Ronald VanAuken

While our people came from more than 25 different nations, our worship services were all in English. This said, there were a few things we did.

On one wall of the sanctuary we placed flags representing the various nations that our people came from.

We extended an invitation to individuals to make a 3 minute PowerPoint presentation on their native land and the faith community they came from there.

We invited these same people to put up a display in the fellowship hall and to provide refreshments reflective of their culture for the coffee hour.

We encourage individuals, if they felt comfortable doing so, to dress for worship as they would in their home country.

We allowed our worship to gradually evolve to where the prayers of the people could be offered in a variety of different ways, with some being sung. Similarly, we opened ourselves up to accept individuals voicing an "Amen!" or a "Praise the Lord!" in response to what might be said in the message/sermon.

We included music representative of other nations, singing some both in English and the native language. Beyond this we had a Sunday where all the music was spirituals, another where the elements were reflective of indigenous culture.

Communion would also take a variety of different forms.

These are a few of the things that we did. At heart was listening and asking, "How can we be more inclusive?" or better, "How would the Lord like us to be changed rather than insisting always that others must change?"

While I would not argue the points made, one of the things I always seek to point out with respect to both Advent/Christmas and Lent/Easter is that everything we do is essentially made up. Most historians are in agreement that it was some 300 years before there was anything resembling Lent. That is likewise true of the church today. It bears little resemblance to the ecclesia of Jesus or of the apostles. It is a sobering but potentially liberating truth.

I think I am with Sean on this one. Jesus, of course, was face-to-face. Not sure what he would do with online conversations. So much is missed when you cannot see or hear the other and have only printed words to go by. More than a few times I have spoken to congregations about how we interpret words, using God's question to Adam as an example.  There are but 4 words: Adam, Where, Are, and You. You can vocalize them in at least 6 different ways and though the words remain the same, the meaning changes with the vocalization. Then add to this the body language.

I have also been part of too many online discussions that were less than respectful and courteous. I seems like the relative anonymity is taken as tacit permission to say whatever one wants. 

Then, again, I just happen to be a very opinionated guy and if I commented on everything I read, I would never leave my computer! :)

That said, I do thrive on a good discussion. I actually toyed with the idea of having a regular group entitled "Let's Talk" where nothing would be out-of-bounds and we would engaged in a respectful and hopefully intelligent discussion of whatever was on people's hearts and minds. Still may do it, but momentarily have set it aside for a group entitled "God Talk: Theology 101" that will introduce interested people to basic theology, theological terms and subjects.

But yes, lets converse,

ron vanauken

Said somewhat differently, we need to go back to square one. The essence of the first ecclesia/church was intimacy with Jesus (and later his teaching) and with one another. With the disciples this was experienced in boats, fields, homes, courtyards . . . just about any place if we are to believe the gospels. With the early church it was in homes. As I understand it, God does no reside in buildings made with human hands. Not only so, but all of our liturgies/orders of service, are made up. Jesus never dictated how his followers were to worship when they gathered. (Of course the first followers, being Jews, continued with temple worship. There was no thoughtof establishing a new religion.)

The question caught my attention and I both laughed and was captivated by it. Why? Well, in Jesus discourse on prayer he taught that we pray for daily bread, not weekly, or monthly, or yearly.  Of course this was a personal prayer, not an institutional one.

I once worshipped in small church that knew just how much they neded to make it from one Sunday to the next. In retrospect this was probably the equivalent of "daily bread." Anyway, they took the offering, the deacons counted it, and if it was not sufficient for the next 7 days, they would take the offering again. If my memory serves me, they passed it 3 times that Sunday.

Then there is the story of Channaka (Hanukkah). Oil for one day, it lasted 8. The challenge we have in walking in the footsteps of Jesus is balancing faith with common sense and prudent thinking and acting.

There is an interesting take on the 12 spies. As we know, two Joshua and Caleb, were ready to forge ahead while the other 10 spun the story of giants and recommended not crossing over. IKt is found in the Talmud. As the story goes the spies looked over and saw that the land was, indeed, one of milk and honey. They envisioned the people settling, building homes, planting crops, raising cattle, becoming prosperous and losing their dependence on the Lord. They envisioned them trusting their own strength, their own knowledge, their on wisdom. Fearing this, they instilled fear into the people with their narration. Interesting isn't it, they they were correct in their concern, though wrong in their action. Wealth can easily lead to self-reliance. Not surprisingly when Jesus gave his brief teaching on prayer, it was for daily bread, not for cupboards and refrigerators and freezers full. Some of us are so uncomfortable with this petition that we refuse to see it as it is and want "bread" to mean the "Word of God." But remember that Jesus himself was essentially jobless and homeless. Sobering thought.

One can be first through the wall and then, turn around and find they are the only one through the wall.

We are mistaken if we believe that all change is desirable and/or good. We are mistaken if we believe that everyone is equally open to change. Some come on board quickly and eagerly, other much more slowly and cautiously. We are mistaken if we believe we can leave the past behind. The future is nothing more than the past realized, the present is that infinitely fine line between what has been and what will be. We are mistaken if we believe we can initiate change and not be changed ourselves. We are mistaken if we place change ahead of healthy relationships, which translates into mutual respect for where each one of us are in our journey and a willingness to listen and understand. Every would be leader, when considering change, needs to ask, "Is this change for my good or for the good of the Body?" If the former, drop it. If the latter, then work with the Body, not against it.  

Great piece, Corey. Frankly I wish there were more people who had the courage to openly ask questions like this! I will not give you the answer; but I will give you my answer, the one that works for me.

To pray means to ask, so it is hardly surprising that for many, perhaps even most, this is precisely what it comes down to.

The most common word in the Hebrew that we translate "prayer" is teffilah which may be taken to mean, "connect." That is, what we call "prayer" is first and foremost a deliberate and conscious connecting with God, or engaging the Lord is a conversation, a dialogue. Fundamentally it has nothing to do with the actual content or nature of that conversation.

One form of the word actually means "to judge." In shirt, when we pray our very words judge our hearts. As do Jews, I always pray aloud and have many an instance where mid sentence I will stop because I realize that my words are outside of the petition, "Your will be done." or that my words reveal something that I personally need to deal with before I come to my Father to talk.

So it has come to pass that in my own spiritual life my conversations are much less about asking for things, than praising, thanking and trying to get my won life in order. When I do "pray" for others, whatever the situation may be, I see it primarily as a way of acknowledging that we are called to bear one another's burdens and to seek from the Lord to know what I am personally called to do. Said differently, I am asking, "Is this concern a call for me to act and, i so, what would you have me do?"

This is a sort answer that is personal and well would serve for a much longer dialogue.

I will end saying that for me the questions, and the struggles are much more rewarding than the answers as I always come away amazed at what a great God we serve.

ed

Allow me to offer another perspective. Andrew B. Newberg et.al authored a book, Why God will Not Go Away in which it is argued that our brains are hard-wired to believe in God.tis based on brain science and others have followed. If this is true, then there is an innate longing for God. And if it is true that in Jesus we have the "very image and likeness" of God, and if there is only one, true God, then, yes, people are actually hungering to know that God, hungering for Jesus. Why Jesus? Because we understand things physical much better than we understand things spiritual. It is the tangible world that is the most real to us, that impacts us the most. Come to know Jesus and you come to know--as best we mortals can--God and in so doing our hunger is satisfied. The hunger for meaning, for significance, for unconditional love is a hunger only God can satisfy.

While there is much I could say respecting the ending of the post, I will simply offer up a thought on the premise of Jesus as a rebel. It really does depend upon how one sees or defines rebel.

If he opposed the Pharisees and by implication the scribes, yes. He seems to have rejected the "traditions of men" which I take to mean what Jews would refer to as the Oral Torah . . or at least the rigidity of it and placing it on a par with Torah itself. His words that "the Shabbat was made for man and not man for the Shabbat" speaks volumes about how the whole of Torah is to be seen and approached. At the ame time, by all accounts he was a conformist in the sense that he was an observant Jew who sought only to do the will of the Father. That is about as far away from a rebel as one can get. He was not a Zealot, as noted, advocating the overthrow of the Roman government. He was not a religious recluse as were the Essenes and/or the people of Qumran. He was thoroughly engaged with people in the world in which they lived. He spoke the word in their language and spoke iot with clarity and understanding and compassion and for this he was highly regarded.

'nough said. . . for now