A few thoughts on the state of the church as I have experienced it. Lots of people are frustrated and turned off by the church. Witness even the response of faithful church-goers to the phrase, "organized religion" or simply "religion." These frustrations are well-founded and reflect the systemic problems which are just now beginning to be addressed. Indeed, one thing I have begun to realize is that many of the problems which seem to beset every church are actually particular manifestations born of the cultural situation of the church, and - larger even - religious belief, as anything else.
Here are two examples. First, what does it mean to be the church when the church is not longer the political religion of a country? The church has largely been the “religion of power” in the west since 321 CE. Thus, it has defined its emphases as much along the path of “what is good for the culture” as “what does Jesus call us to do?” This is no longer the situation, and is increasingly less so – a paradigmatic change that is only 30-50 years old in the US (more than that in Europe.) The second manifestation of this cultural problematic has to do with evangelism. Isn't it obvious to everyone whenever the subject of evangelism is broached that some “paradigmatic rift” has occured deep into things? Churches, and especially evangelical & fundamentalist churches, are always talking-up evangelism, but it is quite plain to everyone with a brain that the vocabulary of evangelism is dead. There is simply no real forum for evangelistic conversation in our culture. We do not even know how to talk about religious faith, ourselves or that of others, much less enter into serious dialogue that considers the claim of this or that religion. Still, I have never met a church leader that even gave a nod to this difficulty. Instead, they just crack the whip: Christians should evangelize. May as well be saying, “Christians should jimp the jibber” for all the understanding that this imperative is met with – at least in my mind.
What I am getting at is that most church-goers don’t realize that the issues they have with their local church are the result of rifts that go so far down that it is going to take some really innovative and exhaustive thinking to begin to address them. Few understand the situation and fewer still are beginning to construct any sort of effective response (other than circle-the-wagons fundamentalism.) The emergent church, to think of one, is an example of the contemporary struggle to meet these problems. Before that, there were the explosive rise of para-church ministries (though everyone has come to see that the solution cannot grow outside of the church itself.)
So where can one go to make a beginning at an answer? To repeat, we have this question: church. The church is put in question because we live in a time where the question, “What is the church?” is as much up in the air as it ever was. It is put in question on every side: from its being asked in the context of the post-Christianity of the West, to the liberation theologies of the third world, and the immanent collapse of the Anglican church over the ordination of a New Hampshire homosexual to the bishopric.
As friends and I have debated and pondered this bottomless pit of uncertainty, it has become clear to some that, whatever the answer is, it is going to be found within a bounded area. Think of an infinite plane suddenly being inscribed by circles, each within the other, thereby reducing the surface-area to be considered within their narrowing diameters. The broadest circle is labeled, “the Kingdom of God.” The circle just within that is labeled “community.”
And lately I have begun to think another circle can be drawn which will narrow further the area in question. This circle I label “the flesh and the poor.” Whatever “church” is, it is going to find itself in relationship to these two poles: flesh (the application and continuation of the process of the new birth; the putting down of sin and enervating of the image of God; the “first tablet” of the law) and poor (mission and the ethical call to neighbor; the “second tablet” of the law).
Finally, we must continue to live in the present situation. I can’t get around the fact that the New Testament addresses people corporately far more than it addresses them individually. The Reformers said that the marks of a true church are the Word properly preached and the sacraments properly administered. I can’t see how either of these can be accomplished without the Other of other people (and the addition of my Otherness to them.) “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” You can't simply pull out of the community in the name of radicalism or the pursuit of purity. One must throw the hat of commitment into fellowship. Otherwise, there is the risk of doing your “good works” with and for people whom you deem appropriate or worthy, who don’t offend or confront or challenge you. Doesn’t ethical living require a certain amount of vulnerability to a community, or a certain amount of risk? This is where I am – I don’t always want this kind of bumping-shoulders community living, but I can’t see how the answer to the problem called “church” can be located in any other place. Whatever the answer is to this question called “the church” it is going to be found in the pursuit of community.
ecclesiology; social justice; evangelism; modernity.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYou know I think to some extent our perceptions of the Church are created by our experiences within the particular churches that we have been a part of. Granted, I think many of the mainline denominations are holding on to centuries old (bad)doctrine in some cases (and in other cases newly acquired bad doctrine)and see your point in that light, and know that there are philosophical movements at work in parts of the Body that have nothing to do with Christ, but my experience as a Christian has been mostly within the interdenominational movement. This aspect of the Body is a very vital and dynamic part of the Church. (And perhaps a hint towards the original question) As I see it, the old denominations may be at a cross roads, but many Christians who have left them are chugging along with a different and more practical spiritual paradigm. God does not sit still while man fouls things up with rules, traditions and too much thought. He looks for people who have faith and are willing to do what He says. "let the dead bury their own dead" (Look at Saul and David. He wasn't going to let Saul ruin His plan for Israel....not when David was available to be used)
ReplyDeleteSome of the churches down here in Florida are radically motivated and working towards real spiritual understanding. I know the Chapel, the interdenominational church I attended back in Nashville, was of this same sort and had started in a rented space in a strip mall. There area number of churches here that I have heard of that are that same way. Believers that will meet at middle schools or dance studios, unconcerned about the trappings of an organized "church"....only hungry for the Word. From a media standpoint, I watch a variety of Christian shows produced in this state (and elsewhere) and have been impressed at the insight and understanding many of the pastors and teachers possess. They do not seem to be stumbling around rather they seem, from a spiritual standpoint, to be rightly dividing the Word. Most of these are Churches that have no denominatonal affiliation and apparently are doing fine (or better)without it. You also have national churches like the Vineyard movement that are widespread, but still retain a grassroots feeling. They are interconnected with a certain amount of autonomy based in the church membership. These are new moves of God through people who want God and little else.
At the same time, I can tell you of a show based here in Florida that is on where the pastor speaks too often about how his denomination is better than the one he split from. (Can I tell you he is an Independent Baptist railing at other Baptists?!) Or another that talks about how those in other denominations are sliding towards hell. This one is also a mainline denomination. Myself, have heard sermons where a pastor has spent the entire sermon defending a particular point of doctrine within that denomination with the express goal of enabling the members of being able to win arguments. To me the line of demarcation is clear. Personally I think that when man gets too much of himself invested in his Christianity( and I speak in human terms here), he can get proprietary about that particular brand of belief he has helped develop and followed for however long. Ideally, we should have no proprietary feelings towards the Church's ordnances if they are really the ones God has instituted. (Not in a human fleshly possessive way at any rate) If they are our own, however, the spirit spoken of by Paul in I Corinthians 1:10-13 is at work in the Body and God's will is thwarted.
The difference in our experiences/perceptions may be the two "churches" we have been seeing or more accurately, looking for. I am part of(and have consciously sought out the Church that has no ruling body but God. Man may organize, but God ordains. The difference is, of course, that man may organize apart from the will of God and call it God's will. This effort will in time become what it really is and fall apart.(Although through man's mechinations it may take sometime to do so.) What God does ordain, however, will be vital and nothing can withstand it even as Gamaliel said. If an aspect of our Church doesn't look healthy or particularly effective, it is because it has lost its abiding power and relies too much on the sheer organized infrastructure that men have erected in God's name, but often times not at His request. (Is this a key to determining which is the real Church? Effective, healthy ministry?) I have always been drawn to the newly organized Churches that are disaffected members of the mainline churches. This is the Church that has less to do with traditions of men and seek a basic understanding of the principles that are laid down for us all...as you say "corporately". (These understand the importance of corporate fellowship to be a given and stress it without question.) They eschew the monolithic thinking that marks many of the mainline denominations and... the tendency towards self-importance based on numbers and greater organization. (Numerical evangelization is a hallmark of many older denominations that has become an end in itself.)
What is the Church? It is the Body of Christ and little more. Yes, but is that an effective, healthy Church or one racked by fleshly problems and philosophical divisions? Are we not told by Paul that we are to judge those within the Church? If the question is before us, isn't the answer too? I agree that we will have to come to terms with those within the church who are wayward, but how many times are we told to warn a devisive man? The writer of Hebrews in chapters 5:12-14 and 6:1-3, spoke plainly of God's will for the Church and at the same time the state of those who will not listen. Is it a matter of blowing leaves or those who "have become dull of hearing"? The idea of blowing leaves seems to suggest they actually want to know, but I suggest there are many in the Body (but are they really? Going to church isn't salvation as we all know)that do not want to hear. Am I suggesting that we give up on them? No, I think that we owe it to God to try and warn them. At the same time we need to know when it is time to not try anymore and pray for those who will not listen. This makes the job of determining "what is the church?" easier. (I am not being callous. There are times when we must shake the dust from our feet and move on to those who God says are more receptive.) In a way it is like Paul's description of what a man must possess in his life to be considered an deacon/overseer. By their fruits you will know them.
So, some of us are blowing leaves and we are seeking solid ground and others are not but say they are. Too those who truly seek, that ground is clearly marked in most cases I think. Perhaps I am too dogmatic for this modern age.