Category Archives: Church

Being in the Church, Not of It

Posted on by
4

I Got this today from the Henri Nouwen daily meditation

Often we hear the remark that we have live in the world without being of the world. But it may be more difficult to be in the Church without being of the Church. Being of the Church means being so preoccupied by and involved in the many ecclesial affairs and clerical “ins and outs” that we are no longer focused on Jesus. The Church then blinds us from what we came to see and deafens us to what we came to hear. Still, it is in the Church that Christ dwells, invites us to his table, and speaks to us words of eternal love.

Being in the Church without being of it is a great spiritual challenge.

Labelling Church

Posted on by
6

I’m following the comments against Richard’s Fresh Expressions post with great interest.

I’ve just had a look on the Fresh Expressions web site and peeked into their directory of fresh expressions of church. In it I note what appears to be a 100% tendency to label one’s church. Now, in a way that is a stupid thing for me to say, because if they didn’t have labels they wouldn’t be in the directory.

Whilst I don’t think that labelling yourself is wrong – after all it is quite a handy way for people to refer to you (and it helps if you want a web site) – it is interesting to give labelling some thought. The points that I’m tending to ponder are these:

  • Do labels tend to straightjacket your practices? e.g. ‘Baptists’ aren’t ever going to not Baptise are they?
  • Do labels tend to limit your mission to a particular demographic? e.g. pensioners aren’t going to turn up to ‘Loud Rave Church’ are they? Does this make us exclusive rather than inclusive in mission?
  • Do labels enable you to exert controlling power? After all, if one person is the founder, inventor and owner of the label, aren’t others more likely to go along with what they say, so that they can retain some of the benefits of that label? Having an ‘owner’ of the label can surely get in the way of God raising up other key figures within that group.
  • Do labels tend to go hand in hand with formalised procedures?
  • Weren’t labels first applied by those outside of the group? People who looked at the church, from the outside, and found a way of referring to it.
  • Do labels push you towards becoming a legally recognised organisation? Whilst this may give benefits (e.g. Gift Aid tax reimbursement) does this then put you in a position of subservience to societal law?
  • Do labels enable us to shortcut relationships? If we have a label is there then less need to know each other so well?

So, whilst I don’t want to argue for not having labels, I think that we have to be aware that our natural tendency can cause negative things to arise from having a label. In my mind we constantly have to fight our temptation of implement rules and routines that will suffocate the movement of the Holy Spirit.

USA: The Religious Right and the Liberal Christian Left

Posted on by
5

I really don’t get it!

This week, Jim Wallis of Sojourners, is discussing politics with an ex-leader of the ‘Religious Right’ Ralph Reed. Jim seems disappointed that Ralph seems to prioritise working against legal abortion and homosexual marriage. Ralph claims that the ‘Conservative Coalition’ et al don’t just focus on those two issues but work on many (which is the ground that Jim wants to claim).

What I don’t get is why they both want to impose their moral views on the USA. They both think that the US needs moral guidance from the top and that it needs to be legislated for. It’s as if they want to usher in a Holy Kingdom of America.

Whilst a great set of laws does seem to create a lovely society to live in, I can’t get my head round the idea that we, as Christians want to impose our morality on people who don’t want it. I mean, it’s not like it makes people better at the level of their relationship with God. It might seem, from a human point of view, that it is a good thing, but the only good thing is to have a relationship with God and to do his will – that is the only good in our world, everything else is a cheap imitation that doesn’t really bring life at all.

Jesus lived in a country that was occupied by foreign forces. Did he bother himself with that? No, he knew that freedom wasn’t in the laws of the land, but could only be found in a relationship with God. Did he try to control people by imposing laws? No, he came to make the law (and indeed laws) obsolete – to bring God into our hearts. He worked from the bottom up, not the top down. He aligned himself with the downtrodden. Even when he did get to talk to the most powerful men in Israel, he didn’t try to get them to alter their laws, he stood quietly, a testimony to the new Kingdom that he was ushering in, a Kingdom that stood in contrast to their kingdom.

Have a look in the ‘Government’ category of this blog for more on this topic.

Meals for Families

Posted on by
4

Following on from my thoughts that lead to this idea I would like to explore a measure that might help and also encourage families to spend more time together.

What I’m imagining (speaking as a non-cook! Oh dear!) is the provision of cheap, reasonable quality meals, for families. To qualify for access to such meals you would need to turn up as a minimum of one adult and one child. The meals would be on one or more weekdays and would be available between 5pm and 8pm. Payment for the meals would be necessary except in exceptional circumstances. It would be attractive because the family would need to make less effort to have a meal and yet still have a meal at a very reasonable price.

This would appear to improve contact between family members (addressing the issues outlined here) and also be a way to create relationships between church people and non-church people.

Would be interested in your comments.

What Poverty Today?

Posted on by
3

If we strip out the UK government definition of poverty as being those households with an income of lower than 60% of the average UK income, then we are left with the question of what poverty is there in the UK today?

In theory UK welfare and bankruptcy laws should provide for the needs of daily life, such as food and shelter. However, I do recognise that the application of this theory is fraught – I have personally had to spend time helping a friend claim what was due her (after she had suffered injuries that had made her unable to work). It’s as if our society wants to make it as hard as possible to keep one’s head above water in difficult circumstances.

So apart from money troubles due to the lack of help available to get the benefits of bankruptcy or welfare (and these are far from insignificant matters) what poverty do we have today?

My post the other day about the well-being of our children made me think that perhaps a large problem was the amount of time that family members spend with each other.

This is essentially what is behind the ‘Keep Sunday Special’ campaign – the idea that families need to spend more time together. However, because I don’t see any theological reason for Sunday actually being a special day, then I would rather tackle the issue directly rather than attempt to tell people that they shouldn’t work on Sunday. The church needs to wake up to the needs of those that work on a Sunday and change from having what is generally regarded as a key time within the church on a Sunday morning.

So I guess it comes down to providing for people’s poverty. If the poverty is a lack of quality time together then do things that enable people, from diverse backgrounds, to be able to have that time together.

Whilst I’m not sure that I would back a ‘keep dinner special’ campaign or a ‘play boardgames instead of watching TV’ campaign there are surely things we can do.

What are the things that are eating into people’s family time?

  • Sports
  • Watching sports
  • TV viewing
  • Ready meals and easy snacking
  • I’m sure that there are many others…

… but that last one gives me an idea:
Meals for Families

I think that that will need to be my next post!

Serving Up the Communion

Posted on by
4

Suddenly it dawned on me this morning during communion at church how odd it was that they only had appointed deacons serving communion to the congregation. I guess that this is a legacy of the Old Testament ‘High Priest as intercessor to God’ thing.

To be honest all they do is go to the end of the row so that it can be passed along – it’s not even as if they have some magical incantation to make as you receive the bread or the wine.

Seems a shame to keep this tradition – which seems unnecessarily exclusive.The Last Seduction full

Criticising Other Christians

Posted on by
2

Jonathan at Ekklesia has just accepted a news item from me about one group of Christians criticising another group of Christians over the issue of support for Israel.

This has got me thinking about criticism between Christians. I’m fine with the idea that we should be able to criticise each other and hold each other accountable (1 Corinthians 5:12) but should this just be for those you have a close relationship with and the context to crticise constructively with a positive outcome? Or should we be able to criticise more widely – perhaps a bit like Old Testament prophets or Jesus destroying the market stalls in the temple – within the church?

Any thoughts?

Tithes (and where they go)

Posted on by
2

Heard someone comment the other day (and I really ought to be able to attribute this to someone, but can’t remember who it was) that in the Old Testament the tithe was for the poor and that somehow the church today has managed to divert it towards other stuff, like expensive buildings etc. This kinds of relates to my finishing paragraph on this post.

It’s not that I think that the tithe is for today anyway (10% seems a bit odd considering our whole lives ought to be a sacrifice), but it was a great comment!!!

Oh, I know, it was Shane Claibourne speaking at Greenbelt.

Reasons for Political Radicalisation of Christians

Posted on by
3

Reading “Faith and Politics After Christendom” by Jonathan Bartley I’m fascinated by the section where he gives different examples of the action of politically radicalised Christians. It seems common that, as our society ‘descends’ (?) into Post-Christendom and loses many of the laws and cultural norms brought about by Christianity’s involvement in government, Christians decide to take action and do something about it in the political sphere.

Bartley broadly categorises this into positive and negative responses:

  • Where Christians are shocked at moral loosening and wish to reintroduce stricter morals by regulation.
  • Where Christians see injustice and wish to encourage government to ‘do something about it’.

Now, I can see that these two categories do exist (and bear in mind that Barley points out that many people involved in these things will have a broad mix of motive that may include both categories), but I’m not sure that they are as different as they first appear.

Surely they both break down into these aspects:
People are being wronged (maybe they know they are [obvious injustice] or maybe they don’t know that they are [moral damage]) and some Christians, who are politically motivated, want to impose a solution on society (whether it is prohibitive law or ‘positive’ action by the state).

We must surely note that even the more ‘positive’ of these two categories does include the taking or diminishing of resources from some people (perhaps taxation) and applying those resources to people as the radicalised group sees fit. A bit of spin and the opportunity to tell people how wonderful this piece of justice is (justice that we as Christians are called to practice in our lives) can promote the action in a positive light, but we also must remember that it is reliant on the backbone of the law, reliant on the ability to control people with the ultimate resort to violence.

Now, if you don’t believe my last point then note this example: A man chooses not to pay his taxes. By law the people (the state) dictate that people pay their taxes. Does this man get to keep his freedom? No, he is put in prison. What stops him continuing to exercise his freedom? The fact that if he were to try to do so people would stop him. Ultimately society is able to restrain, and if necessary be violent against that person in order to force that person to either cooperate or to accept punishment.

So, in my mind, both these categories of radicalised action fall into the trap of trying to control others, rather than trying to be an example to others and trying to love others (without at the same time trying to control others). I don’t yet know what Bartley’s tack on this is, but I look forward to reading on!!!

Denominational Differences

Posted on by
2

Today I was having my irregular chat with a Jehovah’s Witness (who visits me) and we got onto the topic (unsurprisingly perhaps) of denominational differences and how Churches can oppose each other in some respects (in fact, I note today that Jonathan Bartley observes that Christians even sometimes kill other Christians!).

Naturally JWs come out of this as shining examples of unity – so I was pondering as to why this was and whether the reasons mattered.

Now, JWs claim to be the one true church and so claim complete unity across the one true church. What are the reasons for this unity (the following are my speculation, not to be taken as perfect science!):

  1. The Boundary – the JW church has a boundary, you are either in or out.
  2. The Institution – the JW church is a strictly controlled institution which cannot be duplicated. It wouldn’t be possible to start another JW church that is separate to the original.
  3. The Sect – because it is a sect that is on the edge of the Judaism family tree, if another sect were to form from it, they would recast themselves significantly.
  4. Modes of Dis-integration – if JWs leave they do not leave to form close derivative churches, they either leave the (broad) concept of Christian belief entirely or just go into an existing church.
  5. The Theology – essential to JWs is the expectancy that one should accept the whole JW Theology. There is little room for disagreement.

These are the major points of difference with the rest of the Christian Church, although many churches will have varying degrees of the above properties.

Examining the above points, what is the problem with the wider church?

It is my impression that differences appear between Christians because they meet in an institutionalised manner rather than in the manner of close friends – i.e. we Christians think it is important to tackle differences of opinion with people we barely know, simply because they are in the same institution and, because we barely know them, it is easy to fall out with them.

Another point is that we often make out that our opinion is our faith. Both myself and Reg (the JW) agreed that there is only one truth, so, for there to be clashes in people’s belief of what that one truth is, must mean that one or both of those people are believing something which isn’t true – i.e. the casting of an opinion as a matter of faith. A bit more humility about what we believe would be helpful, but haven’t we all been taught that we mustn’t doubt our faith? Well if we doubt our opinion, we aren’t doubting our faith! So I wouldn’t worry too much about that!

The wider Christian Church places less emphasis on scripture than the JWs and more emphasis on the personal revelation of the Holy Spirit (often of Scripture). JWs place an emphasis on specific interpretations of scripture and no emphasis on personal revelation. In some ways the JW approach is safer – it certainly appeals to the rules based security that our culture likes so much. On the other side of the fence you could say that the wider church is much more anarchic and dangerous!

My Dad told me the other day that ‘Uncle’ Sid Purse (who founded the the church that I grew up in at South Chard) said:

“The Church is an organism, not an organisation”

which I thought an excellent comment which works in many ways including the understanding of the church as being the body of Christ.

Anyway, I feel that the opportunity to chat with Reg (JW) is a great way to gain a deeper understanding of church – so I would be most appreciative of your comments, but I don’t want this to become a ‘why the JWs are wrong’ thread! That really isn’t the point of this post. Thanks.