This, I’m
writing based on my own personal experience.
I’m sure religious scholars could have plenty to say on these topics,
under “laboratory” or “ideal” conditions, of course. There is certainly a time and place for those
empirical observations from historical visions, but the battle is here, in the
real world, right now, and things haven’t gone perfectly according to plan, as
is incredibly evident. It is my opinion
that the North American church would not be struggling to retain the ground it
still holds after several decades of dwindling membership, had things gone
according to plan (that is to assume that the plan includes the growth of the
local church).
So, a bit
of background, for context’s sake: my family went to an Anglican church for the
first 11 years of my life, and I was baptized there at the age of 2 months (or
something like that). After some
political situation in the Anglican church at that time, we uprooted and
attended a Presbyterian church for 7 years until we moved out of town. During this time, as I became more independent
and autonomous, I began questioning different aspects of faith, and didn’t
think church was relevant—it was ritualistic, and I didn’t understand the
appeal or importance of that religiosity.
I think I still believed in God, or some form of higher power, I just
didn’t understand why that entity would need to be pleased, and why on earth it
would find a bunch of old people who would be dead within the decade chanting
half-hearted liturgies pleasing… Was this the way that these older people had
done it for all their lives, and were we young people supposed to jump on this
slow-moving bandwagon heading out into the middle of nowhere just for the sake
of carrying on the religion? No thank you, said teenage Helen. While I was in university, my parents moved
and began attending another Presbyterian church that housed a considerably
older and more religious congregation.
That drew me even farther away from the church, but I was in university
and had more important things to do, like partying…
After a series of events, I
found myself seeking Christian community on campus in 3rd year, and
became connected with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF), where I met
Jesus, dove into the Word and learned more about the Kingdom of God
than I had every Sunday for 20 years. It
puzzled me so much: how could I have attended church for nearly my entire life,
and known so little about God and his kingdom, and never committed myself to
Christ? How had I gone from “church is
stupid” to “I’m answering God’s call to mission in Bangladesh” to preaching sermons in
church in less than a year? HOW?!
The answers
still elude me. My parents recently
moved again, to another town, and this past Sunday (actually, like 6 weeks ago or something, I've been picking away at this piece for a while) the church that they have
attended for the last 4 years requested all of our family members be present so
they could give us a final farewell (the cutest!).
This summer the church has been going through the “Top 40 Hymns” as
named by viewers of the BBC program, Songs of Praise, and each Sunday they sing
4 or 5 of them and one of them is chosen as the theme for the sermon. I thought it was a pretty lame way to try and
incorporate some pop-culture into the aging congregation, but actually, since
many of the hymns are based on scripture, it has been fairly refreshing and
back-to-basics, which I feel like all churches need, but particularly the high
church. Anyway, this Sunday the hymn
that was preached on was “Just as I am”.
This hymn describes God’s willingness and delight to accept us as we are
through all our doubts and imperfections—great message, no arguments
there. This hymn was described as the
greatest altar-call hymn of all time.
The minister had to ask with a show of hands how many people in the
congregation knew what an altar-call was: 3.
Three people knew, so the minister explained the nature of the
altar-call: at the end of a worship service, people are invited to come forward
and commit or recommit their lives to Christ and to receive prayer. The minister was very clear in the sermon:
“we don’t do altar-calls in the Presbyterian church”, which I understood, as "altar-calls are kind of a more charismatic/fundamentalist thing, and the high
church is not exactly charismatic, or fundamentalist". Then the minister went on to describe
Canadian Presbyterian youth conference he had chaperoned in the 1990s, where
the organizers had made an agreement with the guest speaker that he wouldn’t do
any altar-calls because it would scare the children. I had problems with that:
1) If something scares you, usually
some of that element of fear stems from a lack of familiarity, and such fear
promotes avoidance and a lack of understanding.
If we are going to live as the kingdom of God,
we need to recognize that we have different traditions as Christians between
denominations, and embrace and celebrate, or at least get to know these
different traditions, recognizing them as of the same faith. What better time to make this introduction
than at a young age, when people are clean slates, not yet too jaded by sour
experiences.
2) FOLLOWING JESUS IS SCARY. Let’s just
call that like it is.
3) The questions of commitment: How, if
at all, were these young people encouraged to commit their lives to Christ, and
what do Presbyterians, and other traditions for that matter, believe to be the
protocol for committing oneself to Christ?
Even deeper, if people are not committing themselves to Christ, how can
there be any hope for raising up future generations of Christians, or creating
new believers—how has this church been sustaining itself under these
principles? Does anyone believe that
this method of non-committance is sustainable for the faith of individuals or
the church as a whole? If so, why/how?
If not, are there any proposed changes, and what can we do about it?
The last
question lingered in my head for an uncomfortably long time. Earlier that week I had been sitting in my
parents’ house, reading the Presbyterian Record that had been left on the
coffee table. It was littered with
articles, editorials, letters, and reflections outlining the recently-passed
general assembly, and how many parties left disgruntled that those at the
conference were unable to discern whether or not Presbyterianism is still a
relevant denomination in Canada, and how the conference-goers seemed to be more
interested in talking amongst themselves to discern this, rather than praying
and listening for the Lord.
The way I
understand it (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, that’s happened before, I
won’t explode): In Catholic and Anglican (and Lutheran?) churches, your parents
have you baptized as an infant through the sprinkling of water (although being
baptized later in life is possible in lower traditions), you learn about the
faith for a few years, and when you’re about 13 you have a confirmation
ceremony, where you affirm your belief in God and the resurrection, publicly
professing your faith. I don’t believe
confirmation is mandated for all people of that age bracket, but if you have
peers in your church or go to Catholic school or are not yet autonomous from
your family at that age, I can see how confirmation can become a pressure test
rather than an act of genuine faith.
The Low
Church (keep in mind, this is an enormous generalization, mainly based upon my
own recollections and observations) largely abstains from baptizing individuals
until they are cognizant enough to make a commitment to Christ (i.e. adult
baptism, many by immersion as opposed to the sprinkling on the forehead used by
much of the high church). I understand
the rationale behind this to be manifold: an individual is owning this big,
life-changing decision rather than having their parents or guardians make it
for them; the principles for adult immersion baptisms are derived rather
directly from the Bible, whereas the argument for infant baptisms appears to be
much more indirect, implied, or embedded in one’s own conviction; baptism is a
public declaration of an individual choosing to follow Jesus, and due to the
public nature of this declaration, accountability and support for the baptizee
are facilitated.
Then,
there’s the grey area of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches (among other
denominations); they do infant baptisms with sprinkling, or adult baptisms by
immersion, as well as professions of faith: the professing individual shares a
snippet of their testimony and, for lack of a better term, professes their
faith in front of the congregation. I’ve seen this happen primarily in the late
teen years, but I have no reason to believe that it can’t happen at other times
in one’s life or faith journey.
There seems
to be this multi-standard thing going on of ways you come to belong to a
church. Divisions exist between whom is
committing the individual to Christ and striving to provide a nurturing,
Christ-centred environment (the parents or the individual) as well as how that
commitment takes place, and at what age.
Commitment:
can we talk about that for a sec? I’ve heard the language before of “daily
surrendering” of certain aspects of one’s life: habits, vices, wellbeing,
thought patterns, etc. to God. I’d argue that we need daily recommitment of
ourselves to Christ, and daily reminders of why we began to follow Jesus so
that we may fall in love all over again and continue to desire that pull deeper
into pursuit of Shalom in his kingdom—“rebirth”, as it were. I do have an
extremely short attention span, but I’d wager that a one-time commitment as a
teenager isn’t grounds for a sustainable, active faith in Christ for people
like me, as well as those with much larger attention spans. What does the
church believe about this? It seems to be a different answer according to a
number of different factors, including: denomination, governing body (assembly,
convention, diocese, etc.), church leadership, and individual members. I feel
like all would agree, however, on some level, that there has to be action
accompanying the commitment to Christ—it isn’t just, “yay, commitment, home
free, I’ve bought my salvation and now there’s nothing else on the earth left
for me to do, see you in the next life, God”… Of course, some churches are
better at mentoring, nurturing, inspiring, and motivating that action than
others, but I think it’s something that all churches and individuals can and
should strive to improve. (Here I am on my soap box, pointing out the speck in
my neighbour’s eye…)
Another
thing that we as the church need to be mindful of are the associations and
judgments we make upon individuals attached to a particular group,
denominational or otherwise. I mean, when I go to a Presbyterian church with my
parents and people find out that I go to a nondenominational church where we
sing praise songs with a worship band and our pastor has full sleeve tattoos,
they seem disappointed (ick face!), and make me feel like I’ve picked the wrong church
because it’s different than what their ideal church would be. “Oh, you go to
one of those churches” is a phrase I
hear all too often—what does that even mean?! By the same token, when people
ask me about how I came to faith, or about what my church background is, I
don’t like mentioning the Anglican church, just because I’ve seen my peers
raise some red flags (and have raised some myself) about the theology of some Anglicans. Then as soon as I
mention the word “Presbyterian” the eyebrows start going up because it sounds
more like a nationality or new-age sexual orientation or classification than a
religious sect. And then the “how did you end up here?”s start making their way
out, so I mention that I met Jesus as a university fellowship student after 18
years of weekly church and 2 of running away from church, and that I’d never
even heard that term, “meeting Jesus”, until university. My story confuses
people; it’s not the black and white “I-was-born-and-bred-in-the-church-and-everything-was-perfect-so-I’ve-always-been-here-and-never-left”,
or “I’d-never-been-to-church-and-was-a-total-sinner-but-one-day-I-met-some-Christian-friends-and-they-introduced-me-to-Jesus-and-he-helped-me-turn-my-life-around”,
although those are both wonderful stories. It’s grey, and confusing, and I
don’t even know what happened, or why, or where I belong—but I have been given
this incredibly unique perspective that allows me to see so many nooks and
crannies of the modern church; ways that it works, and ways that it doesn’t
work; things it does well, and things it does not do well; areas where it is
serving its members or clientele, and areas where it is serving the Lord. This
gift of perspective is something that I believe God has used, and wishes to
continue to use for the edification of the body of Christ that is the church.
This is not to say that he has not gifted others in this way and that he will
use them for the same purpose and other purposes, nor that my sole purpose in life,
or the only way he has gifted me and will use me is buried within this idea.
The perfect
church absolutely does not exist. Many
people when searching for a church home are looking for a community that
supports and feeds their spiritual growth and wellbeing. There’s nothing wrong with this, as ultimately,
we all are seeking righteousness (righteousness = right-relatedness) and
closeness with God, and it that relationship seems much more easily cultivated in
a place where we feel his presence, whatever that looks like. However, we must not forget that worship is
not about us. Community is not about us. Church is not about us. All of the
above are ways through which we love God and seek righteousness with him, and not with ourselves. Worship is speaking
the truth about who God is. Community is
extending love to God’s children as he has loved each of us. Church is practicing
being the body of Christ by combining these two things. Church is about the LORD. When people make these offhanded comments
and funny faces as we talk about my upbringing or present whereabouts
concerning church (“one of those
churches” or the “ick!” face), I believe it comes from a place of wondering
either “how does what they are doing in that place fit into my construction of
‘church’?” or “how can you meet the Lord in that place?!” The first question
has already been nullified: the perfect or ideal church does not exist because
it is not about us or what we want, but about the worship and kingdom of God.
The second question is also void: how can one meet the Lord in any place? It
isn’t up to the physical body of a particular church to provide satisfying interaction
with the Lord to individuals because the church isn’t in place to serve
us. The church is the body of Christ,
and we are there to worship and serve God; the church as an institution does
not exist for our satisfaction, enjoyment, or validation.
All of this
being said, there are points at which it is more than reasonable for
individuals to make the decision to leave a church, especially when its actions
or behaviours are not in line with the teachings of Christ. There are certain
aspects of some churches my family or I have attended that I’ve absolutely
loathed, but those churches are certainly not without their merits. They were indeed places where I felt loved,
at home, and learned the foundations of the faith. Likewise, any church or
community I can choose to be a part of now or in the future is not and will not
be without its downsides.
“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome
him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything,
while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise
the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one
who eats, for GOD HAS WELCOMED HIM. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant
of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be
upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” –Romans 14:1-4 ESV, emphasis mine
Paul was
actually talking about food here, but the theme of not judging or condemning
other Christians for their practices of worship or prayer is a common theme
throughout the gospels and the epistles of the early church. The early church members were much like us, in
that they didn’t always take this message to heart. I was reading Jeremiah 31 the
other day, and it was like déjà vu as an entire year of studying and leading
scripture through the gospel of John flashed before my eyes as Jeremiah is
prophesying that Israel shall be rebuilt (indeed it was—but not like they were
expecting) and that they would plant vineyards on the mountains of Samaria
(maybe literally, but definitely metaphorically when you look at John 15)… Yes,
God is for us as individuals, but he has not raised us one above the other; there
is no “us and them”—just us. Jesus flattened
the hills and raised the valleys so that there wouldn’t be an “us and them”,
and that is something that we should make our worship about because it is
absolutely revolutionary—it can’t always be about “Jesus you are so great
because you saved me and died for my sins so that I may have eternal life with you and it’s so amazing that you would
do this for me because I am so unworthy…” Don’t get me wrong—the
fact that Jesus paid the ultimate price as atonement for our sins is absolutely
greater than any verbal description that any human can assign to it. It is the
gospel (good news) of atonement and foundational to the Christian faith. We cannot, however, be Pharisees and use that
atonement as an excuse to be elitist and create another “us, the saved” and “them,
the unsaved” construction as a framework for how we associate with others. That
is exactly what Jesus instructed the Jews NOT to do during his time of
ministry! Yes, Jesus died, but he also lived, and we cannot continue to
regularly polish his death up on a pedestal while his life and teachings sit on
the floor, collecting dust. Ev’ry valley
shall be exalted, and the rough places plain. (#HandelsMessiah
#musicnerdmoment)
Churches
are run by fallen, fragile, fallible humans, and by that virtue alone will
never measure up to the perfection of Christ, the head of the church. We can
strive though, and reach, and come closer all the time (but never touch—Jesus
is like an asymptote that way). We are never going to be like Jesus in the way
that we will never have to die as atonement for the sins of others (i.e., we
are not the literal sons and daughters of God, as Jesus was), but we can put
forth our utmost to love and serve one another in the name of Jesus.
If I was to
hypothetically boil down all of the last 3000 words of convoluted statements
into one final paragraph: What we get from church isn’t nearly as important as
what we do there and outside, so we shouldn’t go shopping for a church with a
checklist of objectives of things we are expecting to gain for ourselves in a
particular community, without a larger checklist of ways we can love and serve
the Lord and his people in that place. Worship is telling the truth about who
God is, and is not for our benefit, so to speak. Commitment to Christ should be
viewed as a commitment to living as he lived, and such a commitment should be
lovingly encouraged among churchgoers. All churches have their strengths and weaknesses,
and none is perfect, but with good, Christ-centred leadership and community,
all should strive to become a bride worthy and reflective of Jesus. Instead of
continuing to divide ourselves as the body of Christ through our own personal
ideas and preferences of what church should be, while judging and condemning
other groups for holding different views, we ought to put the petty differences
aside, get back to basics, and allow our King to reign, with his gospel.