I am starting to realise that having your own blogger means that you get to define the terms of debate - and you are the only one that isn’t restricted to running their arguments in a little comments box (although the barrister also has used this advantage on his own blog).

And maybe I am beating a dead horse by posting yet again on this topic, but then maybe I am just enjoying the dialogue. But, then again I am also enjoying being mysterious and vague. So to paraphrase another great story-teller:

While a large crowd was gathering and hits were coming from many different time zones, she told this parable. After she said this, she called out “Those who have ears to hear, let them hear”.

The readers responded, saying:

I know far too many people who have wandered from religion to religion to find the message that suits them - they’re looking for that doorway that looks the most inviting. It’s the difference between telling the people what they WANT to hear, and what they NEED to hear

and

Like the benefits that being in church could only occur once one was in the building? I realise that the church is symbolic of the “Kingdom of God”, but is there something to be noticed in the use of a church building as the main symbol for the “Kingdom”?

…and she thought to herself “cool, this is encouraging a lot more debate than any of the posts where we have just stated our opinion”.

So instead of providing my viewpoint, perhaps I will ask some questions (not necessarily related to the original parable).

Who gets to decide what people NEED to know, and who gets to decide how that will be communicated? Is the church a building? A community? A worldwide movement? A religion? A denomination?

Is the church serious about bringing the message of Christ to people all over the world, or just people that think in the same ways that we do? Is the church so tied to its traditions and rituals that is prepared to sacrifice its message?

UPDATE - a wise man once said

I particularly like it because it demonstrates that there is no point in holding any opinion of the door itself, other than as a mechanism for getting people inside the church. Sometimes we either like or dislike the door because, well, we like it or dislike it. The discussion, or debate, or argument becomes about the door for the door’s sake, and we lose sight of it’s purpose.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 12th, 2003 at 9:14 am by dan and is filed under blogosphere, challenges for the church, poetry and writings. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.