Considering Mutuality – Individualism and Collectivism
In this short series on “mutuality,” I’m considering the concept of mutuality and how living as the church “mutually” might affect our maturity in Christ. Remember that “mutuality” is related to our concept of interdependence, and that mutuality stands apart from both individualism and collectivism.
In an individualistic lifestyle, the person reigns supreme. From what to believe to how to act, everything begins and ends with the desires of the individual. The desires of the group are considered only when it is beneficial to the individual.
Why would someone with an individualistic mindset be interested in the church? Because there are benefits to the individual for being part of the church. In fact, the church often trumpets its benefits to the tune of individualism: a personal relationship with God, personal salvation, personal growth, etc.
Meanwhile, collectivism is at the other extreme of the spectrum. In a collectivist society, people are told what to do and what to believe. Everyone in the group must do and believe (or at least profess) the same thing. Questions, disagreements, and diversity are not allowed.
For an extreme example of a collectivist society, think of George Orwell’s 1984 (i.e. “group think”). However, churches can become collectivist groups as well. Phrases such as “What does your church believe?” or “What does your pastor say about X?” demonstrates (at least the beginning of) collectivist thought and action.
In the introductory post in this series, I suggested that mutuality is important for maturity in Christ. (I will continue to unwrap this idea in the following posts.) For now, consider both individualistic and collectivist groups – or those who tend towards individualism or collectivism.
In either case, maturity is stifled. Without mutuality, a group of believers will not grow (as intended) toward maturity in Christ.
Agree or disagree? Why or why not?
Considering Mutuality – Introduction
According to one definition, mutuality is “a reciprocal relation between interdependent entities.” In fact, mutuality is directly related to a state of interdependency. For mutuality to exist between two or more individuals, the individuals involved must recognize that they depend upon one another.
Beginning a 1985 article, Leonard Swidler said:
What is the fundamental matrix within which humans must live if they are to lead mature lives? A simple, but momentous, question to which everyone has an answer, even if it is inarticulate or unconscious. In the contemporary world there are two very dominant but extremist answers abroad: individualism and collectivism. There are other, better, answers and in these reflections I want to put forward one that takes the best insights of the two extremes and puts them together in, I believe, a truly creative, humanizing way: mutuality. (“Mutuality: The Matrix for Mature Living,” Religion and Intellectual Life 3.1, Fall 1985, p. 105)
For the remainder of the article, Swidler considers mutuality from various perspectives: metaphysical, epistemological, psychological, and ethical. He concludes as follows:
How these principles of mutuality, relationality and dialogue, which are at the very foundation of our human existence, understanding and action, and hence at the core of our religiousness, are to be applied to the further building of the community of men and women is a matter of hard thinking, work and experience by many individuals and groups. Simply knowing these principles will not solve specific problems; they are myriad and unending. But knowing them should keep us from unconsciously resisting them – always to our distortion and destruction – and also provide us with starting points which orient us in the direction we need to move… (p. 119)
While Swidler’s article considers mutuality from the perspectives of metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, and ethics, for the past few years, I have been considering mutuality from a different perspective: Scripture. I have become convinced (as has Swidler according to the title of his article) that mutuality is the matrix through which Christians grow toward maturity in Jesus Christ.
In this short series that I’m calling “Considering Mutuality,” I will be considering what it would mean for the church to lead mutual lives, as opposed to independent or collectivist lives. Note, as Swidler says in the quote above, all of us relate to one another in some way, whether we are aware of it or not. For those who desire to mature in Jesus Christ, and if the way we interact with one another affects our maturity in Christ, then it is important for us to consider how we relate to one another instead of relying on our culture or personality to form our default manner of interaction.
Again, as Swidler says, this is a “a matter of hard thinking, work and experience by many individuals and groups.” I certainly don’t intend to answer all of my (or my readers’) questions concerning mutuality in this short series of posts. Instead, I hope that this series can help us all begin to ask questions concerning mutuality, and how our lives either demonstrate or hinder mutuality.
Furthermore, if you conclude – as I have – that mutuality should be a characteristic of both the individual believer and the church, I hope that this series will also help us begin to consider our own manners of interactions, and how we – individually and as a church – can begin to relate in a manner that better demonstrates our mutual relationships – our interdependence.
James D. G. Dunn on the Lord’s dinner
Judging from these quotes, I think James D. G. Dunn’s Beginning from Jerusalem will be work perusing:
We should not fail to note that ‘the Lord’s Supper’ was a complete meal, which would begin, we may suppose, in Jewish fashion, with the blessing, breaking and sharing of the bread. Paul’s own description is explicit that the sharing of the cup took place ‘after the meal’, at the close of the meal (11.25). The point is obscured by the fact that the term ‘supper’ in ‘the Lord’s Supper is an old fashioned term and now more misleading than helpfully descriptive. The term Paul uses in 11.20 is deipnon, which refers to the main meal of the day, eaten in the evening; ‘the Lord’s dinner’ would be a more accurate translation, however crassly it may ring in the modern ear. No doubt, a large part of the attractive the churches, as with associations generally, was the companionship (fellowship) and conviviality of these meals (not to mention a share in better food than many might be able to provide for themselves). The complete meal character of ‘the dinner of the Lord’ also carries an important theological corollary: to the extent that we can speak of the Lord’s Supper in Corinth as a sacramental meal – as we can (10.16) – a key consideration is that the sacramental character embraced the whole meal, beginning with the shared bread and ending with the shared cup. Integral to the religious character of the meal was its shared character; for Paul the whole meal was to be shared in conscious memory of Jesus’ last supper and, as in the earliest Jerusalem gatherings, probably in conscious continuation of Jesus’ own table-fellowship. (pg 645-646)
All this leaves unresolved the question whether unbelievers and outsiders were admitted to the Lord’s dinner. The implication of 14.23-24, that such could be present when believers came together as church, may apply only to gatherings for worship. At the same time, we should not assume that the shared meals had a specially sacred character that disbarred unbelievers and outsiders from sharing in them [cf. Rom. 14.6]. Was every shared meal ‘the Lord’s dinner’? Was the bread broken and the wine drunk at every meal ‘in remembrance’ of Jesus (11.24-25)? We have already noted the same ambiguity with regard to Luke’s references to the ‘breaking of bread’. And it would be unduly hasty to assume that the hospitality which a Christian couple like Aquila and Priscilla extended to fellow believers and others would have had a markedly different character (in their eyes) from the meals shared when the whole church gathered in one place. Whether or not the Lord’s table was seen as an evangelistic opportunity in these early years, we can be fairly confident that Christian hospitality did result in many guests and visitors coming to faith in the Lord of their hosts. (pg. 647)
(HT: Euangelion)
Blood is thicker than blood
This morning, as we were meeting with the church, we started talking about caring for one another – that is, caring for those who are part of “the household of faith” – other believers.
One brother said this: “The old saying goes, ‘Blood is thicker than water.’ But, according to Scripture, ‘Blood is thicker than blood.’ The blood of Jesus is ‘thicker’ than family relations. We’re all part of the same family because of Jesus’ blood. Nothing is ‘thicker’ than Jesus’ blood.”
I think he’s right. What do you think?
(I hadn’t taken pictures during one of our church meetings lately, so I decided to take pictures today. You can find them on my facebook profile.)
A full day tomorrow
We’re leaving in a few minutes to meet some friends at one of our favorite hangout-spots: Wake Forest Coffee Company. As I sit here waiting for a call from our friends, I realize that we’ve got a full day planned tomorrow.
First, we’re headed to “the Neighborhood” to spend some time with several friends who live there. Lately, we haven’t been able to spend as much time with these friends as we’ve wanted to because of a combination of sickness and other obligations. So, we’re excited to spend some time with these sweet friends tomorrow.
After that, we’ll go spend time with Ms. Jenny. Again, we haven’t been able to see her as often as we would have liked lately. She always likes to talk “religion” with me, and I’m hoping we get a chance to talk tomorrow.
Later in the afternoon, we’re going to start cleaning the house because Margaret is hosting a Christmas ornament exchange party for some of her friends and our daughter Miranda’s friends. They had a great time doing this last year, and they’re all looking forward to spending time together again.
Saturday night, several friends are going to join us as we return to the Neighborhood to sing Christmas carols to the people who live there. Obviously, we’ll try to sing to the people that we know – the people that we’ll spend time with in the morning. But, we’re also hoping this will be a chance to meet even more of the neighbors.
So, it’s going to be a full day… but I think it will be a good day.
Summary of Matthew 25:14-30
This morning, when we met together with the church, no one specifically was scheduled to teach, but the whole church knew that we would be discussing Matthew 25:14-30. Several people spoke about different aspects of this passage often called “The Parable of the Talents.” While I cannot assume to know people’s motives, it seemed that everyone was interested in understanding the passage and helping others understand the Scriptures so that we could all live according to it. It was a great example of community interpretation.
This is how my friend Gary summarized the passage (paraphrasing):
Everything that God gives to us we should give back to him so that he can grow his kingdom through us… and don’t fear.
What do you think?
Tuesday Night Worship Service
Its about 9:00 pm Tuesday night, and we’re just returning home from a Tuesday night worship service with the church. I hear some of you asking, “A Tuesday night worship service?” Yes. A Tuesday night worship service.
This afternoon and this evening after work, twenty or so of us gathered together and worked together to help Jason and Mandie (two of our friends) move. (By the way, Jason has an awesome post on his blog called “Lessons from Marriage.” He’s learning, as I have learned, that marriage can become our most important discipling relationship.)
One friend told me that he had a bad attitude all day. His attitude seemed fine when we were talking. Serving others has a tendency to do that because we take our minds off of ourselves and our circumstances.
So, that was our Tuesday night worship service… helping Jason and Mandie move.
Mutual Sanctification? Yep.
This gem is from Andy (“aBowden Blog“) in his post “Sanctification continued“:
Sanctification is not a solo deal. God intended it to occur in the midst of community. The assembly of believers is to be a place of mutual sanctification. “If anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual are to restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness†(Gal 6:1). Unfortunately, many churches lack the kind of depth necessary for this type of relationship. This takes more than just a Sunday morning meet and greet. But when beleivers are really serious about being conformed to the image of Christ, correction and confrontation will lovingly be given and received.
Unfortunately, many Christians in American churches don’t have more than “Sunday morning meet and greet.” (Adding Sunday evening and Wednesday evening is little help in the relationships department.) So… what does that say about sanctification?
Fences Make Good Neighbors – Part 2
In Part 1 of this two-part series, I pointed my readers to Lionel’s (from “A Better Covenant“) post called “There’s Fellowship and Then There’s Fellowship.” Lionel suggests that a three-tier fellowship (some closer than others) will create or demonstrate unity among believers.
My desire in this series is to consider the boundaries to these different levels of fellowship or relationship. At the end of my previous post, I asked these questions:
Do we set the boundaries [of fellowship or relationship between us and other people]? Should we set the boundaries? Do other people set the boundaries? Should we allow other people to set the boundaries? Are there boundaries beyond our control? How do these boundaries aid or hinder unity among the church?
To begin with, we should recognize that some boundaries are completely beyond our control. For example, I have never met most of the people that are alive today in the world. Therefore, I cannot have a relationship with them at any level. However, I believe that according to Scripture the love of God compels me to be ready to begin a relationship with anyone that God brings into my life.
Also, some people will not allow you to build a relationship with them. We cannot control what other people do or don’t do. We have neighbors that we’ve tried to get to know. We’ve invited them to our house, invited them to their favorite restaurant, and talked with them while we’re all outside. But, they do not want to get to know us better. We can’t control this. However, once again, we can be open and ready to build a relationship with them (and others) whenever the opportunity arises.
For the most part, our concern should not be with those relationships that are “fenced” out due to reasons beyond our control. What about other relationships?
First, there are legitimate reasons for refusing to have fellowship (or build a relationship) with someone. We see some of these in Scripture. For example, if someone calls himself (or herself) a brother (or sister) in Christ and yet lives a consistently immoral (and unrepentant) life, then we are to refuse to fellowship with them. As Paul says, “Do not even eat with that person.” Similarly, if someone denies the gospel, the deity or humanity of Christ, refuses to work to support him- or herself, or is acting divisive toward other believers, then we should refuse to fellowship with that person.
Are there other reasons to refuse fellowship with someone? This is the crux of the issue. Is it valid for us to choose whom to fellowship with and whom to refuse to build a relationship with based on other factors (that is, factors that are not listed in Scripture).
If someone were to suggest that race, economic status, educational level, ethnicity, or nationality were a reason for choosing to withhold fellowship (or refusing to build a relationship), most Christians would disagree. Yet, we often choose to withhold fellowship for other reasons. For the church today, the biggest reasons for withholding fellowship or choosing not to build a relationship would be organizational membership (“church membership”) and doctrinal differences, especially related to salvation and the end times.
Are these valid reasons for creating boundaries… either boundaries for starting relationships or allowing relationships to deepen?
At this point, I would argue that these are not valid reasons to withhold fellowship. However, I will also admit that I don’t know what it would look like to build relationships with those who differ from me in many of these areas. I welcome these types of relationships, primarily because I think they would be beneficial in helping me live for Christ. I also think that fellowship between people who are different from one another would better demonstrate to the world the love and acceptance of God in Christ Jesus.
So, what do you think? Besides the scriptural reasons that I listed, are there other valid reasons for withholding fellowship (or building deeper relationships) with someone? How do we decide what those valid reasons are? How do we decide that those reasons are valid?
Witherington on the Table of the Lord
This quote is from Ben Witherington’s book Making a Meal of It: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord’s Supper (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007):
What have we learned in our examination of Paul’s discussion of meals, and in particular the Lord’s Supper? Firstly, the Lord’s Supper was taken in homes. This is clear not only from 1 Corinthians 11 but also probably from Acts 2, and furthermore, it was partaken of as a part of a larger fellowship meal. Secondly, Paul is trying to distinguish the Christian meal and its protocol from the usual socially stratifying customs of a pagan meal. The Christian meal was to depict the radical leveling that the kerygma proclaimed – whoever would lead must take on the role of the servant, and all should be served equally. This social leveling was meant to make clear that there was true equality in the body of Christ. All were equal in the eyes of the Lord, and they should also be viewed that way by Christians, leading to equal hospitality.
Thirdly, the Lord’s Supper was clearly not just a reenactment of the Passover meal, not least because of its prospective element, looking forward and pointing forward to the return of Christ. For that matter, the Last Supper itself was no ordinary Passover meal, for Christ modified both the elements and their interpretation so they would refer to him and his coming death. There seems to be no historical evidence that early Christians used the Lord’s Supper as an occasion to dramatize either the Passover or the Last Supper. Instead, the ceremony was incorporated into a larger and different context, that of the Christian fellowship, or agape, meal. (pg. 60-61)
What do you think of Witherington’s conclusions? Is it important that followers of Jesus continue to share the Lord’s Supper as the early believers did as described in Scripture? Why or why not? If so, then in what ways?