A short post today. Perhaps these are "baby steps" into me beginning to post more regularly again. I saw this video on someone else's blog, but the level of challenge is profound if you think about it. Watch this and then consider your church:
OK, now you've probably made an assessment about your church, and that's fine. You probably also made an assessment about "Soul City Church" too. Fine again. So now watch it again and do the same for yourself. I'm trying to think about what this means to ME...not my church. It's really easy for me to post this. To say in my head and my heart "YES!" Moving that feeling from my head and heart to my hands and feet is a different matter. I pray this haunts me until I do something about it seven days a week. And that when I do, that the Glory goes to Him and not me.
3 comments:
I have to say that I'm fairly allergic to the "emergent" movement. With that in mind, imagine a church where the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered every day. Imagine a church where God is praised and supplicated in the morning and in the evening; a church which recognizes that the act of worship is its primary raison d'etre, and that everything else is a correlative or aftereffect of that worship. Imagine a church that is itself a city--the civitas Dei--an incarnation of what God wills for His people.
Hm, I think I've just described traditional Christianity. Why do these guys think it's necessary to re-invent the wheel each generation? :)
Maranatha! Veni, Domine, et noli tardare!
Bless you, brother.
Rus,
We all need constant reformation individually and corporately. Martin Luther was. Looked upon negatively. Can we consider that ideas of the "church" maybe influenced by culture and instutions more. than the Bible? Of course, Luther was apologized to years later because grace was not being preached on any day. In our day grace is confined to a building and to one day. Can we be free to extend grace every day in every place? Radical Christianity? Luther wouldn't think so. Thanks for the post, Rus
John
Palaelogos: I hadn't really considered whether this would fall under the "emergent" tent. Of course, what I know about the "emergents" is they don't even like to define themselves, so I guess that makes it all the more difficult for me to determine. :-) That being said, I think I understand your allergy.
In looking at the message, I guess I see this as them perhaps not "reinventing" but rather "pointing back to" what traditional Christianity should look like. Does that make sense? I think there are even some popular books out there about returning to more orthodox Christianity. John probably knows of a few. However I see your point about how it seems to imply it was never like that previously.
For me personally, it reminds me of how I fail so frequently to be the hands and feet. I can talk an adequate game, but actually engaging my faith in a way that ministers to others is another story.
Let me add that I like your description of the traditional church. Yet another challenge to this "protestant mind" I have.
Post a Comment