Family and I went to St Andrew's Cathedral for a pre-Christmas service (20 December 2009), at the invitation of a friend.
For some reason, I had thought that the choir (one of the choirs?) would be singing, and so was looking forward to a feast of traditional Christmas choral festivities. Alas, that is to be on Christmas eve, so I experienced instead something called 'city church' which was not really church as I thought I knew it!
A few things stood out; some about the premises, some about the service, others about the sermon, and then there's the 'atmosphere'.
Sermon
I have heard Phillip Jensen give sermons in the past, and this one was consistent with my memories of his work.
However, I thought that I’d remembered his sermons to have more ‘content per unit time’ than I think this one did. That is, he took too long to address what he did; could have been shorter, or on the other hand, the sermon was relatively content free. It was about the prodigal son…about repentance…and drifted to a few other topics.
My distinct feeling though, was that the sermon was disconnected (ironic being as it is the year of being connected…“Connect 09” being the diocesan slogan for the year); it did attempt to touch on things that made reference to my life experience, but this was slender; over all it was a ‘theoretical’ sermon that didn’t touch anything that I could make sense of: of course, I could understand it as a work of English speaking; but it failed beyond that for me, a believer, and moreover an evangelical one! I wonder how it would have been received by a non-believer.
I certainly agree as to the importance of repentance as the motion of the will that opens us to God, but without showing any recognition of people’s life struggles, concerns or interests, it was more than cold, remote and uninviting. This nature was reinforced by Phillip referring to his “work with alcoholics”. I hope I’m not quibbling over words, but labelling people as such, instead of talking about “people who struggle with alcohol addiction” or “people who struggle with substance abuse”, for example, suggests a basic disinclination to meet and know people, as people with feelings, hopes and struggles. Instead it seems to regard people as occupants of a category, and let’s deal with the category, not the people. The references to ‘repentance’ were of this ilk, I thought.
By comparison, read how Jesus encountered people: it was in the midst of their lives, in relationship with them, and getting involved with their concerns and interests. He did not apply a de-personalised rhetoric, but engaged them to show them their relationship to the kingdom of God.
One good thing in the sermon was that Phillip talked about God as creator and that he created by speaking the creation into existence (see how far and wide the sermon ranged!).
With this I certainly agree, and I read it as consistent with the Bible in Genesis 1, etc.
God’s speaking the creation into being demonstrates his ‘god-ness’ in that he relies upon no secondary causes, or functional intermediaries (which must then be ‘givens’ and independently existent, as he doesn’t mention creating them) to bring about his will. Nothing stands between God and his creation, except, of course, Christ! His word also has immediate effect: in opposition to those who think that the Genesis 1 account is a kind of topical representation of naturalistic/evolutionary development, the account rather represents the creation as entirely responsive to God’s will and that will is totally effective. I can’t think how un-godlike it would be for God to speak, and a few billion years later, lo and behold, there it is! Nor is this consistent with Genesis 1 and the intimacy it shows between God and his creation, including us; time is the great killer of intimacy and given that we live in a Biblical framework, time interposed between God and us would kill that theological intimacy, as well, I would suggest; the consequence being that to so add to the Scripture undoes it and mis-represents both the creator and his relationship to his creation in a fundamental manner as to reject the capacity of words to convey reliable meaning.
Of course speaking and its effect must have time and space coordinates, as our time-space experience is indicated by the scriptures as being continuous with it: the genealogical links make this plain as does the setting of Genesis 1: this is not off in another ‘world-experience’ accessible only by mystic rejection of the real world, but in this world: locatable (at least in principle), dateable and existentially accessible to us: that is, the result of determined will, not caprice, chance or ‘fate’.
The Service
My general impression of the service was that it was 'mechanical'. This was also my recollection of services at a previous church that Phillip had served at. The Bible reading, the prayer, the break for tea or coffee mid-way through the service (who would get thirsty in 20 minutes? don't people have kettles at home?)...all struck me as mechanical, perfunctory, uninvolved. Most delivered in a flat manner. The music was the only difference: the musicians seemed to be into it, and one of them sang her own song, which was quite lovely.
The welcome to the service was like that to an RSL club, joyless and impersonal. There was no farewell to speak of, when it would have been good for someone to shake one's hand and wish one the best for the evening, if not Christmas.
I have no urge to return.
The welcome to the service was like that to an RSL club, joyless and impersonal. There was no farewell to speak of, when it would have been good for someone to shake one's hand and wish one the best for the evening, if not Christmas.
I have no urge to return.
The Building
My view had been that buildings were a convenience for the work of the gospel; but my experience here changed that.
The interior was disheveled, and looked un-cared-about. Reflecting on this, I thought that it demonstrated an attitude to people (because it is people who sit in, listen in, and see the inside of the building) that bordered on the contemptuous: "listen to what we say, agree with us, but we don't give a fig for your experience of sitting here, seeing the mess of disarranged choir stalls".
I think that a building whose interior invited the eye, indicated care for the experience of the people within it, would show the attitude 'we want you to be here, enjoy, feel comfortable and respected, so we might earn the right to be heard'. But none of that.
