Wondering about the past

In 2005 I started sponsoring a child, then aged 8, from the Phillipines.

Today I found all the letters he sent me up until he moved in 2015.

Since then I've heard nothing.

After a decade...
Well over $5000 in sponsorship...
Dozens of letters...

Nothing.

Assuming that Compassion isn't a giant scam and the letters were genuine, thus making my kid alive and mobile at 18, all I can now do is wonder.

Did he go to university?
What does he do for work?
Is he married?
Does he have a family?
Is he still in poverty?
Is he even still alive?
What, if at all, does he think of me?
Does he still have, or even remember, my letters?
What would he say/write to me now?
Would I, if so inclined, be able to track him down?

Potentially, he now has a far better life because I was an, albeit small, part of it.

These questions remind me of the young people I've come in contact with at various churches as their youth minister.

What are they doing now?
What memories, if any, do they have of me?
How would they have described the youth ministry I were the leader of?
Are they connected with a church?

For many, even those I'm friends with on Facebook, I have no contact with.

All I'm left to do is wonder...

Why wanky questions don't work

I've been to and hosted a lot of bible studies over the years. Some where richly engaging. Many were slightly informative. Some have been dull. A few have been awkward.

In general, one trait tends to make things less conducive to productive sharing.

Prepackaged questions.

While I'm generally ok with using material written by those outside of your church they, usually, hold a danger.

Wanky wording.

At times, especially if penned by an author/theologian, the questions posed can be far to wordy or complex to generate genuine discussion.

For, if you're struggling to work out what a question is asking, or are intimidated by the wordiness of the question, then you'll be less likely to chip in with your response.

When a question is, seemingly, more interested in being poetic or theologically sound than clarity, this breeds needless intimidation in the midst of studying the bible.

The worst thing, even if the questions are useful, a lot of people will miss the point because they get swamped in the flood of words and jargon.

Should you point out the mistakes?

There has never been a perfect church service. Ever.

In every public meeting of Christians, something goes awry. Even slightly.

You scramble the words of your point.
Your introduction isn't smooth.
Your ending doesn't quite connect the way you hoped.
Things go out of order.
The musicians play a wrong note.
The microphone stops working.
There's a blackout.
The PowerPoint has a typo.
The computer freezes.

I'm sure, if you've been around church services long enough, you'd be able to list a thousand more...

Some of these are, frankly, barely problems.
Many are glanced over and quickly forgotten.
A few wouldn't even be noticed.

But, when there's a noticeable glitch, do you acknowledge it?
Should you?
Do you have to?

A few factors point to the answer...
Is it noticeable?
Can you overcome it easily?
Who was the cause?
Is an apology warranted?

I think, if you're the cause, then it's your call.
If it's your typo, then you can point it out.
If you didn't turn on the hearing loop, then you're the one who should acknowledge the problem.

But, if it isn't personally your fault, with something monumental like a blackout or medical emergency aside, it's best to usually just let it slide.

If need be, you can deal with the issue later.

But, the worst thing you can do is appear to slam the person who goofed.

The musician doesn't need to be reminded that they hit the wrong note.
Or that the bible reader lost their place.
Or that the techie had the slides in the wrong order.

Why?

Because a) we should encourage those being involved in the service b) it might actively discourage others in getting involved and, importantly, c) unless you can do the task, especially music, then you don't really have the right to criticise since you wouldn't be able to do it yourself.

But, there's one exception.

I think you absolutely should mention a glitch if the problem was your fault, but someone else might cop the blame.

If you put the slides in the wrong order, own it. Don't let the techie take the hit.
If you invited the person doing the notices up early, and thus they weren't quite ready yet, own it. It's not their fault.

Church services, or anything we do, won't be completely flawless.

We need to manage the tension of showing people it's ok to let the imperfection drift by and also acknowledging when you've personally stuffed up, quickly apologise, and continue.

Anything but a Christian...

One of God's children
A member of God's family.
A believer.
A follower of Jesus.
A friend of Jesus.
One of the people of God.

This week I was surprisingly jarred by something I heard during a short talk I listened to.

He said the word Christian.

As the list above shows, there's plenty of others terms he could have used.

But, instead he said when someone becomes a Christian.

Frankly, when speaking, this was something I tended to avoid.

Maybe it was to avoid the baggage of the term...
Perhaps it was because I wanted softer, less threatening, labels...
Heck, maybe I thought these terms were more accurate in depicting what conversion/responding was about...

But, I'd invite you, especially if you were a child, to become God's friend.
As a teen or adult I may have challenged you to be a follower of Jesus.

But, not a Christian.

I don't know why.

I'd like to think it was for some kind of noble reason, but really, it may have been because I was simply a PC wimp...

Celebrating the non-conversion milestones

When you invite some to church, secretly... Or not so secretly..., you want them to be converted. Or included. Or at least have some vague idea what's going on.

But, a lot of what happens during a church service is foreign to outsiders.

Even if someone commits their life to Jesus by the conclusion of their first service, they might not fully embrace the elements of what a "usual" service entails.

Why?

Because, in general, public singing is unusual. Especially sober or outside the safe confines of the shower or car.
Prayer can be a tough concept to grasp.
Giving is a discipline which needs to be developed.
Meeting others can be awkward.

But, it's these liturgical elements which get overlooked when it comes to those we've invited "making it" in the church world.

Even if someone is still wrestling with the "God and Jesus thing" I think we should still celebrate if they begin to actively participate in the elements of the service.

For me, one springs to mind... Singing.

If you catch someone you've invited participating in the singing at church, then it's surely something to smile over.

Why?

First, it shows that they're engaging, at least somewhat, with the words. For a lot of people this is where they learn much of their theology, even more so than the sermon.

Second, if they've been around for a decent length of time, it can show that they are becoming familiar with the tunes sung. Let's face it, many contenpoary services don't have a massive playlist. And, when a song is unfamiliar then you're less likely to sing along. 

Third, singing can show that someone is more comfortable with the activities done during church and those around them. At the start, the very act of people singing can be off putting. Over time, this shock subsides.

Much of this list applies equally to those who mature/transfer to a different service, not just those who are unchurched, be it if they grow into the demographic of an alternate service or move across town and need to join a new church.

But, nonetheless, their participation shows that they are advancing in their belonging, behaving and believing which marks a church.

Your bible study shouldn't be a bunch of clones

One of the worst things you can do in order to grow in your faith is to remain completely homogenous.

Same culture.
Same education.
Same socioeconomic status.
Same life stages.
Same histories.

Ideally, those you go to church beside, and importantly, study the bible with should a different.

The group of people you intentionally study the bible beside should be diverse.

The ministers kid and the prodigal.
Those of different ages.
Those of alternate theologies and denominational backgrounds.
Those who feel like they've always been Christians and those who converted as young adults.

It's with this diverse mix that the bible can be best explored, theologies stretched and beliefs deepened.

It's with this diversity that you can see the bible through a viewpoint different than your own, hear how God speaks through others and better understand how He works through those unlike yourself.

Bravely standing beside your invitee

For the first time in a almost two decades I'm now in a position to invite someone to a church where I have absolutely no leadership impact.

I'm not on staff...
I don't preach...
I don't lead the service...
I don't even give the bible reading.

Thus, if I invited someone to church I'd now get to stand beside them.

I think this is far more intimidating.

For, now, they could hear me sing.
Now I could get a better read on their body language.
Now I could have questions directly asked to me in real time.
Now I can hear them sigh or see them glance at their watch.
Now they could see and hear me cringe.

People who invite others, especially those unfamiliar with church, are a lot braver than those in church leadership often realise.

Why?

Because their self-consciousness is rawly on display.
Because what their faith's about is put in the hands of those up the front.
Because the central thing in their life is thrown open and all they can do is pray for the best.

The freedom of only having one service

It seems to me, before the fad of mid-to-late-afternoon-family-services arose, everyone wanted to have two church services on a Sunday morning (with one catering to the older/classic/traditional crowd and the other more family-friendly/contemporary/progressive demographic).

But, having worked in multiple churches with services back-to-back, there's a freedom which is lost with dual services.

First of all, you isolate your congregation by demographic or preference. With the lack of exposure to the "others" form of worship then our preferences only gets further entrenched. This makes combined services a delicate tension to navigate. 

Second, the earlier service is hampered by the start time of the following service. To a vast extent, things cannot go over time. No matter what God might be doing, the initial congregation needs to be vacated by a certain timeframe. No matter how powerful the sermon, how important the announcement or how inspirational the pray is, time will always triumph.

Third, this time restraint also apples to anyone participating in the later service. In the early service, musical and tech prep can be far more relaxed. This, often, isn't an option before the subsequent services. If nothing else, this adds more stress and makes the attractiveness of helping in these areas less.

Fourth, this is incredablly taxing on the minister/preacher. Even if they aren't your typical introvert-minister, then "being on" for 4 hours straight can be quite taxing. Add to this their lack of preparation between services and time-squeeze to "run through" the people they need to speak with or who only "want a moment" of their time.

Although most churches who have dual services won't change, I wonder how often they consider the cost of putting one service immediately after another.

The danger of an open invitation

"Who wants to come up the front and do a bible reading?"
"Who can pitch in to help with morning tea at mother's group. We will take anyone."

Invitations like the above shouldn't happen regularly in churches.

Why?

First of all, hopefully you're more organised.

Secondly, I'd hope you're far more discerning.

This discernment matters if you value the culture of your church, the importance of leadership and the security of those you minister to.

For, if you toss out the open invitation then you lose a series of important filters.

You lose the ability to filter out those who are inappropriate.
You lose the ability to filter out those who you don't want.
You lose the ability to redirect those better suited elsewhere or totally unsuitable for the task you need done.

For some, the avenue for people to freely volunteer is a worthy gamble.
Personally, I think it's a risk which can be easily avoided and could horribly backfire.