Categories: uncategorized
Date: 21 February 2007 17:24:18
I was asked what I thought of church.
That was an unwise request. I'm going to have to rant now. But at least, maybe, I can get it out of my system here relatively harmlessly.
Being an extreme negativist, perhaps it's easier to start with what I think church isn't. Church isn't sitting in pews. Church isn't listening to a sermon. Church isn't listening to a theological lecture. Church isn't listening to some nice music. Church isn't listening. Church isn't a spectator sport. Sorry, some clichés were bound to slip in sooner or later. And church is not chewing a morsel of bread and a thimble or sip of rosehip syrup or whatever wine-substitute is currently deemed acceptable.
Church is "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another".
Church is to "teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God".
Church is "When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church".
Church is "The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread ... in the same way, after supper he took the cup".
Occasionally I consider the idea of inviting some non-Christian friend along to church. Most of my friends happen to be fairly intelligent, rational creatures. So I expect them to ask "what happens in church?", "what do you do there?" and questions like that. And after answering I expect them to ask "why do you do that?" or "why is it like that?"
My problem is that the only answer I can think of to those last two questions is "tradition" - "that's how we've done it for the last several hundred years". Oh yes, I have some understanding of the evolution that's led to where we are today and how we've come to do these things that we do. But I can only explain it in terms of a hapless evolution.
Most church services do not involve meeting together. They involve being in the same room together. This is not the same thing. It seems clear to me that meeting must imply some form of human contact - talking, hugging, or just communal activity. The only thing that we tend to do communally is sing, and I don't think that's enough.
Once I suggested that instead of our usual harvest meal we should have it on a Sunday as a regular service, i.e. the meal would be the service. That's my idea of church. Unfortunately although it managed to happen (largely by getting somebody else, more acceptable than me, to properly suggest the idea and then run with it), guess what. After the meal they then celebrated "communion" with the special bread and the thimbles. Doh. What was the meal before if it wasn't a holy communion?
Our services are typical hymn-sandwiches generally, and after the service finishes a core (note, importantly, not all people do, just a core) go off into the hall for a coffee and a chat. To me, that latter part is church. Where is the encouragement to be had? Which is more likely to be uplifting and leave me wanting to go on living? It's the coffee and the chat.
People who have not been indoctrinated by CU's or their ilk tend to congregate in social groups, often based around activities - choirs, hiking groups, role-playing groups, whatever. Each of these is focussed around one thing, but done in a communal way. Most people enjoy those groups (or not) because of the communal aspect of them (or its absence). Doing things together is, often, a pleasant thing and tends to make one feel more positive about life. I think church should have something of the same feel. It's a Christian club in the best possible way - a support group where you meet together, discuss how things are, talk about difficulties, talk about ways to get over them, and generally have a good time. Together. What on earth is the point of getting together if when we leave we can't actually tell who was there and who wasn't? That's why pews are, to my mind, a bad thing - they force you to stare at the front. The front shouldn't be where things are going on - they should be going on all around you.
For some churches a housegroup plays much of the rôle I've described. Okay, but why then do we insist on turning housegroups into bible studies? Why do we find housegroups turning into sermon-centred mini-church services? I guess it's just a natural tendency of some (most?) humans to be passive and of some (a significant minority) to want to dominant. But it's a tendency we must fight against.
And some people, when faced with a church something like I've described above, fight back and say things like "that's fine, but there must be a teaching element to the service". Funny, cos I don't see that emphasized so highly in the new testament quotes above. Sure, it's mentioned, but "teach and admonish one another" doesn't sound to me like "get one bloke, call him a priest/minister/pastor, and get him to lecture to you every week".
I seem to be in a tradition now where "the word" (What the hell does that beautifully loaded but ambiguous term mean? Don't dare ask) must be "preached" (not teached, not explained, not expounded but "preached") by someone who is "called". I'm sorry, but where on earth (because it sure was on earth not anywhere else) did all that loaded bollocks come from? Wouldn't this sound like a sect if we weren't so inured to it? Is it just me whose copy of the bible seems to have accidentally been printed without those bits? How does the priesthood of all believers fit with this cranky notion? And what's the basis for suggesting that everything else in a church service can be cut as long as the "word" is "preached"?
I got shot down in flames once for tentatively suggesting that in a week of prayer, when we were agonizing about why the congregation didn't seem to view prayer as a priority, that replacing the sermon by a prayer time might set an example of the right priorities as well as enabling more prayer time without demanding more time overall from everyone. Shot down in flames. The preaching of the word is central, I was told. Abandoning it would be a Catholic thing to do (probably the worst imaginable insult until my denomination discover Islam). Funny, cos I'd have thought letting people read the word and chew it over for themselves was exactly the sort of thing Wycliffe and co wanted. Exactly the sort of thing protestant churches were established to enable. But there you go, what would I know.
Can I stop now? Please?