vertigo etc
After watching the dvd with some of yous on thursday (pap, ian, dt, etc) I have had a couple of statements running through my head. Mostly, “If in 15 years my kids love church but I hate it, then i’ve done my job.” It really makes sense to me, maybe cuz i have a kid now. I am wondering what you guys think. It says something about what we believe at the root of what we are doing, although I can see a lot of people not liking that statement. What does it say about those who take responsibility for the future?
On another note, after watching U2 on SNL last nite… i realized that the harder U2 has to try to be cool, the older i feel. We all know the Edge is bald, so just take off the skull cap, once. The older we get the narrower the road to respectability becomes. I would think someone as brilliant as Bono would get that. But he keeps wearing leather pants.
- originally posted by glenroy
4 Comments so far
Leave a reply
glen, my worries with the statement, " if in 15 years my kids love church and i hate it, then i've done my job" is that implies a separation of sorts. first of all, i believe that you as a father have so much influence in your child's perspective of life that it will be difficult for your son to align with a perspective opposite from yours. question: wouldn't your whole family loving Church, a Church whose community engages your entire family, be a much pleasant picture? family means something and to me the way that statement is phrased, it communicates/implies a disunity which i would not agree is healthy. let me know if i am misunderstanding you. to respond to your question regarding responsibility for the future, embracing the future and being influencers of the future is a responsibility requiring a love and humility that is only supernatural. it requires a robust understanding of the present and a will to initiate a response powered and guided by the Gospel and the Spirit. note: this is a response to which no formula can be used. its a surrender to the love and providence of God which is needed and which transcends our entire being. for myself, having no comparison is so liberating but with nothing to use as a measure life can easily become confusing. This is also where there can be friction between faith and diligence. i could go on but i will stop there and see what others have to say.
i think behind alex mcmanus\' comment is essentially the desire to see church continuing to move forward and influence culture. remember the statement, \"relevancy to culture is essential\" – or something to that effect. in 15 years, alex (and you glen) would hope that your children are in love with the church…in love with Christ and passionately living as the body of Christ in our world. if the way it looks is going to remain current and vital, then it will look incredibly different in 15 years…yet a different that will sit comfortably with our children. we, however, might find our old school impressions shape what makes us comfortable and how we like church \"to be\". and thus, as change occurs in the church environment, we might find we \'hate\' it in 15 years. the question i must ask myself, is am i able to move with the church? can i be that wrinkly old man, of spiritual maturity, who can join a youthful church culture in exploring and being church with a continuous move forward? this would make aaron\'s comment about unity in the family possible, despite the color and shape of church in 15 years.
i guess that was what i was expecting, that such a strong statement would sound divisive. i think the speaker was pointing much at what you affirmed, Danny; that if relevance is essential, and the church grasps this, then the odds are that the church will appeal more to my kids then myself – only because evidence tells us that the older we get the more stuck in our ways we become. I call it the Classic Rock Syndrome. It applies to most everything. Most people hit an age where the nostalgic elements of life are the only things that provide feeling and meaning. The church is sometimes trapped this way. But I digress… I think a statement like Alex\'s isn\'t meant to divide people or the church. I think it is a pointed comment to divide our thoughts. It makes us think. He doesn\'t really plan on hating the church that his kid loves. He plans on building a church that is relevant to the culture 15 years from now, even if he isn\'t. It has been hard for me to filter that separation, but it is useful for me to process. We aren\'t talking about programs or services or worship styles. We\'re talking about the communities, the purposefulness of the church. Anyhow, that wasn\'t the most cohesive thinking I\'ve assembled lately, so I\'ll stop.
Perhaps the statement might be better put if it read: "if in 15 years the Church looks exactly the same as it does now, we've ignored the Holy Spirit". My motto when it comes to the Church is 'ecclesia semper reformanda est' – 'the Church is (always) seeking reformation'. This means that Christianity should change without ceasing. It is part of our very fabric. Doctrine and worship should always be liquid, never solid. We sometimes forget that and churches get caught in the 600s, the 1200s, the 1500s, the 1800s or the 1980s. I want the Church to surprise me in the future – even to the point where I have to squint to see similarities – but at the same time, to use the Wittgenstienian addage, there should be a 'family resemblance' I still recognize because our Gospel, our Mission, and our God is the same. Evolution means that 'A' becomes 'Z'; Development means that 'a' becomes 'A'. We are a part of a developing faith community, and the story is nowhere near over. We have a living God. The Spirit leads us into all truth and shows us things about ourselves that we couldn't bear 15 years ago. The 'leaven of the Gospel' will make certain truths rise and others fall at different times in history. Thanks be to God, this process never stops.