I sometimes wonder if people think I'm a cynic. At times I struggle to engage with Church like others do. I find singing sometimes awkward and frustrating. I find the certainty and glossiness of Church annoying and false. I find the lack of honesty and doubt troubling. I see the deep need to challenge people. But I'm not a cynic.
There is a risk of labeling anyone who questions or comments on 'Church' with this title. The fear, I think, is that people like this (people like me) are in danger of filling the Church with negativity, with breeding an unhelpful culture. After all- questioning leads to doubt. Guess we better not question then.
The thing is, I can identify more with the outsider than the insider. Even though I have done it all my life; I think that Church is a pretty strange thing, and at times I don't get it. Sometimes I don't really sing very enthusiastically, sometimes I look distracted in the talks, sometimes I leave without complimenting the preacher on his message. Sometimes I don't really enjoy myself.
I overheard a conversation the other day between two of my friends. A comment from a non-Church going guy was that he found that Church lacked doubt- that it was a place of people coming together and declaring and worshiping with utter conviction. But for someone exploring with uncertainty and doubt, it might seem difficult to ever 'become' like them, to join in fully. And, at times I find this too. I find it difficult to join in. I find it difficult to declare with as much certainty as others seem to have. I find myself asking questions, thinking, and not always agreeing with everything I hear.
But this doesn't mean that I don't want to see people discovering Christ. It doesn't mean that I don't long to see the Church renewed. It doesn't mean that I don't think faith in Jesus is infinitely valuable. Just because I don't like your method, doesn't mean I'm not after the same thing that you are. It might mean that people like this, people that question, slow the process down, it might mean that Church is not always as encouraging. It even might mean that you don't enjoy it quite as much. But if we don't give space to the thinkers, to the doubters, to the questioners then we are in danger of producing a Church which is more about making people that all think the same rather than people that follow Christ. The question is, which of these two things is truly more important?
If the Church is a body composed of different parts we need people like this in our Church. We cannot run the risk of breeding a Church of like minded people. There has to be room to question, to doubt, to challenge. There has to be scope to allow people like this to shape the future of the Church without being squashed and ignored or cast aside as 'cynics'. And equally it is unhelpful to just become a Church of 'cynics'; to ignore the mainstream, to cut ourselves off from the enthusiastic. We need to learn the value of these words:
There is a risk of labeling anyone who questions or comments on 'Church' with this title. The fear, I think, is that people like this (people like me) are in danger of filling the Church with negativity, with breeding an unhelpful culture. After all- questioning leads to doubt. Guess we better not question then.
The thing is, I can identify more with the outsider than the insider. Even though I have done it all my life; I think that Church is a pretty strange thing, and at times I don't get it. Sometimes I don't really sing very enthusiastically, sometimes I look distracted in the talks, sometimes I leave without complimenting the preacher on his message. Sometimes I don't really enjoy myself.
I overheard a conversation the other day between two of my friends. A comment from a non-Church going guy was that he found that Church lacked doubt- that it was a place of people coming together and declaring and worshiping with utter conviction. But for someone exploring with uncertainty and doubt, it might seem difficult to ever 'become' like them, to join in fully. And, at times I find this too. I find it difficult to join in. I find it difficult to declare with as much certainty as others seem to have. I find myself asking questions, thinking, and not always agreeing with everything I hear.
But this doesn't mean that I don't want to see people discovering Christ. It doesn't mean that I don't long to see the Church renewed. It doesn't mean that I don't think faith in Jesus is infinitely valuable. Just because I don't like your method, doesn't mean I'm not after the same thing that you are. It might mean that people like this, people that question, slow the process down, it might mean that Church is not always as encouraging. It even might mean that you don't enjoy it quite as much. But if we don't give space to the thinkers, to the doubters, to the questioners then we are in danger of producing a Church which is more about making people that all think the same rather than people that follow Christ. The question is, which of these two things is truly more important?
If the Church is a body composed of different parts we need people like this in our Church. We cannot run the risk of breeding a Church of like minded people. There has to be room to question, to doubt, to challenge. There has to be scope to allow people like this to shape the future of the Church without being squashed and ignored or cast aside as 'cynics'. And equally it is unhelpful to just become a Church of 'cynics'; to ignore the mainstream, to cut ourselves off from the enthusiastic. We need to learn the value of these words:
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” ...God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
