Todo Tiene Su Como-Se-Llama

I think that making blanket statements about "The Church" can be dangerous.

Saying "Many churches in America" is much more truthful.

"The Church" is, in my mind, the entirety of the family of God. All Christians on the planet. Most of whom don't fit the picture you paint.

Even churches in America don't.

Also, I disagree somewhat. Our pastor is currently talking about what church should be like. I'll go dig up my notes after dinner, but words like "powerful", "challenging", and so forth have been put forth.

In my mind, church is a place of fellowship and teaching, at its roots. Transcendence should be something throughout life.

More to come.

Here we go:
"Church should be 1)balanced, 2)powerful, 3)accessible, 4)unifying, and 5)challenging."

This, to me, rings true.

Again, in my view, one of the fundamental purposes of gathering in church is that of teaching and learning. Another is fellowship.

While transcendence may play a part, in my mind, seeking it as the ultimate end may be missing some things.

Of course, I may be thinking of a completely different definition of transcendence. And of course, I don't think it doesn't play a part. But seeking it above everything else can, in my mind, lead down wandering roads.

You're absolutely right. Making blanket statements can be dangerous . . . I'm standing by this blanket, though. In this case, I'm being very general precisely to avoid pointing fingers in very specific directions. This is much more a statement of "in my experience, the following is often true . . . if the shoe fits you, wear it." I don't think I've said anything that is identifiably false or misleading, but above all this post is as much about how the Church has often failed to reach me as it is about any specific shortcoming.

You're right to zero in on "transcendence" as a word we need to nail down right away. It's possible that we don't even disagree by that much, based on what my definition is. You say "Transcendence should be something throughout life" and "I don't think it doesn't play a part. But seeking it above everything else can, in my mind, lead down wandering roads." I'd be interested to know what you meant by that, but here's my take on transcendence.

The basic dictionary definitions I'm going by are: "Lying beyond the ordinary range of perception; Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity." In Christian theological sense, I view the search for transcendence as a quest for communion with God. To my mind, that encompasses the highest and most ultimate end goal of everything we do and believe. There is a lot more to being a Christian and to being part of a church, but I think it is fair to say that everything else should/does point or lead in that direction. For instance, you mentioned fellowship and teaching (and I absolutely agree with those choices). However, both of those, I would say, ought to be in pursuit of transcendence. If they aren't somehow doing that, then what good are they doing?

Now, having established that, my position is that the Church is not really doing this for me most of the time. I won't say they aren't doing it for anyone, because I don't know (and I'm sure they are). What I will say is, for a lot of people, they're doing it wrong. I hinted at some reasons as to why, any of which could be a conversation starter (but none of which was meant to be a conversation ender, if you know what I mean).

Finally, in response to this: "Church should be 1)balanced, 2)powerful, 3)accessible, 4)unifying, and 5)challenging." Understand that, having never been to your church, heard your pastor speak, or even heard anymore of the totality of that sermon beyond this phrase, I am responding to it alone and nothing else. That quote, taken by itself, sounds a little like a collection of buzzwords which may or may not contribute anything concrete to a discussion about church. Depending on what any of those words mean, I might agree or disagree with what is being expressed (particularly with respect to "balanced" and "challenging" . . . I'd love to see more balance in the church and more Christians being challenged, but what is meant here?).

-I find that power is just as apt to corrupt a church as it is to corrupt an individual, and I'm not entirely certain that church ought to be powerful . . . unless that word means that the church's message ought to be powerful. But then, what does that mean, exactly?

-I frequently worry that church is too accessible where it shouldn't be, and not accessible enough where it should. Churches often don't have anything useful to say to anyone outside of, say, the American evangelical bubble. On the other hand, I rarely hear a sermon that is as informative or useful to me as the average hour in a Bible class at LeTourneau. I understand that, with spiritual and material knowledge alike, education must begin with the basics, but I find very few churches that seem to be aware that their members ought to eventually graduate from Christian kindergarten and move on towards college.

-Unification is often just another word for division, particularly among Christians. The sort of unification I see all too often is modeled on the high school clique: unity through mutual exclusion. We are the body of Christ because we don't accept Democrats, or homosexuals, or people who think that God didn't create the world in 6 days. Usually this sort of thing isn't voiced out loud, but that is effectively the way it works.

I could probably continue in this vein for some time, but it would be best to give you a chance to respond and clarify.

Right, so.

Upon further contemplation (and some out-of-blog conversation), I think that, first of all, we're actually in agreement about transcendence. In classic Sharpton fashion, however, we were saying the same thing, just in different ways, and from different approaches of thinking. All of the things I listed, at least as our pastor approached them, do ultimately lead to greater communion with God.

To address the "bullet points":

-This most certainly isn't temporal, earthly power. It's rather that of a spiritual nature. The kind of power that defines, guides, and even transforms lives. It's the power of transcendence, if you will.

-I think accessibility is a delicate balancing act. I also believe that, first and foremost, the Church should be on firm foundation of the core tenants of Scripture; Christ, and Him crucified, as the Apostle Paul put it. Then you work out from there. I think individual churches need to be willing and able to adapt to as many members as possible, without losing their core beliefs. Again, it seems like it's a delicate balancing act that all too few are hitting right now.

-It's unfortunate when that occurs, and it definitely does. I think that the church needs to strive at "majoring in the majors, and minoring in the minors". Don't compromise on core issues, but be willing to allow variety of style and nuance, as well as some of the "peripheral" beliefs (things like how pastors should dress, be named, etc.; things that don't truly impact the core Gospel one way or another). I think this is something the Church is starting to work on, and towards, again. I also think it's going to be a long, painful process. And it's going to take everyone pitching in. Even the Democrats in the church. ;)

I had to read this poem for class tomorrow, loved it, and thought it might be fun to share as being somehow vaguely related to the discussion:

"The Evangelist" by Donald Davie

'My brethren ...' And a bland, elastic smile
Basks on the mobile features of Dissent.
No hypocrite, you understand. The style
Befits a church that's based on sentiment.

Solicitations of a swirling gown,
The sudden vox humana, and the pause,
The expert orchestration of a frown
Deserve, no doubt, a murmur of applause.

The tides of feeling round me rise and sink;
Bunyan, however, found a place for wit.
Yes, I am more persuaded than I think;
Which is, perhaps, why I disparage it.

You round upon me, generously keen:
The man, you say, is patently sincere.
Because he is so eloquent, you mean?
That test was never patented, my dear.

If, when he plays upon our sympathies,
I'm pleased to be fastidious, and you
To be inspired, the vice in it is this:
Each does us credit, and we know it too.