Doing Church

Philip Yancey quotes a Paul Tournier, a Swiss physician and pastoral counselor, who observed, "there are two things we cannot do alone, one is being married and the other is to be a Christian." While acknowledging that this is not necessarily the same as doing church, I get the feeling that Tournier was indeed suggesting being the body is essential to being Christian. Yet, gaining a great deal of currency today is the significant and often severe criticizing of the church - with the target aimed at so-called megachurches, but including within the firing line the idea of an institution known as church, a church that appears politicized, and churches that just do worship wrongly (e.g., entertainment versus worship/discipleship/teaching). I was browsing at a Borders and came across a new text by Philip Gulley called 'If The Church Were Christian.' Like right between the eyes there.

Now far be it that I deny that church as we do it here in the US is perfect, or rather, as perfect is really not even on the table of possibility, I will not take the position that the way we do church, while varied, nevertheless could stand some criticism and improvements along the way - I mean if we view salvation as an on-going process, why shouldn't the body of Christ also be seen as something that must also be in process until He returns? Now that will be a time of perfection, and I think finally realizing what is identified as the holy catholic and apostolic church in the Creed. Criticism isn't something all that new. Bonhoeffer made a great statement about church - now I think if you want to talk about seriously flawed, he had to deal with some really outrageous stuff, but he observed, "we must allow ourselves to be interrupted by God. God will be constantly crossing our paths and canceling our plans... sending us people with claims and petitions. it is a strange fact that Christians and even ministeries frequently consider their work so important and urgent that they allow nothing to disturb them."

I guess for me the key item here is whether church is necessary - or can we be the Christians without it? To look at the Word seems to put that question to rest rather quickly (Matthew 16 seems to me rather explicit on the point and the Acts history seems to strongly suggest weekly meetings/gatherings was the rule). Looking at Yancey again, he suggests, "how can we sense God's love now that Jesus has ascended to the Father? One New Testament answer centers around the 'body of Christ,' a mysterious phrase used more than 30 times. Paul especially settled on that phrase as a summary image of the church. When Jesus left, He turned over His mission to flawed and bumbling men and women. He assumed the role of the head of the church, leaving the tasks of arms, legs, ears, eyes and voice to the erratic disciples - and to you and me."

Maybe the next time we look to offer up a critique, we might ask whether there is another way, and a way that can be said to rest on the Word, but beyond that, is this other way able to avoid the flawed and bumbling that is sure to follow. Maybe the question to be asked isn't whether doing church as we do church is right or wrong, but whether we have eyes to see and ears that are listening to know when we are being flawed and bumbling and maybe we can as a community hear the Spirit talking to us so the Spirit can guide us on to a straighter path?