Justice

I feel that not only is there a large division in churches between traditional and contemporary/conservative and liberal, but there is a big divide with what churches choose to preach about and focus on: in other terms, what the church deems is the most important about Jesus's message. On one side, you have those churches who emphasize the fact that Jesus was a rebel, an outcast - someone who fed the poor and spent time with lepers and had dreadlocks and wore clothes he made himself. Kind of like Shane Claiborne, except he's Jesus. Then you have churches who see Jesus as the talker, the guy who always gave great advice and who shared the good news about His father in Heaven and the Kingdom to come. Which Jesus is the real Jesus? Who should we follow?

Well, the answer is that neither of these guys is who Jesus was (and is!). Jesus did, of course, feed the poor and spend time with lepers. That was what he spent a majority of his time doing. But Jesus also spent a lot of time teaching about His father, especially to the disciples. You can't split Jesus in half because you only want to emphasize one part. Some people only want to do good works because this is what they find more appealing, or maybe because it's easier for them. This is the same for people who only want the evangelizing side of Jesus. They like to talk about how great Jesus is, but going out and physically helping people just doesn't do it for them. We absolutely can't have one without the other!

I was really reminded of this when the other day in my honors seminar, my teacher put a definition of social justice up on the board. The definition of social justice that scholars have agreed on (and this is in the secular world, mind you) is this: Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being.


So interesting! This basic definition of social justice incorporates both sides - meeting the physical needs of people (a society that's equal would have no hungry or thirsty) and sharing the message of Jesus (recognizing the dignity of every human being means helping those see dignity and love themselves - the only true way this will happen is if they follow Jesus). I love that! You just absolutely need to value both if you're going to follow Jesus. You need to walk the walk and talk the talk. And this isn't even me getting into how one is "saved" (faith or works or both?). It's just recognizing that if we're going to truly follow Jesus, we need to have equal parts of "good works" and "evangelizing". When you think about it, why do the two even need to be separated? Jesus didn't seem to divide his ministry into categories.


I think that's all I have to say. Just thought it was interesting that a secular definition got it spot on (besides that the definition didn't mention the Holy Spirit working through us, or that God is the only One who can create this perfect world in the end) and many churches struggle with incorporating both. So, let's walk and talk at the same time :)

Church

All of a sudden, I'm freaking myself out about college and what I'm studying and all of those shenanigans. What if I'm not studying the right thing? What if I hate what I'm studying? Is it okay to study something you only half-heartedly care about because you're convinced the end will justify the means? What if it's poopy at the end?

Seriously, last night I had a stomachache from thinking so much! I'm willing to take classes I don't love to get to an end that's awesome, but the fact that the end might not be awesome freaks me out!

Well, prayers would be appreciated! But enough crying into my blog for one day :)

My lovely friend Becca sent me a video talking about church and the differences between traditional and contemporary and all that jazz. The classic debate, right? Which one is better, which one is truly glorifying God?

The trick is, there's no true answer to these questions. No church is perfect, and if you think that yours is, you aren't truly looking. And while of course the classic traditional church and the classic contemporary church both have flaws, they both do really, really well in some areas too.

For example, the contemporary churches like Willow Creek do a lot of things right. They get people truly excited about God with music and dancing and art. They often encourage Bible reading and really asking the hard questions. Their sermons are usually thought-provoking and really dig deep, using the Bible as their reference. They're not afraid to read lots of books and bring in speakers to help supplement the Bible. However, this type of church needs to be wary of crossing some lines. They put emphasis on music and art, but they have to make sure that there isn't too much hype that accompanies these mediums. Otherwise, people will be worshipping the music and the way it makes them feel instead of God. They also have to be careful that they aren't completely abandoning everything that churches have done in the past. Just because past churches haven't been perfect doesn't mean we should pretend their teachings and traditions never happened and start from scratch.

Similarly, the traditional church has a lot going for it as well. They emphasize beauty in a quiet way, with stained glass windows and old hymns. They often do really well in the department of religious education - making sure kids are engaged and learning about their faith from the time they're very young. They also aren't afraid to take part in traditions. Many people shudder when they hear that word, but tradition in itself isn't a bad thing. Liturgy, outward signs such as the sign of the cross or genuflecting, and the Eucharist every week are beautiful signposts to God. Traditional churches also have to be careful of falling into some common traps, and misusing tradition is one of them. Traditions like the ones I described are a wonderful way to worship our God, but if a church starts doing things just because they've always done them, they are now worshipping the traditions themselves. This is a big danger, especially for those who attend these type of churches. It often happens that they grew up always making the sign of the cross, but now at age 35, they still don't know what it means. One must know the meaning on everything he or she does, and also must reflect on that meaning during the service. Traditional churches also must make sure they're always open-minded and willing to change, constantly examining the Bible and hoping God will show them what needs to be changed.

As you can see, the two stereotypical churches have fairly opposite strengths and weaknesses. So which is the best to go to? Most people just say wherever you feel the most at home, whichever one you like more. I just thought of something a little different, though. What if we went to the church where we felt a little uncomfortable? What if we grew up in a traditional church, so as an adult, we make the change to one that's contemporary? This may sound silly, but here are a few reasons:

1) How will you best be challenged and learn new things if you go to the exact same church your whole life?
2) More importantly, how will you be able to best be a contributing church member if you're always at the same church? If a person who is a strict tradition church-goer decided to make his or her church home at a contemporary church, they might be out of their comfort zone, but they would also be able to bring great ideas to the table about how this church could improve their liturgy and add a few traditions, like weekly Eucharist. The same is true if a contemporary church-goer went to a traditional church. They might be uncomfortable, but they could probably help make some changes to the church that would bring more life and color and beauty to the church and help people get excited about worshipping the One True God.

These are just my thoughts. As you can see, I didn't use any Bible references in this post. That's because while we can read about the first church in Acts over and over again, I believe there will still be people who interpret it different ways. So, let's try to build each other up in what we're doing well, and help strengthen each other in what we're lacking.