Ship of Fools: Why go to church? Personal vs collective

Thread: Why go to church? Personal vs collective Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026415

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

There is a profound blogpost here by Ben Meyers, systematic theologian about why he goes to church.

The two paragraphs that strike me the most are these:

quote:
I do not go to church because it is enjoyable (usually it's not), or because it is never dull (usually it is). I do not go to church because it satisfies my private needs and wishes (it seldom does). I do not go to church just for myself. I go because of Adam.

quote:

I expect that if I keep dragging Adam along to church every Sunday, he might eventually become a Christian. And if he becomes a Christian – who knows? – perhaps in time he will even become that rarest and best of things: a genuine, proper, fully functioning and bona fide human being.

I am much struck by this. I certainly feel like I go to church for more than just myself. While it is personal it is much more than personal - it is universal.

Does this resonate with you? Why or why not?

If not, why do you go to church?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I got to church to witness the work of God in the life of the Church.

Posted by trouty (# 13497) on :

I can identify with most of that. I could have substituted my daughter's name for Adam and it could have been me writing it.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Whilst I agree that I also could substitute my children's name for Adam, my reading of Myers' blog is that 'Adam' isn't about his own offspring...it's about himself and other human beings(identifying with Adam in himself and in humanity).

I identify with a lot that Myers says. Most often these days, church doesn't seem hit it with me, regardless of the many varieties on offer. Nevertheless, I still go a (reasonably) local church building where fellow followers and other people meet, because I am by God's grace a member of the Church, and choose to demonstrate that by joining in.

I go to church to identify myself as a follower of Jesus, and with fellow followers for all their faults, fears and failures, as well as their hopes, hypes and sometimes hystrionics!

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I can see what the blogger means - as a choir member I feel a responsibility towards those who really value the church music and would be quite lost without it. The same goes for the church - the services, pastoral care, etc. We really do need to keep the show on the road for those who most need help at any one time, and sometimes that might be us.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

On this kind of subject, I was struck by this column by T.M.Lurhmann. She is coming from the perspective of having personal faith herself, which makes it doubly interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/opinion/luhrmann-conjuring-up-our-own-gods.html

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

Does this resonate with you? Why or why not?

If not, why do you go to church?

It resonates with me and I don't go to Church.

It has always puzzled me why religions exist. Assume a theistic God created the world for a purpose, She loves us and all the usual stuff. So why religion? Does this God really need us to love her or go round saying how wonderful She is all the time? You could have theism without religion. Maybe God wants to see what we can do with free will, reason, our power to love or whatever. Perhaps She interested in us but not in us being interested in Her.

Rabbi Sachs in discussion with Richard Dawkins (on Radio 4 a few months ago) said something to the effect that even if God didn't exist a synagogue (or presumably church or temple) would still serve the purpose of reminding us of what we could be and encouraging us to keep trying. Which seems similar to what Ben Meyer is saying.

Prof D seemed somewhat nonplussed and, in the fragment I heard, seemed prepared to accept that atheist churches might be useful ....

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

Does this resonate with you? Why or why not?

If not, why do you go to church?
It resonates with me and I don't go to Church.

It has always puzzled me why religions exist. Assume a theistic God created the world for a purpose, She loves us and all the usual stuff. So why religion? Does this God really need us to love her or go round saying how wonderful She is all the time? You could have theism without religion. Maybe God wants to see what we can do with free will, reason, our power to love or whatever. Perhaps She interested in us but not in us being interested in Her.

Rabbi Sachs in discussion with Richard Dawkins (on Radio 4 a few months ago) said something to the effect that even if God didn't exist a synagogue (or presumably church or temple) would still serve the purpose of reminding us of what we could be and encouraging us to keep trying. Which seems similar to what Ben Meyer is saying.

Prof D seemed somewhat nonplussed and, in the fragment I heard, seemed prepared to accept that atheist churches might be useful ....

Which only proves to me that "church as a facilitator personal/community growth," in the very least, fails to encapsulate the purpose of corporate worship.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I wasn't sure if Adam is a child or "my old nature."

If a child, dragging the kid to something the parent openly admits is dull, unenjoyable, and fails to satisfy any personal needs or wishes, is not going to entice the kid to stick around, but instead send him running away from church for something enjoyable or meaningful or of practical use as soon as the kid reaches majority.

If Adam "my old nature," he is equating going to church with going to the dentist? It's painful but it's for your own good? Is that an attitude we see anywhere in the NT?

Seems to me the NT folks are enjoying gathering, which is one of the reasons why I keep thinking we're doing it wrong. So many people are admitting in public "church is boring" and adding "but you have to go" and then trying to frost the boredom with something appealing (like "modern music to attract youth") which seems to me self-contradictory. If church is inherently something a normal person doesn't want to take a chunk out of a week and go to, like a dentist visit (and some on the ship in months past have said church is suppose to be boring that's what makes it a spiritual discipline), adding a lollypop is NOT going to turn boring into attractive, and the lollypop violates the "it's suppose to be boring" discipline sending a message "church should be enjoyable; so if it's not I should leave."

The fact that churches admit they are unattractive (duh, not exactly crowds banging on the door to be let in) and try to veneer an attractive element (modern style music, better food at coffee) over a structure they admit is inherently unattractive, suggests we don't know what we are about.

Or we think so little of outsiders we think if we give them a modern song or a donut at coffee they'll cease noticing the whole thing is boring. After all, people can't easily find modern music anywhere else, right? Or donuts? So they'll come for that special treat? And love that treat so much they'll put up with a boring hour to get it?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I suspect in times past, most people attended church out of fear of Hell. Not that I'm advocating that necessarily ... but it does strike me that something is very, very wrong when, on the website of a new church-plant a former colleague has started to attend the first thing you see is a huge photo of coffee and doughnuts (or donuts if you're American).

It all smacks of desperation.

Of course, one would prefer church to be something people 'enjoy' rather than 'endure' but I do wonder whether those concepts even entered into the mindset of the early Christians?

Sure, there were ancillary benefits to being a Christian back then ... sense of community, care for widows and orphans - as well as the sense of escaping the wrath to come and so forth.

But I'm not sure it would have been seen as a 'leisure activity' in the way it is today.

We have been entertaining ourselves to death for some decades now so anything church does is going to fall short ...

We can't compete with the internet, the telly, theme-parks, alcohol, sport, whatever else ...

When we try we end up doing it badly.

There has to be something else we're offering beyond entertainment.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

I go to church because that's where the Eucharist is. That's where I receive the Body and Blood of Christ, and where I (with the people around me) become the Body of Christ.

I think the whole idea that going to church could be or should be fun or entertaining is a mistake. Liturgy is the work of the people. You can find work satisfying. Sometimes you can even find joy in it. But it's still work. It's not play. It's not leisure.

For most of the history of the Church, beauty was considered an appropriate and important element of worship. Churches were meant to be beautiful. But they weren't meant to be fun.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It's interesting, because although I'm not Orthodox like Josephine but increasingly sacramentally inclined, I do tend to feel short-changed if I go to church and it isn't a communion service.

Why should this be?

I know I've upset a few of the ministers/clergy here in the past by saying I'm no longer that interested in sermons ... they've taken that to mean that I think I know it all - which isn't what I meant. Of course I don't feel there's no need for sermons ...

But the idea of going to church, singing a few songs and saying a few prayers and listening to someone talk for 20 minutes or so no longer floats my boat in any way, shape or form.

The idea of going to church, singing a few songs, saying a few prayers, enduring (or enjoying if I'm lucky) a sermon and receiving the Eucharist, does however float my boat big time.

I'm not saying how it should be done - bells and smells or plain and simple - but if there isn't a eucharistic element then I'm afraid it rather leaves me cold.

I don't count things like Compline (which I've only encountered in communal/residential settings) or Vespers (in Orthodox circles) or Evensong or Matins/Morning Prayer in Anglican ones as 'non-eucharistic' to the same extent as I would a song/prayer/sermon sandwich. Why not? Because these things lead up to and away from the Eucharist.

The older I get the less interested I am in this, that or the other preacher's 'take' on things or people's personal views on things. I can discuss those here or in some other, preferably 'live' setting ... but I can't take communion anywhere else. So that is increasingly the reason why I go to church and why, more often than not, I skip those services where it's not available.

My church going is more sporadic than it has ever been. I must only attend about one or two services a month these days.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

I go to Church in order to receive Christ in the Eucharist. That's the primary purpose I attend church. This is literally heaven on earth- why shouldn't I want to do it every week. The other things- music, the intercessory prayers, the creed, etc, are important but not vital. As to why I should want to receive the Eucharist each week, I have the plain command of Our Lord "do this as often as you meet" and the practice of the Early Church in acts up until the High Middle Ages on my side.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I go for several reasons because I lack the ability to do it on my own. Because I don't understand God, life and the universe and everything. Because I find I can tell him off better there, finding the context of church helps me do it there (apparently that is also prayer - who knew?).

I don't go to worship and be thankful and all the happy-seeming stuff, not because it's about my salvation or about heaven. More along the lines of moral guidance. I do like some of the music, but it's not about that either. There is some wisdom there, rather old wisdom, sometimes not even about what they say or read to us. Something about light, something about dark, something about a short time of "okay" or tranquillity, something about a sense of something a little better and greater than normal life (which has the double effect of not happy and wondering why this is not more present elsewhere and elsetimes).

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I go to church because it provides a calming shape to the week and a steadying framework for my life. Plus the fact that I'm sick of wearing trousers after 6 days of the week and need to wear a skirt by the 7th [Biased]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I do tend to feel like a church service that isn't a Eucharist isn't 'real' church. I know this is only my feelings, I know this isn't correct. But the Sacrament and church are bound up with each other for me (and I just cannot comprehend why 'lower' churches* insist on baptism but are reluctant to celebrate the other sacrament Christ commanded of us). It CAN however get monotonous for me - I find myself wanting a short said Eucharist rather than a full sung one. I think I would rather have a short Sunday service and a longer Bible study/home group midweek - like many less sacramental churches have, but with weekly Eucharist.

*By 'lower' I just mean in terms of high-church/low-church, not character!

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Hearing the word of God preached is sacramental too, if'm you ask me.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Hearing the word of God preached is sacramental too, if'm you ask me.

Of course, but it's not a Sacrament in the RC sense, and doesn't explain why baptism is regarded as important (rightly so) by low church people but not the Eucharist. The liturgy of the Word doesn't replace the Eucharist.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I agree that hearing the word of God preached is sacramental, Zach82. I just don't want to hear it preached badly or at considerable length without it tying in with the overall sacramental trajectory of church life .... ie. the preacher's personal, pet agendas, the lack of a lectionary etc etc etc

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Hearing the word of God preached is sacramental too, if'm you ask me.
Of course, but it's not a Sacrament in the RC sense, and doesn't explain why baptism is regarded as important (rightly so) by low church people but not the Eucharist. The liturgy of the Word doesn't replace the Eucharist.

I never said preaching replaced the Eucharist. I've also never known a low-church person that didn't think the Eucharist was important.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I agree that hearing the word of God preached is sacramental, Zach82. I just don't want to hear it preached badly or at considerable length without it tying in with the overall sacramental trajectory of church life .... ie. the preacher's personal, pet agendas, the lack of a lectionary etc etc etc

Like you, I hope that I will never be bored. I just don't have the expectation that I never have to endure boredom. So I am not sure what your objection here is.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't mind being bored. I do mind when preachers who should know better choose their own passages and pet themes instead of following the Lectionary.

I don't like it when Anglican clergy behave as if they were Baptists. Why don't they become Baptists?

Baptists do it a lot better than they can.

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

The easy answer to why I go to church is that I always have - I was brought up in the Church of England. But there have been periods of my life when I have been a "Christmas, Weddings & Funerals" churchgoer, and as I have got older I have found myself believing less and less of Chrisianity as it is conventionally taught.

But something draws me back, like iron filings to a magnet, and having begun more regular attendance at church in the last year I feel I have come home. It helps having a parish priest who acknowledges my doubts and lack of belief but is willing to engage with me where I am rather than inisist that I sign up to a list of propositions before being allowed through the door.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I had the damnedest conversation with a 23 year old woman from England this morning.

Said she came from a non-religious family but at age 10 felt she wanted to go to church.

Sometimes I wonder if those of us that do go somehow have the hand of God on us. We somehow are led by the Holy Spirit.

Very curious.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

thanks, that blog post did resonate with me

[ 25. October 2013, 17:56: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I don't associate church with Eucharist in the sense some have expressed that it "doesn't seem like real church" without it because when I was a kid church was usually morning prayer. The local Methodist church does holy communion once a month so I guess that timing common in the 50s is still common in many churches.

Which suggests for a lot of people church usually has a different primary role than that, even among liturgicals.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, but I s'pose what I'm saying is that some of us come to a more liturgical understanding later on, even if it wasn't necessarily our background and experience for many years ...

The same applies in the opposite direction.

However we do church and whatever our 'worship preferences' (to use a grim phrase) we became acclimatised to it somewhere along the line and socialised into it. When I first started attending charismatic style services I didn't immediately raise my hands and join in with the chorus-singing and the tongues-speaking and so on. I was socialised into it the same as I've become accustomed now to more liturgical ways of conducting services.

All of this is learned behaviour.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I don't associate church with Eucharist in the sense some have expressed that it "doesn't seem like real church" without it because when I was a kid church was usually morning prayer. The local Methodist church does holy communion once a month so I guess that timing common in the 50s is still common in many churches.

Which suggests for a lot of people church usually has a different primary role than that, even among liturgicals.

The British Methodist churches celebrate it under the label of 'Communion' once a month, and having worshipped and served in the Methodist church I don't think it necessarily attracts a higher attendance than other services. This is because Methodism, while being somewhat liturgical, isn't self-consciously so, IMO. Anglicans talk about the various manifestations of their Book of Common Prayer, but the Methodist service book incites relatively little comment from Methodists. It's not where their identity lies, and neither is the celebration of Communion - although it's very important to them that their Communion wine is non-alcoholic.

I used to say that churchgoing was mostly important to me as an enabler of Christian community. Almost everything else we do at church can be done at home, but togetherness requires that we meet intentionally. Communion to me is one aspect of that togetherness. I'm still of the same opinion, except that now I'm between churches churchgoing is also a way for me to maintain my identity as a practising Christian. I don't want to lose that habit and consequently that identity, so I go. I regularly attend a residential church fellowship, which makes up for some of my slacking off on Sundays, but I'm not sufficiently confident as an 'alternative' worshipper to abandon the institutional Sunday church entirely.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

For me taking part in the Eucharist is a primary motivator for me to attend worship services -- much more so than sermons, much more so than music (especially around here).

I also appreciate the collective prayers, which I think are at the heart of a faith community; supporting one another (even as a visitor,sometimes, in other churches, praying for people I don't know but who are connected to me at that moment via the people around me) in prayer and thought. It's very easy, as a Christian freelancer (which I used to be) to become very subjective/self-absorbed in one's prayers; collective prayer is a remedy for that.

Something interesting for me: A family member of DP's and mine has recently joined a 12-Step program that has changed his life in a profound, positive way. He loves his meetings, which he attends in various places within his metropolitan area -- he has one meeting he goes to regularly, and then attends others all over the city in the interim. And when he describes his experiences to us, his sense of being supported emotionally and spiritually by others, his gratitude toward his sponsor, his pleasure at being able to share his own experience of recovery with others, his discoveries about himself as he "works the Steps"...I have to admit that I feel a tiny tremor of envy that he's having such a positive experience from what's essentially living in community with his fellow 12-Steppers, as DP and I , by contrast, feel somewhat dispirited and disheartened by our experience at our previous church, and a little gun-shy about making a move to a new church, even one where we have "built-in" friends in the congregation. I'm still trying to sort out my feelings.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

I'm surprised nobody's picked up on the last sentence quoted in the OP:

quote:
And if he becomes a Christian – who knows? – perhaps in time he will even become that rarest and best of things: a genuine, proper, fully functioning and bona fide human being.

So unless someone becomes Christian they can't be genuine, proper, fully functioning or bona fide? Perhaps not even really a human being?

How does this Christian exceptionalism fit alongside all the protestations of being broken sinners? Which claim should we believe, or should we perhaps disbelieve both?

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I'm surprised nobody's picked up on the last sentence quoted in the OP:

I saw it straight away - and only just managed to keep my fingers off the keyboard, and read through the thread first; which, of course,turned out to be moderate and interesting. I carried on going to church for years after I'd ceased believing in any of it and could no longer sit there without challenging the beliefs being recited. The reason was that I loved to sing and to learn interesting music and had only rare opportunities to do this otherwise.

A few years ago, I met up with a neighbour we (sister and I) knew when we were children, not seen for 50 years who used to attend church sometimes with my sister and me. She was recalling the time when she and my sister were going to Communion one day and she, being a person who liked to know why people did things, tried to elicit from my sister an answer to the question as to why she was going, but all my sister would say was, 'Well, I just am.'

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
So unless someone becomes Christian they can't be genuine, proper, fully functioning or bona fide? Perhaps not even really a human being?

A sentiment that will be harder for church folks to uphold the more relationships they develop with exemplary, authentic, fully functioning human beings who don't happen to be Christian.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

I have to say that I almost always genuinely enjoy the liturgy. what I don't enjoy, and what keeps me from going as often as I could, is the commute (one hour each way), the waking up on a Sunday morning, and the "waste" of a day when I could be accomplishing things that I can't do during the work week.

once I'm there, I rarely feel that I'd rather not be. the occasional overly long sermon might do it, or really, really bad choir singing. That being said, I don't think I necessarily get "enjoyment" from it (contentment may be a better word). I don't find it boring, but I also don't find it particularly mentally stimulating. I certainly don't believe that GOD needs me to go to church. I see church as a vehicle to aid me in my spiritual journey, and so attending is for my benefit. yes, indeed, a bit like going to the dentist.. but without the pain. more like going to the gym. I'm exercising my spiritual muscles so to speak, I usually feel good afterwords, but making myself go can be a challenge.

as for corporate benefit, yes, I certainly think that's part of it. I think that all of us there are benefiting each other. I would not get the same benefits from attending liturgy if I was the only one there. It wouldn't be worthless, but it would not be the same. therefore my being there benefits everyone else (and their being there benefits me).

I think there is a very important reason why Jesus said he is there when TWO OR MORE are gathered in his name. one can be a Christian in solitude, but it's not really the same. even the ascetics in the desert would occasionally get together for corporate worship.

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

There appears to be a human need for a ritual gathering with other people. Even atheists are beginning to organise regular weekly gatherings with readings, music and talks - generally referred to as "atheist churches". There are a number springing up in the UK. At least one such gathering meets in a redundant church.

Last weekend there was talk of organising a humanist / atheist / agnostic Remembrance Day service.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

Tangent alert:

That reminds me, what's happened to this year's "Poppies = warmongering" thread? It must be about time for it.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Pre-Cambrian
The "poppy" thing is upon us.

Patricia Jackson, the US born minister of the Hadley Methodist Church in Telford, is (a) refusing to wear a red poppy because "she feels is advocates war".

Now, I know the US missed out on 80% of WWI but surely SOMEONE should have briefed her about the Flanders trenches, etc, before she came to the UK, even if it wasn't covered in her history syllabus at school.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

When I was confirmed into the Church of England (many years ago now) I promised "to be faithful in public worship and private prayer". There's something very important to me in this clear distinction between two different activities.

As previous posters have said, you can pray and have a relationship with God on your own - and, indeed, the confirmation promise shows that my Church expects me to pray and have a personal relationship with God which will inevitably be private to some extent. But for a full relationship with God you also need the collective - other people to support you in your faith, to challenge you and to be, collectively, more than the sum of the individuals.

One of the interesting things about collective church is God's sense of humour in arranging unlikely groups of people to work together. I'm currently involved in a church prayer initiative which has been started by a woman who really gets on my nerves. As soon as this was proposed I knew it was something God wanted me to do - nobody else would expect me to work with that woman! Judging by similar experiences in the past, both of us will learn something from the collaboration.

Companions given by grace often drive us to distraction. God's such a joker.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0