![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/399\/blogger\/_iTncioBQZNk\/SdDGKoQftuI\/AAAAAAAACm8\/WCCL0QuVqhc\/s1600-h\/coffee_cup.jpg\")
<\/a> Another podcast script<\/a> found while digging through files \u2026<\/span><\/em><\/p>\nS<\/span><\/span>o I\u2019m filling the car with gas on my way to Vespers last Saturday when a woman approaches me saying she\u2019s on her way to church and asks if I can spare two dollars.<\/p>\n I said, \u201cSure \u2013 what, you need some candle money?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cOh no, she replies, I\u2019m gonna get a cup of coffee.\u201d<\/p>\n As I give her the dough, I ask: \u201cYour church charges for coffee?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYou betcha! We even have buh-REE-stuhs<\/span> now! It\u2019s much better than those worldly coffee joints \u2014 what, you know, I mean, it\u2019s like: Coffee and<\/span> the Lord!\u201d<\/p>\n At this point, I got a queasy feeling and stammered: \u201cUh, you wouldn\u2019t happen to be Eastern Orthodox would you?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cOh no, silly!\u201d She said. \u201cI\u2019m a Vanilla Jordan-Water, Spirit-infused, Forever-with-the-Lord Frappuccino Christian! I like \u2018em with a Cherry on top! Heehee<\/span>!\u201d<\/p>\n With that, she thanked me \u2013 and hurried off,<\/p>\n Now, ahem, don\u2019t get me wrong: I like coffee and all. But \u2026 hmmm<\/span>.<\/p>\n Which got me thinking: Coffee AND<\/span> the Lord? This gal couldn\u2019t wait to get to her church for the coffee. And, knowing how Converts can be so very zealous for their new found Faith, I was hoping she wasn\u2019t Orthodox.<\/p>\n You know what would happen, dontcha?<\/p>\n That\u2019s right, someone being too cute by half would name the blends after Saints:<\/p>\n You\u2019d have the St Thomas Cup \u2026 so good for ya you\u2019d doubt it was Real.<\/p>\n The St Augustine Blend \u2026 it starts out a little bitter, but finishes good.<\/p>\n The St Nicholas Nip \u2026 guaranteed to make you love children and slap a heretic.<\/p>\n The St Maximos the Confessor Cup \u2026 so strong, you\u2019ll be the last one standing.<\/p>\n Seven Sleepers of Ephesus \u2026 ahem,<\/span> Decaf!<\/p>\n Sinner that I am, I\u2019d, no doubt, stick with the ol\u2019 standby: St Moses the Black.<\/p>\n But, this is just a fantasy do not<\/span> try this at your church!<\/p>\n Which reminds me \u2026 a friend of mine once ordered a drink at a fancy restaurant, saying: \u201cI\u2019ll have a Bloody Mary without the Vodka please.\u201d<\/p>\n The waiter said, \u201cOh! You want a Virgin<\/span> Mary!\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNo,\u201d he replied. \u201cThe Virgin Mary is the mother of the Creator of the Universe. I just want some spicy tomato juice minus the alcohol !\u201d<\/p>\n Honestly though, in our churches, some people dread<\/span> the Coffee Hour that follows Liturgy \u2014 not because we serve just plain ol\u2019 regular and decaf, but for other reasons. Like, oh<\/span>, you know: the people!<\/span><\/p>\n For example, a while back, I received an email for someone stating:<\/p>\n I find coffee hour to be the most uncomfortable part of church-going. The homily or sermon runs a close second, because you never know what will be said \u2026 Coffee hour is more like a myriad of mini-sermons and homilies going off all around you, and so often they can be far more unsettling than anything occurring at the front of the Church \u2026<\/span><\/p>\n Well! At least the sermon\u2019s not ranked first worst!<\/p>\n The author goes on \u2026<\/p>\n Some [at coffee hour] want to talk about other religions, usually with negative anecdotes, jokes, or stereotypes. Often they\u2019ll claim they \u201ccan\u201d, because they used to be part of such religions, or have family members that are. Somehow it is then felt that any such behavior is justified. This is particularly poisonous in mission environments, but really anywhere, since almost anyone may have family or friends who are adherents. For these folk, though, the Faith is about being in the right group. Some want to talk about jurisdictional differences, in essentially the same way. Others prefer to frame it as Christianity vs. the world, but too often the world is fitted with unfair and unproductive stereotypes, and it becomes just another excuse for belittling \u201cthem\u201d, whoever them happens to be.<\/span><\/p>\n In the immortal words of E.T. \u2013 OUCH<\/span>. I mean, I often resemble this criticism. But, in my defense, never so much at Coffee Hour as in, say<\/span>, Catechism Class. Forgive me; it\u2019s a common temptation for those in ecclesiastical recovery (i.e., zealous converts).<\/p>\n Yet, his complaints against Coffee Hour continue \u2026<\/p>\n The \u201cpolitical\u201d want to talk about events in the diocese as an institution, often citing what \u201cwe\u201d (by which they mean some informal faction or power group) want to accomplish, and frequently referencing some problem that needs to be fixed. If you didn\u2019t know better, you might think these folks were appointing priests, the way they talk about making sure the \u201cright\u201d attitudes, or \u201cright\u201d groups are favored, and we keep the \u201cwrong\u201d attitudes and groups from gaining ground. The Faith, for these folks, is about the triumph of one faction over another.<\/span> The collectors of pedigrees will approach you and request your bio or \u201cconversion story\u201d: \u201ccradle or convert?\u201d \u201chow long?\u201d \u201cwhere?\u201d \u201chow?\u201d \u201cwith whom?\u201d They want to understand your \u201cplace\u201d in terms of a grid of credentials, biographical facts, trivialities, and presumably other factors, often to determine your compatibility with themselves. <\/span> The builders want to talk logistics: headcount, the building program, funding, construction, delivery, manpower. The result of their labours may be good, but they\u2019re conveying an attitude: the Faith is matter of growth, numbers, and building of institutions \u2013 of getting from point A to point B. Again, they may be doing very good work, but they\u2019re also the ones counting heads, tallying everything \u2013 they\u2019re the most likely to interrupt your prayers to shake your hand, talking over reader, choir, or priest if necessary, believing it will make you feel welcome.<\/span><\/p>\n There is also the mundane approach, which can be a little more palatable. Some want to talk about the four keys: job, house, family, vehicle, and the things necessary for acquisition, upkeep, and maintenance on these. They\u2019ll talk about the office, the new gutters and landscaping, the son\u2019s soccer team and the last family camping vacation, and the benefits of the new dual cab truck. Nothing wrong with these things, but often the complete absence of any discussion of the day\u2019s prayers, readings, hymns, psalms, etc., the almost glaring absence, makes this approach notable. It screams out by its omissions.<\/span><\/p>\n There are the quasi-scholars, also. These are trying to have a discussion about the actual goal of the Faith, union with the Creator, but it so often is lost in a discussion of this or that book or writer or, again, authority or personality. It\u2019s not much different than when adolescents discuss the musical groups they like. This or that person gives me a particular feeling when reading it; I heard that author has \u201cproblems\u201d or is influenced by this \u201cschool\u201d of doctrine. This is easily related to the discussion of issues. Should we or should we not engage in ___ controversial practice. Did you hear so and so speak; he said ___; do you think that\u2019s true? And often these pet theories attributed to various persons become a platform for one\u2019s own pet theories: \u201cPersonally, I don\u2019t fast, because I don\u2019t think ____.\u201d It isn\u2019t a discussion of the Faith, but a discussion of items appearing on a menu of Faith, and which ones I prefer or don\u2019t eat. The Faith, in this approach, is a matter of personal theories and individual positions.<\/span><\/p>\n The other kind of \u201cpolitical\u201d crowd wants to talk about campaigns, wars, and events in the governmental politics of the homeland, with an invariably tacit assumption that there is a particular correspondence between the articles of Faith and certain platforms of politics. They may be going off in favor of a war, or about welfare, or about \u201cliberals\u201d, or about thinking this or that candidate is a \u201cman of god\u201d. Which god? So often the positions being described are in fact the diametrical opposite of the words Jesus spoke in His Sermon on the Mount. One might suspect that\u2019s why the correspondence of religion and a particular political platform is generally assumed or implied rather than asserted explicitly. There\u2019s probably a place for organizing activism and engagement with the culture in a Church, but perhaps it isn\u2019t actually during coffee hour. The danger here is in creating an atmosphere in which it feels impossible to adhere to the Faith without adhering to a political agenda that presumably represents it.<\/span> On rare occasions, you\u2019ll find a discussion of praxis or of the meaning of the Faith. The Faith, in this discussion, will be its own justification for conversation. Too easily, however, these discussions descend into occasions for pride of expression or experience. The moment you hear \u201cGod just spoke to my heart\u201d, you know you\u2019re in the midst of this type. No, he didn\u2019t. If it was private, and happened to you, it was private and for you. If it happened at all. These things are best worked out with one\u2019s confessor and spiritual counsellor and parent.<\/span><\/p>\n My advice<\/span>? Say nothing. Drink your coffee, move around a lot, leave early, remain alert and circumspect, and try to stay as silent as the grave when at all possible. And immerse yourself in the pieties of your Faith. Pray a lot. Liturgize a lot. Stay out of the other stuff. At least, that\u2019s what I\u2019m doing my best to do.<\/span><\/p>\n Now here\u2019s where, thanks to the witness of Church History and my own personal struggles, I have to disagree with my fellow Misanthrope. Look, this whole Coffee-Hour thing used to be part of the Liturgy \u2026 well, almost. You see, a meal<\/span> was part and parcel of the Eucharist in the early days of the Church:<\/p>\n These love feasts were apparently a full meal, with each participant bringing their own food, and with the meal eaten in a common room. Early Christianity observed a ritual meal known as the \u201cagape feast\u201d held on Sundays which became known as the Day of the Lord, to recall the resurrection, the appearance of Christ to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, the appearance to Thomas and the Pentecost which all took place on Sundays after the Passion. Jude, and the apostle Paul referred to these as \u201cyour love-feasts\u201d, by way of warning (about \u201cwho shows up\u201d to these). Following the meal, as at the Last Supper, the apostle, bishop or priest prayed the words of institution over bread and wine which was shared by all the faithful present. In the later half of the first century, especially after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, passages from the writings of the apostles were read and preached upon before the blessing of the bread and wine took place.<\/span><\/p>\n Such meals were widespread, though not universal, in the early Christian world. The earliest account of what can be seen as one of them is that in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22, where it appears associated with, and given the name of, the celebration of the Lord\u2019s Supper. The service apparently involved a full meal, with the participants bringing their own food but eating in a common room. Perhaps predictably enough, it could at times deteriorate into merely an occasion for eating and drinking, or for ostentatious displays by the wealthier members of the community, as happened in Corinth, drawing the criticisms of Saint Paul in the passage mentioned.<\/span><\/p>\n Over time \u2013 especially in the 4th and 7th centuries \u2013 rules or canons were even written to try and temper the bad behavior prevalent at some of these Church meals.<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span>
\u201cWe like to meet others in the Faith who (share a particular credential).\u201d It really is an American, Protestant-inspired way to approach meeting people, so you can\u2019t really question it without seeming to question innocent attempts to get to know you \u2013 i.e. hospitality itself. The fact is, however, it reflects the attitudes of a particular cultural group in a particular period of history, and makes a lot of the rest of us uncomfortable. At it\u2019s heart, though, it is suggesting that the Faith is primarily about conversion, and the facts, attitudes, and concepts associated with it. Again, the Faith is seen as a matter of becoming a member in the right group.<\/span> The cult of personality types want to talk about the priest. \u201cIsn\u2019t he wonderful?\u201d Or the bishop. \u201cHave you met him? He\u2019s wonderful.\u201d If the priest happens to be out of town, they make repeated and profuse apologies, as though somehow prayer was less than the fullness of prayer, because the priest was absent. You\u2019ll often hear these folks throw around words like \u201cauthority\u201d, \u201cobedience\u201d, and \u201csubmission\u201d when they disagree with something. <\/span>
<\/span>
The other version of these are the ones who are discussing how wonderful someone is as a means of discussing the flaws of a lot of other people. They\u2019re setting up comparisons. The assertion is that the Faith is about being connected to the right personalities, or power structure (the word authority is often thought to mean the same thing as power, and so is used in that way.<\/span><\/p>\n