A cosy and compact meeting was tinged with a little sadness as we convened and then bade farewell to Alpha for the final time. It's true that I have come to regard some of the characters from the Alpha course as friends, and a few I very much admire as people (perhaps more than as Christians). It's amusing me now to think of my initial preconceptions, being totally unprepared for this course, and to compare them with the reality. I hope to summarise more effectively in a later post, but for now, it makes sense to focus on this last segment of actual content.
The theme was "What About the Church?". On paper, this was one of the least controversial sessions, a kind of cherry on the top of a cake that was at times too difficult to fully digest and at others entirely unappetising. My first thoughts were that the church was merely the sum of its congregation. That much was easy to relate to and easy enough to accept, and as it turns out, I wasn't contradicted by what was going to be covered. Prior to the course starting, I took the opportunity to take a quick scan through the provided booklet. There's not much contained in it to be honest; it's largely a heavily condensed list of themes, appended with bible references, but it's nonetheless a good starting point. I knew from the off that the emphasis would be on the idea of the church being "people" first and foremost, but there was some very odd imagery employed to make the point. On top of all that, there was also an insistence on "unity" being all-important.
This latter point struck me as very interesting. When all things are considered, the protestant arm of the Christian church has been shattered into many smaller pieces time and again. Individual creeds such as Presbyterianism, Methodism, Mennonite, Anabaptist and myriad others have all chosen to concentrate on different, and occasionally opposing aspects of Christianity. In the face of this diversity, attempts at "unity" are tempered by an absolute conviction that your own beliefs are correct. To overcome this, Simon Benham (the leader of the Kerith church, and the speaker last night), introduced the concept of a "tiered" approach in effect; that "core beliefs" are separable from the less important, peripheral beliefs. These were defined, afterwards, by Lee as belief in Jesus Christ (this is surely a unifying theme for all Christians), adult baptisms (which means that the Kerith differs from some denominations but not others), and the idea of the Holy Spirit being a current, real and powerful entity (as opposed to other denominations which believe that it was a temporary phenomena or restricted in direct relevance to the disciples). The latter was not unexpected certainly; the emphasis on the "Holy Spirit" has been palpable throughout, not least in the away day, which was a "Holy Spirit extravaganza" comprising three sessions devoted entirely to the subject.
The speech was interesting, though I suffered an inkless pen about half-way through which meant my notes are sadly incomplete. From memory, there were three key elements. The first was Simon's testimony - how he had found God. As my opinions of this sort of thing have been covered at length, I won't expand on them here. That's not to say that this was dull or even pointless; it served as a primer for his "Christian credentials" well enough, which seems a natural preface to the rest of his speech. The second phase was employing imagery to describe the church, as envisaged in the bible. The idea of "ekklesia" - the Greek word, simply "a gathering" - which in turn applied to "the people of God" was the first theme. Then there were other images; the idea of the church being the "Body of Christ" and even more dubiously the "Bride of Christ". The former was fair enough - the idea, first expounded by Paul - that the church embraces the uniqueness of people, their different gifts and their different talents, thus taking different roles as the different parts of the body do, to make a functioning whole (though I am not sure how far you can extend that metaphor). The latter - the "bride of Christ" - is a frankly bizarre analogy. I can't really understand why this was employed as a metaphor - it seems uncomfortable that the "people" that comprise the church are being prepared for holy wedlock with Jesus himself. I think perhaps the idea of a bride doesn't merely conjure the exceptional beauty, purity and perfection commonly associated, it also conjures the image of at the there being some kind of odd celestial "consummation" involved. Maybe that's just my unfortunate perception. The third segment related to the necessity of participating in the church - that Christianity was best demonstrated in action, despite the emphasis on the written word. Again - fair enough, depending on what that action is, and who exactly it involves.
However, the realisation soon dawned that the Kerith church has its own "creed", or its own agenda depending on your viewpoint. This was something I really wanted to seize upon. Much of the talk afterwards was taken up with some rather pointless praise of the Kerith over other churches, stating how exciting and fresh it was, with accusations levelled of the standard CoE church being "staid", "fusty" and boring. This seemed judgemental to me, and as the only intermittent church attendee, and quite possibly the only non-Christian present, I found myself completely unable to join in with the fulsome praise. I don't dislike the Kerith at all - I think it's a group of well meaning people, who generally do good things for many people. Great. But to elevate it above another church seems arrogant. They're all supposed to be worshipping the same God after all, and by denigrating these small or traditional churches, they cheapen themselves in my opinion. It's almost a symptom of the "corporatisation" of religion that these churches are being seen as "competitors" rather than complementary "allies" to the Christian cause. If the 'small things' really don't matter, then is it necessary to mock the dwindling congregations of these "castles" quite so much?
As a result, the "core beliefs" I asked about were outlined, as above, and I asked about how these were arrived at, and how these could be reconciled with a wider idea of "unity". The "tiered" approach was all very well, but to me it seemed that there was a constant air of compromise about things. Moreover, if there was no agreement about what was really the "true", God-intended approach, then this can only be divisive. There are surely only so many times that cracks can be papered over with agreement on the basics. Wars and murders have been committed throughout history over incredibly trifling religious details to modern eyes - how was it that this sudden insistence that it "doesn't really matter" was arrived at now after 2000-odd years? The much mooted "relationship" with God will no doubt be said to be the core, but there seems a schizophrenia between having your own, personalised relationship (there's no way you can "adopt" anyone else's), but at the same time insisting on sharing, and communing together inside a structure which rejects and accepts certain ways of expressing that relationship, all against the backdrop of the bible which again states pretty unequivocally some very specific laws which in time seem to have come to be considered "optional".
It seems the message is to have your own relationship with God according to someone else's rules, and make sure you do it the way the bible says (selectively interpreted) at the same time.
More was said at this point about how "exciting" the Kerith was. I asked whether this excitement was a good thing - whether something was lost with this insistence on the atmosphere, the youth-orientated way of communicating. In a round-about way, I asked whether this was evidence of dumbing down, whether style became more important than substance. In defence, Lee stated that the process was more about communicating in a relevant way, and he pointed to the fact that some of the older hymns found their origins in "pub songs" of the day. I think this comes down to whether you think the relentless march toward "ease" and "accessibility" is a good thing or not. It seems to portend a future of grown adults spent sitting around chuckling inanely at "Mr Men" books while they're spoon-fed mulch by a robot, if you follow it to its logical conclusion. That's not purely a Christian issue, but one faced by decadent western society in general I suppose.
I couldn't muster much enthusiasm for a drawn out discussion, and there didn't seem much danger of it happening anyway, so I was content to listen for the most part.
Much was said about participation, coming back to the "body of Christ" analogy - that people were fulfilled by participating in things, specifically by "serving" in the church. Again, fair enough, I don't have any particular issue with that, apart from when people are excluded for spurious reasons I suppose. I think participation in a range of things is character building, and it is indeed a noble thing to offer help to others. No arguments here.
The session inexorably trickled to a close, and we ended with a "round robin" with our thoughts about the course as a whole. By this point I had about 15 seconds left to speak in before they locked us all into Costa, and as much as I might have enjoyed that opportunity, I had work in the morning.
When it came to my turn, I simply and honestly said:
"I'm wiser now than I was when I started".
And on that note, the Kerith Community Church Alpha Course Autumn/Winter 2009 closed, with some warm farewells and lots of handshakes. I'll miss a few of the people, and I'll miss the routine of Wednesday night challenge and counter-challenge, of researching and yep, even the little bit of anger, self-righteous indignation and annoyance I sometimes felt.
Tonight - a poignant 7 out of 10.
No comments:
Post a Comment