This morning I stumbled upon two women discussing attendance at a spiritualist church. One of them was extolling its virtues and encouraging the other (who had been a few times herself) to come along this Sunday. I held back from quoting Scripture and from telling them why they shouldn't talk to dead people and asked instead why they went. Were there particular people from their past that they wanted to hear from? The answer was a surprise and a challenge - the main reason for going was for healing and guidance.
The spiritualist church near here is apparently increasingly popular. They've recently purchased a bigger building and at the service on the Sunday evening it sounded like you have to get there early to get a seat and even earlier to get a spot in the car park. I didn't ask, but I suspect that people are invited and/or are willing to give generously for the 'service' that is provided too.
It's often said that we live in a society where people are crying out for a spiritual experience. I know some people have questioned this, but the conversation this morning reminded me that some people are indeed seeking an encounter with something or someone 'beyond' the visible and material world that they inhabit. The challenge to me as a church pastor is the realisation that we still have a way to go in making church a place where these spiritual needs are fully met. I've talked about it before, but I am more committed now to having regular opportunities for people to receive prayer for healing and where we as pray-ers can be open to words of guidance for those who are seeking to hear God's voice. Perhaps people's past experiences of church or preconceptions of church will stop them coming, but the need is obviously there.
Indeed, only just the other day I was asked to come and do something about the 'goings on' in the home of a friend. The previous tenant of the house had died there and since my friend had moved in she'd seen ghostly apparitions, heard strange noises and seen other unexplained things. This woman didn't go to church, and in her own words didn't know what she believed, but was pleased that I was able to come and pray through her home. This is actually the second time I've been asked to do this in the last year...
Whatever else church is it needs to be spiritual and experiential - and some are. I know, however, that my church isn't alone in having lost this important edge to our mission and ministry. Please pray for us as we seek to rediscover it in the coming months and years.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Friday, October 23, 2009
Crisis of Commitment
This posting is a shortened version of an article that was printed in the Baptist Times earlier this year. It will also soon appear as a guest blog entry on http://www.sharetheguide.org/blog/ which is published by Fresh Expressions.
One of the identifying features of a Baptist congregation is its understanding of church membership, but as someone involved in a fresh expression of church, it has become clear that our current interpretation of what it means to be a member is not really ‘fit for purpose’ in our contemporary society.
The meaning of the word ‘member’ has changed over time. Previous generations commonly understood this word as a reference to a part of the body, and were thus more able to grasp the organic nature of the biblical analogy in 1 Corinthians 12. Contemporary usage of the word, however, is now largely restricted to an organisational understanding, for example, in our membership of the local gym. Here the mutuality and accountability implicit within the biblical metaphor is reduced to a financial exchange or even lost entirely.
Also, in a time when people were less mobile, and denominations less ecumenical, being involved in the life of a local church would have been an enduring and essential component of an individual’s identity. Now, however, the believer’s relationship with church is changing. Indeed, there are people who believe and yet aren’t members, and others who participate fully, but are yet to profess faith.
There are some commentators who argue that the problem is due to a wider ‘post-commitment culture’ and that the churches should be counter-cultural and better at communicating the need for individuals to commit themselves to church membership. In my opinion, however, commitment per se isn’t the problem. Whilst loyalty to institutions and organisations may be disappearing, campaigns such as ‘Make Poverty History’ and ‘Stop the Traffik’ show that there is still a strong desire to be involved in movements which seek to have a transformational influence upon society.
A healthy growing church community still needs commitment. This, however, is not to be seen in terms of becoming ‘members’ of an institution, but rather as entering into active ‘partnership’ with God and His people in the work of the Kingdom. This is a challenge to those who are keen to know who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’ – those who want to see church as a ‘bounded’ or ‘closed’ set. The alternative viewpoint is the ‘centred’ or ‘open’ set, which is less focussed on who has yet to ‘cross the line’ and more interested in encouraging everyone to move closer to Christ who is at the centre of our life together. This type of church becomes a more attractive and inclusive community whose very life together acts as an invitation to others, and a ‘signpost’ to Jesus. In all our churches let’s be concerned less about membership and more about our obedience to the call for us to be missional communities.
One of the identifying features of a Baptist congregation is its understanding of church membership, but as someone involved in a fresh expression of church, it has become clear that our current interpretation of what it means to be a member is not really ‘fit for purpose’ in our contemporary society.
The meaning of the word ‘member’ has changed over time. Previous generations commonly understood this word as a reference to a part of the body, and were thus more able to grasp the organic nature of the biblical analogy in 1 Corinthians 12. Contemporary usage of the word, however, is now largely restricted to an organisational understanding, for example, in our membership of the local gym. Here the mutuality and accountability implicit within the biblical metaphor is reduced to a financial exchange or even lost entirely.
Also, in a time when people were less mobile, and denominations less ecumenical, being involved in the life of a local church would have been an enduring and essential component of an individual’s identity. Now, however, the believer’s relationship with church is changing. Indeed, there are people who believe and yet aren’t members, and others who participate fully, but are yet to profess faith.
There are some commentators who argue that the problem is due to a wider ‘post-commitment culture’ and that the churches should be counter-cultural and better at communicating the need for individuals to commit themselves to church membership. In my opinion, however, commitment per se isn’t the problem. Whilst loyalty to institutions and organisations may be disappearing, campaigns such as ‘Make Poverty History’ and ‘Stop the Traffik’ show that there is still a strong desire to be involved in movements which seek to have a transformational influence upon society.
A healthy growing church community still needs commitment. This, however, is not to be seen in terms of becoming ‘members’ of an institution, but rather as entering into active ‘partnership’ with God and His people in the work of the Kingdom. This is a challenge to those who are keen to know who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’ – those who want to see church as a ‘bounded’ or ‘closed’ set. The alternative viewpoint is the ‘centred’ or ‘open’ set, which is less focussed on who has yet to ‘cross the line’ and more interested in encouraging everyone to move closer to Christ who is at the centre of our life together. This type of church becomes a more attractive and inclusive community whose very life together acts as an invitation to others, and a ‘signpost’ to Jesus. In all our churches let’s be concerned less about membership and more about our obedience to the call for us to be missional communities.
To Blog Or Not To Blog?
I have been warned! The media frenzy over a blog entry by Father Ed Tomlinson (http://www.sbarnabas.com/blog/) is sufficient to make even the most careful member of the clergy refrain from expressing their opinions over the internet. Whilst I hope I am tactful when necessary, I also have the tendency to say things which are provocative and designed to challenge. Perhaps, however, my blog is less likely to upset media types. I'm more inclined (or called?) to direct my challenges in the direction of the church itself. Don't get me wrong - I love the church, and I particularly love my own little congregation which is on its own exciting and pioneering journey for the sake of mission. In fact it's because I love the church so much that I want it to be transformed into a dynamic movement that is itself an agent of change within society. Indeed, I believe in the church, and pray that during the years of ministry that God has in store for me He might use me in a small way to bring this about.
This blog is intended to be part of that ministry. I don't intend to use it to pontificate, or moralise, or tell others what to do - rather I seek to use this as a place to reflect upon the journey that I am on. I aim to provide more questions than answers and hope that those who read my blog will respond in a likewise fashion, joining me in a conversation, rather than in judgement or condemnation. I'll get it wrong sometimes, but then, don't we all? Thankfully we worship a gracious and forgiving God...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
