Further to my ‘Denomination Domination’ post I would like to speculate that we can be church amongst

Bewitched movies churches. I.e. just because you want to change your pattern of fellowship with other believers, you don’t have to exclude those in your current church (i.e. the church that you ‘attend’).

However, what does seem to be necessary is a re-prioritisation of how much time you are going to spend with who, but this is a long way off from dumping anyone entirely. Our mission of discipleship (internal church activity) should still be a priority in the situation we find ourselves – I tend to recall the passage around:
1 Corinthians 7:20
Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.

and imagine that this could apply to continuing to participate with the church we are in, whilst we allow ourselves fellowship with those from outside ‘our’ ‘church’.

Naturally there is a danger, if we practice this slightly subversive form of church, that existing church leaders might have a problem with us… but one would hope not! I imagine it would only be a problem if they were particularly territorial or possessive!

OK, any one denomination doesn’t have a monopoly on church, however, perhaps we have a cosy cartel?!

Well, I’m probably going a bit far there – no one has a monopoly on following Jesus. But isn’t it strange how the presence of denominations or distinct groups does pressurise Christians to either be part of one group or another and people who cross boundaries are called spiritual gypsies.

Submission to leadership appears to be a major sticking point. Crossing established boundaries does not mean that one is unsubmissive to all, but it might mean that one is more responsive and less neglectful of one’s wider set of brothers and sisters (I perceive that moving (permanently) from one group to another often includes unnecessary acts of rejection and exclusion).

I wonder if crossing boundaries and participation in multiple groups (albeit a small number) is an alternative to the two most popular ways of change:

• Church renewal
• Church planting

Perhaps there is a third way?

I heard a friend recently state that ‘we need to live comfortably with uncertaintly’.

As human beings we like the security of knowing where our lives our going, how we are going to provide for ourselves. We even like the idea of knowing loads of theological stuff. Somehow this insulation from surprise makes us feel confortable.

BUT – surely we should be uncomfortable with the false security we give ourselves? Surely we should only find comfort in His security? Comfort from The Comforter – without having to know the future, without having to have extensive plans or knowledge.

And there I was with my ‘No Fear’ T-shirt on, feeling as scared as the next person!Max Manus video

I did some really hurting experience the other day. It was a day of celebration since the spring is emerging in sweden – it is called “Valborgsmässoafton”. Almost everbody is out celebrating. We had a gathering in our church (with an extremely good band www.loneydear.com Train Master movies ) and I started to talk we a guy. He was about 40 years old. I asked him where he was working. He replied that i he was cleaning (you know putting everything at the right place…) at the university of Lund. There our conversation ended. I hade no more questions (he was a really quiet man – but anyway…) – my university education became a block between us. If he had been a engineer, socilogist or that kind – but he wasn´t. We really have a need for a church that is for cleaners. A church which like music that is not high-cultural. (1 Cor. 9:19ff)
Fredrik Wenell

Last week at youth group some of the guys commented how they felt a bit under the spotlight if they didn’t take communion on a Sunday morning. This is especially so if the person introducing it says something along the lines of ‘if you have unresolved sin then feel free not to take the communion’!

So, it occurs to me that communion has the same root as community and as such is surely something to do with unity and inclusivity within the church. So perhaps we should consider having communion (having community) rather than merely taking communion?

In our rush to take communion aren’t we alienating people?

Sure communion is for people who believe what it is about – Jesus’ death – and as such is obviously not appropriate for ye olde evangelism evente. But hang on, most Sunday morning church these days is open to seekers (et al). So why, in the face of not having communion do we insist on taking

communion?

Is it possible to ‘set up’ a church? I’m not sure.

If you ‘set up’ a church then there is immediately a sense of heirarchy, the founders and the invitees – you also immediately have other structures and practices such as a meeting place and a meeting time. I’m not sure if these things are fundamentally important to being church. I wonder how much they get in the way?

To me, church is about being friends with other people who are also part of Christ’s body. I’m tempted to think that this means I am church with whatever Christian’s I spend time with… even if they already ‘go to a church’ (how bizarre is the term ‘go to a church’?! How can one ‘go to a church’?).

I wonder if the term ‘church planting’ was first coined to overcome this problem of whether it was possible to ‘set up’ a church? The basic concept of the term ‘church planting’ is surely merely the concept of being church, mixing with brother’s and sister’s and then church emerging from that basic root.

?????