Community in Christ develops as we serve together
Dave Black announced yesterday that he is putting the finishing touches on a new book called Will You Join the Cause of Global Missions? If you read Dave’s blog, you know that he and his wife have been focused on proclaiming the gospel and strengthening the church in various countries around the world for the last several years. They do not do this work through any kind of missions organization, although they gladly work with many such organizations. Instead, they go around the world at their own expense, and they are including other believers in several churches around them in their efforts. (I know this first hand because I traveled with them to Ethiopia just over a year ago.)
In announcing his book, Dave shared a quote that I hope you will find encouraging and challenging (see the entry from Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 8:54 a.m.):
Jesus’ disciples enjoyed community simply because Jesus and not a set of dogmas was at the center of their life. They never tried to “build community.” They didn’t have to. Community was the result of being united in the Christian mission; community emerged naturally when they committed themselves to something bigger than themselves. And so it is in the church today. It is my personal observation that most Christians begin to enjoy genuine community only when they begin to serve the poor, evangelize the lost, and plant churches. The glue that unites them is the missional task of loving their neighbors. A shared sense of mission drives them to community. Their congregations are mission-shaped. Like Jesus, they literally go. For them the Bible, not tradition, is normative, and they hold themselves accountable to each other in love even while they work closely with the surrounding neighborhood, developing strong links between Christians and not-yet Christians.
If you have read much about the “missional” movement or about missions especially in the United States, you know that many (perhaps most?) efforts are quite sectarian in the sense that people tend to work together only with those who agree with them (on whatever “doctrines” they consider to be most important).
Dave’s statement above flies in the face of that practice. If he is correct – and I think he is – community in Christ is developed as we serve others in Christ’s name by proclaiming the gospel, building up other Christians (discipleship), and serving the least. Many today say that we cannot work in these ways (or at least in some of these ways) with other Christians with whom we disagree. I think this shows a desire (intentional or not) for community based on our interpretations instead of community based on Christ.
Certainly there will be difficulties and issues related to working with those who disagree with us especially concerning those beliefs that we hold dear. However, according to Jesus, our unity (even unity in mission) is important – perhaps necessary – in order for the world to know that Jesus Christ came from God the Father. (John 17:20-21)
Practically, how do we serve (in the various ways mentioned above) with brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with us?
How Big is Too Big for the Church?
My good friend Eric at “A Pilgrim’s Progress” is asking a very good question in his post “What Size Should a Church Family Be?”
(If you haven’t met Eric yet, he and I have known each other for about 9 years. Recently, he resigned from his job as a vocational pastor because of some convictions based on his study of Scripture.)
Eric begins where my previous post stopped: the purpose of the church gathering is mutual edification. If, then, we are to gather to edify one another, is there an upper limit on the number that can gather together? That’s the question that Eric asks.
He says:
What about the upper end? In our country right now the answer tends to be “bigger is better.” Another common way of thinking is that size doesn’t matter at all. I disagree with both these conclusions…
What about 30? I believe this is roughly the upper end. I freely admit that this conclusion is based partly on my own experience. I’ve read others who come to both higher and lower conclusions than 30. However, in my experience 30 is roughly the upper end that can fully participate in a gathering to bring about edification.
Like I told Eric in the comments, I’m not smart enough or brave enough to suggest a number. But I agree that mutual edification should be the principle that drives our gathering. If there are too many people gathered together to work together to help one another grow in spiritual maturity, then there’s a problem.
After I left my comment on Eric’s post, I began to wonder something… Is one of the causes (of desiring larger and larger church sizes) the fact that we are more interested in gathering together than we are in going out?
We all build, but not in the same way
If you peruse the posts (old and new) on this blog, you’ll find that I write often on the subjects of church gatherings and mutual edification. Why? Well, for one thing, for my PhD dissertation I am studying mutual edification as the purpose of the church gathering together from the perspective of Scripture. For another thing, well, I think the church should all work together to build up one another in maturity in Jesus Christ whenever we meet together. (Which, of course, is why I’m studying that subject for my dissertation…)
Earlier this week, Dave Black wrote a short post that touches on this subject. This is part of his post from Monday, November 14, 2011 at 1:35 p.m.:
Paul made it clear that all of the Colossian believers were to teach and admonish one another (Col. 3:16). The author of Hebrews makes the same point when he writes, “Exhort one another every day” (Heb. 3:13). The message is clear. All Christians are Body-builders (they are to “edify”), but we do not all build in the same way. The New Testament envisages that all Christian disciples will be involved in the “work of the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58). According to Paul, every member ministry is the normal Christian life.
As he points out, there are many exhortations, principles, and examples in Scripture that indicate that all believers should work together (“mutual”) to build or strengthen the church (“edification”). (By the way, Dave only lists a few of the many passages that point toward mutual edification.)
Similarly, and as he also points out, “we do not all build in the same way.” This is especially clear in the passage of Scripture in which the authors discuss spiritual gifts. But, there are other examples as well.
Think about these two points carefully. There is a reason that we do not all “build” in the same way. We all need to be “built” in different ways. Some may need more of one kind of construction and strengthen than another kind, but we all need many different kinds edification.
We need different kinds of “construction” so we also need different “construction workers.” One person cannot and must not attempt to do all of this work. The body of Christ is not designed to work in this way.
Imagine a dilapidated house… a shack perhaps… about to fall in on itself. It needs much work. It needs carpentry work, electrical work, plumbing work, roofing work, etc. A carpenter cannot do all of the work. An electrician – even a master electrician – cannot do all of the work.
In the same way, in order for the church to be built up (edified), it is necessary for every follower of Jesus to take part in the work of building up.
When you gather with the church, do those gathered understand that the goal is edification of the whole body? Who is expected to do the work of edification? Who is allowed to do the work of edification?
When it gets in the way, is it possible to work around the system?
Glenn at “breathe” always writes interesting blog posts. His latest post is no exception: “Changing the System by Ignoring It.”
One of the most interesting aspects of this particular posts is that it touches on dealing with problems with many different institutions: governments, corporations, and even churches.
As I’ve stated many times, I do not believe that the church is an organization, although the people may be organized. The organization itself is not the church, and, sometimes (perhaps often?), the organization itself can get in the way of the church.
So, what do the people do? They get angry, frustrated, hurt… but what can they do?
Glenn makes a suggestion:
So, my encouragement to myself and whoever happens to read this is to move past the complaining and progress into the next step; creating. Don’t keep banging your head against the same wall. Don’t wait for permission. Don’t postpone action until you have every detail mastered, because you need to be more flexible, creative, and collaborative than you can currently foresee. Let your anger and frustration move you into the realm of the better way and then get started!
Exactly! The organization is not the church, so don’t let the organization hinder you from loving, serving, caring, teaching, leading, discipling, etc. as God has called you, gifted you, and provided you opportunities.
Yes, it is possible to work around the system. Would it be better if the system did not get in the way in the first place? Sure. But you may not be able to control that, so don’t let it deter you. Simply live and serve and love and give and speak as God directs you… with or without the help of the system.
Do you know of examples of working around the system?
Gotta keep the main thing the main thing… and the main thing is the Sunday event?
Hamo at “Backyardmissionary” is doing some reflection in his post “Get Sunday right and the rest will take care of itself.” In fact, he’s reflecting back 9 years to his very first blog post that had the same title: “Get Sunday right and the rest will take care of itself.”
Now… he’s not so sure. He says that way of thinking was naive, foolish, absurd.
There are several good parts of his post, but I’ll point out a few:
I really cannot imagine Jesus and the apostles ever sitting around during the week and asking the question ‘ok – how are we going to do sabbath this week?’ I don’t see from the NT that their lives revolved around the planning and execution of one major weekly event.
Surely they would have told us about it if it was that important?…
Hmmm…
But I do see that their lives revolved around tight relationships with each other and around questions of how they lived out their radical devotion to Christ in the world they were a part of. I see them very focused on living and demonstrating the kingdom of God in many different ways thru everyday life.
————————
Jesus called us to a life – a life in community – and that will inevitably involve meeting, but I would forgive anyone who interpreted Christianity to be a weekly commitment to a Sunday event – because so much of what is communicated (often unconsciously) is exactly that.
————————
However shifting people’s deeply entrenched understandings of church, mission and the kingdom is something I baulk at because it inevitably involves pain and conflict. It inevitably involves being misunderstood and maybe even cast in the light of a villain who just wants to screw things up. And very few people are intentionally obstructive – its just how we have been trained to think…
So some days I sit and wonder. Is it worth it?
I know that getting Sunday right is not the answer but the primary platform to speak to this expression of church is… you guessed it… Sunday…
Is the solution part of the problem?…
I love these kinds of posts: honest, passionate, filled with the real pain and struggles of life. Yes, for most of Christianity, the Sunday event is the main thing… I’ve even heard the “Sunday morning worship service” referred to as “the main event.” (Oh, I know that most Christians would say that Jesus is the main thing…)
So… if most people think that the Sunday morning worship service is “the main thing,” is it possible to communicate otherwise outside of that event? Isn’t anything said or done outside of that context considered to be less important, less normative, less Christian?
Or, is there another solution? Is there another way to teach people that the Sunday morning worship service is not the pinnacle of following Jesus?
Online community and discipleship?
Once again I want to point you to a post by Miguel at “God-Directed Deviations.” This post is called “Virtual Community & Virtual Discipleship.”
Miguel is asking some very good questions about the role of online communication both in developing community and in helping people follow Jesus Christ. As with many of his posts, there is some good discussion in the comments.
As part of his post, Miguel says:
If we say that there are no virtual communities, then the issue of online discipleship is moot. If we say, however, that virtual or online communities do and can exist, then some would have to “Go” to those communities, no problem – “Teach them to observe all things that Christ commanded,” slight problem – and ”baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” bigger problem. Or perhaps you may have a differing point of view with respect to how online discipleship would be done. I would say that online evangelism, at least on the surface seems much more possible than discipleship, but I’m open to here what you have to say here as well.
Again, I encourage you to read Miguel’s post and interact with him there.
However, I want to ask a couple of questions here as well. Is it possible to have virtual or online community only (i.e., you never meet face-to-face)? Is it possible to have virtual or online discipleship only?
(By the way, I wrote a short series last year that began with “Internet Ministry: What is it?“)
Some good questions about church and gospel from a missionary
I’ve enjoyed interacting with Miguel, a missionary in Ecuador. I was hoping to be able to meet him in person when he was in the Raleigh area last summer, but it didn’t work out unfortunately.
He always asks great questions on his blog “God Directed Deviations,” and he is very good at continuing the discussion in the comments. His latest two posts are excellent examples:
First, in his post “Church Planters & Church Killers,” he tells of a problem between local church communities and denominational leadership. What would you do about this kind of issue? (I’ve already responded in the comments on his post.)
Also, in his post “The Gospel ‘Presented’ outside of its Gospel Presenting Context,” Miguel raises questions about proclaiming the gospel. What does it mean? How do we do it? What has to be included for it to be “gospel”? I haven’t replied to this post yet, but I’m hoping for another great conversation.
I encourage you to read both posts. Interact with Miguel in the comments.
Then, let us know what you think about his posts.
Edification and Mission Again
Eric at “A Pilgrim’s Progress” has written a very good post called “Edification Necessarily Leads to Mission.”
His post reminds me of a post I wrote a few months ago called “Which is important for the church: edification or mission?”
Edification, as part of the process of helping people follow Jesus, should lead to many things, including (as Eric says) proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ to others.
Eric writes:
If edification has its intended outcome, we will all mature in Christ. Part of that maturation is desiring for others to know the Jesus who is transforming us. As Christian maturity goes up, a desire for others to come to Christ ought to naturally rise as well.
The author of Hebrews tells us in 10:24, “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works.” Edification leads directly to love and good works. What more loving work can there be than proclaiming the life-giving news of Christ crucified and resurrected?
I think the intended outcome of edification is a group of people who are maturing in Jesus Christ. Maturity will certainly include a propensity toward proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ.
What do you think?
Looking for mature brothers in Christ to follow
Arthur at “The Voice of One Crying Out in Suburbia” has written an excellent post called “Dudes need dudes to learn how to be dudes.” His post picks up where my post “My Word of Prophecy: Stop Listening to Prophetic Voices” leaves off, and then applies it to another post about manhood.
(As an aside, I’m overlooking Arthur calling my post title “clunky” because he also called it “clever.” I’m assuming the first adjective was a mistake…)
Arthur recognizes that less mature brothers in Christ need more mature brothers in Christ as examples to follow. (In the same vein, of course, the same could be said for women.)
He writes:
In most churches, the guy everyone is supposed to look up to is the pastor. This raises an issue because the way we have created a separate clerical class means that a) most men are not going to find much in common with the pastor and b) secretly most men have little interest in being a vocational minister so there is not much that seems desirable from an imitation standpoint. Most pastors seem stressed, overworked, underappreciated and generally frustrated and unhappy in spite of the happy face they put on. Who wants to imitate that? Compounding this, many times the pastor is younger and frankly less mature than many of the other men in a congregation. Not less “mature” in the sense of being able to delvier a sermon or exegete a passage of Scripture or throw out Greek and Hebrew terms, less “mature” in the sense that actually matters. Who should a young husband and father emulate and seek to learn from, a guy his own age who is starting a family and struggling in the same ways just because he is the pastor or a more mature older brother who has come out on the other side and has the experience to match?
There is much, much more to Arthur’s post. He even tackles the problem of “celebrity preachers”…
As I’ve said several times on this blog, I believe this is an important (and missing) aspect of discipleship among the church. We need more mature examples to follow. However, for most of us, we tend to learn from and follow people that we don’t really know.
Thanks for the reminder, Arthur!
The kingdom of God is radically different
When you read the Gospels and the other books of the New Testament, you can’t help but notice that God’s kingdom is radically different than any kind of earthly kingdom. Seriously… at times, it is described as being and operating in a way that is completely opposite from the expected.
Dave Black wrote a little about that this morning on his blog. In this entry, he’s talking about speaking with a church yesterday. But, in the middle of the post, he writes this description of God’s backward and upside-down kingdom (see his entry from Monday, November 7, 2011 at 7:45 a.m.):
The kingdom is a subtle contagion. It expands one small step of obedience at a time in our lives. For example, Jesus turns power and authority on its head, and His followers say, “Okay, makes no earthly sense to us, but if that’s what the Master says, it’s good enough for us.” Before his conversion to Christianity in AD 200, Minucius Felix said of the Christians, “They despise titles of honor and the purple robe of high government office … calling one another brother and sister indiscriminately.” He noticed how radically different the kingdom of God is from all versions of the kingdoms of this world. The radical vision of a Calvary-like kingdom is so new to me that I sometimes forget that it’s been around for almost 2,000 years!
Yes, the kingdom of God has been around for a long time. But, have you notice how easy it is to drift into “this world” kingdom kind of thinking? Because of that tendency, it’s good to have reminders like this.