|
Life in the Body: Seeking a Cross-Generational ChurchPosted by Scott Haile under culture, Purpose-Driven Church, church, Paul | | |
One of my deepest faith commitments is that God wants the church to be a unified Body made up of many different parts. This week’s post is the first section an essay I’ve written on the topic. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Young nor old didn’t make the list in Galatians 3:28, but perhaps it should have, for the sake of today’s American Church. Our culture has a merked tendency to segregate itself generationally –– toddlers to day care, kids to classrooms, college students to dorms, “real” adults to work, older adults to home alone, everyone watching television or surfing the web to avoid interaction with whoever is around. Cell phones and email have reconnected people in important ways, but they bring their own problems. Churches, opting not to fight the cultural tide, provide Sunday school classes and social activities for every demographic. Generational alienation, not suprisingly, characterizes many churches. Churches for the Ages One response to this generational divide is to try to circumvent it. In The Emerging Church, a sort of guidebook for reaching Generation X with the Gospel, Dan Kimball describes a new breed of churches that draw generational lines almost intentionally. While mega-churches find greatest success with Baby Boomers, Kimball suggests strategies for developing new churches to involve and convert Generation-Xers, a group that often struggles to find a place in Boomer churches. Kimball quotes Rick Warren: “No single church can possibly reach everyone. It takes all kinds of churches to reach all kinds of people.” In one sense, Warren’s approach is based on sound enough reasoning: churches want to grow and reach the lost, and congregations often find greater success programming for a particular demographic than integrating many different kinds of people into a single group. Commonalities, after all, bring people together. I myself for two years during seminary participated in a small group of young adults who shared weekly Bible study and Sunday lunch. The fellowship we experienced was powerful and valuable. I question, however, whether it is the primary fellowship to which God has called the Church. To be sure, the Warren/Kimball model has proved wildly successful in bringing about church growth and leading countless people to become Christians. Warren argues persuasively in the Purpose-Driven™ Church that churches must determine their purposes and focus their efforts only on meeting those purposes. For Warren, finding a church’s evangelistic target –– the kind of person a particular church can best reach –– is a key to achieving the purpose of reaching the lost. And of course, evangelism does need to be tailored to its intended audience. However, I will argue that gathering all different kinds of people into one community under the fellowship of the Gospel is also one of our indispensible purposes. If so, churches must not build their programs with such a narrow target in mind. I suggest that a biblical understanding of the Church as the Body of Christ prohibits us from planning our congregations around reaching particular “target” people. Rather, it requires us to allow the Gospel to bridge differences which normally separate people. Unfortunately, churches in the U.S. are already divided up in every way imaginable –– denominational, generational, social, racial. Most of us attend churches primarily made up of and led by one demographic of people or another. The broad task of overcoming divisions is likely to be painful and protracted, and I am hardly qualified to point the way. I want to offer a more modest proposal, that we take preliminary steps towards bridging such gaps by crossing generational lines within each congregation to form meaningful cross-generational relationships. This means first that believers will commit themselves to building relationships within existing multi-generational churches rather than following Kimball’s model of starting new congregations tailored to a particular group. Second, I will suggest a place where such bridging of generations is perhaps most needed. It is, ironically, an area in which well-meaning parents and ministers often intentionally accentuate the division: the relationship of teenagers to the rest of the congregation. There is more to follow next week, but I would be very interested in whatever thoughts or questions this raises for people. |
April 30th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Wouldn’t you argue that doctrinal differences, at least some of them, SHOULD cause division? And aren’t all of the other divisions, or perhaps at least many of them, actually a testimony to a lack of focus on that unifying and dividing (binding and loosing) element?
April 30th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
In my experience, doctrinal differences cause some practical problems for community. However, I don’t think they necessarily SHOULD cause division. There are a great many differences in belief among the members of my church, but we are still committed to each other. Unfortunately, that commitment is often maintained because we choose not to talk openly about those differences.
I agree wholeheartly that church should be, as was said, cross-generational. I think one of the challenges many American churches face (at least in my area) is the large sizes of those churches. Thankfully, that is not something my church has had to struggle with since all we have is 50 people. You are just happy someone comes to worship with you. You don’t really care how old they are.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
For starters, I like what Micah said (he just posted his comment while I was in the middle of writing this one.)
In theory, yes, I think there are differences that should cause division. (And yes, I know a bunch of Scriptures that tell reasons you should kick someone out or split away from another group, or silence someone’s teachings.) But in practice, lots of people have different ideas about what’s true and how things should work, so to acknowledge that some things are ok to split over quickly leads to a church fractured into thousands of pieces, many of them having broken off for silly reasons.
Part of what I’m getting at with this series of posts (and I’ll get into it more in the later sections) is that a Body is made up of people who have to learn to love one another, rather than splitting when they don’t get their way.
If we can split over something if it’s important enough, then who gets to decide what’s important enough? Someone will say that Scripture has to decide what’s important enough, but I guarantee you we can get 20 different opinions on this blog about what Scripture thinks is important enough to split over. I bet every one of us can think of some issue that the church has split over, which we would call silly. And I bet in 9 out of 10 of those cases, that group understood itself to be splitting for Scriptural reasons.
So what do we do? My assumption is that we should constantly try to be as “right” as possible, and we should always work to persuade other people to believe what we believe is the truth, but that we should always assume we’re doing at least some things “wrong.” That requires humility, and it means we stay in community with people because we assume they might have something to teach us––even something that challenges our deepest-held convictions.
Some people, by their conscience (and by following certain Scriptures), will feel compelled to divide at times. I can understand and even (to a degree) respect that. But those people are the reason the church is divided today, and Scripture also says that Jesus prayed for unity.
I do think doctrinal and moral purity are important, but I can’t see a way to enforce them that leads to the kind of church we see in Scripture. In the meantime, I’m going to stay with my congregation, even though I disagree with people there on what I consider important issues, and hope that the Spirit leads us to faithfulness and that God has mercy on our faults.
And I’m going to brace myself for the Scriptures that are about to be thrown in my face.
April 30th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Micah,
You seem to be painting in broader brush-strokes than I am. I was careful to say “at least some of them,” to indicate that I know some doctrinal differences, or some degree of difference (there are many ways to conceptualize this) do NOT mean we should divide.
Scott,
Your fear that treating some things as worth dividing over would lead to a slippery slope just strikes me as a lack of faith. Sure, people will disagree over what’s important enough to split over. But if we let that lead us down the path of conciliation at all costs, the game is over already. What you get is just more shopping-mall ecclesiology. Or worse, the ones in charge will just do what they want and use calls for “unity” to quieten any opposition (this is actually what happens often in mainline churches).
What is desperately needed is a better ecclesiology, and I think the latter Reformed theologians did the best job of speaking of the Church as threefold.
1. (Basically) The Kingdom of God
2. Christ working in the world in/with/through believers
3. Local “denominations.”
nv
April 30th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Jason: I’m kind of perplexed by your arguments here.
First, it seems to me that “shopping-mall ecclesiology” is exactly what we have now, and it’s largely because we do believe so many issues are worth splitting over.
And second, in order to debunk a supposed slippery-slope argument, you have to have some evidence that the dire results might not come true. But considering that the amount of division there is in America right now is as much as could reasonably be imagined, I’d say we’re already at the bottom of the slope, not at the top.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:05 am
You’re right, Scott. I wrote a lot of that in haste and have not communicated well.
But I do not back off one bit from my opposition to what is clearly a turn to pluralism on your part, so soon after pointing out how pluralism cannot be reconciled with the New Testament.
Again, the real issue here is ecclesiology. What is “the church” or “a church?” And why should we care if “it” splits into two or more organizational units?
One might say, “The Church is the body of Christ! So that can’t split, it would be a very bad thing for that to happen!” But that really begs the true question, which is WHAT is this body of Christ that is in danger of splitting? The PC(USA)? The United Methodist Church?
And what is a “split” that we should care about? Is it an organizational split, or a spiritual split? What good is it to be in the same organization if we either (a) are always in opposition or (b) have nothing to do with one another? Is that not sometimes the choice? In fact, is it not better to be in spiritual unity on something and organizational difference?
Finally, it is a faith statement to me that “The Body of Christ” (see my previous, #2)not only WILL or SHOULD be unified, but in a real though spiritual sense always IS unified. Christ is not divided!
If two people are divided, then at least vis-a-vis the point of division either one or both of them is not “the body of Christ.”
Any other statement is blasphemy.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:05 pm
I think part of our difference in perspective is that you’re from a mainline denomination, and I’m from a congregational group.
The mainline churches occasionally split over major issues. Congregational churches constantly split over everything. My concern is more that I could literally go down the street, rent out the community center, and start a church next week. Methodists, it seems to me, don’t really have the mindset where that’s an option.
Jason said: Finally, it is a faith statement to me that “The Body of Christ” not only WILL or SHOULD be unified, but in a real though spiritual sense always IS unified. Christ is not divided!
How do you reconcile that with Jesus’ prayer (John 17) for unity? I think you’re right, that there’s a mystical sense in which we’re unified simply by being united with Christ. But it seems to me Jesus was praying for something beyond that–something that’s still mystical but also tangible, such that the world can see and so come to faith (John 17:23).
May 1st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
On Jesus’ prayer, I think the key might be to recognize that Jesus prays to God and not to us. Will his prayer necessarily be fulfilled? Most of us think yes. When? Now? Always since it was made? Or only at some future date?
I think there have been, historically, three major views of these questions.
1. The Catholic view. Here, church unity is guaranteed because of the potency of the means of union. Christ is the primary “subject” of the church which is his body, but annexed to that is human cooperation with Christ. This unity will be unproblematically visible.
2. The Old Protestant View. Here, church unity (in some sense(s) of the terms “church” and “unity”) is guaranteed because Christ is not only the primary but the SOLE subject of his body. However, this unity is invisible or at least somewhat problematically visible.
3. The New Protestant View. Here, the subject of the Church, even when the Church is called “the body of Christ,” is ONLY the humans therein. Therefore, we have to forge an otherwise nonexistent unity. The Church is visible, and its unity WOULD BE unproblematically visible if there were unity.
I take option 2, and I hope you do too. I fear you would take at best option 1 and at worst option 3.
Note: I do not find option 2 to be directly contradictory to any concept of free will.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Jknott, sorry if I missunderstood. But I think there are some practical problems in understanding “the Body of Christ” as simply a spiritual entity. If a church in one city decides to “split” with a church in another city, then there is not a lot of practical issues. But if my church (50 members) split, organizationally or spiritually them it would have huge problems.
I have a very real life example that I think applies to this. I also think that this is a great example of unity despite differences.
A church was in a leadership selection process. A person was nominated and passed the first phase of being considered. However, in the next phase an objection was brought up that the selection committee felt was a credible, scriptural objection. This person disagreed with the committee’s objection. In fact, this person felt like God was calling him to this position at this time. The committee felt like God had lead them to the decision to disqualify this person.
So, can these two people maintain fellowship when each disagrees on God’s leading?
The situation ended up beautifully, in my opinion. The one person submitted to the many, even though he disagreed and felt like they were doing exactly the opposite of what God wanted.
In this situation you have to decide between doing what you feel is what God wants and doing what you feel God wants. This person felt like God wanted him to have the leadership position and that God wanted him to stay.
If he had decided to leave that church and go to another, would that mean that he was no longer part of the body of Christ? If he was right and the selection committe ws wrong, does that mean that church is no longer part of the body of Christ? I don’t know the answer to those questions, and I don’t think I am in a position to answer that.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:44 pm
FYI - I hadn’t read the previous 2 comments when I posted.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Micah,
I never said, or in any case never meant, that ALL differences are worth splitting over. Only SOME. I think everyone agrees with this. Would you stay in a church where the pastor preached from the pulpit every Sunday that Jesus was just a good teacher? Or that segregation was a good idea? Or that incest was really ok? I doubt it.
On the other extreme, of course, there are issues which I think, and many will agree with me, are NOT worth splitting over. For one, I’ll never understand the early Christian controversey over when to celebrate Easter.
So here we can see two extremeties that obviously constitute two different classes of issues, those worth splitting over and those NOT worth splitting over. I do not think it necessary to know the EXACT point or line that separates the two. That is, I can acknowledge some grey area. What is disastrous in my mind is to go from the existence of a grey area to the absolute nullifying of the distinction. I really think many of us can come to an agreement on that fact, but perhaps not.
So to your example, I don’t think I have to know at all, certainly not without more information, whether one or both of the parties you speak of was really following Christ. All I will say with conviction is that IN THE PRECISE ISSUE IN QUESTION, i.e., whether God was calling one person to lead a church or calling the church not to have him as a leader, I cannot affirm or allow that BOTH were being guided by God. Perhaps God was calling for the compromise, but not for the contradictory positions that necessitated it.
Hope that helps.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:41 am
Scott,
Man, it’s good to find you writing great stuff out here in the blogsophere.
I’ve wondered, on several occasions, what path you decided to take for ministry and school. The last I remember, you said you were going to Yale. It looks like you switched to Princeton from the mention of New Jersey in your profile.
I am so glad that you have pursued academics. We need many bright people who love the Lord with all their heart and I know you fit the description. Congratulations on getting into Boston. If you have any electives left try and take a class with Peter Kreeft; I think he is the modern day C.S. Lewis (he’s in philosophy).
God bless,
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 am
Jason, I think Scott was right about his point of perspective. Since I come from the same faith tradition that he does, I am looking to eliminate many of the reasons churches split. Actually, I am probably more concerned with the reasons individuals will leave a church and go to another. I would compare many of those cases to sexual infidelity.
You are right that there are things that would consititute a split. Your list is a pretty good one, and there are probably a few others. Unfortunately, in my faith tradition we have had the practice of making that list a very long and ridiculous one.
In the specific case I mentioned, i agree that, at best, one side was right and the other wrong. I just think the person who submitted to the others handled the situation with a good spirit. He either saw that it was more important to allow the church to be wrong in this instance for the sake of unity or he was willing to believe he might have misunderstood His calling by God. For the sake of unity, I think we must be willing consider both options in dealing with church conflict.
October 10th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I remember reading this several months ago. I’m excited about the idea of seeking a cross-generational church. I do agree that while we need to labor for unity, we must never make unity an idol - that is worldliness. The world is uniting together against God. We must be opposed to the world - not in reactionary mode - but out of love for God - responding to Him in faith. That means standing up for righteousness and calling sin what it is. If we seek to preserve unity with those who are set against God (and let’s be honest here), then we become idolaters.
But, we must be careful if/when we start stirring things up for God that our motives are pure and Christ-like and that our methods are godly.
But… back to seeking a cross-generational church. It seems to me that our various cultural structures and organizations in our society discourage any kind of cross-generational community. About the only time many of us experience any kind of cross-generational community are Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving. Kids go to school. Parents go to work. Then, kids go away to college (why?). People get jobs and spend most of their time with those in their own peer group. Then they retire and move to retirement communities. Cradle to grave - we have been institutionalized not to cultivate cross-generational community.
So… What about doing away with college dormitories? I know this is a radical idea (and I also admit that I am drawn to radical ideas for their shock value), but how ’bout it? Arguably, college dormitories not only discourage cross-generational community (and accountability), but they also foster immaturity and destructive lifestyles. The Bible doesn’t say, “For this reason, after a man gets a college degree and gets a job, that he shall marry and be united with his wife.” It says, “For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” Now, it can be argued (perhaps very well), that people should consider homeschooling all the way through college, but I think strong arguments can be made for going away to learn and grow in knowledge, understanding, and wisdom before proceeding on in life. But let’s remember that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of these (knowledge and wisdom). And it is in the context of community - and I believe in the context of cross-generational community - that we really grow in knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.
So, imagine with me. We do away with all college dormitories. Then what? Then, families host students who are coming to their area to go to college. This would require sacrificial love and kindness on all parties, but that too seems to be a very Christian way to be.
The New Saint Andrews college doesn’t have dormitories. This decision was made on principle.
http://www.nsa.edu/admissions/housing.html
If we are serious about cultivating cross-generational Christian community, then I think we need to seriously think and pray about the theological reasons for doing the things that we do - including whether or not we should encourage college students to live in dormitories.
I believe we have quite a bit to learn from the Amish here - despite their over-the-top stance against modern technology.
October 10th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
An interesting idea, for sure. I am impressed by the approach of New Saint Andrews, from what their web page and wikipedia tell me–it’ll be interesting to see whether schools like that can have an impact on higher education in the coming years.
My own dorm experience was fantastic, but of course that doesn’t mean it was entirely healthy or entirely godly. And it certainly didn’t help me form any real relationships with adults –– I only did that through my church, and even then a good part of it was only at my own initiative. (Though there was a retired couple that made a point of seeking out college students and inviting us over for Sunday lunch.)
One thing I’m persuaded of is that people (myself included) will almost always take the path of least resistance. Having college kids live with families is one good way to overcome that, and it seems that churches have good opportunities to use similar mandates to involve young people with adults in church. We’re just squandering that opportunity, it seems to me.