Yesterday marked what I am declaring for myself to be my last official service at church, at least inasfar as my musician duties are concerned, and while I'm not prepared to say I will never set foot in another sunday morning service again, I certainly plan on it being an infrequent happening.
I was actually quite surprised and impressed by the reaction I got from the worship leader there, who has been a friend of mine for quite sometime, and was one who I was rather reluctant to broach the issue with. He was very gracious and understanding about it, which I greatly appreciated, and the worship set went smoothly, I am happy to say, though it further sent home the fact that I really was there simply to fill a spot and not because of anything terribly profound.
It was funny that there seemed to be an unusual number of people coming up to me to say that they were happy to see me and that I had been missed (I hadn't been in a few weeks before that). In a few cases it came across very genuinely and unassuming, however some seemed to be saying it also as chastisement - not directly, perhaps, but leaving the feeling that it was for my own good that I come to church, and I shouldn't take so many breaks. I kinda had to laugh inside at the irony of it all.
It was interesting as well that one of the points made in the sermon seemed to be that it is not a church's resonsibility to provide spiritual "meat and potatoes" to people, and that if a person finds they are only getting "the milk", that it is not scriptural to leave a church because of that, but the onace is on them to "get into the word" for the "meat and potatoes". I found this a little bit disturbing, because in my mind it very much SHOULD BE a church's responsibility to provide good, wholesome, nurturing spiritual sustenance, and if they are not up to meeting those needs, why are they a church at all?
I wouldn't continue eating at a restaurant that continually brought me nothing but greasy, processed, nutritionally vacant fast-food meals (I don't eat at McDonald's, for instance), because it is just plain poisonous and unhealthy for me to subject my body to that. On the same token, it would be silly of me to continually subject myself to spiritual fast-food as well, no matter how "scriptural" anyone wants to claim my decision to be.
As for the scripturality of leaving a church that isn't providing the right kind of spiritual sustenance -- it's hard to judge that, seeing as the modern-day concept of church is not scriptural either.
In any case, off I go!
Monday, January 8, 2007
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Two or Three... Hundred?!
I originally posted this on my other blog, but it seemed like an appropriate topic to kick off this new journal of mine, as I attempt to disengage myself from what others would have me call 'the church' and set out to find something better.
*************************************
So what is it about Christian(ist)s exactly that always makes them want to simplify the complicated parts of the Gospel while complicating the simple parts? It is a strange phenomenon that seems to me, to have led to endless faulty doctrines, teachings, and belief systems within the church, resulting in sermon after sermon of cherry-picked scriptures from this book and that book and this book over here, that we fit together assuming they are all talking about the exact same things despite the disparate cultures, eras, and authors that they came out of.
When one comes across a verse in the Bible recording a conversation that Jesus had with a Jewish person regarding the sacrifices he was making in the Jewish temple, why is it our impulse to grab onto those words and throw them at each other, saying "See! SEE!! Jesus said you need to do it like THIS!", while conveniently overlooking the fact that neither party in the discussion is A)Living in the first century Roman Empire, B) Jewish, C) Attending a Jewish Temple, D) Making a sacrifice, or E) the individual the Jesus was addressing in the passage. These are all important questions that really do need to be contexutalized before any applicable meaning can be derived from the passage. To blithely look at such a verse and take it literally, or worse, start bashing people over the head with it, is completely disgraceful, deluded, and sinful, in my humble opinion. And yet, this is the way it has been in pretty well 100% of every church service or Bible study I have ever been a part of -- why?
It is equally eggregious, to me, when someone takes a passage out of the old testament, reads it verbatim and then says "Look - God said this, and this is what we are supposed to be doing!". By that twisted logic, we should be going out onto the streets and slaughtering every man, woman, and child we meet who doesn't worship Jehovah. And basically this would also mean nuking the bejeezus out of the middle-east until all the ungodly muslims have been extinctified.
However, we don't do this (at least some of us don't.. although certain American politicians seem to be leaning dangerously in this direction lately). For some reason it is okay to reject the old testament's admonitions to genocide, while embracing the condemnation of people with tattoos, or loud music, or alternative lifestyles. Again I ask -- why? Not that there is no applicable teaching to be had out of the old testament, but it HAS to be interpreted with a cultural, linguistic, stylistic, chronistic context that leads to discovering the underlying truth behind it.
Now to get back to the subject of the post title --- on the other hand, we also have this bizarre and opposite tendency to over-analyze and insert fictional meaning to entirely straight-forward issues, and things that Jesus said which really give us very little reason to delve further into. Jesus was many things, but I do not believe he was ambiguous -- evasive perhaps, when people were looking for easy answers, but not ambiguous. He said what he meant, basically.
Here is an example of what I mean:
"For where two or three gather together because they are mine, I am there among them.” (Matt 18:20)
It is a verse that pretty well every Christian knows, and it is a very important verse, but it is also very simple. And when I say that Jesus wasn't ambigious, what I mean is that in this passage, he specifically uses the number 'two or three'. Not 'twenty or thirty' or 'two or three hundred', and neither did he say 'two or three is alright, but you're better off with seventy'. I believe that something very specific is being established by Jesus here.
You know the really funny thing about this verse is that the times I hear it repeated most often is when it is being used as an excuse. Someone calls a prayer meeting or a Bible study and when only a small handful of people show up, the organizer looks around and flippantly says "Well he did say 'when two or three are gathered'", almost like they are apologizing for something. We've read far more into this than Jesus intended, and instead of placing the emphasis on the 'two or three' as being a desirable result, we've taken this to be a minimum threshold.
My theory is this: What if Jesus actually meant what he said? What if he was trying to get something specific across with his words? While this verse is usually taken to mean that two or three is the minimum number of people required for Christ to make an appearance, I think that Jesus was actually trying to tell us something else.
I think he was trying to tell us that it is in the intimate moments with people that we love and care about, that we will find him. I know it's always been true for me. More and more I am realizing that our sunday church services and fancy programs serve only to distract us from experiencing Christ in a personal way.
Often times we look at these huge venues where people are dancing and singing and "praising" as one body and say "Wow, the spirit is really moving here".
No it isn't. At least not usually. The fact is there is no big mystery to these occurances - these massive corporate moves of the spirit. It all comes down to a very well-documented effect known as mob mentality. It is a condition in which people cease to be individuals, lose their ability to think and act for themselves, and get swept along with whatever the rest of the group is doing. When the mob is doing something unseemly, we call out the police to go dismantle it with body armour, batons, and tear gas. When the mob is falling over, weeping, jumping up and down, etc, at an overly-emotional worship service, we call it 'revival' or being 'slain in the spirit'. Not that these things can't be valid, but not with the frequency we see it.
The reason I say this is because I have stood at the front of the church, with my bass strapped on, playing the best that I can, more times than I can count, and what I have observed, time and time again, is this: when the congregation is enthused about what is happening, everybody sings and everybody dances, yet when the congregation is indifferent, everyone stands around with their arms crossed. And at the end of the day, they go home and forget whatever it was they felt earlier, because the vast majority of the time there was nothing there for them to personally connect to, anyway. They got to sit down and listen to someone talk about things that more than likely had little or no relevence to their day-to-day life. Woo.
The times that I can really remember feeling like God was there, talking to me, are the times when I am with my wife, maybe at a friend's house, talking about why we fight, or why we're angry, or why we're sad. Talking about what God's words really means to the rat's nest inside my mind, quietly praying for things that are on our hearts and minds, and accepting those things, regardless of the right and wrong of it. Letting God, not people, sort us out.
*************************************
So what is it about Christian(ist)s exactly that always makes them want to simplify the complicated parts of the Gospel while complicating the simple parts? It is a strange phenomenon that seems to me, to have led to endless faulty doctrines, teachings, and belief systems within the church, resulting in sermon after sermon of cherry-picked scriptures from this book and that book and this book over here, that we fit together assuming they are all talking about the exact same things despite the disparate cultures, eras, and authors that they came out of.
When one comes across a verse in the Bible recording a conversation that Jesus had with a Jewish person regarding the sacrifices he was making in the Jewish temple, why is it our impulse to grab onto those words and throw them at each other, saying "See! SEE!! Jesus said you need to do it like THIS!", while conveniently overlooking the fact that neither party in the discussion is A)Living in the first century Roman Empire, B) Jewish, C) Attending a Jewish Temple, D) Making a sacrifice, or E) the individual the Jesus was addressing in the passage. These are all important questions that really do need to be contexutalized before any applicable meaning can be derived from the passage. To blithely look at such a verse and take it literally, or worse, start bashing people over the head with it, is completely disgraceful, deluded, and sinful, in my humble opinion. And yet, this is the way it has been in pretty well 100% of every church service or Bible study I have ever been a part of -- why?
It is equally eggregious, to me, when someone takes a passage out of the old testament, reads it verbatim and then says "Look - God said this, and this is what we are supposed to be doing!". By that twisted logic, we should be going out onto the streets and slaughtering every man, woman, and child we meet who doesn't worship Jehovah. And basically this would also mean nuking the bejeezus out of the middle-east until all the ungodly muslims have been extinctified.
However, we don't do this (at least some of us don't.. although certain American politicians seem to be leaning dangerously in this direction lately). For some reason it is okay to reject the old testament's admonitions to genocide, while embracing the condemnation of people with tattoos, or loud music, or alternative lifestyles. Again I ask -- why? Not that there is no applicable teaching to be had out of the old testament, but it HAS to be interpreted with a cultural, linguistic, stylistic, chronistic context that leads to discovering the underlying truth behind it.
Now to get back to the subject of the post title --- on the other hand, we also have this bizarre and opposite tendency to over-analyze and insert fictional meaning to entirely straight-forward issues, and things that Jesus said which really give us very little reason to delve further into. Jesus was many things, but I do not believe he was ambiguous -- evasive perhaps, when people were looking for easy answers, but not ambiguous. He said what he meant, basically.
Here is an example of what I mean:
"For where two or three gather together because they are mine, I am there among them.” (Matt 18:20)
It is a verse that pretty well every Christian knows, and it is a very important verse, but it is also very simple. And when I say that Jesus wasn't ambigious, what I mean is that in this passage, he specifically uses the number 'two or three'. Not 'twenty or thirty' or 'two or three hundred', and neither did he say 'two or three is alright, but you're better off with seventy'. I believe that something very specific is being established by Jesus here.
You know the really funny thing about this verse is that the times I hear it repeated most often is when it is being used as an excuse. Someone calls a prayer meeting or a Bible study and when only a small handful of people show up, the organizer looks around and flippantly says "Well he did say 'when two or three are gathered'", almost like they are apologizing for something. We've read far more into this than Jesus intended, and instead of placing the emphasis on the 'two or three' as being a desirable result, we've taken this to be a minimum threshold.
My theory is this: What if Jesus actually meant what he said? What if he was trying to get something specific across with his words? While this verse is usually taken to mean that two or three is the minimum number of people required for Christ to make an appearance, I think that Jesus was actually trying to tell us something else.
I think he was trying to tell us that it is in the intimate moments with people that we love and care about, that we will find him. I know it's always been true for me. More and more I am realizing that our sunday church services and fancy programs serve only to distract us from experiencing Christ in a personal way.
Often times we look at these huge venues where people are dancing and singing and "praising" as one body and say "Wow, the spirit is really moving here".
No it isn't. At least not usually. The fact is there is no big mystery to these occurances - these massive corporate moves of the spirit. It all comes down to a very well-documented effect known as mob mentality. It is a condition in which people cease to be individuals, lose their ability to think and act for themselves, and get swept along with whatever the rest of the group is doing. When the mob is doing something unseemly, we call out the police to go dismantle it with body armour, batons, and tear gas. When the mob is falling over, weeping, jumping up and down, etc, at an overly-emotional worship service, we call it 'revival' or being 'slain in the spirit'. Not that these things can't be valid, but not with the frequency we see it.
The reason I say this is because I have stood at the front of the church, with my bass strapped on, playing the best that I can, more times than I can count, and what I have observed, time and time again, is this: when the congregation is enthused about what is happening, everybody sings and everybody dances, yet when the congregation is indifferent, everyone stands around with their arms crossed. And at the end of the day, they go home and forget whatever it was they felt earlier, because the vast majority of the time there was nothing there for them to personally connect to, anyway. They got to sit down and listen to someone talk about things that more than likely had little or no relevence to their day-to-day life. Woo.
The times that I can really remember feeling like God was there, talking to me, are the times when I am with my wife, maybe at a friend's house, talking about why we fight, or why we're angry, or why we're sad. Talking about what God's words really means to the rat's nest inside my mind, quietly praying for things that are on our hearts and minds, and accepting those things, regardless of the right and wrong of it. Letting God, not people, sort us out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
