As the poll indicated, I had a few things on my mind to discuss this time around. All of them continue to be intriguing to me but here's what I'm going with. It sort of incorporates two of the topics I had in mind. It contains a comment and a question. You can comment on the comment and the question if you like, but try not to get totally sidetracked from the question. Here it is:
If George Barna's Revolution is correct, Christians are leaving the local church in droves. These aren't bedside baptists either. They are Christ followers who have had enough. They are channeling their energies into parachurch organizations and such, but have effectively ditched the "established" church. Barna seems to think this is a good thing. I do not.
I mean, I understand why they leave, but I think it is a travesty. I'm not sure what generation they are but I assume they are around my age, maybe a bit older maybe a bit younger. So if my topic this month were "what is wrong with our generation" I would say it is this loss of commitment to the local church. You can challenge this if you like, but I would like to focus our energy on the question:
Why should they NOT give up on their local church? Extenuating circumstances aside (because let's face it, there are always exceptions), generally speaking, why should they stay? Maybe you don't think they should. Go ahead and challenge my view, but then I still want you to try to think of what they'll be missing that they should make sure they get somewhere else. Basically:
Why commit to a local church? What does it have going for it? Give theological answers or specific practical ones. The topic is ecclesiological:
What is RIGHT with the Church?
35 comments:
As an accomplished cynic I tend to always focus on what I think are the failings of the local church and lose track of all the wonderful things alot of our churches our doing in the name of Christ.
I believe the hope of the world lies in the local churches, meaning the people in those communities. I agree with Dr. Fear that ditching the established church is not a good thing. And coincidentally this is also what I would say is wrong with my generation. We (including me) tend to be soo shallow in our reasons and expectations of our churches and worship and sermons. We expect the worship to cater to our style tastes, the sermons to conform to our preferred frameworks, etc... And when this doesn't happen we often start to disengage and grumble and frequently go out and "try on" a new church in the hopes that it might cater a little better to our selfishness.
I realize that there are often big problems in our churches, things we could be doing much better; and that their must always be room for the gracious critics, for otherwise how would we know that we could be doing better. But the point I'm trying to make is we tend to leave and give up way too easily. If all the agents of necessary and good change leave the community than what hope does it have. It seems to me that we are always focused on what we can receive from the church rather than what we can give. That's my beef with me and my generation.
What's right with the church? It's right that we still meet together, that we still worship together, that we still hear the word preached and learn together. It's right that we have people in the church that are never satisfied with the status quo (people like you guys/gals in this blog)and are always looking for ways we can be more Christlike as a community both inside and outside the church walls.
Why commit to a local church? Because in the local church we have support and unity that comes from Christ. It is here that we come for encouragement and strengthening in our faiths, to recharge, so to speak, for the arduous task of living out what it means to be the church throughout the week.
As a sidenote; when I refer to the "local church" I am thinking of a pretty broad variety of communities, not necessarily the formal kind of communities meeting in traditional church buildings. But maybe when Dr. Fear is referring to the local church here is referring to the traditional churches most of us grew up in.
I do believe the local church needs some serious help and I think its often the people that are so dissatisfied and leaving the churches that can offer much of that very help and direction that our churches need.
Those are my first thoughts on this topic, unpolished, unrefined, and perhaps a little tainted with the pride that goes along with being the most recent recipient of the "Middle Road Argument Diffuser" award.
Love you all.
Fear,
Love the topic and eagerly await comments from the others. Thanks CSU for the positives in the church.
One thing I believe the church has correct is that it acknowledges growth can't happen with an hour and a half once a week. Churches now encourage gatherings of a small-group style where more intimate relationships and learning can occur.
A second thing I believe the church has been doing well is emphasising the great commandments of loving God and others. I'm not sure if this is either a generational shift or just my unique life experience, but when I was in my formative years the church's teachings seemed to be more intellectual (for lack of a better word - it's still before noon). Now the pendulum has swung so that the gospel has been simplified (see parenthesis above). Not that intellectual and simplified are opposites, but you just can't teach with the same presumptions as before. I believe this is necessary as we are the first un-churched generation. It certainly isn't my first choice for spiritual teaching, but it must happen to be beneficial to most people sitting in the pews.
I agree with CSU's evaluation of what's right in church. I think the Sunday morning type of corporate gathering is still beneficial outside of a small group setting. Corporate worship and prayer will continue to be important until heaven.
Anyways, some thrown-together thoughts on my coffee break. Perhaps you disagree. I'm looking forward to others' opinions.
good points csu and under. some stuff i resonate with heartily there and some stuff i hadn't considered too. (also: way to be the first to use colour in the text of a comment underachiever! There just may be a topol award in it for you!)
i want to wait to get some more initial reactions before i weigh in more heavily than i have but want to clarify a couple things.
it seems from your commments that the point is clear, but let me reiterate that i'm not talking about needing to leave a local church and find another. this can happen from time to time, even though i'd say it should be rare. i'm more interested in the issue of leaving local church altogether.
I should say that i don't necessarily define local church in only traditional terms. maybe part of this will need to involve defining local church, but I don't just mean the old church building or the seeker service thing. a house church can be a legit local church. but i don't think volunteering at the food bank or soem other parachurch organization and dropping in on various services now and again cuts it. i think a group of committed believers who develop community around WOrd, Spirit and mission makes a local church. (that's a definition of sorts I suppose but probably isn't comprehensive. but like underachiever, i'm still working before noon here)
looking forward to hearing more. i'm sure we'll have to have some criticisms, but i think i'll enjoy this exercise.
The first thing that comes to mind is me!
Well, that's probably the best we are going to get out of Tuna, and I can hold out no longer, so here are some thoughts:
First of all I want to repent (if I can) of my "generation" language. These generalizations can perhaps be helpful discussion short-hand, but end up feeding improper stereotypes too. I think what I mean are the "times" we live in. The kinds of things wrong in our "times". I think my generation cuts out on church a little too easily, but then again you see this in every age bracket. Besides, I'm not sure what is worse, the group that has no passion for church but stays stuck in the pew and refuses to budge on anything or the group that has no passion for the church and is honest about that and just gets out of the way. (this would be anotehr debate of course). Anyway, a problem these days is that we think the church doesn't need us and we certainly don't need them.
So what is right with the church? Besides the excellent points already made above, I'd like to suggest that some of the things right with the church are actually the things many think are wrong with it.
Things like disagreement, diversity of interests and preferences, the "distractions and worries of life" that we say to leave at the door when we come in for worship, and even the sins and foibles of the people.
What people with these challenges and problems need is not an individualized self-centered smorgasord approach to Christian community nor a one size fits all target-group pandering mega-church (oops I'm being negative, sorry) but AN ALL-OUT LOCAL CHURCH WHICH SEEKS TO BRING ALL SORTS TOGETHER IN LOVE FOR GOD AND LIFE IN JESUS.
Without disagreement we get entrenched in our own preferred worldview. Without diversity we get a bunch of clones, nothing but a social club. Without our distractions and problems we have little to help each other with and when we leave it at the door we really give GOd a phony veneer and I don't think that is what He's after. Without our sins and foibles we really don't need Christ. This might work well for us in heaven but it isn't a very honest way to congregate here on earth.
Man I'm using negative language way too much here. Just shows what a cynic at heart I am. Hopefully you can all better my tone with more positive sounding stuff.
What I'm saying is that when people of all shapes, sizes, views, presuppositions, tendencies, downfalls, stylistic preferences, hang-ups, sins, errors, proper perspectives, and stories COME TOGETHER IN THE NAME OF CHRIST TO WORSHIP THE FATHER AND SUBMIT TO THE SPIRIT then we have something incredibly beautiful that I continue to marvel at, even when I feel I am sitting in some of the "worst" worship services and or hearing some of the most backward sermons of all time.
The ministry of reconciliation. Dialogue around the Word of God.
Being with people who stretch us and surprisingly also inspire us from time to time.
Having to look past myself and consider others, having to sit and hear teh Word and be challenged by mission even when I don't feel like it and wouldn't go for it if left to my own desires.
Constant confrontation with our need for grace and reminders of the only hope we have.
These are wonderful things.
Even the failures of the church remind us of the grace of God, and this is a wonderful thing. In fact the more you think about the negatives of the church the more you realize what a miracle it is.
Thank God for the church.
Good topic, Fear. I haven't weighed in yet but really need to, if for no other reason than to avoid being lumped in with Tuna-the-non-poster.
As much as I appreciate and value my bible college education, I think it did us a disservice (unintentionally) in exposing us to critical thinking when it comes to worship... and then unleashing us on churches that err on the side of stagnation. Yeah, that's a negative comment but it's a common frustration I feel just about every week since attending college: an overly critical view of church. I mention that to say this: Fear, this is a great topic because it forces me to consider the other side. Thank you.
Here are some things I think are right with the church:
* As already mentioned, the two crucial elements of community: corporate worship (ie, Sunday morning services) and intimate fellowship (ie, small groups). It's easy for me to point out the imperfections of both of these scenarios but when viewed together I think they balance each other off really well.
* The variety of worship styles and the global aspect of the church, which suggests to me that God is omnipresent and multifaceted; that each local body (little c church) separately is incomplete in a sense, but the (big C)Church hints at the majesty of God. Sort of a whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-
its-parts idea.
* Looking around in a worship service and seeing 100 - 200 other people amazes me to think that we're a movement that started with an unruly band of 12 cowards on the other side of the world 2000+ years ago. To me, that speaks to the Spirit's power.
* While far from perfect, we try... and that highlights God's grace and the importance of our faithfulness (even though that faithfulness is full of holes).
* I get really frustrated by such pointless things like the hymn/chorus debate or whether it's too catholic to go forward for communion, it does suggest to me that we're at least attempting to find a sense of spirituality and wanting to keep the world out. I suppose that guarding against the creeping-in of evil has value, even if we continually mix up methodology with doctrine.
* Church is a chance to get exposure to groups of people we'd never come in contact with... even seemingly homogeneous churches are a cross-section of people which can build our faith.
I think what makes me cynical, and perhaps the reason why this list took so long for me to write, is that I feel there are many good things that COULD be with the church, but many of them are wasted because we're a group of selfish, sinful people.
Hey, how did I get the Babywater cliche award? I've barely posted anything?
I don't know if I can express my thoughts here adequately, but I'll try:
The answer to the inverse of the question is even more revealing...
Sometimes it's not as easy to talk about the good in the church as it is to talk about what is lost when we leave.
Here's what I mean: Those who leave miss out on fellowship, communion, preaching, and corporate worship. I can't always say that the local church is "right" about these things (and I confess to being very critical when they are wrong) but the local church's weak and grace-necessary attempts at these things are far better than their absence.
Well, since my name is on the board for the cliche award, I might as well make it worth my while:
Those who look around the local church and decide to leave are simply looking at the worst of the church and the best of being free of it... a "grass is greener" approach. They're guilty of not comparing apples to apples and simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What they don't realize is that haste makes waste and a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. (Okay, I don't know about those last two).
even though you were quoting someone else, "Every day with Jesus is sweeter than the day before..." was a pretty good one. the award isn't necessarily a bad thing, even though as a writer i'm sure you would like to live a cliche-free life. i imagine that last paragraph you wrote won't appear in your portfolio!
Communion.
Baptism.
Gathering around Scripture.
People who pray.
Gut checks.
There is always something to stretch you.
If you need a bit of light in a dark time you can generally get some if you are looking.
People who try to love God back.
People who know what you mean.
The two old guys graciously nodding as I rambled on teaching Sunday School and then chimed in to help me say what I was trying to say--together we heard what the Spirit was saying through the Word, and we couldn't express it and we don't even know each other but as we locked eyes for a moment in class I knew we knew and loved and were gratefully dependent on the mercy of the same Lord. That is what is right with the church.
"....but the local church's weak and grace-necessary attempts at these things are far better than their absence."
A humbling and wise point. For all her faults the church has great intentions, and sometimes even great results.
I confess I have not been to church much in a year and I have missed it. I didn't think I would when I stopped going.
What do I miss? God's people, warts and all, coming together for the common goal of worshipping God and serving the world.
I should not give up on church because God wants me to serve His people and His world through the church, not on my own.
I need to preface my comments with some song lyrics that bother me. Casting Crowns- I like this band actually, but these words don't sit right with me: "If we are the body, why aren't his arms reaching, why aren't his hands healing, why aren't his words teaching? If we are the body, why aren't his feet going, why is his love not showing them there is a way?"
I understand the sentiment. They're encouraging Christians to get off their butts and do these things. But, I so totally disagree with the conclusion that these things are not happening. God is reaching, healing, teaching, going, and showing and he's doing it through his church. Certainly, not every church is doing it's part. And no church is doing everything to the standard that they should be. But, God is manifesting himself in this world through the church worldwide. There is lots that is right with the church.
Maybe not every church is doing the following things flawlessly, but they are happening for the most part, all over the world, and this is what the church has going for it:
*Jesus is being lifted up
*The truth of the Bible is being preached
*People are being redeemed and made into disciples
*Otherwise unlikely companions are being united in love and purpose
*The faithfulness of God is being taught to the next generation
As I far as I know, there is nowhere else on earth where these things are happening, so the only way to join in, is to commit to a local church.
at first I thought that was a good challenging song but then I heard the band on the radio saying how powerful it was to play that song at malls and other venues. What? what good is that doing? a strange form of evangelism that sees trashing the church as a way to spread the gospel. give me a break. of course christian radio sings their praises (more likely because they play "boomer rock" than anything)
there is a big difference between this and a humble presentation of the gospel. donald miller's "confession booth" walks the line but is a way better example of how to do this. bono does a more gracious job challenging the church than this. there is a fine line between humble, critical thinking, and careless trashing of the bride of Christ.
would you trash your father's bride? your brother's fiance?
this is exactly what this month's topic is about.
As individuals we recognize that we're full of flaws but God's grace saves us. Once saved, we need to grow in our faith and in our service. When we fail we beg forgiveness (and perhaps expect it from God and from others?) and move on. That's the ongoing reality of the day-to-day walk of believers: grace for flaws and faithful effort in spite of flaws.
Why can't we also recognize that as a corporate truth as well? I confess that don't as often as I should.
If Casting Crowns sang the same song but substituted the church references for personal pronouns, this song would not be as well received, I'm sure. "Let he who is without sin cast the first crown". Oh, that was weak... it was funnier in my head.
trembling, you are going to be up for the monolith and the diffuser ... I can't tell if you are for the song or against it!
however, with that nice rewrite of the lyric you are also up for the topol and the babywater awards as well. all in all a successful post, even though i can't tell what you are saying!
Sorry for the confusion. How's this:
Anti-Casting Crowns.
Anti-song.
Pro-God.
haha
For the specific band, I have no feelings: not to be a diffuser but rather because I have my head up my butt when it comes to Christian music. I stopped listening to "Christian" music when I realized how crappy Amy Grant and DeGarmo & Key really were. (Worship music excepted, of course). I turned on the real radio and have been happy ever since. Saved my money from throwing it away at the accursed Blessings, as well!
(Okay, that's some strong opinion that will surely keep me from the diffuser award).
As for the sentiment of the song itself, I was expressing frustration that it's easy to point fingers at the church and the reason why it may seem so popular in malls is because people (Christians and nonChristians alike) would agree that the church could do more. However, not only does that bash the bride of Christ, as Fear pointed out, it's also a statement that's far too easy to make... On the one hand we want -- and even demand -- grace as individuals, but on the other hand we easily accuse the church of not being perfect.
Make sense? Probably not.
here here!
makes sense and well said.
you are a giant among midgets, a marlin among tunas, a chief among sinners.
"On the one hand we want -- and even demand -- grace as indiviuals, but on the other hand we easily accuse the church of not being perfect." Here, here, indeed! I wish I would have said it so succinctly.
one thing that is right with the church is theological reformation. From some of the stuff I've been reading lately (William Willimon, Andrew Purves, Stanley Grenz, John Stackhouse, Karl Barth) I am excited that just when I feel like giving up there come thinkers who answer the questions I have, and do it from the Bible and theological thought (and not despite it). I only wish I had hope that I will see any of it affect the church of the West in my lifetime. We are so locked in the consumeristic model of churchianity that I fear for our souls.
Oops, that was negative. What I meant to say is that theology gives me hope. The Bible gives me hope. History has shown that the Spirit raises up new voices to call the church back.
Fear, don't give up hope!
In every age of spiritual mediocrity faithful believers cry out to God and relentlessly call God's people back to holiness.
... even if it happens in a vacuum. But they still have to do it.
You said, "History has shown that the Spirit raises up new voices to call the church back."
We are those new voices. We are Ezekiel's watchmen (and watchwomen!!!) calling the house of Israel to repentance and restoration. God may inexplicably wait for generations to act (as he did with the Israelites in Egypt) but that doesn't excuse us from church, even if Barna says so. Instead, God requires us to faithfully participate by calling his people back to him, even if they don't listen (Ezekiel 33:8).
Sorry for my long absence, not a Tuna-sized absence but still one I don't want to make a habit.
I enjoyed catching up and reading the posts today. There is good being done by the church and it's nice to talk about it for a change.
I realized over the last month while thinking about this topic that I defend the church to those who bash it and bash it to those who defend it. It's a reflex I have that wants to test whether someone has thought an opinion through, the downside is it makes me sound like negative whiner if I talk to a bunch of church lovers in a row.
Great last post trembling, inspiring.
By the way, I started this post in Toronto and didn't finish it so I started it over again today and am posting it now. Does that count as a wanderlust from TO?
big time. Toronto had been captured! hooray. (welcome back tanti)
Trembling I hope you are right, but at the same time I must confess I would find it alot easier to just give in to the trends and not care.
by the way if anyone wants to read a rebuttal of our casting crowns bashing, find one at hear.
I want to add to our list of things right with the church a little comment about the sacraments.
I LOVE communion, even the watered down saltine version most of us get in our evangelical churches. It is so powerful to hold the body and blood of Christ in my hand and digest it and know it is reality.
I also LOVE baptisms. Only problem is there are far too few of them. I consider it one of the highlights, if not THE highlight, of my pastorat thus far that I was honoured to baptize about a dozen people in the frigid (and sometimes incredibly wavy) waters of Lake Winnipeg. Preparing the "candidates", hearing their stories, walking them through what it means, and leading them into the water, and saying the blessing over them, and watching them pass from death to life right in front of my eyes ---- this just might be the best thing I've ever had the privilege to be a part of in church. It almost makes becoming a pastor worth the incredible burden and hassle.
Thus I would contend that, even with our saltines and our baptismal tanks, the church is AWESOME because of the ongoing sacraments of the Lord's gracious presence among us.
"God requires us to faithfully participate by calling his people back to him, even if they don't listen."
thanks for that trembling. it is an encouraging challenge.
i think we have to remember fear's earlier point that the church is the bride of Christ. this must be a good thing. as the bride, Christ is always looking out for us, loving and caring (and hurting).
the hansens - although i haven't heard that song before, i agree with your conclusion that these things ARE happening. i'm not so sure that i agree with the linked rebuttal - but that's an unnecessary tangent.
another positive that is coming from the unchurched generation is that there isn't such a negative opinion of Catholic practices within the evangelical church. personally, i find this very encouraging. when the stations of the cross can be done in an evangelical service and not have someone leave because it's "too Catholic", this is a positive. it is my hope that more "Catholic" items will be introduced to a fresh generation. i'm looking forward to corporate prayers, a reverence for the Word, and taking Jerusalem back. maybe not the last one...
Fear, I really struggle with the church's attempts at the sacraments. I see them done so poorly that they end up losing their meaning for me. It's a shame because I envy you for how much they still mean to you.
CSU, good call on mentioning the recent move back to liturgy (or aesthetic worship or whatever we're calling it). There's an article in Christian History this month entitled "The Re-Monking of the Church" which talks about this phenomenon. I'm really glad to see it happening.
If we're talking about the big C church I'd like to say that one thing I really celebrate is the successful ministries of various parachurch organizations like Bible Societies, Gideons, Wycliffe, etc. These groups are doing some really incredible work that should be more frequently supported by the local church.
one thing i find helpful whenever some element of a worship service absolutely wallows in lameness (particularly our exercise of the sacraments) is to imagine it being accepted by God through the grace of Christ, same as I am, and it will often move me to find the kernel of sincerity in it all (and if it isn't there to add it myself) and to focus on the immense grace that the sacrament represents.
you are right about these parachurch organizations, even though that isn't really what i'm driving at with this topic. Wycliffe amazes me actually.
Fear, great testimony to the pleasure of being able to baptise some of your parishioners.
Trembling, I have never experienced much other than the par for the course saltine and grape juice style communion (other than the slight variation of when we walk forward and have the sacraments served to us). So I'm curious about the changes you would see made to the ceremony to make it more meaningful and less trite. I confess I have never given it too much thought.
I also like fear's point about the church being the bride of Christ of this being a very good thing. I expect all of us are of a pretty similar temperament and intellectual bent. I think we are all critical thinkers here on this blog and sometimes not need to be reminded about the good things we as the church are doing inspite of all the things we could be doing much better. I for one have really appreciated this topic for that very reason.
i would like to hear trembling's ideas as well, but to me it isn't necessarily that our typical form of communion is bad, per se, but that it is all we do, and is so ritualized, and often so tagged on, and fairly unexplored for the depth of its meaning (theological and practical).
some theological points that could be explored more:
-the incarnational aspect of it. i.e. WHAT? GOD TOOK ON FLESH?
-the eternality of it. i.e. WHAT? Jesus is in resurrected body to this day?
-the union with God, the Trinity of it. i.e. WHAT? WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? Are we in Christ enfolded into the communion of the Godhead? CRAZY!
or what about the practical aspect?
-our benevolent offering touches on this but it seems from 1 Cor 11 and the thrust of the gospel that communion should appropriate care for the needs of the community (in church and on out of it)
-unity of believers is a huge part of communion. what if we refused to have communion until everyone was right with each other? what if we insisted? and left a huge blank spot, even put a 30 minute coffee time in there. Maybe a three month communion fast until people sort out their crap!
-this could also be taken as a catalyst to recognize the universal church.
this is off topic so let me bring it back. these are what's right with the church. Union with God through Christ as testified and experienced in the church. Communion of saints, all time, all places! The ministry of reconciliation. The power of sacrament, testifying to the tangible exercise of the faith and the togetherness that Christ calls for. For all the church's problems, we still have each other, and we can look in the face of the most annoying believer and see there reflected the grace of God for us all.
Fear, sorry to continue with a tangent, but to respond to CSU's question...
When protestants took a really strong anti-Catholic stance in the last century, they gave up a lot of things that they associated with Catholicism but were, in reality, aesthetic worship, and rituals deep with meaning... because of the notion that Catholics lack a real relationship and are just going through highly ritualistic motions. What we inherited (and by "we" I mean the generation represented on this blog) is a church that washed out valuable rituals and unconsciously created new rituals (choruses sung twice, a very strict order of service, and, as Fear pointed out, a communion that is tacked on the end). On top of that we lack the aesthetics that help some people worship. Ultimately, we traded one set of rituals for another. Up until recently (and I think you mentioned it in a previous comment) the idea of reintroducing some of these older rituals was taboo. At churches where I've worked or been involved in ministry in some way, I've suggested ideas like going forward for communion and heard responses like "no, that's too Catholic".
My advice on communion is this:
* Don't tack it on, make it the central part of the service.
* Invite participants to come forward or to get up from their seats.
* Pass around an entire loaf of bread and have participants tear off a piece of it.
* Have people break into smaller groups and administer communion to each other.
There are just a few ideas. I just want to see it changed up, I guess, because each of the different ways it can e done reflects different aspects of our communion with God.
The method of communion that had the most meaning for me (and my wife, as she has recently told me) is the way we often did it at CBC: people went forward, dipped the bread in the cup and the people holding the bread and cup would say "the body of Christ for you, Trembling" and "the blood of Christ for you, Trembling"... This method consistently drove home (for me) the personal nature of Christ's sacrifice in a way that other communion methods did not. Using my name during the process changed how I approached communion.
When my sister and her husband attended the same church that my wife and I attended (West Side), she said she was really uncomfortable about going up to receive communion. She wanted to receive the saltines and grape juice in her seat because communion was supposed to be an individual expression between her and God. I couldn't disagree with her more. The church is a body and communion is meant to be enjoyed and celebrated as a group of believers: there should be meaning in all acting as one and seeing that others are responding.
Just some thoughts on communion. As you can imagine, I have just as many opinions on baptism but I've already typed enough.
Fear, sorry to pull us off tangent with regard to sacrament opinion AND to parachurch organizations.
I'd say it is a good tangent since it involves the positive aspects of the church's sacraments (needing renewal). Your thoughts are good. I'd like to hear some thoughts on baptism too.
I recently suggested in class that we hold people down longer under the water when they are getting baptized, just so we get a sense how real our death is. It was not recieved with open arms.
A friend here at seminary was telling me yesterday that he has come to see the sacraments not as him renewing his acceptance of a creed or his agreement with the church but as the honour and privilege of the church recieving him and Christ holding out grace to him. Interesting way to look at it. You don't want to lose the personal aspect of it, but the corporate has been downplayed too long and some corrective might be in order.
What if instead of church shopping we sent out resumes for acceptance? What if we treated an appointment with the pastor like an appointment with the doctor, where you book way in advance, skip a day of work, and pretty much prepare yourself to do whatever the doctor says will give you the life you should have)?
I don't want to take this too far, but seriously, I think we think too little of the chruch, and this might be half our problem. They are lucky to have us, we think. But aren't we lucky to have them?
Imagine if we loved the church as much as Christ does.
I love the church application idea. That's brilliant!
Probably won't work and might appear to be a little opposite of what we stand for but it would certainly help generate an appreciation for the church (among attenders).
That could be a revolutionary paradigm shift. That's a great way to consider church: a place where we're lucky enough to have been accepted. If I go into church tomorrow morning and think, "Wow, I'm so blessed to have been embraced by this community! I'm so grateful to have found a place that welcomes me to join in and worship and fellowship," that would undoubtably change my experience. If we all thought like that, imagine how much more would be right with the church.
To add to the previous tangent, I also found going forward to receive communion, like we did at CBC, to be the most meaningful for me. Watching people go forward always reminds me of our common need for grace and all that unites us. I am always touched by it. I have also been on the serving end, and it is very moving to speak to someone in front of you, "The body of Christ broken for you, __(insert name here)__, "The blood of Christ shed for you, __(insert name here)___." It's powerful to be reminded of the scope of God's salvation.
This morning I had no desire to go to church. In fact I had a burning desire NOT to go to church. We did skip SS, but made it for the service. I have in the last couple years sadly ceased looking forward to sermons like I used to. I'm not trying to knock anyone, it is just the way it is. I used to be on the edge of my seat, literally. Now I don't expect much. But every once in a while you get a real surprise. Sometimes when you least expect it, often when you least want it. Today was one of those days. It was as if Don Love was speaking right to me. There is no way he could have known. I spoke to him after and there is still no way he could know. I don't think it changed my life, but it is amazing to me how powerful it is when a person gets up and speaks the Word to life, rather than using chicken soup illustrations to try vainly to bring the Word to life. It doesn't need the help folks. Today I heard a genuine application of the Word to real life and it reminded me of another thing that is right about the church. The days where I'd most rather not go can be the days I need to go most. I remember thinking on the way to church, I wonder what the chances are that the preacher could even come close to addressing the stuff on my mind today. Not that preacher's need to be mind readers, I don't expect them to scratch ME where I itch every week! I'm just saying it is astounding to me that here is a place where in some way or another, almost every week (isn't it sad I had to add that?), you are going to hear the Word of God and it will have a chance to stab you right in the heart. And the Spirit of the living Jesus speaks, even despite our attempts to smother him in saucy lyrics and trite platitudes, He speaks.
There is no way I'd get that without the church.
I agree about communion, going forward is the most meaningful for me and I like the idea of doing it within a meal as well. I know of churches doing both those things.
I'm taking a class right now on the history of worship and trembling's comments are right on, we have replaced ritual with ritual. I don't like any ritual if it's meaningless but maybe the reason some rituals always annoyed me (congregational reading for example) is that they were never explained. I think pastors forget that very few people they come in contact with are aware of the reasons why things are done. You can never explain it too much.
Sorry, that was negative and this is about what is right about church. And I was writing while fear was writing and hadn't read his entry yet.
I love a good sermon and I'm envious of your experience today Fear. I've had a few times in my life where a teaching has hit me and made me live differently, I wouldn't haven gotten that anywhere else but church.
Post a Comment