So last night I posted on a couple of things, including an article in which worship was described is not the most important thing we do as church or Christians. Here is why I feel that is not true. Aside from the theological reason, Christ is present in worship, I think that regular communal time together is vital to our mission or outreach, because it is in worship that we learn how to be the community. Together through the liturgy, we learn how it is that the church serves the community and creates community in the shape of Christ. We confess our sins in our times of prayer and then pass the peace. This teaches us the basic shape of peace-making, which the world is in need of, both locally and internationally. Confession and prayer teach us how to be honest with one another, so that we are a truthful witness in a world where honesty and authenticity are lacking. We offer tithes and share communion, both of which teach us how to share our lives, our belongings and our wealth. We hear the word of God which shows us where to direct our missional actions, to the poor, the ignored and the 'other'. Baptism shows us how to make a community out of diverse ethnic groups, gender identities and socio-economic backgrounds. Without this foundation of worship, the church is doing nothing but copying other social service agencies which probably do a better job than we do assisting others. Not to mention the fact that the church is equipped to do something that agencies cannot do. We can befriend those we aid. We do not need to keep a professional distance. We, as the body of christ, join with them in suffering and in challenge. Their lives are joined to ours in a way that secular agencies cannot reproduce.
Is the church created only to serve? Service is important and vital. But our service is part of a larger mission, which is to show the world what the Kingdom of God looks like. Perhaps we can only do this in part. Definately we cannot create the Kingdom on our own. But we are not called to create the kingdom, which I think the idea that the church is called to serve and not worship leads too, the fallacious idea that we can create the kingdom (fix the worlds problems) through our actions. we can't do that. We show the world a better way and wait faithfully for Christ to return and recreate the world.
A church that serves without worship exists to serve the world alone. A church that serves and worships exists to serve and follow christ.
5 comments:
I think your points are well made, and part of a broader trend to despiritualize Christianity.
Interesting that as you expound the things that worship teaches, you instinctively seem to justify them in practical terms - it makes us better able to do this, it helps us understand that...
There is a tacit sense of complicity among lots of mainstream churches, I think, that the spiritual stuff doesn't make much sense in the world's terms, and at worst can make the church look crackpotty and delusional.
Therefore we should reinterpret the reasons for the churches actions in non-spiritual terms, as being forms of self-development, of being ways to build community, of increasing the depth and meaning in our lives, of being a resource for service.
Rather than say: look we believe the stuff you think weird. We meet, not because it makes us better servants, but because that is how we experience the presence of the living God.
If that isn't appealing to the broader community, it is not the church's responsibility to change itself to compensate. That's God's problem rather than the church's.
If it turns out that the church is delusional, then at least it is honorable. Morphing into some kind of pseudo-social-action club won't stem the decline in either case.
Ian,
thanks for your insights. In all actuality I wasn't instinctively justifying. You might find interesting a little book by a Theologian named John Howard Yoder called 'Body Politics: Five Practices of the Church before the watching world' I think that is the full title. Anyway, look that little ditty up. In it Yoder makes the case that Christian practices such as Baptism and Communion have clear ethical purposes. It isn't that I'm justifying communion as much as I am saying that communion doesn't only affect my spiritual life, but my social and economic life as well. I guess, influenced by Yoder I am arguing against a physical/spiritual duality and suggesting that worship shapes my whole being, not just my spiritual being.
I think that is what Mission Church wants to do at best. Leave behind the 'spiritualized' church that we have inherited and in some cases seems to care little for the needs of others. But when we come to tossing out worship, the baby is going out with the bathwater.
thanks again Ian
Ian,
thanks for your insights. In all actuality I wasn't instinctively justifying. You might find interesting a little book by a Theologian named John Howard Yoder called 'Body Politics: Five Practices of the Church before the watching world' I think that is the full title. Anyway, look that little ditty up. In it Yoder makes the case that Christian practices such as Baptism and Communion have clear ethical purposes. It isn't that I'm justifying communion as much as I am saying that communion doesn't only affect my spiritual life, but my social and economic life as well. I guess, influenced by Yoder I am arguing against a physical/spiritual duality and suggesting that worship shapes my whole being, not just my spiritual being.
I think that is what Mission Church wants to do at best. Leave behind the 'spiritualized' church that we have inherited and in some cases seems to care little for the needs of others. But when we come to tossing out worship, the baby is going out with the bathwater.
thanks again Ian
"in it Yoder makes the case that Christian practices such as Baptism and Communion have clear ethical purposes. It isn't that I'm justifying communion as much as I am saying that communion doesn't only affect my spiritual life, but my social and economic life as well."
Oh absolutely, sorry I did get that. My point was more that the relationship is often unfortunately asymmetric.
We can say the prosaic and spiritual are two sides of the same coin, of course, but there is a key difference between saying that "ethical action/change implies a spiritual action has occurred" rather than "the occurrence of spiritual action implies ethical action/change." (the latter being Yoder's position, as I understand your characterization of it, not to mention that of the Epistle of James).
The former position, I think, is the sell-out of the spiritual that I think the emerging church often risks.
Excellent point Ian.
I'm not sure in the broad spectrum of 'church movements' if 'Missional' and 'Emergent' are synonymous. Still, I agree that there is the danger of over-reacting to the Western church's over spiritualization in the past, to a despiritualization. If those are actually words!
blessings!
Post a Comment