The secret hack of meeting new people at church

 I’m pretty decent at small talk.

When I can be bothered, after years of forcing myself to meet new people at the churches I worked for, I can make oodles of chit-chat.

But... everyone is worried about the most awkward part of meeting someone new.

Silence.

After you’ve exhausted all your queries and niceties, you’re just left with silence.

What do you do then?

For some... most even... their strategy is to avoid getting themselves into this situation in the first place.

Don’t meet new people.

Don’t extend your hand.

Don’t introduce yourself.

How about if I told you that there’s a hack to cure your welcoming troubles?

What if there was a secret for avoiding the awkward silence?

Now, this advice begins by still walking across the room and introducing yourself. That part’s unavoidable.

But, once you’ve met the newcomer and are a nice human being, then you’re equipped to employ my meeting hack.

It’s simple.

Find something out about the person - a job, a hobby, an age range, a family status - and then use this information to introduce them to someone else who has the same thing in common.

This works for four reasons.

First, it introduces the visitor to more people.

Second, it opens an easy conversation for the two people to make.

Third, it shows the newbie that they won’t stand out.

Finally, while you can and should stick around once your conversation pair becomes a triplet, you’re able to - relatively guilt free - excuse yourself and not leave the newcomer on their lonesome.

Don’t ruin the story with your questions

The Shawshank Redemption is one of my favourite movies. Since it was on the other night I had to sit down and watch.

Then I saw something. Something the internet had mentioned, but I’d never deeply thought about.

The shoes.

Andy escapes wearing the warden’s shoes.

It makes less sense the more you think about it.

Despite what the narrator of the film - Red - says, you do actually notice the footwear someone is wearing! Try wearing a pair of slippers to work or school. People will catch on!

Nonetheless, the details of Andy’s escape are throughly confusing. 

If Andy leaves the warden’s office wearing shiny shoes - swapping them for his own crappy shoes - then we must assume that either a) Andy had a second pair which he actually escaped in, or b) Andy escaped through the sewer and the flooded countryside in the warden’s shoes, but these remained pristine enough to walk into the bank the next day.

Frankly, I find both scenarios unlikely.

Now, this patch of cinematic trouble doesn’t ruin the film for me. It’s still a great story. Well told. Superbly acted.

But, once you scratch below the surface into areas the filmmakers don’t intend for you to probe, then you can unearth further questions.

I think we can do a similar thing with the parables in the bible.

At the core, they are intended to be simple stories - earthly stories with a heavenly meaning.

They are designed to make you think and wonder about the point they are trying to make.

The danger is in probing too far below this context.

We can get distracted by our questions about the characters or setting.

Why were the men walking down the road past the Samaritan?

How old was the brother who stayed home with the Loving Father?

Who took care of the 99 sheep while the shepherd searched?

These, and a hundred questions more, can be interesting thought exercises. 

But nothing more.

For we will never know their answers.

Because there were no men taking a walk.

There was no disgruntled brother.

The flock of sheep are just an image.

We must fight the urge to bombard the text with questions it is never intending to answer.

Instead, we should enjoy the parables for what they are and wrestle with the points they do make. 

These are probing enough.

Is the height of your sacramental theology balanced?

Currently, I’m attending a baptist church (actually I’m attached to two since I also go to a different one with my daughters every alternate Sunday).

Unsurprisingly, they make a big deal out of baptism. It is kinda their thing.

But, I do wonder about the way churches can vary in the way they handle the fundamental Protestant sacraments - baptism & communion.

In theory, a church will fall somewhere within the range of high to low sacramental theology.

A high sacramental theology will deeply value the structure, meaning and tradition of the ritual.

A low sacramental theology will be more pragmatic and flexible in regards to structure, meaning and the tradition.

I find it interesting when churches mix their sacramental theology across the sacraments, for example, being quite high on baptism, but low on communion (or vice-versa).

Is this a result of churches seeing the central sacraments as completely distinct?

Is this a result of the minister or congregation’s preference?

Ideally, the sacramental theology of a church should align.

Why?

Because the height of a church’s practice will contribute to the appeal of the church.

For those who value liturgy, structure, predictability and tradition, varying the degree that this is employed through two important rituals may cause discontent or disconnect.

Those who are drawn in by the casual nature baptisms are performed may find the way communion is conducted jarring.

Those who are drawn in by the formal nature communion is performed may find themselves placing less significance upon baptism if they are too unstructured.