Thursday, October 30, 2008
The Church Shapes Us
Blue Fish writes about modern expressions of faith and some very interesting analysis of recent exegesis of Song of Songs.
When I look at church trends I see so many ways that we seem to try and mold the church for togetherness without that necessity for change. Big is anonymous. "Small groups" tend to last until the point where real interaction begins and then the rosters shift or they fall apart.
I am not sure this is so much about authority as it is intimacy. Of course, intimacy implies a kind of authority. Becoming intimate requires giving the other sufficient information about oneself for them to exercise it in an authoritarian manner.
There are a lot of reasons people reject intimacy and authority, particularly from the church, but let me lay just one of them out there. We have traditionally been pretty bad at doing those things. When people try and get there what they find is so bad that they need to move on for the sake of survival.
I keep reflecting on the fact that the church is not truly growing. Some congregations are, often at the expense of other one, but the church, certainly in the western world, is shrinking not growing. We focus on the need for growth instead of ourselves.
Maybe this is a season of withdrawal for the church. Maybe this is a season where we are supposed to be in reflection and meditation, on a bit of a retreat. What if the church became intentional about that?
Interesting thought - isn't it?
Technorati Tags:intimacy, authority, retreat, church
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
That's to say we think individually "me and God" because we don't want to be subject to the effects of other Christians upon our lives.One of the things that has always struck me in discussion of "the spiritual disciplines" is how, while they are necessary, in my own life, the most powerful force for change has been other people. Sometimes it is in the form of accountability and sometimes it is in the form of having to change to get along.
Some propose community as the solution, but all the people who believe the individualistic gospel above are probably church members. They go to church. They serve in church. But, they're most likely not to make decision with reference to church, and they'll probably like to sing with their eyes shut - just them and God. And when there are really only two people in the relationship it's easy to slip into assuming both parties are equal... and before long it's advantage me. Anti-authority, yet in the church.
When I look at church trends I see so many ways that we seem to try and mold the church for togetherness without that necessity for change. Big is anonymous. "Small groups" tend to last until the point where real interaction begins and then the rosters shift or they fall apart.
I am not sure this is so much about authority as it is intimacy. Of course, intimacy implies a kind of authority. Becoming intimate requires giving the other sufficient information about oneself for them to exercise it in an authoritarian manner.
There are a lot of reasons people reject intimacy and authority, particularly from the church, but let me lay just one of them out there. We have traditionally been pretty bad at doing those things. When people try and get there what they find is so bad that they need to move on for the sake of survival.
I keep reflecting on the fact that the church is not truly growing. Some congregations are, often at the expense of other one, but the church, certainly in the western world, is shrinking not growing. We focus on the need for growth instead of ourselves.
Maybe this is a season of withdrawal for the church. Maybe this is a season where we are supposed to be in reflection and meditation, on a bit of a retreat. What if the church became intentional about that?
Interesting thought - isn't it?
Technorati Tags:intimacy, authority, retreat, church
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
