There are some interesting discussions going on at the moment about the nature of the church's inclusiveness (here and here). I wanted to raise the question here in an organic church sense.
The Eastern Orthodox guys seem to go for exclusivity when it comes to celebrating the Eucharist. That is purely for those who have been baptised. This raised for me the question of an Open Table.
Our Home Churches generally meet together over a meal. For example this last Sunday the 18 of us (including kids of course) had breakfast together - bacon, eggs, beans, mushrooms, sausages, croissants, fresh coffee, HP sauce [I wonder if this works internationally!] - it was fantastic! A great church gathering! We prayed worshipped and chatted etc as well - just in case you were at all concerned! The point is that I have this feeling that the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11) was exactly that: the meal/banquet that was hosted by the Lord. We actually do often have bread and wine specifically - the symbols do help - but it seems to me that they help bring meaning into the meal, rather than any other way round.
My reading of 1 Cor 11 etc [found in the articles section] very much leads me to feel that eating together was fundamental to Corinthian church gatherings. Not only that but it was in those same gatherings that the Spiritual gifts were used, as addressed in the next few chapters. In those chapters is that difficult to understand verse about the role of tongues and prophecy for unbelievers, which certainly implies that unbelievers could be there in the gathering.
What's my point? I want to include my friends who don't follow Jesus to come to my church gathering, I want to eat with them, I want to laugh with them, I want to 'talk about the kingdom' with them, I want to pray with them. I feel like that is what Jesus' did. But if that eating together is the Lord's Supper, should it be exclusive? Does it make any difference if we use the symbols or not? Jesus was very clearly not impressed with the Pharisees' decision to only eat with the 'righteous'. Could I end up doing the same thing?
In my reading of the Psalms recently I am trying to appreciate their role in capturing and furthering the Hebrew worldview. As Fee says: "Show me your songs and I will tell you your theology" [ouch!!]. This morning I thought you might all enjoy sharing this with me:
Commentary on Psalm 33
"... Creation is not an abstract doctrine, providing answers to human intellectual curiosity concerning the origin and nature of the world; rather, creation doctrine deals with the world in its relationship to God, to human history, and to individual human beings. The created world is the stage on which the drama of human history unfolds; but the Hebrew concepts of God's providence and might in the developing drama of history must presuppose God's mastery of the created world as such. God is not simply another actor, along with humans, within the created world; he is creator and thus controls the sphere within which history moves and develops. And the covenant, in turn, which is at the heart of Hebrew religion, presupposes God's role as Creator and as sovereign in human history ....
"... This ancient hymn of praise, with its balanced and integrated theology, is a timely reminder of the essence of biblical theology. In an age when the biblical doctine of creation is all too frequently discussed in conjunction with science, the psalmist offers a reminder that creation must be reflected on in conjunction with history. For in engaging in the creation-science debate, it is possible to miss entirely the powerful thrust of the Hebrew doctrine of creation."
[Word Biblical Commentary: Psalms 1-50, Peter Craigie]
I just read an interesting article on discipleship over at whatischurch.com. There's so much good stuff there I could quote, but that would defeat the point of you reading it, so I'll just give you this little bit:
"It is my assertion that Chesterton's famous apologetic line, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried," has simply been rendered irrelevant. As I was reminded last weekend by Rodney Clapp, the influence of consumerism in the past 50 years has shrouded the gospel so deeply that no one has a clue what the "Christian ideal" looks like anymore. I think there would be quite a few people who might be inclined to practice it if there was a clear and visible image of life in the kingdom available for them to see. Instead we get to choose between the secular media marketing machine or the Christian media marketing machine as a depositor of our time, energy, and money. Or maybe we don't choose and just blow our wad on the whole shootin match. A third option, one with increasing popularity, is to reject the marketing machines, become a critical, ironic observer and trudge through this life surrounding by that cursed technology and media we love to hate and can't live without."
"...we must be intentional about giving away the kingdom life we have so freely received. We must pray and look to see where God might bring his reign into this world...".Posted by: jonny_norridge | 10/22/2003 02:03:00 pm |
Musings of a non-Thatcherite
Today I was sat in a lecture on Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia, which is a book that inspired the likes of Ragan and Thatcher.
Nozick's theory is that the State should be minimal, that it should be something of a nightwatchman and an enforcer of contracts, rather than a provider of welfare. He believes that the poor, old and sick etc. should be left to the provision of private charities.
I find this a rather interesting proposition because it is so alien to my socialist sentiments, however there's one question that I just can't get off my mind...If the state was minimal and healthcare, food etc. wasn't so readily provided, would we see a culture in which those who follow Jesus could really blossom and stand out? (to a greater degree than at present?)
Following on from this, in his book Discipline and Punish, Foucalt describes our state as one in which those who do not fit within our definition of what is 'normal' are locked up, hidden from society. This includes those who are mentally disturbed.
This got me thinking of moments when Jesus cast out demons from people exhibiting signs of what we might call sectionable behaviour. If we outreached to those institutions to which we now send the 'abnormal', would see more healings?
Protection
Last week I was preaching about "Friend of Sinners" [Mark 2:13-17]. Here we find continually Jesus 'going out' to others. It reminded me of a Carl M****** story. He recounts his time in Colorado Springs where he prepared his sermons in a local 'New Age' cafe. One day when talking to the shop assistant he said in true M****** style "You know if Jesus came to this town do you know where he'd be? Not in my church that's for sure, he'd be right here in this store". The whole conversation blew the assistant away - especially given that 'Evangelicals' had thrown a stone through the shop window because of the owners political activism on behalf of homosexuals. Fantastically, Carl ended up inviting the shop owner to come and speak in his church to ask them the question "Where was the church when my friend died of AIDS?".
You can't help but feel that we are in the wrong places doing the wrong things!! That Sunday I nearly scrapped my preach and talked on "What if the woman caught in adultery was a lesbian". I was blown away that Sunday [and still am] by Jesus amazing posture in that story [John 7:53-8:11]. Here is this great teacher, the Messiah protecting/standing in the way of/taking care of a women caught in sin clearly addressed in Jewish Law [the point being that adultery is not so frowned on these days as it was then]. There was no doubt about her guilt, but Jesus started a journey that would culminate on the cross - taking people's punishment for them.
What would the world be like if Christians stood in the way of the stones instead of throwing them?
Acting in these kind of unexpected and remarkable ways would turn the world upside down ....
I'm currently sorting out the lecture I have to give on design, the web and interactivity. I'm going to slip in this classic little gem:
According to the British Audio Visual Society, we remember:
10% of what we read
20% of what we hear
30% of what we see
50% of what we see and hear
80% of what we say
90% of what we say and do at the same time
Halloween (Not the Movie) is upon us and yet again we've got to put up with kids knocking the door all night long. Been reading some of the history of the day here! And just wanted to know what some of you guys think about the whole thing? Is it evil or just another US import?
.Posted by: Central Vineyard | 10/15/2003 05:18:00 pm |
Well, you should have seen it. 150 yards with a 7 iron, landed about five yards to the left of the green [more practice needed there] BUT then came the second shot. Out came the pitching wedge; a few practice strokes; clear the mind; focus on the hole; get the footing and stance comfortable; then swoosh - first bounce on the edge of the green then a couple more 'til it rolled perfectly into the hole - so central then it was left suspended by the flag pole. Birdied it - a first time for everything!!
Anyone want a game?!
Third Place Re-visited
Been slowly reading through Ray Oldenburg's book The Great Good Place and recently come across this synopsis online somewhere!
"Social condensers" -- the place where citizens of a community or neighborhood meet to develop friendships, discuss issues, and interact with others -- have always been an important way in which the community developed and retained cohesion and a sense of identity.
Ray Oldenburg (1989), in The Great Good Place, calls these locations "third places." (The first being the home and the second being work.) These third places are crucial to a community for a number of reasons, according to Oldenburg. They are distinctive informal gathering places, they make the citizen feel at home, they nourish relationships and a diversity of human contact, they help create a sense of place and community, they invoke a sense of civic pride, they provide numerous opportunities for serendipity, they promote companionship, they allow people to relax and unwind after a long day at work, they are socially binding, they encourage sociability instead of isolation, they make life more colorful, and they enrich public life and democracy. Their disappearance in our culture is unhealthy for our cities because, as Oldenburg points out, they are the bedrock of community life and all the benefits that come from such interaction.
There are essential ingredients to a well-functioning third place. They must be free or quite inexpensive to enter and purchase food and drink within. They must be highly accessible to neighborhoods so that people find it easy to make the place a regular part of their routine -- in other words, a lot of people should be able to comfortably walk to the place from their home. They should be a place where a number of people regularly go on a daily basis. It should be a place where the person feels welcome and comfortable, and where it is easy to enter into conversation. And a person who goes there should be able to expect to find both old and new friends each time she or he goes there.
According to Oldenburg, World War II marks the historical juncture after which informal public life began to decline in the U.S. Old neighborhoods and their cafes, taverns, and corner stores have fallen to urban renewal, freeway expansion, and planning that discounts the importance of congenial, unified and vital neighborhoods. The newer neighborhoods have developed under the single-use zoning imperative -- which makes these critical, informal social gathering places illegal.
Oldenburg points out that segregation, isolation, compartmentalization and sterilization seem to be the guiding principles of urban growth and urban renewal. In the final analysis, desirable experiences occur in places conducive to them, or they do not occur at all. When certain kinds of places disappear, certain experiences also disappear.
I saw this in town on Saturday, which I think is fantastic:
Coach Hunter is finally blogging again, in a new place this time [I think the old blog has now disappeared]
.Posted by: jonny_norridge | 10/06/2003 09:09:00 am |
A bit of media hype here that is an interesting read. The Bishop [the real one] does like to stir things up doesn't he?
.Posted by: Mark | 10/02/2003 08:39:00 pm |
Well, I have just finished The Provocative Church by Graham Tomlin. Really enjoyable book to read. Very easy to read, fairly basic but capturing a load of important stuff. Through it all he quotes all the classics: Wright, Willard, Brueggeman, Nouwen, Coupland etc etc and weaves them together nicely. He defines Evangelism as "Calling people to come under the rule of God".
There are some great little pionts as he goes through as he seeks to demonstrate that it is not worth answering questions if people aren't asking them. He quotes one student, after bing presented with the Christian 'Gospel': "It doesn't seem real. It seems true, but it doesn't seem real". His call is for a church community that provokes the questions of those around by the way it lives out its life. He recounts the excellent quote from the end of Life After God:
"Now - here is my secret: I tell it to you with an openness of heart that I doubt I shall ever acheive again, so I pray that you are in a quiet room as you hear these words. My secret is that I need God - that I am sick and can no longer make it alone. I need God to help me give, because I am no longer capable of giving; to help me be kind, as I no longer seem capable of kindness; to help me to love, as I seem beyond being able to love"
The point he brings out, that so many others miss, is how Coupland character expresses he need of God. He doesn't need God to forgive him, teach him truth or satisfy his intellectual queries. He needs someone to help him to learn how to live in those different ways. Profound really. So often we are so quick to provide the answers, we don't even wait long enough to hear the questions.
Interestingly he suggests that Evangelism should be defined as the "verbal invitation to bring a person's own life under the rule of God". All other work before the verbal communication is valid Kingdom work - our actions point to the kingdom- , but should not be classed as Evangelism [otherwise any meaning of the word disappears]. An interesting thought. What do you think?
