Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Debate over Hell
Tweet
I've been thinking about the hell issue for years. In some respects, it was a late night discussion about heaven and hell that propelled me into the Emergent scene. I will go in phases - thinking, discussing and reading about the issue very intently, and then backing off for a few months.
I've been thinking about the hell issue for years. In some respects, it was a late night discussion about heaven and hell that propelled me into the Emergent scene. I will go in phases - thinking, discussing and reading about the issue very intently, and then backing off for a few months.
This week with the Columbus Emergent Cohort we will be discussing the doctrine of hell, and so I've been thinking about the issue again. Also, Doug Pagitt recently debated with Chris Rosebrough and the videos of the debate were posted. I was listening to them this morning as I did some yard work, and thought I would offer some reflections here:
The debate was very long and there was a lot of back in forth. In general, I don't like the debate format because it seems to heighten the emotions and energy and it is easy to move off topic in order to try to "prove a point." However, there were some key points that stuck with me:
It seems to me, that at the root of the entire debate is a discussion of interpreting the Bible. That might sound obvious or simplistic, but when we realize that we are just going back and forth debating a hermeneutic, then we have to realize that we aren't debating the doctrine of hell any more. Instead, we are discussing the "best way" or the "right way" to read the Bible, and therefore understand "truth" and what is real about life and the world. Several foundational ideas are interconnected here: Epistemology, Hermeneutics, Doctrines of the Bible, Absolute Truth, etc.
Within the debate, Pagitt and Rosebrough spent a lot of time discussing what was metaphor and what was literal. Both had different opinions of what words should be interpreted as literal. What I felt was being missed was that neither were admitting to the complexities of language, interpretation and mystery. Pagitt did a better job bringing this up, but Roesbrough continued to emphasize that there was only one way to understand the text.
This idea - that there is only one best and right way to understand a Biblical text - does extreme damage to the foundational ideas mentioned above (epistemology, hermeneutics, doctrine of the Bible, and truth). We have to admit that we are always using a combination of interpretive approaches. There is no singular best way to read the Bible. If there was, we would all use it and the conversation would be on a different topic. But instead, we use a complex mixture of our own ideas, biases, our culture, our intelligence, and on and on.
The complexity of reading the Bible is what makes the Bible a beautiful and powerful text. Rosebrough repeated the idea that there was one "powerful interpretation," but I think that any interpretation that shuts down engagement with the text, with each other, and with God, is a weak interpretation. The mystery, the complexity, but yet the inherent truth within Scripture is what pulls us toward God and toward each other. A powerful text is one that is transformative, not a text that is easy to understand.
However, if the texts are not easy to understand and challenge us to examine ourselves in difficult ways, why do we put such high stakes on certain doctrines? Why do we have to agree 100% upon issues like hell, the Bible and salvation? If these issues were simple and easy to understand, then yes would all agree. But clearly, there are complexities. There are challenges. Our engagement with God is a mystery and a journey. Pagitt pointed out that churches rarely talk about hell, but when someone does raise a question, they are quickly labeled a heretic and asked to leave the fellowship. There is no room for question. No room for exploration. No room for imagination.
Speaking of imagination, my favorite point in the debate came from Pagitt when he stated, "Hell is not bigger than God." What a simple statement. What a beautiful idea. What an idea that sparks imagination, hope and love for God and for the world!! My biggest frustration with the doctrine of hell is how it is used within Christian communities, specifically to condemn, judge, and generally "shut down" the lives of people. But to believe that "Hell is not bigger than God" opens up a person to dream, to explore, to have faith.
I don't need to have all the answers about heaven and hell. I do have faith that God is doing something bigger, something greater, something more beautiful than I could imagine. I believe that God is bigger than my concepts of hell, and so I don't really believe in hell.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Thoughts on Christian Community: Part One
Tweet
Part One: "What I love about our community"
As we have approached a time of discussing the future direction of our cohort, I've really tried to think about what I cherish most about our community. In other words, what would be the thing, that if it were to change, would mean I might stop being active in the cohort.
For me, what is most important is not so much what we believe, what we question, or even what we do (which tends to be a lot of talking). What I value about our community is the way in which we value one another and the inherent God-ness in each other.
In our discussion about what our community could or should be, I think it is easy to miss the fact that we are having the discussion at all. We intentionally work to hear, understand, and be impacted by the voices of everyone who chooses to speak.
In the past few years I've learned that will I grow closer to God by allowing myself to be changed by other people. I heard someone say recently, "Know yourself. Know others. It's a cycle." That sounds like truth to me, and it sounds like what we try to do every week. I bring all that I have to the table, and it collides with everything that everyone else has - and the result can be messy and challenging, but also life-giving and encouraging.
When I first started attending cohort gatherings, I realized it was the first place that I could fully be myself and express my thoughts and ideas about spirituality without fear of judgment or condemnation. My past experiences of Christianity had typically been efforts to give the answers that would elicit the "Amen's." What I found in the cohort was a community that would take all my shit, and respond, "Yes, we hear you. And we are still with you." It was the first place I could just be "Jesse."
As we think about moving forward together, what is most important to me is that we are moving together. No matter what structures we adopt, I am committed to always valuing every individual simply because of their miraculous and divine individuality.
Where disagreements abound, I pray for grace. Where friendships take root, I will be grateful. Where truth is found, I'll hold in gently and with an open hand, willing to share with anyone who is journeying with us.
Regardless, I believe that it is together that we discover who we are and how to live life to the full.
Part One: "What I love about our community"
As we have approached a time of discussing the future direction of our cohort, I've really tried to think about what I cherish most about our community. In other words, what would be the thing, that if it were to change, would mean I might stop being active in the cohort.
For me, what is most important is not so much what we believe, what we question, or even what we do (which tends to be a lot of talking). What I value about our community is the way in which we value one another and the inherent God-ness in each other. In our discussion about what our community could or should be, I think it is easy to miss the fact that we are having the discussion at all. We intentionally work to hear, understand, and be impacted by the voices of everyone who chooses to speak.
In the past few years I've learned that will I grow closer to God by allowing myself to be changed by other people. I heard someone say recently, "Know yourself. Know others. It's a cycle." That sounds like truth to me, and it sounds like what we try to do every week. I bring all that I have to the table, and it collides with everything that everyone else has - and the result can be messy and challenging, but also life-giving and encouraging.
When I first started attending cohort gatherings, I realized it was the first place that I could fully be myself and express my thoughts and ideas about spirituality without fear of judgment or condemnation. My past experiences of Christianity had typically been efforts to give the answers that would elicit the "Amen's." What I found in the cohort was a community that would take all my shit, and respond, "Yes, we hear you. And we are still with you." It was the first place I could just be "Jesse."
As we think about moving forward together, what is most important to me is that we are moving together. No matter what structures we adopt, I am committed to always valuing every individual simply because of their miraculous and divine individuality.
Where disagreements abound, I pray for grace. Where friendships take root, I will be grateful. Where truth is found, I'll hold in gently and with an open hand, willing to share with anyone who is journeying with us.
Regardless, I believe that it is together that we discover who we are and how to live life to the full.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Just another Sunday...
Tweet
Some over-the-top satire and not-so-subtle jabs in this video. But, sadly, its all too true....
Some over-the-top satire and not-so-subtle jabs in this video. But, sadly, its all too true....
Sunday, February 21, 2010
"One Another" in the Cohort
Tweet
In case you didn't know, I really like our little cohort. I enjoy our meetings, I genuinely like (and love) the people who come to the meetings every week, and I get excited about the things we are doing. Sometimes its hard for me to put into words exactly what I think is so exciting about it all, but I just read a selection of an interview with Rob Bell on Out of Ur, and I think some of things he says describe exactly what we are doing. (Note: He is specifically responding to questions about the potential of video preaching in mega/satellite churches)
We meet small, but we impact big.
We come together in deep and significant ways so that we can go out and love the same way.
And I certainly agree that it is important to have a circle of "loving, trusting people who tell you the truth no matter what and keep you balanced." There have been significant moments where the people in the cohort - my friends - have spoken to me this way, and I'm grateful. My hope is that by sharing with everyone what I see happening in our midst, you too can be excited, and can continue to live into and experience this very special and very powerful expression of the church that is happening right in our midst.
I posted this on the COEC blog, but also wanted to put it here:
In case you didn't know, I really like our little cohort. I enjoy our meetings, I genuinely like (and love) the people who come to the meetings every week, and I get excited about the things we are doing. Sometimes its hard for me to put into words exactly what I think is so exciting about it all, but I just read a selection of an interview with Rob Bell on Out of Ur, and I think some of things he says describe exactly what we are doing. (Note: He is specifically responding to questions about the potential of video preaching in mega/satellite churches)
There are times when I wonder about how "small" the cohort is, and perhaps wonder if it really "counts" as "church." But Rob is right on when he says "church is about caring, serving and speaking truth to one another in love." It's true that our group is much smaller than what many people would consider a "successful" church, and we move pretty slowly too. But I agree that it is really important to take a long view. I get excited when I think about the impact that the people connected to the cohort will have in our neighborhoods around the world: Cambodia; Austria; France; Guatemala; east side Columbus; Louisiana Tech; under the bridges downtown; Ohio Wesleyan University; FedEx and Honda; Ohio State University; and just walking around the streets of Columbus.
"In the New Testament, there are 43 "one another" passages, and during a Sunday morning service you might be able to practice three or four of them. And as the service gets large, you can probably do fewer. A massive group setting is also dangerous. You can come, sit, listen, and go home and think, I've been to church, even if you haven't practiced any "one anothers." And with video that only gets more intense. I'm not sure that's the direction we want to be heading.
We want to be calling people to deep bonds of solidarity with one another. We may gather in a massive group, but from the stage I often say, "This is just a church service. Church is actually about caring for one another, and serving one another, and speaking truth to one another in love. Don't get the two confused."
Question (from interviewer): The evidence suggests that video can have a fast and broad impact. So what's the alternative?
There is something more powerful than simply beaming yourself into other locations, and that is raising up disciples. Over time that will go farther and faster, but right now it will be more work and slower. ... there is a longer view that says, what if instead of beaming video to those ten locations, we train ten people who can go there and lead? That's a very basic question that should be in the mix somewhere....It's important to create a circle of trusting, loving people around you who will tell you the truth no matter what. They can help you think rightly about the criticism and keep you balanced.
We meet small, but we impact big.
We come together in deep and significant ways so that we can go out and love the same way.
And I certainly agree that it is important to have a circle of "loving, trusting people who tell you the truth no matter what and keep you balanced." There have been significant moments where the people in the cohort - my friends - have spoken to me this way, and I'm grateful. My hope is that by sharing with everyone what I see happening in our midst, you too can be excited, and can continue to live into and experience this very special and very powerful expression of the church that is happening right in our midst.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
House Churches: Something to Consider
Tweet
The duly-respected and much-venerated, not to mention well-traveled and extremely-attractive Tall Skinny Kiwi has a couple of short posts trying to show that house churches are alive, well, and growing across the Christian West.
The first simply states that we should not ignore house churches, because there are tens of thousands across Europe and Australia. In addition, somewhere between 6 and 12 million people in America attend house churches.
The second offers six different types of house churches, per Wolfgang Simpson.
A couple of quick thoughts: 1) It's cool to see that Xianity in the "West" isn't totally dying, but is just growing in uncharted and unusual ways. IMO, house churches are really interesting and exciting.
2) I have been a part of a small group that now has a bit of a track record (more than 2 years for the Emergent Cohort now!!). I wonder if I should consider myself part of a "house church"?? Would I be in the first category, that of an "off the grid," the "God-yes-church-no" crowd?
Regardless, it is tough to answer the question people often ask when they find out I am a Christian: "Where do you go to church?" Well, I go all sorts of different places: coffee shops, parks, friends' homes, sometimes my own kitchen.
In all honestly, I sometimes wish for an easier answer that will "count" for my due responsibility of church attendance. I usually end up responding with something like, "Some friends and I kinda hang out and talk about God and stuff." Then I can see it in the face of the person to whom I am talking, "That's not really church."
But maybe it is? Or should be?
The duly-respected and much-venerated, not to mention well-traveled and extremely-attractive Tall Skinny Kiwi has a couple of short posts trying to show that house churches are alive, well, and growing across the Christian West.
The first simply states that we should not ignore house churches, because there are tens of thousands across Europe and Australia. In addition, somewhere between 6 and 12 million people in America attend house churches.
The second offers six different types of house churches, per Wolfgang Simpson.A couple of quick thoughts: 1) It's cool to see that Xianity in the "West" isn't totally dying, but is just growing in uncharted and unusual ways. IMO, house churches are really interesting and exciting.
2) I have been a part of a small group that now has a bit of a track record (more than 2 years for the Emergent Cohort now!!). I wonder if I should consider myself part of a "house church"?? Would I be in the first category, that of an "off the grid," the "God-yes-church-no" crowd?
Regardless, it is tough to answer the question people often ask when they find out I am a Christian: "Where do you go to church?" Well, I go all sorts of different places: coffee shops, parks, friends' homes, sometimes my own kitchen.
In all honestly, I sometimes wish for an easier answer that will "count" for my due responsibility of church attendance. I usually end up responding with something like, "Some friends and I kinda hang out and talk about God and stuff." Then I can see it in the face of the person to whom I am talking, "That's not really church."
But maybe it is? Or should be?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The "Post-Church" Perspective
Tweet
Just ran across this post from Frank Viola on the Out of Ur blog. I have not read any of Viola's books, but I know he is well-respected and a great scholar. I don't want to disagree too strongly, but I had several thoughts after reading some of his statements in this particular article.
Viola's description of a "postchurch" mentality is:
I would consider this an experience of "church," and I like that it is not organized, because then it is alive, flexible, moving and always responding to the real life experiences of the people involved, not following a prescribed schedule and performing irrelevant religious exercises simply to appease a board or to do what has always been done.
For now, I'm not sure how much I agree or disagree with Viola's assessment of the postchurch viewpoint, and I have not read much that uses that particular language. There seems to be some distinction between "emergent" and "house churches" although it doesn't seem to be well-defined yet.
I would argue that a postchurch perspective is one that is encouraging followers of Jesus to move beyond and out of the typical church paradigms, to recognize that church is simply an expression of our faith, but not the totality or identifying factor. As a postchurch proponent (for now?), I don't believe that church is even necessary, and can perhaps be a hindrance to Christian discipleship. Church can draw all of our attention, efforts, energies and especially finances out of the world in which we are living, and into a synthetic and "pretend" sub-culture in which Christians work really hard to feel good about being Christians.
In contrast, a postchurch, contemplative, incarnational approach would be living life to full, in the world, in the culture, and finding God every moment of the day with other Christians and non-Christians.
Just ran across this post from Frank Viola on the Out of Ur blog. I have not read any of Viola's books, but I know he is well-respected and a great scholar. I don't want to disagree too strongly, but I had several thoughts after reading some of his statements in this particular article.
Viola's description of a "postchurch" mentality is:
"The postchurch brand of Christianity is built on the premise that institutional forms of church are ineffective, unbiblical, unworkable, and in some cases, dangerous. Institutionalization is not compatible with ekklesia. So say postchurch advocates.But the postchurch view goes further saying, “any semblance of organization whatsoever . . . any semblance of leadership … is wrong and oppressive. Church is simply when two or three believers gather together in any format. Whenever this happens, church occurs.”
In many ways I would agree with these statements. Institutionalization leads to religion, denominationalism, and seems to run contrary to what being the body of Christ is all about. Frank does a great job critiquing the use of the verse "wherever two or three are gathered" and I fully agree with him at that point. However, he concludes that "Because this is the primary passage the postchurch viewpoint is founded on, I’m of the opinion that the position cannot stand up against the light of the New Testament."
I'm not sure what he is basing his statement that "this is the primary passage" for the postchurch viewpoint. I would argue that a comprehensive understanding of the gospel and of the body of Christ would lead a person to see many problems with the American church in it's current form. I appreciate Jason Coker's explanation of "Why Church Doesn't Work". He offers five simple points:
We work to attract people to large gatherings.
We require very little for them to join us (often we expect nothing whatsoever).
We ask them to sit passively while we provide information and entertainment.
We do our best to cater to their needs.
We attempt to motivate them to change their lives based on the information.
"...organic church life is the "experience" of the Body of Christ. In its purest form, it's the fellowship of the Triune God brought to earth and experienced by human beings...We can think of the difference between organic churches and institutional churches this way. When God's people assemble together on the basis of the organizational principles that run General Motors and Microsoft, we call it an institutional church. But when God's people assemble together on the basis of the life of God, we call it an organic church."As I see it, when Viola talks about an organic church that is not an institutional church, he is describing something very different from the current dominant ecclessiological paradigm. I agree with his assessment of institutional churches as more damaging than helpful, and so I am looking for followers of Christ to go beyond church, to become "postchurch." In my experience, my weekly, and sometimes daily, meeting with friends (some Christians, some not), brings me into God's life, challenges me, encourages me, and gives me a greater experience of God's life here on earth.
I would consider this an experience of "church," and I like that it is not organized, because then it is alive, flexible, moving and always responding to the real life experiences of the people involved, not following a prescribed schedule and performing irrelevant religious exercises simply to appease a board or to do what has always been done.
For now, I'm not sure how much I agree or disagree with Viola's assessment of the postchurch viewpoint, and I have not read much that uses that particular language. There seems to be some distinction between "emergent" and "house churches" although it doesn't seem to be well-defined yet.
I would argue that a postchurch perspective is one that is encouraging followers of Jesus to move beyond and out of the typical church paradigms, to recognize that church is simply an expression of our faith, but not the totality or identifying factor. As a postchurch proponent (for now?), I don't believe that church is even necessary, and can perhaps be a hindrance to Christian discipleship. Church can draw all of our attention, efforts, energies and especially finances out of the world in which we are living, and into a synthetic and "pretend" sub-culture in which Christians work really hard to feel good about being Christians.
In contrast, a postchurch, contemplative, incarnational approach would be living life to full, in the world, in the culture, and finding God every moment of the day with other Christians and non-Christians.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Suspension
Tweet
I went to church twice this weekend. I know - bad idea. I could write and whine and criticize about a lot of things, but I'll try to distill into a few paragraphs what has been plaguing me for about a year now.
The concept of Christian religion demands resolution, requires confirmed belief, invites the partaker to rest, to arrive, to be at peace. But my soul is continually in upheaval, and my questions, fears and my faith have not arrived at a point of resolution - but I think I'm still ok.
I heard a lot of testimonies this weekend. One service had an aspect in it that was really cool and really powerful. Various people from the church came out with a cardboard box that had a bad situation or a sin on one side, and then they flipped it over and the other side had the positive testimony that God had "fixed" the situation. It was moving; it was encouraging; it was effective. But it also sent the subliminal message that every Christian, although they may have problems, also must find answers - or there is something wrong with them.
So what of the Christian who is still searching? What of the believer who is loosing faith, loosing hope, and exploring doubt? What of the invalid who isn't healed? What of the marriage that ends in divorce? What of the sex addict who still thinks women are hot? What of "JESUS" isn't a magic word, a slap-it-on bandaid, and patch for any and every wound?
One phrase Peter Rollins threw out last week is still ringing in my head: God isn't the patch that we slap on to make everything alright - he is the wound that has cut us deep.
When I was sitting in church this weekend, I heard the message that whatever problem I may have right now - financial, physical, spiritual, sexual - is at its core a problem with Jesus and a problem Jesus can fix. And I heard that the problem must be fixed.
But I am still broken - and my life is still broken. So I live suspended between doubt and faith; between sickness and healing; between rupture and restoration. I look forward to and hope for and seek a resolution, but the dissonance has heightened my awareness of life. Of what it means to be human. Of what it means to say that God loves me - unconditionally.
I went to church twice this weekend. I know - bad idea. I could write and whine and criticize about a lot of things, but I'll try to distill into a few paragraphs what has been plaguing me for about a year now.
The concept of Christian religion demands resolution, requires confirmed belief, invites the partaker to rest, to arrive, to be at peace. But my soul is continually in upheaval, and my questions, fears and my faith have not arrived at a point of resolution - but I think I'm still ok.
I heard a lot of testimonies this weekend. One service had an aspect in it that was really cool and really powerful. Various people from the church came out with a cardboard box that had a bad situation or a sin on one side, and then they flipped it over and the other side had the positive testimony that God had "fixed" the situation. It was moving; it was encouraging; it was effective. But it also sent the subliminal message that every Christian, although they may have problems, also must find answers - or there is something wrong with them.
So what of the Christian who is still searching? What of the believer who is loosing faith, loosing hope, and exploring doubt? What of the invalid who isn't healed? What of the marriage that ends in divorce? What of the sex addict who still thinks women are hot? What of "JESUS" isn't a magic word, a slap-it-on bandaid, and patch for any and every wound?
One phrase Peter Rollins threw out last week is still ringing in my head: God isn't the patch that we slap on to make everything alright - he is the wound that has cut us deep.
When I was sitting in church this weekend, I heard the message that whatever problem I may have right now - financial, physical, spiritual, sexual - is at its core a problem with Jesus and a problem Jesus can fix. And I heard that the problem must be fixed.
But I am still broken - and my life is still broken. So I live suspended between doubt and faith; between sickness and healing; between rupture and restoration. I look forward to and hope for and seek a resolution, but the dissonance has heightened my awareness of life. Of what it means to be human. Of what it means to say that God loves me - unconditionally.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Right on Alan
Tweet
Out of Ur has had an ongoing blog/conversation this past week regarding the success of so-called "missional" churches. It started essential with Dan Kimball questioning whether or not missional churches were successful, based upon their seeming lack of numeric growth in comparison with so-called "mega-churches" (over 3,000 or so), that continue to grow and plant new churches.
What I appreciate so much about Alan Hirsch's response is that he points out that real and meaningful change and impact is not quantifiable by the old measurements, IMO numeric and financial growth. This was something I thought about a lot during the class I took over the summer on Emerging Churches. Students in the class often questioned the "sustainability" of emerging or missional style churches, and they asked questions about how they would be funded, how many converts were made in a short time period etc.
If American Christians continue to think of the "success" of the church in business and economic terms, the impact will be measured in comparison to other successful businesses in America. But if the church will realize that it of an essentially different nature - of the kingdom of God, not of this world - then the tools of measurement will change, and perhaps even disappear.
What I appreciate so much about Alan Hirsch's response is that he points out that real and meaningful change and impact is not quantifiable by the old measurements, IMO numeric and financial growth. This was something I thought about a lot during the class I took over the summer on Emerging Churches. Students in the class often questioned the "sustainability" of emerging or missional style churches, and they asked questions about how they would be funded, how many converts were made in a short time period etc.
If American Christians continue to think of the "success" of the church in business and economic terms, the impact will be measured in comparison to other successful businesses in America. But if the church will realize that it of an essentially different nature - of the kingdom of God, not of this world - then the tools of measurement will change, and perhaps even disappear.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Evangelical Sermons: A Sacred Cow
Tweet
While I haven't thought about it too much, I think I agree with this post by Bob Carlton, which essentially says that Evangelical Christians worship the 20 minute sermon, and we would be a lot better off as Christians (and as people) if we largely did away with sermons and instead spent the time, still "in church", doing something more spiritually beneficial.
Some quotes:
I also think the sermon poses a problem for the 21st century media culture. There is no need for me to go to church to hear so-and-so talk when I can easily download and listen to any number of world renowned pastors and speakers right in my own home, or while I walk the dog, or drive in my car. Why listen to an "OK" sermon when I could listen to a "GREAT" sermon?
I can hear the response now: Listening to a sermon on my iPod takes me away from the community of believers, whereas going to church and listening to a sermon is worshiping with the community. This sounds good in theory, but when I really go to church, I typicaly walk in, sit, stand, sing, sit, listen, and then walk out. There is very little interaction with the community. Arguably, there even less interaction than when I listen to a sermon online and then blog or post comments about the content and my reactions.
Again, no real conclusion here, except just to say that IMO, there are many other ways we could express our faith together, many other ways that would invite God's presence more, many other ways that would draw us to worship God rather than the church, and many other ways that would generally be spiritually beneficial rather than simply going through the rituals of being Christian-eze.
Perhaps that is why today, instead of going to a Sunday morning service, I will be joining with my friends from the Central Ohio Emergent Cohort at three in the afternoon to discuss The Great Emergence. I expect to meet God, to be challenged, encouraged, and hopefully changed into a person who is more like Jesus.
Some quotes:
But come rain or shine, there will be a 20 minute sermon. We will listen - he (it is almost always he) will talk. Thoughts will be thought - assumptions challenged- pop culture will be cited, oh yes pop culture will definitely be cited. You walk into a quasi-evangelical faith shop - you are gonna get a sermon, just as surely as walking into Chick-fil-A means you are gonna eat chicken.I think these are valid points, and are perhaps this is one reason why it is so hard for me to drag myself to church on Sunday mornings. I often wonder, as I sit and listen to a guy talk to me for at least 20 (if not 30 or 40 minutes) what exactly it is I am doing there. Perhaps part of the problem is that sermons are no longer a "proclamation of the Word" as they were when the practice was developed by the Reformers in the 16th century. I've heard many sermons based upon only one verse (or a fraction of a verse) and sometimes the basis of the sermon is simply a "good idea" with some sprinklings of Scripture added for good flavor. As Carlton points out, even if there is no Scripture, there will always be references to pop-culture and media. But this is hardly proclaiming the Word of God which Christians confess to believe has such transformative power.
...we gotta stop kneeling to this cow. It would be healthy to start just by admitting our dependency on this cow. That the modern - and much of the pomo - model of churchianity i[s] built on the assumption that a preacher will draw us in, that those sermons will be the connective tissue, that content can be re-purposed into books & podcasts & TV show[s].
People - good people, faithful people, many ordained people - just do not want more sermons. Our lives do not have a sermon shaped hole. We do not itch to be talked at for 20 minutes each week - even if that talking is wise or cool or edgy or soothing or quotes someone we like or hate or would like to buy stuff from.
What to do with that 20 minutes ? Imagine..just imagine. Be still. Hold someone's hand. Talk & listen in clusters of 2 or 3, human size talk instead of sermoning.
being a room when a sermon is given no more makes us a Jesus follower than being in a gym makes us Lebron James.
I also think the sermon poses a problem for the 21st century media culture. There is no need for me to go to church to hear so-and-so talk when I can easily download and listen to any number of world renowned pastors and speakers right in my own home, or while I walk the dog, or drive in my car. Why listen to an "OK" sermon when I could listen to a "GREAT" sermon?
I can hear the response now: Listening to a sermon on my iPod takes me away from the community of believers, whereas going to church and listening to a sermon is worshiping with the community. This sounds good in theory, but when I really go to church, I typicaly walk in, sit, stand, sing, sit, listen, and then walk out. There is very little interaction with the community. Arguably, there even less interaction than when I listen to a sermon online and then blog or post comments about the content and my reactions.
Again, no real conclusion here, except just to say that IMO, there are many other ways we could express our faith together, many other ways that would invite God's presence more, many other ways that would draw us to worship God rather than the church, and many other ways that would generally be spiritually beneficial rather than simply going through the rituals of being Christian-eze.
Perhaps that is why today, instead of going to a Sunday morning service, I will be joining with my friends from the Central Ohio Emergent Cohort at three in the afternoon to discuss The Great Emergence. I expect to meet God, to be challenged, encouraged, and hopefully changed into a person who is more like Jesus.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
An honest song
Tweet
In the last few days, I've rediscovered Pedro the Lion, a band that's been playing under the radar for 10 years now. There is something about this song, "The Secret of the Easy Yoke," that is so raw and honest, I had to post it. It might seem depressing or angry, but I know that many days this would be the song that most accurately expresses my heart. I couldn't find a streaming link, so here it is from iTunes if you want to listen or buy
I could hear the church bells ringing
They peeled aloud your praise
The members’ faces were smiling
With their hands outstretched to shake
Its true they did not move me
My heart was hard and tired
The perfect fire anoint me
I could not find you any where
Could someone please tell me the story of sinners ransomed from the fall
I still have never seen you
And some days I don’t love you at all
The devoted were wearing bracelets to remind them why they came
Some concrete motivation and the abstract could not do the same
But if all that’s left is duty
I’m falling on my sword
At least then I would not serve an unseen distant lord
Could someone please tell me the story of sinners ransomed from the fall
I still have never seen you
And some days I don’t love you at all
If this is only a test I hope that I’m passing
'cause I’m losing esteem
But I still want to trust you
Peace, Be still
Peace, Be still
Peace, Be still
Peace, Be still
Friday, November 14, 2008
Unlikely, but divine
Tweet
I've been trying to keep up with reading Henri Nouwen's daily devotional book, Bread for the Journey. The readings are short, poignant, and often connect with each other from day to day. Sometimes then I read several entries at once because they flow together easily. Today I found myself reflecting on the Church, and I thought I would share Nouwen's words (added emphasis mine):
I often struggle with the church (visible, lower-case "c"), but Nouwen's words remind me that my faith in Jesus is also intimately connected to faith in the Church (invisible but also visible, upper-case "C"). That means that my faith is also in real people who I have to interact with every day - and that might be the hardest faith to have! Maybe that is why so many people rejected Jesus, even though they saw him face to face. When I look into the faces and the lives of the people who are in the churches around us, I struggle to have faith.
But I pray that the last words of the quote above would describe me - someone who has heard the voice fo God calling me Beloved, and finding the courage to make Jesus the center of my life. And therefore, I believe in this very unlikely, but very divine thing we call "The Church."
"Our faith in God who sent his Son to become God-with-us and who, with his Son, sent his Spirit to become God-within-us cannot be real without our faith in the Church. The Church is that unlikely body of people through whom God chooses to reveal God's love for us. Just as it seems unlikely to us that God chose to become human in a young girl living in a small, not very respected town in the Middle East nearly two thousand years ago, it seems unlikely that God chose to continue his work of salvation in a community of people constantly torn apart by arguments, prejudices, authority conflicts, and power games.
Still, believing in Jesus and believing in teh Church are two sides of one faith. It is unlikely but divine!
Over the centuries the CHurch has doen enough to make any critical person want to leave it. Its history of violent crusades, pogroms, power struggles, oppresion, excommunications, executions, manipulation of people and ideas, and constantly recurring divisions is there for everyone to see and be appalled by.
Can we believe that this is the same Church that carries in its center the Word of God and the sacraments of God's healing love? Can we trust that in the midst of all its human brokennes the Church presents the broken body of Christ to the world as food for eternal life? Can we acknowledge that where sin is abundant grace is superabundant, and that where promises are borken over and over again God's promise stands unshaken? To believe is to answer yes to these questions.
The Church is a very human organization but also the garden of God's grace. It is a place where great sanctity keeps blooming. Saints are people who make the living Christ visible to us in a special way. Some saints have given their lives in the service of Christ and his Church; others have spoken and written words that keep nurturing us; some have lived heroically in difficult situations; others have remained hidden in quiet lives of prayer and meditation; some were prophetic voices calling for renewal; others were spiritual strategists setting up large organizations or networks of people; some were heatlhy and storong; others were quite sick, and often anxious and insecure.
But all of them in their own ways lived in the Church as in a garder where they heard the voice calling them the Beloved and where they found the courage to make Jesus the center of their lives."
I often struggle with the church (visible, lower-case "c"), but Nouwen's words remind me that my faith in Jesus is also intimately connected to faith in the Church (invisible but also visible, upper-case "C"). That means that my faith is also in real people who I have to interact with every day - and that might be the hardest faith to have! Maybe that is why so many people rejected Jesus, even though they saw him face to face. When I look into the faces and the lives of the people who are in the churches around us, I struggle to have faith.
But I pray that the last words of the quote above would describe me - someone who has heard the voice fo God calling me Beloved, and finding the courage to make Jesus the center of my life. And therefore, I believe in this very unlikely, but very divine thing we call "The Church."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)