First Date With Snowhill
When I was about fifteen, my mother mentioned one day, "Now, Kristen, it's good to have high standards when it comes to dating. But don't get stuck looking for the perfect man. Everyone, including yourself, has faults. So make sure you choose someone who has faults you don't mind living with."
My mother is a wise woman. I kept her advice in mind when I met Micah, who if not quite perfect is perfect for me, and whose few small faults are the ones I still am glad I chose to live with. I wonder if perhaps her advice doesn't hold for churches as well. We've been out for a while. The other day we were discussing what, if any, negative impact this has had on our lives. (When I say "out of church", I am referring to the more standard definition of the term, as we are surrounded by a group of friends who remain "church" for us, in all intents and purposes.) The main thing I notice is that out of "church", there is less to convict me. I need to hear a prophetic voice at times, reminding me of ways I am missing the mark, failing to live as Christ, failing to do Kingdom things. I don't kill people on a daily basis, I don't commit adultery or embezzle funds or steal cars or deal drugs. It's easy for me to write off any hardness or arrogance of heart, and justify whatever it is I want to do- whether it is not to forgive a hurtful person, or to be as prideful as I choose.
We went to church today. Yes, it was a Baptist church- which is mildly ironic since we have vehemently sworn off that denomination. But they're praying for Darfur. As I told Micah this morning on our way to church, "We haven't passed any Methodist or Episcopalian churches that have signs reminding people to pray for Darfur!". "True," he said sadly, so sadly.
First good sign: some of the good people on leadership of the church seemed slightly ashamed of it. That's charming for several reasons, especially when they're doing many things right. It tells you that they aren't content with where the church is yet. That there are unmet goals. And that they are aware of the shortfalls and problems. I would much rather be part of a church that has people in leadership with a sense of its problems than a church that thinks it is perfect. And we loved the sermon, which talked about the tendency we all have (not just Pat Robertson) to remake God in our own image. And on the prayer list, they listed the famine in Niger and the conflict in Darfur. And the youth group's project to raise money to buy a water purification system for a village in Zambia. These are beautiful things. We found out why the church is named "snowhill". And lunch with kindred spirits after church, though they haven't read Wendell Berry...yet. ;)
On the way home, Micah says, "Yes, yes...but I just don't know that I'm ready to be back "in church" again." It is a frightening thought to entertain. Are their faults the ones we can live with? And even if they are, that's not to say that they'd want pains in the ass like us around, either! Our faults may not be ones they want to live with, as my mother would likely remind me.
Geez, Kristen. I can't really even explain how timely that post is for me to read. Just this morning I was starting to get some of those wondering feelings about the Church Jen and I had come to really like.
I think I may have some unrealistic idea of a perfect Church. (Or, I may be setting Church up to some very unrealistic idea of having to minister to the 'perfect me' which is even more scary.)
Any way you shake it, your post was a good reminder.
BTW, with a McCarty Jr. on the way, are you still thinking you'll be joining us for blogvention? If you do, and bring along baby McCarty, we've got a crib you can use--we certainly don't need it yet.
Posted by:Brandon | August 28, 2005 at 08:14 PM
Brandon, we're still planning on trying it as long as all goes well- we were going to ask if having a baby around was going to be too much of an imposition, so- thanks so much for your offer!
Posted by:Kristen | August 28, 2005 at 09:37 PM
It's no imposition at all.
Posted by:Brandon | August 28, 2005 at 09:39 PM
So, um, when you said I could crash at your crib, was that some sort of slang, or did you just give away my bed?
Posted by:zalm | August 28, 2005 at 09:51 PM
In my wives' house, Zalm, there are many, many cribs. You can still crash in one.
Posted by:Brandon | August 28, 2005 at 10:21 PM
McCarty's
We are also residents of the thriving metropolis of Amber and we have attended Snowhill for a couple of years now. I have visited you your blog a couple of times before via The Parish. When Jason told me yesterday morning that you guys were going to be attending, we wanted to come introduce ourselves, but got caught in some of the typical Sunday morning salutations. After talking to Jason last night I am pretty sure we recognize some of the same faults that you did yesterday, but as you commented in in your post, the leadership has high hopes for change in those areas and several more, as do we. We just wanted to say hello and we were glad you could come, since we didn't get say those things in person yesterday.
A belated welcome,
Shawn & Kacie Skaggs
Posted by:Shawn | August 29, 2005 at 07:13 AM
I first found your blog during the heat of the Zach Kincaide...ummm.... scandal...... um..... fiasco...... ummm..... whatever. I've never commented on that publicly, though I currently serve on the alumni board at OBU. I remember at the time seeing The Prophetic Imagination on your reading list as I was reading it at that time as well. I also noticed that Dave Matthews Band is one of your favorite all-time bands and I like me some Dave Matthews, too. Apparently OBU didn't ruin us all - in fact, some of seemed to have come out quite well. :)
All of that is rather beside the point. Todd is my brother and a really swell guy. If I wasn't a pastor myself I'd almost surely be going to Snowhill my own self. It isn't perfect, but they are headed in a good direction. Hopefully you saw some of that while you were there.
This isn't busting on you....just my own radical (and radically reforming) ecclesiology coming out. Two things you miss in only participating in "church outside the walls": the public proclamation of the word and the sacraments. I hope you find your way back one day.
Blessings!
Posted by:Paul | August 29, 2005 at 10:10 AM
Paul,
Not to bust on you, and I've read your blog as well (especially like your recent eschatology stuff), but neither of the things you mentioned need happen only in the institutional church. Proclamation and eucharist can both happen outside the "official" church, as can baptism, I assume, if it's viewed as inauguration into the kingdom. I say this as someone currently attached to an institutional church.
Posted by:greg | August 29, 2005 at 10:27 AM
Greg, you raise a question that I have been struggling with personally. Certainly there is a univeral church that crosses denominational lines, but is there "church" outside of the different institutional churches. I know different confessions prohibit administration of the sacraments without consent/participation of the "presbytery" in whatever form it is manifest in a particular denomination.
I struggle with what role Matthew 16 plays for the church today?
Posted by:jvpastor | August 29, 2005 at 11:27 AM
Greg, I don't disagree that those things can happen outside of the institutional church but most often they don't. I don't know of any (though I'm sure it has happened somewhere sometime) baptisms that have been performed by an informal band of fellowshipping Christ followers. Perhaps the Lord's Supper occasionally takes place in such a setting, though I wonder how common it is.
And I have some of the same questions Jason has raised.
Posted by:Paul | August 29, 2005 at 11:57 AM
Kristen,
I Forgot to mention earlier that it is also nice to see some fellow Amos Lee fans. We were beginning to think we were the only ones.
Peace
Posted by:Shawn | August 29, 2005 at 12:28 PM
I am still pleasantly befuddled by Snowhill and now reading a bit of Paul's words, visiting his site, looking in on his church website in Sapulpa, and having done the same with Snowhill, realize I need to back off some of my assumptions about all SBC churches. There are exceptions to every rule and experiences that shatter our prejudices.
Even though I am employed by a SBC church we hardly tow the SBC line and it has cost us a bit in reputation over the last 20 years in Baptist circles in OK. To hear these conversations going on at other Baptist churches in Oklahoma catches me a bit off guard. I hate it when my steroetypes and generalizations don't always work!
I'll admit, Micah and Kristen, as one who is a part of that informal gathering (I know, I need ot drag my butt out to the farm), I'm sorta giddy about this post. I think what I like about the formal church is being forced, if you will, to be in reltionship with other imperfect people, particurally people who differ with me in often painful ways. I'm working on the assumption that this kind of community is part of the crucible for our sanctificaiton.
Anyway...I think I'd like to sneak over and see attend Snowhill, just out of curiosity.
Posted by:Tim Youmans | August 29, 2005 at 01:15 PM
The first group of Anabaptist baptized each other outside the authority of their local churches. It was the beginning of the movement, when in Conrad Grebel's words, they realized that any believer could baptize another. I have shared dinner and the Lord's Supper very informally with friends around a table at a restaurant and in a home. Once with these very McCartys at Zio's using free bread and a glass of wine.
JV, I assume you are talking about "binding and loosing" from Matthew 16, or Peter's confession and Christ's response. I don't take a very Catholic position on those, and I'm afraid Yoder has influenced me greatly on binding and loosing, especially where forgiveness and restoration figure into those two things.
Posted by:greg | August 29, 2005 at 03:28 PM
Thanks, Greg. Micah and I were just talking about that specific night at Zio's. I do think that there are positives about attending a more formal group we call church, but I'm just not convinced it's necessary to have a formalized structure and formalized leadership to do those things that the Church is called to do, and even to do those things well.
And then Tim says, "I think what I like about the formal church is being forced, if you will, to be in relationship with other imperfect people, particularly people who differ with me in often painful ways. I'm working on the assumption that this kind of community is part of the crucible for our sanctificaiton." Tim, that's a great point, and one of those painful things we can generally avoid in drawing only the likeminded around us. ;) I needed to be reminded of that.
Posted by:Kristen | August 29, 2005 at 06:13 PM
Indeed,
I hate to admit that Tim's point is the best, but it is, so he wins the golden wiener award.
Posted by:greg | August 29, 2005 at 06:27 PM
Kathleen Norris has a great reason for going (back) to her (Presbyterian?) church. She says she goes because "someone may need me there." That's the best argument I've heard for sticking with it even despite the great frustration that inevitably comes with being with people whose company we didn't choose.
Posted by:Jim | August 29, 2005 at 06:32 PM
Yeah, I love Kathleen. Dangit, this post is turning into something like the one at Greg's blog on prayer, when everyone kept writing in really excellent reasons to pray. Sigh. And then I had no good excuse for not doing it anymore.
Posted by:Kristen | August 29, 2005 at 06:51 PM
Well, it's easy for me to quote Norris at you since I have to be at church every Sunday. The question is, if I didn't work there would I still go?
Posted by:Jim | August 29, 2005 at 10:25 PM
It's so interesting that you guys are bringing up the 'sacraments'. Two years ago my family celebrated communion together Christmas morning. As I was mentioning this to a presbyterian minister he said that I should never do that again because it was not supported by "the church". Are you guys saying that that was okay?
Posted by:NateNeil | August 30, 2005 at 09:15 AM
It's not just okay, it's a wonderful idea. Someday the clergy needs to take seriously the notion that the church also consists of "two or three gathered" in the name of Jesus. They also need to take seriously the notion that Jesus issues the invitation to the meal, not the guy in the robe.
Posted by:greg | August 30, 2005 at 09:27 AM
Greg, what is Yoder's view of the binding and loosing?
You cited the anabaptists as an example of people working outside the institutional church, but does that make it orthodox, or just an example.
Posted by:jvpastor | August 30, 2005 at 09:31 AM
Yoder talks about binding and loosing in the context of the gathered community. I've talked about it before on the blog. It's not a magical thing; it's a regular meeting of the community where disicipline issues as well as opportunities to encourage, support, praise, and facilitate individual and corporate ministries take place. In other words, I know that I will meet with the congregation on a regular basis. If I have done well, they will say so, I will be affirmed, encouraged, supported, and recommissioned. If I have been in error/sin, it will be discussed, albeit with the intention of restoration. Yoder believed that it was far easier to get someone to submit to corporate discipline if they had also been raised in an environment of corporate encouragement and accountability.
I don't think I understand the second question. I just cited the Anabaptists because they administered baptism as a gathered group of believers with no official church sanction. The ethos came to frame the movement though, in that the gathered community is the church, not some entity that sits on a corner with paid staff.
Posted by:greg | August 30, 2005 at 10:13 AM
hey! sorry i haven't called you. lost your number. knew i could get you here, though.
i'm now at a new foster home. leave a comment on either my xanga or my myspace,with your #, so i can call you. congrats on the girl!
luva ya.
syo
Posted by:syo | August 30, 2005 at 10:31 AM
Greg,
I guess I was trying to say that just because the anabaptists did it - does that make it right? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I have just been really struggling with whether or not Jesus intended there to be one church with apostolic authority. It would appear that he did not considering the church is obvioulsy broader than any one denomination. And I can't see any protestant seriously advocating the institutional church as the only authority, it just wouldn't make sense, considering new institutional denominations pop up everyday not to mention the non-denominational churches running around.
Thanks for the Yoder insight I have yet to read anything by him. I know I need to!
Posted by:jvpastor | August 30, 2005 at 12:55 PM
syo The Runaway Bunny! I had better hear a good report, missy! I have sent emails all over town to find you.
xoxo
Mamma O
Posted by:Jennifer | August 30, 2005 at 07:00 PM