A continuing journey towards more mutual edification
Eric at “A Pilgrim’s Progress“Â describes what happened on a recent Sunday evening when he asked for questions after his sermon (see his post “Do you have any questions?“). He says:
After the sermon, I simply asked, “Do you have any questions or comments?” Everyone was quiet at first. After about 15 seconds, one man made a positive comment about the passage we had just studied. After that, no one said anything. We then concluded the gathering with a song and prayer.
Why would Eric (and I) be excited by one comment? Because it is a movement toward more mutual edification.
You see, Scripture calls us to build up one another in the context of the church gathering together (1 Corinthians 14:26 and Hebrews 10:24-25 are two examples). Scripture never tells the elders that it is their responsibility to instruct people when the church gathers together, then everyone else’s responsibility at other times. These are distinctions that we’ve placed on our meetings.
So, if it our right and responsibility as followers of Jesus to exhort, edify, teach, admonish, etc. one another, then we need to give one another opportunities to do this when the church gathers.
Now, I’m not in favor of speaking just for the purpose of speaking. Simply having a discussion or a question and answer session is not necessarily a good thing nor is it necessarily a scriptural thing. Instead, we should allow one another to speak for the purpose of building up one another toward maturity in Christ.
Moving away from ‘the sermon’
My friend Eric at “A Pilgrim’s Progress” is in a bit of a dilemma. He talks about it briefly in a post called “50 Reasons for Discussion.” As a pastor of a traditional baptist church, Eric is in charge of a preaching sermons… probably two or three per week. Recently, on a Wednesday evening, he led the church in discussing a book. This is what he said:
The point was that we discussed it as a group. As we talked, there was a spirit of community, togetherness, and mutual edification. I know I gained a lot from it and I think everyone else did as well.
As I think about this, I have to say that I’m beginning to seriously doubt the effectiveness of what is known as “the sermon.” One-way communication is just not that effective. Might there be a way to take the existing sermon and transform it into more of a group discussion? I’m pondering this.
First, I think that Eric has noticed the same thing that I’ve noticed. “The sermon” is not all it’s cracked up to be. Notice, I didn’t say “teaching” or “Scripture”, I said “the sermon.” There’s a HUGE difference.
Second, the church benefits when they hear from one another, not just one person – regardless of how trained or talented or gifted that one person may be – and Eric is a talented teacher.
So… I thought I would ask my readers on Eric’s behalf. Do you have any suggestions for moving a group from relying on a monologue sermon from the same person week in and week out toward mutual teaching that would include discussion?
Considering Mutuality – Implications for ‘Non-Leaders’
So far in this series, I’ve introduced the topic of mutuality (“Considering Mutuality – Introduction“), contrasted mutuality with both individualism and collectivism (“Considering Mutuality – Individualism and Collectivism“), demonstrated that the concept of mutuality is prevalent in the New Testament (“Considering Mutuality – Where in Scripture?“), and explored the scriptural connection between mutuality and maturity for believers (“Considering Mutuality – And Maturity?“). Finally, in my previous post in this series, I discussed some of the implications of living mutually interdependent lives for leaders among the church (“Considering Mutuality – Implications for leaders”).
There are many, many among the church who desire to live mutually interdependent relationships with other believers, and who recognize the importance of these relationships for the maturity of the church. However, these people are not considered “leaders” among the church. They are not elders, or deacons, or pastors, or teachers, or whatever other titles the church may use to recognize leaders. What do these people do? Is it hopeless? Must they “leave their church” in order to find and nurture these kinds of mutually interdependent relationships?
The simple answers are: No, it is not hopeless, and no, they do not have to “leave their church” in order to live mutually with one another.
However, they many need to become leaders. What?!?!? Am I saying that people will need to become elders or pastors for their church in order to seek and see these mutual relationships? No. That’s not what I said.
Instead, I said that they may need to become leaders… meaning, they may need to lead others in forming mutually interdependent relationships. They may need to become the examples that others will need in order to recognize the importance of mutuality.
I get calls and emails from believers all the time. I meet with people for lunch. And, eventually, a question like this comes up: “But, how do I begin to form and live in this kind of relationship with others when our church and church leaders don’t seem interested? Should I leave my church?”
I have never suggested that someone “leave their church” for this reason. Instead, I encourage people to begin forming and living in relationships with those people who are already in their lives. They may know these people through church organizations, work, neighborhoods, etc. Eat together. Serve together. Get together. Play games together. Go to movies together. Help one another.
Invite your church leaders to your house and spend time with them outside of the “formal programs” of the church. Relate to them as brother and sister. Ask them about their problems and concerns and hopes and struggles etc.
In other words, if you want live mutually with others, then you may need to “lead” in this type of relationship. Share your life with others and provide opportunities for others to share their lives with you. And… be PATIENT! People do not naturally think mutually. You may need to listen to others for months, years, decades before they start listening to you. You may need to care for others for a long time before they start caring for you.
But, that’s okay… even though it is very difficult. The goal of mutuality and maturity in Christ is worth the hard work… and it IS hard work. In fact, once there is a group of people living mutually with one another, the hard work remains.
But, mutuality and maturity are worth the hard work. And, remember, you are never working along. In fact, you are never working at all… you are simply allowing the Holy Spirit to work through you doing the work that he already wants to do.
Considering Mutuality – Implications for leaders
So far in this series, I’ve introduced the topic of mutuality (“Considering Mutuality – Introduction“), contrasted mutuality with both individualism and collectivism (“Considering Mutuality – Individualism and Collectivism“), demonstrated that the concept of mutuality is prevalent in the New Testament (“Considering Mutuality – Where in Scripture?“), and explored the scriptural connection between mutuality and maturity for believers (“Considering Mutuality – And Maturity?“).
In the last two posts of the series, I’m going to suggest some implications for both leaders and non-leaders respectively. By the way, when I use the term “leaders,” I’m talking about both those who have been recognized officially by the church as leaders (whatever their titles might be) and those who may not have been recognized officially but are nonetheless leading the church by their example of serving others.
There was a time (and perhaps this still happens today) when leaders were taught to distance themselves from others in the church. This practice stands opposed to the idea of mutuality found in Scripture. Today, leaders (including elders, pastors, even “the senior pastor”) must intentionally seek mutually interdependent relationships with others in the church.
These mutual relationships should include all aspects of life – thus, the term “mutual” – including teaching, admonishing, leading, etc. In other words, for a “leader” to live mutually with others, he or she must also be led. For a “teacher” to live mutually with others, he or she must also be taught. For a “shepherd/pastor” to live mutually with others, he or she must also be shepherded (if that’s a word).
Earlier, I said that leaders must be intentional about living in mutual relationships. Modern church culture automatically places a divide between “leaders” (especially those with official titles) and “non-leaders” – whether this divide is intentional or not. In order for leaders to live in mutual relationship with others, they must intentionally break through this divide, showing themselves to be interdependent with other believers, primarily by showing that they need the other believers in their own lives.
Why are these intentionally mutual relationships important for leaders? For their maturity and for the maturity of the church (i.e. all believers in the church). I’ve already demonstrated that mutual relationships are necessary if believers are to grow in maturity toward Christ.
Thus, when we read that elders are to be “able to teach,” we must not interpret that as “only elders are to teach.” Why? Because this dissuades mutuality and thus hinders maturity. The same could be said for any spiritual gifting or service. Also, if everything in the “worship service” (church meeting) seems to depend upon you, then you must work towards less dependency and more interdependency.
These are steps that only leaders can take in most cases. So many Christians have been taught that to question leaders (especially those with titles) is the same as questioning God. Leaders must show themselves to be humble, needy people who depend upon both God and other believers to help them mature in Christ. Those of us who are leaders among the church must lead the way by living mutually interdependent lives, for our own maturity, for the maturity of the church, and as an example to others.
The Body of Christ and Edification in Ephesians 4
I published the post “The Body of Christ and Edification (Ephesians 4:1-16)” about 3 years ago. I think it goes along well with this week’s theme of “mutuality.”
———————————————-
The Body of Christ and Edification (Ephesians 4:1-16)
Paul’s use of “edification†language is especially connected to the metaphor of the church as the body of Christ; and this is most noticeable in 1 Corinthians 12-14 and Ephesians 4:1-16.
In Ephesians 4:1-16, Paul encourages the believers in Ephesus “to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called†(Eph. 4:1) in response to his instructions in the preceding sections of his letter. According to Paul, the church demonstrates the worthiness of its walk through its unity; but not in a unity brought about by uniformity. Instead, “grace was given to each one of [them] according to the measure of Christ’s gift†(4:7). The purpose of these gifts, and of gifted people, is “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ†(4:12-13). In this passage, “edification†(“buildingâ€) is associated with “equippingâ€, “serviceâ€, and “unityâ€, and measured by the “maturity†and “stature†of Christ himself. It is possible to understand equipping, service, and edification as the domain of those listed in 4:11 only. However, this “clergy/laity†distinction is contrary to Paul’s focus on unity in 4:1-6 and the responsibility of the entire body in 4:15-16.[1]
Paul continues by describing the opposite of being “built up†in 4:14 when he says that the believers should “no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.†Just as teaching and debating played an important role in the life of the church in Acts, teaching must continue to be important for the church. Through teaching and doctrine the church continues to edify itself and protect itself from various false teachings and cultural fads.
In the last two verses of this passage (4:15-16), Paul returns to the idea of “edification†and the growth of the body. The church grows when its head is Christ, every member is serving as gifted by the Spirit, and its motivation is love. Interestingly, Paul says the growth of the body is both from Christ and toward Christ. The teaching and doctrine that Paul encouraged in vs. 14 must center on the person and work of Christ. Furthermore, the work of growth is the responsibility of everyone in the body, which Paul reinforces by stating it in two different ways: “from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped†and “when each part is working properly.†As in the previous section, every member is responsible for his share (lit. “in measureâ€; c.f. 4:7, 13, 16) in the growth of the body. “Christians are mutually dependent on one another and they are collectively dependent on Jesus Christ for life and power. [They] meet together to benefit from the relationships and ministries [they] can share with one another.â€[2] The interdependence between believers is not for the sake of interdependence only, but for interdependence that leads to the growth of the body.[3]
Therefore, in Ephesians 4:1-16, Paul combines the metaphor of the church as the body of Christ with the language of edification to instruct the church how to grow as a group. The body metaphor intimates that every member of the group must grow; otherwise the organism becomes deformed.[4] This growth occurs when all believers work together for each other’s benefit. From the emphasis on each believer doing his part, it is apparent that there are no unnecessary members of the body, and that all members are responsible for the edification and growth of the body. “Paul’s primary focus in Ephesians 4 is not on the need for individuals to grow to maturity, but for individuals to learn to contribute to the life and development of the believing community as a whole.â€[5] Christ, the head of the body, will hold the believers responsible based upon each one’s ability-“measureâ€-which was provided by Christ himself (through the Spirit).
Notes:
[1] Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 547-49.
[2] David Peterson, Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 208.
[3] Andrew T. Lincoln, “The Theology of Ephesians,†New Testament Theology: The Theology of the Later Pauline Letters, ed. Andrew T. Lincoln and A.J.M. Wedderburn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 99.
[4] Wallace M. Alston, Jr., The Church of the Living God: A Reformed Perspective, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 39.
[5] Peterson, Engaging with God, 210.
Considering Mutuality – And Maturity?
In my previous posts in this series, I’ve introduced the topic of mutuality (“Considering Mutuality – Introduction“), contrasted mutuality with both individualism and collectivism (“Considering Mutuality – Individualism and Collectivism“), and demonstrated that the concept of mutuality is prevalent in the New Testament (“Considering Mutuality – Where in Scripture?“).
However, there is one more step that we need to take before we consider some implications for today. In my introduction, I suggested that mutuality – that is, interdependent relationships between followers of Jesus Christ – is necessary for maturity. In other words, my hypothesis is that Scripture teaches that in order for believers to grow in maturity toward Christ, those believers need mutually interdependent relationships.
One of the clearest scriptural presentations of the relationships between mutuality and maturity is found in Ephesians 4, especially verse 16:
Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Ephesians 4:15-16 ESV)
Notice that in this passage “growth” is both from Christ and into Christ. If we remove most of the modifying clauses, we get this: “We are to grow up into Christ from whom the body makes the body grow.”
Thus, the growth of the body is related to both the source of the growth (i.e. Christ) and the channel through which the growth occurs (i.e. the body). But, how does the “body make the body grow”?
Paul says this happens when the whole body (explicitly the “whole” body) is both joined together (again explicitly through two synonymous clauses) and each one (again explicit) does his or her part. Paul is pointing repeatedly toward mutually interdependent relationships – that is, relationships in which each part of the body depends on Christ and also depends on each other in such a way that if either Christ or one of the parts of the body were missing then growth would not occur.
But, what kind of growth is Paul talking about? In this passage, he only mentions “love,” but more than likely “love” stands as a placeholder for the fuller description that he gave earlier which included bothy unity of faith and knowledge of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:13). He explicitly calls this type of growth “mature manhood… the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”
However, this is not the only passage in Scripture in which maturity is related to mutually interdependent relationships. In the book of Hebrews, the author often instructs his readers toward mutuality. Perhaps the most straightforwards passage is this one:
But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Hebrews 3:13 ESV)
or this one:
And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:24-25 ESV)
Notice that in each case above, the mutual exhortation is not for the purpose of mutuality. Instead, mutuality serves the further purpose of aiding maturity in Christ – either in a negative sense (“that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin”) or in a positive sense (“to love and good works”).
Similarly, the author of Hebrews provides a very strong call to mutual relationships and demonstrates its relationship to maturity in chapter 12:
Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled… (Hebrews 12:12-15 ESV)
While not as obvious in English translations, the commands in this passage are plural (“strengthen,” “make straight,” “strive”). Similarly, the participles (which carry imperatival force – i.e. they act like commands) are also plural (“See to it”). These plural commands are given so that the readers may grow in maturity, once again with both positive and negative implications of maturity (i.e. strengthening or lifting vs. no one fails to obtain).
While there are many more passages of Scripture that could be consulted, the passages above demonstrate that according to Scripture mutuality is not just a good thing, but instead mutually interdependent relationships are necessary for believers to mature in their faith, in their knowledge of Jesus Christ, and in the demonstration of love.
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.
Listening to One Another
In my previous posts “Listening to Experts” and “Listening to Theological Experts,” I suggested that listening only to those who have been educated in theology creates a invalid distinction between those “in the know” and regular people. Instead of relying on “interpretation by experts,” the church should be involved in a community hermeneutic – that is, the whole church should be involved in interpreting Scripture.
Now, some may be concerned that when I talk about a “community hermeneutic” I mean that anything goes, any view is valid, or any interpretation is considered true or beneficial. This is not a community hermeneutic at all.
Instead, a “community hermeneutic” recognizes a few aspects of life as a church that is often missing when the church relies on an “expert hermeneutic.”
A “community hermeneutic” recognizes that knowledge is not the goal of studying Scripture. Even if a person or group of people know exactly what a passage means, that does not indicate that the Scripture is also correctly interpreted. Why? Because we were not given Scripture to tell us what to know, but to tell us what to live.
Now, some may suggest that we cannot live without first knowing. Fine. However, we cannot stop with knowing either. Our goal must be to live in accordance to what reveals to us, including what he reveals to us through Scripture.
Thus, an expert – in Greek or Hebrew, or Old Testament or New Testament, or theology or philosophy, or history or hermeneutics – can help us understand what Scripture says. But, this type of knowledge is not enough. We also need exhortation and examples in how to live. This type of teaching is just as important as other types of teaching.
Even the type of “knowledge” that we need as followers of Jesus Christ is not always the type of “knowledge” that occurs through education. Parsing verbs and interpreting texts and explaining philosophies and categories doctrines may be very important. But there are many other types of “knowledge” that are just as important – if not more important – for the believer.
For example, understanding the meaning of the Greek term for “patience” may not be as helpful as the life lived and the testimony given by the person who is struggling with a chronic disease.
Understanding “church history” can help us interpret the Scripture, but the example and exhortation of a person following Jesus Christ through 80 years of life can be even more beneficial.
The theologian can tell us about the dangers of “sin” in their particular theological system. But, words and actions of the teenager words who recently left a life of drug abuse or sexual abuse may be more of an encouragement to stay away from sin.
Again, I’m not arguing against education. Education is good, and someone with a theological education can be a benefit to the church. However, we must recognize that every believer indwelled by the Holy Spirit is given to the church by God in order to benefit the church.
We need to listen to one another. The teenager needs to listen to the theologian, but the theologian needs to listen to the teenager too. The person on death’s bed can learn from the linguist, but the linguist can learn from the dying person too. The octogenarian should expect to be taught by the historian, but the historian should expect to be taught by this older saint as well.
We need to listen to one another. All of us can help each other understand Scripture and live a life in obedience to God. The includes the auto mechanic and the philosopher, the stay-at-home mom and the theologian, the elementary school teacher and the seminary professor.
In today’s church, many people look to those of us who are theological trained for scriptural interpretation. While those of us who are educated should help the church interpret Scripture, we should also encourage the church to interpret Scripture themselves. Sometimes, a “community hermeneutic” means that those of us who are trained should speak up and teach others. Sometimes, a “community hermeneutic” requires that those of us who are theologically trained should keep our mouths shut and learn from others.
God placed us together in the church because we need one another. Because we need one another, we should listen to one another.
Church Life #10 – Not Just Me
This series is about our life with the church as we attempt to live together as brothers and sisters. (For a more detailed description of this series, see my post “Church Life – A New Series.”)
Reading through this series and my blog, it may appear that “church life” depends on me. But, that’s not true at all. So, in this post, I want to highlight a few ways that many of our brothers and sisters share life together that my family may not be directly involved with.
When we first starting meeting together as a church, we started a few Bible studies, because that’s what churches do. While the formats and times and locations and people involved have changed from time to time, two of those Bible studies continue today. The people involved with the Bible studies decide what they are going to study and how they are going to study. One Bible study is now hosted by a family who is not a part of our church apart from the study.
One family has four young boys. A few years ago, while they were studying Scripture together, the boys were convicted about caring for widows. So, the family started spending time in a local nursing home. They invite others from the church to join them and begin forming relationships with the residents.
Three of our brothers recently started playing soccer in an adult league. While they’re playing, two of the wives get together. Recently, one of the single guys (thanks Jon!) volunteered to keep their children so they could watch the soccer match.
I couldn’t begin to count the number of times that someone has made dinner for someone else due to sickness. This is not something that’s planned or announced, although someone will occasionally send out a notice to let people know that they are organizing meals for someone who is going to need them for a long time (like for a new mother).
People who are part of the church are constantly having dinner together, and inviting others who are not part of the church together. Just in the last year, at least three families have hosted missionaries and have then invited others to their house to hear from and encourage those missionaries.
These may sound like small things, and they are, in one sense. These are simply examples of how our brothers and sisters have chosen to share life together. Church life happens in the small things, the everyday, ordinary things.