Comments from Nathan

Here is a very interesting post from Nathan.  I didn’t want it to get lost in the archives of the blog because I am really challenged by what he says.  He brings up some things we should discuss.  Here it is:

 

Nathan, on September 10th, 2008 at 5:27 am Said: Edit Comment

We ran out of time Tuesday so I wanted to give two values that do not seem held by the church as a whole. I have noticed some individuals share these values but it does not seem to drive the mission of the church.
The first value: worship that is fully engaging. I think there are two ways of thinking about this. There is what was mentioned at the meeting with “amens” and congregational praying. This would be engaging the congregation in the drama of the liturgy. Instead of a production put on by the pastor that puts the congregation in the place of a spectator, a worship service should be an event in which the congregation actively participates. Much of this is already done with the responsive readings, but other examples of this would be lay readers, receiving Communion at the table, children being prayed over, passing of the peace, common confessions (of faith or of sins), etc. The less I am a spectator and the more I am a participant, the more meaningful the liturgy becomes. It is less a lecture that I attend and more a drama in which I act.
This leads to the second way that worship is fully engaging. It engages more than just the mind. I depend on Sunday School to challenge me intellectually. The worship service should be a complete restatement of the Gospel. A liturgy should contain the whole story of sin, confession, revelation, prayer, the Atonement, forgiveness, thanksgiving, and sanctification. These are aspects of the Christian life that should be part of our everyday life, but that on Sunday should be dramatized in a way that engages our whole person, not just the intellect. It is possible (and profitable) to include all these things in a sermon, but by acting out these aspects as a community on Sunday – through confession of sins, reading from Scripture, corporate prayer, the reliance upon the sacrifice of Christ (both in the Ministry of the Word and the Ministry of the Table), giving thanks in song, prayer, and offerings, and blessing each other – the Gospel is tangible and beautiful in ways other than in the intellect. This of course does not detract from the mind-blowing nature of Christ’s sacrifice, but adds a different dimension to it. (By the way because of this value of engaging worship, I find the absence of Communion from the worship service an unbalanced presentation of the Gospel. I need the Gospel preached to me every day; I need Christ’s righteousness constantly. I need his body and blood daily, not once a month. Since we do not have a daily worship service, we could at least have the drama of the Gospel every Sunday.)
The second value: love of culture and desire for its transformation. I think most Christians would agree with the second part of the statement. We want the culture to be transformed without our having to engage in it. The concept of a Christian counterculture still seems attractive to some today. It is hard to evangelize if you don’t love the lost, and it is hard to redeem society if you don’t love its culture. There are wonderful truths and great beauty in the world which some of the Church has missed because they have refused to look. The retreat from “secular” culture by the fundamentalists in the early 20th century still has its consequences today, for example, there are no evangelical leading research universities, the state of Christian film making is deplorable, and evangelical voices are more often condemning than leading in studies of biology, geology, psychology, feminist theory, or even history. These are interesting and exciting topics that should not be feared. I think this point was made in Sunday School when we started Keller’s book, Reason for God. Keller enters into discussions with skeptics on their level, and challenges the basis of their faith. He does not argue over the particulars of science or theory. If we had a love for knowledge and for people, I think we would be interested in learning and discussing “secular” ideas. These often have elements of truth which can inform us about the Creator and His creation through natural theology. Also, it can be disarming to non-Christians that have stereotyped Christians as out of touch.
I came to think about this when I questioned myself why did I invite Christians and non-Christians to Intown Presbyterian Church in Portland, but I have not invited anyone to PCM, when both preach the Gospel and are Reformed. I think it has to do with a blatant desire on the part of Intown to engage and largely accept their culture. The diversity of the congregation was disarming to most non-Christian visitors (remember this is Portland). But many of the outreach ministries were well fitted to the Portland culture. For example, they hosted an annual art show inviting local artists; they provided moving, cleaning, and cooking service for HIV patients too sick and alone to care for themselves; and there were regular “table talks” held at various pubs where aspects of Christan theology, history, and philosophy were discussed. I especially used the table talks to invite non-Christians. Most of my friends were uncomfortable to come Sunday morning to a church service, but to meet some people at the bar for some beers was more comfortable for them. By loving “secular” art, the homosexual community, and good beer (Portland has the best micro-brews) the church was demonstrating God’s love and grace to the fallen culture. And Intown was a place I was excited to invite everyone I knew, because of their love and engagement with their culture.
I think this might be too long of a post but it might be more distilled here than if I had tried to explain it at the meeting.