Based on your comments in the Ponoka News, I am curious which church structures we should challenge? How do we know? By what authority? How do we know when what we have done in correct?
Sincerely,
Tim Nelson
P.S.–My wife remembers you from a United Church in Edmonton where you lead music. We have lived in Ponoka now for almost five years.
Thanks for your comment, Tim. Yes, in a “past life” I was music director at two churches in Edmonton and went into ordered ministry about 11 years ago. I’m glad you asked about challenging church structures. I think, first of all, I should always be more specific about that – I don’t want anyone to think that I’m suggesting the wholesale tearing down of the church. By saying “challenge,” I don’t mean to be destructive but creative. It’s not always about opposing, but improving. I do think that the church has to be a life-giving community. It has to be relevant and meaningful and be about the business of being, as Teresa of Avila says, the body of Christ in the world. Not just the hands and feet, but the eyes and ears and heart also. The structure of the institution we call the church needs to facilitate that and if it doesn’t we should do better. I’m not sure that I should give specific examples of structures that need challenging because they vary from church to church. That’s not a cop out, I truly think that the uniqueness of people is part of being church. One example that’s important to me is that the church must be inclusive. As I’ve said elsewhere, we’re all children of God. There are churches that are intentionally exclusive. But there are also some that are unintentionally exclusive, in the way they welcome people, the language that they use, the resistance to change, etc. Another example might be the way in which the church engages the community – are we part of the community or set apart from the community? I don’t think there’s a perfect way, but I’m pretty sure we’re doing it right when people are experiencing God’s love and creating community around that love.
Based on your comments in the Ponoka News, I am curious which church structures we should challenge? How do we know? By what authority? How do we know when what we have done in correct?
Sincerely,
Tim Nelson
P.S.–My wife remembers you from a United Church in Edmonton where you lead music. We have lived in Ponoka now for almost five years.
Thanks for your comment, Tim. Yes, in a “past life” I was music director at two churches in Edmonton and went into ordered ministry about 11 years ago. I’m glad you asked about challenging church structures. I think, first of all, I should always be more specific about that – I don’t want anyone to think that I’m suggesting the wholesale tearing down of the church. By saying “challenge,” I don’t mean to be destructive but creative. It’s not always about opposing, but improving. I do think that the church has to be a life-giving community. It has to be relevant and meaningful and be about the business of being, as Teresa of Avila says, the body of Christ in the world. Not just the hands and feet, but the eyes and ears and heart also. The structure of the institution we call the church needs to facilitate that and if it doesn’t we should do better. I’m not sure that I should give specific examples of structures that need challenging because they vary from church to church. That’s not a cop out, I truly think that the uniqueness of people is part of being church. One example that’s important to me is that the church must be inclusive. As I’ve said elsewhere, we’re all children of God. There are churches that are intentionally exclusive. But there are also some that are unintentionally exclusive, in the way they welcome people, the language that they use, the resistance to change, etc. Another example might be the way in which the church engages the community – are we part of the community or set apart from the community? I don’t think there’s a perfect way, but I’m pretty sure we’re doing it right when people are experiencing God’s love and creating community around that love.