Now that I have described what happened during my time with CRC, I wanted to throw out some additional thoughts.
First, while I think that CRC is definitely on to something (incorporating much of what is good or great about church, faith, accountability, small groups, missions, ministry, etc), I also think that CRC could never serve as a plug and play model for everyone everywhere (nor do I think that a single expression of faith should embody the entire Church). Of course, I think that is true of all formats or models, not just CRC.
Was it worship? Yes, absolutely. Was it corporate worship? Yes and maybe not; the answer really depends on how you are defining corporate worship. If we subscribe to the understanding that where 2 or 3 are gathered in Christ's name there Christ will be, I would have to say unequivocally that this was worship. Based upon the incorporation of communion (I will say more about this in a moment), singing, scripture reading, study, Christian fellowship, etc., I would have to again agree that this is worship. The difficulty comes in how we define corporate. If we use that term to mean any number greater than just ourselves, then the litmus test is met there as well. However, if every church every where were just like CRC (in the general sense of small size) would there be things that are missed by not participating in an even larger body? That is the million dollar question. Of course all churches are not CRC's, but for those that are formatted in similar ways, are they called to just interact in their small groups, or would a quarterly or some other regular gathering of regional CRC's (or other house churches) be beneficial for the building up of the larger "Body"?
I ask this question because I believe that there is at least one member of this CRC who is currently not affiliated with another "church". As I read and ponder the many debates about meaningful church membership (and watch how it is relatively unmeaningful in many settings), I wonder how important that additional affiliation is. Gabe Lyons in one of his more recent works (unChristian) talks about how more and more Christians are looking for more meaningful expressions of faith. Many of which are experimenting with models similar to CRC and leaving traditional church membership behind. Other members of CRC appear to utilize the group as an extension of what they are participating in elsewhere (having memberships or affiliations with at least two different denominations)...or perhaps the other affiliation is an extension of their time with CRC. Either way, my experience here has caused me to think about church and Church membership (so I am sure that more dialog will occur in the future).
Coming from a United Methodist background, and thinking about being held accountable to the three general rules (specifically attending to all the ordinances of God), I am wondering about CRC's practice of communion. As I stated in a previous post, it had a first century feel as it was incorporated into a full meal for the entire fellowship to enjoy. The question that comes up for me (relating to their practice of communion and the third general rule) is about sacramental theology. At no point was communion described as a sacrament (nor were the elements consecrated in a way that Anglicans and Methodists and others might be familiar with), so in praxis it operates more similarly to the Love Feast or Agape Meal than it does communion in the sacramental sense. So in hindsight, I would ask the group their thoughts about the sacraments. What are they? Are they important to the group? How are they practiced? And who can preside over them and why?
The fact that my time with CRC has instigated some questions in the areas of ecclessiology, sacramental theology, etc. is not a bad thing...on the contrary, it is potentially a very healthy engagement and pursuit. I am sure that it will take time to fully settle in and for me to be in a place to ask even better questions.
In the mean time, let me assure you that my time spent with my new found friends at CRC was worth every minute. I think that some of the reasons that there is success (connection to others, connection to God, faith intersecting praxis and life, a deepening or spiritual growth, etc) is because they operate as an Acts 2:42 church. This, of course, is just my opinion; but based on the limited amount of time that I had with them, here is what I experienced:
-a group of like minded individuals in that they were all looking for ways to deepen their faith
-a group that participated with each other in several missional/ministry activities that have dramatic impacts on the communities they serve and eternal implications in the kingdom
-a group of folks that earnestly sought out the teachings of scripture
-a group of folks that come from a variety of orientations and backgrounds for a common purpose
-a group of people that have understood that reason is not our enemy...they prove this in the way that they approach each week by encountering and critically thinking about ancient and modern texts
-a group of people that ate and fellowshipped together
-a group of people that held each other and themselves accountable to their prayers of intention
-a group that values authenticity and honesty over shallow spirituality and shiny surfaces
-a group that has both experienced the margins and recognizes and serves those margins still today
-a group that has encountered the grace of God and is endeavoring to live authentic lives that are bathed in that ongoing grace
Bill Hybels, in a workshop that he and his group hosted almost a decade ago, said that the marks of a biblical community are: knowing and being known, loving and being loved, serving and being served, admonishing and being admonished, shepherding and being shepherded, and celebrating and being celebrated. I believe that there is great scriptural merit...that is to say that this paradigm of a biblical community rings true in my faith and experience. After only three short hours, these were also the things that mark the Christian Resurgence Circle.
To all of you at CRC that read this, thanks again for an incredibly grace filled experience. Thanks for the hospitality and love that you showed to this strange sojourner in your midst. Thanks for the acceptance and authenticity that was present in our conversations and sharing. Thanks for allowing me to participate in your lives. I look forward to another visit with you all in the future!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Ok, small Wolfgang Simpson quote on the meaning of the Lord's Supper that resonated with what I love about the CRC dinners. Even though they are mostly cirlces of the same:
Another victim of this process was "the Lord's Supper". Since it is quite difficult to feed a cathedral full of people with real food, it degenerated into a religious and symbolic ritual, offering microscopic sips of wine and a small wafer, often enough only to the "clergy" while the masses looked on in pious amazement. This meant that the "Lords Supper" was a supper no more, and lost it's powerful meaning of a redeemed species doing the unheard of: people, irrespective of classes and caste, revolutionarily sharing real food with a prophetic meaning, having dinner with God, expecting his physical presence at any time just like after the resurrection. It thus became "the Eucharist", a pious and symbolic shell of the original meal of a tasty lamb that Jesus shared with his disciples.
Just to make anyone doing normal eucharist services a little uncomfortable as well.
Post a Comment