"Normal Programming"

I had my first mentorship meeting this week. I have a small team of people who have been chosen based on their varied experiences and stages of life, and everyone is quite excited to get started. We have various goals lined up that all seem equally fair and challenging, but I feel very supported. 

Something I'm particularly interested in is intersection of what I now see as not just two, but three factors that seem to dictate how a church identifies itself -- as the Bride (obviously), as the institution, and as a culture within that institution. For instance, one might be culturally Scottish but part of a larger church that also exists in Africa or Asia, with the same structure, but comparatively different cultures. And so, when those who profess to be part of the institution come together, it begs the question about how much of one's culture is part of one's denominational expression and boundaries. In my own mind, these tertiary factors are opportunities for cultural exchange, but should not be conflated with gospel teachings. Things like timing, instruments, dancing, or not, art, etc, are all very interesting but should not be cause for alarm. However, this seems to be difficult for many and I'm not entirely sure how to peel it back. 

On the opposite side, I had the opportunity recently to preach in a Pentecostal church, as a student mentoring in the Presbyterian church, who attends a Baptist divinity college, and I was blown away by being interrupted during the sermon by "Amen" and "Hallelujah" at various intervals. I loved it. Is it my way of expressing? No, but it is a little contagious, too. It was not so different from some Baptist services I have gone to, to the extent that they even played and sang the same songs together. The same amount of wiggle-clapping. As someone who has recently learned a bit about their history together this makes me smile, privately. It made me wonder: on the ground, few people care about theological nuance. Some people seem to be happy being celebrants, and from what I have seen, they can still do very good work. Does it lend itself well to depth, when questions get tougher? No. But... Well, I confess that sometimes I wonder where the line should be drawn between effective discipleship and the institutions we have created, if that makes sense. 

If the Spirit does all the work of calling people, and we are simply building "homes" to facilitate shared experience and praise of God, then would these institutions, by default, be transient meeting places where people with different styles of worship and socio-cultural patterns converge? But then, no... Because even as I do not believe that the church should be a political institution, I do believe it should also be a place of learning. It is our responsibility to teach our children and each other the ways of God, so as to create social cohesion of His adopted family. Which means that theology is* important, and the other factors are not unimportant, they need to be consistent with these teachings. This makes things more difficult. Thinking always does. Ha. 

... I will keep working on my answers. Admittedly my own sermon on interdenominational unity was far fluffier than I would have liked, owing to my attempts to perform it in an ad-lib Pentecostal style, while wind blew my papers everywhere. (I enjoyed being outside though, it was the perfect day for it).