On Worship, WWW, and Wondering

I am a product of a story. Same goes for everyone. But, by rights, I shouldn't give two hoots about religion, let alone Christianity. But I do. Deeply. Passionately. I would love nothing less than to spend the rest of my life learning and sharing about what God has done, is doing, and will do. I am an english male aged 18-24. I have a reasonable degree from a reasonable university, and have had a very comfortable upbringing. I read today, here, that religion in my age bracket is declining, but even then 25% of people allegedly still believe in God. It was interesting to read the study - and I would say that broadly reflects the 'faith perspective' of the people I connect with on Facebook. In my daily life - writing Christian 'stuff' and volunteering at a Church - I tend to relate to vastly more Christians than not, and it is interesting comparing two rather different worlds.

I love my gadgets, my internet(s) and the tools that enable me to connect, learn, engage and grow. I'm a fan of technology. But not for gimmick's sake. Instead for cementing solidity, for deepening depth, and uncovering importance. As I understand it, ours is a generation that demands something, yet mostly isn't quite sure what it is. According to some, because of my reasonably conservative Christian upbringing (for which, in fact, I am eternally grateful), I should not be a Christian, and if I must be, I should resonate with forms of the faith either incredibly ancient or tantalizingly new.

I was interested to read, via Twitter yesterday, a piece in the Independent by Vicky Beeching, and an incisive response from thought-through Anglican blogger Peter Ould. Vicky's article had been provoked by two things; the attendence by over 20,000 people of Summer Solstice, and a video of a wedding flashmob, 'presided' over by Kate Bottley. I embed the video below from youtube;

Fun, eh? I'm sure some will object to the fact that a woman is presiding over a marriage (for more see my post on women bishops, and the recent vote), but I rather enjoyed the solemn yet joyful liturgical opening and closing, even as the main event was clearly the mayhem and fun of a wedding flashmob. Vicky seems to think - unless I am reading her wrong - that "it is a lot to do with the style of church gatherings". Using the wedding flashmob as a springboard, she muses briefly (it is, after all, the Independent), that "perhaps the model of worship services is something the Church can re-imagine". Hmm.

Peter Ould, as intimated above, has offered some firm and careful engagement with Vicky's piece, and I'd recommend you read it (And then go and get lost in his excellent blog!) here.

I have a couple of observations to offer, if you will permit me.

I think Vicky is setting up a false dichotomy (again, if I am reading her wrong, I apologise!) between the old way of the doing things and a (as yet un-defined) new way of doing things. I think that is wrong. I think, as I so often and increasingly do (am I becoming more Anglican?) that the model should be, and often is, both/and. The church I am part of is large and charismatic, and yet also encourages a wide variety and depth of discipleship. We have our large sunday gatherings - with long, biblical sermons and around 30 minutes of reasonably loud sung worship - and we have small groups, meeting each week, all over the city, in which space we can come together in smaller community, exploring faith and the Bible together, and worshipping Jesus. Small groups are the heart of the Church, even as we come together as the bigger body on a Sunday. Neither, exclusively, can be 'church'. The 'up front worship service' model and the 'interactive' model can and must co-exist. In fact, I think, for the most part, they do! I have not visited that many churches over the last few years that don't have both a worship service and a small group structure. Many new church plants start with one and work towards the other, but don't have only one! Both/and offers a much healthier way of doing church, that recognises the role, authority and training of a 'pastor', and sharpens and exercises the importance of 'lay' ministry and fellowship.

I also think, for the most part, that the reason people do not come to church - or leave - is the lack of depth, the lack of Jesus. Peter makes the helpful point that "the real reason people don't come to Christian worship is because they don't want Jesus". That point is more important than we think. The church is not a social club. It is not a community. It is nothing without Jesus. Regardless of whether we use the liturgy in an ancient building (I do love the inside of the church in the above video), or worship to the rhythm of loud rock in a converted warehouse (I also love the decor of the church I'm part of), the distinctive is Jesus. Small groups and worship services can only be authentically Christian if they are all about Jesus, shaped and discipled by the word of God. The historic ways of 'doing church' are not so much restrictive religion as formulations of biblical truth. The new ways of 'doing church' will surely fail if we forget the past, and attempt to strike out alone, forgetting Jesus and his Gospel for the sake of numbers.

One of the biggest surprises for me recently was a slightly bizarre event we ran at church. We called it 'Word Aloud', and the premise was simple. We got someone to read the whole book of Philippians, then we had a pause as someone else explained the context and theology of the book. Then we sat, in near darkness, as a young man read the book again through the bars of a pretend prison cell. It was amazing. The discussions that followed were powerful and life giving. Lots of people were there. Across the generations. The depth of the old words, given life by the Spirit and the power of context, resonated with everyone who attended. This was no gimmick, no high-energy experience, no culturally-relevant attempt to explain away awkward doctrine. The raw, powerful public reading of Scripture.

We can wonder about how to grow the church, and we can wonder about what the church should look like. But I'm a simple evangelical, and I think that reading the bible together, praying (alot!), worshipping Jesus and sharing life together, echoing the rhythms of the bible and being obedient in the sacraments to that which Jesus commands, is what church is about. And all of these threads lead to Jesus. Church can be complex - ask either the verger in charge of the fabric of a 1000-year old chapel, or the chap in charge of AV for a 1000-seat auditorium - but it must be about Jesus. Church can be simple - but it must be about Jesus. People coming, for any reason and by any means, and meeting the risen King, and seeing their lives transformed by the Spirit to become children of God.

At least, thats what seems to work, but then I can only go on my limited experience...

_______________________

You might like to check out the church I'm part of - Trent Vineyard - and the church I grew up in, Chertsey Street Baptist Church. Have a gander.