The Exclusive Church

There is so much talk these days about inclusiveness that it crossed my mind that it's about time we saved ourselves a lot of hassle and admitted that churches are exclusive institutions. They meet for a purpose - it may be expressed as 'to worship God' or it may be as simple as 'to get to know one another', but there's always a purpose behind a meeting. Anyone whose behaviour thwarts that purpose will be excluded. Try standing up and asking questions in the middle of a sermon in your average evangelical church! Try preaching at a social gathering (no, actually, I've seen it happen, so that one doesn't count....), but you get my drift - it's all about expected modes of behaviour. Conform and you'll be accepted, don't and you won't. In fact this applies to most gatherings, not just churches, but I just wonder if a lot of heartache, discussion, time and effort would be saved if churches were to accept that they are by definition exclusive institutions. I don't think it matters if you're post-modern, emergent or whatever, the disallowed behaviour is just different (the person who insists on answering all the questions for example).

Qualifications

Following a recent discussion I am left wondering what qualifies as a new (or different) form of church. It was suggested that the qualifications were one or more of a list that included:

• Meeting on a day other than Sunday
• Meeting at a location other than a church building
• Finding ways of worship other than singing
• Finding ways of discovering other than preaching
• Meeting around food or a film
• etc............

I pointed out that the group of which I'm a part does all of these things but is thought of only as a small group within a larger church rather than a different form of church. Why doesn't it qualify? Is it too small? Well, the size limit is defined by the location, which is one of the qualifying factors for being different. Is it that some members of the group attend Sunday services? Well, their desire to serve and resource other forms of church should be seen as a positive outcome enabled by the different form.
I think the difference is more fundamental. The qualifying factors above are superficial and reflect the practice - they do not address the ethos, the underlying thought processes, the 'generous orthodoxy' to coin a phrase. What is the difference? I don't think I can articulate it in such a way that it would fit on a page - maybe others can attempt it!
Is it possible to conduct a different form of church whilst still associated with a traditional church? Will those in the traditional form ever understand where you're coming from? Does it matter?
Anyone fancy addressing the many question marks above?

Unsettling

Took a look at the blog of an Iraqi woman which made me feel sad. Also heard on the radio this morning some stuff about how Bush was basically elected by Evangelical Christians. I don't think I want to be tarred with that brush any more. Reminded of a quote from the film Saved! when one character threw a bible at another - 'This is not a weapon!'
I try not to say too much on Iraq as I know I'm not well informed. This will be a rare exception. I feel that it is wrong. I feel that killing so many people is wrong. I feel that there is no humility and no love in what is being done, therefore It cannot be 'Christian'. I don't have any answers to the problems but I see no evidence of Christianity in what is being done by a President elected by Christians supported by a Prime Minister who claims to be a Christian. I see only arrogance and vengeance and greed.

Bizarre Purity

I came across this quote from an article about sexual purity amongst teenagers:
"We'll ask something like, 'Can you raise your hand to praise the Lord without showing off your belly?"
There's some good stuff in the article, but the quote is a good example of how the language of the Christian sub-culture can descend into the bizarre.

Community

Don't you just love it when you read something that ties in with what you've been thinking and trying to express for some time? Brian McLaren talks about community in 'A Generous Orthodoxy' in the chapter on Anabaptists. He says something along the lines of:
Churches are keen on community. Seriously busy people try to add it onto their busy lives as they do membership of a health club (that they join and never use). It's an add on. Anabaptists (e.g. Amish / Mennonite communities) undertand that you have to START with community. It involves your whole life, the land you live on, your work, your relationships, your passions, etc.....
It's something I've been trying to articulate for some time. Simply in saying that you have to start with it I think he has grasped the essence of what community is about. Home groups, life groups, reality groups, whatever we call them always seem to end up being an add on, something else to go to, however helpful we may find them. They are always secondary to the main 'worship' meeting. Having extracted myself from that main gathering (or rather being unable to force myself into that mode) and being unable to come up with an acceptable model for something else, I wonder if this whole community thing may be one of the keys to the answer. Lifestyle changes would need to be radical, but wasn't that what Jesus was about? Western people seem not to be able to start thinking along these lines, it is so alien to us. Where do we start? The one thing I'm sure of is you can't do community on your own.

Wide or narrow?

OK, this is getting a bit like an obsession, but I looked on the IMDB message boards to see what other people thought of the film Saved!. There are several message threads consisting of Christians arguing with people who would not call themselves Christians. There is such a huge culture gap that the same arguments just go back and forth. Each has their own prejudices and narrow viewpoint. It makes me wonder if part of the duty of a Christian is to offer a wider viewpoint, not a narrower one. Perhaps the retreat into a closet of Christianity (I think I mean the evangelical sort) has been a move in exactly the opposite direction from that intended.
I begin to think back to the time when I was involved in running a Crusader youth club. We would take a few minutes at the end of each evening of fun and frivolity with the aim of getting the youngsters to take away just one new thought. No hard sell, no preaching, just trying to stretch the mind. It seemed right, and maybe there was more to this than we realised.
The popular view of Christians seems to be that 'we' try to get other people to swallow the whole thing accompanied by some magical instant transformation. That's true in some circles. I don't think it's right however; it just results in arguments about Leviticus which the critics seem to have read more thoroughly than the Christians.
So, is there anything in the thought that the job of the Christian (please don't start quibbling, I know it's not the only job or even the prime job) is to attempt to help people to widen their viewpoint, and that the tendency in the recent past has been to narrow our own?

Saved!

I received the DVD of the film Saved! on Friday. I loved it!!!! Set in an American Christian High school it's mostly about 4 main characters. Macaulay Culkin can actually act - he plays a 'differently-abled' student whose sister is the ultimate Christian (played by Mandy Moore). Their friend (Jena Malone) is sort of the main character - she gets pregnant because Jesus tells her to try to help her boyfriend who has discovered that he is gay.
That's probably confusing enough; you've just got to see it. My daughters tell me I like chick flicks too much for a man, so don't blame me if you don't like it, but I found it amusing, touching and inspiring. I admire the producers for daring to make such a film in America. The stunning thing is that all the things that make you cringe actually happen - I've seen them all.
Go see it, or come round to my house and watch it so I have an excuse for seeing it again.