MORE ON CHRISTMAS WORSHIP CANCELATIONS
Ted Olsen is on target in his summary of the issue(s) -- and is worth repeating:
For some defenders, the criticism of the closings is representative of the judgmentalism and rigid dogma that has led so many away from "institutional" churches, and is the reason that "seeker-sensitive" churches exist. Those who insist that you go to church Sunday morning instead of Saturday night, they say, are akin to first-century Judaizers and are the ones missing the freedom of the gospel.
As Weblog wrote last week, this debate really is iconic. Both sides seem to agree that the story itself is a tempest in a teapot: more symbol and indication than a major development in itself. But what it symbolizes gets to the heart of many of the current intra-evangelical debates:
What is church? Is "real" Christianity about private devotional life or about ordered corporate life? Why do we meet as churches? What is the relationship between the church and church members, church attendees, and interested non-Christians? Is a church service where the majority of attendees are non-members or non-believers still called a church service? Can worship be evangelistic? Is evangelism the church's (and the Christian's) highest calling? What is the role of the family at church? Have American Christians made an idol out of family? How "pro-family" is Christianity? What happens when we use pro-family as a synonym for Christian? Why are pro-family groups making explicitly religious Christmas greetings a priority when the issue seems to have little to do with family relations? Is the church becoming too politicized? Too polarized? If one group says that another group is not really a church because of its policies, are the two groups still part of the same universal church? What makes a group a church? What might make a group that looks like a church not a church?
I think that there are a few other questions, although perhaps not as profound as Ted's. What exactly is our theology of Sunday? Why have churches traditionally meet then and what are we saying when we change for something more convenient? How independent should congregations be? Is there ever a time when the common Christian themes and practices should over-ride local preferences? What does a mature church look like?
Ben Witherington has suggestions for further dialogue on this issue.
2 comments:
And when we get tied all up in such discussions, have we not been distracted from the point, which is to worhsip him and enjoy Him forever? (And, who, I'd like to add, is doing the distracting?) aren't we making this harder thatn it needs to be? (I could sit here all day and try to answer jsut one of those questions and ultimatley satisfy no one.)
I liked the response of a wise Episcopal priest I knew who once said that when people asked Him what his church believed he said, simply, "Watch us worship."
And Jesus said, "Whenever two or three gather in my name, there I am in the midst of them."
Sounds like a good definition of church me. We need to spend less wondering what poeple will think and trust that as we invitwe His Presence and worship him and attempt to Love God and love one another, those "outside" will sense the sweet aroma and ... want it?
Jesus said, "The world will know that you are my disciples if you love one another." Maybe we should spedn our time consdering how bes to do that, assuming that Jesus menat what he said?
I don't think we're overly hung-up on this issue. The discussion hasn't been divisive but informative -- and really the issue isn't about whether or whether not it is alright to cancel worship when something else conflicts with it. There are other more fundamental issues about what it means to be the church which have been surfaced by the Christmas cancelations and the responses to it -- underlying theological issues that touch on the core of the gospel and discipleship. This has generated some healthy and necessary discussion.
Post a Comment