This new ejector pew ad by the UCC is provoking some interesting discussion around the blogosphere.
There have been two topics of discussion that caught my attention.
The first topic is that the image of the upper-class family is stereotypical and unfair. Because I have been blogging about this recently, I would like to say that creating "WASP" guilt won't help in promoting inclusion. I don't believe that white males must now crawl in shame to absolve historical abuses.
Rather than guilt or shame about having privilege, we should consider whatever privilege and status we hold as currency to be spent in furthering the kingdom.
Let's assume that the family is representative of an attitude of exclusivity and superiority. That attitude is something we can all agree should be rejected.
The other topic of discussion concerns the doctrinal accuracy of the statement "God doesn't reject people." If you assume that rejection implies the person is seeking God, then I agree with this statement.
I think one of the biggest mistakes the church has made is taking on the responsibility of determining who is in and who is out. So many people are hurt by churches because of this single issue. What if, in our limited understanding, we are wrong about who God really embraces?
I think our gatherings, fellowships, organizations, or whatever we have should be open to everyone. Why should we set up boundaries of membership to our club when we don't know what God is doing in someone's heart? Can't we trust that the Holy Spirit will bring transformation to hearts and lives?
What if we loved dangerously? What if we risked extending love and fellowship to people "while they are yet sinners"? How about we let God decide who's in and who's out.
7 comments:
ABSOLUTELY! Who wants the responsibility of figuring out all of that stuff anyway? (besides my mother)
My Daddy always told me that there would be people in heaven that would surprise me and some that wouldn't be there that would surprise me. But I certainly wouldn't want to make that decision! Thank you for your post.
First, let me thank you, on behalf of white males.
Second, let me suggest that the ad misses other failures of the church- how about a "pew" (ala the way we do "church") as being exclusive. Just a thought...
Peace,
Jamie
IOH,
I didn't say the building was the problem. I was simply suggesting that people coming into a building, impersonal and institutional (generally speaking), is counter productive at times. Jesus modelled the community of faith very well. His time in synagogue and the Temple, contrasted with His the rest of His life is very telling.
Peace,
Jamie
Maggie,
The people who think they know are a little scary, aren't they.
Jamie,
You make a very good point. The ad still puts the seeker in the position of going to church. It does miss the point that not only are we to be inclusive in our gatherings, but that we must go beyond our gatherings in reaching others.
I'm glad you took the opportunity to explain yourself further.
IOH,
I think our buildings can be a hurdle, not only for those who are seeking, but also for those of us who become too comfortable within the walls.
I also agree with your statement that we shouldn't fear becoming "infected" by allowing sinners into our fellowships.
What an interesting video. I do agree that WASP bashing does little to help, and I wonder what would happen if any of the well dressed and manicured WASPs in the "in" crowd opened up his heart and showed his true self as a broken sinner before God.
Yeah, everybody forgets that you can buff and polish the outside, but it doesn't make our insides clean and pretty.
David,
That would be a creative idea for a new commercial, where the polished facades simply crumpled in the pew, and we were equaled by our common brokenness.
Maggie,
That's a good reminder for all of us to look beyond the surface.
Post a Comment