It's so annoying when that happens.
I'd been telling someone - let's call him Charlie - how I'd been struck by the simplicity and power of the early church (as I blogged last Wednesday), and saying how far we'd come from that ideal. I also mentioned how impressed I'd been by the fact that people were attracted by what they saw.
Charlie pointed out that those were different days and there was no social services and that the church is no longer the first port of call for those in distress. And that, if the church was being born now, it would look different. From that he somehow got on to these mega and very theatrical churches like Hillsong and Willow Creek, and how some churches are attractional when they should be incarnational.
And, as usual, I ended up thinking, 'Yes, you're right; I'm wrong.'
But now I want to say, 'Why? Why would it look different?' I mean obviously it would look different physically but the underlying basis, the caring and sharing, and the teaching of Christ are still the most important and the things that would attract. And that the early church didn't 'attract' in the way grand productions and flashy shows attract, but they attracted because they were incarnational. Because they were living a life that said Jesus.
So that's what I should have said.
I always used to think Charlie was very clever - and he is very good at articulating and arguing and debating - but I've realised that he's very well-read and gets most of his arguments from books. That's not necessarily a bad thing - but it's not original.
Right, so I got that out of my system. Husband said I should phone Charlie and tell him but he'd only come up with other arguments and I'd end up losing again. So I'll just settle for blogging.