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?

Walking and Good Works -

A little late in coming but here goes.

What if we didn’t really concern ourselves with the idea of what we were going to be doing was a good work or not? What if we took the position that we are going to walk as the Holy Spirit directs us? Now that does raise the question of discerning the voice of the Holy Spirit as opposed to what our internal voice wants us to do – that I will get to in a minute. Here’s what I’m thinking. If we walk as the Holy Spirit directs us, isn’t it entirely accurate to view the results coming off of that walk as a good work. Otherwise how are we able to avoid missing the boat?

Ever since I first read this comment, it has stuck with me, and frankly, sort of haunts me as well. Philip Yancey, in What's So Amazing About Grace at 15, recounts a conversation with Gordon MacDonald, pastor and former spiritual advisor to President Bill Clinton, wherein MacDonald observed: "The world can do almost anything as well as or better than the church. You need not be a Christian to build houses, feed the poor or heal the sick. There is only thing the world cannot do. It cannot offer grace."

Now I’m not suggesting that grace alone is a sufficient guide – though certainly it is a factor that goes into the whole mix, but I am thinking about discerning by community, and in particular a community that spends time in prayer, in listening to each other, hearing the voices that are recognized, again a community thing, in the study of Scripture, that is populated by people who have and will submit to each other, die to ourselves?, and seek out a common agreement. I’m not saying going solo isn’t the right thing, as I am sure the Holy Spirit will call, when He determines, on a single person to walk in obedience, and the splendor of the Triune God will shine through the walk of that one person, but thinking on a general basis, and on a more corporate basis, the church walks as a community, like a body – recalling Paul’s powerful metaphor – to focus on the walk and not the “good work.”

Just some random thoughts generated by Mike’s sermon. God Bless.

Sincerely Walking with Christ

Mike's sermon on the 15th was great. I'm sure people who heard it had a different takeaway. For me what had me thinking, and still has, was the point about a sincere walk with Christ, and part and parcel of that walk is the question of good works. Sometimes I get this haunting feeling that our focus on good works misses the mark, and particularly as it has to do with our walking with Christ. Now in no sense am I suggesting good works are not exactly that – good works. People are being helped and all such wonderful things – and hopefully the good works display His light – and I'm not suggesting good works should not be on our radars. But what if we saw good works as merely events along the journey? What if we understood the good works were not the measuring stick of the sincerity of our walking? Is it possible the measure of good works won't really count for much, if anything, when it comes to that time?
What if we understood our walk as becoming more Christlike? In 1 Peter 4:1-2, we are urged, "therefore since Christ suffered in His body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in the body is done with sin. As a result he does not live out the rest of his earthly life for human desires but rather for the will of God." What is that attitude we are to arm ourselves with? We see that attitude in the Garden of Gethsemane. In Matthew 26:39b Jesus reveals that attitude as the ultimate reason for his coming, "Not as I will, but as you will."
Frankly good works are all over both by believers and non- believers, and telling the difference is very hard for us, though for Jesus He sees through all the facades and rationalizing we do, in Matthew 7:21-23 (the Message), "knowing the correct password – saying 'Master, Master' for instance – isn't going to get you anywhere with me. What is required is serious obedience – doing what my Father wills. I can see it now – at the final judgment thousands strutting up to me and saying 'Master, we bashed the demons, our God-sponsored projects had everyone talking' and do you know what I am going to say? You missed the boat. All you did was use me to make yourselves important."
Next up I will do some thinking about that attitude and what it means for doing good works and bearing fruit down the road.

Marriage

Has anyone seen the new statistics released by the Centers for Disease Control? According to that report 40% of births were to unmarried women and only 23% of those were to unmarried teens. Wow, does this seem to suggest that as its the older women and no marriage - at least at the time of the pregnancy (guess the idea that a later marriage followed would be something of significance) - the sexual relationship has become paramount and the aspects of marriage that were of significance such as personal relationship (looking back at Hauerwas and intimacy), community (looking back at Grenz and the symbol of the marriage relationship), etc, no longer have a role in marriage and indeed culture. Remember Matzko-McCarthy from the earlier post - is this a sign of confusing romance and love? Is this a sign that consumerist beliefs have entered even this part of life - that is personal fulfillment rules?

Covenant Marriage as Ascriptural Event (Part Four)

Is it possible a significant question to be asked during the wedding ceremony, at the time of the exchange of vows, is do you pledge to always consider what is best for the other regardless of the cost to yourself? As a follower of Christ, can there be any other question? Maybe the ceremony is simply a beginning to a lifetime adventure to discover the depths of the vows that were exchanged. Marriage is an adventure that will entail learning how to be intimate - physically, emotionally and spiritually.

Is it possible marriage may be sustained by coming to a new understanding of commitment and faith? That is, the vow remains a promise that does not depend on the other person fulfilling certain conditions (as is the case in contractual relationships), and a relationship that looks to the sustaining of hope within the marriage by acknowledging God is sovereign.

One way to achieve these virtues may be by telling stories and by being formed by those stories – all in the context of a faithful community who accepts those stories as foundational and a community that, with the hope and promise of God, continues the conversations begun by those stories. We will presumably be trained to embody those stories in the concrete mundane of the every day. We can tell the story of Ruth and Naomi, for coming to an understanding of commitment. We can tell the story of Hannah, as recounted in the first two chapters of Samuel for both an understanding of commitment and vows. As well we may gain a sense of commitment from the story of Simeon and Anna at the time of the circumcism of Jesus in Luke 2:21-40. The narrative we know as Scripture is full of such stories all of which are the story of the life of the church founded by Jesus the Christ.

That such a community came to be shortly after the Cross may be seen in the So-Called Letter to Diognetus, dated from the 2nd Century or earlier, as translated in the Early Church Fathers at 216-17, “for Christians cannot be distinguished from the rest of the human race by country or language or customs.... Yet although they live in Greek and barbarian cities alike, as each man’s lot has been cast, and follow the customs of the country in clothing and food and other matters of daily living, at the same time they give proof of the remarkable and admittedly extraordinary constitution of their own commonwealth. They live in their own countries but as aliens.... They marry, like everyone else and they begat children, but they do not cast out their offspring [note that infanticide, particularly as to female infants was supposedly practiced]. They share their board with each other, but not their marriage bed. it is true that they are in the flesh, but they do not live according to the flesh.”

That such communities exist and can exist within our secular system may be seen in a number of examples. Of course, no community has it down pat and I suspect there are difficulties from time to time but the effort, if anything I have said has any merit to it, must be continued. One such community may be seen in the work of Donald B. Kraybill and others in Amish Grace: How Forgiveness Transcended Tragedy, and in this observation by Fumitaka Matsuoka (reflecting on the heroic stance of a Japanese-American community in California following the devastation to life and property and indeed the atrocity of the internment camps in this country during World War II) in his essay “Creating Community Amidst the Memories of Historic Injustices” in Realizing the America of Our Hearts at 39, “the incarnation of Christian faith is both deeply personal and deeply public at the same time. Japanese-American Christians remind us of a key that does bind the people of the Rashomon effect together. What manner of people are they? Refusing to flinch in the face of the painful and unjust experiences of incarceration, attacking the unjust system that had bound them, they reach out to those who betrayed their trust and inflicted injustice to them, offering to build together a new society.”

Marriage is more than contract or covenant. Marriage is not merely the proper context for sexual activity by faithful couples. Marriage is not simply the telos for those feelings of passion and romance (Matzko-McCarthy puts it well when he says, at 62, “marriage is untamed passion made safe”). Marriage may contain elements of all of these things but it is not and should not be held captive by any of them.

Covenant Marriage as Ascriptural Event (Part Three)

Romance is fleeting.  David Matzko-McCarthy observes love remains the key ingredient leading to marriage, in his Sex and Love in the Home at 153, “two people meet, and they fall in love.  Their love sticks so that they see marriage as the logical and inevitable next step.  This story continues to be the predominant narrative of marital connection.”  Matzko-McCarthy goes on to note the danger of relying on romance and love as the sustaining force of marriage, at 163, “when romance is the linchpin of a relationship or marriage, then the couple, after the first wave of passion is gone, will have to work a great deal in order to conjure up passion or spontaneity.  The romance is likely to die because one or both partners will become tired of working to restore what is supposed to be spontaneous passion.”

This project does not suggest a marriage without romance and love should therefore be successful – clearly such a proposal is inane.  Rather, elevating romance and that vague and misunderstood term love to center stage is not an adequate safeguard against marital difficulties (as well, elevating those emotions, as I suggest we have done, undermines any perceived boost to the longevity of marriage by merely relabeling it to that of covenant marriage).

Is it possible that the intended foundation of marriage is holiness in relationship, as well as procreation?  Now nothing here suggests pleasure is not a part of the equation, but surely not the most significant reason for marriage.  If we understand Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, albeit a shadow of that image, is it not possible that the relationship to be formed by marriage reflects as well the Trinity - the most holy of relationships?  Stanley Grenz in his Sexual Ethics at 55 suggests “marriage forms a picture of  the community which is present in a prior way within the triune God - the community of Father, Son and Spirit. Just as the Trinity is a community of love so also the marital relationship is to be characterized by love.”  Recognizing a tension in the use of the vague term love, as a reflection of the Triune relationship, the view proposed by Hauerwas, see below, as to intimacy fits well as a focus of what we may understand is love expressed within the human relationship.

Is it possible marriage is not simply a vehicle for the expression of feelings of mutual joy (a problematic definition in a competitive economic structure where people are seen as means to an end) where joy is in reality simply a shared selfishness.  If we understand that marriage is the most intimate relationship among human relationships, how we reckon intimacy seems particularly critical.  Hauerwas in his essay “Sex in Public” from A Community of Character:  Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic at 181 suggests “intimacy depends on the willingness to give of the self, to place oneself in the hands of another, to be vulnerable, even if that means we may be hurt.”

Is it possible that, like singleness which is enhanced in community, marriage as well may be enhanced through community - and in particular the community that is the body of Christ, the Church?  Lauren Winner in Real Sex:  The Naked Truth About Chastity at 133-35 relates a most powerful story about a trip with college students to a convent.  During the discussion, the question finally emerged as to how the nuns handled no sex.  The response by the sister is most revealing.  She responded “...giving up sex is a very particular renunciation.  But I think we have an easier time of it here together in our community than you unmarried young people do out there, alone, in the world.”  How much more strongly can the single life, and the married life, be practiced when in relational community.  How much more can, say fidelity, be practiced in a relational community of confession, forgiveness, repentance and encouragement

Is it possible a significant question to be asked during the wedding ceremony, at the time of the exchange of vows, is do you pledge to always consider what is best for the other regardless of the cost to yourself?  As a follower of Christ, can there be any other question?  Maybe the ceremony is simply a beginning to a lifetime adventure to discover the depths of the vows that were exchanged.  Marriage is an adventure that will entail learning how to be intimate - physically, emotionally and spiritually.

Covenant Marriage as Ascriptural Event (Part Two)

Marriage today in the United States is a decidedly secular event. In line with the analysis of Berkhof, marriage as covenant, even within a Scriptural context, is a mutual voluntary agreement between two people, and in keeping with social, moral and legal understandings current today, when one party breaks that mutual voluntary agreement, the other party feels free to terminate that agreement. By transforming contract into a sacred covenant, or so the thinking goes, we have now raised the standard and how we view the sanctity of marriage. C.S. Lewis reminds us, in his classic Mere Christianity, the difficulty with understanding and communication when we engage in language-games. Lewis considers the word “gentleman” which began as a term that identified a person as holding a coat of arms and owning land. The term has come to mean a person who has manners, and therefore no longer acts as a description of a person but reflected simply the opinion of the speaker.

That marriage is now secular may be seen as well in the resistance offered up toward entry into covenant marriage in the three states where it has been enacted. Current numbers indicate that approximately two percent of couples in those states have opted for the covenant marriage, as reported in the column by Cheryl Wetzstein in the September 7, 2008 edition of the Washington Times. As well, in examination of the Arizona version of covenant marriage, you will find the traditional grounds for divorce remain available to covenant marriage couples effectively divorcing the legislation from its intent (pun intended). We Americans simply are not willing to shift away from our contractual thinking and right to be free.

Hence, as cautioned by Hauerwas and MacIntyre, there is great danger with efforts to translate Christian terms into language generally assumed to be available, and understood, by the secular world. One difficulty may be, for secular thinkers as well as most Protestants, we resist the view marriage is sacramental as that sounds much too Roman Catholic for our tastes. Yet coming to a fuller understanding of marriage within the context of Scripture, as opposed to clothing the relationship with Christian-sounding language and symbols, through legislation and for that matter recitation of vows more often than not performed as ritual, may be the better method to strengthen marriage and decrease the number of divorces. Learning to speak the language of Scripture may be the remedy for the marriage crisis and take us beyond the idea of contract - and covenant - as the foundation of marriage.

Is it possible we have confused romance with love? Is it possible we are confused as well as to that term “love?” Stanley Hauerwas in his essay “On Marriage and Homosexuality” in Better Hope: Resources for a Church Confronting Capitalism, Democracy and Postmodernity at 49, believes this is precisely the situation when he suggests “love is far too vague a term to do any work in helping us to discover the disciplines necessary to sustain a marriage, particularly in our cultural context (recall the C.S. Lewis observation about the term gentleman). If this is in fact the situation, relying on romance and love to sustain a marriage is just as likely to succeed as fail – then again is that part of the reason why approximately half of all marriages fail?