are unanymous on this, if I'm not mistaken), then we are either saying that this is NOT God's will, and our leaders got it wrong... OR... there is a REASON why God had them recommend the change and then had us, the congregation, vote it down."

    I like what Tyson had Quoted above. God used alot of people to make choices in the bible and would purposely harden their hearts so in the end, He would recieve the glory, I believe that this isn't a matter of voting on a name change, to read the Elders wrong, or to see if the whole congregation is hearing from God correctly...I believe that whether we vote yes or no God has a purpose for this whole voting process, we should just vote what we feel and that's that,God is in control of this whole process from the beginning...from the elders to the congregation...we as people cannot alter God's perfect will but what we can alter is unity of the Church and for some it may feel like their questioning their own faith because they didn't hear from God like everybody else.. it's the seeds we plant along the way through this process,it's the trials we persevere through, that will leave a flourishing path (a legacy) for us to find our way back to where we started before a name change was ever considered. So don't question your own discernment as far as, "am I hearing from God correctly" or am I going against the elders, this plan has been ordained by God from the beginning. We are God's instruments and He is in full control.

    ReplyDelete