Whose Church is it?

I regularly listen to a podcast that deals with God in pop culture. If you have an hour and a half of time just lying about, I would certainly recommend giving the boys at Steelehouse a listen. I am a total sucker for pop culture and most of the time I listen with a nod and a smile as they discuss movies and songs of my youth or current TV shows of which I am a huge fan. Just recently, however, they were on the topic of church/worship media,and it brought back to mind this question that has been rolling over in my head for about the past 4 to 5 years.

Why does church - and by that I mean a good ol' Sunday morning service - exist? For whom is it there?


Jeff Huston and Mark Steele, the hosts of the podcast were at a conference on worship media. And I tell ya what, 6 years ago I might have thought that was a pretty good idea and may have even attended, considering it was held in Dallas. I was all about engaging the culture and being all relevant and whatnot. But now . . . . it just really rubs me wrong and kind of even makes me sad. And I believe the reason for that is because the focus seems largely on a.)non-believers and 2.) me. It's like a new paint job on a seeker sensitive service. Over the past few years I have come to believe that the group who that Sunday morning gathering is really for is 1.) believers and b.) Christ. And while yes, becoming Orthodox is partially responsible for that, I think a more accurate assesment would be that because I feel this way, I became Orthodox.

Let me see if I can make some coherent statements to make this make sense. And of course we all know I am no scholar so bear with me. What exactly do we know of the early church from scripture? About as much as we know about parenting. Oh wait, that's another blog. My point is that it really is not very specific about what a gathering of those young fresh faced Christians looked like. Acts does give us a picture of how their time together was often spent -- eating together, sharing communion, praying. I am not aware of any mention of witnessing in these instances. Rather, evangelism was something that took place outside of the coming together of the Christians. For some in their daily life, no doubt, and for others as their calling and I guess vocation. Relevance was absolutely a necessity and Paul was a fantastic example of this. But my point is that the place for convincing people that Christ was the Messiah was NOT the temple or synagogue nor was it the potluck over at Titicus and Ophelia's place. It was out there where the people were living their day to day lives.

I take no issue with engaging the culture and doing it as Mr. Steele would say "with excellence". I do have a problem, however, with bringing that into the worship service. The gathering of Christians together in what we now call church was for the sole purposes of praying, worshipping, and receiving the Holy Mysteries (communion). That, my friend, is no place for a car or a live animal or any other prop you may need to make your message relevant. Did you know that for many years in the early church, there was a point in the service where all who were not baptized had to leave? That's because what they were doing was that sacred. And it still is today.

I am bothered by the fact that we have become soooo consumed with the whole "Great Commission" idea that we let it take precedence over that for which He actually took on flesh -- the restoration of our relationship with Him. I don't know about you, but living a Christian life is often uncomfortable to say the very least. So why is it so important to make a visitor feel at ease? Surrendering our will and dying to ourselves is not an easy task. Becoming more like Christ is tough. Christianity is not for people who want to feel better about themselves. On the contrary, the harder you pursue Christ the more you can see how wretched you really are. I just don't think we are doing anyone any favors by making church relevant to their present circumstances or worse yet, fun. If anyone makes the choice to go to church because it's fun, something is amiss.

Now, I do have to say in defense of Steelehouse Productions and the Echo conference that after listening a few days later to Mark's keynote address I felt better about their position as it seemed more directed at artist's and their work in general rather than how it can be utilized within the church. Mostly it was one of their earlier guests and the subsequent website I visited that gave me the heebie-jeebies.

All I'm saying is this. As selfish as it sounds, Church is for the believers. Non believers are absolutely, positively welcome at any time. But we have no obligation or even reason to make the practice of our faith more palatable for those who are not enjoined with it. If we do, we are missing the point.