Mark Metcalfe
9th December 2005, 09:35 AM (09:35)
Cindi,
In regards to my comment in the Christmas Sunday note about your pastor,
first, I am sorry for the "snippy" comment. If you saw it as snippy, please
try to see that I was not trying to being snippy at you. However, I am
reflecting an inner turmoil that I am having over the direction and culture
of the Western Church. I'll attempt to explain.
The past and the future are in conflict over the present. (That's the abstract
language way of saying concretely that changes being brought to the Church
are causing the turmoil.)
Why do changes cause turmoil?
It could be simply that people don't like change.
It could be that people don't like to me moved from comfort.
It could be that people understand things in a certain way and have difficulty understanding things in a different way and valuing the difference.
It could be that "old" is being tossed out without regard simply because it is considered dated. That "new" should be valued because it is new and enlightened.
My concerns are reflected in the final bullet. I don't mind change. I
advocate moving out of comfort into service.
I am concerned that we are losing many things of value because those
things are seen simply as legalistic instead of any attempt to understand
why it once held value but may not today.
A tension exists between rules and meaning, and culture is having its impact.
A simple example: "don't run in church" (especially not in the sanctuary).
It's a parochial notion because the Church is not a building. Yet we have
not passed on the notion of reverence to our children, especially in a place
set apart for the very act of reverence. If that place is not set apart, have
we taught the next generation to revere God wherever they are? More often,
I see that we simply dismantle a "rule" without retaining any meaning.
Some changes are good, and some are not. Do we know which changes are
good and which changes are not? We don't like legalism, (rightly so).
I wonder how much we have lost under the guise of eliminating all vestiges
of legalism merely by labeling things as being legalistic.
With regards to the Christmas Sunday, I do not understand the reasoning
that cancels the gathering together of the saints on the Lord's Day. I know
that we can worship God on any day, and should do so every day. And we
can hold a service at any time slot on the calendar. To me, Sunday is like
the tithe; it is off the top, not what I have left. Hans mentioned that the
Dutch go to church on Christmas whether or not it is a Sunday. In America,
it used to be that we go to church on a Sunday, whether or not it is a
Christian holiday (holy day).
Now one might counter, but the sabbath was made for man and not man for
the sabbath. Indeed! But it was the practice of Christ to go to synagogue.
What the turmoil comes down to, I think, are two things:
1. Meaning
2. Transition
What are the things that we should carry forward into the future as treasures
and heirlooms of our faith? What has meaning?
I awoke this morning with a hymn in my mind:
Holy Spirit, Love Divine
Shine within this heart of mine
Cast down every idol throne
Reign Supreme and reign alone.
Then I sighed a deep sigh and said to my wife who was still cocooned
in our bed, "that song is lost to [most of] our church today." (This is
an ever-present topic of discussion and burden with us, which I hope
explains a bit more of my reaction -- again not at you, but at the subject.)
Lastly, let me explain what I mean about transition.
I think that there is a significant lack of understanding around the
necessity of transition from one mode to another. Every change is
a liitle death. (Shakespeare said every goodbye is a little death, I think.)
And as such, proper respect should be shown the passing of one to
better embrace the future. An example: when a church moves to a
new facility, it often will have a ceremony and perhaps a march from
one (the old) to the other (the new). This is important psycholoically
to make such transitions, because abrupt change is traumatic and leads
to frictions. I believe this is true in our transition from one music style
to another. This is why I use the phrase "carry forward our heirlooms"
to indicate that some things are important and valuable and should not
be lost. I think we need to become better at "rites of passage."
That's where meaning comes in... and the attempt to understand
why something has value to one but not another?
Does the thing have intrinsic value, or does it have contexual value?
Example: if I went to the corner store and attempted to pay for things
with British Pounds or Mexican pesos, they likely would not accept my
payment. (I certainly could find a bank to convert the currency, but my
point is that the Pounds and Pesos have no value to the store owner,
even though at the exchange rate they do hold value.)
In the Christmas Sunday note, some of us value going to church on that
Sunday morning. Some of us value the observance in a different way.
The idea that I do not value (or don't know how to value) the other way
does not (or should not) diminish the value of the other way -- just as
the British Pound or Mexican Peso still has value, but not in the American
corner convenience store.
This is a very long note, and I have only touched the surface of my
discomfort with the state and direction of the Church. I'll leave it
here for now.
To state once more, I was not being snippy at you. Forgive me for making
you feel as if I hold anything against you. I do not.
Mark
In regards to my comment in the Christmas Sunday note about your pastor,
first, I am sorry for the "snippy" comment. If you saw it as snippy, please
try to see that I was not trying to being snippy at you. However, I am
reflecting an inner turmoil that I am having over the direction and culture
of the Western Church. I'll attempt to explain.
The past and the future are in conflict over the present. (That's the abstract
language way of saying concretely that changes being brought to the Church
are causing the turmoil.)
Why do changes cause turmoil?
It could be simply that people don't like change.
It could be that people don't like to me moved from comfort.
It could be that people understand things in a certain way and have difficulty understanding things in a different way and valuing the difference.
It could be that "old" is being tossed out without regard simply because it is considered dated. That "new" should be valued because it is new and enlightened.
My concerns are reflected in the final bullet. I don't mind change. I
advocate moving out of comfort into service.
I am concerned that we are losing many things of value because those
things are seen simply as legalistic instead of any attempt to understand
why it once held value but may not today.
A tension exists between rules and meaning, and culture is having its impact.
A simple example: "don't run in church" (especially not in the sanctuary).
It's a parochial notion because the Church is not a building. Yet we have
not passed on the notion of reverence to our children, especially in a place
set apart for the very act of reverence. If that place is not set apart, have
we taught the next generation to revere God wherever they are? More often,
I see that we simply dismantle a "rule" without retaining any meaning.
Some changes are good, and some are not. Do we know which changes are
good and which changes are not? We don't like legalism, (rightly so).
I wonder how much we have lost under the guise of eliminating all vestiges
of legalism merely by labeling things as being legalistic.
With regards to the Christmas Sunday, I do not understand the reasoning
that cancels the gathering together of the saints on the Lord's Day. I know
that we can worship God on any day, and should do so every day. And we
can hold a service at any time slot on the calendar. To me, Sunday is like
the tithe; it is off the top, not what I have left. Hans mentioned that the
Dutch go to church on Christmas whether or not it is a Sunday. In America,
it used to be that we go to church on a Sunday, whether or not it is a
Christian holiday (holy day).
Now one might counter, but the sabbath was made for man and not man for
the sabbath. Indeed! But it was the practice of Christ to go to synagogue.
What the turmoil comes down to, I think, are two things:
1. Meaning
2. Transition
What are the things that we should carry forward into the future as treasures
and heirlooms of our faith? What has meaning?
I awoke this morning with a hymn in my mind:
Holy Spirit, Love Divine
Shine within this heart of mine
Cast down every idol throne
Reign Supreme and reign alone.
Then I sighed a deep sigh and said to my wife who was still cocooned
in our bed, "that song is lost to [most of] our church today." (This is
an ever-present topic of discussion and burden with us, which I hope
explains a bit more of my reaction -- again not at you, but at the subject.)
Lastly, let me explain what I mean about transition.
I think that there is a significant lack of understanding around the
necessity of transition from one mode to another. Every change is
a liitle death. (Shakespeare said every goodbye is a little death, I think.)
And as such, proper respect should be shown the passing of one to
better embrace the future. An example: when a church moves to a
new facility, it often will have a ceremony and perhaps a march from
one (the old) to the other (the new). This is important psycholoically
to make such transitions, because abrupt change is traumatic and leads
to frictions. I believe this is true in our transition from one music style
to another. This is why I use the phrase "carry forward our heirlooms"
to indicate that some things are important and valuable and should not
be lost. I think we need to become better at "rites of passage."
That's where meaning comes in... and the attempt to understand
why something has value to one but not another?
Does the thing have intrinsic value, or does it have contexual value?
Example: if I went to the corner store and attempted to pay for things
with British Pounds or Mexican pesos, they likely would not accept my
payment. (I certainly could find a bank to convert the currency, but my
point is that the Pounds and Pesos have no value to the store owner,
even though at the exchange rate they do hold value.)
In the Christmas Sunday note, some of us value going to church on that
Sunday morning. Some of us value the observance in a different way.
The idea that I do not value (or don't know how to value) the other way
does not (or should not) diminish the value of the other way -- just as
the British Pound or Mexican Peso still has value, but not in the American
corner convenience store.
This is a very long note, and I have only touched the surface of my
discomfort with the state and direction of the Church. I'll leave it
here for now.
To state once more, I was not being snippy at you. Forgive me for making
you feel as if I hold anything against you. I do not.
Mark