| ||
This is my fourth post (of five) in a series on division within the church––not between denominations, but between different generations and different preferences for how to do church. (Also see parts one, two, and three.) Ultimately, I believe that our division of the Body into segregated generational groups constitutes a refusal to learn to love another and a refusal to be the Body of Christ in its full sense. The body imagery in Paul’s letters (Rom 12, 1Cor 12, Eph 4, Col 3:15) indicates that God has called us into churches where different kinds of people find fellowship with one another. A simple reason that we don’t act on the love we claim to have –– by welcoming those who are different into our lives –– is that it’s really difficult and we don’t know how to make it work. Love is not positive regard but intentional action. As 1 John 3:18 urges, “let us not love with word or tongue but in deed and truth.” Building inter-generational relationships requires hard work. This can be discouraging, but our recognition of the difficulty of God’s call does not mean we can pretend he hasn’t called us. Our recognition that we do not know how to love as Christ loved us doesn’t mean we can cast aside his command and move on to more realistic tasks. A divide-and-conquer approach to evangelism (see part one) may seem to more effectively accomplish God’s mission for the church, taking the Gospel to the world. But in the process, I fear, we fail to be the church he has called to that mission. By calling the Church the Body of Christ, God has given us an identity that is grounded in who God is. The church is not an organization of saved people who meet together; it is the Body of Christ on earth. That body is formed not only by each member’s relationship with Christ but also by our relationships with one another, which is why the greatest of all the spiritual gifts (1 Cor 13:13) is not prophecy or speaking in tongues or knowledge, but love. If the Body is to mean anything, we must love one another with a love that extends to all its parts. Claiming that one body composed only of hands will reach one portion of the population, while another body composed only of ears will reach another, denies our identity. Claiming that all these congregations really are unified in Christ, even though many of them meet separately precisely so that they don’t have to take each other’s viewpoints and preferences into account, is simply dishonest. At the end of the day, most of us struggle to know how to love one another; to truly love someone based on no common ground but Christ takes a level of maturity in faith that perhaps most of us lack. Furthermore, we cannot be simply willing to love others. Many Christians –– perhaps most –– would claim willingness to form relationships with people of other generations or backgrounds, and yet our churches remain divided. To turn those words into action takes great effort, and that is a key part of our calling. |
May 30th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Scott,
Great stuff here!
Thoughts to chime in first and questions later…
I have not kept up with your series here very well. I need to come again when I have time to read it all and digest it better.
However, I wish to resonate with some stuff you say here all the same.
First. I really like the “body of Christ” image you use here. There are other worthwhile images/metaphores to be sure, but this one is unique and if neglected makes the others weak. I hear a lot of concern from blogger friends about “the bride of Christ” and that translates into purity issues around doctrine and practice and especially how church is critiqued. Worthwhile considerations, but very defensive in the end if that is all you have.
The “body” image I work with allows me to go to the Gospels and watch Jesus in action on dusty Galilean roads, in cornfields, synagogues, on mountains and by the sea where he proclaims the Kingdom in action and speech, heals people, confronts wickedness and makes his bid to be King through love and self-sacrifice. It takes a lot of imagination to see the church (a gathering of people) coming together with one mind to do similar work in our own contexts today. But, that is ever bit as valid, if not drastically more so, than reading the epistles like an instruction manual or blue prints, or constitutional documents. Not that such is all bad, but not really inspired either.
And this body way of looking at church puts us in action rather than a state of being per se. And that action almost invariably is loving.
Anyway, this is where my thoughts have been for a while now, and it seems to resonate with your post.
I am a particular enthusiast of the Vandelia Church of Christ, where I worship in Lubbock, TX for two particular reasons: Vandelia is very ecumenical and very poor-people friendly. These two things are important for the church to be, I think. And Vandelia, though not flawless by any stretch (for certainly we have historically positioned ourselves distinctively to the “left” among the Churches of Christ in Lubbock because of our rejection of traditional worship style etc, is a leader in both of these loving endeavors.
To our credit, our elders have made efforts to hold out the right hand as well as the left. Making things confusing for many among us, I fear.
Now for the questions…
Do you think we need to seek those that are different and historically difficult for us to love so that we can love them? Is that a key to being more loving? And specifically, should Vandelia - who historically finds it difficult to fellowship with more “right wing” congregations in town - retool and focus there more so than with the Methodist church around the corner (with whom our congregation has shared much in common in recent years) and the Baptist church (that sends a hispanic evangelist to preach in our assembly every Wed night as an outreach ministry to the neighborhood)? I mean, in the instances where reaching out with the one hand means the other will go ungrasped, how much should we try to stretch both ways, and what creative directions and options are open to us with those that we risk rejection with on the other hand?
Thanks for the post. And thanks for visiting MG. Very honored to have you.
Jesus is Lord!