A little while back I visited and worshipped with a church that meets in a basement attached to a cafe. During my time there I took a few notes of things I noticed and I pondered.
I liked that there were candles around the room. Though they weren't lit. Though interestingly, they were later in the service where they related to the bread and the wine towards the end of the service -see further on.
It was a shame no one told me that the idea is to hang around in the cafe area that you have to walk through to get to the worship area: I guess that may point up to a potential development on their part of a welcome team who can intercept people as they go through the cafe and help us to know how things work round there. It's an interesting reflection in itself of the assumptions that pertain to such things as entering a space and a group of people for the first time. The space and the group have evolved a way of relating and being used that is not necessarily transparent to the newcomer and it is good to have people around to help and to interpret.
The space where the worship takes place has a stage at one end; it has something of a night club or comedy club look to it. I'd arrived about 5 minutes before the published start time but was the only person in the room apart from the music group rehearsing on the stage. It struck me afresh that the message of this arrangement is 'performance' rather than 'fellowship'. The seats collude: they're arranged to spectate. The music was quite loud and I became concerned for the baby someone was by this time carrying around, though it didn't seem so bad once more people were in.
I ended up feeling a bit embarrassed about sitting in the space almost alone, so I didn't go back to cafe area which voices told me was where I should have been. I watch the group rehearse and then they comment to one another that everyone is late (presumably to come through to worship room). that's 10:38.
On the seats, at the end of many of the rows, are coats. I take it that these 'bag' seats, perhaps rows? Someone has now said 'hello' to me, though I guess writing notes for this on my phone is probably giving "busy: don't disturb" signals... !?
There is evidence of stational prayer artefacts: a big map in one corner, a table in another. Someone next door calls people through. They come. Some still have coffee cups.
Couple of songs, open prayer (unannounced: so a bit of a shock but not off-puttingly so), couple more songs. They focus on praise and thanks and are in an easy to follow soft-rock style. Then the pastor spoke from tall stool. He's wearing jeans and hoody and has an American accent: talks about next week's baptism. Then about the coming church retreat. He then led us in prayer. I reflect that the main addressee of prayer is "Jesus", Though the pastor's prayer ended addressing "father" (having started with Jesus).
Text for preaching is Mark 5 :21ff.
He notes both women share 12 years: one in age the other ill for 12 yrs; I'd not noticed that before and I wonder what to make of that -but the rest of the sermon doesn't really explore that...
Jairus' desperation overcomes other considerations, probably means the interruption for the bleeding woman (whose name we don't get to know) was very vexing. The bleeding woman seems insignificant (and acts like it). Issue of uncleanness and knock on social effects.
sees v.30 as showing deity (power gone out) then humanity of Christ (who touched...).
V.34 conveys change of identity: no longer 'woman with issue' to child of God.
V.33 whole story: implies details, minutely.
Interesting thought: Jairus: is likely impatient with the delay. And there's a poignancy in that he's likely to have been involved in 'outsiding' the woman from synagogue and polite society.
Note Jesus has concern but tells Jairus to hold on: We often focus on 'end' but God often concerned with process.
Removes doubters. Note calm rather than dramatic approach (it was good that someone in a charismatic church played down the religious drama of healing!) -Even matter of fact.
In our lives we need to note that some people need to press through the crowd and some to wait like Jairus.
After the talk: songs and communion. "Communion" was simply bread and wine on table brought discretely to front (candles lit!). There was no prayer over elements: doesn't really feel like 'doing this n remembrance'. Trying to work out whether this is my habituation showing or whether there is something missing. I think that I'm not sure I'd want to encourage this way of doing it to continue. I do feel that elements of the 'do this in remembrance' seem underrepresented: the blessing of/with the elements was absent. I noted that we'd praised God for God's acts, goodness etc and particularly for the Cross, but I can't help feeling that to properly link this up with 'do this...', there should be an associating of the bread and wine with the thanksgiving. The taking was, if we interpret the moving of the table on which the bread and wine were placed as such, after what I've interpreted as the 'blessing'. The breaking was done by individuals as and when they went forward to take the bread to eat it. The effect was to radically individualise the communion and really to emphasise a memorialising approach. I think that really something which more fully recognises the body in the sense of the corporateness of the church would be needed really. I'd really also suggest that somethinng about the action that points towards the idea that God might meet with us (together) in the action might be included. I suspect that the low-key and individualised way this was done tends to reduce the formative possibilities of the action compared with how it is when we explicitly and corporately go through the actions.
Aware too that no intercessions took place.
We were told that a meal was to be served in cafe after. I didn't feel I could stay, though if someone had encouraged me I might have.
