Over the past couple of years I have become troubled by the phenomenon, well-known among many Christians, known as ‘church-shopping’.  Yes, you heard me right!

When people go Church-shopping, it is most often based on the premise that it is up to each one of us to find the church that suits us and our spiritual needs at the moment (and there are many different answers for different people of course, which may change at any time).  This in turn is based on a more fundamental belief:  that I already know what my needs are, and I simply need to find the church that will give me what I want.

Quiet or rocking?  Liturgical or spontaneous?  Big or small?  Friendly or aloof?  I will never forget the flyer that came through my door for a local church, which compared its plethora of worship services to different blends of coffee!  There are no right or wrong answers for establishing Christian community and worship, it would appear, any more than an espresso is better or worse than a latte.  There is only taste and preference.

In other words, we have taken what used to be understood as ‘a hospital for sinners’ and turned it into a shopping mall.  In more Biblical imagery, we could say that we’ve turned the Temple into a marketplace.  Hmm.

Perhaps that explains why it troubles me so much.  Strangely enough, this unadulterated consumerism is what came to my mind when I read this, quoted in unerring guides:

Why do men leave one place and settle in another place? Primarily because they hope that they will be more fortunate in the other place. And in truth, from the worldly point of view of life and contentment, places can be different; better or worse. He, who does not hope in a better life after death, seeks a better sensual pasture in this life. But if we listen to the hearts of those men, who were able and capable to live in the so-called best places on the globe of the earth, we will detect dissatisfaction, sorrow and despair. They did not find that which they were seeking. They ate to over satisfaction in every place, and finally, still hungry, they gaze death in the eyes.

But look at the Christian saints! They sought places with the least earthly pastures; places that were “arid, impassible and devoid of water” isolated places and terrible places that attracted the least attention and for which no one competes. They considered every place on earth equally worthless, but they chose those places solely because they wanted to draw nearer in the spirit and mind to their eternal homeland. And, if one were to listen to their hearts, they would sense joy and contentment.

Yes, it is possible to leave one church and settle in another, and find a better ‘sensual pasture’:  inspirational sermons, uplifting music, good friendships, children’s activities, and on and on.  If things change for the worse, we know we can always pack our bags and head somewhere else instead.  (It is a well-known fact that mega-churches are known for their ‘revolving door’ membership lists).  We will ‘[eat] to over satisfaction in every place’, but we will probably never find what we were seeking, and we will die hungry.  Why?  Because a shopping mall can never teach us humility, or to tame our appetites.

As I’m discovering again and again, the only alternative to this trap is the pre-Reformation Christianity of the Apostles.  Yes, it does sometimes seem like an impassible desert to attend long church services with only a handful of other people where there is no attempt to cater to my desire for instant gratification.  Why would I choose that over a well-attended, dynamic, contemporary congregational church with a rocking band, powerpoint, and dynamic preaching?  Simply because I see now now that ‘every place on earth [is] equally worthless’.  I pray for the strength to ‘draw nearer in the spirit and mind to their eternal homeland.’

Share

This post is part of an ongoing series. You can find out more by clicking here.

Do you want to be a ‘leader’?  Whether you do or not, most of us will find ourselves in positions of responsibility.  At the very least, we are each responsible for our own selves!

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.

To be able to lead, we must first learn to follow— not just human authority, but the pervasive, gentle leading of Tao.  If we accept the Tao’s leading, it has profound implications for our actions:

Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

In other words, when we learn to follow Tao, we will respond by allowing those we lead to do the same thing.  We won’t demand rigid obedience to our agenda, because we have already entrusted that agenda to the purposeless (and yet so purposeful!) force that governs us all.  Here is the contrast between the rigidity of control by the self, and the flexibility of relinquishing control to Tao:

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

Now, I continue to struggle with this, because living a completely ‘no rules’ philosophy is certainly not the answer.  There are times when I have to restrain myself from doing something that I know isn’t right, and there are times when I have to tell my children ‘the answer is no, and there’s no discussion!’  For me, this advice from the Tao Te Ching is a reminder that rules can never create harmony, and regulations will never be a substitute for virtue.  With that in mind, I can work on beginning to let go of rules, beginning to quiet my demands for autonomous control.  The description of the Master is not itself a legalistic mandate, but an image, meant to guide us as we navigate through the situations life throws our way.  When each of us finds ourselves in a leadership role, no matter how great or small, may we remember and imitate his example.

Share

In the ‘Red Letters’ series, we spend time listening to the words of Jesus.

Jesus left that place and went to his hometown. His disciples followed him. When the day of worship came, he began to teach in the synagogue. He amazed many who heard him. They asked, “Where did this man get these ideas? Who gave him this kind of wisdom and the ability to do such great miracles? Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” So they took offense at him.

But Jesus told them, “The only place a prophet isn’t honored is in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his own house.”

When we read the Gospels, we usually focus on Jesus and the things that he said and did. This is called the ‘Red Letters’ series, after all! But sometimes it is equally interesting and helpful to reflect on the many ways that the people around him responded to his message and actions.

Many people in the crowds were eager to hear the parables and have their illnesses cured, but after that they went back to their lives as usual. The disciples took an extra step at Jesus’ invitation and left their old lives behind, at least for the moment. The religious authorities tried to police the situation to keep it from getting out of hand. And here we see that those he grew up with and were close to his family refused to accept that he might be anything more than an ordinary carpenter. They were asking the rhetorical question: ‘Who does he think he is?’

What is it that is so unsettling about having wisdom and performing miracles of healing, we might ask in return? Why was Jesus so offensive to the people he grew up with?

I wonder if there was another, unspoken question behind the ones Mark relays to us: ‘What gives you the right?’

Jesus must have grown up working side-by-side with all the other tradesmen of the town, day in and day out, for so many years. Why should he be the one to pack his bags (leaving his family behind, no less!) to wander around the country and claim to be in touch with the Father? Everyone else was content to have their health and a decent living and to put food on the table for their family. ‘That’s good enough for us,’ I can imagine them saying. ‘Why isn’t it good enough for you, Jesus?’

What is at stake, then, is the question of ownership. The community of Jesus’ hometown— those who raised him, supported and nourished him— were offended that he should reject the life that they had provided for him. They were unwilling to accept that God might interfere with a different agenda!

It is tempting for us also to be possessive over those closest to us, those we claim to love. We invest our time and energy and love in our family and friends: how easy it is to demand a return on that investment! In that moment we unwittingly exchange the role of a lover for that of a stockbroker.

And that, unfortunately, is the position of Jesus’ childhood friends. Instead of lifting him on their shoulders and celebrating God’s work, they were offended— in reality, offended at God!— for interfering with their work, their life, their community.

It is indeed interesting and helpful to reflect on the reaction that Jesus received among different sorts of people. Is there a principle governing who will accept, and who will reject, him? Perhaps it is simply this: those who accept Jesus are those who are willing to let God ‘interfere’ in their lives. Those who need nothing, who believe they will succeed by their own effort (‘and won’t God be pleased?’) reject Jesus as a threat to their plans. Which kind of person will you and I choose to be?

‘Sabbath Reflections’ is a weekly meditation from a Christian perspective. You can find out more by clicking here.

Share

« Older entries