Radio script (with tennis and crowd sound effects). Go to www.audiopot.org to listen to a sample...
Commentator:
And welcome to church. Break point. Ethel to serve. First act of service. Oh and it’s big, WARM hug at the door, picked up well by Stacy, returns nicely. Arfur, drop shot compliment, nice touch, placed beautifully, back hander but that’s ok, well received. Excellent conversation over there, deep, wide. Ooh and that’s a savage attack on Nigel but he blocks well, gentle reply, all smoothed over. Stacy almost slips through the net but picked up, great recovery. Oh and look at Ethel, great speed across the court, full stretch, going the extra mile. And a parting shot from Nigel, ‘I forgive you’, struck sweetly, absolute winner, Arfur left rooted to the spot, quite speechless.
Umpire: Advantage church
Commentator: Well that was a joy to watch, absolutely glorious. This game certainly isn’t over yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
6 comments:
You need to stop using names like Ethel, bro. Such names conjure up images of old women dressed in olive green cardigans and floral blouses with pearls and hats. That's enough to put anyone off entering through the doors of a church. Not that there's anything wrong with people called Ethel, old people or olive green cardigans, but maybe the use of such names just reinforces people's ideas of who church is for - old women - in hats. It's not relevant to me.
I've always felt that the "welcome" at churches is extremely false. It's something I've heard a couple of christians say too.
The extra mile thing is such a cliche too. I am an atheist I often go the extra mile for others (literally in a recent mountain emergency). To suggest that christianity is characterised by this is just not true. My old church had it's fair share of selfish folk too, so lets not pretend that church is something that it isn't.
Carl, is that style over substance?
But Billy, that kind of falseness is not exclusive to church members welcoming people at the door. Have you ever said, "Don't worry, I'll do that." In reality doing "that" was a total hassle, didn't make you feel good, you didn't really mean it and hoped they would say, "No, it's OK." All in all, you could've done without "that," but it was the right thing to do at that moment for that person. Maybe not right for you, but it was right. Like on your hiking trip recently, what was the alternative? Go to slap the person for not even having an OS map and walk off leaving them in trouble? In actual fact, as arduous a task as this recent mountain rescue may have been, you didn't actually go the extra mile. I don't know if this is just your job. Or maybe you were responding to our common instinct to do the right thing. You were merely doing what most human beings of a stable psychological disposition would do, help someone in need. When Jesus spoke of 'going the extra mile,' he had a far more radical message than to simply instruct us to follow our natural instincts. He was in effect saying, this will be really hard and go against your natural instincts. Under Roman law, a soldier could take any member of public and make them carry their pack for one mile. So, a Jewish man walking with his family to the synagog, gets picked off the street in front of his family and ordered to carry this soldiers pack, in the opposite direction to where he was going. As if it wasn't humiliating enough to get picked off the street like that in front of his family, the person giving these orders to a faithful Jewish man was a mere gentile! After one mile the soldier was bound by Roman law to let that person free. If that person continues to carry the soldiers pack, the soldier can get in trouble. He causes the soldier to break his own law. The soldier has a sword and could get aggressive in trying to make the man stop. What if the man kept walking? The man would possibly risk more than a telling off, this could get serious! It's not about some sort of martyrdom to seem to be nice, it had a real radical, social and political impact. We're not occupied by Romans, but we have a system of policing that can now lock people up for 48 days without charge! The style of how we do that now has to change as culture has changed. But style can change without compromising substance!
But Billy, that kind of falseness is not exclusive to church members
Hi Carl,
No where did I even hint that it was. My objection is that the church just is not like this post makes it out to be - at all!
As for going against what makes you comfortable - again that has nothing to do with Jesus. Non christians do it all the time too.
I'm not entierly sure I believe the 1 mile thing either. It sounds like something made up by apologists. Anyway, that is not what Bruce is getting at with his comment anyway
Cheers
Billy
I believe the 1 mile thing either
Well I certainly enjoyed it. In a broader more abstract way I would suggest following the opposites of our impulses is often the only way to achieve wholeness - we have to embrace the irrational leap to our opposite.
In daoism the story is told of young men who go to the monastry only to have their ambitions and gifts thwarted rather than developed - the bold are made to cultivate plants - the angry to meditate - the learned to wash socks - and the stupid to study books.
Unfortunately our fragmented twisted selves continually seek out the same restricted stimuli set with which they have defined and impaled themselves into the coffins of their own somato-psychic perception
if you know what i mean.....billy
carl have you seen the pusher trilogy ? from reading your profile I think you might enjoy them....
Post a Comment