conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

The problem of "gazing" at worship, of viewing "worship" but not worshiping ourselves, pervades all denominations of all stripes: so-called "megachurch" evangelicals, mainstream Protestants (be they Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist, or some other strain), Roman Catholics and Orthodox.

The nature of the gazing is what's different: old school Roman Catholics and Orthodox are separated, either canonically or physically, from direct participation in worsihp. To take the other extreme, Protestant worship can often seem like a "show:" the talk-showy preacher, the choir/praise-band that seems to be giving a concert, etc.

It's not enough to "turn the altar around" or to make worship "more accessible, less liturgical" because the same problems keep cropping up: the folks up there are in charge and being viewed, and we down here are passive and viewing.

Lathrop talks about brokenness, and how liturgy must be "wholeness-and-brokenness" in almost every aspect: the loaf, the division between Word and Meal, the gap between what we hope to be and what we are. I think we are nervous about truly embracing brokenness, and that's the problem.

At Immanuel, the deacon rings the bell once after the sermon ends, and there is silence for at least a minute, with plans on making it a longer silence for reflection. Reconciler has a discussion after the sermon. I think demarcating a time for preaching, silence and reflection, and then response, reflects that kind of wholeness-and-brokenness.

Here's one problem with it: everybody (or almost everybody) wants a big church. Fill the pews. How do you have worship that touches everyone if some people are so physically and mentally distant?

Just some thoughts,

Tripp and I have been going back and forth on worship and the active/passive issue. I'll try to offer a brief summary of my thoughts.

The first question I think needs to be answered is - What constitutes active participation? Is it singing? Speaking? Silence? I truly believe that most people view hymn singing and the recitation of rote prayer as an activity, but not an engagement. How many of us plow through the hymns and don't give the words a thought or are so turned off by the archaic words of the old hymns or the non- inclusive language or just the tired symbolism? To me, the most active I am during a worship service as a participant in worship is either while listening to a sermon or praying in silence or in word about something to which I can relate.

I am starting to think that there is an element of tilting at windmills when we pose the question as we have. We set ourselves up for failure when we discount the performance aspects of worship. Worship may truly be all about access to one's soul, for that is where we have one of our best hopes of encountering God. So if the majority of people access their soul by seeing some kind of performance that facilitates their ability to feel or think differently, then worship accomplishes an objective. It may not be the only objective, but it is pretty high on the list, particularly if you believe that the best way we have to worship God is to continue to evolve toward a Christ-like existence. How can we expect to change if we aren't engaging God and the church at the level of our deepest thoughts and feelings?

So great music grabs x percent of the congregation. Hymns get another group. An intellectual sermon gets another, an emotional sermon still another. You get the picture. Worship needs to be a pastiche that at its core over time reaches a broad number of people most of the time. It needs variety and it needs familiarity. What it should not be is consistantly predictable, and performance is one of the key tools a pastor and staff have to shuffle the deck and keep the attendees mentally alert. There is an element of wishful thinking in the notion that traditional worship activities are understood in the same way by pastor and congregation.

I had thought that more active freeform interaction during the worship service would be a good way to keep people's heads in the game, but I realize that there are two big drawbacks to this. First, the same people will talk every chance they get. Second, once a church grows beyond a certain size, perhaps 100 people, this would be unmanagible. Still, as a tool, it meets the criteria for occasional use. I believe that the other way to access God is through our interactions with others, and free-form alocutions by worshippers allows that kind of insight into others.

One more thing. In rereading Tripp's original entry, I see the question about the approach to God. To me, this hearkens back to God as this large father figure, a King that sits above the fray and who, by His power alone, chooses whether to listen or not based on the quality of your approach. I would like to think that one of the great improvements in religious thought over time is that view of God as a more Christ-like figure Himself. God wants us as we are, where we are. Broken or whole, formal or relaxed - these things don't matter to Him. God doesn't want our awe. He simply wants us to be with Him and wants to help us find Him. (sorry for the masculine pronoun - I'm older than 40 so old concepts die hard).

I think we are there to relisten to God and to give ourselves permission to find His presence. But I do not believe that God is actively attending each Sunday worship service waiting for the right approach, and the image of approaching God to worship Him conjures up these visions of power to me. I have an easier time reconciling other aspects of faith when I think of God like a living stream of water from which we can and need to drink. The stream is revered, but not the subject of homage.

Good stuff.

I am wondering something a little different. We still think of a worship service as a service that the institution offers the person in the pew. What if it is the other way around. What if it is a service for God. So, we who are in leadership should not be thinking in terms of what we can offer the person in the pew...not in terms of entertainment and performance. Worship is what the person in the pew (the believer or aspirant) offers God. Worship leaders facilitate this offering/service. That is all.

Temple worship, synagogue worship was designed not as entertainment or show, but as an opportunity to give to God. Now, we Christians have a slightly different perspective as we are within the Trinity ourselves by being members of Christ's body. But scripture states that Christ is in the presense of God in worship. It is something that the body does, perhaps as rigorously as charity and tithing and anything else.

Hmm...reordering may need to take place on multiple levels.

I agree with the first paragraph as did the legitimate liturgical movement before the 1960s destroyed it. It's worth noting that the Russian Orthodox don't actively participate - only the priest, deacon and choir sing - but can't be said to 'not participate'. The devout know what's going on. And despite my sharing your liturgical-movement feeling one can argue the same of traditional Western Catholics.

Thanks, Tripp and Jorge, for not blaming high churchmanship for the ills one finds in services. As Jorge points out boredom and carelessness simply come with fallen human nature no matter the brand of religion.

We are liturgical creatures as conservative Protestant attachment to the King James Bible and certain hymns shows. There's no escaping that and who among us would want to?

The legitimate liturgical movement didn't say 'turn the altar around and trash the statues' but 'teach the people to sing, understand and love the Mass and office'.

As for big-D Doubts, one can be entirely orthodox and say that's what the university, or the spirit of it in the form of advanced classes for adults, is for. (Which was the Pope's recent point, part of which taken out of context has got him death threats on his trip to Turkey right now.)

OK, I'm one of the people Tripp worries about in his original posting, and one of the people Rich notes would talk back in church any chance I got, and when the Young Fogey asks "There's no escaping that and who among us would want to?" I eagerly respond ME ME ME!!

So, how can I help you?

Megan, just a quick question: You are a professional theater mogul. How do you understand the nature of performance? How do you understand the difference between theater and church? Do you?

Okay, this is several questions.

How do you understand "liturgy?" I agree with fogey in that we need ritual...not empty, vapid ritual, but a common discipline and rite. Do you not want this? Is there a better option?

Tell me more.

Megan, come to visit Tripp. I think I want to meet you.

ME ME ME too.

Having said that, by omission I gather that YF thinks that I am pointing the finger at high church for the issues we have with making worship meaningful. I do not intend to, but neither do I suggest that there isn't a distaste for high church by many people because of their inherent short attention spans and the desire for relevance. That doesn't imply that high church is right and these people are wrong. It merely suggests that there is a bad fit. High church is nice every now and then for me too. But every week feels like rote indoctrination and not engaging worship. To me.

Why must there be a "right" answer anyhow? Perhaps the church should embrace the side effects of free will and meet people where they are. The concern I have with the subject stems from what I want my church to be - not how YF's church should be. The complicating factor is that my church is Tripp's church, so we actually have to come to some kind of understanding over the years. But access to this kind of forum adds so much to the conversation.

I'm just full of something today. Probably crap.

Why is it that services at retreats and campfires and at alternate times for alternate specific purposes are almost always praised by those that participate? Because they are novel? Perhaps. I think it is because they arise out of a common experience or because they have a special focus or because the folk participating are already engaged in some kind of connection with the other participants. We take Sunday morning for granted, but Sunday worship takes the participant's engagement for granted as well. Find a way to engage the people at the beginning and the rest of the time will be more worshipful.

Let's see if I wind up busting the length limit for your comments. :-)

In the briefest summary: I understand performance ideally to be active on both sides of the divide: the performer(s) are actively talking, singing, moving, etc. AND the audience member(s) are actively listening, thinking, feeling, etc. Obviously, their actions are not the same.

The experience of church as I typically see it done outside of Quaker Meeting fits into that mold. And in church as well as theatre, it is extremely difficult to legislate or predict how the audience/congregation will be active, or how active they will be. Audiences and congregations are not controllable. The best we can do is persuade, invite, provoke, surprise, etc. Worth noting, too: as an audience member, I loathe and despise "audience participation" in which the performers are sent scampering among the audience to play with them, or in which audience members are dragged onstage to play with the performers. Hate it now, have always hated it.

In church, ritual is fine. I don't feel like I NEED it -- I was very happy worshipping in an unprogrammed Quaker Meeting, in which the sum total of the corporate liturgy was: at a certain moment about 15-20 minutes into the Meeting, all the children and their First Day School teachers would silently stand and leave the Meeting room to go to their classes. At another point about 5 minutes before the end of Meeting, the Clerk would stand and invite the attendees to "hold in the light" for collective prayer any matters they chose. Finally, the Meeting ended with handshakes and peaceful greetings among the congregation. And that was it, as far as liturgy went!

The better option for more regular, performance-oriented Protestant and Catholic churches -- and I hasten to add this is not an option I expect to see in my lifetime, which is why church membership will always be an open question for me -- is Much Greater Lay Participation.

And this is where I get a bit combative, so please forgive me ahead of time, and recognize that combativeness does not automatically mean I don't have a point.

Having spent untold hours of my lifetime listening to clergy who are neither as intelligent as I am nor as well educated as I am carry on and on and on, I would like the clergy to sit down and shut up. Much of the time, clergy get in the way of my connecting with God.

I'm glad we have this forum too, Rich.

The thing that I fret about, mull over, ruminate upon is the habit of making worship something that attracts people. Worship should never be one more shiny thing that people want to have. I think you and I agree on this.

So, let's pick nits a bit. What do you mean by meeting people where they are? Because I don't understand worship in that way. We meet God in worship...who accepts us as we are. We have to start from somewhere in that whole salvific enterprise. Sure. But worship should demand something of the worshiper.

Or should it not?

Your question, Tripp, "What if it is a service for God?" is precisely the question.

There are two dangers in liturgy: a liturgy so remote that it seems to have nothing to do with the people, and a liturgy so people-centered as to have nothing to with God.

Sometimes the problem has been that the people in the pews feel as if they have very little to do with the liturgy; more often than not, I think the problem these days is that the liturgy has more to do with people than it has to do with God.

When I pray the Liturgy of the Hours, I'm not sure what it does for me, honestly. It's a service I offer God, a service of praise, thanksgiving, intercession, and contrition. I'm sure it does something to me as well, but it does so within the context of me doing something for God.

Reading and thinking about these responses makes me think that the problem is not involving people in liturgy or worship, but actually getting them to worship. A Eucharist is not just for us, it is also for God. But what happens when we forget ourselves or God? Do we even have a Eucharist?

'Having said that, by omission I gather that YF thinks that I am pointing the finger at high church for the issues we have with making worship meaningful.'

That wasn't my intent, Rich.

What I mean is that I think that there should be very few expectations of people when they enter the worship service. I do believe that worship is for us more than it is for God. In fact, I have come to think that the word "worship" perpetuates this notion of kingliness that I find unworthy of trust. And so, I think the only demand that God places on us as worshippers is to do our utmost to be open to His presence. That, of course, means that openness is a continuum. For some, it means openness to a new hearing of the Word. For others, it means an openness to trusting others in the congregation or to welcoming new people to the fellowship, or to open one's heart in empathy. For still others, it means openness to walking in the door, not knowing what to expect, but knowing that you have a reason to be here and you are trying to find out why you came.

It may be a narrow listening on my part, but when I hear you speak of demands on the worshipper, it seems to exclude people who want to get to the point. Or people who find formality constrictive. I think that Willow Creek has gone way too far in their application of this "shiny thing" aspect of performance worship. But I do think that the basic concept that informed its beginnings is right. We can't take the value of worship to the individual congregant for granted. For better or worse, people don't have blind faith in the institution of church as the focus of their relationship with God. So we need to create value every week. We can say "But that's not right - people need church and the value is obvious", but we do not have a right to hold that belief and we have a responsibility to persuade people that fellowship in Christ is rooted in community.

So if we kick butt on this song on Sunday and one new person says - "wow, what a cool church. I think I'll come back again", I think we have done a good thing as long as there is something beyond the song that is available for this person to access when they are ready. Everything is about balance. There's nothing wrong with a shiny thing as long as it has substance behind it so that you aren't presenting shiny things just to build your own kingdom. Some people posit that the fishes and loaves miracle was a good example of this kind of thinking. Jesus was preaching for a while and the troops were getting restless, so he satisfied their need not just for bread, but for circuses too. I bet they listened better after that.

And here we go -- I'm about to trip over one of the obstacles I encounter regularly in my participation here. The idea of salvation.

I'm not at all convinced that there's anything people need to be "saved" from. And even if there is, I am absolutely convinced that the process of saving is exclusively between the individual and God. The best thing a church can do for that process is stay the heck out of the way.

God demands plenty from us. But no church and no clergyperson can legitimately demand anything of me. Demands are between me, and God.

So, Tripp, what do you think worship should "demand," and what role do you think you, as a member of the professional clergy, have in that "demanding"?

Okay, let me start with the term "wroship."

This is why I prefer the word "Liturgy." The act of gathering together on Sunday morning etc is liturgy, "the work of the people." It is no more or less the work of the people than feeding the hungry or clothing the poor. No more or less. It is what we do in service.

Megan, I would say that given the above definition of the Sunday Act, that you are right. No one person can save you. If, indeed, there is salvation (making one whole), then it is wrought by God. But there are many disciplines that can bring this about. There are many ways in which we encounter God. The Sunday Liturgy is one of them. And for me this is why it is so important. It should assisst in bringing us closer to God and thus wholeness, peace, purpose, etc like feeding the hungry can and often does.

But it asks something of us...like feeding the hungry does. This is my frustration. We seem to think that liturgy should not ask anything of us. As a clergy person, I have certain responsibilities (producer, director, dramaturg). But I do not save anyone. That's God's work. I do pray that what I do facilitates God's work...all the time. I want people to encounter God on Sunday mornings. Not me.

Rich, I did not grow up in the church. So, the first time I walked into a church with the intention (hope) of encountering something outside of myself, I assumed I would not know the ritual roadmap, that I would have to stretch myself in some way. This is what I am talking about. Willow Creek looks like a community college because it wants to look like something recognisable. I think that this has some merit. But for me, I want to go someplace on Sunday morning that pushes me, that asks more of me than a lecture hall does. And this means crafting a liturgy that speaks of something differently than the world might speak...than a mall or cineplex odeon might speak.

Call it a pet peeve, but if we are hospitable in our gathering, then we need not manufacture a recognisable worship service for anyone. We only need to show people through it. This takes more liturgy (work), but may prove to be worth the struggle.

Will you wrap back around to my question about your role as demander?

Oh. Sure.

I don't demand. Not really. But neither do I think that I should cater in some extreme fashion. My role is facilitator, an educated articulator. I help the people of a given congregation craft their liturgical life to reflect their relationship with God.

I have training to help in this. But in the end, the product, if that is a good word to use, belongs to the congregation.

So, if Rich and I disagree on the "demands" upon the worshipers, and I find I am the lone voice on my side of the argument when we widen this conversation out, then I am the one who has to give in. Not the people.

What do you think worship and/or liturgy should demand of congregants?

Their participation...active and intentional engagement. This may not always be possible all the time. I mean, we have lives. So, some days may be better than others. And I cannot control the people in the pews. That's foolishness.

So, when you say you want more lay participation, I think that we may be trying to get at the same thing. Yes, there are different ways to participate (listening and speaking as examples). But I want more room for people to participate. I want to create a culture of engagement on multiple levels.

I suspect the result of my desire would be a lot more radically different from current liturgy than the result of your desire. But if I'm wrong, then I'm even happier!

That "active and intentional engagement" is very much what many theatres want to inspire in their audiences.

In my experience so far, it can't be demanded. It can't even really be predicted.

Megan, you hit on the problem. I don't know if I am right when I say this, but I cannot pass up the temptation. I think to demand such a thing from worshipers (through structure, singing, etc) is counter-cultural. Liturgy is the exact opposite of TV. It is more like the live theater to be certain. And God is one of the beings encountered when we gather in liturgy. We have to assume that God is present even if we don't feel it.

We cannot change the channel.
We cannot turn off the TV, except by tuning out on our own. We cannot buy time within it. And if we don't pay attention, our souls are potentially starved for it. It is after all, Sabbath.

But this puts a tremendous responsibility on the worship leaders choir etc. We cannot simply phone it in. We have to lead by example in our own attentiveness to God's work in the liturgy.

I think you're stretching the word "demand" far beyond its actual capacities. Nobody can "demand" anything from me by singing, or by a choice about order of worship, or anything like that.

I failed to follow your TV analogy. What are you saying there? Who is "we" -- the clergy or the congregation? What does "buying time within it" mean?

As usual, semantics plays a large role in these conversations. Liturgy can be formal or informal and still be engaging. It doesn't need to demand anything. It simply needs to be inviting at multiple levels, so that those seeking a higher level of engagement can find it without disenfranchising those who seek to engage at a lower level. We can mix intellectualism and emotionalism and rationalism and create an invitation to engage that will be more persuasive than any demand we could make. This isn't catering. On the other hand, a formal liturgy seems to be catering to one faction's need for order and discipline. It all depends which side of the discussion we are on.

I walked away in the middle of typing and saw your response to Megan when I returned. I'm confused. If all you are saying is that we need to do a better job of being intentional in the planning and execution of the liturgy - who could argue with that. If we are talking about structural issues (which I thought we were), and attentiveness is a smokescreen for ritual as the true way to meaningful liturgy, then let's keep dancing.

Rich, I think that once we start talking structure we are talking about intention. We are talking about the work of liturgy (I'm saying the same thing twice now.) then. To engage one is to engage the other. And it has to be so. Otherwise if we just talk about structure with no intention, then we are talking shiney things, traditional or not. If we talk about intention and provide no structure, then we could just have a really earnest Society of the Water Buffalo meeting and call it a day.

Structure and the theology behind our intention to gather need to inform one another. What is the theology of worship we are proponing in the structure of worship? And can we be intentional about engaging it?

Megan, I am stretching things a bit. I'll admit it. I do not how it is possible to demand that a parishoner do anything...since I don't believe church can be punitive. But the structure can ask a lot of us, and in that sense demand a lot of us if we want it to be good worship. A relationship demands much. Parenting demands much...if we want it to be good, true and enlivening.

I want worship to be good, true and enlivening. Thus I think it should ask (if not demand) a great deal from us all.

Our backgrounds are so different that I wonder whether we'll ever come to common ground about this.

You came to religion deliberately, as an adult, and you have ancestors you admire who were professional churchmen.

I grew up in a church that didn't love me, and I was horrified when I discovered the depths of its hypocrisy. Whenever I consider church, I am burdened by the hundreds of hours I've spent in churches listening to empty speeches, and I deeply suspicious of church as an entity.

Frankly, I think we congregants should be the ones doing the asking or demanding. We should be asking or demanding that our churches live out what they talk about - love, justice, etc. No obfuscations and no excuses. And where our churches clearly fall down on what they're called to do (homophobia, anyone? sexism?) then we should demand that they explain why, and that they shape the heck up, pronto.

This is going to sound silly, but I'm wondering - what's the role of prayer in considering worship?

By that, I mean that we're talking a lot about our (humans') role in it, and a little about God's place in the whole mess of liturgy and worship. But as far as I'm concerned, what makes it worship is the element of praising/glorifying God. (I think that can happen in a whole lot of ways - lament, for instance, can be a way of praising, especially in the context of a fuller relationship - but I think that kind of focus on God is essential.) That's not because it's something God needs, exactly, so much as because it's because God loves us and asks our love, and praising and glorifying God (in various and divers ways) is what we can do.

If, then, God is somehow central to this worship thing, and it's not just about what we get out of it, then shouldn't we be asking God's input as well?

I don't doubt that many here have prayed about this; I do want it to be an explicit piece of the discussion.

But then, I'm liable to be somewhat unconcerned about the number of people we get in our pews (or chairs, or soft spaces, or whatever).

A fair bit of this isn't nearly as coherent as I'd like, or as it might be at another hour of the day, so let me know which bits you think fall that direction and I'll try to clarify later.

Megan, I woke up this morning thinking the same thing. And, not that you and Rich are the same person, but in this opinion you are similar. You both are rebelling (?) against something. YF, Jorge, and I are enamored of the liturgy. So, yeah, there is a tremendous amount of ground to cover.

But I still think it is a necessary conversation.

Beth, your contribution is right on target....even if sleepy. ;-)

This is what I wanted to bring up. I don't know where Megan and Rich are in this, but for me God is a conversation partner in how/why/when/where we craft liturgy. It is not simply for me that I gather on Sunday. It is for me to meet God in a way that is somehow different than contemplative prayer, playing mandolin with the Girls or whatever. It is not that God is not in these things, pray without ceasing, you know. But liturgy matters. Gathering to worship God (See the upper room stories in the gospels.), is something asked of us. How are we to be in communion?

Somehow our gathering has to be more than a spiritual marketplace. It has to be real encounter. And real encounter is demanding (?).

I don't have an ax to grind with the church as institution. My issue is how to blend the secular with the sacred because, try as we might, we only really live in one world. Churches make the mistake of focusing on otherworldliness to inform earthly decisions. But I believe, perhaps too much, in a living faith that nurtures the souls of today. I believe in the limitations of humanity and think that our striving for a new understanding of our covenant with God calls for looking at the world from our point of view and not that of God.

I disagree with you, Tripp, in your elevation of liturgy as a place of special communion with God. I'm not rebelling against it, per se (although you know I am rebelling against petitionary prayer). I see the liturgy as a place where professional facilitators in the form of ministers, musicians and experienced laity come together to create a moment for God and people to meet. I see it, when done properly, as a place where lives are changed and possibly even saved. Are they saved for Christ in the traditional sense - how do I know? But they are saved from being worse than they might have been and that may be all we can ever hope to understand in this world.

This is very different than the Society of the Water Buffalo. There is intention, there is love and in the mixing of these two things, there is God. So my take on liturgy as goal is that it is narrowcasting. Liturgy is a tool to get God's point across, even when we aren't quite sure of its meaning. It is a place that creates the possibility of encounter with God, but I don't think there is a guarantee, and the ability to interact with God, like any conversation, is dependent on both parties. God doesn't spend a lot of time communicating with people who aren't listening. Or maybe, that's where He is spending all of His time, but who would know if they're not listening. Either way, preparing people to listen is a task that requires the focus to be on the people so that they then can focus on God.

Rich...so close!

"Either way, preparing people to listen is a task that requires the focus to be on the people so that they then can focus on God."

I would say...

Either way, preparing people to listen is a task that requires the focus of the people upon God.

You say potato and I say Potahto

I'm a mechanic. I see this as a mechanical question. If the pros focus on God, but use the liturgy as a tool to enable the participants to focus on God then you get to the same place. I see your point as skipping a necessary step in the process. PERT chart stuff. If you skip the step, you end up with less than maximum performance. That's all. And I think God would like us to maximize our stewardship of the liturgy too. We can hammer this out at lunch and publish our own version of The Meaning of Jesus. What should we have?

Last two things here, I promise, and then I will go read the newer posting(s).

"Gathering to worship God (See the upper room stories in the gospels.), is something asked of us." You know what I think of this. A God who doesn't hesitate to issue commandments when things are important will not waste time with implications. What you choose to interpret as a "calling" to corporate worship is an OPTION, and I believe there are other equally defensible interpretations and options. So no. We ain't "called," in the sense of "required." We have the option to worship together, or not.

And as far as "necessary conversation," I think the conversation may eventually be necessary, but right now the groundwork isn't under it. The church needs to remove the log from its eye first. (And yes, I know that goes both ways -- that would be the point!)

But Megan, and I know this is our usual conversation, the church will always have some log or speck because it is populated with people. Always and forever...until the landlord comes again.

To expect anything else is missing the point of the Gospel, i think.

And once again, you miss my point.

I'm not asking for a perfect church. I'm asking for -- insisting on -- elimination of the church's deliberate deviations from the basic commandment to fulfill which the church is supposed to exist.

My mother had this to say:

It seems that when we are in churchthat we sing on command, pray on command and listen on command. Depending on my frame of mind on any given Sunday, one or all three canbe difficult to do as I sit in the pew. Last week during the prayerand meditation "event" of the service, we had a moment of silentmeditation (which I couldn't pull off because I was think of yourvisit) and then Greg went into his prayer which lasted two long becauseI actually saw people looking at their watches! People come to church for their ownpersonal reasons and it is difficult to play to the entire house at onetime. Maybe the leaders of the church put too much emphasis on theirpart of the service and not enough emphasis on the part thecongregation may play or need. Megan is right; its not about you;its about
Me Me Me!!

I am not missing your point, Megan. I am saying that sinners, people who will deliberately and not-so-deliberately hurt you, are in the church. Some of them are in leadership. Some of them make theology. Some of them enforce theology.

It is the painful reality of any community...especially a 2000 year old community. That's a lot of time to screw up. It is also a lot of time to make right.

Do you not hear the voices trying to make it right? Does it matter nothing that my baptist church is open and affirming, has lay people preach, etc? Does that say nothing of the institution at large?

There are voices within the church, speaking on its behalf doing exactly what you ask, trying to change the landscape. It is happening. It is just slow...very, very slow going.

Your Baptist denomination's policy is specifically anti-homosexual. We've discussed that before.

Do you not understand how after nearly 2,100 years of waiting with so unbelievably little progress, a member of an oppressed class would be Officially Finished Waiting?

Yes. And when we establish such statements, we are not being the church. It is not the church that does these things but the people who inhabit, and yes, represent the church.

Our denomination is once again fighting this out. The power still resides in the congregation, however. And this congregation denies and disputes the action taken then...actively and openly. That moment was a failure to be church.

You can be through waiting. I totally understand. We've talked about this before. Sometimes we just have to walk.

But all I ask of you is to remember those of us who have not walked, who are still fighting, who are trying to help the church reveal God that much more to the world. This has always been the struggle of the institution. And it will always be so. Some day, if hope prevails, homosexuality will not be the great divisive issue that it is currently. That would be lovely.

But color me cynical, we will find something else then. We will find some reason to divide and conquer ourselves. This is what happens when people are in charge.

I appreciate what you're saying about your own fight.

I don't find the distinction between "the church" and "the people who are the church" useful. It's angels dancing on the heads of pins. My experience -- everyone's experience! -- of the church (any church) is the church in the world, which is made of the people who choose to be there. So, the attempt to make me feel one way about the church and another way about the policies and people that constitute it... there's no distinction to be made there.

re: distinctions

I guess I understand you. And this is where we find a difference. I am not the church...not when I sin. No matter what leadership position I may have, when I sin against the Church, I am not the church. To be Christ-like is to be the Church. It's that whole body of Christ thing for me. When I am not Christ like, then I am not the Church...even when I speak on behalf of the church as I sin.

It is a precarious kind of leadership to say the least.

I understand that. It just doesn't make a difference to me, that sticking on or peeling off of labels based on whether a person is screwing up at the moment.

The only church one experiences is the one that's here. I want the one that's here to haul its butt into line with the Great Commandment to love one another.

Something you said earlier, that the power lies with the congregation. I disagree. I think the power lies with God, who issues the commandments that people are to live out. The *responsibility* lies with the congregation, to do that living out.

I agree with your possibly cynical assessment that if/when the church gets its head out of its orifices re: homosexuality or any of the other current hot button issues, the church will then find something else to screw up.

Sexism and homophobia are enormous, obvious refusals to love. Not failures. Refusals. I can't abide that, and so far no one has been able to justify it to me.

Smaller and less obvious failures to love are to be expected, but as soon as they are noticed I think it's reasonable to expect the church to correct them.

The long-term refusal to correct what is thunderingly obviously wrong, and has been pointed out many times, is egregious.

I agree with you.

FWIW, the power comment has to do with the ecclesial management of the ABC. Political power resides in the congregation. Thus our stances change from congregation to congregation. There is no national oversight.

Ineffective national leadership? You bet.

Nevertheless, there are national policies, which participation in the denomination makes each and every member and congregation responsible for.

Participation = endorsement.

And that is what you don't understand about Baptists. Endorsement exists in the congregation only, that kind of identification exists there. We assume a plurality of theologies and interpretations. So we do often stand in total disagreement with one another. So, I do not endorse the statements. This congregation does not. Nor do the gay and lesbian ministers that still serve ABC pulpits.

But neither will we shun one another.

Then what is the point of sharing the name Baptist?

There are overarching theologies that we share...to be certain. Adult Baptism, autonomy of the congregation and the primacy of the individual believer and their relationship with God.

But Baptist is also an inherited name...there are various types of Baptists. Falwell can rightly claim Baptist. So too can Martin Luther King, Fosdick, Sloan Coffin, Bill Clinton and myself.

The freedom to associate/affiliate is for the purpose of shared mission and ministry. What one congregation cannot do, several may be able to.

Right, I know that. But sharing a name isn't required for collaborating on efforts.

So I ask again, what is the point of sharing a name and, more importanly, a set of denominational policies?

We've talked arond this before. There are too many different types of Baptists to say that we are a single community. So, if there is any hedging, fencing in or out, it is always fluid and changing. So, what is proclaimed as our stance in one time will and does change. Ordination of women is one example. The issue of homosexuality is one that we are currently working through. Though there was a vote, the community at large has not affirmed that decision. Many have rejected it. So, it is still on the drawing board.

Taking the name Baptist is to self-identify within a certain generous tradition. We are not Catholic, Methodist etc. We are Baptists. The thing that makes us, well, probelematic, is that we are like a time capsule of the second wave of the reformation in England and the US. So, even at our core, there was no singular theology...thus , we have always been in conversation with one another as Baptists about what it means to be Baptists. Arminian, Calvinist, Emersonian, Fundamentalist...affiliation after affiliation...we seek our common identity at all times, struggling as it changes.

Affiliation matters to us. It is a virtue and a discipline.

We lay Baptists wrestle with affiliation too. I have come to believe it has more merits than problems, but it is like herding cats. The nature of true Baptists seems to be like that of Groucho Marx, who said he did not want to belong to a club that would have him as a member. So, to think of the various groups of Baptists as denominations in the sense that Catholics and Lutherans are misses this dimension.