Stuart Murray’s ‘Post-Christendom’ has got me thinking!
I wonder if there is reluctance to change in the church for this reason:
If dramatic change takes place, anyone who is in a position of power or influence in the church (or ‘a’ church) is likely to find themselves on a level with others, without an advantage. They would find themselves beginners again, unfamiliar with their newly deconstructed/reconstructed environment.
Does this mean that such people might resist change? I wonder…
Hi, you never forget your first time… Something from the Swedish front. It´s really interesting to recogise the unity of the church in Sweden at the moment. Almost every church from the official Swedish Lutheran church to the Pentecostal are participating in a huge “Easter Appeal” regarding immigrant children. The thing is that we have lots of children of immigrants who have become apathetic due to the time it takes to receive the permission to stay (or not to stay)in the country. This is not good for a country which regards itself as a human country… Churches of Sweden have reacted in relation to this together – maybe it will be several thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) who sign will this appeal. I really like this because when we have this real question – we see some kind of unity between the churches for the sake of humans!!! It gives me hope!
I was chatting with Richard and Lori P today and I suddenly said to him “what I like about this is that there are no taboos chatting with you guys”.
I thought back to my youth at church and recognised that you just weren’t allowed to question too much stuff (not that my parent’s were like that though).
This made me think about ‘not doubting’ as we are instructed to ‘not doubt’. But the essence of the ‘do not doubt’ instruction is ‘do not doubt what you know by faith’, which is entirely different to doubting loads of the other stuff that you hear at church, etc. Anyway, I found this deeply encouraging, as it is great to be encouraged not to doubt the stuff you are absolutely certain of, that God has shown to you – i.e. to get on and live how you believe.
It’s also great to know that we can (and should, perhaps) doubt everything that we don’t have a certain faith about. Let’s face it, I’m not about to have faith that ‘you must go to the church meeting every Sunday morning’! 🙂 But I am not going to doubt that ‘God is love’! Hurrah!
It is with deep concern for the bretheren at megachurches that I pen this analysis of eye contact during ‘the Grace’.
‘The Grace’ is that little blessing that we state to each other which reads ‘May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us all, evermore, amen’. It takes approx 12 seconds to complete.
Let’s look at some examples:
When a meeting of just two people say ‘The Grace’ then chances are that they will make eye contact for most of the duration of ‘The Grace’. However, we must always consider that 10% of any meeting population will have their eyes closed in the mistaken thought that they are praying to God and not speaking to each other. Therefore there is a 20% chance that in a meeting of two people eye contact will not be made – and 80% likelihood that contact will be made.
A meeting of three people: Well, it is possible that as person A looks to person B, person B is looking at person C and person C is looking at person A. Then there is always the chance that they may move their gaze into another order where there is still no eye contact! Then bear in mind the shut eyes fallacy. However, there is a very good chance that, bearing in mind that participants might switch gaze every 2 seconds or less that, on average, a participant will make eye contact,during ‘The Grace’, with one person or more (90% estimated) or exactly two people (70% estimated).
Moving on to larger numbers and we begin to find more dramatic problems. A meeting of 1000 people: In the 12 seconds it takes to say ‘The Grace’ you will on average switch gaze every second. Your gaze will dwell on people who are obviously looking in the completely opposite direction for perhaps 0.1s and you will not look at people with their backs to you, but bear in mind that perhaps 50% of the people in front will turn around to look behind them (the other 50% either having neck problems, being too enamoured with the people in front of them, or just being plain lazy). So you can look at 12 people in 12 seconds, but the chance that the person you are looking at is also looking at you is 1 in 1000? Well, you have better odds if you are taller, maybe you are well groomed? Perhaps you are their close friend? So the odds improve to 1 in 500. Let’s see, so the odds of you making eye contact with someone during the grace is 12 in 500 or 2.4%?
Hmmm, perhaps it’s time for experimental results. If you are a member at a megachurch then contact me, Mark Porthouse at thegraceexperimentalanalysis@prayertriplets-r-thenewchurchmodel.com
I’ll be intently awaiting your results!
I have been thinking recently about Jesus being nailed down on the cross. How it is the opposite of movement, fluidity, and much of current theology and certainly opposite to our fast moving culture. Christ was static in his response, both by keeping silent when put on trial and ultimately static when nailed down on the cross. Our current Christology draws much from the elements of incarnation, of Jesus walking and talking with people. I wonder how the nailed down Jesus affects our Christology. In a world that is busier than ever, at Easter when people are moving from place to place to visit relatives in the four day weekend or off on holiday, when the DIY stores host sales and garden centres entice us to get the garden sorted with primroses. What is our mission response? Should it be to simply say you cannot serve God and yourself and sit down? To explain, things, a decorated home, friends are fleeting and sit down? Tomorrow, Good Friday should we simply sit at the foot of the cross and focus on the Nailed Down Christ?
Don’t you just love it when you find a quote to back up your thinking. Currently there is a debate in youth work circles about curriculum and the nature of teaching, Jeffs who is questioning of curriculum cites Stiener “to teach greatly is to awaken doubts in the pupil,…to train for disentâ€? (Youth and Policy Summer 2004) and argues this is a key to education particularly informal education, and curriculum by its very nature hinders this. I love the quote and tend to be in agreement with Jeffs.
I just wonder how much of this critical education goes on in churches or youth work circles. We prop up the status quo so much, when actually called to be a counter cultural movement. The rich young ruler (see eariler post Is the Church the rich young ruler?) had kept the commands but hadn’t been trained to disent and therefore process/critque his actions so was well away from inheriting the kingdom.
I have posted a role play that is great and I use loads. It explores the early church well, and enables people to see the differences in the new testament churches.
Base%20Christian%20role%20play.doc
I have been doing quite a bit of follow up work on Off the Beaten Track, and as ever when I start doing talks and workshops my thinking develops. I am thankful for community as it helps me think and grow. However I have had a thought that just won’t go away and the more I chat about it the more angles I see.
When I was reading the parable of the rich young ruler the other day I was struck by how Jesus’ word in verse 29 and 30 resonated with John 10v10 “life in all it’s fullness.”
This was my start point for the question Is church the rich young ruler? I could argue the similarities throughout the passage. One issue for me is that like the rich young ruler the church has sought to keep the commands all it’s life, but still we know something is missing, and if we are not demonstrating life in all it’s fullness by keeping these, what is it that is hindering us? What do we need to take off?
Will we get through the eye of the needle as we are?
Do we need to the challenge to go away disappointed for a while so we can recognise where we have gone wrong?
Does our wealth and new initiatives that come and go hide our disappointment to well?
The Rich Ruler
18A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
19“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone. 20You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”
21“All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.
22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
23When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. 24Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
26Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”
27Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”
28Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!”
29“I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.”
Well (in response to the question I posed at the end of my last post) I reckon we have plenty of Jewish traditions (adapted):
1) The worship leader (High Priest).
2) We come into the House of the Lord.
3) We come into God’s presence.
4) We come into the Holy Place.
5) Worship narrowed down to singing instead of it being our whole lives.
6) Ecstasy – no, not that ecstacy!
7) Lots of singing.
So I’m ready for a remodel! 🙂
Now, what is a sensible attitude to existing tradition?
I think that if we are going to learn something from the OT it is more
likely to be in the realms of justice and community incorporating economics,
social care, empowerment, etc.
Hi, just thought that I would post a quick intro, seeing as Richard has introduced me.
Twenty years ago my Dad told me to judge whatever I heard in church as it wouldn’t always be right. So, now I’m 33 years old and I’ve tried to live with my eyes wide open and I know that all is not well. Is the problem with you and is the answer with me? Well, that’s really the wrong questions – we need to think in terms of us. We are the problem and you know Who is the answer!
So it isn’t about me or about you – it’s about us, and ‘us’ includes Him, you and me.
I’ll try to be careful, but remember, I’m only human too – we can grow together, if we watch our pride and know love.
Something to think about until next time:
I heard someone say that the ‘gentile’ churches needed to recover it’s Jewish roots and put into practice it’s Hebrew forms and holidays…