The Question Revisited

A friend that i hadn't seen for a while asked me once "Where are you fellowshipping now?" and i think that's the key in this context. FELLOWSHIP.[1]

Fellowship is the being together and communing with each other, so then if that is fellowship, why call it church??[2]

Having posted a successful Soapbox post earlier, I hadn't anticipated the firestorm of discussion amongst other blogs and (possibly) word of mouth. Having watched the general discussion unfold since that time, I thought it was about time I added in my thoughts to the rather volatile subject of "Church"; namely, What is Church? A word of caution: I believe that this is a rather volatile subject for many for a good reason, and while I believe that part of the argument over what church is has to do with culture, I think the greater slice of the pie goes to...tradition. And here is why I think that...

It is my firm conviction that Christianity is at a crossroads. Here at the beginnings of the twenty-first century, I believe that we are at an exciting point in theological development. In the last century, the world has changed in ways untold, at speeds previous generations would never have thought possible. The world has become more accessible, more open, more conversant than it ever has been, and technology is only going to further this process. Yet for many who live in this time, Church evokes thoughts of mustiness, dryness, boredom, and irrelevancy.

And yet, tradition is what seems to keep the system of church the way it is. We turn up, we sing songs, we sit down to listen to a message, we stand to sing more songs, we leave. Period. This seems to be what most people the world over do, Sunday in, Sunday out. And here's the point: because that's the way church has been done for the past two centuries, why change it? That's Tradition speaking.

Yet here's the paradox: I believe in church. I believe that over two thousand years ago, God revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, and since his existence, the church was founded; not by the Petrine lineage; nor by clever structural systems. But founded by the fact that God became like us. The church - I believe - exists to proclaim all that Christ was and stood for.

That was then. What is it like now? We turn up, we sing songs, we listen to a message, we sing more songs, we leave. Instead of an equipping church, we seem to have, today, a comforting church. Instead of a courageous church, we seem to have a soft church. Go to any church building outside of the West, and we find that it is hazardous to one's health to profess faith in Christ. Go to any church in the West, and the primary aim of Christianity is to keep oneself safe. Do not do anything to hurt or upset the status quo. Do not upset tradition.

[1] See the blog "Its a Rant Jim But Not as We Know It Part II" - http://youraveragechristian.blogspot.com/

[2] ibid.

From The Soapbox #2

Given the fact that my first Soapbox was an absolute flop, I thought I'd give it another shot...

Below are two images I found on the web. One is of a Sunday church service, and the other is of Coffee Culture at the base of Hackthorne Road. For this episode of From The Soapbox, post a comment outlining these points: Which of the two images looks like church? And...why?

A Most Interesting Question

Imagine this question: Why is it that most people - guys most of all - have absolutely no problem at expressing their excitement at a Rugby match, but seem not to have the same amount of passion for their walk with Christ?

At a recent gathering at a relative's house, this question cropped up in casual conversation between some of those present. I sat in the background, listening (eavesdropping, I guess) as the topic of conversation unfolded. To be fair, I was itching to get my word in, but the opportunity that was knocking initially passed me by. The women discussing this seemed perplexed; I was the opposite.

Let's start with the obvious: the world of sports, stereotypically, is a haven for the male temperament. Be it ball sports or anything involving motors, most guys get a buzz out of seeing their favourite sports team or profiler compete. I have been to many games at the now AMI Stadium cheering on Canterbury. One thing is indisputable: the place ERUPTS when Canterbury score a try!

Now for the guests' question: Why not be passionate about Christ?

That depends on how you want to view the question. Most guys that I know of are passionate about their walk with Christ. However, their way is not necessarily the church's way. In other words, the typical sports-loving male will find God in sports, but not in church. Why? Because the operation of a typical church service seems to be structured more around the women, children, and the elderly. Churches these days are a quiet place to meet God, and ministers the world over have created such an atmosphere. Can you imagine what a crowd 0f rowdy, on fire for Christ Rugby lovers would do? The exact opposite of what is expected behaviour of a church attendee. In short, males by implication are required to leave their manhood at the door. To be rowdy would be to upset the status quo.

I am therefore not the least bit surprised that the women of the gathering were perplexed by this "phenomenon". What they seem to be asking each other is, "Why don't guys seem to worship Christ the way we do?" The answer is obvious: Guys are not expected to. Nor should they be expected to. Yet for some unknown reason, churches and their congregations do.