We don't decide who's invited: The Church as inclusive Eucharistic community

Is the Church intended to be a closed (exclusive) community, or an open (inclusive) community?

Today I talk about an image of the Church as a Eucharistic community - and I show you some incredible views of the Helderberg mountains!

My views on this were shaped by the theology (and ethics) of the Anglican theologian Sam Wells, who I met first at Cambridge and then at Duke Divinity school when he arrived there in 2005.

Read this document for some further insight into this view

The image is that of a the Eucharistic table - many contemporary Churches have structured themselves more like a restaurant table than a Eucharistic table. What do I mean by that? Well, at a restaurant table you decide who sits with you, you expect service and you are the center of the social attention, you pay for what you want, you are a client. I hear people using this language in relation to their Church, 'I don't like that type of person here', or 'The sermon and music were not very good', 'I am not feeling satisfied with my Church, it is not doing much for me'.

The Eucharistic table is very different, however, at the Eucharistic table we are not the hosts - Christ is the Host! We are invited. That means that we don't get to decide who is at the table. Our responsibility, out of love for Christ and those whom He loves and has invited, is to work out how best to love those around the table. They may be very different from who and how we are. But, like us, they have been welcomed in grace.

Watch the video if you can - I'd love to hear your take on this!

Remember, it's not a lecture, just a thought…

U2charist... Have U2 songs become the new songbook of the emerging Church?

I have been preparing for an address that I will be giving at a conference in two weeks time (here's a link that will give you some details on the conference).

One of the talks that I will be doing is on the future of worship... I have been praying, pondering, reading, and thinking about the topic. In my search I came across a remarkable article on the 'Preaching Today' blog, called 'Mixing Pop Culture, Video, and Church'.

Of course there are many of us who have already begun to create multi-sensory worship experiences (through the use of sounds, video, drama, interaction, and of course silence [by the way, watch nooma 005 | Rob Bell silence, it's a superb challenge to contemporary Church!). However, at the end of the article the author, Ray Hamm, makes the following interesting comment, and asks a few pertinent questions:

One of the things they did was to play lots of U2 songs. Each Sunday had a separate focus centered around a U2 song: "Mysterious Ways," "In the Name of Love," "City of Blinding Lights," and "Beautiful Day." The band played covers of each song almost note for note, and produced great versions.

They said that some people in the church community were upset by their initial mailer, but the director of creative arts here at Daybreak said there were more concerned with attracting non-Christians than offending people [emphasis mine, I like this approach to Church!].

So what do you think about this? Are these sorts of services (that mix pop culture and church) a good way to reach people or a way of "selling out" to the culture? And, between this and the U2Charist, are U2 songs the new prayer book of choice?

Would you be brave enough to have a Eucharistic service and use U2 songs instead of hymns and worship songs? Perhaps that's just exactly what we should be doing to attract a new generation of 'seeker'....

Check out the following link for more on the U2charist (it even gives an order of service outlining which songs can be used).

What is the future of worship? Leave me a comment, I'd love to include your thoughts (properly referenced of course!) in my presentation.