Living life as foreigners
Art, from “Church Task Force,” once again left a comment that I think needs to be shared. He wrote this in response to my post “Church in a coffee shop“:
Deb and I lived on Okinawa for 3 1/2 years, living in a small village for most of that time. Different languages, customs, dress, food, values, etc. We were always “gaijinâ€â€“foreigners, outsiders, no matter how much we made friends, no matter how well we fit in. It was not our true home, it wasn’t where we belonged if you will.
If/when another American came by, even if they weren’t from Altruria Street in South Buffalo, it was like finding an old family friend–someone you had an instant connection and familial feeling for, and they for you.
That connection, that feeling of kinship, that desire to encourage and help one another, that feeling of finding someone from “homeâ€â€“that is something like how we might act/see ourselves/feel when we meet with other believers, anytime, anywhere.
In that framework, we would want to know what has brought us here, what God is doing in and through us, how we might help each other, what are our struggles–all without being divisively interested in determining first what precise flavor of Christian we are.
What do you think about Art’s description?
Man-made or (super)Natural Community?
Two years ago, our family took a vacation to the mountains of western North Carolina. While we were there, we stopped by several waterfalls. These waterfalls helped me think about our community in Christ. I wrote about it in a post called “Man-made or (super)Natural Community?”
——————————————-
Man-made or (super)Natural Community?
Last week, while we were on vacation in the mountains of North Carolina, we had several opportunities to spend some time at a few waterfalls in the area. We enjoyed stopping by the side of the road and walking the trails to the falls. Usually we only had to walk a few yards into the woods to find the waterfall.
We saw small waterfalls that were only a few feet high, and we saw Whitewater Falls which claims to be the highest waterfall in the eastern United States. We saw cascade falls, tiered falls, and plunge falls. We even saw one fall that was called a “sliding rock” with swimming holes at the top and bottom, although Jeremy and Miranda said the water was too cold for swimming.
All of the waterfalls were different and all of them were very beautiful in their own way. We enjoyed the natural beauty of the water, the sound of the water cascading over rocks or falling into a pool below, and the deep green of the woods around the waterfalls.
However, there was one waterfall did we did not enjoy. In fact, once we stopped to look at the waterfall, we only stayed for a few seconds. Why? The waterfall was not natural. It was a man-made fall. Yes, there was water cascading down over rocks, but above there was an earthen dam that controlled the flow of water. We could immediately tell that there was something different about this fall. Even though it had all the proper ingredients – water, rocks, sound, woods – it was not the same. This waterfall was contrived… controlled… man-made. It was not a real waterfall.
As I have been thinking about these waterfalls, especially in relation to the man-made waterfall, I wonder if our churches are similar. Could it be that many of us are not experiencing real Spirit-created community, but instead are we experiencing something that is contrived, controlled, and man-made?
I’m thinking specifically about alot of “small groups” of people who are placed together because of age, interests, etc. Placing people together does not create community, although it could certainly allow God opportunities to create community. The question is, are we trying to create something, or are we allowing God to create the community. If we are allowing God to create the community, are we giving him complete control, or are we setting limits for him. The more we become involved in trying to create community, the more contrived, controlled, and man-made it will become. It will not be a community that finds their identity in Christ and shares fellowship in the Spirit. Instead, it will be a group of people who find their identity in a certain person, location, time, etc.
I’m sure that the people who created the waterfall wanted to make something that was just as beautiful as the natural waterfalls around the area. In the same way, the people who try to create community themselves are trying to create something wonderful, something necessary. Probably, in many cases, they are trying to create a community because they have experienced and lived in a Spirit-created community. But, man cannot create something that only God can create. We can create something close – something that looks right – something that feels right at times – but it remains contrived, controlled, and man-made.
“Components” of meeting together
Lionel at “A Better Covenant” wrote an excellent article called “Components of the Gathered Saints?” I left this comment there, and I thought I would put it here as well:
I do think there are “components†(if you will) for gathering together with other believers. I don’t think these “components†are specific activities though. Instead, I think they are things like loving one another, considering others as more important, edifying/encouraging/teaching/admonishing/etc one another, serving one another, etc. While some activities encourage these types of “componentsâ€, other activities hinder them. But, it’s not just the activities, but also our attitudes and motives and sometimes even the place we’re meeting that can hinder and/or help these “componentsâ€.
A great post on the community aspect of the church
Jack at “Flight Level Musings” has written a great post called “What is Community?” It’s hard to find just one part to quote, but I’ll start with this paragraph, where Jack talks about Jesus exchanging blood family for God’s family:
Here Jesus broke with the blood family and established God’s family. Since people of that time already understood strong-group family culture, it was not a difficult shift for them to embrace their new family of believers. Now, the blood of Jesus was what tied the family together not their earthly family blood. For those of us in the west, this is not our culture nor is it our lifestyle. We are very independently minded and individual focused; not community focused. So for the most part you do not see much community life in Christianity. We attend our buildings on Sunday mornings and sit in our pews. Then we go back and do whatever we do. There is very little interaction outside of the building.
I hope you read Jack’s post and think seriously about your brothers and sisters in Christ. Are you living as if they are truly your family?
More Gospel, Community, and Sermons
Last week, I quoted Tim Chester and Steve Timmis’ book Total Church: A Radical Reshaping around Gospel and Community (see my post “Another Word About the Sermon“). When I found that quote, I also found that I had marked these two passages from the same book:
James says, “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says” (James 1:22). We must not only listen to the word – we must put it into practice. Churches are full of people who love listening to sermons. But sermons count for nothing in God’s sight. We rate churches by whether they have good teaching or not. But James says great teaching counts for nothing. What counts is the practice of the word. What counts is teaching that leads to changed lives. We must never make good teaching an end in itself. Our aim must be good learning and good practice. And that is a radically different way of evaluating how word-centered we are. (pg. 116)
Let us make a bold statement: truth cannot be taught effectively outside of close relationships. The reason is that truth is not primarily formal; it is dynamic. The truth of the gospel becomes compelling as we see it transforming lives in the rub of daily, messy relationships. (pg. 188)
Think about it this way: our teaching by mouth (whether lecture, dialogue, discussion, or other method) is ineffective if it is not accompanied by teaching by example and practice. I can teach by mouth, “Love one another,” and I can even get everyone to memorize the command, “Love one another.” But, neither of these indicate that I have truly taught “Love one another” or that anyone has truly learned “Love one another.”
My words “Love one another” must be accompanied by real actions demonstrating “Love one another”. Note that when I said “teaching by example and practice” above, I did NOT mean giving verbal illustrations. Verbal illustrations are simply another way to teaching by mouth. Instead, I must teach people with my life. So, it is imperative that my teaching be done in the context of real, life-sharing relationships.
I’ve offered several examples from Paul in the past, particularly from 1 Thessalonians 2:8-10 and 2 Timothy 3:10-11. However, there is also a very powerful example from Jesus in the Gospel of John:
Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him… When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. (John 13:3-5, 12-15 ESV)
Jesus taught with his words and with his actions. We need to do likewise.
Remember that Chester and Timmis said, “Our aim must be good learning and good practice. And that is a radically different way of evaluating how word-centered we are.” How would we measure “good learning and good practice”?
Reading the Gospel of John Together
Earlier this week, I wrote about our church meeting last Sunday. (see my post “Meeting Around the Table of the Lord“) After publishing that post, I remembered that there was another time 3 years ago that we had the bread, then a meal, then the cup as part of our meeting. But, that time was a different kind of meeting. That was a meeting set aside to reading through the entire Gospel of John in one night. Here is what I wrote about it 3 years ago in a post called “Reading John“. (By the way, as we’re finishing our study of the Gospel of Matthew, we’ve talked about getting together to read through that entire Gospel in one sitting also.)
———————————————
Last night, our family gathered with about 40 other brothers and sisters to read the Gospel of John. The family that hosted last night also hosted a reading of the Gospel of Luke in December. Our family was not able to attend the reading of Luke, so this was our first time to sit through a community reading of a gospel.
We started by breaking bread as part of the Lord’s Supper. Then, we all shared a meal. After the meal, we sang a song and began reading John. One person read each chapter (the chapters had been assigned as people arrived). After each group of seven chapters, we took a fifteen minute break. During the breaks, we would eat and sing songs again. After reading all twenty-one chapters, we shared the cup of the Lord’s Supper.
This was a very special time for us. It was amazing to hear the Gospel of John read in one sitting in a community of believers.
We desperately need each other
Bill at “NT/History Blog” has written an excellent post called “Walking Distance Ecclesiology.” He says that the cities of the first century (Thessalonica, even Rome and Jerusalem) were small enough (about 1 square mile) that people could easily walk anywhere within the city within a few minutes. This means that the early Christians were easily accessible to one another. And, that’s a good thing. Why?
This is what Bill says:
But the first Christians weren’t just accessible to one another, they were necessary. They needed each other. They no longer fit well with anyone in their towns apart from one another. For knowing Christ, THEY were all that THEY had. Each new Christian found in Jesus Christ had to also find out that their Lord was inside their new siblings as well. Thus, if they needed Him, then they needed each other.
Think about that… the early Christians needed each other and they KNEW they needed each other. Has that changed? Yeah, I think so… and so does Bill. He ends with this very true and very heartbreaking statement:
We so desperately need that [togetherness and relying on one another]. Most of us just don’t know how badly.
So… how can we help believers understand how much they need one another, and how much they’re missing if they don’t spend time with one another?
Points of comparison between the early synagogue and early church
In his book From Synagogue to Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), James Tunstead Burtchaell compares and contrasts the early synagogue (before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.) to the early church. His points of comparison help us to understand what the early Christians (who were also Jews) brought with them from their synagogue experiences:
As regards the program and undertakings of the two social units, there are multiple similarities. The synagogue and the ekklesia both typically met in plenary sessions for prayer, to read and expound and discuss the scriptures, to share in ritual meals, to deliberate community policy, to enforce discipline, to choose and inaugurate officers. Both maintained a welfare fund to support widows and orphans and other indigents among their memberships. Both accepted the obligation to provide shelter and hospitality to members of sister communities on their journeys. Both arranged for burial of their dead, and maintained cemeteries. (pg. 339)
The Jews gathered together in order to maintain their identity as God’s chosen people. While this would certainly include times of reading, teaching, and discussing Scripture, these activities alone do not account for the existence of the synagogue. The synagogue existed because the Jewish community existed and to maintain that community’s identity, existence, and propagation.
Thus, the primary activities that took place when the synagogue convened were community-building activities. For example, Josephus gives an account of a political discussion that begins on one Sabbath, and continues for two or more days as the community continued to come together in order to make some important decisions. (Josephus Life 279ff)
As Burtchaell points out (in the quote above), the early Christians gathered together for similar reasons. Their desire was to maintain their identity as God’s people – that is, those who had been set apart (made holy, called saints) by God. Obviously, this would include the reading, teaching, and discussion of Scripture, but it would include much more as well.
Thus, we see the early church eating together, taking collections for those in need, offering hospitality to those traveling through their region, making community decisions, etc. It would be a mistake to separate these activities from the community’s understanding of “worship,” but it would also be a mistake to only consider the scriptural focus as “worship.”
Instead, the church (as with the synagogue earlier) did not separate their lives into worship activities and other activities. Each activity and each part of life was to be lived as worship to God, whether reading or discussing Scripture, eating together, taking up a collection, or making a decision.
Their “worship” when they gathered together as the church consisted of any activity that would help maintain and build the community of God’s people.
Why should we study the first century synagogue?
For the last few weeks, I’ve been studying the development of the synagogue through the first century. This study will be included in my dissertation. Why? If my dissertation is about the church, why study the synagogue?
In the books that I’ve read, several authors have mentioned the importance of the synagogue in understanding the early church. In fact, one author stated that the synagogue was the most important aspect of Judaism that affected the early church. While I think that “most important” may be overstating it a bit, I do think it is important for us to understand the synagogue in order to understand the church as described in the New Testament.
First, remember that the first Christians were Jews. They were familiar with the synagogues around Jerusalem, in the Galilee, in other areas of Palestine, and in the Diaspora (Jews scattered around the Roman empire). In the Gospels, we even learn that it was Jesus’ habit to attend synagogue meetings.
Second, remember that the early disciples were often found in the synagogues. We see this especially in Acts when Paul begins by proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ in the synagogues. When these disciples were forced to leave the synagogue in order to meet together, we see similarities (and differences) in their meetings.
So, how did the synagogue begin, and why is this important for our study of the early church?
There is no direct evidence that tells us where, when, or how the synagogues first began. We have evidence from inscriptions in Egypt that synagogues met there in the third century B.C. We also have some archaeological evidence from about 100 years later. However, none of this evidence tells us exactly why Jews began meeting together in synagogues.
Despite the lack of evidence, scholars have suggested two possible hypotheses for the beginning of the synagogue. The first hypothesis posits that the synagogues began while many Jews were taken away from Israel into exile in Babylon. In this case, the synagogues replaced the temple. Since the Temple had been destroyed, and since the Jews were so far from Jerusalem, they needed another location for their worship.
Another hypothesis suggests that the synagogue developed from the O.T. practice of meeting together at the city gates. In many passages in the Old Testament, people met together at the city gates for political, social, and even religious reasons. However, as the culture shifted toward Hellenism, the Greco-Roman practice of meeting in the city center – or forum – replaced the city gates. In Greek or Roman cities, these Jewish meetings came to be known as synagogues.
So, which hypothesis, if either, is correct? Well, it’s impossible to know with certainty. But, we should remember that after the rebuilding of the temple (the Second Temple), synagogues continued to exist, even in Jerusalem. Thus, it does not appear that the purpose of the synagogue was the same as the purpose of the temple. Instead, it seems the two played complementary roles.
Also, archaeological evidence shows that the synagogues of the first century (and earlier) did not contain the same worship and liturgical symbolism found in synagogues after the destruction of the Second Temple. So, the synagogue did eventually take on some of the roles of the temple, but that did not occur until after 70 A.D.
Instead, archaeological and textual evidence shows that the synagogue play a more social (less religious) role. Now, it’s impossible to completely separate the social and religious roles (from anything) in the first century. But, the early synagogues were used for such things as political meetings, community gatherings, legal activities, trade, and meals, as well as for gatherings to discuss Scripture.
Thus, it seems that the first century synagogue were more like the gatherings at the city gates of the OT than the temple, having more of a social purpose than a religious or worship purpose.
What does this mean for the early church? If Jews were accustomed to gathering together for social purposes, then there is no reason to think that this changed. When they gathered together with brothers and sisters in Christ, they continued to gather for social purposes. Yes, as with their synagogues meetings, they would discuss Scripture, but there were other reasons for gathering together as well. And, these reasons for gathering together were just as important (and just as necessary) as gathering to discuss or teach Scripture.
As we gather together with other believers today, maybe we should also consider how our assemblies can demonstrate a broader purpose, perhaps recognizing the important social role that has been lost to alot of churches.
Role of the synagogue in the first century C.E.
However, the synagogue’s primary importance throughout antiquity [pre-70 C.E.] lay in its role as a community center… Within the confines of the synagogue the Jewish community seems to have not only worshipped regularly, but also studied, held court, administered punishment, organized sacred meals, collected charitable donations, housed the communal archives and library, and assembled for political and social purposes. (Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000, page 3)
Thus, it is not at all strange that the synagogue buildings [in pre-70 Palestine] identified to date have adopted, each in its own way, an architectural style befitting a community-oriented framework. Gamla, Masada, Herodium, and Qiryat Sefer each have a square or rectangular area surrounded by columns and benches, an arrangement facilitating communal participation, be it for political, religious, or social purposes. The model chosen for these settings consciously or unconsciously approximated Hellenistic bouleuteria or ecclesiasteria, which likewise catered to an assembly of people empowered to make decisions. (Ibid., page 69)