Flickr - Latest Photos
What is church?
I've been thinking about my church's Long Range Planning Committee, of which I'm a part, and I'm confused. Bear with me.
We started the process by looking at the history of our church and considering what was happening in the world, the U.S., and our city throughout our history. Then we brainstormed about issues facing the world and the church today: social, political, etc. Next we made a list of all the other churches who are in or near Evanston, especially those who are our "competitors." (I know, I know.) What was it about those churches that attracted people? Now we're up to the part where we list the SWOTs of our church (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats).
I said one of our strengths was our emphasis on the liturgy and sacraments, and people were like, whaaat??? They were kinda bewildered why I said that. Now, I may have misunderstood, but it seems as if they were thinking programs as strengths - Sunday school, youth groups, fellowship groups, etc. Then we discussed that we were pretty "high church" and was this good or bad. One man said we did a good job of making the liturgy not seem "stuffy" or ritualistic, unlike those Catholics. YIKES. Then I said, well my husband and I chose this church because he was a lapsed Catholic and he wanted something more familiar, liturgically speaking. But that's kind of unusual for United Methodists. I mean, most Protestants don't choose churches based on liturgy. I think we pick churches based on programs. And people, of course.
At one point during our discussion of the strengths/weaknesses of the other Evanston churches, I said, "Okay, are we just looking to shuffle people amongst denominations or are we about making disciples?" Cause I was getting that impression. Everyone insisted no, no, and then pointed out that almost half of our new members are "reaffirmations of faith." That means baptized Christians who quit going to church, usually a long time ago, but are now returning. The rest were transfers from other denominations or other Methodist churches and baptisms. I don't remember, but I think the baptismal for adults rate was fairly low. So I guess I was wrong about the shuffling. Which leads me to wonder, if you were away from the church and have come back, what made you pick the denomination or particular church that you did?
See, I'm at a disadvantage here. I have always been Methodist. My mother has always been Methodist. Her father has always been a Methodist. (My dad doesn't go to church, and my grandmother is Catholic.) It has rarely occured to me to try something else. Also, I've never fallen away from faith or the Church, so I have a hard time understanding what others think about Church who have been away for a while. My hunch is that denomination doesn't make a difference to most Protestants. A couple of people on the committee used to be Presbyterians, and I'm all: gasp! I don't think that Arminian/Reform debate (or most other theological debates) matters to most people in the pew, though. Am I wrong?
Another thing bothering me is that if you were a conservative or Republican, you would not feel comfortable on this committee. There's just a lot of comments being thrown around that make me (a Democrat!) wonder, are we a church for liberals/Democrats, or are we for everyone?
Today I've been thinking, did our committee start this discussion in the wrong place? Should we have begun with the question, what is Church? Then: how do we embody Church? What are the practices that do this best? To quote Geoff:
"If we begin with community, then might the natural question be, "how do we define this community? what are its boundaries and distinction?" and of course we must ask this. (see Joe Myers Search to Belong on all this. it's great.) I could throw out a couple: baptism and eucharist for certain define, limit, and initiate into the Church. I wouldn't go right to the Reformers "wherever the Word is rightly preached", but would rather say, "wherever Christ is followed" and by this I mean the practices of repentance/forgiveness/reconciliation, healing, liberating oppression, loving the marginal, etc. These practices for me really define the Church as distinct from the world. But notice that these are free acts of love/grace, giving concrete meaning to our lives and the community's."
Actually I'd keep "the Word rightly preached" if by that we mean preaching that illuminates the Triune God for us and calls us to discipleship. Cause I think Cliff is right - you can't separate dogma and ethics.
After the last meeting, one of the pastors pulled me aside and let me know my mission on this committee. She wants me to be the Ekklesia Project spokesperson; that is to bring up the issues that the Ekklesia Project is trying to:
"We hope to remind all Christians of the spiritual ties we share, and the real-world solidarity and allegiance God intends of His church in a world of lesser loyalties and commitments. By calling attention to the Body of Christ as our “first family” in the world, we aim to put discipleship and a picture of the church as an alternative community of practices, worship, and integration at the center of contemporary debates on Christianity and society. This is the vision we share and the reality we seek." (See our principles here)
I need to talk to her more about this. I'm thinking she wants the church to move more into exploring how we are an alternative family and community and start thinking about where our primary loyalties and commitments (our allegiances, perhaps?) are. How can I make this my ministry as a member of this church and this committee?
I agree with you in the statement: I don't think that Arminian/Reform
debate (or most other theological debates) matters to most people in the
pew, though. Am I wrong?
I think you are dead on. Now, you have to ask if this is a problem or not. Does it matter? Should it matter? Where does it say it matters? Can you convince the people in the pews that it matters and at the same time help them maintain healthy relatioships with those who disagree with them?
A Crusade can have many faces; Innocent III, Billy Graham, Geo. W. Bush, crusade for Christ, The Ekklesia Project and others...Some of these faces are positive. Some are not. I will let you judge which is positive. But are you creating something positive or not?
In the South there is this joke. I wonder if you heard it at your time ad Duke. It is a one liner...Methodists are Baptists who read.
I love this joke. People are always reminding me of this at school. When I wrestle with my theology in the classroom, there is always someone that suggests that I should be Methodist. It is a great way to split the difference between the Baptist churches and the ECUSA. Whatever. I appreciate the intent. But it smacks of denomination shopping. It smacks of consumerism.
My allegiance is to God. I have found God in the Baptist churches because the people at North Shore bothered to show me Jesus. They are not perfect, but they did. I also was a consumer. I was looking for a certain theological opinion. I was looking for a place where both (opinion and Jesus) would happen. I am guilty of that. Since entering more formal study, I am asking different questions and hold different theology. Now, do I leave the ABC hoping some UMC bishop or ECUSA bishop will talk to me, or do I not shop, find how the ABC is historically grounded and rooted in the historical tradition of the church and bring that to the fore.
The Ekklesia Project is helpful to me in this. Radical Orthodoxy, the Emerging Church, and AncientFuture Worship (Bob Webber etc) all help me in this. And there have been small gifts from within my congregation as well. Overall I have found the process painful and exhausting. Worthwhile, yes, but deeply painful. Are you ready to shepherd your congregation through this? You have the people in place to do so there. But know that you have 400 years of inertia to slow down.
I am babbling now. I am sorry. This is a fantastic post, Jennifer. Really. I love it.
dear sister,
mainline churches are poorly misguided if we make
committees only to evaluate our strengths and weaknesses as a means to fill
our pews and buttress our church bank account. you are right in the church
needs to be about making disciples. one of your pastors hears this not
only from you! there is a tinge of intentional community on that pastoral
staff. be faithful in holding first church accountable to the call of
discipleship, radical discipleship of following jesus. is first church
ready for an ekklesia project spokesperson when their understanding of
discipleship is wavering? just some thoughts from one who is challenged
daily with the to simply "follow."
peace to you sister
robyn [robyn-henderson@garrett.edu]
Your post had me chuckling at the thought of fistfights breaking out in the
pews over the doctrine of irresistable grace. "You claim the surety of
salvation at the peril of your immortal soul, you bastard Calvinist!"
Has our ecumenicalsim and cultural relativism served to soften the blows of such differences, or has it erased them entirely from the average churchgoer's vocabulary? I tell you, if John Wesley were to get up and preach at my church next Sunday, I doubt that many in the congregation would be much moved by him; people don't really want to hear theology from the pulpit. And today's Christians can't understand why anyone would care whether God and Christ have the same substance, or what the exact formula for justification is. There are no heretics anymore, just people with different opinions. So if the sermons of the Presbyterian and Methodist clergy are theologically neutral, what difference does it make which church you go to?
Matthias [correction_m@yahoo.com]
Matthias...you are right and you are wrong. We always preach
theology.
Jesus is Lord. That is a theological statement. It is one with a lot of wiggleroom for certain. But it is theology. How people live that out is theology.
How do we live church so as to make it different from the Kiwanis Club? What do we say about ourselves so to make it different? Does it even matter that it is different?
I emailed these thoughts to my pastor and she replied:
"I think you have made some good observations. I think at some point, if you feel courageous enough, you should voice these concerns as you have laid them out. I do think the review of churches, etc. is necessary work, but comes at the wrong time in the process. First really should be our theological understandings, then looking to see how we fill gaps in the Evanston Christian community and what the gifts are that we bring to the body. From there then flow programs."
Theology is the Queen of all the sciences (couldn't resist that one - who said that, Aquinas? Just remembering hearing that somewhere). The thought that there is no heresy anymore frightens me. (By heresy I don't mean disagreements between Arminians/Calvinists, but the basics - Trinity, Christology). Not because I want to burn heretics at the stake, but because I think heresy hurts people. I think this is the thousandth time I've said this: bad theology hurts people.
My question in this blog was mostly about the process our committee undertook - is the fact that the process seems to be backwards bad theology, which will in fact affect the way we think of church i.e. as consumers? And the other question that follows is Tripp's: how do we live church...
Well, I just have to get in on this. First, I have to even violently
disagree with the assertion that most 'people in the pews' don't care about
theology or doctrinal differences. I've done a lot of preaching in a lot
of different places, and I can tell you that folks do care. They just
don't want some professional pseudo-prophet telling them they're oppressed
cattle because they don't really care about the latest fads at the
seminaries. I've gotten quite complicated with the Holy Trinity,
justification, sanctification, subtleties of church history and polemic,
and folks just took to it eagerly, glad someone didn't condescend to 'em as
though they were, well, just 'people in the pews,' those folks over their
who haven't been to Vanderbuilt Juke-O Dance School and Seminary.
Moreover, now that I'm one of them there 'people in the pews,' I can tell you that those who surround me of a Sunday morning are parched for Scripture, doctrine, classical confessional proclamation. Of course, there are strongholds of Spongism, and it's true that our so-called 'heretics' are just weasels without the stature of a Pelagius or an Arius. Nonetheless, it's terribly cynical to just assume that folks don't care. Maybe those who dare to call themselves 'leaders' are the ones who don't care, and they project that onto their people in a desperate attempt to justify their own apostasy.
In other words, if there's apathy out there, it's well-earned. People, insofar as they are Christians, want the challenge of the Gospel, with all that it implies. Don't coddle the Old Adam in 'em, and insult 'em in the bargain.
'those folks over their'
You know, i really do talk english good...
Thanks Thomas, for the correction. You are right. The questions I get
from my parishoners at North Shore are always thoughtful and deep. Maybe
we suffer from the lay-ordained/academic divide in our own
way?
Tripp [gvh3rd@msn.com]