How to Have Church

For more than a year, our church has been experimenting with various schedules for our Sunday morning worship. The variables have included 1) general discussion of the Sunday School lesson following individual Sunday School classes, and general assembly at the same time for the children (our pattern for the past 50 years) 2) testimony/share time instead of the general gatherings 3) testimony/share time instead of the opening devotions. Today we had a public discussion of the options.

We returned from the service at the Manor after the discussion was already underway, so I'm not sure how things started out. But the part I heard involved some lively discussion, with almost every variable being defended by someone who didn't want to see it dropped.

"The devotions are exceptional, and I'd hate to miss out on them."

"The share time has really helped me feel connected to others in the church."

"Our children really look forward to their story time in the general assembly."

"The women in our family say they find it easy to tune out during the general discussion."

"I'd hate to see us make a decision today that would be set in concrete for the next 50 years."

"I like changing things around every once in a while."

"I like our singing, and notice that we do less of it when we have more personal share time."

Several people made vague references to the value of discussing Scripture as we have traditionally done during the general discussion. But, of course, no one wanted to say out loud that they preferred it above sharing on a personal level. How would that sound to anyone who has shared in the past?

I don't think I've ever heard anyone who did not grow up here defend this "general discussion" practice. Nor have I ever heard a young person defend it. I have heard some of these people express dissatisfaction with it.

I have never said anything publicly about it--till today--after the comment about the women who tune out. . . . lest people think that is a unanimous practice among women. In short, I pointed out that since we have single-gender classes, without the general discussion, we women only hear what other women think about the Sunday School passages. I like hearing what the men think too.

So what does that say about me? That I'm dismissive of my own gender, as if it's not on par with males? That I'm afraid to form an opinion without being under the direction of men who tell me what to think? (I see that smirk.) No. I love hearing what other women are thinking. I am quite capable of forming an opinion on my own. But we women tend to think differently than men, and yes, I think we have a greater tendency to go off on unproductive tangents than men do. They can fail to get as practical as they ought to sometimes, but we can just as easily lose sight of the big picture. So I think it's best if we hear each other and learn from each other, as happens in general assembly.

I will admit too that once, years ago, I overheard something being said in another women's class (and not countered) that I fervently hoped someone would set straight in general discussion. It seemed very wide of the mark to me.

When I have been a teacher, and not been quite sure if I was on firm ground with something I said, I've always been glad that there was a second chance for my students to hear a correction, if need be.

I have, however, not always agreed with what I heard in general assembly. I remember one time when I spoke admiringly to my Sunday School class of a certain woman in the Bible, and what I saw in her actions. In the general assembly, the person in charge was critical of her actions. I simply talked to him privately afterward, to see if I needed to change my mind and admit an error to my class. I decided my viewpoint had just as much validity as his, and I did not back-pedal to my class. The Bible itself did not comment on the woman's actions, and I figured the women in my class were all grown up and could make up their own mind. For this discussion, the point is that, because of general assembly, my students heard a varying viewpoint that they would not have heard without it, and it was good for them, no doubt. (Would it have been good for everyone in the larger group to hear my viewpoint? We won't go there.)

It's a little embarrassing to admit that I really like to hear what men think, and I've tried to figure out why that is so. I know it's been true ever since I was quite young. Maybe I have an abnormal brain or a twisted psyche.

Just today it occurred to me that in our church, as a group, overall, most of the men have devoted more time in studying, and in preparing for and practicing teaching and speaking than most of the women have. I respect them for having made this investment and believe it pays off in terms of insight and wisdom and ability to communicate. It pays off when women do this too. Maybe I especially love listening to well-prepared people, and often they are men.

In a different vein, the whole discussion about whether we should designate a certain block of time for discussing Scripture or sharing our personal experiences, needs, insights, testimonies, etc. brings up something I feel just a trifle uneasy about. It's like the difference between singing hymns and singing gospel songs. One speaks of who God is and what He thinks, and the other speaks of what man thinks and experiences. Both of them have a place, but most of us take quite naturally to self-preoccupation, and many of us could afford to put more effort into understanding God (the Ultimate Other) and His words and ways. For that reason, I feel caution about dropping the focus on Scripture during a certain segment of the service, in favor of turning our attention primarily to what people are thinking and feeling.

However, I understand that relationships are an important part of living together in the body of Christ, and hearing from each other helps to foster good relationships, and fervent care for each other. I too have really enjoyed hearing from others during the sharing times we've had. I'd hate to do without them.

It was a little hard to find a good stopping place in today's discussion. Finally David, our bishop, got up and said it sounds to him like we all really enjoy church. No one, however, has suggested starting at 9:00 instead of 9:30 so that we have time to do all that everyone wants to do. We chuckled collectively, and saw that compromise would be a necessity.

Some time soon we'll probably take a vote and do what the majority of the people want to do. If I don't know for sure how to vote by then, I might have to write about it again so I can figure it out--unless you help me figure it out by writing about it.