« golf balls, small rocks, sand | Main | sustainable economies and enough »
January 03, 2005
church questions
the last few weeks have left me everywhere between being completely careless and completely consumed with church conflict. it's not unusual for me to react to questions by swinging to the other extreme, in many ways rejecting everything remotely connected with what those i am disagreeing with. but in the church that i've been a part of since i arrived in this world, i am caught in trying to find the balance. but now the balance that i've always struggled for seems to be viewed as unacceptable. now i'm told there is "no comprimise." now i am torn in reevaluating what church is, what church does, what role church leaders play, and at what point do we leave our the exausting struggle for unity. so here are a few points that i am considering.
first, some things that i am behind. i agree that God does not necessarily use the trained leaders. i believe that preaching should not merely tickle listeners' ears with what is comfortable or the watered down gospel so that it is no longer the piercing radical truth that it is. we do need to hear from people who have been with Jesus. i agree that the spirit of acedemia can nurture doubt and tear a person apart until they are reduced to a multitude of clauses. i believe that a person may say things like "i've heard from the Lord that..." or "i feel like the Lord is saying..." and that one should be entirely convinced that it is in fact the Lord that is saying such a thing before claiming it.
leaders have a role. they take on an important role that keeps the church alive, functioning, and healthy. jesus, paul, and others in the early church did act and teach in ways that set them apart or even at conflict with others because of their what they did.
church, or the people of the jesus' movement, should be characterized by dynamic interaction within the body and God. they should be flexible and ready to act and respond.
BUT...
leading is listening. i saw this on a billboard-- if that could only be understood in the church. if i were a pastor or a church leader, i would be next to paralyzed in fear of acting wrongly for all that the bible has to say about distracted religion or warning of religious leaders who are taking people off track (Mk 12:38-40, Amos 5:18-24 just for example). gifts are for the common good, and the head is Christ who is for the whole body (1 Cor:4-7,12, Eph 4:15,16). there is no one in the church or outside of the church or whereever who's story has any less value or weight. "apostolic leadership" must be in all forms self-sacrificing, for the body and as an authentic light to others. the mockery of this term is to usurp power and claim God's leading as most faithful and committed ones are silenced. this is the most direct form of misusing the Lord's name! (Ex. 20:7)
conflict is not best managed in indirect sermons that support alterior motives or lengthy prayers that manipulate or preach to their hearers. "thank you for allowing us to have trained ears to hear your voice" and "Lord you know my heart and that i didn't share anything to exalt who I am" may be fine statements, but context is everything, and they look to judge saints and sinners. when there is conflict, let's not try to fake it and sing happy songs together or even listen to a message together. i think that's the time to say enough of "church," put your bulletins away, and let's get in groups or in one big group or something and talk and listen together before anything else. just because people do blow up or because we don't always talk about things eloquently or without mistakes when we go to discuss critically important matters doesn't mean we shouldn't practice it or try and does not justify handling everything in such an indirect manner or canceling "listening meetings."
people are hurt in all directions. the leaders are hurt when people don't give them the freedom to make mistakes. and ordinary people are hurt when leaders push them down the church hierarchy and limit their participation and voice. and these can both be violences. we must abandon our pride and beg forgiveness for our wrongs. but who do "apostolic" leaders listen to? they preach, we listen and aparently they're right and we need to follow. and if we don't want to follow, they "bless us and release us."
so on the questions...
when does unity become an idol? can unity become an idol? "I... beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Eph 4:1-2)
what is church? is church the group that challenges us in the path we are in? to the path to which we must follow? the group we are with? a group that we try to change or impact? a group that works similarily and efficiently in the kingdom work? what is it that makes us a reflection of the coming reign of God-- our worship, service work, community, engagement with the world's need... what does it take to be a people that does that? or is it more important to try to do that than it is to actually acheive doing that?
how important is the extraordinary? ...always pushing to be "more in Christ" there must be a balance between looking to grow and improve and recognizing the extraordinaryness of ordinary faithful living.
again the first and last question, what is the point where a church body is more unhealthy than its worth or causing more pain to all "sides" as all push against each other just because they are under the same roof but no longer work like "church"? when is this an call to an "impossible task" and when is it time to pick up and move on?
Posted by Derrick at January 3, 2005 12:50 PM