Ship of Fools: Why is it so difficult?

Thread: Why is it so difficult? 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=029532

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

Not sure if this is the right place for this question, but here goes.

Why is it so hard to do the right thing, i.e. to "do what Jesus would do"?

It really got me thinking in Church last Sunday, where we had the reading from Matthew's Gospel in which Jesus calls Matthew to be a disciple (Matthew 9.9-13). The vicar then preached a sermon based on this reading, in which he said that Matthew has an autobiographical moment here, not repeated throughout his Gospel, where he implies that if he, a despised tax collector, could be called to follow Jesus, then anyone can. He went on to say that, although it appears that Jesus told the Pharisees that they did not need him because they were well, he was actually telling them that they did need him because they were sick but didn't realise it, whereas the "tax-collectors and sinners" did realise.

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice." This quote from Hosea is the standout sentence from this reading. I take this to mean that we should give people a chance, being loving rather than religiously pious.

We were given cards to invite friends, family and neighbours to one of the services on Harvest Sunday. The vicar asked us to pray about who we might ask. As I did this, it occurred to me that some people I might invite would not really "fit in". This church is not a snobby church, but I wonder what people (including my parents) would think if I brought some of my friends. It's clear that I'm the one being a snob, which I dislike. I want to be like Jesus and invite people along who aren't necessarily accepted by society, but I'm scared of what others would think. Why do I find this so hard?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Honest question: re the "not fitting in"-- are you more concerned about how the response of your fellow church-members would impact you (they'll judge you for having dodgy friends) or how it would impact your friends (they'll feel excluded and judged)? That changes how you'd approach the problem-- is it your problem to work thru with prayer and confession, or is it a problem of your church community, that will need to be worked thru on a communal basis? Your reluctance to invite your friends might have more to do with compassion and empathy than with a lack of discipleship.

That being said, I think "inviting friends to come to our church" is only one-- and maybe not even the best-- way to live out the challenge of that particular gospel reading. Perhaps a better place to start is just by thinking prayerfully about your friends/ acquaintances and what it might look like to live out Christ's command to love and include them. Maybe it's inviting them to church, but maybe instead it's going to them in their home or at a coffee shop or wherever to listen to them and share life with them. Or it might be something else altogether.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

If I understand you correctly, you're asking how our churches can become more inviting places for the unchurched.

I do tend to feel it's inadequate and even counterproductive for priests these days to ask their members to bring guests along to worship, without engaging in any kind of public reflection about 1) why we find evangelism hard and 2) why our churches aren't attracting guests in the first place, and how that can change.

Nevertheless, Harvest Festivals are normally quite harmless, and frequently picturesque, so you needn't worry quite so much that your guest will feel bored or awkward. I suggest you ask an old person of your acquaintance if they'd like to go with you. An OAP might have some familiarity with the Harvest Festival from their youth, so wouldn't feel too out of place.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

But the Harvest Festival might not be "traditional" - and there's the problem. Some folk will come to church wanting it to be just as they anticipate; while others are hoping against hope that it won't be!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Are there non-traditional Harvest Festivals? Please tell me more.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

If everyone in Jude's church brings a few friends, the occasion might end up with the church regulars being the ones who look like they don't fit in. I think it might make all the stodgy ones feel quite enlivened to look around and see some pierced and tatted folk. We have a beautiful, young bride from the Ukraine in our old gray church, who dresses like she's going to the MTV Awards. I love that she sits by me, I'm always hoping some sexy will rub off.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

I recently had the experience of being unchurched in a church service. I've been a CofE regular for almost 20 years and occasionally visited various other churches in the western tradition, everything from RC and to Hillsong. That's what I'm used to.

Then I got sick of the CofE (for reasons I won't discuss here) and decided to go East. We have an Orthodox church quite locally which is led by an ex-CofE priest. He was extremely helpful, sent me lots of information and invited me to attend a service.

I went along, knowing that it would be different from what I'm used to. But I wasn't prepared for how different. I was a fish out of water. The priests wife was extremely welcoming, as were one or two of the congregation. But the experience of being in a service where I didn't know what was going to happen next, what I was supposed to do, why people kept coming in late and kissing the pictures, whether I was allowed to take the bread, whether I had to kiss the priests hand and all the rest of it was totally off putting. I'm still keen to find out more about the Orthodox side of the faith, but I'm not going to another service till someone tells me what's going on in a bit more detail.

Now that's from a Christian! Just imagine, if you can, what it's like for someone who isn't a Christian. Someone who's a bit suspicious, a bit worried about what others think of them, a bit concerned not to make a fool of themselves and possibly not committed to doing this regularly or alarmed at being expected to contribute financially on their first date. Someone who's probably only there because the didn't want to say no to a friend. (On top of that, if it's harvest, they won't know what all these tins of beans have got to do with anything, or know whether they were supposed to bring some too, or why the vicar keeps going on about the harvest when they see the same food in the shops all year round, or why they're expected to join in with all these childish songs.)

There has to be another way into the church that doesn't involve that kind of initiation. And I'm not sure that messy church is the answer either. Perhaps this is why the church struggles when we don't pass it down to our children - it's really difficult to pick it up as an adult.

Posted by Notapassingphase (# 18422) on :

I'm a recent re-convert; returned to faith and church after decades away. I've been to 4 churches in the last four months. In even the most welcoming, which is lovely, and even knowing the score from my childhood, it was scary. I think it is hard to invite people in, and hard for the invitees to go, because it is so distant from most people's lives, people don't like leaving their comfort zone. Somehow we need to make church 'normal'. No idea how.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Notapassingphase:
Somehow we need to make church 'normal'. No idea how.

What I do in church is worship God. To non-religious people, that's not normal. Worship isn't normal, and I don't think there's a way around that.

Liturgy also isn't normal. My personal experience is that a set liturgy makes worship more accessible, by providing a fairly rigid framework and clear expectations. I would have had a much harder time showing up at a Friends' Meeting than at a high church Mass.

Other people seem to be terribly put off by liturgy. The same church is unlikely to be comfortable for both sets of people.

My personal preference is for a printed service guide (either a permanent booklet or a new sheet every week for the eco-flagrant) with clear instructions (say this, don't say that, kneel here, stand there) which are actually adhered to by the priest. But it has to be accurate.

Our current shack is rather lacking in this department: we have a paper sheet which is prepared afresh each week, literally by cut-and-paste (scissors and tape are involved) and frequently has something out of order somewhere. That's unhelpful.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

If I were promoting from scratch, I would be trying to market church as a kind of spiritual gym.

Liturgy would make more sense with a clear rationale.

I think that folk are on a hiding to nothing trying to attract people with church-as-entertainment - if it works you've got converts for most of the wrong reasons.

[ 23. September 2015, 21:59: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Rationale - so firstly, why does God require worship ?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The Bible urges us to give God endless praise. OTOH, I've read that the Christian emphasis on worship is lopsided, and that our gatherings should focus far more on teaching and learning how to obey God.

In the pluralistic mainstream congregation it's easier to emphasise worship since that's less likely to cause offense, but churches that prioritise small groups seem to benefit from the cohesiveness that results from focusing on teaching. We're sometimes told that supporting and socialising new people in small groups is more successful than trying to do so in a big congregation with its many strange faces and unusual rituals.

Anyway this CofE document about church growth might be relevant. Congregations need to be intentional about evangelism, and this involves more than just inviting people to church occasionally.

[ 24. September 2015, 00:11: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Yes but, unless God is a chronically insecure narcassist, why does he need worship ? Personally, I would argue that peope need to worship, because of the effect it has on them. Which takes me back to the spiritual gym concept - and the teaching you mention.

But I think that is far from obvious in how people talk about church in mainstream culture.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Yes but, unless God is a chronically insecure narcissist, why does he need worship ? Personally, I would argue that people need to worship, because of the effect it has on them. Which takes me back to the spiritual gym concept - and the teaching you mention.

But I think that is far from obvious in how people talk about church in mainstream culture.

I think you're right--it isn't God who needs worship (what would he have done before creation, then?) but it is us who do. I'll take it a little further and say that worship is a species of enjoyment. Before y'all roll your eyes and laugh, I'm talking about perfect worship, when everything comes together perfectly, you're all "in the flow" and it's basically heavenly (literally, I guess). Which means most of our regular worship is as far from this as a kid practicing the tuba is from a fully-trained genius musician enjoying himself. Or one's first fumblings from the best sex you've ever had.

We're basically practicing here. And some of our practice is pretty darn awful. Just like listening to a newbie practice bagpipe.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Rationale - so firstly, why does God require worship ?

Whenever I see a question like this, I ask myself, is it really about what God needs or what we need?

What if the words "praise" "worship" "prayer" etc. simply mean " an interior state of being that facilitates intimacy with God"? Because I really don't think God requires anything from us. The act of worship gives us access to him.

It's like ( forgive me) bowling. The sage advice usually is-- don't look at the ball, don't look at the lane, don't look at the guide arrows painted on the lane-- look right at the pins. When you do, if you have practiced enough, your body will align itself to deliver the ball to the right spot. I had been hearing that advice for about 15 years before one day, when I was about 25, I decided to try it. WHAM.
So, a. I like the gym analogy and b. I think worship, hymn- singing, liturgy, etc are about acively integrating the spiritual and the mammal.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If I were promoting from scratch, I would be trying to market church as a kind of spiritual gym.

I like that idea. Whenever I've joined a gym I've always been taken round and shown how each of the machines works. Then I've had a programme of work designed for me, taking into account what I'm trying to achieve and how much time I'm prepared to spend. I think the church could learn a lot from that approach.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Yes but, unless God is a chronically insecure narcassist, why does he need worship ?

You could ask why God needs anything that we might offer.

Some atheists imply that the only 'God' they could admire would be one who was quite happy to be totally ignored....

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Yes but, unless God is a chronically insecure narcassist, why does he need worship ? Personally, I would argue that peope need to worship, because of the effect it has on them. Which takes me back to the spiritual gym concept - and the teaching you mention.

This is an excellent metaphor. In Orthodoxy we talk about the "hospital of souls," and our spiritual practices are crafted (over centuries and millenia) to help people approach godliness. Putting the needs of others above self, rooting out and renouncing one's selfishness and other faults, learning temperance and self-control -- if practiced with a willing heart and mind (not saying that I have such, mind), our disciplines are designed to achieve these ends. Frankly it's one of the reasons I switched to Orthodoxy -- it's an eminently practical religion. It gives you things to do beyond bible reading and daily quiet time.

An irrational phobia of "works righteousness" makes this sound pelagian, however. And we can't have that, can we? [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think it might make all the stodgy ones feel quite enlivened to look around and see some pierced and tatted folk.

Or it might make them feel invaded. If they were the sort who felt enlivened by a sudden infiltration of the pierced and painted, they probably wouldn't be describable as stodgy.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some atheists imply that the only 'God' they could admire would be one who was quite happy to be totally ignored....

Which strikes me as an "I'm okay just the way I am, thanks" kind of attitude, which is inimical to Christianity IMNSHO.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Yes but, unless God is a chronically insecure narcassist, why does he need worship ? Personally, I would argue that peope need to worship, because of the effect it has on them. Which takes me back to the spiritual gym concept - and the teaching you mention.
This is an excellent metaphor. In Orthodoxy we talk about the "hospital of souls," and our spiritual practices are crafted (over centuries and millenia) to help people approach godliness. Putting the needs of others above self, rooting out and renouncing one's selfishness and other faults, learning temperance and self-control -- if practiced with a willing heart and mind (not saying that I have such, mind), our disciplines are designed to achieve these ends. Frankly it's one of the reasons I switched to Orthodoxy -- it's an eminently practical religion. It gives you things to do beyond bible reading and daily quiet time.

An irrational phobia of "works righteousness" makes this sound pelagian, however. And we can't have that, can we?
.

Us Wesleyans get tarred with that brush as well. : )

But really, it's only pelagianism if one makes one's salvation dependent upon the works-- which is not what Wesleyanism nor, I assume Orthodoxy, are doing. Rather, we are saying that there are good reasons in this life for believers to adopt practices and "holy habits" (Wesley's term for spiritual disciplines) that help shape our hearts in Godly ways.

Indeed, there's something off about the charge of "works righteousness" that always rears it's head when we start talking about obedience or spiritual disciplines. It's as if the only possible reason for a life of discipleship is to avoid some disagreeable eternal destiny. If we don't have hell dangled in front of us, there's absolutely no reason to trust God and assume that the way of life he sets before us actually is a good-- The Good, in fact-- way of life. That strikes me as quite peculiar. We can trust him with our eternal life, but not with today?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Indeed, there's something off about the charge of "works righteousness" that always rears it's head when we start talking about obedience or spiritual disciplines. It's as if the only possible reason for a life of discipleship is to avoid some disagreeable eternal destiny. If we don't have hell dangled in front of us, there's absolutely no reason to trust God and assume that the way of life he sets before us actually is a good-- The Good, in fact-- way of life. That strikes me as quite peculiar. We can trust him with our eternal life, but not with today?

Yeah, this freaks me out too. Or even more, those who talk as if the only conceivable reason for obeying or pleasing God is to get something out of him. What, we can't actually love him?

What a dismal frame of mind.

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

Lamb Chopped, your answer brings me back to my original question. Do we only love anyone for what we can get back? Do we only invite people to church to score brownie points? I don't wish to do either, but why then am I so afraid to ask my unchurched or lapsed friends?

Also, from a choice of Common Worship Communion or BCP Evensong, what would you choose? I would say Evensong for the uninitiated, but unless they like Church music it may not be for them.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
Do we only invite people to church to score brownie points? I don't wish to do either, but why then am I so afraid to ask my unchurched or lapsed friends?

I remember reading this interesting book about evangelism some years ago, and the author said that one issue is that although we may find our worship fulfilling, we instinctively feel that this probably won't be true for our friends. Regular church goers tolerate the imperfections of the average church service (e.g. a dodgy microphone, weak singing or preaching, poor transitions from one element to another, a rather tatty environment, mostly elderly people, etc.) but are aware that any of this might be unappealing or just boring to others. And they don't want to put their friendships at risk.

The thing is, most people feel no particular need to attend church. They feel they can be a 'good Christian', or a good person without having to sing hymns or listen to a do-gooder in a pulpit telling them how to behave or what to believe - and many of churchgoers, including many clergy, agree with them. So starting from the view that you have to get people into church is probably going at it from the wrong angle.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
Lamb Chopped, your answer brings me back to my original question. Do we only love anyone for what we can get back? Do we only invite people to church to score brownie points? I don't wish to do either, but why then am I so afraid to ask my unchurched or lapsed friends?

Also, from a choice of Common Worship Communion or BCP Evensong, what would you choose? I would say Evensong for the uninitiated, but unless they like Church music it may not be for them.

We definitely just don't love people for what we can get back. And we shouldn't be trying to score brownie points by inviting people to church. It was for that very reason that, if anyone started a "Hand this card out" initiative, I would take care NOT to invite anyone that week but make it earlier or later, for fear that they would find out it was an attendance drive and have suspicions about my motives. Too embarrassing. [Hot and Hormonal]

There are other reasons why we don't invite to church, though. One I'm familiar with is "Will they think I'm weird/fundamentalist/about to hit them over the head with a Bible?" Social embarrassment is a nasty thing. And it's largely in our heads--plenty of people would be more than happy to try church out once, but they're too embarrassed to walk through the doors without a friend there to break the ice. I mean, think about it. If you had a friend who invited you to visit their church, or even their synagogue/mosque/whatsit, wouldn't you feel honored by the invitation, and wouldn't mere curiosity tempt you to accept at least once? But I bet you'd never think of showing up uninvited. People are shy like that.

Now as for your question about evensong vs. communion, it depends very much on the friend and the circumstances. I try to avoid inviting people to communion services when I know they're not going to be able to go forward, not being believers--why make them feel left out? Start with something more open.

But another consideration is that it is a great deal easier to invite someone to church if you're planning to go on to something else afterward--for example, "Hey, let's do lunch, I know this great little place on X street, and if you like, we could take in church on the way." That way you can both tone down the emphasis on the church service without having to admit to embarrassing motives--you, an intention to do them good; they, a simple rather unsophisticated curiosity. I mean, they know it, and you know it, and you both know it of each other; but let's be British/German/Midwestern/whatever and not admit it.

[Snigger]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Oh, and don't worry about Evensong being too foreign to them. Plenty of people are pleased and excited by the exotic. It feels adventurous. What really spoils it is if you act apologetic or embarrassed yourself--avoid that, and they are likely to be charmed by the insider's glimpse of a different world.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Triple post, o dear--

If you want to make it most likely they'll be back, make sure to introduce them to at least one, preferably three different friends of yours at Evensong with whom they have something in common. If you can get a rip roaring conversation going about sports or astronomy or model trains, whatever, the chances are much much higher that your visitor will be happy to repeat the experience, since she/she now has friends there.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
Do we only invite people to church to score brownie points?

To score brownie points with whom? With God? With the vicar?

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:

Now that's from a Christian! Just imagine, if you can, what it's like for someone who isn't a Christian. Someone who's a bit suspicious, a bit worried about what others think of them, a bit concerned not to make a fool of themselves and possibly not committed to doing this regularly or alarmed at being expected to contribute financially on their first date. Someone who's probably only there because the didn't want to say no to a friend.

Not just those who've never been to church - what about those who attend church for the first time in 40+ years!
Fortunately I'm of the inclination that it's everyone else who's making fools of themselves (the correct dress for an assassin is whatever he decides to wear) and yes, it was a family do ...enhanced by curiosity.

Childhood choirboy in 1950s evangelical CofE with a bit of early 1960's Baptist Chapel (even PK's can need a bit of variety in the Youth Club availability). Then - three(?) years ago - happy-clappy, jump-for-Jesus, some sort of apparently reluctant leader in jeans (vicar temporarily under the impression that God wanted him in NZ), manfully struggling three-piece combo and a couple of singers that I could have bested (that bad!), everything on the screen over the steps - complete with a dot in case you didn't know which syllable came next, odd tunelets, nothing lasting more than two minutes (in case people had time to think?), sit-stand-kneel(not me)- repeat. You're all worthless sinners/yes we're all worthless sinners - repeat ...and again...and again.

Then the curate preached on how Christians shouldn't have anything to do with non-Christian people (including family of course) because we might deflect them from getting to Heaven. Presumably the reason for ignoring other epistolic(?) instructions such as women being silent in church, don't marry - if you do don't have sex - (from memory) because they may deflect believers from Heaven was that , during the sermon, the curate told us that she was married and had three children though we weren't enlightened as to how she acquired them.

Then there was the CofE church where the priest claimed miracles. The miracles included the naming and expulsion of demons (through him and others but really by the awesome power of the HS). Situations which were totally explicable by non-miraculous alternatives (don't priests know about endorphins?). And then, less than ten minutes later, he's organising the audience into a triple shout-out (Jesus is Lord) because the demons in the spirit world were blocking the same awesomely powerful HS and it needed the congregation's most voluble assistance to break through to this particular church! Why the HS couldn't just nip across from an adjacent parish wasn't explained.

OK - I'm making my point rather enthusiastically but....It isn't about whether your target will be put off by the funny smells and the flickering replacement for proper lighting, nor the collection plate or the weird clothing - for many of you, (you generally) not (you specifically) of course, unless you're very careful who you pick you're going to shoot yourselves in the foot by appearing bat-sh*t crazy!

Full disclosure - I also attended a third church where the vicar was transparently decent, the service was as rational as religion can be and the atmosphere was welcoming and warm. I've also, within the last year, attended introductions to a Mandir and a Gurdwara - lovely people but, at the basic level, no more rational than those found in church.

Oh - and all three services started, after much ineffectual shushing, 10 minutes after the advertised off - my father would have started on time and expected the congo to be there (and quiet) on time - not out of respect for him but out of respect for Him.

I'll get my hat!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

To be fair, though, there's nothing that any place of worship could do to inspire you, is there? Your interest in all of that is purely anthropological.

The Quakers and Unitarians probably limit the quotient of irrational teachings to the very minimum, but they haven't attracted people like yourself in great numbers.

I find Islam quite interesting. It seems able to grow without focusing on being especially consumer-friendly or rational. I think that in the West, Islam benefits from being distinctive and self-confident, and from being lived in strong communities. Christianity in the post-Christian context doesn't enjoy these characteristics. Also, mosques don't have to tie themselves in knots deciding how seeker-sensitive to be; seeking and conversion happen outside the mosque, in the community, among ordinary Muslims. That's more admirable, ISTM, than Christians obsessing about how to get more people through the church doors.

[ 30. September 2015, 11:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

I'm always reluctant to get involved in discussions on how to get more people through the church doors – for their own spiritual health, yes, to offer them salvation (what's that?) but it still comes across as a bums on seat exercise.

I've just finished + Richard Randerson's memoir Slipping the Moorings, in which he emphasises that getting out into the world is more important than coaxing people into the building (my words not his!). His time as an industrial chaplain as well as being able to function on important and effective social organisations he felt particularly rewarding.

For my part, my observation of what happened at my holiday church, which decided to put on a free meal every Monday night, illustrates the work of the people who follow Jesus. Some of the parish stalwarts apparently thought it would bring the wrong sort of people (know Someone Else who got that criticism?) while they didn't think there was any poverty in their town. It's a small town of I think about 3000. Now they serve and deliver 150 dinners every week, not just to the really poor, of whom there are many, but to the lonely. Local businesses send contributions; gardeners bring vegetables. 'Clients' join in to help with the work – and some turn up at Sunday services or talk to the minister or ask for a bible.

I know there are many such congregations, and that's where I see followers of Jesus doing their best work.

GG

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The problem with this, though, is that in order for a church to be able to offer a significant number of meals to the poor and lonely it needs both funds and manpower. A church that can't encourage many people through the doors (or loses the people it has) is going to end up short of both.

The alternative is to raise funds from outside the congregation, which means that social projects can then be organised and/or run by paid staff from elsewhere. Some churches are in a better position to do this than others.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The problem with this, though, is that in order for a church to be able to offer a significant number of meals to the poor and lonely it needs both funds and manpower. A church that can't encourage many people through the doors (or loses the people it has) is going to end up short of both.

The alternative is to raise funds from outside the congregation, which means that social projects can then be organised and/or run by paid staff from elsewhere. Some churches are in a better position to do this than others.

I think the point here, in the one such situation with which I'm familiar, is that the church uses none of its own income for the dinners. The food arrives by donations, and recipients pay what they can – but they don't have to pay anything. And the work is done by a handful of church members (it's an ageing congregation and there are not many able-bodied members) and others who wanted to contribute.
What is lacking is for some church members just to come to eat and talk with the hungry.

GG

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
<snip>

It really got me thinking in Church last Sunday, where we had the reading from Matthew's Gospel in which Jesus calls Matthew to be a disciple (Matthew 9.9-13). The vicar then preached a sermon based on this reading, in which he said that Matthew has an autobiographical moment here, not repeated throughout his Gospel, where he implies that if he, a despised tax collector, could be called to follow Jesus, then anyone can. He went on to say that, although it appears that Jesus told the Pharisees that they did not need him because they were well, he was actually telling them that they did need him because they were sick but didn't realise it, whereas the "tax-collectors and sinners" did realise.
<snip>

Just a quick side point, which shouldn't undermine the discussion, but the Gospel of Matthew is an anonymous work, like the other canonical gospels, which were later given names. I only say this to question the claim that it is in some way autobiographical.

K.

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

I think this thread has something to do with who we become friends with. We do not always choose our friends, but they are people to whom we are attracted by means of common interests, humour, etc.

I read an article fairly recently in a Christian magazine, which urged us to cultivate friendships with the right kind of people. To me, this seems snobbish. Jesus cultivated friendships with the wrong kind of people. If we follow the maxim WWJD, we should be friends to all sorts of people and not just the respectable ones.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:

I read an article fairly recently in a Christian magazine, which urged us to cultivate friendships with the right kind of people. To me, this seems snobbish. Jesus cultivated friendships with the wrong kind of people.

Jesus had a few posh friends as well as rough ones.... But what did the article mean, exactly? What context was it referring to?

Some church plants/missionaries initially hope to attract the middle classes to their church. Why? Perhaps because these are society's opinion-formers. And when a church is known for its particular appeal to the disadvantaged it can be hard to get the well-off to attend. (E.g. re Dalits in some churches in India?)

OTOH, there are many Christian movements that started off among the poor, but gradually became more middle class over time. I mean, that's the history of the Protestant work ethic, isn't it?

The average British church finds it hard to connect with working class folk. A congregation is probably going to have to address its own cultural blind spots if it seriously wants to do this. For a start, is the Harvest Festival still meaningful to most people? Maybe in rural communities.

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

Jesus said to his disciples 'the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak'. He said that they ought to pray as a consequence. He said this at a time that he knew they would face intense pressure and persecution. The reason it is difficult to do what Jesus would do is because we will face opposition, even from within the church. We face opposition primarily because the cross is foolishness to the world (somewhere near the start of 1 Cor). The only way we can overcome this difficulty is with God's strength which is why we ought to pray, confess our sin and depend on him.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0